/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170124.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 24, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 17 Headlines AEROTEK INC: Faces Suit For Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AEROTEK INC: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Judge Says ALP LIQUIDATING: Disbursements of Settlement Proceeds Ongoing APPLE INC: Judge Kills Warranty Class Action ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICAL: Unz Sues Over Misleading Fin'l. Reports ATAMI ON 2ND: Zhu Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum and OT Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Smith" Suit Says BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over SSA Bonds Bid-Ask Spreads Fixing BOIRON INC: Court Dismisses UCL Claims in "Lewert" Suit BRISTOL-MYERS: Could Face Suit Over Mislabled Pills CHICAGO: Faces Suit Over Police Use of Phone Tracking Technology CHICKBEE NY: Faces "Sicajau" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces "Sparks" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CLINTON DELICATESSEN: Faces "Canales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CONAGRA FOODS: Class Certification in "Briseno" Suit Affirmed DAVISON DESIGN: Atty's Fee Award in "Dungee" Suit Vacated EMANUEL SERVICES: "Haric" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages EXEL INC: Appeal in "Rodriguez" Suit Dismissed FENIX PARTS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Black Non-Union Workers Discrimination FIAT CHRYSLER: Heninger Garrison Files Suit Over Emission Cheating FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Warren" Suit Over Illegal Defeat Devices FIFTH STREET: Class Asks Judge to Approve $14-Mil. Settlement FORD SA: Could Face Class Action Over Combustion of Ford Kuga SUV GOLDEN GATE AMERICA: Not Transportation Employer, Judge Says GOOGLE: Judge Questions Counsel Fees on $4.75-Mil. Wage Deal GC SERVICES: Faces "Gavrielova" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York HALL COUNTY, GA: Faces Suit Over Frozen Pension Benefits H.J. HEINZ: "Lopez" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. of Cal. IKEA: 9th Cir. Returnes Shopper's Suit to State Court INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: March 7 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline JACKSON HEWITT: Faces "Scoma" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida JMFF LLC: Faces "Uliu-Personius" Suit in S.D.N.Y KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Roy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime KPMG LLP: 4th Cir. Upholds Order Denying Arbitration Bid KUNG FU LITTLE: "Weng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages LAS VEGAS SANDS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Fosbre" Suit LEHMAN BROTHERS: High Court Agrees to Consider CalPERs Suit LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Tosses Bid to Appeal Remand Order LIFE PARTNERS: Plaintiffs Seek to Disqualify Goodman & Nekvasil MDL 2670: Court Rules on Federal Issues in Antitrust Suit MODERNHEALTH HOLDINGS: Sued Ove Failure to Provide Meal Breaks MRS BPO: Faces "Nelson" Suit in E.D.N.Y. NATIONAL MILK: Missouri Residents May Be Entitled For Some Cash NEW ORLEANS, LA: Deal Not 'Reachable' In 'Debtor Prison' Case NEW YORK: Class Status Granted in Illegal Detention Suit NIGERIA DEPOSIT: Former Bankers Sue Over Nonpayment of Gratuities NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Gavrialov" Suit in E.D.N.Y. NOVO NORDISK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit OREGON: Benton County May Opt Out From Suit Against DoF PALOS VERDES, CA: Lunada Bay Boys Could Face Suit for Harrassment PARTY CITY HOLDCO: IPO Class Action Remains Pending in S.D.N.Y. PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Feb. 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline PERRIGO COMPANY: Roofers' Pension Fund Suit in Early Stage PERRIGO COMPANY: "Wilson" Suit Consolidated with Roofers Action PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Class Suit Remains Stayed PETCO ANIMAL: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Wagner" Suit Says PFIZER INC: Updates on Celebrex and Bextra Litigation PFIZER INC: Effexor-Related Suits in Pennsylvania Remain Stayed PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss Effexor XR End-Payors' Claims Pending PFIZER INC: Appeal in Zoloft Products Liability Case Pending PFIZER INC: Suit Over Intravenous Saline Solution Underway PHILADELPHIA, PA: Barred From Using Current Liening Procedures PROG LEASING: Faces "Rumpf" Suit in District of Arizona QUALITY INN: "Strickland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Suit Over Unsolicted Text Messages RAIDER PRESSUE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Stovall" Suit Claims RESONANT INC: September 2017 Trial Date Set in Securities Suit ROSS STORES: No Arbitration for "Hernandez" Dispute, Court Says SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Home Washing Machines SANTANDER CONSUMER: Debt Collection Suit Reviewed After Dismissal SEQWATER: Flood Victims Still Wait for Settlement SHAKE SHACK: Class Action Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval SMARTHEALTH INC: Faces Scoma Chiropractic Suit in M.D. Fla. SPARK ENERGY: Status Conference in "Melville" Suit on May 16 SUBWAY: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Driver Plaintiffs are Employees, Judge Rules TAKATA CORP: Settlement with Gov't Won't Hinder Class Action TALEN ENERGY: Neufeld Files Suit Over Riverstone Merger Deal TG THERAPEUTICS: Lundin Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit TOP FLITE: 6th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of TCPA Suit TRI-STATE WATER: 7th Cir. Upholds Remand of Consumer Dispute UNITED CONTINENTAL: Must Defend "Neft" Suit Over Discount Program US AIRWAYS: Counsel Asks Court to Dismiss Service Agent Claims UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Airport Guards File Class Action VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Court to Examine Choice of Law Agreement VOLKSWAGEN: UK Drivers in Line for Up to GBP3,000 Compensation WELLS FARGO: Lieff Cabraser, Saxena White Selected as Lead Counsel WOODBRIDGE BARIC: Order to Pay $20K to Deepwater Horizon Reversed WORLEYPARSONS: Federal Court Orders $50MM Class Suit to Continue ZIMMER BIOMET: Jan.31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ZOMICK'S FOOD: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ZOOMER INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages * Supreme Court to Examine Workers' Rights to File Lawsuit ********* AEROTEK INC: Faces Suit For Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- The Riverside labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Aerotek, Inc. for allegedly failing to pay their Recruiters and Account Managers overtime wages. The Aerotek, Inc. lawsuit, Case No. CIVDS1621258 is currently pending in the San Bernardino County Superior Court for the State of California. The class action lawsuit alleges that under the California Labor Code, Aerotek, Inc. is required to pay all persons employed Recruiters and/or Account Managers overtime wages for their time worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and hours worked in excess of forty hours in any workweek. The class action complaint further asserts that the Recruiters and Account Managers employed by Aerotek, Inc. were allegedly misclassified because these employees failed to meet all the criteria under any of the exemptions to overtime pay in California. As a result, the Complaint seeks back payment for an unspecified amount for all the alleged overtime hours these employees worked for Aerotek, Inc. The Riverside employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik represent employees in the State of California in various lawsuits including class actions for unpaid overtime, unpaid business expenses, and missed meal and rest breaks. The firm has offices located in San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego and Chicago. If you would like free California labor law advice, call Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw today at (800) 568-8020. AEROTEK INC: Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable, Judge Says ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration, in the case JAIME ECHEVARRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AEROTEK, INC., a Maryland corporation, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-04041-BLF (N.D. Cal.) Aerotek, Inc. is a temporary staffing company which provides a full range of recruitment and staffing solutions to meet the needs of Aerotek's clients by hiring temporary employees sometimes referred to as contract employees, for work on temporary assignments at client sites. When Aerotek extends a job offer of temporary employment to an individual, Aerotek sends the individual a welcome email containing a link to a software system known as Onboarding Automation which is used for the online completion of new-hire paperwork. Jaime Echevarria interviewed with Aerotek on April 22, 2016 for a temporary position as a metal detailer. Aerotek decided to hire Echevarria and sent him a welcome email on April 26, 2016 with directions to complete online onboarding paperwork and a link to the Onboarding Automation system. Among the documents that Echevarria completed as part of the onboarding process was a Mutual Arbitration Agreement, which provides that all claims between Echevarria and Aerotek will be resolved by arbitration, and all claims must be brought in a party's individual capacity and may not be maintained on a class action, collective action, or representative basis. Just above the signature line, the Mutual Arbitration Agreement states as follows: "My affirmative signature and/or acknowledgement of this Agreement is not required for the Agreement to be enforced. If I begin working for Aerotek, Inc. without signing this Agreement, this Agreement will be effective, and I will be deemed to have consented to, ratified and accepted this Agreement through my acceptance of and continued employment with Aerotek, Inc." Echevarria electronically signed the Mutual Arbitration Agreement on April 27, 2016, and an Aerotek representative electronically counter-signed it on April 29, 2016. Echevarria was assigned to work at one of Aerotek's clients, Flextronics America, LLC. He worked for approximately one week and then failed to show up on May 10, 2016. When an Aerotek representative called Echevarria about his absence, Echevarria resigned. Echevarria filed an action in the Santa Clara County Superior Court on June 17, 2016, asserting class and PAGA claims based on Aerotek's failure to pay temporary service employees for time spent attending mandatory orientation meetings. Aerotek removed the case to federal district court on July 18, 2016 and seeks to compel arbitration of Echevarria's individual claims, dismiss his class claims, and stay his PAGA claim. Judge Freeman denied defendant's motion and held that Aerotek's online application process not only failed to inform Echevarria that he could opt out of the Mutual Arbitration Agreement, but the Mutual Arbitration Agreement stated expressly that it would be enforced whether or not Echevarria signed it. On this record, it does not appear that Echevarria had a meaningful opportunity to opt out of the Mutual Arbitration Agreement. Consequently, the court concludes that the class action waiver contained in that agreement is unenforceable. Aerotek argues that even if the class action waiver is unenforceable, Echevarria must be compelled in arbitrate his individual claims. Judge Freeman held that such argument is without merit because compelling Echevarria to arbitrate his individual claims effectively would preclude him from pursuing class claims. Given the court's disposition of Aerotek's motion to dismiss Echevarria's class claims and compel arbitration of his individual claims, Aerotek's motion to stay the PAGA claim is moot. A copy of Judge Freeman's order dated January 3, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/eoklrx from Leagle.com. Jaime Echevarria, Plaintiff, represented by Kristen Michelle Agnew -- kagnew@diversitylaw.com -- Larry W. Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- at Diversity Law Group, P.C. Aerotek, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kevin Dennis Sullivan -- ksullivan@ebglaw.com -- Michael Stuart Kun -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- at Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. Dang Lam, Interested Party, represented by Brett Donald Szmanda -- Brett@szmandalaw.com -- at Szmanda Law Group, P.C. ALP LIQUIDATING: Disbursements of Settlement Proceeds Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that disbursements of the settlement proceeds in the Rothal class action lawsuit is taking place. The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties as well as other unrelated parties were named defendants in an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs purported to bring a class action allegedly arising out of construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes. On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages, statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just and proper. Plaintiffs complained, among other things, that the homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from improper shutter storm protection systems. The case went to mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not settle then. The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended complaint. The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the class by order dated September 16, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the Partnership filed its notice of appeal challenging the certification order. On June 1, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order certifying the class. The case was returned to the trial court for further proceedings including trial. The parties and their insurers entered into various agreements in principle to settle this case and the related cases discussed hereafter, some of which agreements have been finalized. On June 22, 2016, the court gave final approval of the settlement of the Rothal class action. No appeal has been taken from the court's order approving the settlement and it is now final. Disbursements of Rothal settlement proceeds is taking place. The related agreements that Arvida has with various other parties and their insurers related to the funding of the settlement have been executed. Administration of the settlement is ongoing. APPLE INC: Judge Kills Warranty Class Action -------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino at Courthouse News reports a federal judge January 11 rejected last-ditch efforts to save a putative class action accusing Apple of lying to consumers about its iPhone warranties, and using refurbished rather than new parts to fix them. Former lead plaintiff Patricia Adkins sued Apple in November 2013, claiming it falsely represented that its AppleCare warranty plans guaranteed new parts and products for repairs and replacements. Adkins was replaced in January 2015 by lead plaintiff Fabrienne English, who says Apple gave her two replacement phones that immediately froze and shut down without warning, though none of the packaging indicated the devices were anything but new. U.S. District Judge William Orrick III denied English's motion for class certification in January 2016, finding problems with her theories of liability and adequacy of counsel. During a December hearing on a motion for summary judgment, English's attorney Renee Kennedy asked Orrick to open up her client's iPhone to verify whether Apple records correctly indicate whether its replacement phones were new and not refurbished. Orrick rejected the request, saying inspecting the phone could not reliably prove whether it was new when English received it four years ago. Kennedy said an expert could inspect the phone's inner components for fingerprints, but Orrick said no evidence was offered to show that a refurbished phone's interior parts would contain fingerprints. Orrick added that declarations that English, her family members and third parties never opened the phone "hardly sufficient to establish a reliable chain of custody" or prove the phone had not been tampered with. In a sealed motion filed on Jan. 5, Kennedy asked Orrick to recuse himself, claiming U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte improperly shared "allegations against" her and/or her client from a confidential settlement conference letter with the judge. Orrick refused that request also on Wednesday, calling recusal "unnecessary and inappropriate" and denying allegations of "taint or judicial bias." "Despite plaintiff's unfounded contentions to the contrary, Magistrate Judge Laporte did not share with me, verbally or in writing, any disparaging remarks about plaintiff or her counsel, or any information regarding the settlement negotiations at all," Orrick wrote. Orrick found that English failed to present evidence upon which she relied, or any verbal or oral misrepresentations from Apple on the newness of replacements or the number of replacements she was entitled to receive. He granted Apple's motion for summary judgment and denied English's request for further discovery, ending the case. Neither attorney Kennedy, of Friendswood, Texas, nor Apple's press team returned phone calls seeking comment on January 12. ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICAL: Unz Sues Over Misleading Fin'l. Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richardson B. Unz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Christopher R. Anzalone, and Kenneth A. Myszkowski, Case No. 2:17-cv-00310 (C.D. Cal., January 13, 2017), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that develops novel drugs to treat intractable diseases in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (818) 532-6499 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com ATAMI ON 2ND: Zhu Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum and OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Letian Zhu, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. Atami on 2nd Avenue Inc. d/b/a Atami Japanese Fusion, Jing Liang Dong a/k/a Michael Dong, Li Dong a/k/a Jenny Dong, Qiu Ru Dong a/k/a Judy Dong and a/k/a Wendy Dong, JIAN ZENG LIN a/k/a Joe Lin, Case No. 1:17-cv-00275 (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage for each hour worked and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants own and operate Atami Japanese Fusion located at 1167 2nd Avenue, New York, NY 10065. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com BANK OF AMERICA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Smith" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adrian Smith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Bank of America Corporation, and Adecco USA, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-00286 (N.D. Ill., January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay employees for work in excess of 40 hours per week without properly compensating them at an overtime rate for those additional hours. The Defendants provide banking and corporate account services to customers throughout this District and nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Catherine T. Mitchell, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com cmitchell@stephanzouras.com BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over SSA Bonds Bid-Ask Spreads Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- The Police Retirement System of St. Louis, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bank Of America Corporation, Bank Of America, N.A., Bank Of America Merrill Lynch International Limited, Citigroup Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Citibank N.A., Credit Agricole Corporate And Investment Bank, Credit Agricole S.A., Credit Agricole Securities (USA) Inc., Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Smith, Inc., Nomura Holdings Inc., Nomura Securities International, Inc., Hiren Gudka, Amandeep Singh Manku, Shailen Pau and Bhardeep Singh Heer and John Does NO. 1-100, Case No. 1:17-cv-00298 (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix the bid-ask spreads for supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bonds ("SSA bonds') sold to their customers in the secondary market. The Defendants are the largest dealers in the secondary market of supranational, sub-sovereign, and agency bonds ("SSA bonds") denominated in various currencies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell M. Z. Twersky, Esq. Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. Atara Hirsch, Esq. Matthew E. Guarnero, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER AND TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 279-2050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 E-mail: JAbraham@aftlaw.com AHirsch@aftlaw.com MTwersky@aftlaw.com MGuarnero@aftlaw.com BOIRON INC: Court Dismisses UCL Claims in "Lewert" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. found in favor of the defendants on the plaintiff's claim under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) in the case captioned Christopher Lewert, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Boiron, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 11-10803-AB (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.). Christopher Lewert, individually and on behalf of a certified class, brought an action against Boiron, Inc. and Boiron, USA, Inc., alleging violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code section 1750, et seq., and the UCL, California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. Lewert's legal claim under the CLRA came before a jury during a seven-day trial that began on June 7, 2016. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, finding the defendants' representations that its product, Oscillococcinum ("Oscillo"), relieves flu-like symptoms were not false. For Lewert's UCL claim, Judge Birotte adopted the jury's implicit factual determination that Lewert failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants' products cannot relieve the symptoms represented on Oscillo's packaging. Judge Birotte also found that Lewert failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendants' representations on its packaging or advertisements were untrue, misleading, or likely to deceive the reasonable consumer. Without evidence independent of the jury's implicit rejection of Lewert's dilution argument to show the defendants' representations were still somehow misleading or deceptive, Judge Birotte held that the Court has no basis to find otherwise. Considering the jury's findings, in addition his own finding that Lewert failed to prove the defendants' representations were untrue, misleading, or likely to deceive the reasonable customer, the Judge Birotte concluded that Lewert's UCL claim fails. A full-text copy of Judge Birotte's January 3, 2017 findings of fact and conclusions of law is available at https://is.gd/74ID5a from Leagle.com. Christopher Lewert, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine A. Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, pro hac vice, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman Law Corp, Kenneth A. Remson, Westerman Law Corp., Manfred Patrick Muecke -- mmueck@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, Max A. Stein -- mstein@boodlaw.com -- Boodell and Domanskis LLC, pro hac vice, Nada Djordjevic -- ndjordjevic@boodlaw.com -- Boodell and Domanskis LLC, pro hac vice & Patricia N. Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC. Boiron Inc, Boiron USA Inc, Defendants, represented by Amy Waterman Byrd -- abyrd@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe, Christina Guerola Sarchio -- csarchio@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, pro hac vice, Elliott S. Henry -- ehenry@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Raija J. Horstman -- rhorstman@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP, Thomas S. McConville -- tmcconville@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP & Valerie M. Goo -- vgoo@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP. Walgreen Co., Objector, represented by Christine Marie Neuharth -- cneuharth@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP. BRISTOL-MYERS: Could Face Suit Over Mislabled Pills --------------------------------------------------- Allie Norton at ABC 3 Wear TV reports a federal lawsuit is about to be front and center in Pensacola. The makers of the drug Abilify will answer to dozens of lawsuits about mislabeling their pills. "All they needed to do was properly warn and tell the physicians prescribing this that this could happen and we wouldn't be here," Bryan Aylstock of Alystock, Witkin, Kreis and Overholtz said. "They didn't do that and that's why we're here." Abilify treats schizophrenia disorder. However, many people with other disorders ended up on it when they did not need it. In a separate lawsuit, Bristol-Myers Squibb was forced to pay millions of dollars recently for marketing the drug to treat disorders without approval from the Federal Drug Administration. Now they are getting hit again. This time because of the labeling on the packaging. According to the lawsuit, Bristol-Myers Squibb and the Japan-based Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., did not warn that the drug could cause compulsive behaviors, like gambling. The lawsuit alleges the companies were aware of it, because they put the warning on labels in other countries. The warning was not found on Abilify in the United States until January 2016. In some cases, the results were devastating. "A large number of those folks ended up with this compulsive behavior that they really had little control over and they ended up gambling their life savings, their retirement away and really ended up in dire straits because of it," Aylstock said. Aylstock's firm, as well as Levin Papantonio, will be joining 11 other firms in the country to represent the plaintiffs. It will all play out in Pensacola in front of Judge Casey Rodgers of the Northern District of Florida. While there are only about 75 cases right now, Alystock expects that number to be in the thousands when it is all said and done. "A lot of folks who have had this compulsive gambling problem or other compulsive behaviors are just now becoming aware that Abilify played a role in those behaviors," Alystock said. So far, there has been a status conference and another is expected at the end of the month. However, this could take years to complete because unlike a class action lawsuit, every case will be considered individually. CHICAGO: Faces Suit Over Police Use of Phone Tracking Technology ---------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Novak Jones at Law 360 reports the city of Chicago and several of its top police officials are the subject of a putative class action filed in Illinois federal court on January 12 claiming that the city violated its residents' constitutional rights through police use of cell site simulators to search, track and eavesdrop on private cellphones. The suit was filed by Jerry Boyle, a Chicago attorney who serves as a volunteer legal observer with the National Lawyers' Guild at protests around the city, who claims that the Chicago Police Department unlawfully searched his phone using one of those devices while he attended a protest against police shootings in January 2015. Boyle, who alleges violations of both the U.S. Constitution and the Illinois state Constitution, brings the suit on behalf of anyone whose phone was searched using a cell site simulator without a warrant between January 12, 2015, and the present day. The suit also names a separate subclass consisting of people who were targeted for searches based on their attendance at a protest. The suit accuses the city and several members of the police department's current and former top brass of wilfully ignoring Chicagoans' rights by allowing the devices, typically known as "stingrays," to be deployed without any policies on the books governing how, why or when they are used. "The city's decision not to promulgate any written policies, procedures or guidelines governing the use of cell site simulators to protect the constitutional rights of plaintiff Boyle and the class reflects deliberate indifference," Boyle wrote in the suit. Bill McCaffrey, a spokesman for the city of Chicago's Law Department, said that the city hadn't received the suit yet so it could not comment. Boyle said he was at a "Reclaim Martin Luther King Jr. Day" protest in 2015 when his phone was searched using one of those devices, which pose as cell towers to access a phone's subscriber or serial number, according to the suit. There was no warrant or probable cause for the search, Boyle claims. Through stingrays, police can identify a cellphone user and his or her location, listen in on calls, view call logs, read text messages and see what websites the phone's browser has visited, the suit claims. But they can't be used to target a specific phone, instead impacting all of the phones in the geographic area in which they are used. The department's use of the technology is "secretive and widespread," the suit claims, citing the city's efforts to fight Freedom of Information Act requests related to cell site simulator purchases and use in court. Following rulings in some of those cases, the city released documents revealing it spent more than $500,000 on the devices and related software between 2005 and 2010, according to the suit. The city has no written policies restricting the use of the devices, training officers on the constitutional issues they bring up or informing the officers what they can do with the information they receive from them, the suit claims. The city routinely allows officers to deploy the stingrays without obtaining a warrant specific to each phone that is searched, or often even for the phone targeted, the suit adds. When officers do ask a judge to approve the stingray's use, they seek "pen register" or "trap and trace" orders, which cover the initiation or receipt of electronic signals but not their contents. The current use of the simulators violates the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the class, as well as the state constitution's privacy protections, the suit claims. It levels claims of conspiracy and failure to intervene against the police officials. The eight-count suit seeks a permanent injunction barring the illegal use of cell site simulators, as well as punitive damages. Boyle is represented by Michael Kanovitz -- mike@loevy.com -- Matthew Topic -- matt@loevy.com -- Ruth Brown -- ruth@loevy.com -- and Josh Burday -- josh@loevy.com -- of Loevy & Loevy, and Craig B. Futterman -- futterman@uchicago.edu -- of the Edwin F. Mandel Legal Aid Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. Counsel information for the city was not immediately available on January 13. The case is Jerry Boyle et al v. City of Chicago et al, case number 1:17-cv-00244 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. CHICKBEE NY: Faces "Sicajau" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chickbee NY Inc. The case is captioned as Juan Chiyal Sicajau, individually, the Plaintiff, v. Chickbee NY Inc., the Defendant, doing business as The Coop Restaurant & Bar, and Hyelee Choi, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00220 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2017). Chickbee serves Korean dishes including fried and grilled chicken. The Plaintiff appears pro se. CHILDREN'S PLACE: Faces "Sparks" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicole Sparks and Amirah Pasha, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees v. The Children's Place, Inc., Case No. 170101923 (Phil. Cmm. Pl., January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Children's Place, Inc. operates more than 959 specialty retail stores nationwide, selling children's clothing and related goods and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Galpern, Esq. Neel Bhuta, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM 801 N. Kings Highway Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 663-8200 E-mail: mgalpem@lockslaw.com nbhuta@lockslaw.com CLINTON DELICATESSEN: Faces "Canales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sonia Canales, Sabina Molina, and Melida Urrutia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clinton Delicatessen Inc. d/b/a Clinton Deli and Grocery, Clinton Deli II Inc. d/b/a Clinton Deli II, and Jose Ricardo Diaz and Blanca Rivera Diaz, Case No. cv-17-00203 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Clinton Deli II store located at 159 Baldwin Road, Hempstead, New York 11550. