/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, January 26, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 19 Headlines 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Bartolucci" Suit Over Contact Lens Prices ABSOLUTE WEST: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Diaz" Suit Says AC & APPLIANCES: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ADVANCE STORES: Wins Prelim. Okay of "Whitehead" Class Settlement AIRTOUCH CELLULAR: Sued Over Failure to Provide Rest & Meal Break ALLSTATE INTERIOR: Faces "Alonzo" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law APPLE INC: Faces "Ceja" Suit in Cal. Over Lock-Out Device ASSAULT AND BURGERY: Faces "Marin" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Wind Condominium Association Suit Dismissed BARNES & NOBLE: March 14 Status Hearing in PIN Pad Litigation BARNES & NOBLE: Cafe Managers' Class Actions Pending BECTON DICKINSON: Class Action Appeal Underway BLUE NILE: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Sale to Bain Capital Funds BNP NY: Castro et al. Allege Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Laws BOCCA NEW: "Bytyqi" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Law BSI FINANCIAL: Faces "Antoine" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida BURGER BROTHERS: Benavidez et al. Sue Under FLSA, NY Labor Law C & F FOODS: Faces "Vargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CALIFORNIA, USA: Wade Seeks Certification of NOI Members Class CERNER CORP: "Crawford" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA CLARFIELD OKON: Seeks Final Approval of "Rojas" Suit Settlement COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Loera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CONTINENTAL PARKING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Break DAY & NITE: Faces "Dobler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DELTA APPAREL: California Wage and Hour Lawsuits Settled DES MOINES REGISTER: Court Denies Epstein's Bid to Certify Class DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Suit in New York DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Underway Blackrock Suit in California DST SYSTEMS: "Ducharme" Suit Claims Breach of Duties Under ERISA EMPIRE PARKING: Sued in Ga. Over Vehicle Immobilization Device FIDELITY & GUARANTY: "Ludwick" Class Action Appeal Underway FIFTH STREET: Feb. 16 Fairness Hearing on FSC Class Suit Deal FIFTH STREET: FSC Proxy Litigation Now Concluded FIFTH STREET: Feb. 16 Fairness Hearing on FSAM Class Action Deal FLAT RATE: Faces "Djurdjevich" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA FOODLINER: Faces "Austin" Suit Over Failure to Provide Break GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Faces Liberty Salad Suit in E.D. Pa. HENIFF TRANSPORTATION: "Hernandez" Invokes FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws HINT INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Product Advertisements HRG GROUP: Paid $5.5MM in Legal Fees Related to "Cressy" Suit HRG GROUP: Appeal in "Ludwick" Suit Underway HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: 2 Shareholder Suits Dismissed IFCO SYSTEMS: "Graham" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Engineers Fund Sues Over Lidocaine Prices INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Defending Against "Trahan" Class Suit JCB CLEANING: Faces "Jaramillo" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Wandel" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settlement Reached in "Laufer" Suit JOHNSON CONTROLS: Injunction Request in "Gumm" Suit Underway KARDESH PETROLEUM: Faces "Figengul" Suit in E.D.N.Y. KEMPER SPORTS: Faces "Lall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime KEMPHARM INC: Seeks Removal of "Christians" Suit to Iowa Court LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces "Mukamal" Suit in E. Dist. of Pa. LINCOLN PROPERTY: "Amos" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay LIONS GATE: Stipulation of Settlement Entered in "Levy" Suit LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Class Certification Briefing Due May 2 LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss & Stay Discovery LONGWOOD ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Rest Period METROPOLITAN FIELD: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages NOVO NORDISK: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports NRA GROUP: Gadime Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement PARTNERS FOR PAYMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Ashley" Suit PAYMENT DATA: Motion to Dismiss "McFarland" Suit Underway PER MAR: Faces "Bessy" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Wis. Labor Law PERFORMANCE FOOD: "Perez" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: AA Suncoast Seeks to Certify Two Classes QUALITY CARE: Pension Fund Suit in Early Stages RAYMOND JAMES: Named as Defendant in Jay Peak Litigation ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in Colorado Class Action Underway SCI DIRECT: Certification of Class Sought in "Allard" Suit SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Suit Still Ongoing SIGNET JEWELERS: 10,345 Employees Opt In to Collective Action SIGNET JEWELERS: "Tapia" Class Suit Underway SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Faces Dube and Spasov Shareholder Suits SIMPLY MAC: Faces "Lotz" Suit for Misclassifying Store Managers SPAR GROUP: Field Specialists' Class Suit Pending in California TESORO REFINING: "Azpeitia" Sues Over Missed Breaks, No Paystubs TEXTURA CORP: Kelsey Moves for Certification of Stockholders Class TOWNHOUSE DINER: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law UGI CORP: Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing Pending UGI CORP: Indirect Purchasers' Appeal Remains Pending UNION TURNPIKE: "Takhalov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages UNITED ROAD: Faces "Champagne" Sued Over Excessive Towing Fees UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: "Condry" Claims Denial of Service for Women US POSTAL: Greene et al. Seek to Recoup OT Wages Under FLSA US STANDARD: Court Signs Accord Certifying "Echegoyen" Suit Class VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Thomas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York WAWA INC: Gervasio et al. Allege Labor Law Violations WGL HOLDINGS: Defending Class Suit Over Apartment Fire WILD BLUE: "Brown" Suit Seeks Overtime, Deductions, Late Wages WINDY CITY: Sued Over Excessive Medical Equipment Rental Fees WOODMERE CLUB: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees ZILLOW GROUP: Has Settlement with Labor Department ********* 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Henry" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Henry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., Vision Direct, Inc. and Does 1-15, Case No. 1:17-cv-00117 (D. Col., January 18, 2017), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, maintain and make artificial prices for contact lenses sold directly to consumers, including online, in the United States and to District of Columbia residents, specifically by rigging search engine advertising auctions and preventing the dissemination of information. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Matthew E. Miller, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 - and - Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612)-339-6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com 1-800 CONTACTS: Faces "Bartolucci" Suit Over Contact Lens Prices ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL J. BARTOLUCCI and EDWARD UNGVARSKY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. 1-800 CONTACTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00097 (D. Col., January 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants entered into horizontal agreements among competitors to artificially raise, maintain, fix and/or stabilize the prices for contact lenses sold online, directly-to-consumers, throughout the United States. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. sells contact lenses and related products over the internet throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott E. Gant, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Scott E. Gant, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 1401 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 237-2727 Fax: (202) 237-6131 - and - Carl E. Goldfarb, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Los Olas Blvd, Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 356-0011 Fax: (954) 356-0022 ABSOLUTE WEST: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Diaz" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rogelio Diaz, Carlos A. Diaz Castellanos, and David Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Absolute West LLC d/b/a Harbor Division, LLC, and Does 1-10, Case No. BC647126 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), Case No. CCW- CAC-D-307 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay its current and former truck drivers in California separately and on an hourly basis for their time spent taking their statutory rest periods and on their pre- and post-trip inspections, loading/unloading time, time spent cleaning their trucks, time spent fueling their trucks and on time spent on work-related paperwork. The Defendants own and operate a trucking and logistics company that transacts millions of dollars of business by picking up general freight at the Ports of Los Angeles and delivering containers to customers throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Ackerman, Esq. ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C. 1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310)277-0614 Facsimile: (310) 277-0635 E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com AC & APPLIANCES: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Xiao Dong Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. AC & Appliances Group, Corp. and Miao E. Wu, Case No. 700873/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 18, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage, overtime wages, spread of hours compensation, damages for failure to provide wage statements, damages for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for violations of the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a residential building located at 131-31 Fowler Ave., Flushing, NY 11355. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com ADVANCE STORES: Wins Prelim. Okay of "Whitehead" Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JORDAN WHITEHEAD v. ADVANCE STORES COMPANY INC., Case No. 5:16-cv-00250-RBD-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Roy B. Dalton, Jr., granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of settlement agreement and to amend caption to add Janie Stapleton as a named plaintiff. For purposes of settlement only, this settlement class is provisionally certified under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: All current and former Advance Stores Company, Inc. ("ASC") employees whose personal identification information was disclosed as a result of the phishing attack ASC suffered on March 7, 2016 ("Settlement Class"). The named Plaintiff Jordan Whitehead and forthcoming named Plaintiff Janie Stapleton will be the Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. The Court also appoints the law firm of Whittel & Melton, LLC, as Settlement Class Counsel, and appoints Dahl Administration to serve as the Settlement Administrator. The Court approves the form and content of the proposed notice attached to the Settlement Agreement, and the notice procedure. A final approval hearing will be held on May 15, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., to address: (a) whether to finally certify the Settlement class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3). A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RlQugP2y AIRTOUCH CELLULAR: Sued Over Failure to Provide Rest & Meal Break ----------------------------------------------------------------- Deanna Veramend and Mathew Chesser, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. Airtouch Cellular, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC647309 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 18, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide meal and rest periods to its California non-exempt employees in violation of California Labor Code. Airtouch Cellular, Inc. provides wireless services throughout the United States and has many retail stores throughout the United States including approximately 150 stores in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David R. Markham, Esq. Maggie Realin, Esq. Michael J, Moiphew, Esq. Ben Travis, Esq. THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM 750 B Street, Suite 1950 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619)399-3995 Facsimile: (619) 615-2067 E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com mrealin@markham-law.com mmorphew@markham-law.com btravis@markham-law.com - and - Walter Haines, Esq. UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP 5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (888) 474-7242 Facsimile: (562) 256-1006 E-mail: waltsrhaines@yahoo.com ALLSTATE INTERIOR: Faces "Alonzo" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------------- PABLO ALONZO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against ALLSTATE INTERIOR & EXTERIOR CONTRACTORS, INC. (d/b/a ALLSTATE PAINTING), ALLSTATE PAINTING CORP. (d/b/a ALLSTATE PAINTING), and NICHOLAS PALMIERI, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00300 (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2017), was brought for unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. Defendants own, operate, and/or control a construction company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 APPLE INC: Faces "Ceja" Suit in Cal. Over Lock-Out Device --------------------------------------------------------- Julio Ceja, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. BC647057 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), seeks an injunction against Apple, halting the sale of all iPhones in California without a lock-out device that will disable the iPhone while being driven by an engaged motorist, as well as an order requiring that the company update all currently held iPhones to install a lock-out device thereon. Apple Inc. is a California that is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling computers, iPhones throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan A. Michaels, Esq. Kathryn J. Harvey, Esq. Kristen R. Rodriguez, Esq. MLG Automotive Law, APLC A Professional Law Corporation 2801 W. Coast Highway, Suite 370 Newport Beach, CA 92663 Telephone: (949) 581-6900 Facsimile: (949) 581-6908 E-mail: jmichaels@mlgautomotivelaw.com kharvey@mlgautomotivelaw.com krodriguez@mlgautomotivelaw.com ASSAULT AND BURGERY: Faces "Marin" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GARMENDIA MARIN, EFREN GARCIA VALLE, and JORGE PERALTA- MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. ASSAULT AND BURGERY, L.L.C., an Illinois limited liability company, d/b/a LOCKDOWN LLC, and PETER ZONIS, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00273 (N.D. Ill., January 13, 2017), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance for Defendants' alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, their overtime pay. Defendant Lockdown Bar & Grill is a restaurant engaged in selling and serving prepared food and beverages, including alcoholic beverages, to customers for consumption on the premises. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy M. Nolan, Esq. Nicholas P. Cholis, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 322-1100 Fax: (312) 322-1106 E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com ncholis@nolanwagelaw.com ATKORE INTERNATIONAL: Wind Condominium Association Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Atkore International Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the case, Wind Condominium Association, Inc., et al. v. Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, et al., has been dismissed voluntarily. On November 16, 2015, the Company was served with a Special Products Claim, Wind Condominium Association, Inc., et al. v. Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation, et al. (the "Wind Condominium Action"), a putative class action claim filed in the Southern District of Florida which defined a "National Class" and a "Florida Subclass" consisting of all condominium associations and building owners who had ABF and/or ABF II installed in combination with CPVC from January 1, 2003 through December 31, 2010 nationwide and in Florida, respectively. The plaintiffs sought to recover monetary damages for the replacement and repair of fire suppression systems and any damaged real property or personal property, as well as consequential and incidental damages. The Wind Condominium Action was dismissed voluntarily by plaintiffs on August 3, 2016. The named plaintiffs in the Wind Condominium Action are pursuing their claims individually or in state court. At this time, the Company does not expect the outcome of the Special Products Claims proceedings, or any other proceeding, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, and the Company believes that its reserves are adequate for all claims, including for Special Products Claims contingencies. However, it is possible that additional reserves could be required in the future that could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. This additional loss or range of losses cannot be recorded at this time, as it is not reasonably estimable. Atkore International Group Inc. is a manufacturer of Electrical Raceway products primarily for the non-residential construction and renovation markets and Mechanical Products & Solutions ("MP&S") for the construction and industrial markets. BARNES & NOBLE: March 14 Status Hearing in PIN Pad Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that a status hearing is scheduled for March 14, 2017, in the PIN Pad Litigation. The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. On October 3, 2016, the Court granted the second motion to dismiss, and dismissed the case without prejudice; in doing so, the Court permitted plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint by October 31, 2016. On October 31, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The Court set the following schedule; motion to dismiss brief due on November 30, 2016, opposition brief due January 6, 2017, and reply brief due January 31, 2017. A status hearing is scheduled for March 14, 2017. BARNES & NOBLE: Cafe Managers' Class Actions Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. continues to defend the Cafe Manager Class Actions, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016. Two former Cafe Managers have filed separate actions alleging similar claims of entitlement to unpaid compensation for overtime. In each action, the plaintiff seeks to represent a class of allegedly similarly situated employees who performed the same position (Cafe Manager). Specifically, Christine Hartpence filed a complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. (Barnes & Noble) in Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas on May 26, 2015 (Case No.: 160503426), alleging that she is entitled to unpaid compensation for overtime under Pennsylvania law and seeking to represent a class of allegedly similarly situated employees who performed the same position (Cafe Manager). On July 14, 2016, Ms. Hartpence amended her complaint to assert a purported collective action for alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by which she sought to act as a class representative for similarly situated Cafe Managers throughout the United States. On July 27, 2016, Barnes & Noble removed the case to the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No.: 16-4034). Ms. Hartpence then voluntarily dismissed her complaint and subsequently re-filed a similar complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas (Case No.: 161003213), where it is currently pending. The re-filed complaint alleges only claims of unpaid overtime under Pennsylvania law and alleges class claims under Pennsylvania law that are limited to current and former Cafe Managers within Pennsylvania. On September 20, 2016, Kelly Brown filed a complaint against Barnes & Noble in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No.: 16-7333) in which she also alleges that she is entitled to unpaid compensation under the FLSA and Illinois law. Ms. Brown seeks to represent a national class of all similarly situated Cafe Managers under the FLSA, as well as an Illinois-based class under Illinois law. On November 9, 2016, Ms. Brown filed an amended complaint to add an additional plaintiff named Tiffany Stewart, who is a former Cafe Manager who also alleges unpaid overtime compensation in violation of New York law and seeks to represent a class of similarly situated New York-based Cafe Managers under New York law. BECTON DICKINSON: Class Action Appeal Underway ---------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the appeal in a class action lawsuit remains pending. On July 17, 2015, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs, Glynn-Brunswick Hospital Authority, trading as Southeast Georgia Health System, and Southeast Georgia Health System, Inc., seek to represent a class of acute care purchasers of BD syringes and IV catheters. The complaint alleges that BD monopolized the markets for syringes and IV catheters through contracts, theft of technology, false advertising, acquisitions, and other conduct. The complaint seeks treble damages but does not specify the amount of alleged damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted on January 29, 2016. On September 23, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the judgment to allow plaintiffs to file an amended complaint, and plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of the suits pending against the Company and is engaged in a vigorous defense of each of these matters. BD is a global medical technology company engaged in the development, manufacture and sale of a broad range of medical supplies, devices, laboratory equipment and diagnostic products used by healthcare institutions, life science researchers, clinical laboratories, the pharmaceutical industry and the general public. BLUE NILE: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Sale to Bain Capital Funds ------------------------------------------------------------ BARBARA L. HALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLUE NILE, INC., HARVEY KANTER, ELAINE RUBIN, LESLIE LANE, MICHAEL POTTER, ROBERT VAN SCHOONENBERG, CHRIS BRUZZO, MINDY MEADS, and SCOTT HOWE, Defendants, Case No. 2017-0025- (Del. Ch., January 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Blue Nile's stockholders by failing to disclose material information in the definitive proxy statement for the sale of the Company to an Investor Group comprised of funds managed by Bain Capital Private Equity, LP. Blue Nile is an online retailer of high-quality diamonds and fine jewelry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 295-5310 - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Phone: (202) 524-4290 BNP NY: Castro et al. Allege Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- ERICK FRANCISCO ALCOCER CASTRO, FABINLER HUMBERTO MERIDA (AKA RANBERTO), GABRIEL TRINIDAD REYNA, LUDWIN GABRIEL ARREAGA FUENTES, MARTIN ARISTAY, and MAURILIO ROQUE individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against BNP NY FOODS, INC. (d/b/a ESSEN), AMICI 519 LLC (d/b/a ESSEN), 100 BROAD STREET LLC (d/b/a ESSEN), TEN WESTSIDE CORP. (d/b/a ESSEN), JOHN BYUN, and CHONG WON BYUN, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00242-VEC (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2017), is a case against Defendants for alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. Defendants own, operate, and/or control four restaurants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES PC. 60 East 42nd Street Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 BOCCA NEW: "Bytyqi" Suit Alleges Violations of FLSA, NY Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- BESMIR BYTYQI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against BOCCA NEW YORK LLC, ARTUR FOGEL BILLY KARASIK, and EVGENIA HULDISCH, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00303 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, misappropriated tips and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law. Defendant Bocca is a New York limited liability company that owns, operates, and does business as "Mela East," a