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 E-mail HFDalton6912@Gmail.com CONAGRA FOODS: Class Certification in "Briseno" Suit Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed class certification in the case captioned ROBERT BRISENO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellant, No. 15- 55727 (9th Cir.). Robert Briseno and the other named class representatives are consumers who purchased Wesson-brand cooking oil products labeled "100% Natural." The "100% Natural" label appeared on every bottle of Wesson-brand oil throughout the putative class periods (and continues to appear on those products). The plaintiffs argued that the "100% Natural" label is false or misleading because Wesson oils are made from bioengineered ingredients (genetically modified organisms, or GMOs) that the plaintiffs contend are "not natural." The defendant, ConAgra Foods, Inc., manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells Wesson products. The plaintiffs filed putative class actions asserting state-law claims against ConAgra in 11 states, and those cases were consolidated in this action. The plaintiffs moved to certify 11 classes. ConAgra opposed class certification on the ground that there would be no administratively feasible way to identify members of the proposed classes because consumers would not be able to reliably identify themselves as class members. As a result, ConAgra argued that the class was not eligible for certification. The district court acknowledged that the Third Circuit and some district courts have refused certification in similar circumstances, but it declined to join in their reasoning. Instead, the district court held that, at the certification stage, it was sufficient that the class was defined by an objective criterion: whether class members purchased Wesson oil during the class period. The district court ultimately granted the plaintiffs' motion in part and certified 11 statewide classes to pursue certain claims for damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). ConAgra timely sought and obtained permission to appeal pursuant to Rule 23(f). ConAgra argued that, in addition to satisfying the enumerated criteria, class proponents must also demonstrate that there is an administratively feasible way to determine who is in the class. ConAgra claimed that the plaintiffs did not propose any way to identify class members and cannot prove that an administratively feasible method exists because consumers do not generally save grocery receipts and are unlikely to remember details about individual purchases of a low-cost product like cooking oil. The Ninth Circuit stated that it has never interpreted Rule 23 to require such a showing, and, like the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, the appellate court also declined to do so in this case. "A separate administrative feasibility prerequisite to class certification is not compatible with the language of Rule 23. Further, Rule 23's enumerated criteria already address the policy concerns that have motivated some courts to adopt a separate administrative feasibility requirement, and do so without undermining the balance of interests struck by the Supreme Court, Congress, and the other contributors to the Rule," the Ninth Circuit explained. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's January 3, 2017 opinion is available at https://is.gd/0lyq8t from Leagle.com. Angela Spivey -- aspivey@mcquirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; R. Trent Taylor -- rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, Virginia; E. Rebecca Gantt -- rgantt@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Norfolk, Virginia; A. Brooks Gresham -- bgresham@mcguirewoods.com -- and Laura E. Coombe -- lcoombe@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Defendant-Appellant. Adam Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- and Edmund S. Aronowitz, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Chicago, Illinois; Mary S. Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Ariana J. Tadler -- atadler@milberg.com -- Henry J. Kelston -- hkelston@milberg.com -- Meagan Keenan, and Carey Alexander, Milberg LLP, New York, New York; David E. Azar -- dazar@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiff-Appellee. DAVISON DESIGN: Atty's Fee Award in "Dungee" Suit Vacated --------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit vacated the district court's award of over $1 million in fees to class counsel in the case captioned DEBORAH DUNGEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DAVISON DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT INC, f/k/a Davison & Associates Inc., Davison Design & Development, Inc., Appellant, No. 16-1486 (3rd Cir.). Deborah Dungee filed a class action on behalf of herself and certain other individuals who had entered into contracts with Davison Design & Development, Inc. for invention promotion services. Dungee's suit included class claims against Davison for violations of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) and for breach of contract. A fee-shifting provision within the AIPA allows customers who are deemed injured under the statute to recover "reasonable costs and attorneys' fees." After the District Court denied Davison's motion to dismiss Dungee's original complaint, the parties mediated the case and reached a settlement agreement. Although the parties agreed that Davison would pay class counsel's fees, they could not agree on the proper amount, so Dungee submitted a motion for attorneys' fees to the District Court. Dungee sought $2 million in fees under a percentage-of-recovery calculation. Davison argued in response that the lodestar calculation method was more appropriate under the circumstances; the parties agreed that the base lodestar calculation amounted to $257,226.76. The District Court held a class action settlement fairness hearing on July 30, 2015, during which the parties argued the attorneys' fees issues. On February 16, 2016, the District Court issued an order granting $1,118,936.40 in attorneys' fees to Dungee's counsel. The District Court reached this figure by applying a 4.35 multiplier to enhance the base lodestar calculation. On February 24, 2016, the District Court entered an order approving the final settlement between the parties, which included the $1.1 million attorneys' fees award. Davison timely appealed the District Court's attorneys' fees decision. The Third Circuit found that the District Court offered no explanation for why the simple lodestar calculation would not adequately compensate class counsel, or why the case presented "rare" and "exceptional" circumstances needed to enhance the lodestar. The appellate court saw nothing in the record to suggest that class counsel provided the District Court the "specific evidence" required to justify the enhancement. Rather, it appeared to the appellate court that the District Court simply adopted Dungee's recommended 4.35 multiplier, understanding it to be the "average" multiplier used in the Third Circuit. In the absence of specific evidence from class counsel and detailed findings by the District Court justifying the use of any lodestar multiplier, let alone a multiplier of 4.35, the Third Circuit held that it must vacate the $1,118,936.40 award and remand the case to the District Court. A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's January 6, 2017 decision is available at https://is.gd/O8YLkL from Leagle.com. Appellees are represented by: Richard H. Cross, Jr., Esq. CROSS & SIMON 1105 North Market Street, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19899-1380 Tel: (302)777-4200 Fax: (302)777-4224 Email: rcross@crosslaw.com - and - J. Nicholas Ranjan, Esq. H. Woodruff Turner, Esq. David M. Aceto, Esq. James P. Angelo, Esq. K&L GATES LLP K&L Gates Center, 210 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2613 Tel: (412)355-6500 Fax: (412)355-6501 Email: nicholas.ranjan@klgates.com woodruff.turner@klgates.com david.aceto@klgates.com james.angelo@klgates.com Appellant is represented by: Kathleen F. McDonough, Esq. John A. Sensing, Esq. POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON 1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Email: kmcdonough@potteranderson.com jsensing@potteranderson.com EMANUEL SERVICES: "Haric" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Anatolie Haric, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Emanuel Services, Inc. d/b/a Emanuel Home Care Services Inc., Case No. 150434/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to New York Labor Law. Emanuel Services, Inc. is primarily engaged in providing nursing and home health aide services at the residences of its clients. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. LaDonna M. Lusher, Esq. Milana Dostanitch, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com llusher@vandallp.com mdostanitch@vandallp.com EXEL INC: Appeal in "Rodriguez" Suit Dismissed ---------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two, dismissed the appeal filed in the case captioned VIRGINIA RODRIGUEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. EXEL, INC., Defendant and Respondent; RUBIN CHAPPELL et al., Objectors and Appellants, No. E062678 (Cal. Ct. App.). On November 13, 2014, the trial court entered a judgment approving the settlement of a class action against Exel, Inc. by its present and former employees, who sought damages and penalties for allegedly unpaid minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other Labor Code violations and unfair business practices, from April 11, 2011 through the date of the preliminary approval of the settlement. Rubin Chappell and Gabriel M. Garcia, class members who objected to the settlement, appealed, contending the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that: (1) the plaintiff and respondent Virginia Rodriguez qualified as a class representative; (2) the parties provided the class members with sufficient notice of the terms of the settlement; (3) it was proper for the parties to release time-barred and stricken class claims; and (4) the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. After the case was fully briefed, the tentative opinion had been drafted and mailed to the parties, and the case was set for oral argument, counsel for both Chappell and Garcia contacted the appellate court stating their intent to request that the appeal be dismissed. Subsequently, both Chappell and Garcia filed their request for dismissal on December 15, 2016. Because the resolution of the case is fact specific, the Court of Appeals of California granted the request and dismissed the appeal with prejudice. The respondents were awarded their costs on appeal. A full-text copy of the appellate court's January 4, 2017 opinion is available at https://is.gd/LhQVdf from Leagle.com. The Spivak Law Firm and David Spivak -- david@spivaklaw.com -- Law Offices of Louis Benowitz and Louis Benowitz for Objector and Appellant Rubin Chappell. The Nourmand Law Firm, Michael Nourmand -- mnourmand@nourmand.com -- and James A. De Sario; Bibiyan & Bokhour, David D. Bibiyan -- david@tomorrowlaw.com -- and Mehrdad Bokhour -- mehrdad@tomorrowlaw.com -- for Objector and Appellant Gabriel M. Garcia. Ice Miller and John P. Gilligan -- john.gilligan@icemiller.com -- Esner, Chang & Boyer and Holly N. Boyer -- hboyer@ecbappeal.com -- for Defendant and Respondent Exel, Inc. James Hawkins, James R. Hawkins and Alvin B. Lindsay -- alvin.lindsay@hoganlovells.com -- Gupta Wessler, Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptawessler.com -- and Neil K. Sawhney for Plaintiff and Respondent Virginia Rodriguez. FENIX PARTS: March 13 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Fenix Parts, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Fenix Parts between May 14, 2015 and October 12, 2016, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Complaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that its inventory valuation methods were inadequate; that its tools to calculate goodwill impairment were inadequate; that it was participating and/or had participated in activity that would lead to an SEC investigation; and that as a result, Fenix's statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. When this information was released to the public, the value of Fenix stock fell severely, causing investors harm. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 13, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com Federman & Sherwood Files Separate Suit On January 12, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Fenix Parts, Inc. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period, which is May 14, 2015 through October 12, 2016. If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or preservation of your rights, please contact: Robin Hester, FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue, Oklahoma City, OK 73120, Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Fenix Parts, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You may move the Court no later than Monday, March 13, 2017 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. FIAT CHRYSLER: Sued Over Black Non-Union Workers Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Danielle Salisbury at M Live reports a lawsuit filed by a former Fiat Chrysler diversity manager alleges the Auburn Hills automaker disparately treats black non-union employees, giving them lower ratings through a process that determines bonuses and advancement opportunities. "As a result of (Fiat Chrysler's) practice and policy of discriminating against African American employees, (these employees) have been denied employment benefits and opportunities afforded to white employees," states the class action lawsuit, filed as the company's vehicles are on grand display at the Detroit auto show. Among hundreds of company-wide directors, there are only two black women and about five to seven black men, the lawsuit states, and contends employees were evaluated through a two-step process that relied heavily on subjective input rather than objective data "effectuated by decision makers" who are not black. As a result, black employees were given lower compensation and benefits, and were disproportionately subjected to termination or demotion, contends the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit. Fiat Chrysler released a response in a statement on Friday, according to the Detroit Free Press. "The allegations contained in this lawsuit are without merit," it said. "FCA US does not tolerate harassment or discrimination of any kind in the workplace based on a person's race, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc. "All claims of harassment and discrimination are investigated thoroughly and in a timely manner and all violations are punishable up to and including termination," it stated, according to the Free Press, noting the company would pursue a "vigorous defense of this challenge to its record and reputation." The lawsuit was filed by Marlin Williams on behalf of all current and past salaried, non-union black employees of a "senior manager" job category or given a medium to low rating in 2014 and 2015. The number of people affected are not specified in the lawsuit. Williams, with 25 years of experience in promoting diversity programs and initiatives, began working for Fiat Chrysler in January 2015 as talent management consultant and was promoted to diversity manager in September 2015. She had to assume many of the duties of her white predecessor, the director of talent acquisition and diversity, but was never given a similar title, actually promoted or provided perks such as additional compensation and generous vehicle allowances. Of seven compensation categories, Williams was hired at the "senior professional" level, No. 4 on the list, and remained there despite being promised otherwise. Her duties included identifying performance and leadership gaps of diverse population. She was tasked with implementing initiatives that address inequities in compensation, promotion opportunities and other benefits. While doing this work, she detected and observed, on a company- wide basis, that salaried, non-union employees who were not black of a No. 3 compensation category or less were given lower overall ratings and evaluations at an "alarmingly disproportionate rate." Of her own rating, given first by a direct supervisor and then discussed among management during a "calibration" process, she learned it was downgraded in the review even as she achieved all the company goals. She reported her findings to leaders, saying black employees were being treated less favorably. As a result, she alleges she faced retaliation. She was accused of failing to perform certain duties, investigated for reporting discriminatory acts and "ostracized and essentially excommunicated from her colleagues and upper management." She submitted her 2-week notice on Jan. 2 and was terminated and escorted from the building the next day, the lawsuit states. Williams seeks a declaration that her rights were violated and a judgment awarding her "liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs" and to help ensure Fiat Chrysler will not subject future workers to the same "illegal conduct." The company's violation of the state civil rights act caused Williams and others loss of reputation, embarrassment, humiliation, outrage, mental distress and economic loss of large, but undetermined proportions, according to the lawsuit. Her contentions describe a workplace in conflict with what has long been Williams' work. She was inclusion officer and global diversity chief at Compuware, a Detroit software company, and founded Knowledge Brokers in Detroit, a diversity and inclusion consulting and professional search firm. She also served as deputy chief information officer for the city of Detroit, according to the lawsuit. FIAT CHRYSLER: Heninger Garrison Files Suit Over Emission Cheating ------------------------------------------------------------------ Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, has filed the first nationwide class action complaint against Fiat Chrysler for illegal diesel emissions. The US Justice Department accused Fiat Chrysler on January 12 of intentionally failing to disclose software in some of its diesel engine vehicles that allows them to emit more pollution than allowed under the Clean Air Act. The Environmental Protection Agency also issued a "notice of violation" to Chrysler citing more than 104,000 vehicles with 3-liter diesel engines including the 2014 through 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram pickups. This nationwide class action concerns the intentional installation of so-called defeat devices on an estimated 104,000 diesel Dodge and Jeep vehicles sold in the United States since 2014. Fiat Chrysler marketed those vehicles as environmentally friendly with enhanced fuel efficiency, better performance, and lower emissions. Although the diesel vehicles were successfully marketed as "clean," their environmentally-friendly representations were deceptive to consumers. The EPA said it found at least eight undisclosed pieces of software that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution. EPA assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance, Cynthia Giles, said, "Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle's engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe." Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC is investigating other claims of Chrysler Fiat's illegal diesel emissions. If you have one of the vehicles that has been cited in violation, please contact us to discuss the possibility of bringing a claim. There is absolutely no cost to you unless we are able to recover for you. Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC, is a national law firm recognized as one of the nation's leading civil litigators. FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Warren" Suit Over Illegal Defeat Devices -------------------------------------------------------------- R.D. Warren, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC, Case No. 7:17-cv-00059-LSC (N.D. Ala., January 13, 2017), arises out of the Defendants' alleged intentional installation of so-called defeat devices on an estimated 104,000 diesel Dodge and Jeep vehicles sold in the United States since 2014. The Defendants are engaged in designing, engineering, manufacturing, distributing, and selling vehicles, components, and production systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. lewis garrison, Jr., Esq. Christopher Hood, Esq. Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 First Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com chood@hgdlawfirm.com taylor@hgdlawfirm.com - and - James F. McDonough III, Esq. Travis E. Lynch, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320 Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (404) 996-0869 Facsimile: (205) 326-3332 E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com tlynch@hgdlawfirm.com - and - K. Stephen Jackson, Esq. JACKSON & TUCKER, P.C. Black Diamond Building 2229 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 252-3535 Facsimile: (205) 252-3536 FIFTH STREET: Class Asks Judge to Approve $14-Mil. Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Cara Bayles at Law360.com reports that a class of investors asked a New York federal judge on January 12 to approve their $14 million settlement with Fifth Street Finance Corp., ending claims that the investment group made false representations to its shareholders. In a settlement plan filed on January 12, lead plaintiff Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System said the deal was "the product of a unique and rigorous settlement process." The $14 million figure, proposed by a mediator and agreed to by both sides, has not garnered any objections, though more than 43,000 class members have been notified, the filing said. A separate motion also filed on January 12 seeks $2.4 million in attorneys' fees for class counsel. The case, which dates back to 2015, alleges the investors lost money because they relied on registration statements in which Fifth Street knowingly misrepresented the fair market value and financial health of its investment portfolio, lied about whether it would be able to cover its dividend projection and gave incorrect numbers for several financial metrics related to interest and assets, all in violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The class said Fifth Street inflated its revenue statements by waiting until after the initial public offering to enact write- downs of its four companies' investments and to place them in nonaccrual status, delaying the announcement of a $1.1 million decline in net assets. Fifth Street contended its misstatements "reflected subjective, good faith judgments, opinions and estimates that were fundamentally incapable of being false or misleading." January 12's filing said the settlement -- which offers 15 percent to 20 percent of the estimated damages without going to trial, where some of the allegations could have been defeated -- was beneficial to both sides. It would have been difficult to present the extremely complicated case to a jury, especially without a "roadmap" from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, which investigated but never filed claims against Fifth Street, the proposal said. "The class' claims here raise numerous factual issues concerning the complex practice of fair value determinations for illiquid, non-investment grade assets; interest income recognition for such assets; the appropriate application of accounting guidelines relevant to fair value and income recognition determinations; the appropriateness of granting, and the sustainability of, dividends; valuation and income recognition policies and procedures; as well as complicated legal issues concerning falsity, scienter, and loss causation, among other things, each of which would require extensive percipient and expert testimony at trial," the settlement plan said. The filing also said the deal was spurred by the fact that Fifth Street might not able to meet the total payout required by a judgment against it, particularly as other suits are pending against it and the damages estimate of $95 million was nearly all of the money the company has on hand. The case also could have been hotly contested thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 Omnicare decision, which ruled opinions in registration statements should not be treated as facts, and that plaintiffs needed proof those predictions were lies. Attorneys for Fifth Street declined to comment on the deal. Attorneys for the class and representatives for Fifth Street were not immediately available for comment on January 12. The class is represented by Joel H. Bernstein, jberstein@labaton.com, Ira A. Schochet, ischochet@labaton.com Nicole M. Zeiss, nzeiss@labaton.com and Eric D. Gottlieb, egottlieb@labaton.com of Labaton Sucharow LLP. The Fifth Street is represented by Allen W. Burton aburton@omm.com and Ross B. Galin -- rgalin@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Ralph Ferrara -- rferrara@proskauer.com -- Ann Ashton -- aashton@proskauer.com -- Jonathan Richman, -- jrichman@proskauer.com -- Tanya Dmitronow, -- tdmitronow@proskauer.com -- and Julia D. Alonzo -- jalonzo@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP. The case is In Re Fifth Street Finance Corp. Securities Litigation, case number 1:15-cv-07759, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. FORD SA: Could Face Class Action Over Combustion of Ford Kuga SUV ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Olalde at IOL reports "I think the reality is that I could have actually died," Warren Krog said. On January 12, Krog was driving in Alberton when his Ford Kuga SUV began smoking. He was only a few kilometres from the nearest dealership, so he tried to make it there. However, he was forced to pull over at the side of the road. "When I opened the hood, I could see fire at the back of the engine," he said. By the time the fire department arrived to put out the fire, the front of his car was engulfed in flames. Krog is the most recent victim of Kugas catching fire. Ford SA has yet to issue a recall, instead asking customers to take their vehicles to dealerships for safety checks. Kaveen Jimmy's brother, Reshall, died in December 2015 when his Kuga burst into flames. Jimmy and his sister have been running a campaign to gather the victims of Kuga fires. So far, they have found about 45 cases, nine this year alone. Jimmy said they took about 30 of these cases to the Motor Industry Ombudsman on January 13, although representatives of the ombudsman were unavailable to immediately verify whether they had received the complaints. According to Jimmy, the majority of those affected had agreed to bring a class-action lawsuit against Ford SA. "We wanted closure, and we wanted to know Ford was taking the steps to make sure this doesn't happen to another family," Jimmy said. Ford SA recently launched legal action of its own to obtain evidence from the SAPS related to the Jimmy investigation. On December 30, Ford SA submitted its intention to bring an urgent application to the High Court in Cape Town to force the SAPS to hand over copies of "all the information, documentation and evidence in their possession, including any video recordings" related to the Jimmy investigation. The application was to be officially filed on January 10. The court documents included an affidavit from Shibishi Maruatona, a director and the general counsel of Ford SA. "The passing of the deceased, as well as the social media campaign by the family of the deceased, has led to 'a panic'," he said in the affidavit. Maruatona claimed that Ford SA needed the evidence to assist with its own investigation. He went on to insinuate that "the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased are mysterious" and the company was attempting to determine "whether there may have been outside forces and factors which caused or contributed towards the fire". "They made some statements in that report, which are grossly incorrect. And if anything, the best word for it is 'perjury'," Jimmy said. Multiple sources said Ford SA was able to complete a full inspection of the burned vehicle on several occasions. The National Consumer Commission gave Ford SA until the end of February to finalise its report before the government will make a decision over whether to step in and force a recall. Ford SA says the problem is contained to "Kugas equipped with the 1.6-litre EcoBoost engine in South Africa", potentially to the 2013 model. Krog said he hoped that his story would convince other owners to take their vehicles in for inspection and to protect themselves while driving. "If they see smoke, they should not even wait," he said, adding that drivers should keep a fire extinguisher with them and something to break a window in case they needed to escape. Representatives of Ford SA were not available for comment. GOLDEN GATE AMERICA: Not Transportation Employer, Judge Says ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the Western District of Washington, Seattle, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case ABDIKHADAR JAMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOLDEN GATE AMERICA LLC, Defendant, Case No. C16-0611RSL (W.D. Wash.) Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that their employer failed to pay an hourly rate of $15.00 after January 1, 2014, when Chapter 7.45 of the City of SeaTac Municipal Code went into effect. Plaintiffs were, at all relevant times, employees of Golden Gate America LLC. Chapter 7.45 of the City of SeaTac Municipal Code was passed by voter initiative in 2013. It requires certain hospitality and transportation employers in the City of SeaTac to pay their employees $15.00 per hour, adjusted annually for inflation, and to guarantee certain other benefits. At the time the ordinance went into effect, Golden Gate had a contract with EAN Holdings LLC (d/b/a Enterprise Rent-A-Car) to move vehicles to the car washing area of the rental facility, to clean, wash, vacuum, fuel, and otherwise prepare the vehicle for the next customer, and to return the vehicle to the rental area. Plaintiffs argue that Golden Gate is a Transportation employer for purposes of the ordinance because it provides janitorial services and customer service at the airport. Plaintiffs also argue that, because Golden Gate' employees respond to questions posed by Enterprise customers, Golden Gate provides customer service within the Sea-Tacoma International Airport and is therefore a Transportation employer. Golden Gate argues that it does not fall within the definition of Transportation employer and is therefore not subject to the ordinance. It seeks summary dismissal of plaintiffs' claims. Judge Lasnik finds that customer service under SeaTac Municipal Code 7.45.010(M)(1) includes employers who provide customer service as a business venture, generally for a fee or other compensation, not as a one-off activity wholly collateral to the employer's primary operation. Golden Gate operates and provides rental car fleet services, it does not provide customer service for purposes of the ordinance. Golden Gate's motion for summary judgment is granted. All claims against Golden Gate are dismissed. Plaintiffs' claims for relief against Golden Gate fail as a matter of law and cannot be saved by amendment. Plaintiffs nevertheless seek leave to amend their complaint to add claims against a different entity, EAN Holdings, on the ground that EAN Holdings is their employer under the economic realities test. Plaintiffs shall have fourteen days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint adding EAN Holdings as the employer-defendant. If an amended complaint is not timely filed, judgment shall be entered in favor of defendant and against plaintiffs. A copy of Judge Lasnik's order dated January 4, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/domvJ3 from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Daniel R. Whitmore, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. WHITMORE 2626 15th Ave W #200 Seattle, WA 98119 Telephone: 206-329-8400 - and - Duncan Calvert Turner, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: 206-621-6566 Facsimile: 206-621-9686 Golden Gate America LLC, Defendant, represented by Harry James Franklyn Korrell, III -- harrykorrell@dwt.com -- Laura Turczanski -- lauraturczanski@dwt.com -- Taylor S. Ball -- taylorball@dwt.com -- at DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE GOOGLE: Judge Questions Counsel Fees on $4.75-Mil. Wage Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Dorothy Atkins at Law 360 reports that a California judge on January 13 pressed attorneys representing about 5,100 current and former hourly Google workers on their fee request in a $4.75 million class action deal resolving wage-and-hour claims stretching back to 2011, ordering the attorneys to file briefs explaining why their work merits a third of that total. Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Brian C. Walsh issued an order adopting his tentative ruling that required the attorneys to file additional briefs during a final fairness hearing Friday, after neither party showed up to object to the ruling. The tentative ruling said that although the proportion of the settlement class counsel proposed for fees is "generally considered reasonable," the attorneys have not submitted billing records or lodestar information that Judge Walsh can compare to the requested fees to ensure the amount is reasonable. "This court finds such a cross-check to be helpful," the tentative ruling said. If approved, the deal would settle a class action that former Google employee Rosa Gutierrez filed in February 2015. The suit alleges that the tech giant failed to pay its hourly workers for overtime, failed to provide workers with meal and rest breaks, failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to keep track of hours worked. The suit also alleged Google failed to pay all wages owed to employees who were discharged or quit and failed to compensate workers for necessary business expenses. The suit also asserted claims under the state's unfair business practice statutes and sought penalties under the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act. Gutierrez estimated that Google owed more than $34.7 million for the violations, excluding interest. Google denied the allegations and the parties entered into settlement negotiations. Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Peter Kirwan preliminarily approved the deal in September and provisionally certified a class of nonexempt employees, who worked for Google in California between Feb. 23, 2011, and Aug. 18, 2016. The following month, notice packets were mailed to 5,132 class members, of which 232 were returned. As of Dec. 20, 129 class members had opted out of the settlement and no one objected to it, according to court documents. Under the deal, the class attorneys would receive approximately $1.58 million for fees and up to $50,000 for litigation expenses. Gutierrez would receive $15,000 for approximately 80 hours she spent representing the class in the case, according to court documents. On January 13, Judge Walsh continued the motion for final approval of the settlement to Feb. 2, to give class counsel time to file the supplemental briefing, and noted that no one showed up for Friday's fairness hearing to object to the deal. "If there are no objectors here, I presume we will see no objectors then," Judge Walsh said. The class is represented by Matthew J. Matern, Dalia Khalili and Daniel J. Bass, info@maternlawgroup.com, of Matern Law Group PC. Google is represented by Zachary P. Hutton, zachhutton@paulhastings.com, of Paul Hastings LLP. The case is Rosa Gutierrez v. Google Inc., case number 2015-1-CV- 277104, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara. GC SERVICES: Faces "Gavrielova" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited Partnership. The case is styled as Frida Gavrielova, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17- cv-00224 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2017). GC Services is an outsourcing provider of call center management and collection agency services in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Igor B Litvak, Esq. The Law Office of Igor Litvak 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (646) 796 4905 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com HALL COUNTY, GA: Faces Suit Over Frozen Pension Benefits -------------------------------------------------------- Nick Watson at Forsyth County News reports five current and former Hall County employees filed an estimated $75 million class-action lawsuit January 9 against the county regarding frozen pension benefits. The expected class is more than 100 Hall County employees, the overwhelming majority being first responders. "We cannot comment on pending litigation," Hall County spokeswoman Katie Crumley said. The Times also reached out to commissioners Jeff Stowe and Scott Gibbs. Neither had been briefed on details of the lawsuit. Attorney Ed Buckley of the Atlanta-based firm Buckley | Beal said the lawsuit is regarding retired employees and employees reaching retirement that "are being denied and will be denied pension fund benefits unless we are able to resolve this." The lawsuit filed in Fulton County Superior Court is challenging a 1998 freeze in retirement pension benefits. The lawsuit claims the county "made no additional employer contributions for plaintiffs to the 'trust fund.'" One example listed in the lawsuit was 1st Lt. Bradford Rounds, who was hired in Hall County in 1988. According to the lawsuit, Rounds' monthly pension benefit would be $2,567 under the plan's formula. "Under defendants' 'freeze' of his accrued pension benefits as of July 1, 1998, his 'frozen' monthly pension benefit is only $389 per month," according to the lawsuit. The county commissioners will be served with the lawsuit at their regular 6 p.m. meeting on Janaury 12. H.J. HEINZ: "Lopez" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. of Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Sergio Alfonzo Lopez, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. H.J. Heinz Company, L.P. a Delaware Limited Parnership; H.J. Heinz Operation Partnership, an unknown entity; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 37-02016-00038060-CU- OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-00077-GPC-MDD to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. H. J. Heinz Company is an American food processing company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2274 E. Maple Avenue, Suite A Los Angeles, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel B. Chammas, Esq. FORD & HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 237 2400 Facsimile: (213) 237 2401 E-mail: dchammas@fordharrison.com IKEA: 9th Cir. Returnes Shopper's Suit to State Court ----------------------------------------------------- Law 360 reports that the Ninth Circuit on January 13 granted an Ikea shopper's request to ship her decertified class action back to district court for dismissal, opening the possibility for her to raise the issue in state court after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo, which set a higher bar for claims of harm. Lead plaintiff Rita Medellin had been appealing a lower court's decision to decertify a class of shoppers who accused the company of illegally collecting customer ZIP code data, but switched gears after the high court's May ruling in Spokeo v. Robins, court records show. Instead of fighting to reinstall the class, Medellin argued that under Spokeo's decree that mere statutory harms aren't enough to bring a federal suit, her case belonged in state court, asking the Ninth Circuit to vacate the decertification decision and recommend that the dispute be sent out of the federal system, according to her brief. The Ninth Circuit in a short order seemingly granted Medellin's wish, finding that she didn't plead the concrete harm necessary under Spokeo to give her standing to bring a suit. "Because Medellin lacks standing, we vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions that the district court dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of standing," the panel wrote in a short order Friday. Medellin had initially alleged Ikea was violating the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act by improperly collecting customer ZIP code data. The dispute between the parties has its origin in state court, where Medellin filed her complaint in 2011. The suit was immediately removed to federal district court based on diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, a move that Medellin didn't contest, Ikea noted in later filings. In May 2012, U.S. District Judge William Q. Hayes certified a class of Ikea customers, though he narrowed it down in February 2013 after determining that no reasonable person could have thought the request for a ZIP code at the company's self-checkout kiosk was mandatory for completing a credit card transaction. He stopped short of decertifying the class entirely, overruling Ikea's argument that its records wouldn't demonstrate whether cashiers actually requested customers' ZIP code. However, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant did take that step in December 2014 when she decertified the class after concluding that the evidence indicated there were inconsistencies as to whether individual cashiers actually asked customers for their ZIP codes and if, when they were asked, customers knew providing the information was voluntary. Medellin initially appealed that decision, saying in a brief before the Ninth Circuit that the lower court wrongly decertified the class because all customers who had their ZIP codes collected were subjected to the same illegal conduct as she was. However, she shifted gears in June after Spokeo came down, filing a new brief urging the appeals court to vacate the decertification decision and recommend that the dispute be sent to state court in light of Spokeo. Ikea found itself in the strange position of arguing that its opponent had in fact alleged concrete harm strong enough to give her standing in federal court, saying Medellin had easily met that standard by continuously asserting both in filings and through expert testimony that by unlawfully collecting customers' ZIP codes, the retailer had subjected consumers to concrete harm such as the increased risk of identity theft, fraud and invasions of privacy. Because the Song-Beverly statute was specifically designed to remedy concrete and particularized harm, the Spokeo decision cannot negate Medellin's claims of injury-in-fact, which the retailer noted the plaintiff has been pursuing for the past five years and should be judicially estopped from changing course on now, Ikea said in its opposition. Representatives for the parties didn't immediately respond to requests for comment late January 13. Medellin is represented by Timothy G. Blood, tblood@bholaw.com, and Paula M. Roach proach@bholaw.com, of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, and Gene J. Stonebarger, gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com, and Richard D. Lambert, rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com, of Stonebarger Law. Ikea is represented by Michael A. Geibelson, -- MGeibelson@RobinsKaplan.com -- Jill S. Casselman -- jcasselman@RobinsKaplan.com -- and Nicole S. Frank -- nfrank@RobinsKaplan.com -- of Robins Kaplan LLP, and Kenneth S. Kawabat -- ksk@manningllp.com -- of Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP. The case is Medellin v. Ikea U.S. West Inc., case number 15-55174, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. INOTEK PHARMACEUTICALS: March 7 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Inotek securities between July 23, 2015 and December 30, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who have incurred losses in shares of Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation are urged to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information concerning the action on our website, www.whafh.com. If you have purchased shares of Inotek Pharmaceuticals Corporation within the class period and would like to assist with the litigation process, you may, no later than March 7, 2017, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. The filed Complaint alleges that on July 23, 2015, Inotek announced its positive End of Phase 2 meeting with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and said that Inotek is in the "final preparation stages to commence its first Phase 3 trial in 4Q and look forward to data in 2016." Inotek also announced a confident forecast of the Phase 3 trabodenoson trial, which caused its stock price to surge to $15.37 per share on July 23, 2015. Despite these positive announcements, it is alleged that Inotek officials were aware that part of the clinical trial of trabodenoson would not achieve its intended goal of reducing intraocular pressure compared to the placebo. On January 3, 2017, Inotek exposed this information and stated that the first pivotal Phase 3 trial of trabodenoson to treat open-angle glaucoma or ocular hypertension failed, compared to the placebo, in its endpoint of superiority in the reduction of intraocular pressure. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. JACKSON HEWITT: Faces "Scoma" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jackson Hewitt Inc. The case is entitled as Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Jackson Hewitt Inc., a Virginia corporation; Jackson Hewitt Technology Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Astro Tax Services LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00024-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., Jan. 13, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Sheri Polster Chappell. Jackson Hewitt offers tax-preparation services in the United States; responsible for preparing over 2 million federal, state, and local income-tax returns each year. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Anderson & Wanca 3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com JMFF LLC: Faces "Uliu-Personius" Suit in S.D.N.Y ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against JMFF LLC. The case is captioned as Antoneta Uliu-Personius, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JMFF LLC, doing business as Dorlan's Tavern & Oyster Bar; Fernando Dallorso; Jeremy Dahm; Matthew Andrews; and Frank Casano, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00287 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2017). JMFF operates a seafood restaurant in New York. KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces "Roy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Danny Roy, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 17845538 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals provides healthcare services throughout the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq. Tracy T. Scanlan, Esq. Frank J. Zeccola, Esq. ILG LEGAL OFFICE, P.C. 1001 Bayhill Drive, 2nd Floor San Bruno, CA 94066 Telephone: (415) 580-2574 Facsimile: (415)735-3454 E-mail: silg@ilglegal.com tscanlan@ilglegal.com fzeccola@ilglegal.com KPMG LLP: 4th Cir. Upholds Order Denying Arbitration Bid -------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones of the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the district court's order denying defendant-appellant's motion to compel arbitration, in the case, THOMAS JONES, etc.; ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. SINGING RIVER HEALTH SERVICES FOUNDATION, ET AL, Defendants. MARTHA EZELL LOWE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated employees, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KPMG, L.L.P., Defendant- Appellant, No. 16-60263 (5th Cir.) KPMG, L.L.P. audited the annual financial statements of Singing River Health System (SRHS) from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 and of the pension plan (the plan) sponsored by SRHS from fiscal years 2008 through 2011. Martha Ezell Lowe is a former employee of SRHS and was a vested participant in the Plan. KPMG performed its work for SRHS and the plan pursuant to Engagement Letters which required that disputes or claims arising out of or relating to the contract must be submitted to arbitration. The letters also defined the scope of KPMG's audits and KPMG's role as auditor. The plan allegedly became underfunded, precipitating a host of litigation. Lowe filed a class action against KPMG, SRHS, the plan trustees, and others in February 2015, alleging that KPMG was aware of or recklessly disregarded the underfunding and was therefore complicit in the breaches of fiduciary duty by the plan's trustees. Lowe's suit against KPMG was consolidated procedurally with two other class actions, the Jones and Cobb cases, all of which arose out of the alleged underfunding of the plan. Neither Jones nor Lowe was a party to the contracts between SRHS or the Plan and KPMG. Both accused KPMG of wrongdoing in its role as auditor of the Plan. KPMG moved to compel arbitration in the Jones and Lowe actions. After reviewing allegations in both suits, the district court granted the motion in Jones but denied it in the Lowe action. The district court held that the Jones class, whose pleading specifically invoked the Engagement Letters, must submit to arbitration under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The district court observed that the factual allegations pled by the Jones plaintiffs relied upon the professional standards required by the Engagement Letters. The Lowe class, in contrast, pled solely common law claims and made no factual allegation invoking the Engagement Letters. KPMG argued that the Lowe claims actually relied on the Engagement Letters, because the letters defined the scope of KPMG's contractual role with SRHS and the Plan, and therefore equitable estoppel compels submission of Lowe's claims to arbitration. The district court disagreed with KPMG. KPMG appeals the denial of its motion to compel arbitration of the Lowe action on two primary grounds, (1) gateway questions, such as the scope and enforceability of the arbitration requirements, should be referred to an arbitrator for determination, and (2) the Lowe plaintiffs are bound by the doctrine of equitable estoppel to the arbitration clause in the Engagement Letters. Circuit Judge Jones held that KPMG waived the first issue and failed to show how Lowe must necessarily rely on the contract to which she wasn't a party in order to make her case and based on Lowe's pleadings and the arguments proffered by KPMG, Lowe's claims are not directly dependent on the Engagement Letters. The district court correctly denied the motion to compel arbitration. Circuit Judge Jones affirmed the order of the district court denying the motion to compel arbitration. A copy of Judge Jones order dated January 5, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/RG3hNw from Leagle.com. For Plaintiff-Appellee: Roger K. Doolittle, Esq. ROGER K DOOLITTLE ATTORNEY AT LAW 143 Reserve Crossing Madison, MS 39110 Telephone: 601-957-9777 - and - Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC 2001 Park Place North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205-488-1200 Facsimile: 800-922-4851 Email: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com - and - Richard Paul Rouco, Esq. QCWDR LLP Two North 20th Street, Suite 930 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: 205-870-9989 Facsimile: 205-803-4143 Robert David Kaufman -- bob@robertdklausner.com -- at Klausner, Kaufman, Jensen & Levinson; Amelia Toy Rudolph -- amelia.rudolph@sutherland.com -- Patricia A. Gorham -- patricia.gorham@sutherland.com -- at Sutherlan Asbill & Brennan LLP; Taylor B. McNeel -- tmcneel@brunini.com -- at Brunini Attorneys at Law, for Defendant-Appellant The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, panel consists of Circuit Judges Edith H. Jones, Rhesa H. Barksdale and Gregg J. Costa. KUNG FU LITTLE: "Weng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Lianhua Weng, Haihua Zhai, and Shimin Yuan, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated v. Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen Inc. d/b/a Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen; Kung Fu Delicacy Inc. d/b/a Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen; Kung Fu Kitchen Inc. d/b/a Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen and ZHE SONG a/k/a Peter Song, "John" Liu a/k/a Andy Liu, and Zhimin Chen, Case No. 1:17-cv-00273 (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Kung Fu Little Steamed Buns Ramen restaurant located at 811 8th Avenue, New York, NY 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com LAS VEGAS SANDS: Wins Summary Judgment in "Fosbre" Suit ------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned FRANK J. FOSBRE, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LAS VEGAS SANDS CORPORATION, SHELDON G. ADELSON, and WILLIAM P. WEIDNER, Defendants, Case No. 2:10-cv-00765-APG-GWF (D. Nev.), Judge Andrew P. Gordon issued an order: (1) granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment, (2) denying as moot the defendants' motion to exclude testimony, (3) denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike reply, and (4) granting the plaintiffs' motion to file supplement. Las Vegas Sands Corporation (LVS) operates resorts and gaming properties in Las Vegas, Macao, and Singapore. The plaintiffs contended they purchased LVS stock at artificially high prices between August 2, 2007 and November 5, 2008 because during that period LVS allegedly made various false and misleading public statements about its development plans and liquidity. The plaintiffs brought claims under section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against defendants LVS, Sheldon Adelson, and William Weidner, and under section 20(a) of the Act against Adelson and Weidner for "control person" liability. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they did not make any misrepresentations, they did not act with scienter, and the plaintiffs cannot show loss causation. They also contended some statements are not actionable as forward-looking or puffery. Finally, Weidner disputed that he is a control person. The plaintiffs responded that the defendants made false and misleading statements throughout the class period and acted with scienter. The plaintiffs argued they can show loss causation through their expert. Finally, they contended Weidner is a control person because he was LVS's chief operating officer and a member of the board, managed LVS's executives, and oversaw major LVS operations. Judge Gordon found that the plaintiffs have failed to raise an issue of fact as to each alleged misrepresentation. Because there are no remaining claims, the judge held that Weidner's argument that he is not a control person is moot. The judge also held that the defendants' motion to exclude the plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Steven Feinstein, is also moot. Judge Gordon denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike appendix B to the defendants' reply and granted the plaintiffs' motion to supplement. A full-text copy of Judge Gordon's January 3, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/CT1FFE from Leagle.com. Frank J. Fosbre, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Stewart -- cstewart@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Frank J. Fosbre, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David C. OMara -- david@omaralaw.net -- The OMara Law Firm, P.C. & Spencer A. Burkholz -- spenceb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice. Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retriement System, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Hutton, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, David C. OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C. Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Hutton, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, David C. OMara, The OMara Law Firm, P.C., & Steven Pepich -- stevep@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Alvaro Elizondo, Movant, represented by Mark D. Wray, Law Offices of Mark Wray. Pension and Retirement Group, Movant, represented by Eric I. Niehaus -- ericn@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steven Pepich, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher D. Stewart, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Spencer A. Burkholz, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. Las Vegas Sands Corporation, Defendant, represented by James W. Ducayet -- jducayet@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, pro hac vice, Lawrence P. Fogel -- lawrence.fogel@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew M. Fogelberg -- mfogelberg@sidley.com - - Sidley Austin, pro hac vice, Steve L. Morris -- sm@morrislawgroup.com -- Morris Law Group, Akke Levin -- al@morrislawgroup.com -- Morris Peterson, Courtney A. Hoffmann -- choffmann@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Raleigh C. Thompson -- rct@morrislawgroup.com -- Morris Law Group & Walter C. Carlson -- wcarlson@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP. Sheldon G. Adelson, Defendant, represented by Steve L. Morris, Morris Law Group, Akke Levin, Morris Peterson, Courtney A. Hoffmann, Sidley Austin LLP, Lawrence P. Fogel, Sidley Austin LLP, Raleigh C. Thompson, Morris Law Group & Walter C. Carlson, Sidley Austin LLP. William P. Weidner, Defendant, represented by Daniel Scott Carlton, Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice, Sarah Kelly-Kilgore, Paul Hastings LLP, pro hac vice, Tamara Beatty Peterson, Peterson Baker, PLLC, William F. Sullivan, Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, pro hac vice & Courtney A. Hoffmann, Sidley Austin LLP. LEHMAN BROTHERS: High Court Agrees to Consider CalPERs Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Hurley at Reuters reports the U.S. Supreme Court on January 13 agreed to resolve a legal dispute over whether certain securities class action lawsuits can be barred because they were filed too late. The justices agreed to hear an appeal filed by the California Public Employees' Retirement System seeking to revive a lawsuit against various financial institutions over their alleged role in the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The retirement system, known as Calpers, was part of extensive litigation against Lehman and its former directors following the bank's 2008 collapse, which contributed to that year's global financial crisis. Investors said underwriters helped perpetuate misstatements about Lehman's finances leading up to its historic downfall. Calpers opted out of a $417 million settlement reached in 2011 between investors and multiple defendants, including Bank of America Corp and Morgan Stanley, preferring to pursue its own case separately. In a July 2016 ruling, the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge's decision to dismiss the lawsuit. The legal fight is over whether Calpers waited too long after the bank's collapse to sue or whether the three-year window for suing was put on hold because of the other related lawsuits that had been filed prior to the settlement. Lower courts are split on the question of whether the window for filing certain securities claims is suspended if investors can show they would have been parties in a previously filed class action lawsuit had it not been dismissed The legal issue was presented to the court in a 2014 case it agreed to hear concerning claims against underwriters of securities issued by a unit of the now-defunct IndyMac Bancorp Inc under the Securities Act. The court never decided the case because the parties settled, meaning it was dismissed before a ruling was issued. LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Tosses Bid to Appeal Remand Order ---------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit dismissed a petition for permission to appeal the district court's remand order and vacated the district court's fee award in the case captioned CHAN HEALTHCARE GROUP, PS, a Washington professional services corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee/Respondent, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE CO.; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, foreign insurance companies, Defendants-Appellants/Petitioners, Nos. 16-35210, 16-80019 (9th Cir.). Attorney David Breskin filed two offensive class action lawsuits in Washington state court. The first, filed in August 2015, was filed on behalf of Chan Healthcare Group, PS against Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, Inc. and Safeco Insurance Company of America (collectively "Safeco"). In early September 2015, Attorney David Breskin filed an offensive class action lawsuit in Washington state court on behalf of Chan Healthcare Group, PS against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (collectively, "Liberty"). The complaint alleged that Liberty's use of the FAIR Health database to set reimbursement amounts to medical providers violates various Washington statutes. All parties agreed that, on the face of the complaint, there was no basis for federal jurisdiction. Liberty asserted that things changed when Chan filed its reply brief on its motion for declaratory relief. In the initial motion, filed on October 2, 2015, Chan sought a declaratory judgment that the settlement reached in a separate class action lawsuit filed by Lebanon Chiropractic Clinic, P.C. in Illinois state court was unenforceable in Washington. After Liberty responded that it "might elect simply to forego raising Lebanon as a defense in this case," Chan argued in its October 26, 2015 reply that "the Lebanon agreement could not be applied to bar Chan's Washington [state law] claim against [Liberty] consistent with Chan's due process rights." On the basis of Chan's reply brief, Liberty removed the case to federal court two days later, on October 28, 2015. Liberty explained that Chan's reply brief revealed that Chan was raising a standalone federal due process claim, thus creating federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. section 1331. Because Liberty contended that Chan first raised the federal question in the litigation in its reply brief, Liberty argued that its removal fell "within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable." Based on various papers received and filings made in the case and other cases more than 30 days before Liberty removed, Chan challenged the timeliness of Liberty's removal. Chan also argued that there was no federal question jurisdiction because its federal due process claim was not raised as an affirmative claim, but instead in response to Liberty's assertion of the Illinois settlement as a defense. The district court granted Chan's motion to remand the case to state court based solely on the ground that removal was untimely. The court explicitly declined to reach whether federal question jurisdiction was present. The court also awarded fees to Chan, in the amount of $18,330.00, after finding that Liberty "had no objectively reasonable basis for removal, particularly given defense counsel's involvement with the related cases and their acknowledgments about the Chan motions made to the court in the Illinois appeal." Liberty petitioned for review of the district court's remand order and appealed the fee award. The Ninth Circuit dismissed Liberty's petition for permission to appeal. The appellate court concluded that the review provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 1453(c) are limited to class actions brought under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Thus, the Ninth Circuit concluded that it lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order in the class action predicated on federal question jurisdiction. Tbe Ninth Circuit, however, had jurisdiction to review the district court's award of fees to Chan. The appellate court noted that Liberty filed its notice of removal just two days after receiving Chan's reply brief, falling well within the 30-day time limit established by section 1446(b)(3). Because Liberty's notice of removal was not untimely, the appellate court found that Liberty's arguments on that score were objectively reasonable. Untimeliness was the sole basis for the district court's fee award. The Ninth Circuit thus vacated the district court's fee award and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion. A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's January 3, 2017 opinion is available at https://is.gd/EK2k0b from Leagle.com. Joshua S. Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- and Joseph C. Hansen -- jhansen@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, California; Russell R. Yager -- ryager@velaw.com -- Vinson & Elkins LLP, Dallas, Texas; John M. Silk -- silk@wscd.com -- Wilson Smith Cochran Dickerson, Seattle, Washington; for Defendants-Appellants/Petitioners. David Elliott Breskin -- dbreskin@bjtlegal.com -- and Cynthia J. Heidelberg -- cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com -- Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiff- Appellee/Respondent. LIFE PARTNERS: Plaintiffs Seek to Disqualify Goodman & Nekvasil --------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Casady at Law 360 reports the investors who are class- action plaintiffs in an adversary case in the Life Partners Holdings Chapter 11 told a Texas bankruptcy judge on January 12 to disqualify and sanction Goodman & Nekvasil PA because the firm sent out solicitation letters to Life Partners investors and lied to the court about it. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Russell F. Nelms in May approved a $1 billion settlement to resolve class-action litigation alleging that thousands of investors were duped into purchasing life insurance investments. The class-action plaintiffs told the court that the rules of professional conduct are clear, and that when the firm in the summer of 2015 sent solicitation letters to Life Partner investors - including at least two of the named plaintiffs in the adversary proceedings - it "engaged in improper and unethical" behavior in a "transparent attempt to flout long- standing ethical rules." The court should not be fooled by the firm's attempts to characterize the letter as investigatory in nature, the class told the court, because the premise that the firm would need to investigate before filing a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration proceeding against brokers "is a farce." "Compounding the above ethical violation, one of the law firm's named partners also violated the rules of professional conduct by failing to be honest and forthcoming in his representations to the court," the motion reads. "In responding to the court's direct question about whether the law firm did any kind of solicitation in connection with Life Partners, the law firm's partner (who, only a few months earlier, had authored and signed the letter), alternated between skirting the truth, feigned memory loss, and an attempt to gloss over the law firm's solicitation effort by characterizing the letter as 'investigatory.'" Name partner Kalju Nekvasil told Law360 on January 13 that he believes this motion was filed after his firm successfully had the court lower the class-action lawyers' attorney fees by more than $5 million, decreased from an initial request from the attorneys that exceeded $30 million. "Other similar motions have been filed in the past by the same law firm and denied by the court," he said. "And we believe that this motion will be similarly denied." The class-action plaintiffs said that during an August hearing on an objection to the settlement, the court asked Nekvasil whether he had conducted any solicitation in the case. According to the motion, which quotes from the proceeding, Nekvasil told the court that he "may have" but wasn't sure and that he could have "sent out an investigatory letter or a solicitation letter" but "did send out a letter at some point in time." He also told the court that he couldn't say whether the letters led to him representing any of the clients. The plaintiffs said they have learned that the firm sent letters in June and July 2015 to Life Partner investors that when read by "any reasonable person" would indicate the firm was available for hire in the underlying litigation. Disqualifying the firm will not affect its ability to represent investors in individual FINRA arbitration against third parties and will not negatively affect its clients, the class-action plaintiffs argued in seeking the "narrowly tailored sanction" it said is appropriate for the ethical violations described. According to online court records, firm attorneys Nekvasil and Stephen Krosschell are listed as counsel for 21 creditors. Counsel for the class-action plaintiffs did not return a phone call seeking comment on January 13. The class-action plaintiffs are represented by Keith L. Langston, -- klangston@langston-lawfirm.com -- of Langston Law Firm Counsel information for Goodman & Nekvasil PC wasn't available January 13. The case is In Re Life Partners Holdings Inc et al., case number 15-40289, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division. MDL 2670: Court Rules on Federal Issues in Antitrust Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss filed in the case captioned IN RE: PACKAGED SEAFOOD PRODUCTS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 15-MD- 2670 JLS (MDD) (S.D. Cal.). In 2015, dozens of actions were instituted in federal district courts across the nation seeking various forms of relief relying on the same factual predicate: an alleged antitrust conspiracy, in violation of the Sherman Act and state antitrust laws, regarding packaged seafood products. On December 9, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized pretrial proceedings to the district court in the Southern District of California. Several weeks later, the United States Government intervened in the action. The Court subsequently divided the plaintiffs into four groups: -- Direct Action Plaintiffs (DAPs), who are direct purchasers proceeding against the defendants individually; -- Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs), who are direct purchasers proceeding on behalf of a putative class; -- Indirect Purchaser Commercial Food Preparer Plaintiffs (CFPs), who are indirect purchasers proceeding on behalf of a putative class; and -- Indirect Purchaser End Payer Plaintiffs (EPPs), who are indirect purchasers proceeding on behalf of a putative class. The Court and the parties conferred at a November 29, 2016 Status Conference, and decided to bifurcate oral argument on the Motions to Dismiss according to the classification of "federal" versus "state" issues. The federal issues encompass: (1) the sufficiency of all relevant plaintiffs' allegations under the Sherman Act for monetary damages; (2) the sufficiency of all relevant plaintiffs' allegations under the Sherman Act for injunctive relief; (3) all relevant plaintiffs' standing to prosecute non-tuna claims; and (4) all statue-of-limitations issues related to the Sherman Act claims. The state-law issues will be the subject of a subsequent oral argument and corresponding order. The defendants effectively asserted three overarching arguments relevant to the federal issues: (1) all plaintiffs fail to state a plausible conspiracy claim under relevant Sherman Act provisions, as to: (a) packaged seafoods generally; (b) tuna specifically; and (c) an entitlement to injunctive relief; (2) CFPs, DPPs, EPPs, and various DAPs all fail to adequately establish Article III standing regarding their "packaged seafood" (i.e., non-tuna-based) claims; and (3) all plaintiffs' claims that accrued prior to 2011 are time barred because: (a) in the Ninth Circuit the injury, rather than discovery, rule applies to Sherman Act claims, and (b) no plaintiffs' allegations are saved by the tolling doctrine of fraudulent concealment. Judge Sammartino: (1) granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all relevant plaintiffs' allegations of a packaged-seafood conspiracy as to all but defendants Thai Union Group Public Company, Ltd. and Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC, pending resolution of the remaining motions to dismiss; (2) denied the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all plaintiffs' allegations of a tuna-specific conspiracy as to all but the W. Lee Flowers & Co.'s complaint, which remaining allegations concerning the defendants Thai Union Group and Tri-Union Seafood survive Twombly analysis, pending resolution of the remaining motions to dismiss; (3) granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all relevant plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief; (4) denied as moot all the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all relevant plaintiffs for lack of standing to prosecute non-tuna claims against all defendants except Thai Union Group and Tri-Union Seafoods; (5) granted all the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all relevant plaintiffs for lack of standing to prosecute non-tuna claims against Thai Union Group and Tri-Union Seafoods; and (6) granted the defendants' Motion to Dismiss all pre-2011 conspiracy allegations as time-barred for purposes of any Sherman Act claims. All denials and dismissals were without prejudice. A full-text copy of Judge Sammartino's January 3, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/T14Dpq from Leagle.com. Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bonny E. Sweeney -- bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Lesley E. Weaver -- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Irving Scher -- ischer@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP & Michael Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP. Beverly Youngblood, Plaintiff, represented by Susan Rogers Schwaiger -- sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. & Whitney E. Street -- whitney@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP. Pacific Groservice Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Barbara J. Hart -- bhart@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Mark I. Labaton, Motley Rice LLP & Sung-Min Lee -- slee@lowey.com -- Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C.. Capitol Hill Supermarket, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow -- joel@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan W. Cuneo -- jonc@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Maxwell M. Blecher -- mblecher@blechercollins.com -- Blecher and Collins, Michael James Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP & Peter Gil-Montllor -- pgil-montllor@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP. Louise Ann Davis Matthews, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly A. Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group. James Walnum, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Micheletti, Zelle LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle LLP & Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP. Colin Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Chad Saunders, The Kralowec Law Group, Kathleen Styles Rogers, The Kralowec Law Group & Kimberly A. Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group. Jennifer A. Nelson, Elizabeth Davis-Berg, Jessica Decker, Laura Childs, Nancy Stiller, Bonnie Vanderlaan, Kristin Millican, Plaintiffs, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred T. Isquith, Jr., Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Michell L. Kranz, ZOLL KRANZ & BORGESS LLC, Nancy A. Kulesa, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Trepco Imports and Distribution LTD, Plaintiff, represented by Abbas Kazerounian, Kazerounian Law Group, APC, Jason S. Hartley, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Robert G. Eisler, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., pro hac vice & Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., pro hac vice. Jinkyoung Moon, Clarissa Simon, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP. Corey Norris, Nigel Warren, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Kirby McInerney LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Amy Joseph, Plaintiff, represented by Gayle M. Blatt, Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP, Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Sharon A. Harris, Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C.. Steven M. Colberg, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Micheletti, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle LLP & Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP. Michael Juetten, Carla Lown, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher T. Micheletti, Zelle LLP, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Truyen Ton-Vuong, Plaintiff, represented by Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Nicholas and Tomasevic. A-1 Diner, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Maxwell M. Blecher, Blecher and Collins, Michael James Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP & Peter Gil-Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP. Dwayne Kennedy, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Shpetim Ademi, Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Rick Musgrave, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas, Finkelstein Thompson, LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Dutch Village Restaurant, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Maxwell M. Blecher, Blecher and Collins, Michael James Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP & Peter Gil-Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP. Lisa Burr, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic, Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Nicholas and Tomasevic, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice & Kirk B. Hulett, Hulett Harper Stewart. Larry Demonaco, Ellen Pinto, Robby Reed, Blair Hysni, Dennis Yelvington, Plaintiffs, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic, Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Nicholas and Tomasevic, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP & Kirk B. Hulett, Hulett Harper Stewart. Michael Buff, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M. Tomasevic, Nicholas and Tomasevic LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Nicholas and Tomasevic, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Kirk B. Hulett, Hulett Harper Stewart & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Kathy Durand Gore, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly A. Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Thomas E. Willoughby III, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St. & Thomas James McKenna, Gainey McKenna & Egleston. Robert Fragoso, Samuel Seidenburg, Michael Coffey, Jason Wilson, Plaintiffs, represented by Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Janelle Albarello, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Jade Canterbury, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson Louise Oliver, Oliver Law Group P.C., pro hac vice, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St.. Nay Alidad, Barbara Buenning, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Galyna Andrusyshyn, Robert Benjamin, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP & Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice. Danielle Greenberg, Sheryl Haley, Gabrielle Kurdt, Erica Pruess, Seth Salenger, Harold Stafford, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice & Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP. Lisa Hall, Tya Hughes, Marissa Jacobus, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Carl Lesher, Sarah Metivier Schadt, Karren Fabian, Plaintiffs, represented by Stuart George Gross, Gross & Klein, LLP. Greg Stearns, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart George Gross, Gross & Klein, LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Melissa Bowman, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Francis A. Bottini, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St.. Vivek Dravid, Jody Cooper, Danielle Johnson, Joseph A. Langston, Liza Milliner, Jody Cooper, Vivek Dravid, Plaintiffs, represented by Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Francis A. Bottini, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St.. Herbert H. Kliegerman, Beth Milliner, Joseph A. Langston, Plaintiffs, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Francis A. Bottini, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St.. Jeffrey Potvin, Plaintiff, represented by Paula R. Brown, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, Peter G. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, pro hac vice, Roger Sachar, Morgan & Morgan, P.C., Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP. Stephanie Gipson, Plaintiff, represented by Paula R. Brown, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, Peter G. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, pro hac vice, Roger Sachar, Morgan & Morgan, P.C., Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, Timothy Gordon Blood, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Barbara Lybarger, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP, Fred Taylor Isquith, Sr., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Marisa C. Livesay, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Shiho Yamamoto, Pritzker Levine LLP, Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Scott Caldwell, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Micheletti, Zelle LLP, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Zelle LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Ramon Ruiz, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis James Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP. Thyme Cafe & Market, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by John H. Donboli, Del Mar Law Group, LLP & Peter Gil-Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP. Harvesters Enterprises, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA, Don Barrett, Barrett Law Office, PA, Katherine Barrett Riley, BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA & Peter Gil-Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP. Affiliated Foods, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher, Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Johnny K. Merritt, Mullin Hoard and Brown, Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer, Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Richard J. Kilsheimer, Law Offices of Richard J. Kilsheimer, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer and Fox, pro hac vice & Timothy Clark Williams, Sprouse Shrader Smith PLLC. Piggly Wiggly Alabama Distributing Co., Inc., on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Louis Kessler, Kaplan Fox and Kilsteimer, Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett and Cera & Thomas C. Bright, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP. Elizabeth Twitchell, Tina Grant, John Trent, Brian Levy, Sterling King, Evelyn Olive, Sunde Daniels, Sally Crnkovich, Plaintiffs, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred Taylor Isquith, Sr., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Marisa C. Livesay, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Louise Adams, Marc Blumstein, Jessica Breitbach, Paul Berger, Plaintiffs, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred Taylor Isquith, Sr., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Marisa C. Livesay, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St. & Thomas H. Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Barbara Blumstein, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St.. Mary Hudson, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Heidi Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., pro hac vice, Marisa C. Livesay, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Diana Mey, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Micheletti, Zelle LLP, Eric B. Snyder, BAILEY GLASSER LLP, Jiangxiao Athena Hou, ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP, Judith Zahid, ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP, Katherine E. Charonk, BAILEY GLASSER LLP, Michael S. Christian, ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Associated Grocers of New England, Inc., Associated Food Stores, Inc., Associated Grocers, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer & Mario Man- Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP. North Central Distributors, LLC, Cash-Wa Distributing Co. of Kearney, Inc., URM Stores, Inc., Western Family Foods, Inc., McLane Company, Inc., Meadowbrook Meat Company, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer & Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP. Giant Eagle, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bernard Marcus, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Brian Hill, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Erin Gibson Allen, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Johnny K. Merritt, Mullin Hoard and Brown, Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer, Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Matthew P. McCahill, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Moira Cain-Mannix, Marcus & Shapira LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, pro hac vice & Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer and Fox, pro hac vice. Bi-Lo Holding, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Harold Timothy Gillis, Gillis Way & Campbell, LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Nancy A. Johnson, Gillis Way & Campbell, LLP & Patrick J. Ahern, Ahern and Associates, P.C.. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Harold Timothy Gillis, Gillis Way & Campbell, LLP, Nancy A. Johnson, Gillis Way & Campbell, LLP & Patrick J. Ahern, Ahern and Associates, P.C.. Janet Machin, Plaintiff, represented by Marcus Neil Bozeman, Thrash Law Firm, Peter Gil-Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP & Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm. Debra L. Damske, John Peychal, Virginia Rakipi, Scott Dennis, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Szot, Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Matthew E. Van Tine, Miller Law LLC & Shpetim Ademi, Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP. Ken Dunlap, Barbara E. Olson, Casey Christensen, Brian Depperschmidt, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Szot, Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Matthew E. Van Tine, Miller Law LLC, Shpetim Ademi, Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Adam Buehrens, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Szot, Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Matthew E. Van Tine, Miller Law LLC & Shpetim Ademi, Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP. Amy E Waterman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Szot, Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC & Matthew E. Van Tine, Miller Law LLC. Central Grocers, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Louis Kessler, Kaplan Fox and Kilsteimer, Matthew Sinclair Weiler, Dewey Ballantine, Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett and Cera & Thomas C. Bright, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP. Associated Grocers of Florida, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice & Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett and Cera. Benjamin Foods LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Dana Statsky Smith, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Joseph N. Kiefer, Quinn Emanuel Urqhart Sullivan LLP, Sami H. Rashid, Quinn Emanuel Urqhart Sullivan LLP & Stephen Randall Neuwirth, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP. Albertsons Companies, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Arnold, Law Offices of Alan Arnold, Douglas H. Patton, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Frederick William Kosmo, Jr., Wilson Turner Kosmo LLP, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Kevin Murray, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice & William Jay Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice. H.E. Butt Grocery Company, Hy-Vee, Inc., The Kroger Co., Plaintiffs, represented by Douglas H. Patton, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Jalaine Garcia, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Kevin Murray, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, Richard Alan Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice, Samuel J. Randall, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice & William Jay Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter Seymour Arnold Critchlow and Spector, pro hac vice. Lesgo Personal Chef LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Dewitt M. Lovelace, Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., pro hac vice & Peter Gil- Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP. Kathy Vangemert, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla, Amelia F. Burroughs, Janssen Malloy LLP, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla & W Timothy Needham, Janssen Malloy Needham Morrison and Koshkin. Edy Yee, Plaintiff, represented by Gerald Maltz, Haralson, Miller, Pitt, Feldman & McAnally, P.L.C., Patrick Bradford Clayton, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla & Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla. Christopher Todd, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Brittany Nicole DeJong, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Fred Taylor Isquith, Sr., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Marisa C. Livesay, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St. & Thomas C. Bright, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP. Publix Super Markets, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alberto Rodriguez, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C., David Germaine, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C., Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C. & Paul Ethan Slater, Sperling & Slater, P.C.. Wakefern Food Corp., Meijer Distribution, Inc., Meijer, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by Alberto Rodriguez, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C., David Germaine, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C. & Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C.. Jade Canterbury, Plaintiff, represented by Alyson Louise Oliver, Oliver Law Group P.C., pro hac vice, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St.. Laura Childs, Elizabeth Davis-Berg, Jessica Decker, Bonnie Vanderlaan, Amy Jackson, Katherine McMahon, Jonathan Rizzo, Joelyna A. San Agustin, Rebecca Lee Simoens, David Ton, Plaintiffs, represented by Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Sunde Daniels, Christopher Todd, Plaintiffs, represented by Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St.. Mary Hudson, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz, Carl Malmstrom, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC, Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Theodore Bell, One South Dearborn St.. Nancy Stiller, Plaintiff, represented by Betsy Carol Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. & Susan Rogers Schwaiger, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C.. John Gross & Company, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP & Jill M. Manning, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP. W Lee Flowers & Co Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Halligan Black, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, Manton McCutchen Grier, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd & Robert Y. Knowlton, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd. Affiliated Foods Midwest Cooperative, Inc., Brookshire Brothers, Inc., Brookshire Grocery Company, Certco, Inc., Unified Grocers, Inc., WOODMAN'S FOOD MARKET, INC., Affiliated Foods Plaintiffs, Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer. SIMON-HINDI, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by John H. Donboli, Del Mar Law Group, LLP & Peter Gil-Montllor, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP. FAREWAY STORES, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer, Thomas D. Mauriello, Mauriello Law Firm APC, Bernard Marcus, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Elana Katcher, Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer, Erin Gibson Allen, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Johnny K. Merritt, Mullin Hoard and Brown, Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Matthew P. McCahill, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Moira Cain-Mannix, Marcus & Shapira LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Richard J. Kilsheimer, Law Offices of Richard J. Kilsheimer & Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer and Fox, pro hac vice. WOODMAN'S FOOD MARKET, INC., Plaintiff, Pro se, Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer, Mario Man-Lung Choi, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP, Thomas D. Mauriello, Mauriello Law Firm APC, Bernard Marcus, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Elana Katcher, Kaplan Fox Kilsheimer, Erin Gibson Allen, Marcus & Shapira LLP, Gregory K. Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Johnny K. Merritt, Mullin Hoard and Brown, Matthew P. McCahill, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Moira Cain-Mannix, Marcus & Shapira LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lyle Coffman, The Coffman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Richard J. Kilsheimer, Law Offices of Richard J. Kilsheimer & Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer and Fox, pro hac vice. Sam's East, Inc., Sam's West, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, LLC, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Wal-Mart Stores Texas, LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew King, Kutak Rock LLP, Jess L. Askew, III, KUTAK ROCK LLP & Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew King, Kutak Rock LLP, Jess L. Askew, III, KUTAK ROCK LLP, Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey, Ryan Caughey, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice & Vineet Bhatia, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice. United States Department of Justice, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie A. Wulff, U.S. Deparment of Justice, Antitrust Division, Manish Kumar, U.S. Department of Justice & Tai Milder, Antitrust Division US Department of Justice. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Defendant, represented by Courtney Byrd, O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, Edward David Hassi, O'Melveny & Meyers LLP, pro hac vice & Julia A. Schiller, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac vice. Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, King Oscar, Inc., Defendants, represented by Erik Raven-Hansen, Allen & Overy LLP, pro hac vice, John Roberti, Allen & Overy LLP, pro hac vice, John Terzaken, Allen & Overy LLP, pro hac vice, Keith R. Solar, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP, William E. White, Allen & Overy LLP & Robert J. Parks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP. Starkist Company, Defendant, represented by Ashley M. Bauer, Latham & Watkins, Belinda S. Lee, Latham and Watkins, Daniel M. Wall, Latham & Watkins & Niall E. Lynch, Latham & Watkins. Tri Marine International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine Susan Simonsen, Perkins Coie LLP & Shylah Renee Alfonso, Perkins Coie LLP, pro hac vice. Del Monte Foods Company, Defendant, represented by Barak Bassman, pro hac vice, Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Barak Bassman, pro hac vice, Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP, Barak Bassman, pro hac vice, Barbara Sicalides, Pepper Hamilton LLP, pro hac vice & Jeffrey Michael Goldman, Pepper Hamilton LLP. Thai Union Group Public Company, Defendant, represented by Robert J. Parks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP. Thai Union Group Public Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Robert J. Parks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP & Robert J. Parks, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney LLP. MODERNHEALTH HOLDINGS: Sued Ove Failure to Provide Meal Breaks -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Najarian and Eric Flores, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Modernhealth Holdings, Inc., Kroger Specialty Pharmacy, Inc., Kroger Specialty Pharmacy Holdings 2, Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC646727 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide an uninterrupted and duty-free 30-minute meal period. The Defendants own and operate multiple specialty pharmacies throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Micheile Iarusso, Esq. Nicholas Dagher, Esq. Allison Loevner, Esq. IARUSSO & DAGHER 64 N. Fair Oaks Ave. Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626)415-4422 Facsimile: (866)780-3984 MRS BPO: Faces "Nelson" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The case is styled as Natalie Nelson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00205 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2017). The Defendant is a debt collection agency. The Plaintiff appears pro se. NATIONAL MILK: Missouri Residents May Be Entitled For Some Cash --------------------------------------------------------------- Fox2 News reports Missouri is one of 15 states named in a class action lawsuit against the milk industry about price-fixing. Customers who purchased milk or other dairy products including cream, half & half, yogurt, cottage cheese, cream cheese, or sour cream from 2003 to the present could be entitled to a refund of $45 -- $70. The lawsuit accuses milk producers of killing off cows, to lower the supply of milk and keep costs high. An expert witness for the milk producers tells WITI-TV that while the program was used to stabilize prices, the reason was less cruel. More than 500,000 cows were slaughtered over 7 years as a way for the milk producers to sell off their farm. Other states in this class action lawsuit include Arizona, California, District of Columbia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. People in eligible states have through the end of the month to make a claim at BoughtMilk.com. Claims must be submitted online or by mail by January 31st. Fresh Milk Products Antitrust Litigation PO Box 43430 Providence, RI 02940-3430 The class action lawsuit resulted in a $52 million settlement with National Milk Producers Federation, aka Cooperatives Working Together (CWT), Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., Land O'Lakes, Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark, Inc. This antitrust lawsuit alleges a nationwide conspiracy by CWT and its members to limit the production of raw farm milk by prematurely slaughtering cows, in order to illegally increase the price of milk and other fresh milk products. Defendants deny any wrongdoing or liability for the claims alleged. NEW ORLEANS, LA: Deal Not 'Reachable' In 'Debtor Prison' Case ------------------------------------------------------------- KALB.com reported that settlement discussions have failed to bring about a resolution to a federal court case accusing New Orleans criminal court judges of unconstitutionally jailing poor people who cannot afford to pay court fees. The suit was filed in 2015 by six people who said they were locked up for owing court debts. Lawyers are seeking to make it a class action case that could affect hundreds of others. New Orleans criminal court judges are the defendants. U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph Wilkinson said in a filing that followed a mid-week status conference on the case that "no settlement appears reachable" in the case. No trial date has been set. NEW YORK: Class Status Granted in Illegal Detention Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Joel Stashenko at New York Law Journal reports qjudge has granted class-action status to potential plaintiffs whom New York City may have improperly jailed from 2009 to 2012, based on detention requests by federal immigration authorities. Bronx Supreme Court Justice Mitchell Danziger said evidence presented by the plaintiffs so far in Onadia v. City of New York, 0300340/2010, indicates that as many as 9,100 individuals may have been falsely incarcerated by the city's Department of Correction. All those individuals were jailed on civil detainers issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which authorizes holding arrestees for 48 hours after their scheduled release times in order to give immigration officials time to investigate the individual's immigration status. Attorneys for plaintiff Oscar Onadia estimate that the 9,100 individuals in the class were held for at least one day past the deadline set under the ICE civil detainer rules in effect from 2009 through December 2012. The average time spent by individuals in unauthorized detention was 14.4 days. More than 1,000 may have been held improperly for a month or more under ICE civil detainers, the plaintiffs said, citing estimates from an expert witness. On Jan. 9, Danzinger ruled that because of the numbers of potential plaintiffs involved, a class-action designation is the best way to sort out the plaintiff's contentions. He held that "common questions of law predominate the putative class," primarily, whether their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the detention. Matthew Brinkerhoff -- mbrinkerfhoff@ecbalaw.com -- and Debra Greenberger -- dgreenberger@ecbalaw.com -- partners at Emery Celli Brinkerhoff & Abady, are representing the plaintiffs along with Ameer Benno, the attorney who originally filed the case as an individual action on Onadia's behalf in 2010. In an interview, Brinkerhoff said it's extremely rare for a state judge to certify a class action against New York City in state court. He said the large number of individuals who "got held for days or weeks at a time with no probable cause or justification" is likely to expose the city to significant exposure to liability if the allegations of constitutional violations are ultimately upheld. According to Brinkerhoff, some of the alleged abuses may also date back to 2007 and 2008. Danzinger conceded that it will take some work to determine which plaintiffs can claim membership in the class, based on how ICE personnel filled out the civil detainer forms and how individuals were notified that the ICE investigation could result in their deportation. But the judge said that should not prevent the case from proceeding. "Defendant's complaint that it will be difficult to cull through thousands of inmate files to determine what detainer forms were used and what boxes were checked on such detainers does not create a basis for denying certifications," he wrote. He scheduled a March 1 status conference in the case. Onadia was arrested on Dec. 10, 2008, for unlicensed driving. During processing and arraignment, authorities discovered that he had a prior charge of unlicensed driving in April 2008, for which he served five days at Rikers Island. ICE filed a civil detainer, which notified the Department of Correction that it was checking on Onadia's immigration status. Despite language in the detainer saying he could be held only for 48 hours, excepting Saturdays, Sundays or holidays, Onadia said he was held illegally at Rikers Island until Jan. 23, 2009, or 42 days after expiration of the 48-hour period. The civil detainer rules are spelled out in Federal Regulations 8 DFR 287.2. Brinkerhoff said the wording of the ICE detainers has been modified several times, most recently in 2015. In addition, he said the New York City Council enacted the city's administrative code in 2011 to prohibit the continued holding of people under civil immigration detainers unless they can show that the individuals have been convicted of serious or violent crimes, or their names match those in a terrorist database. Assistant Corporation Counsel Chlarens Orsland represented the city. A statement from the city's Law Department on January 13 said that while it was continuing to review class certification and other issues in the Onadia ruling, the potential for "overbroad" federal immigration detainer requests has been removed by restrictions on the detainer program since the early 2010s and safeguards insisted on by the city. NIGERIA DEPOSIT: Former Bankers Sue Over Nonpayment of Gratuities ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ibrahim Apekhade Yusuf at The Nation reports that over 10,000 ex- staff of banks have sued the One of those convinced that Nigerians should adopt bitcoins is the Managing Director of the Nigeria Deposit Insurance Corporation (NDIC) and the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) over nonpayment of their N9.8billion gratuities 1 years after they were retrenched. The former bankers filed a class action suit through the Registered Trustees of the Association of Ex-Staff of Non- Consolidated Banks of Nigeria and all ex-staff of eight banks not consolidated in the banks consolidation exercise at the National Industrial Court, Lagos Judicial Division. Also joined in the suit are Ecobank Nigeria Plc, UBA Plc, Skye Bank Plc and Zenith Bank Plc. The claimants had instituted the cation on behalf of the ex-staff of eight banks including: Allstates Trust Bank, Assurance Bank, Eagle Bank, Gulf Bank, Hallmark Bank, Liberty Bank, Metrolpolitan Bank and Trade Bank respectively. A breakdown of the claimants' gratuities showed that Allstates and Hallmark Bank both acquired by Ecobank were owed over N7billion. Besides, UBA which acquired Gulf Bank, Liberty Bank, Metropolitan Bank and Trade Bank was owing ex-staff of the respective banks over N1.3bn just as Skye Bank and Zenith Banks were owing over N600m and N22million. At the inaugural hearing of the suit held at Court 2, presided over by Justice Benedict Kanyip over the weekend, the claimants' counsel recalled that following the N25billion recapitalisation benchmark set by the apex for banks under the 'Guidelines and Incentives on Consolidation in the Banking Industry,' the CBN had assured that those whose employment would be jeopardised as a consequence of the exercise will be paid their due entitlements in line with industry standards and even provided with soft loans to set up their small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs). The claimants' lawyer further averred that even the Act had imposed a duty upon the NDIC to ensure that acquiring banks take up the deposits and other liabilities of the acquired banks, including the terminal benefits of ex-staff. Regrettably, the acquiring banks implemented the act in breach by "cherry picking" and left out both the liabilities and staff benefits unattended to. Consequently, the claimants according to Omotilewa have had to suffer lots of privations including loss of lives, source of income to mention just a few as a result of the refusal of the defendants to redeem their promise to pay compensation due to them. "We're asking for the terminal benefits of the claimants simply because it is part of their fundamental human rights which should be enforced," he said. Justifying the need for the class action, Magnus Maduka, the chairman of the group, while addressing journalists said it was disheartening to note that over 100 members of the group have faced their untimely death as a result of the inhuman conditions they had been subjected to these past years. "We were trying to explore the possibility of not going to court at all these past years believing that the CBN and NDIC and the banks concerned would do the needful. But it does appear that we may have to wait forever and that is why we decided to take the matter before the court to get justice for all the affected parties," Maduka stressed. Justice Kanyip while taking the claimants pleas however observed that the court was not properly served. Specifically, Justice Kanyip said the court had no jurisdiction to decide the case because the umbrella body under which they were filing the class action was strictly within the purview of the Corporate and Allied Matters Act (CAMA), which is clearly at variance with the act setting up the NIS Act. Meanwhile, the four banks represented by Messrs Olusola Oyebowale, Jenifer Aburime, C.M Omeke and Adekola Isaac Olawoye had raised preliminary objections over irregularity of the suit filed by the claimants just as they argued that it was statute-barred. Speaking further, Justice Kanyip said the court could only take the claimants' pleas on a case-by-case basis and not as a group. He therefore moved for the adjournment to April 26th, 2017, since according to him, the face was just for mention. NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Gavrialov" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location. The case is captioned as Robin Gavrialov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Northstar Location Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00222 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2017), The Defendant provides full-service receivables debt collection solution. The Plaintiff is represented by: Igor B Litvak, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (646) 796 4905 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com NOVO NORDISK: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Novo Nordisk A/S securities (NVO) from April 30, 2015 through October 27, 2016, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Novo Nordisk investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Novo Nordisk class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1029.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 Novo Nordisk reported materially false and misleading earnings and forecasts in that they were inflated through the collusive price fixing of Novo Nordisk's insulin drugs. The lawsuit also alleges that Novo Nordisk misrepresented and concealed the true extent of the pricing pressures it was experiencing from pharmacy benefit managers. 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 March 13, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases-1029.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. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. OREGON: Benton County May Opt Out From Suit Against DoF ------------------------------------------------------- Bennett Hall at Corvallis Gazette-Times reports a town hall meeting will give local residents a chance to weigh in on whether Benton County should opt out of a $1.4 billion class action suit against the Oregon Department of Forestry for failing to maximize logging revenues. The town hall was organized by the Benton County Board of Commissioners to gauge public sentiment on the lawsuit, which was filed by Linn County in March on behalf of 15 Oregon counties and dozens of smaller taxing districts that receive revenues from timber harvests on state forest trust lands. "They really wanted to hear from the public and not make it simply a financial decision," said Lili'a Neville, public information officer for Benton County. Jan 17's meeting will begin with an overview of the lawsuit from Benton County Counsel Vance Croney. Mark Gourley of Starker Forests and Chris Smith of the North Coast State Forest Coalition will address the pros and cons of staying in or pulling out of the suit, with David Bernell, an associate professor of political science at Oregon State University, moderating the discussion. Two hours will be reserved for public comment, with individual speakers limited to three minutes apiece. The Linn County lawsuit revolves around a dispute over the management of about 650,000 acres of land that was transferred from county to state ownership starting in the 1930s. For the most part, the property was logged-over or fire-damaged timberland that counties had acquired through tax foreclosures. Under state law, the property is supposed to be managed for "the greatest permanent value to the state." The lawsuit argues that counties have lost out on hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue sharing in recent years as the Department of Forestry has shifted its management emphasis away from timber production in favor of environmental protection, recreation and other values. PALOS VERDES, CA: Lunada Bay Boys Could Face Suit for Harrassment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Papenfuss at Huffington Post reports a band of entitled surf bullies in Southern California have been placed on notice that their exclusive territorial attitude will be challenged on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The Lunada Bay Boys have a long history of harassing out-of-town surfers who head for the waves from "their" beach in Palos Verdes Estates, a wealthy Los Angeles suburb 16 miles south of Santa Monica. They have been the target of police crackdowns and two lawsuits by area residents who say the mostly white and wealthy "trust fund" surfriders have hijacked a Pacific Ocean beach that belongs to everyone. Hawaiian actor and former champion body boarder Christopher Taloa said he was subjected to "gang-style intimidation" and kicked twice in the face when he tried to ride the waves with friends at Palos Verdes Estates three years ago on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. "It's over. What's going on was way out of hand and I don't want to see it going on anymore," Taloa told the Daily Breeze. So Taloa is heading back to the beach again, this time with supporters to protest the intimidating Bay Boys. He's aiming for a fun day in the sun, with some people paddling out to the waves and others just enjoying the beach. "We're going to go out with the intention of enjoying the success of being able to get down there," said the 43-year-old Los Angeles actor, who has appeared in "Blue Crush," "Into the Blue" and "Knots." "We want that to be the main thing. We want to make sure that public access is safe for everyone - not just me, not just those guys, but everyone." The nonprofit Coastal Protection Rangers, dedicated to protecting public beach access, has been contacting families, community organizations and surfing groups about the event. "The response has been tremendous," board member Alicia Apostol told the Los Angeles Times. The Rangers and supporters sued Palos Verdes Estates last year and 10 alleged members of the Bay Boys in both state and federal court. The suit characterizes the Bay Boys as a criminal gang and accuses members of threats, vandalism, and assault. It charges that the city has done little to stop it. A court hearing set for Feb. 21 will determine whether the federal case will became a class-action lawsuit, which would allow more people to join the action. After months of pressure from the California Coastal Commission, the city finally demolished a stone-fort clubhouse in early December, which the Bay Boys had illegally constructed on the beach. During the work, unidentified vandals damaged workers' trucks at night and set fire to an air compressor. The city also recently began to negotiate with park rangers from the Santa Monica Mountain Conservancy for extra patrols. PARTY CITY HOLDCO: IPO Class Action Remains Pending in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Party City Holdco Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company continues to defend against the class action lawsuit related to the Company's IPO. The Company said, "On November 18, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Party City Holdco Inc. and certain executives as defendants. An Amended Complaint was filed on April 25, 2016, which named additional defendants. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with public filings related to the Company's April 2015 initial public offering ("IPO"). The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased stock in the initial public offering or who can trace their shares to that offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and costs." "The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this action. The Company is unable, at this time, to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition or cash flows." Party City Holdco is a party goods retailer. PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Feb. 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces a class action lawsuit against PayPal Holdings, Inc., eBay Inc., and certain of its officers concerning possible violations of federal securities laws. Investors who (1) purchased or otherwise acquired eBay securities on the open market on or after December 19, 2013 ("eBay Class Period") and then 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"), are advised to contact the firm prior to the February 27, 2017 lead plaintiff deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, 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 yet. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. PayPal is a technology company that offers digital and mobile payment transactions between merchants and customers. Between 2002 and 2015, PayPal was a subsidiary of eBay. eBay is an e-commerce company that offers consumer-to-consumer and business-to-consumer purchases and payments. Venmo is a mobile payment tool that allows users the opportunity to exchange payments from their bank accounts through their mobile phones. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: PayPal's Venmo service was allegedly participating in unfair trade practices; the announcement of the above allegations was likely to affect PayPal's profit on its Venmo service and/or thus, PayPal's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 28, 2016, PayPal Holdings Inc. announced that federal regulators are investigating its Venmo service regarding possible unfair trade practices after receiving a civil investigative demand on March 28 from the Federal Trade Commission (the "FTC") for Venmo documents. The FTC inquiry focuses on whether PayPal, through Venmo, participated in unfair or deceptive trade practices. The investigation "may result in substantial costs, including legal fees, fines, penalties and remediation expenses and actions and require us to change aspects of the manner in which we operate Venmo." When this information was revealed to the investing public, the value of PayPal stock dropped $0.89 per share and closed at $39.18 on April 29, 2016, causing investors harm. Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. PERRIGO COMPANY: Roofers' Pension Fund Suit in Early Stage ---------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that the case, Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al., is in an early stage. The Company said, "On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the District of New Jersey (Roofers' Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 14(e) against both defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the Company and the former executive to defend against the hostile takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleges that we provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016." "The case is in an early stage. Four different plaintiff groups have sought appointment as lead plaintiff/lead counsel. The court will decide who will represent the purported class. Once the court has chosen a lead plaintiff, the plaintiff will likely file an amended complaint and the defendants will then have an opportunity to make a motion to dismiss the case." Perrigo Company plc is a global over-the-counter ("OTC") consumer goods and specialty pharmaceutical company, offering patients and customers high quality products at affordable prices. PERRIGO COMPANY: "Wilson" Suit Consolidated with Roofers Action --------------------------------------------------------------- The case, Wilson v. Pata et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-04358 (D.N.J.), has been consolidated with a similar case, Roofers' Pension Fund, v. Papa et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02805 (D.N.J.), according to an order dated December 7, 2016. Following consolidation, the proceedings in the Wilson matter are dismissed. Judge Madeline C. Arleo, who presides over the Roofers' suit, issued the order. Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that, "On July 19, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities class action against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the District of New Jersey. (Wilson v. Papa, et al.) The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who sold put options on the Company shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016. In general, the allegations and the claims are the same as those made in the Roofers' Pension Fund case." "Subsequently, this shareholder filed papers in the Roofers' Pension Fund case as one of four candidates seeking to be named lead plaintiff or co-lead plaintiff in that case. The Wilson plaintiff also filed a motion to have the Wilson case consolidated with the Roofers' Pension Fund case. The court has not yet acted on the motion to consolidate or the motion for appointment as lead plaintiff." Perrigo Company plc is a global over-the-counter ("OTC") consumer goods and specialty pharmaceutical company, offering patients and customers high quality products at affordable prices. PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Class Suit Remains Stayed ------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 1, 2016, that a class action lawsuit in Israel remains stayed. The Company said, "On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a securities class action against the Company and five individual defendants: former CEO, Joseph Papa, our former Executive Vice President and General Manager of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, our Chief Executive Officer John Hendrickson, and our Board members Gary Kunkle, Jr. and Laurie Brlas alleging violations of Israeli law in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (Schwieger et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.)." "On June 15, 2016, Perrigo filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the securities class action pending in the New Jersey federal court. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. The Israeli court granted the motion on the same day, and the action is stayed. Perrigo Company plc is a global over-the-counter ("OTC") consumer goods and specialty pharmaceutical company, offering patients and customers high quality products at affordable prices. PETCO ANIMAL: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Wagner" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Wagner, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc., and Petco Holdings, Inc. LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00133 (D. Colo., January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants operate more than 1,150 specialty retail stores nationwide -- selling pet food, live animals, pet supplies and related goods and services -- including numerous stores within the State of Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 242 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael H. Reed, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: Seth@KlafterOlsen.com Fran@KlafterOlsen.com Michael.Reed@KlafterOlsen.com - and - Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Charles Gershbaum, Esq. Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com droth@rothandrothlaw.com cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com PFIZER INC: Updates on Celebrex and Bextra Litigation ----------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, provided updates on lawsuits related to Celebrex and Bextra. Beginning in late 2004, several purported class actions were filed in federal and state courts alleging that Pfizer and certain of our current and former officers violated federal securities laws by misrepresenting the safety of Celebrex and Bextra. In June 2005, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre- trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Pfizer Inc. Securities, Derivative and "ERISA" Litigation MDL-1688) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In March 2012, the court in the Multi-District Litigation certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased or acquired Pfizer stock between October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005. In May 2014, the court in the Multi-District Litigation granted Pfizer's motion to exclude the testimony of the plaintiffs' loss causation and damages expert. The Company said, "We subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of the litigation, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to submit an amended report by their expert." In July 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for leave to submit an amended report and granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims in their entirety. In August 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In April 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. In July 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve this matter for all defendants for $486 million, which was recorded in Other (income)/deductions -- net for the nine months ended October 2, 2016. The agreement is subject to final court approval, and the payment will be made in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The Company also said that beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014. In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payer cases, and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015. The Company said, "In October 2014 and March 2015, we filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' and end-payers' amended complaints, respectively. In November 2015, the District Court denied in part and granted in part our motion to dismiss the direct purchasers' amended complaint." "In February 2016, the District Court denied in part and granted in part our motion to dismiss the end-payers' amended complaint, and in August 2016, the District Court dismissed substantially all of the end-payer's remaining claims." PFIZER INC: Effexor-Related Suits in Pennsylvania Remain Stayed --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that the multi-district litigation, as well as the coordinated state court proceedings in California, related to Effexor have been administratively stayed. A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the purported ingestion of Effexor. Among other types of actions, the Effexor personal injury litigation includes actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result of the purported ingestion of Effexor by women during pregnancy. Plaintiffs in these birth- defect actions seek compensatory and punitive damages. In August 2013, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Effexor (Venlafaxine Hydrochloride) Products Liability Litigation MDL-2458) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Almost all plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their actions. The Multi-District Litigation, as well as the coordinated state court proceedings in California, have been administratively stayed. PFIZER INC: Bids to Dismiss Effexor XR End-Payors' Claims Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims in the New Jersey action related to Effexor XR. Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs have appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end- payer plaintiffs' remaining claims. PFIZER INC: Appeal in Zoloft Products Liability Case Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Pfizer Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that an appeal in the case, In re Zoloft Products Liability Litigation MDL-2342, remains pending. A number of individual lawsuits and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us and/or our subsidiaries in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury as a result of the purported ingestion of Zoloft. Among other types of actions, the Zoloft personal injury litigation includes actions alleging a variety of birth defects as a result of the purported ingestion of Zoloft by women during pregnancy. Plaintiffs in these birth-defect actions seek compensatory and punitive damages and the disgorgement of profits resulting from the sale of Zoloft. In April 2012, the federal birth-defect cases were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Zoloft Products Liability Litigation MDL-2342) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. A number of plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their actions. In April 2016, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims of almost all of the remaining plaintiffs. In May 2016, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. PFIZER INC: Suit Over Intravenous Saline Solution Underway ---------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 2, 2016, that a purported class action was filed in November 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Hospira, Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to intravenous saline solution. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of all persons and entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceases. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants' conduct restricts output and artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the prices of intravenous saline solution sold throughout the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws. The plaintiff seeks treble damages (for itself and on behalf of the putative class) and an injunction against defendants for alleged price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Barred From Using Current Liening Procedures -------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned LEA AUGUSTIN, GERARD AUGUSTIN, THOMAS McSORLEY, DONNA McSORLEY RICHMOND WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-CV-4238 (E.D. Pa.), Judge J. Curtis Joyner granted the plaintiffs' motion for entry of permanent injunctive relief against the City of Philadelphia and its wholly-owned gas utility, Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW). Plaintiffs moved to forever enjoin the City from filing any liens on real property where those liens are for unpaid gas services provided to PGW customers who do not own the property being liened using PGW's current methods for doing so. Judge Curtis found that the methods and procedures currently being followed by the City and PGW, for placing municipal liens on realty for its customers' unpaid gas bills constitute a taking of property without due process of law in violation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when the real estate being liened belongs to someone or some entity other than the holder of the delinquent gas account. The judge also found that the plaintiffs are suffering irreparable harm in that the City's current liening practices do not afford them any opportunity to address tenant delinquencies or mitigate accumulating arrearages in a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner and so as to prevent arrearages from causing their properties to be "lien eligible." The judge found that the plaintiffs also stand to suffer irreparable harm in the event that the City should elect to begin taking affirmative steps to collect on its liens by, inter alia, forcing liened properties to be sold. Further, in the absence of a court order, the City will continue to violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights by continuing to utilize its current liening practices. Judge Curtis also found that although the City and all of its gas service customers would suffer harm in the event it is permanently enjoined from employing its current liening procedures, that harm would be temporary and is not irreparable, because the City is free to develop new methods and procedures for placing gas liens on real estate pursuant to the Pennsylvania Municipal Claim and Tax Lien Law, which satisfy the constraints of Constitutional due process and may thereafter resume liening. In addition, the judge found that the balance of harms weigh in favor of the plaintiffs in that the granting of a permanent injunction would result in significantly less harm to the City as the non-moving party than the plaintiffs would suffer by its denial. Lastly, Judge Curtis held that the public interest is always served when the dictates of the United States Constitution are followed and constitutional rights are vindicated. The judge therefore found that public interest is thus served by permanently enjoining the City from continuing to violate the rights of a large number of its property owners. Judge Curtis thus concluded that the extreme remedy of a permanent injunction is warranted in this case. A full-text copy of Judge Joyner's January 4, 2017 decision is available at https://is.gd/QWqnc3 from Leagle.com. LEA AUGUSTIN, GERARD AUGUSTIN, THOMAS MCSORLEY, DONNA MCSORLEY, RICHMOND WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL PARK, LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by IRV ACKELSBERG, LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC, EDWARD A. DIVER, LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC, JOHN J. GROGAN, LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC & SETH KREIMER. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Defendant, represented by JEFFREY M. SCOTT -- jscott@archerlaw.com -- ARCHER & GREINER, JOHN C. CONNELL -- jconnell@archerlaw.com -- ARCHER & GREINER, P.C. & REBECCA LYNNE RAKOSKI -- rrakoski@archerlaw.com -- ARCHER & GREINER, PC. PROG LEASING: Faces "Rumpf" Suit in District of Arizona ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Prog Leasing LLC. The case is titled as Jay Rumpf, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Prog Leasing LLC, doing business as Progressive Leasing, and Unknown Parties named as DOES 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00111-GMS (D. Ariz., Jan. 13, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge G Murray Snow. Prog Leasing p specializes in no credit needed lease purchase options. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trinette G Kent, Esq. KENT LAW OFFICES 10645 N Tatum Blvd., Ste. 200-192 Phoenix, AZ 85028 Telephone: (480) 247 9644 Facsimile: (480) 717 4781 E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com QUALITY INN: "Strickland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Strickland, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Quality Inn at the Mall, Case No. 7:17-cv-00010-WLS (M.D. Ga., January 13, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid wages, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Quality Inn at the Mall operates a hotel located at 1705 Gornto Rd, Valdosta, GA 31601. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adian Miller, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 191 Peachtree Street, N.E. Suite 4200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 496-7332 Facsimile: (404) 496-7428 E-mail: ARMiller@forthepeople.com QUICKEN LOANS: Faces Suit Over Unsolicted Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Joseph at Daily Business Review reports Quicken Loans Inc. reportedly doesn't know when to quit--at least according to a lawsuit by a man claiming he asked the company 264 times to stop texting him. And in a separate suit, a second plaintiff filed a class action claiming representatives of the Michigan-based mortgage lender repeatedly called his cellphone looking for another man. "It's frustrating, to say the least," said South Florida attorney Marc Wites, of Wites & Kapetan in Lighthouse Point, who represents both plaintiffs in cases pending in federal court. In one case, litigant Roberto L. Cruz signed up for rate alerts before closing on a mortgage with Quicken Loans in July 2015. When he continued to receive alerts a month after closing, Cruz followed the messages' instructions for unsubscribing and texted back, "STOP." But the messages continued, flooding in despite calls and texts to terminate the service during a roughly 15-month period between August 2015 and November 2016. "What does 'stop' mean?" asked Wites, who said his firm extracted 319 Quicken text messages from Cruz's phone. "It said to send 'stop' to unsubscribe. Well he did, over and over and over again." Quicken Loans electronically sends mortgage rate updates on a daily or weekly basis to subscribers who request the service. Since its launch in 1985, the company has grown into the largest online retail mortgage lender in the U.S. and a leading lender through the Federal Housing Administration and Department of Veteran Affairs. It closed more than $200 billion in mortgage loans since 2013, according to marketing materials. "We take a very principled approach to how we litigate here at Quicken Loans, as we do with all client issues," Quicken Loans' associate corporate counsel Shawn Solon said. "Every [Telephone Consumer Protection Act] class action that has been filed against us, that is not pending, has been dismissed with prejudice. We don't settle cases on a class-wide basis." The company has not seen the new complaints but Solon said it intends to fight the suits. TCPA cases have become a cottage industry in the U.S., where telemarketing efforts have quadrupled since 1984 and more than 300,000 solicitors contact prospective clients on a daily basis- data that prompted Congress to pass the consumer protection legislation in 1991. But while times have changed and most consumers are no longer subject to pay-per-minute cellphone rates, plaintiffs attorneys continue to bring suits without proof of harm, Solon said. "They plan these lawsuits against major companies and the name of the game is settling on a class-wide basis," he said. "We are going to stand up for what's right." Meanwhile, recent lawsuits claim the firm's marketing and debt collection practices contravene the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act's requirement of express written consent for autodialed calls or those using recorded messages. A class action pending before U.S. District Judge James S. Moody Jr. in the Middle District of Florida alleges Quicken Loans placed multiple wrong-number robocalls to plaintiff Richard Toney's cellphone, beginning in October. It claims the callers used an automated dialer to initiate phone calls meant to track down a man named Charles. "Beep, beep, beep," went the recording in a voicemail left on Toney's phone and quoted in the Jan. 3 complaint. "Hi Richard. This (is) Barney calling from Quicken Loans. This message is for Charles. I have a very important update about his mortgage inquiry. Please have him give me a call back on my direct line at 480.305.9811 or toll-free at 866.349.8543. I look forward to your call today. Thank you." Toney and Cruz's lawyers are Wites and Lighthouse Point attorney Steven C. Holzman -- info@wklawyers.com RAIDER PRESSUE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Stovall" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carl Stovall, Kyle Benton, Angel Garza, Jarred Kinney, Robert Perdue, Jr. and Ladon Titus, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Raider Pressure Pumping, LLC and Kyle Lewis, Case No. 7:17-cv-00007 (W.D. Tex., January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 during each seven-day workweek. Raider Pressure Pumping, LLC maintains multiple district houses/yards in Texas from which it offers pressure pumping services to the oilfield industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Rogers, Esq. Alyssa S. Turner, Esq. ROGERS, LLP 409 West 4th Street, Ste. 102 Post Office Box 2530 Weatherford, TX 76086 Telephone: (817) 341-9300 Facsimile: (817) 341-9301 E-mail: john.rogers@rogersllp.com alyssa.turner@rogersllp.com RESONANT INC: September 2017 Trial Date Set in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Resonant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in a securities class action lawsuit are engaged in discovery, and the court has set a trial date of September 19, 2017. An docket entry dated October 24, 2016 in one of the cases, John Devouassoux v. Resonant Inc. et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02054 (C.D. Cal.), states that jury trial will be held September 19, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. and a pre-trial conference will be held September 11 at 9:00 a.m. The Company said, "Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, naming us, Terry Lingren and John Philpott as defendants. The three lawsuits were consolidated into a single putative class action, In re Resonant Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-01970 SJO (MRWx), and the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs." "On September 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint purporting to assert claims under the federal securities laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. On February 8, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss with leave to amend. "On February 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second amended complaint. In the consolidated second amended complaint, the plaintiffs purport to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of our common stock between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015, as well as a class of persons or entities who purchased or acquired our shares in (or traceable to) our IPO. The plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought in the action. "On March 22, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint. On July 11, 2016, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss. The court granted our motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The court also granted our motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5 thereunder to the extent those claims are premised on alleged misstatements made on February 26, 2015. "The court denied our motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and with respect to plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder to the extent those claims are premised on alleged misstatements made in November and December of 2014 and January of 2015. As a result of the court's order, there are no remaining claims pending against the underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. "On October 26, 2016, the court issued an order clarifying its July 11, 2016 order on our motion to dismiss, making clear that the court's actual intent was to grant the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, while denying the motion to dismiss with respect to the claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. "On August 8, 2016, we filed a motion asking the court to certify for immediate appeal its order denying our motion to dismiss, and to stay the proceedings pending any such appeal. The court denied that motion on September 6, 2016. "We filed our answer to plaintiffs' second consolidated amended complaint on August 12, 2016. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and the court has set a trial date of September 19, 2017." Resonant is a late-stage development company that is creating an innovative software , intellectual property, or IP, and services platform that has the ability to increase designer efficiency, reduce the time to market and lower unit costs in the designs of filters for radio frequency, or RF, front-ends for the mobile device industry. ROSS STORES: No Arbitration for "Hernandez" Dispute, Court Says --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned MARTINA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ROSS STORES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, No. E064026 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two upheld the trial court's denial of Ross Stores, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration. Martina Hernandez was employed at a Ross warehouse in Moreno Valley. She filed a single-count representative action under the California Private Attorney General Act, Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (PAGA) alleging Ross had violated numerous Labor Code laws, and sought to recover PAGA civil penalties for the violations. Ross insisted that Hernandez must first arbitrate her individual disputes showing she was an "aggrieved party" under PAGA and then the PAGA action could proceed in court. The trial court found, relying on Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 387 that the PAGA claim was a representative action brought on behalf of the state and did not include individual claims. As such, it denied the motion to compel arbitration because there were no individual claims or disputes between Ross and Hernandez that could be separately arbitrated. On appeal, Ross raised the issue of whether under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) an employer and employee have the preemptive right to agree to individually arbitrate discreet disputes underlying a PAGA claim while leaving the PAGA claim and PAGA remedies to be collectively litigated under Iskanian. The Court of Appeals of California found that the dispute between Ross and Hernandez is not a dispute between the employer and employee. Rather, the appellate court found that it is a representative action and Hernandez is acting on behalf of the state. The appellate court found that the dispute does not involve an individual claim by Hernandez regarding the Labor Code violations but rather an action brought for civil penalties under PAGA for violating the Labor Code, and that there are no "disputes" between the employer and employee as stated in the arbitration policy. The appellate court thus held that the trial court properly determined it had no authority to order arbitration of the PAGA claim. Moreover, the Court of Appeals of California held that there is no authority supporting Ross's argument that an employer may legally compel an employee to arbitrate the individual aspects of his PAGA claim while maintaining the representative claim in court. The appellate court further held that requiring an employee to litigate a PAGA claim in multiple forums would thwart the public policy of PAGA to "empower employees to enforce the Labor Code" on behalf of the state. The appellate court thus concluded that the trial court properly denied the motion. A full-text copy of the appellate court's January 3, 2017 order is available at https://is.gd/XYRgbL from Leagle.com. Wolflick & Simpson, David B. Simpson -- dave@wolfsim.com -- and Gregory D. Wolflick -- greg@wolfsim.com -- for Defendant and Appellant. Law Offices of Neal J. Fialkow, Neal J. Fialkow and James S. Cahill for Plaintiff and Respondent. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Home Washing Machines -------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry Wells, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Case No. 5:17-cv-00046-D (W.D. Ok., January 13, 2017), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Samsung home washing machines, which have an inherently dangerous defect -- they "explode' or suffer catastrophic failure during a given machine's normal usage because of a design defect and manufacturing flaw. The Defendants supply consumer electronics and digital products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com SANTANDER CONSUMER: Debt Collection Suit Reviewed After Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Chung at Reuters reports the U.S. Supreme Court on January 13 agreed to decide whether firms collecting on debt they bought for pennies on the dollar can be held liable in lawsuits brought by debtors they targeted under a federal law cracking down on debt collectors' abusive practices. The justices agreed to review a lower court's decision to dismiss a consumer class action lawsuit against Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc (SC.N) over allegations it violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Companies that buy delinquent debt from the original lenders and then go out and collect it from the borrowers are becoming a fast- growing segment of the multibillion-dollar debt collection industry. The case taken by the high court could have a major impact on these debt buyers. The U.S. Congress enacted the debt collection law in 1977 to prohibit collectors from using abusive, unfair or deceptive practices to recoup money. The current case hinges on the definition of "creditor" and "debt collector" and whether a company that buys debt should be treated as a creditor and therefore not subject to the law. Four Maryland residents who defaulted on car loans filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Santander in 2012 in federal court alleging violations of the debt collection law, such as misrepresenting debt loads and bypassing debtors' lawyers. The debts had been sold to Santander, a Dallas-based vehicle- financing and lending company owned in part by a subsidiary of Banco Santander (SAN.MC), the euro zone's second-largest bank by market value. Santander then tried to collect on the loans. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia threw out the lawsuit last March, saying the law applied only to debt collectors, and Santander became a creditor when it purchased the loans. The Maryland residents told the Supreme Court the 4th Circuit's reasoning would "hamper both government and private efforts to combat abusive debt-collection practices." They also noted that appeals courts are divided nationwide on the issue, with some calling debt buyers creditors and others calling them debt collectors. Santander told the high court that the 4th Circuit correctly interpreted the law and that full-service consumer banks are less likely to commit abuses than debt collection companies because of their standing in the community. The appeal to the Supreme Court comes as the U.S. watchdog for consumer finances, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is considering proposals to toughen regulation of the industry. The case is Ricky Henson et al v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc et al, in the Supreme Court of the United States, No. 16-349. SEQWATER: Flood Victims Still Wait for Settlement ------------------------------------------------- Joel Gould at Sunshine Coast Daily reports six years on from the 2011 floods and victims are still waiting for compensation from a multi-billion dollar class action. Maurice Blackburn lawyers filed a class action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on July 8, 2014 seeking compensation for financial loss and damage caused by the negligent operation of Wivenhoe and Somerset dams during the January 2011 flood in south- east Queensland. The hearing had been set down for the Supreme Court of NSW in Sydney on July 18 of last year, but was delayed. The class action has been launched by law firm Maurice Blackburn against Seqwater, Sun Water and the State of Queensland on behalf of 4500 Ipswich and Brisbane plaintiffs who lost homes and businesses in the 2011 floods. Cr Paul Tully, who lost his Goodna home in the floods, has reiterated his call for the action to be settled out of court by the Queensland Government before it gets to trial. "Last year the judge ordered the exchange of more material on both sides," Cr Tully said. "What it is leading to is a long, drawn out trial which could go for many months later this year or next year. "The only winners will be the lawyers, which is why I am urging the State Government again to consider settling the action." Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk told the QT last year that any decision about a settlement would be made by Crown Law and that she was not able to comment. Maurice Blackburn's website states that the class action is "being brought in negligence, against Seqwater, Sunwater and the State of Queensland. As the operators of Wivenhoe and Somerset Dams, they had a duty to operate the dams competently in order to minimise the impact of dam releases downstream." "The class action alleges that the negligent operation of the Wivenhoe and Somerset dams in the lead up to and during the 2011 flood significantly contributed to the extent and the level of flooding downstream of the dams and created a flood that was much worse than it would have been if the dams had been operated competently." The class action is being run on a no win, no fee basis. Many people in the Ipswich area are claimants and it is expected that a hearing could be heard later this year. There were 600 properties flooded in 2011 in Goodna, the highest number of any suburb in south-east Queensland. Cr Tully said there were just six flood damaged houses in Goodna that had no repairs done to them since the flood. "The community has come forward and regrown," he said. "It is a testament to the good will in the community how people have worked together. Six short years later most people have pretty well recovered from the flood." There is one home, in Woogaroo St, where there have been reports of squatters moving in. Squatting is not a criminal offence, unless a person breaks and enters with the intent of committing an indictable offence. Squatting is however a civil matter and a landlord can ask police to assist in evicting the squatters. Cr Tully said that the houses that remained in rack and ruin were generally owned by those who were not insured and hadn't been able to afford to restore them. SHAKE SHACK: Class Action Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shake Shack Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2016, that the Court has granted preliminary approval of a class action settlement. The Company said, "In November 2015, we met with a law firm representing two former Shake Shack managers who alleged that we improperly classified our restaurant managers as exempt. Although we have always believed that our managers are properly classified as exempt under both federal and state laws, and have always intended to defend any allegations to the contrary vigorously, we agreed to mediate the matter. At the conclusion of the meeting, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, and we agreed to create a fund of $750,000 to settle the matter. In exchange, all managers who choose to participate (former and current), including the two former managers, will release Shake Shack from all federal and/or state wage and hour claims that may exist through the settlement date." "As part of the settlement process, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement on March 11, 2016, and the law firm filed a Complaint on March 17, 2016 with the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the "Court"), a request for judicial intervention on March 19, 2016 and a motion seeking the Court's preliminary approval of the class action settlement on May 20, 2016. "On October 25, 2016, the Court issued its order granting the law firm's motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement. As of September 28, 2016, an accrual in the amount of $770,000 was recorded for this matter and the related expenses. Shake Shack is a modern day "roadside" burger stand serving a classic American menu of premium burgers, hot dogs, crinkle cut fries, shakes, frozen custard, beer and wine. As of September 28, 2016, there were 105 Shacks in operation, system-wide, of which 58 were domestic company-operated Shacks, six were domestic licensed Shacks and 41 were international licensed Shacks. SMARTHEALTH INC: Faces Scoma Chiropractic Suit in M.D. Fla. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smarthealth, Inc. The case is captioned as Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Smarthealth, Inc., Smarthealth Distribution Company, and John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00023-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., Jan. 13, 2017). SmartHealth distributes healthcare products and supplies for health care professionals in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 -1501 E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com SPARK ENERGY: Status Conference in "Melville" Suit on May 16 ------------------------------------------------------------ A status conference is scheduled for May 16, 2017, in the case, Melville v. Spark Energy, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08706 (D.N.J.). On November 15, 2016, Judge Robert B. Kugler entered an order granting the motion to dismiss, in part. On November 21, 2016, Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider rescheduled the Initial Scheduling Conference previously set for December 14, to January 19, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Spark Energy filed an answer to the Complaint on December 14, 2016. A Stipulated Discovery Confidentiality Order was entered by Magistrate Judge Schneider on January 19, 2017. On January 20, 2017, Magistrate Judge Schneider entered the Scheduling Order setting the Status Conference for May 16, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. before Judge Schneider. Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breached its contract with plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for himself and the purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees. On March 14, 2016, Spark Energy Gas, LLC and Spark Energy, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss this case. On April 18, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. On April 25, 2016, Spark Energy, Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a Reply in support of their Motion to Dismiss. The Motion to Dismiss was set on the Court's submission docket for May 2, 2016. "We cannot predict the outcome or consequences of this case," the Company said. Spark Energy, Inc. is a growing independent retail energy services company founded in 1999 that provides residential and commercial customers in competitive markets across the United States with an alternative choice for their natural gas and electricity. SUBWAY: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- Bradley Dlatt and Jason Gordon at JD Supra Business Advisor reports Subway scored a recent victory when a federal court dismissed a putative class action brought by two customers over a free sandwich promotion alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act after allegedly receiving a text message offering a free 6" Oven Roasted Chicken sub. Subway moved to compel arbitration, seeking to enforce the arbitration provision in the plaintiffs' contracts with their mobile phone carrier. The clause mandated arbitration for "any and all claims or disputes in any way related to or concerning this [agreement]." The plaintiffs could have opted out from the clause within 30 days of activating their phones. They did not. In granting Subway's motion, the court found that the text message was within the scope of the arbitration agreement, the agreement was not procedurally or substantively unconscionable, and that -- under California law -- equitable estoppel applied to allow Subway, a non-signatory of the arbitration agreement, to enforce the agreement. Because the court decided that all of the plaintiffs' claims must be sent to arbitration, the court exercised its discretion and dismissed the case. Takeaway: Companies who engage in direct marketing through consumer technology products should be mindful that a consumer's user agreement may offer them protection from suits arising out of such marketing. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Driver Plaintiffs are Employees, Judge Rules ------------------------------------------------------------------ William B. Cassidy at JOC reports that trucking companies that lease equipment to owner-operators will want to review those agreements closely after a US judge decided some drivers that leased equipment from Swift Transportation as independent contractors should be considered employees. US District Court Senior Judge John Sedwick ruled five driver plaintiffs that launched a class action lawsuit against Swift in 2009 should be considered employees, not contractors, for the purposes of deciding an eight-year old lawsuit over their status. The case isn't likely to prove a threat to the owner-operator model prevalent in the truckload business, but it could cause some carriers to rethink how they contract with owner-operators, especially if they're also involved in arranging equipment leases. Sedwick's decision would have the case tried through litigation, rather than by an arbitrator. The decision isn't the last word in the case, as attorneys for Swift pointed out. The company will challenge the Jan. 6 decision in an appellate court. If Sedwick's decision is upheld, Swift eventually could be hit with millions of dollars in damages, including back wages, for an as yet undetermined number of drivers who have leased equipment from the company as contractors since 2009. On a broader level, the decision may have a ripple effect on truckload carriers that contract with owner-operators and specifically, those that lease equipment to drivers and then contract them. The devil may be in the details of those leasing agreements. "When done correctly, this does a lot to put people in business that deserve an opportunity to run their own business," said Charles Clowdis Jr., managing director of transportation at IHS Economics and Country Risk, a sister product of JOC.com within IHS Markit. "For the carrier, when done correctly and crafted fairly, it gives them the opportunity to have a piece of equipment and a driver for which they don't have to expend investment capital," Clowdis said. "But the agreement can't be exclusive, it can't be restrictive." There are approximately 350,000 owner-operators in the United States, according to the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, and many carriers contract with them to gain the ability to scale the capacity they offer to shippers. Trucking companies that lease equipment to those contractors may have to change the way they do so, or at least reexamine those agreements to ensure they don't create working conditions that can be interpreted as employment. Others might not be affected at all. Swift has been battling this lawsuit and others for several years. Last October, an arbitrator in a separate dispute found truck drivers working for Swift division Central Refrigerated Services under lease agreements were employees, not contractors. In a Nov. 1 letter to investors, Swift said it would put aside $22 million in legal reserves as a result of the arbitration. Swift is the largest US truckload carrier and second-largest publicly owned user of owner-operators, according to SJ Consulting Group. The largest is Landstar System, which had 9,510 tractors owned by contractors or "business capacity owners" in the third quarter. In the same period, Swift had 4,447 owner-operators, and 3,348 of them financed their equipment through the motor carrier, company documents show. Altogether, Swift operated 19,157 tractors. That number dropped year-over-year, as Swift reduced excess capacity. The degree of control a company exercises over an individual typically decides whether that person is a contractor or an employee. In trucking, that often translates to whether a driver is free to decline loads, is dispatched by the company, or can haul for other carriers. In its court filings, Swift maintained the contracting agreement between the company and the drivers should be the basis of any decision, not the leasing agreement or the relationship that evolved between the parties. The court disagreed and took a broader view. Judge Sedwick came to a conclusion similar to the arbitrator reviewing the central refrigerated case: the terms of the equipment lease, offered by Swift subsidiary Interstate Equipment Leasing, negated autonomy granted in the driver's contract. "Swift effectively had full control of the terms of the relationship," Sedwick wrote. "Contract drivers with accompanying IEL leases, as a practical matter, had to drive for Swift." The leases "essentially restricted the purported autonomy allowed in the contractor agreements." Sedwick's ruling nixes arbitration between Swift and the plaintiffs, which the trucking company initially sought and Sedwick approved in 2010. That decision was overturned by the Ninth Circuit US Court of Appeals, and an appeal by Swift to the US Supreme Court failed. If Sedwick's ruling is upheld, the case will proceed in US District Court. TAKATA CORP: Settlement with Gov't Won't Hinder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Celia Ampel at Daily Business Review reports Takata Corp.'s $1 billion settlement with the U.S. government over its defective air bags will not hinder the nationwide class action against the company and several automakers, lead plaintiffs counsel in the Miami-based civil case said. As part of the settlement announced Friday, Takata agreed to plead guilty to wire fraud in Detroit federal court and to pay $850 million to automakers affected by air bag recalls, $125 million to injured victims and a $25 million fine. The company will retain a compliance monitor for three years, said U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade of the Eastern District of Michigan. The court has appointed Washington attorney Kenneth Feinberg as special master to oversee the restitution. Feinberg, with the Law Offices of Kenneth R. Feinberg, has administered compensation funds for victims of Agent Orange, 9/11 and the BP oil spill. An indictment was also unsealed against three former executives of the Japanese company on wire fraud and conspiracy charges for allegedly concealing the air bags' defect from automakers. "For more than a decade, Takata repeatedly and systematically falsified critical test data related to the safety of its products, putting profits and production schedules ahead of safety," said Andrew Weissmann, chief of the U.S. Department of Justice's criminal fraud section. A faulty inflator found in some Takata air bags caused the safety devices to explode when they deployed, expelling shrapnel into the car. The defect was linked to 16 deaths and more than 180 injuries, bringing about the largest automotive recall in U.S. history. Takata admitted as part of the criminal settlement that it knew in 2000, a few years after it began developing the air bag inflators, that some of them had ruptured during testing and did not meet automakers' specifications. The company submitted false reports that concealed the problem from Takata customers, according to the admissions. The executives and other employees involved in falsifying the data were not disciplined until 2015, years after senior executives knew about the fraud, according to the Department of Justice. "Reaching this agreement is a major step towards resolving the airbag inflator issue and a key milestone in the ongoing process to secure investment in Takata," Takata Chairman and CEO Shigehisa Takada said. "Takata deeply regrets the circumstances that have led to this situation and remains fully committed to being part of the solution. We have taken aggressive actions to address past reporting lapses and will continue to work closely with regulators and our automotive customers to address the ongoing recalls and implement new technologies that advance vehicle safety, prevent injuries and save lives." U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno presides over the civil litigation in Miami federal court and could decide to admit the guilty plea as evidence in the civil proceeding, bolstering the plaintiffs' case against Takata. Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- a Podhurst Orseck partner in Miami, leads the plaintiffs' legal team in the multidistrict litigation against Takata and automakers BMW, Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Subaru and Toyota. The case includes personal injury claims and a separate set of economic loss claims on behalf of owners of cars subject to the recall. "Takata's criminal guilty plea comes as no surprise and was expected," Prieto said. "The guilty plea also will have no adverse impact on the civil cases against the automakers in the MDL because the automakers have separate and independent civil liability to their consumers who bought their cars not from Takata but from the automakers, all of whom represented that their cars were safe." Prieto also claims that no matter what Takata told the automakers, they knew the air bags were dangerous because the inflators used a volatile compound, ammonium nitrate, as a propellant. The defense has argued humidity and a press used in the manufacturing process were more to blame for air bag ruptures than the chemical. Reports that Takata is considering filing for bankruptcy in the U.S. concern the plaintiffs, since the claims against Takata could be stayed in the event of a bankruptcy proceeding. "Everyone wants Takata to survive and not file for bankruptcy, but it's something beyond our control," Prieto said. The government's investigation of Takata had not impeded discovery in the case, although January 13's news could mean some Takata employees invoke their Fifth Amendment right during future depositions, he said. The multidistrict litigation plaintiffs are in the midst of discovery related to all eight defendants, and no trial date has yet been set. TALEN ENERGY: Neufeld Files Suit Over Riverstone Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ Abraham Neufeld, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Paul A. Farr, Ralph Alexander, Michael B. Hoffman, Edward J. Casey, Philip G. Cox, Louise K. Goeser, Frederick M. Bernthal, Stuart E. Graham, RPH Parent LLC, SPH Parent LLC, CRJ Parent LLC, Talen Energy Corporation and Riverstone Holdings LLC, Defendants, Case No. 12996 (Del. Ch., December 23, 2016), seeks rescissory damages, costs of this action, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and expenses of attorneys and experts and such further relief resulting from breach of fiduciary duties. Riverstone acquired Talen at $14.00 per share in a merger transaction valued at approximately $5.2 billion on December 6, 2016. There was no bidding process and no other offers were entertained. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants exacerbated their breaches of fiduciary duties when they locked up the transaction with unreasonable deal protection devices that served to prevent other bidders from making a successful competing offer. Talen is an energy generation and marketing company in North America with power plants in the northeast, mid-Atlantic, and southwestern United States, with principal executive offices at 835 Hamilton Street, Suite 150, Allentown, Pennsylvania 18101- 1179. Paul A. Farr, Ralph Alexander, Michael B. Hoffman, Edward J. Casey, Philip G. Cox, Louise K. Goeser, Frederick M. Bernthal and Stuart E. Graham served in its board of directors. Riverstone is a private equity firm based in New York, New York. It was founded in 2000 and focuses on leveraged buyout and growth capital investments in the energy industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq. Jessica Zeldin, Esq. ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401 P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19800 Tel: (302) 656-4433 - and - Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq. Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq. J. Brandon Walker, Esq. BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, P.C. 885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040 New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 308-5858 TG THERAPEUTICS: Lundin Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, announces a class action lawsuit against TG Therapeutics, Inc. Investors, who purchased or otherwise acquired TG Therapeutics shares between September 15, 2014 and October 12, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm 60 days within this notice, also known as the lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, 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 yet. Until certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member. TG Therapeutics is a biopharmaceutical company that manufactures, develops, and markets new treatments for B-cell, malignancies, and autoimmune diseases within the United Stated. The Company produces two treatments against hematological malignancies and autoimmune diseases, TG-1101 and TGR-1202. The Complaint suggests that on September 17, 2015, TG Therapeutics announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had contacted them due to a Special Protocol Assessment on the make of a Phase 3 clinical trial for TG-1101 and TGR-1202. This Phase 3 trial, the GENUINE trial, was to demonstrate that TG- 1101 could demonstrate a surge in the overall response rate and progression-free survival ("PFS") in 330 existing patients with certain cancer cell mutations. As per the Complaint, TG Therapeutics officials failed to disclose important information regarding the Phase 3 trial, instead informing shareholders that it is the "best-in-class" treatment, "successful", and "a novel chemo-free treatment option." Furthermore, TG Therapeutics did not put forth an adequate screening mechanism in the GENUINE enrolling sites and did not enroll patients at the required rate for the study to be successful. Lastly, the trial did not attract 330 patients, contrary to the Company's statements. On October 13, 2016, TG Therapeutics put out a statement revealing that it had put out an amended GENUINE Phase 3 trial protocol with the FDA. The same day, TheStreet released an article suggesting that TG Therapeutics has a long history of poor management. The article also showed that the Company halted enrollment for the GENUINE trial by a third, removed important efficacy endpoints, and generally exposed the company to more risk. When this information was revealed to the investing public, TG Therapeutics' stock declined almost 27%, causing investors severe harm. This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. TOP FLITE: 6th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of TCPA Suit --------------------------------------------------- Katrina L. Miller at Mondaq reports in its latest "junk fax" case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's denial of class certification and dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that Top Flite Financial, Inc., a mortgage company, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by hiring a third party to send unsolicited fax advertisements on its behalf. See Bridging Communities, Inc. v. Top Flite Financial Incorporated, Case No. 15-1572, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 22297 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 2016). According to the complaint, Top Flite allegedly hired Business to Business Solutions ("B2B"), a well-known fax-broadcasting company, to send unsolicited fax advertisements to the plaintiffs and a class of similarly-situated parties without their consent or an established business relationship. The district court first denied class certification because individual questions of consent (a defense to the claims) precluded a finding of predominance under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Then, after the plaintiffs failed to accept a Rule 68 offer of judgment from Top Flite, the district court dismissed the lawsuit as moot. The plaintiffs appealed both rulings. Regarding predominance, the Sixth Circuit noted that "Rule 23(b) requires a showing that questions common to the class predominate, not that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class." Id. at *6 (quoting Amgen, Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 133 S. Ct. 1184, 1191 (2013) (emphasis added). In other words, even though individual proof may be involved, if the issues which are subject to generalized proof predominate, Rule 23(b)(3) will be satisfied. In the Court's view, Top Flite's speculation that some claimants might have given consent was insufficient to overcome the plaintiffs' evidence that B2B had not contacted any of the claimants to verify consent before sending faxes. The Sixth Circuit also reversed the district court's mootness dismissal because the plaintiffs had failed to accept Top Flite's offers of judgment. Before the district court, Top Flite relied on the Sixth Circuit's opinion in O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enterprises, 575 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2009), for the proposition that unaccepted offers of judgment can moot a case and deprive a district court of subject matter jurisdiction. However, in between the time of the district court's ruling and the Sixth Circuit's review of the case, the Supreme Court ruled in Campell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) that unaccepted offers of judgment do not moot a case. In light of Campbell-Ewald, the Sixth Circuit held that Top Flite's rejected offer of judgment did not moot the lawsuit. The case is remanded to the district court. TRI-STATE WATER: 7th Cir. Upholds Remand of Consumer Dispute ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order remanding to state court the case captioned TRI-STATE WATER TREATMENT, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, v. MICHAEL BAUER and STACEY BAUER, Defendants/Counterclaim- Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Counterclaim- Defendant, Appellant, No. 16-3938 (7th Cir.). The case began as a simple collection action brought in the Small Claims Court of Madison County, Illinois, by Tri-State Water Treatment, Inc., against Stacey and Michael Bauer. Tri-State alleged that the Bauers failed to pay for a water treatment system it had installed at their house following a free, in-home assessment of their water. The Bauers responded on June 5, 2015, by answering the complaint and filing a counterclaim against Tri-State. The counterclaim asserted a multi-state class action against Tri-State for fraud in connection with the sale of its water-treatment system. For purposes of the counterclaim, the Bauers were counterclaim- plaintiffs and Tri-State was the sole counterclaim-defendant. Matters became more complicated when, on February 26, 2016, the Bauers filed an amended class-action counterclaim in which they added Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Aquion, Inc., as counterclaim- defendants. The Bauers served the amended counterclaim on Home Depot on March 15, 2016. The amended counterclaim defined the class as consumers who purchased a water treatment system from Tri-State, Rainsoft, and Home Depot, following an in-home water test. It asserted that the counterclaim-defendants conducted in-home water tests that did nothing but identify mineral content, rather than contaminants, and thereby misled consumers into buying their water treatment systems. Home Depot filed a timely notice of removal on April 14, 2016. It argued that even though it was not an original "defendant" in the underlying case, its status as an additional counterclaim- defendant in an action meeting CAFA's criteria entitled it to take this step. The Bauers filed a motion to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c). They argued that the general removal statute, as modified by CAFA, does not permit any kind of counterclaim-defendant (original or additional) to remove, and thus that the case had to be returned to the state court. In an order issued on September 29, 2016, the district court agreed with the Bauers' position. It concluded that CAFA did not disturb the longstanding rule that only original defendants can remove cases to federal court. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit adhered to its own ruling in the case captioned In First Bank v. DJL Properties, LLC, 598 F.3d 915 (7th Cir. 2010), where it held that a counterclaim-defendant is not entitled to remove a case from state court to federal court under the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. section 1453(b). The appellate court concluded that the statute does not support treating an original counterclaim- defendant differently from a new one, and so the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's order remanding the case to state court. A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's January 5, 2017 decision is available at https://is.gd/aUYOA2 from Leagle.com. Russell Kenneth Scott, for Defendant-Appellant. Troy A. Bozarth -- tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- for Defendant. Sean K. Cronin, for Defendant-Appellee. Michael R. Reese -- mreese@reesellp.com -- for Defendant-Appellee. Sidney Stewart Haskins -- shaskins@kslaw.com -- for Defendant- Appellant. Mark S. Johnson, for Plaintiff. Troy E. Walton, for Defendant-Appellee. UNITED CONTINENTAL: Must Defend "Neft" Suit Over Discount Program ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. denied both the defendants' motion to dismiss and the plaintiff's motion to convert the defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment in the case captioned HOWARD S. NEFT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED CONTINENTAL HOLDINGS, INC., and UNITED AIRLINES, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 20, INCLUSIVE, Defendants, No. 16-cv-765 (N.D. Ill.). Howard Neft brought a proposed class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated plaintiffs against the defendants United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc., and unnamed Doe defendants, for the defendants' alleged breach of contract arising out of their failure to provide bargained-for benefits to their "Silver Wings" discount program lifelong members. Neft, on behalf of himself and other lifetime members of the Program, sought to recover the one-time $225 fee that he paid to join the Program, plus attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants moved to dismiss the Neft's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The defendants argued that the complaint should be dismissed because Neft's theory of breach of contract is directly contradicted by the contract on which Neft's breach of contract claim is based. According to the defendants, the relevant contract is United's Silver Wings Plus Membership Policies, which they attached as an exhibit to their motion to dismiss. In response, Neft moved to convert the defendants' motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and requested that he be allowed to conduct discovery. Neft challenged the defendants' assertion that the Policies constitute the governing contract and submitted his own affidavit stating that he never received a copy of or agreed to the Policies. Instead, Neft argued, the governing contract consists of the documentation that United sent him to solicit his participation in the Program, which he signed and sent back to United, and which is in the defendants' exclusive custody. Neft sought discovery aimed at determining what contract governs the parties' relationship, followed by a summary judgment ruling from the Court. Judge Dow concluded that it would not be appropriate for the Court to either to consider the Policies as part of the pleadings or to take judicial notice of them in ruling on the defendants' motion to dismiss. The judge explained that although Neft's complaint does "refer[] to" a contract, and that contract is "central to [Plaintiff's] claim," the defendants have not demonstrated to the Court's satisfaction that the Policies, in fact, constitute the governing contract referred to in Neft's complaint. The motion to dismiss was therefore denied. Judge Dow also denied the plaintiff's motion to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. The judge explained that the Court is excluding the Policies from its consideration of the defendants' motion to dismiss, and therefore is not required by Rule 12(d) to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. The judge, however, allowed Neft to proceed with discovery to ascertain which contract or contracts govern his breach of contract claim. A full-text copy of Judge Dow's January 3, 2017 memorandum opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/6acUVw from Leagle.com. Howard Neft, Plaintiff, represented by Mayte Santacruz, AlvaradoSmith APC, pro hac vice. Howard Neft, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Stein, III, DiVincenzo Schoenfield Swartzman & Anthony S. DiVincenzo. United Continental Holdings, Inc., United Airlines Inc, Defendants, represented by Sondra A. Hemeryck -- shemeryck@rshc- law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, Patricia Brown Holmes -- pholmes@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP & Tal Cohen Chaiken -- tchaiken@rshc-law.com -- Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP. US AIRWAYS: Counsel Asks Court to Dismiss Service Agent Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Cara Bayles at Law 360 reports that counsel for US Airways asked a California federal judge at a hearing on January 13 to nix overtime claims brought by a certified class of fleet service agents, arguing that the Railway Labor Act, the unionized workers' collective bargaining agreement and their standing as airline employees all trigger exemptions to state labor laws. Adam P. KohSweeney of O'Melveny & Myers LLP told U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer that several California court decisions made clear that such exemptions exist. He cited the Court of Appeals' 2014 decision in Vranish v. Exxon Mobil Corp, which upheld union exemptions by finding that when considering whether premium wage rates have been paid for "all overtime hours worked," a union contract's definition of "overtime" trumps those of California's labor law. He also quoted from the California Court of Appeals' 2003 Collins v. Overnite Transportation Company decision, which found that a 1999 law instituting daily, rather than weekly, overtime quotas "expressed a legislative intent" not to change old exemptions for union contracts. "The Legislature was very careful to say, 'That's all we're doing. Other exemptions that existed at that time still apply.' To find otherwise would completely undercut the entire principle of Collins," he said. "It's not uncommon for state legislatures to carve out [Railway Labor Act] CBAs because of interstate commerce concerns when you have flight crews." But class counsel Brent A. Robinson of Liberation Law Group PC said the service agents' collective bargaining agreement didn't meet the standards for an exemption, which require that a CBA provide premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked and a regular hourly rate at least 30 percent more than the state minimum wage. The US Airways CBA allows workers to trade shifts, which can result in extra hours not being compensated with overtime, Robinson argued. He said the CBAs didn't define overtime differently than California labor laws -- which would trigger Vranish under US Airways' theory -- but simply violated them. "Vranish says, 'All overtime hours worked,' not, 'Some overtime hours worked.' Vranish is suggesting that further freedom of contract is not implied," he said. "The defendant wants to carve out exemptions but also punch out holes in the law." Also before the judge was a motion to decertify the "grace period" class of workers, which was certified in 2014. They claim they did compensable work during the unpaid downtime between when they clocked in and out and when their scheduled, paid shift began. That time was unpaid because workers were free to do what they wanted, KohSweeney said, adding that during grace periods, workers talked about union matters and watched TV, and that one agent in San Diego grilled on the tarmac. He also said that when a shift began at 9 a.m., the first plane wouldn't come in until 9:15 a.m., giving workers time to put on their gear while they were being paid. If an employee did work during that grace period, he could apply for compensation, and KohSweeney said US Airways had provided the class with more than 69,000 pages of such requests, which also showed that the paperwork varied from station to station. He said Judge Breyer should decertify this class just as he had in In Re Autozone, when he found the lack of a uniform policy around rest breaks meant the experiences of employees were too diverse to merit a class. Judge Breyer seemed concerned about maintaining commonality, since he said discovery suggested staff at different airports handled compensation requests differently. He said one employee might be able to say, "I put on my uniform every day and didn't get paid for it," but he wasn't convinced that every employee in California could say the same, because some put on their gear after their shift started and some did seek compensation for donning and doffing. "I'm trying to get a sense of what a trial looks like," he said. "Even if the policy was not articulated, there's no damages to that. The question is, is there a class of people who were not compensated? It sounds like you cannot say that it's common to the class." Class counsel Alro Garcia Uriarte, info@liberationlawgroup.com of Liberation Law Group PC said that while the paperwork may have varied, all California service agents were subject to the same policy, but few of them knew it could apply to putting on their safety gear. "All service agents were subject to the same time-keeping policies. With regard to the grace period, the policy was the same for all of them as well. They had 55 minutes pre-shift and 30 minutes after," he said. Uriarte added that US Airways' 69,000 pages of requests were mostly for unusual circumstances, like a delayed flight, and not for regular tasks. He said the company had only produced 350 compensation requests for activities under five minutes, which suggested that very few workers knew they could be compensated for donning and doffing. But Judge Breyer also wondered if the amount of time it took to put on safety gear was worth the trouble, asking if it really took five minutes as the plaintiffs alleged, or "less than one minute," as KohSweeney said. "Really? Five minutes? These are some slow dressers," the judge said. "How long does it really take to put on knee pads?" He did not issue a tentative from the bench. Attorneys for the class and US Airways declined to comment. Representatives for US Airways did not immediately respond to comment on January 13. The plaintiffs are represented by Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Un Kei Wu, Ernesto Sanchez and Brent A. Robinson of Liberation Law Group. U.S. Airways Inc. is represented by Robert A. Siegel, -- rsiegel@omm.com -- Susannah K. Howard -- showard@omm.com -- and Adam P. KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. The case is Angeles et al. v. US Airways Inc., case number 3:12- cv-05860, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Airport Guards File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Wadi Reformado at Northern California Record reports current and former uniformed security guards at various airports allege that their employers violated labor laws. Fredrick Stemme, Mamadou H. Sy, William H. Davis Jr., Mohammed Q. Mohiuddin and Rolain Alexis filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly situated on Jan. 