restaurant that serves Italian-based food and wine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Braverman, Esq. BRAVERMAN LAW PC 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1308 New York, NY 10123 Phone: (212) 206-8166 E-mail: adam@bravermanlawfirm.com BSI FINANCIAL: Faces "Antoine" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BSI Financial Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Ruth Antoine, on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. BSI Financial Services, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv- 00115-VMC-TBM (M.D. Fla., Jan. 17, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington. BSI Financial specializes in loan servicing and subservicing, loan review and due diligence, and loan default services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300 Tampa, FL 33602-3343 Telephone: (813) 224 0431 Facsimile: (813) 229 8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com BURGER BROTHERS: Benavidez et al. Sue Under FLSA, NY Labor Law -------------------------------------------------------------- Blanca Benavidez, Maria Benavidez, Jose Benavidez, Jonathan Benavidez, and Maritza Nunez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against Burger Brothers Restaurant Group d/b/a Burger King, and John Froccaro and Jeff Froccaro, as individuals, Defendants, Case No. cv-17-00200 (E.D.N.Y., January 3, 2017), alleges that Defendants did not pay Plaintiff time and a half (1.5) for hours worked over forty (40), in violation of the overtime provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 69-12 Austin Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Phone: 718-263-9591 Fax: 718-263-9598 C & F FOODS: Faces "Vargas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Lorena Vargas, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. C & F Foods, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC647014 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. C & F Foods, Inc. originates, packs, distributes, and exports dried beans, peas, rice, and popcorn. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com CALIFORNIA, USA: Wade Seeks Certification of NOI Members Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled CHANCELLOR WADE, CHRISTOPHER BUTLER, Plaintiffs-Class Members Class Representatives (Hereafter: Plaintiffs-Class Members) v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS, SECRETARY SCOTT KERNAN, S. HATTON, M. VOONG, L. URQUIDEZ, T. AQUIL, JANE/JOHN DOES 1-100, Case No. 3:17-cv- 00042-LB (N.D. Cal.), move for class certification to represent: Nation of Islam members and supporters under the leadership of the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, who are presently incarcerated and will in the future be incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations. The matter is a civil rights complaint brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The Plaintiffs-Class Members also seek their appointment as class representatives and the appointment of Carter C. White, Esq., as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Nudnt13W The Plaintiffs' proposed class counsel is: Carter C. White, Esq. UNIVERSITY OF U.C. DAVIS CIVIL RIGHTS CLINIC One Shields Avenue Davis, CA 95616-8821 Telephone: (530) 752-5440 Facsimile: (530) 752-5788 E-mail: ccwhite@ucdavis.edu CERNER CORP: "Crawford" Lawsuit Alleges Violations of FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- CRAWFORD, R. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CERNER CORPORATION c/o CT Corporation System, 120 South Clayton Ave., Clayton, MO 63105, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00015-ODS (W.D. Mo., January 12, 2017), alleges that the Named Plaintiff and putative class members were classified as salaried exempt associates and were not paid overtime wages for hours worked over 40 per week. As such, these employees were allegedly denied and continue to be denied overtime wages under an illegal pay policy that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cerner Corporation supplies health care information technology solutions, services, devices, and hardware to hospitals and clinics throughout the United States and abroad. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric L. Dirks, Esq. WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Phone: 816-876-2600 Fax: 816-221-8763 Email: dirks@williamsdirks.com - and - Jason Knutson, Esq. HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER, S.C. Breanne L. Snapp, Esq. 150 East Gilman St., Suite 2000 Madison, WI 53703 Phone: 608/255-6663 Fax: 608/255-0745 Email: jknutson@habush.com Email: bsnapp@habush.com CLARFIELD OKON: Seeks Final Approval of "Rojas" Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The parties jointly move the Court for an order certifying the case captioned HENRY A. ROJAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LAW OFFICES OF CLARFIELD, OKON, SALOMONE & PINCUS, P.L. and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 03268-JMA-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), as a class action, and granting final approval of the settlement, on behalf of this class: (i) all persons with a New York address (ii) to whom Law Offices of Clarfield, Okon, Salomone & Pincus, P.L. sent a letter referencing the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") in substantially the same form as "Exhibit A" to the Complaint in this action; (iii) during a period beginning on June 4, 2014, and ending on January 31, 2016. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class, filed the lawsuit, which alleges that COSP violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, by inter alia, sending consumers initial written collection communications, which made false, deceptive, and misleading representations by failing to provide the entire amount of the debt that was allegedly owed. On September 30, 2016, the Court entered an Order granting Preliminary Approval to the Parties' Settlement Agreement. By this Motion, the Parties jointly seek certification of a class action and final approval of their Agreement, including an award of Class Counsel's fees and costs in an amount of $23,000 pursuant to the Agreement, and in addition, Class Counsel's pending Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Sgke3y1K The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Gentile, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA, PC 110 Jericho Turnpike - Suite 100 Floral Park, NY 11001 Telephone: (212) 675-6161 Facsimile: (212) 675-4367 E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com Defendant Law Offices of Clarfield, Okon, Salomone & Pincus, P.L., is represented by: Joseph John Ortego, Esq. NIXON PEABODY 50 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 300 Jericho, NY 11753 Telephone: (516) 832-7500 Facsimile: (866) 947-2079 E-mail: jortego@nixonpeabody.com Defendant Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, is represented by: Patrick Broderick, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 801-9200 Facsimile: (212) 801-6400 E-mail: broderickp@gtlaw.com COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Loera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julian Loera, Matthew Kolmos and Kimberly Kolmos, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees v. Collection Technology, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC647015 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Collection Technology, Inc. operates a debt collection agency located at 10801 6th St #200, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com CONTINENTAL PARKING: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal Break ------------------------------------------------------------ Miguel Nolasco Rivas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Continental Parking Service, Inc., Fred Kohan, Does 1-10, and Does 11-20, business entities inclusive, Case No. BC647180 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide Parking Attendants with rest and meal periods in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants operate numerous paid parking lot or structure facilities throughout California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amir Mostafavi, Esq. Afshin Siman, Esq. Raymond Hay, Esq. MOSTAFAVI LAW GROUP, APC 