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division against Universal Protection Service LP, Guardsmark LLC and Does 1 through 10 citing the Fair Labor Standards Act and state labor codes. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that they suffered damages as the result of performing their work without being provided proper compensation such as overtime wages, minimum wages, or adequate meal breaks. The plaintiffs hold Universal Protection Service LP, Guardsmark LLC and Does 1 through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly failed to provide an itemized wage statement to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek unpaid minimum wages totaling to at least $1 million, unpaid wages, all economic damages, restitution, enjoin the defendants, compensatory damages, interest, and any other relief as the court deems just. They are represented by Joseph W. Rose -- rose@joeroselaw.com -- and Mehran Tahoori -- mehran@joeroselaw.com -- of Rose Law in Gold River and Michael E. Velarde -- info@michaelvelardelaw.com -- of Velarde & Velarde of Velarde & Velarde in Laguna Beach. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Court to Examine Choice of Law Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, reversed the district court's order granting the motion to compel arbitration and remands the case, JASON KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.; VERIZON ONLINE LLC; VERIZON ONLINE-MARYLAND LLC, Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-1660 (4th Cir.) On October 8, 2010, appellant Jason Klein contracted to receive internet and telephone services from Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Online LLC, and Verizon Maryland (Appellees). To activate appellees' services, appellant agreed to an initial terms of service agreement (2010 Agreement), which contained a choice of law provision dictating that Virginia law governed any contractual disputes. Some relevant terms of the 2010 agreement states that: (1) appellant and appellees consented to the exclusive personal jurisdiction of and venue in a court in Fairfax County, Virginia; (2) the substantive laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia governed the agreement; and (3) appellees could only make revisions to the agreement through notices on its website or by email. The 2010 agreement further provided that after any revisions became effective, continued use of appellees' services equated to accepting and agreeing to abide by such revisions. Appellant and appellees subsequently entered into a second terms of service agreement in 2011, which contained the same choice of law provision. Prior to entering into the 2011 agreement, appellant terminated the 2010 agreement. Based on that termination, appellees charged appellant a $135.00 early termination fee. In 2012, appellees sent appellant an email notifying him of changes to the prior agreements, which, for the first time, included a provision that required the parties to arbitrate disputes. The 2012 notification included the same modification clause as the 2010 and 2011 agreements, that is, periodic revisions noticed by website postings and/or email, but changed the choice of law, venue, and method of dispute resolution provisions. The choice of law became the Federal Arbitration Act and the substantive laws of the state of the customer's billing address. The 2012 notification further provided that the terms now require that appellant and appellees resolve disputes only by arbitration or in small claims court. Appellant filed a class action on behalf of himself and similarly situated persons in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. He alleged the early termination fee violated Virginia law. Per the 2012 notification, appellees moved to compel arbitration, or alternatively, to dismiss the action. Appellees argued appellant had agreed to the terms of the 2012 notification, and was therefore bound by them. The district court granted appellees' motion to compel arbitration and concluded that the terms of the 2012 notification control the dispute. In other words, the parties effected a valid modification to the 2010 agreement via the 2012 notification. On appeal, appellant contends Virginia law applies based on the choice of law provision in the 2010 and 2011 agreements. Appellees, however, contend the district court properly applied Maryland law. The issue, according to appellees, is whether or not the parties validly entered into a 2012 contract modification that contains the arbitration provision at issue Appellees believe that the dispute is governed by the law where the last acts necessary to enter the modifications occurred, which they argue is in Maryland. Appellees contend the district court properly determined Maryland law applies, and correctly applied that law to the issues before it. The Fourth Circuit held that appellant is correct. The district court erred by failing to apply the 2010 agreement's choice of law provision, and alternatively, by not applying Virginia law in determining whether the 2012 Notification was the last act necessary. Although, as noted, it is true that, pursuant to Virginia's choice of law rules, lex loci contractus serves as the default rule, the parties specifically contracted a valid and undisputed choice of law provision in the 2010 agreement. Virginia law clearly acknowledges that such provisions are exceptions to the default rule, and more importantly, gives them effect. The parties disputed whether the 2012 notification was an already effective modification, or merely a proposed modification to which appellant had not yet assented. The analysis as to choice of law should have, at this stage, focused on the 2010 agreement, from which appellant's cause of action arose, according to the Fourth Circuit. The district court erred by failing to fully apply Virginia law as per the parties' clear intent reflected in the contractual choice of law provision in the 2010 agreement. The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings. A copy of the Fourth Circuit's unpublished per curiam opinion dated January 5, 2017, is available at https://goo.gl/E1Z36X from Leagle.com. Raymond Charles Fay -- rfay@faylawdc.com -- Zlatomira Simeonova at FAY LAW GROUP PLLC, for Appellant Fred Anthony Rowley, Jr. -- Fred.Rowley@mto.com -- Hojoon Hwang -- Laura K. Lin -- Laura.Lin@mto.com -- at MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP; Sean F. Murphy -- sfmurphy@mcguirewoods.com -- Joshua D. Davey -- jdavey@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGUIREWOODS LLP, for Appellees VOLKSWAGEN: UK Drivers in Line for Up to GBP3,000 Compensation -------------------------------------------------------------- Emma Munbodh at Mirror reports the courtcase relates to 2015's VW emissions saga in which the company said 11 million diesel vehicles, including 1.2 million in the UK -- were fitted with software to cheat emissions tests. Motorists that have been caught up in the Volkswagen emissions scandal could be in line for a huge compensation pay-out, as a result of a lawsuit that could cost the German automaker millions. The court case relates to the 2015 VW emissions scandal in which the company said 11 million diesel vehicles, including 1.2 million in the UK -- were fitted with software to cheat emissions tests. This effectively meant customers were paying a fortune extra to run their vehicles -- including those driving a number of Audi, Skoda or Seat cars. Volkswagen has agreed a GBP12.3billion settlement for motorists in the US. It has also pleaded guilty to three criminal charges in the US and will pay a GBP3.5billion penalty. But it has now emerged that law firm Harcus Sinclair is taking the case against VW to the High Court on behalf of 10,000 affected UK consumers who have registered to be part of the "class action". The law firm estimates that past and present owners are could receive up to GBP3,000 in compensation if the case succeeds, however, VW has vowed to "defend such claims robustly". A VW spokesperson said: "We have been notified that Harcus Sinclair intends to bring proceedings against Volkswagen on behalf of 77 claimants in the English High Court in relation to the NOx emissions issue. "As we have previously said, we intend to defend such claims robustly. We haven't received the claim yet, so we cannot comment further." In order to join the lawsuit -- which will be headed by legal firms Harcus Sinclair or Slater and Gordon -- you'll need to meet the following criteria: Your car is/was a VW, Audi, Seat or Skoda. It's important to note that not all cars manufactured by the VW Group are affected. The exact cars affected are the Jetta, Beetle, Audi, A3 and Golf models dating 2009-2015 and Passat models dating 2014-2015. Your car has/had a 1.2, 1.6 or 2 litre diesel engine It was made between 2009 and 2015 You purchased, leased or acquired it (new or secondhand) before 1 January 2016 While there is no cost to sign up, the firm will take 30% of the compensation awarded if the case is won. The case is due to be heard in the High Court at the end of January. If it succeeds, it could take at least two years before claimants receive any due money. It's not just VW motorists affected It has now emerged that car giant Renault has also been sucked into the diesel emissions scandal. Reports say prosecutors in France have launched an investigation into possible cheating on exhaust emissions. It comes two months after they were passed the findings of an investigation by the French government's fraud agency. Renault-made diesel engines that are also used in a number of Nissan models. The two manufacturers have worked together since 1999. It comes a day after claims that Fiat Chrysler vehicles in the US had been fitted with software designed to cheat diesel emission tests. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is investigating whether the vehicles were fitted with so-called "defeat devices" that can turn off pollution controls. A Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) spokesperson said: " FCA US is disappointed that the EPA has chosen to issue a notice of violation with respect to the emissions control technology employed in the company's 2014-16 model year light duty 3.0-liter diesel engines. "FCA US intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company's diesel- powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements." Jim Holder, editorial director at What Car? magazine, said: "When the VW scandal broke a lot of people assumed that if the world's biggest car manufacturer had to cheat to meet emissions targets, then surely all manufacturers did. "A lot of mud was slung -- a lot of manufacturers named and shamed -- but until now none of that mud stuck long enough for the regulators to take action. "Even now they have -- with Fiat Chrysler and Renault -- it's still not certain. "A lot appears to hinge on the interpretation of the regulations, which the VW scandal has already exposed as being thoroughly inadequate in Europe. What's clear is that manufacturer." The Department for Transport says it has issued a "notice of violation" to Fiat Chrysler covering 104,000 vehicles, including the 2014-16 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram pick-ups, which are not widely available in the UK. WELLS FARGO: Lieff Cabraser, Saxena White Selected as Lead Counsel ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Hancock at The Recorder reports that Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Boca Raton, Florida-based Saxena White have been selected to lead a shareholder derivative class action against Wells Fargo & Co., winning out over competing firms that have clients with hundreds of thousands of more shares in the bank. The suits stem from revelations last September that Wells Fargo employees had been pressured to open more than a million unauthorized deposit and credit card accounts on behalf of bank customers, and the subsequent blow to the company's stock and finances. On January 12, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California ruled that Lieff Cabraser and Saxena White were best positioned to lead the derivative litigation against the company's board, in part because they moved quickly to coordinate the various suits that had been filed. The firms "played a key role in the effort to consolidate these cases pursuant to stipulation, which made the outset of this litigation more efficient for both the parties and this court," Tigar wrote in an order approving their motion to become co-lead counsel. He added that four other plaintiffs supported their bid to lead the case, based on "their stated willingness to coordinate and work with plaintiffs' counsel in the related actions." Lieff Cabraser and Saxena White respectively represent the Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado and The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System. Together, they hold 181,076 shares in Wells Fargo stock, according to Tigar's order. That compares to the 925,169 shares held by the clients of competing firms Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman and Bottini & Bottini. Having a bigger financial stake normally puts a firm on solid footing to lead shareholder class action suits. But the judge ruled that both pairs of clients still have a "significant" financial interest and that "this factor will translate into a marginal difference, if any, in the vigor of representation." The development comes just two weeks after Tigar appointed Motley Rice to lead a securities fraud class action against Wells Fargo, with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as liaison counsel. Their bid to lead the suit was unopposed. A separate shareholder derivative class action against Wells Fargo is also pending in state court in San Francisco, headed by Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy. Cotchett attorneys are due to report to San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow later this month on whether the federal or state court action should take the lead. Defending Wells Fargo in the derivative cases is Sullivan & Cromwell, one of a broad network of law firms the bank has called on to navigate the legal fallout from the fake accounts scandal. WOODBRIDGE BARIC: Order to Pay $20K to Deepwater Horizon Reversed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON. WOODBRIDGE BARIC PRE-SETTLEMENT FUNDING, L.L.C., Appellant, v. LOUIS J. FREEH, Special Master, Appellee, No. 15-30599 (5th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's order for Woodbridge Baric Pre-Settlement Funding, L.L.C. to pay $20,000 in restitution to the Deepwater Horizon Court- Supervised Settlement Program. In 2012, Woodbridge Baric loaned Jarrod Burrle $24,000. Woodbridge Baric and Burrle agreed that Burrle would not be required to repay the loan if his economic loss claims in connection with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill fail unless he had misrepresented his claim to Woodbridge Baric, in which case Burrle agreed to indemnify Woodbridge Baric and hold it harmless. In December 2012, the district court approved the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement Agreement in a class action concerning the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. In accordance with the settlement agreement, the district court established the Deepwater Horizon Court-Supervised Settlement Program to implement and administer the settlement agreement, including the processing of individual claims for compensation. Shortly after the settlement program began operations, Burrle refiled his claims for compensation with the program. In 2013, the settlement program paid over $50,000 on one of Burrle's claims, and Burrle's attorneys paid Woodbridge Baric $20,000 of those funds in partial repayment of the loan. Subsequently, Louis Freeh, appointed by the district court as a special master to investigate misconduct in the administration of the settlement program, determined that Burrle's claim was fraudulent and moved the court to order Burrle and others, including Woodbridge Baric, to make restitution for the funds paid in connection with that claim. The district court granted the motion as to Woodbridge Baric, finding that Woodbridge Baric would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain the $20,000 from Burrle. The district court reasoned that Woodbridge Baric's right to Burrle's repayment of the loan was contingent upon the success of Burrle's claims, which ultimately failed. Woodbridge Baric appealed. The Fifth Circuit found that Woodbridge Baric's right to Burrle's repayment of the principal amount of its loan did not depend solely on the success of Burrle's claims: Woodbridge Baric's contracts with Burrle expressly required Burrle to indemnify and hold Woodbridge Baric harmless for the loss of the principal amount of the loan if his representations to Woodbridge Baric regarding his claims were not accurate and complete in all respects. The appellate court noted that although Woodbridge Baric assumed some of the risks associated with non-recovery in its contracts with Burrle, it specifically disclaimed the risk that Burrle had asserted fraudulent claims and withheld that information from it. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that Woodbridge Baric was entitled to Burrle's full repayment of the principal under their contracts. The appellate court stated that where a "bona fide creditor is entitled to payment regardless of the judgment's validity, that creditor is not unjustly enriched by retention of the payment after the judgment's reversal." In other words, The Fifth Circuit held that because Burrle's payment to Woodbridge Baric discharged an unconditional, bona fide obligation, Woodbridge Baric is not liable in restitution to the settlement program. A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's January 6, 2017 decision is available at https://is.gd/J2Vyl0 from Leagle.com. George Davidson Fagan, for Appellant. Margaret Frohn Swetman, for Appellant. Gregory A. Paw, for Appellee. Anton L. Hasenkampf -- ahasenkampf@leakeandersson.com -- for Appellant. WORLEYPARSONS: Federal Court Orders $50MM Class Suit to Continue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jenny Wiggins at Financial Review reports WorleyParsons' attempt to stop a $50 million class action lawsuit alleging the engineering group breached continuous disclosure obligations in 2013 has failed, with the Federal Court ordering the case to continue. Justice Foster dismissed WorleyParsons' interlocutory application on January to halt the case brought by ACA Lawyers and ordered the company to file its defence by February 16 before a further hearing on February 23. WorleyParsons said Justice Foster's judgement did not address "the substantive proceedings" of the claim and that it would defend them. The class action claim, which is being funded by JustKapital, alleges that WorleyParsons engaged in "misleading or deceptive conduct" in 2013. The claim argues the company did not provide a reasonable explanation for why its three main reasons for a November profit downgrade -- a fall in professional services revenue, a cost cutting program and the decline of its Australian and Canadian businesses -- were "unexpected or unforseen developments". WorleyParsons' shares tumbled 26 per cent to $16 on November 20, 2013, slashing more than $1 billion off its market value, after chief executive Andrew Wood cut the company's annual net profits guidance to a new range of $260 million to $300 million. Investors were shocked by the warning, because the engineering group had told shareholders at its annual results in August and at its annual general meeting in early October to expect net profit of at least $322 million. 'Reasonable grounds' for earnings guidance Investor Larry Crowley, who acquired 423 WorleyParsons shares on October 4, 2013 when they were trading around $22 and still holds them, is the plaintiff in the lawsuit. WorleyParsons' shares closed at $10.08 on Friday. Mr Crowley has alleged that one of more of WorleyParsons' officers was "aware at the time the various forecasts were given that WorleyParsons did not have reasonable grounds for giving those forecasts". Justice Foster said Mr Crowley's case for breaching continuous disclosure laws and breaching the Corporations Act was "curious", because it depended on the Court accepting that WorleyParsons had "no reasonable grounds" for giving its August earnings guidance. But the Justice also found that there was "sufficient material" in the lawsuit to allow it to continue. "The close proximity in time between the giving of the earnings guidance and the November earnings downgrade, in and of itself, is sufficient to require an explanation from WorleyParsons as to the basis upon which the August 2013 and October 2013 earnings guidance was given and the reasons for the change in WorleyParsons' opinion as to future earnings between those dates and the date when the November earnings downgrade was given," Justice Foster said. WorleyParsons has claimed that it provided a satisfactory explanation in its trading update on November 20, 2013. Justice Foster also asked for an update on a competing class action filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria by litigator Melbourne City Investments, an investment company set up by former Minter Ellison partner Mark Elliott. JustKapital finalised a co-funding agreement with the US's Longford Capital that will enable the Australian group to invest in more class action claims. ZIMMER BIOMET: Jan.31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Northern District of Indiana on behalf of investors who purchased Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. securities between September 7, 2016 and October 31, 2016. ZOMICK'S FOOD: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Santos Marver Reyes and Eduar Abraam Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zomick's Food Products, Ltd. d/b/a Zomick's Bakery, Gittel Kaff and Moshe Kaff, Case No. cv-17-00202 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Zomick's Bakery in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 Facsimile: (718) 263-9598 E-mail HFDalton6912@Gmail.com ZOOMER INC: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland at Cook County Record reports Zoomer, a company which provides third-party "independent contractor" drivers to pick up and deliver take-out meals on behalf of restaurants, is facing a class action complaint over text messages the company sent to restaurant customers to promote its delivery tracking smartphone app. Justin Hardesty, an Illinois resident represented by attorneys with the firm of Edelson P.C., of Chicago, filed his complaint Jan. 10 in Cook County Circuit Court against Philadelphia-based Zoomer Inc. According to the complaint, restaurant customers are unaware their deliveries will come via Zoomer drivers, and each customer gets "at least one automated and unauthorized text message" promoting Zoomer's mobile app. Hardesty contends this constitutes a violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Hardesty's complaint said food delivery has grown into a $30 billion market. Zoomer, seeking its slice of the action, sends agents to pick up the food from partner restaurants, which provide the driver with the address and phone number of the customer who ordered the food. Zoomer then gets a share of revenue from each order from its restaurant partners. Zoomer also offers an app allowing customers to track their delivery, as well as order from a list of Zoomer partners in proximity to the mobile device. Since Zoomer "has aspirations of being a leader in the big business of food delivery," the complaint states, it tries to get customers to download the app via text advertisements. The intent, Hardesty alleged, is to drive customers toward Zoomer clients. The complaint included a text sent to Hardesty confirming a delivery order he placed Nov. 10. It reads: "Thanks for ordering from Johnny Brown Bag! Track your delivery by downloading the Zoomer app at http://track.zoomerdelivery.com." Hardesty said the restaurant never mentioned Zoomer while he placed his order, nor did it inform him his contact information would be provided to Zoomer, or that Zoomer would send him text messages. The class would include anyone in the U.S. who received at least one text advertisement from Zoomer without providing a number directly to Zoomer prior to receipt. There also would be a subclass specifically for Illinois residents suing under the Illinois law. Hardesty said the unauthorized text messages and use of an automated telephone dialing system violate federal telecommunications law and could require Zoomer to pay $500 per violation. Since "Zoomer's misconduct was willful and knowing," he asked the court to triple those damages. The Illinois subclass allegations also note "damages in the forms of the diminished value and utility of their telephone equipment and telephone subscription services," including a negative effect on battery performance and the cost of electricity to charge phones that would not have been used if the unsolicited advertisements had not been received. In addition to class certification and a jury trial, Hardesty seeks an injunction requiring Zoomer to stop sending unauthorized text advertisements and an order forcing it to "disgorge any ill- gotten funds acquired as a result of its unlawful telephone calling practices." * Supreme Court to Examine Workers' Rights to File Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert Barnes at The Washington Post reports the Supreme Court accepted more than a dozen new cases on January 13, mostly representing business concerns, that are likely to complete a docket far less controversial than what the justices have faced in recent years. The justices will consider whether companies can protect themselves against costly class-action suits by forcing employees to settle differences through individual arbitration. And it will decide how challengers to an important Obama administration environmental regulation may proceed in court. But the court did not announce action on a requested review of Alabama's death-penalty process or Texas's challenge of a lower- court ruling striking down the state's voter-identification law. The court could still hear the cases, but it seems more likely those challenges will be heard in the term that starts in October. By then, the court is likely to be at full strength. It has been shorthanded since Justice Antonin Scalia died last February, and the Republican-controlled Senate refused to act on President Obama's nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. The eight-member court has appeared to put aside more controversial cases where it might deadlock. President-elect Donald Trump has said he will offer a nominee within two weeks of taking office, but even with a speedy confirmation process that person might not be on the court before it concludes oral arguments in April. The arbitration issue affects millions of workers who have signed employment agreements in which they waive rights to bring class- action lawsuits over workplace issues and wage disputes, in favor of arbitration. Businesses favor such resolution, saying it is quicker and less costly than class-action litigation. The National Labor Relations Board says such agreements conflict with laws that give workers the right to band together. Lower courts are split on the issue. The Supreme Court agreed to consider three cases that raise the issue, two of them in which judges said the arbitration agreements cannot be enforced and another where a court agreed with the company. The court also accepted a dispute over a 2015 environmental rule from the Obama administration regarding what qualifies as "water of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. But the court will not be considering the rule's merits. It will be settling a dispute about the proper court in which the challenges must be filed. "What should be a straightforward gatekeeping provision has in this and other cases generated widespread judicial disagreement, caused needless delay, and wasted valuable resources for no substantive purpose," said a brief filed by the National Association of Manufacturers. In other cases accepted on January 13, the court will hear a dispute about how quickly "biosimilars" -- copies of medicines based on living organisms -- can get to market. And it will decide whether venture capitalist Charles Kokesh has to return to the Securities and Exchange Commission nearly $35 million he paid to himself and other advisers. Kokesh contends the penalty is not within a five-year statute of limitations. ********* 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 * * *