11835 W Olympic Blvd., STE 1055 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 473-1111 Facsimile: (310) 473-2222 E-mail: amir@mostafavilaw.com DAY & NITE: Faces "Dobler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Johnathan Dobler, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees v. Day & Nite All Service FLA, LLC d/b/a Day & Nite, Case No. 8:17-cv-00128-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., January 18, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Day & Nite All Service FLA, LLC provides refrigeration, kitchen equipment, hvac & plumbing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc R. Edelman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, #600 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 257-0572 E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com DELTA APPAREL: California Wage and Hour Lawsuits Settled -------------------------------------------------------- Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended October 1, 2016, that two California wage and hour lawsuits have been settled. The Company said, "We were served with a complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or about March 13, 2013, by a former employee of our Delta Activewear business unit at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and unfair business practices with respect to meal and rest periods, compensation and wage statements, and related claims (the "Complaint"). The Complaint was brought as a class action and sought to include all of our Delta Activewear business unit's current and certain former employees within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint also named as defendants Junkfood, Soffe, an independent contractor of Soffe, and a former employee, and sought to include all current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe and the Soffe independent contractor within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief, monetary damages and compensation, penalties, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- judgment interest." "On or about August 22, 2014, we were served with an additional complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, by a former employee of Junkfood and two former employees of Soffe at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and hour laws and unfair business practices the same or substantially similar to those alleged in the Complaint and seeking the same or substantially similar relief as sought in the Complaint. This complaint was brought as a class action and sought to include all current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe, our Delta Activewear business unit, the Soffe independent contractor named in the Complaint and an individual employee of such contractor within California who are or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. "On September 17, 2015, an agreement in principle was reached between all parties to settle the above-referenced wage and hour matters, with the defendants in the matters agreeing to pay an aggregate amount of $300,000 in exchange for a comprehensive release of all claims at issue in the matters. Delta Apparel, Inc., Soffe and Junkfood collectively agreed to contribute $200,000 towards the aggregate settlement amount, and we have this amount included in our accrued expenses as of October 1, 2016, and October 3, 2015. The settlement agreement was approved by the applicable court and these matters have been finally resolved, with the agreed amounts funded subsequent to the 2016 fiscal year- end." Delta Apparel, Inc. is an international apparel design, marketing, manufacturing and sourcing company that features a diverse portfolio of lifestyle basics and branded activewear apparel, headwear and related accessory products. DES MOINES REGISTER: Court Denies Epstein's Bid to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. John A. Jarvey denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify class filed in the lawsuit entitled VICTOR EPSTEIN v. DES MOINES REGISTER AND TRIBUNE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation, and GANNETT CO., INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00453-JAJ-CFB (S.D. Iowa). Judge Jarvey opined that the Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act to certify the proposed collective action because there is no company policy requiring employees to work uncompensated overtime and, therefore, members of the potential class are not similarly situated. Judge Jarvey added that treatment of all of the Plaintiff's putative class members' claims in a class action lawsuit would be unmanageable. Victor Epstein filed the motion for conditional certification and Court-authorized notice asking the Court for conditional certification of a collective action on behalf of himself and a group of similarly situated individuals pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and Local Rule 23. The case arises from the Plaintiff's original Petition at Law and Jury Demand, filed November 4, 2015, in the Iowa District Court for Polk County. The Plaintiff's four count amended complaint alleged that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law by not compensating employees for all overtime hours worked, among other violations. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ef84vGpA DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C3 said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the monthly distribution period from October 14, 2016 to November 14, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in a lawsuit by investors against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC"). On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a derivative action against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("DBNTC") in New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the benefit of 544 private-label RMBS trusts asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts, which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19, 2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction. The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the motion to dismiss. On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in federal court. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert claims in connection with 62 trusts governed by Indenture Agreements. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July 15, 2016. On August 15, 2016, plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss. On September 2, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss. Discovery is ongoing. DEUTSCHE BANK: Discovery Underway Blackrock Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- UBS-Barclays Commercial Mortgage Trust 2012-C3 said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the monthly distribution period from October 14, 2016 to November 14, 2016, that discovery is ongoing in a lawsuit by investors against Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA"). On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange County with respect to 513 trusts. On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and included DBNTC as an additional defendant. The amended complaint asserts three causes of action: breach of contract; breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest. Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465 trusts. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7 billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On August 22, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a demurrer as to plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary duty cause of action and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of interest cause of action and motion to strike as to plaintiffs' breach of contract cause of action. On September 12, 2016, plaintiffs filed oppositions to the demurrer and motion to strike of DBNTC and DBTCA. On October 3, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed replies in further support of their demurrer and motion to strike. On October 18, 2016, the court granted DBNTC and DBTCA's demurrer, providing plaintiffs with thirty days' leave to amend, and denied DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to strike. Discovery is ongoing. DST SYSTEMS: "Ducharme" Suit Claims Breach of Duties Under ERISA ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES DUCHARME, individually and as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the DST SYSTEMS, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Plaintiff, v. DST SYSTEMS, INC., THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE DST SYSTEMS, INC., 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, THE COMPENSATION COMMITTEE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DST SYSTEMS, INC., and John Does 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv- 00022-HFS (W.D. Mo., January 13, 2017), accuses Defendants of breaching the responsibilities, obligations, and/or duties imposed upon plan fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. DST Systems, Inc. provides global information processing services and support to clients in the asset management, insurance, retirement, brokerage and healthcare industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq. John M. Klamann, Esq. Andrew Schermerhorn, Esq. Paul D. Anderson, Esq. THE KLAMANN LAW FIRM 4435 Main Street, Suite 150 Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 421-2626 Fax: (816) 421-8686 E-mail: jklamann@klamannlaw.com ajs@klamannlaw.com panderson@klamannlaw.com - and - Ted Kapke, Esq. Mike Fleming, Esq. KAPKE & WILLERTH 3304 N.E. Ralph Powell Road Lee's Summit, MO 64064 Phone: (816) 461-3800 Fax: (816) 254-8014 E-mail: ted@kapkewillerth.com mike@kapkewillerth.com - and - William Carr, Esq. Bryan T. White, Esq. WHITE, GRAHAM, BUCKLEY & CARR 19049 East Valley View Parkway Independence, MO 64055 Phone: (816) 373-9080 Fax: (816) 373-9319 E-mail: bwhite@wagblaw.com - and - Kenneth B. McClain, Esq. HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN 221 West Lexington, Suite 400, P.O. Box 900 Independence, MO 64051 Phone: (816) 836-5050 Fax: (816) 836-8966 E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com EMPIRE PARKING: Sued in Ga. Over Vehicle Immobilization Device -------------------------------------------------------------- Spence Beck, and all others similarly situated v. Empire Parking Services Inc., Case No. 2017CV284982 (Ga. Super. Ct., January 18, 2017), seeks to end the Defendant's practice of impounding the Plaintiff's vehicle by installing a vehicle immobilization device. Empire Parking Services Inc. owns and operates a parking services company located at 3400 Peachtree Rd NE #800, Atlanta, GA 30326. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Fletcher II, Esq. FLETCHER LAW FIRM LLC PO Box 88925 Atlanta GA 30356 Telephone: (404) 409-5665 Facsimile: (888) 371-1248 E-mail: jim@JimFletcher.net FIDELITY & GUARANTY: "Ludwick" Class Action Appeal Underway ----------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that an appeal in the case by Dale R. Ludwick remains pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri (the "District Court"), captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company, Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd. The complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), requests injunctive and declaratory relief seeks unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not presently determinable, treble damages, and other relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid at least $0 for her annuity. On April 13, 2015, the Company joined in the filing of a Joint Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss. Judgment was entered on February 12, 2016. On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") from the District Court's Order and Judgment. As of September 30, 2016, the Company did not have sufficient information to determine whether the Company is exposed to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $2 million, which was accrued during the year ended September 30, 2016. No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report. FIFTH STREET: Feb. 16 Fairness Hearing on FSC Class Suit Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court has entered the proposed order and scheduled the fairness hearing for February 16, 2017 in the class-action lawsuits against Fifth Street Finance Corp or FSC. The Company has been named as a defendant in three putative securities class-action lawsuits arising from its role as investment adviser to FSC. The first lawsuit was filed on October 1, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Howard Randall, Trustee, Howard & Gale Randall Trust FBO Kimberly Randall Irrevocable Trust UA Feb 15, 2000 v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07759-LAK. The second lawsuit was filed on October 14, 2015, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and is captioned Lynn Waters-Cottrell v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01488. The case was later transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where it is pending as Case No. 16-cv-00088- LAK. The third lawsuit was filed on November 12, 2015, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is captioned Robert J. Hurwitz v. Fifth Street Finance Corp., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08908-LAK. The Company said, "The defendants in all three cases are Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Todd G. Owens, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Richard Petrocelli, us and FSC." "The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased FSC common stock between July 7, 2014 and February 6, 2015, inclusive. The lawsuits allege in general terms that defendants engaged in a purportedly fraudulent scheme designed to artificially inflate the true value of FSC's investment portfolio and investment income in order to increase FSAM's revenue, which FSAM received as the asset manager and investment adviser (through subsidiaries) of FSC. "For example, the lawsuits allege that FSC improperly delayed the write-down of at least three of its investments until the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2014, after FSAM had conducted its initial public offering, or IPO, in October 2014, even though FSC purportedly should have taken the write-downs before FSAM's IPO. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the amount of damages being sought in any of the actions. "On February 1, 2016, the court appointed Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System as lead plaintiff and the law firm of Labaton Sucharow LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiff filed its consolidated complaint on April 1, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges claims similar to those pled in the original complaints on behalf of the same putative class. Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on May 31, 2016. "After defendants filed their motion to dismiss, the parties engaged in a mediation to explore the possible settlement of the action. Following the mediation, the parties entered into an agreement to settle the case for $14,050,000 on behalf of a settlement class consisting of persons and entities who purchased our common stock during the period from July 7, 2014 through February 6, 2015. Approximately 99% of which will be covered by FSC's insurance proceeds from its carriers. The proposed settlement is subject to lead plaintiff's completion of additional discovery and approval by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after notice has been sent to the settlement class. Lead plaintiff completed the additional discovery and decided to proceed with the proposed settlement. "The parties submitted the proposed settlement to the court on September 23, 2016, and asked the court to enter an order certifying the putative class for settlement purposes, authorizing dissemination of notice of the settlement to potential class members, and scheduling a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement. On November 9, 2016, the court entered the proposed order and scheduled the fairness hearing for February 16, 2017." FIFTH STREET: FSC Proxy Litigation Now Concluded ------------------------------------------------ Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the proxy litigation involving Fifth Street Finance Corp or FSC is now concluded. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative class-action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder of Fifth Street Finance Corp on January 29, 2016, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The case is captioned James Craig v. Bernard D. Berman, et al., C.A. No. 11947-VCG. The defendants in the case were Bernard D. Berman, James Castro-Blanco, Ivelin M. Dimitrov, Brian S. Dunn, Richard P. Dutkiewicz, Byron J. Haney, Sandeep K. Khorana, Todd G. Owens, Douglas F. Ray, Fifth Street Management LLC, FSC, Fifth Street Holdings L.P., and the Company. The complaint alleged that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to FSC stockholders by, among other things, issuing an incomplete or inaccurate preliminary proxy statement that purportedly attempted to mislead FSC stockholders into voting against proposals to be presented by another shareholder (RiverNorth Capital Management) in a proxy contest in connection with FSC's 2016 annual meeting. The competing shareholder proposals had sought to elect three director nominees to FSC's Board of Directors and to terminate the Investment Advisory Agreement between FSC and the Company. The complaint also charged that the director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by perpetuating and failing to terminate the Investment Advisory Agreement and by seeking to entrench themselves as directors and FSAM affiliates as FSC's manager. The FSAM entities were charged with breaching their duties as alleged controlling persons of FSC and with aiding and abetting the FSC directors' breaches of duty. The complaint sought, among other things, an injunction preventing FSC and its Board of Directors from soliciting proxies for the 2016 annual meeting until additional disclosures were issued; a declaration that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by refusing to terminate the Investment Advisory Agreement and by keeping the FSC Board of Directors and Fifth Street Management LLC in place; a declaration that any shares repurchased by FSC after the record date of the 2016 annual meeting would not be considered outstanding shares for purposes of the FSC stockholder approvals sought at the annual meeting; and awarding plaintiff costs and disbursements. The plaintiff moved for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary injunction. Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion for expedited proceedings and moved to dismiss the case. FSC also filed another amendment to the preliminary proxy statement, making additional disclosures relating to issues raised by plaintiff and RiverNorth. On February 16, 2016, plaintiff informed the Delaware court that the basis for his injunction motion had become moot and that he was withdrawing his motions for a preliminary injunction and expedited proceedings. On February 18, 2016, FSC announced that it had entered into an agreement with RiverNorth pursuant to which RiverNorth would withdraw its competing proxy solicitation. Plaintiff later informed the court that his case had become moot, and he moved for a "mootness fee." On September 23, 2016, the court awarded plaintiff fees and expenses of $350,000. Any potential liabilities related to this matter would be borne by FSC, not the Company. The litigation is now concluded. FIFTH STREET: Feb. 16 Fairness Hearing on FSAM Class Action Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the court entered the proposed order and scheduled the fairness hearing for February 16, 2017, with respect to the settlement in the class-action lawsuits involving Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. The Company was named as a defendant in two putative securities class-action lawsuits filed by purchasers of the Company's shares. The suits are related to the securities class actions brought by shareholders of FSC, for which Fifth Street Management serves as investment adviser. The first lawsuit by the Company's shareholders was filed on January 7, 2016, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut and was captioned Ronald K. Linde, etc. v. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv- 00025. The defendants are the Company, Leonard M. Tannenbaum, Bernard D. Berman, Alexander C. Frank, Steven M. Noreika, Wayne Cooper, Mark J. Gordon, Thomas L. Harrison, and Frank C. Meyer. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's IPO. The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of conduct to artificially inflate FSC's assets and investment income and, in turn, the Company's valuation at the time of its IPO, thereby rendering the Company's IPO Registration Statement and Prospectus materially false and misleading. The plaintiffs have not quantified their claims for relief. On February 25, 2016, the court granted the Company's unopposed motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case could be coordinated as appropriate with the securities class actions filed by FSC shareholders. The case is now pending in the Southern District of New York as Case No. 1:16-cv-01941-LAK. On April 22, 2016, the court appointed Kieran and Susan Duffy as lead plaintiffs and the law firm of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 13, 2016. On March 7, 2016, the other putative class action by the Company's shareholders was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case was captioned Joyce L. Trupp Agreement of Trust v. Fifth Street Asset Management Inc., et al., No. 1:16-cv-01711. The defendants were the same as in the Linde case, and the complaint was a virtual clone of the original Linde complaint. The Trupp plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her case before lead plaintiffs and lead counsel were appointed in the Linde case. Following an agreed mediation, and as previously disclosed in the Company's Form 8-K filed on August 4, 2016, the parties in the Linde case signed an agreement to settle the action for $9,250,000, which will be covered by insurance proceeds. The proposed settlement is subject to lead plaintiffs' completion of additional discovery and approval by the court after notice has been sent to the settlement class. Lead plaintiffs completed the additional discovery and decided to proceed with the proposed settlement. The parties submitted the proposed settlement to the court on September 23, 2016, and asked the court to enter an order certifying the putative class for settlement purposes, authorizing dissemination of notice of the settlement to potential class members, and scheduling a fairness hearing on the proposed settlement. On November 9, 2016, the court entered the proposed order and scheduled the fairness hearing for February 16, 2017. A provision for losses of $9,250,000 related to the lawsuits has been recorded, offset by the accrual of expected insurance recoveries of $9,250,000 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements as of September 30, 2016. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect on the operations and liquidity of the Company. FLAT RATE: Faces "Djurdjevich" Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- MIRKO DJURDJEVICH, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. FLAT RATE MOVERS, LTD., SAM GHOLAM, ISRAEL CARMEL and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 00261-AJN (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2017), claims that Plaintiffs are entitled to (i) compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum wage, (ii) unpaid wages from Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and (iii) liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, because Defendants' violations lacked a good faith basis. Flat Rate Movers, Ltd., a moving company that serves clients across the United States, moves its clients' property across state borders on a regular basis. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew C. Heerde, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW C. HEERDE 222 Broadway, 19th Fl. New York, NY 10038 Phone: 347-460-3588 Fax: 347-535-3588 Email: mheerde@heerdelaw.com FOODLINER: Faces "Austin" Suit Over Failure to Provide Break ------------------------------------------------------------ Ronda Austin, Christopher Corduck, Ernest Dial, Billy Wayne Gibson and Bobby G. Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Foodliner, Inc., and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. RG17846044 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 18, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide Plaintiffs and aggrieved employees with proper meal and rest periods, and failure to pay one additional hour of pay at respective regular rates of compensation for each workday that they were not provided an adequate off-duty meal or rest period. Foodliner, Inc. is in the business of transporting various liquid and dry cargo from one location to another. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hunter Pyle, Esq. Chad Saunders, Esq. SUNDEEN SALINAS & PYLE 428 Thirteenth Street, Eighth Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 663-9240 Facsimile: (510)663-9241 E-mail: hpyle@ssrplaw.com csaunders@ssrplaw.com GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES: Faces Liberty Salad Suit in E.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES, INC. The case is styled as LIBERTY SALAD, INC. and 18TH STREET SALAD, INC., ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. GROUNDHOG ENTERPRISES, INC., doing business as MERCHANT LYNX SERVICES, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00226-TJS (E.D. Pa., Jan. 17, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Timothy J. Savage. Groundhog Enterprises is a merchant service provider. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK PC. 1515 MARKET ST STE 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 985 9177 Facsimile: (215) 985 4169 E-mail: kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com HENIFF TRANSPORTATION: "Hernandez" Invokes FLSA, Ill. Wage Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- ENRIQUE HERNANDEZ, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. HENIFF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00298 (N.D. Ill., January 13, 2017), accuses Defendants of i) failing to pay Plaintiff at the least the federally and/or state-mandated minimum wages for all time worked in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law; ii) failing to compensate Plaintiff for all time worked at the rate agreed to by the Parties in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA); and 3) failing to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for all accrued vacation pay upon separation of their employment in violation of the IWPCA, and for claims arising under the IWPCA for unpaid vacation. Defendant is in the business of transporting bulk liquid chemicals. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. Christopher J. Williams, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C. 53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 701 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 795-9121 HINT INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Product Advertisements ------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Kim Madrigal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Hint, Inc. and Does 1 through 20 inclusive, Case No. BC646991 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), arises out of the Defendant's false or misleading labels and advertisements relating to their Flavored Water Products. Hint, Inc. owns and operates a beverage company headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph S. Farzam, Esq. JOSEPH FARZAM LAW FIRM A Professional Law Corporation 11766 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 280 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (610) 226-6890 Facsimile: (310) 226-6891 E-mail: joseph@farzamlaw.com HRG GROUP: Paid $5.5MM in Legal Fees Related to "Cressy" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that FGL has incurred and paid $5.5 million related to legal fees and other costs and $3.3 million related to settlement costs as of September 30, 2016, with respect to the Cressy litigation. On July 5, 2013, Plaintiff Eddie L. Cressy filed a putative class complaint captioned Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al. ("Cressy") in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "LA Court"), Case No. BC- 514340. The complaint was filed after the Plaintiff was unable to maintain an action in federal court. The complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on defendants' advice in purchasing allegedly unsuitable equity- indexed insurance policies. On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Judgment in Cressy, certifying the class for settlement purposes, and approving the class settlement. On August 10, 2015, FGL tendered $1.3 million to the Settlement Administrator for a claim review fund. FGL implemented an interest enhancement feature for certain policies as part of the class settlement, which enhancement began on October 12, 2015. On October 21, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to amend the January 2, 2015 final order and judgement, to extend the deadline for settlement completion from October 24, 2016 to December 1, 2016. At September 30, 2016, FGL estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action would be $9.2 million with a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $0.4 million. FGL has incurred and paid $5.5 million related to legal fees and other costs and $3.3 million related to settlement costs as of September 30, 2016. Based on the information currently available, FGL does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. FGL had been seeking indemnification from OMGUK under the First Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Agreement, dated February 17, 2011 between FGL (formerly, Harbinger F&G, LLC) and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and state courts. During Fiscal 2015, FGL, the Company and OMGUK reached a global settlement which resolved all prior outstanding claims, resulting in FGL receiving $3.6 million in settlement of its outstanding recoverable related to the Cressy litigation. HRG is a holding company that conducts its operations through its operating subsidiaries. As of September 30, 2016, its principal operating subsidiaries include: (i) Spectrum Brands, its subsidiary that provides global branded consumer products; (ii) FGL, its subsidiary that provides life insurance and annuity products; and (iii) Front Street, its subsidiary engaged in the business of providing long-term reinsurance, including reinsurance to the specialty insurance sector of fixed, deferred and payout annuities. HRG GROUP: Appeal in "Ludwick" Suit Underway -------------------------------------------- HRG Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the appeal related to the class action lawsuit by Dale R. Ludwick remains pending. On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint ("Ludwick Litigation") was filed in the United States District Court, Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R. Ludwick, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated ("Plaintiff Ludwick") v. Harbinger Group Inc. (HRG's former corporate name), FGL Insurance, Raven Reinsurance Company ("Raven Re"), and Front Street Cayman (the "Ludwick Defendants"). The complaint alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), requested injunctive and declaratory relief, sought unspecified compensatory damages for the putative class in an amount not specified, treble damages, and other relief, and claims Plaintiff Ludwick overpaid for her annuity. On April 13, 2015, the Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 12, 2016, the District Court granted the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss. On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff Ludwick filed a notice of appeal. As of September 30, 2016, HRG and FGL did not have sufficient information to determine whether FGL is exposed to any losses that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an expense contingency estimate of $1.6 million, which was accrued during Fiscal 2016. HRG is a holding company that conducts its operations through its operating subsidiaries. As of September 30, 2016, its principal operating subsidiaries include: (i) Spectrum Brands, its subsidiary that provides global branded consumer products; (ii) FGL, its subsidiary that provides life insurance and annuity products; and (iii) Front Street, its subsidiary engaged in the business of providing long-term reinsurance, including reinsurance to the specialty insurance sector of fixed, deferred and payout annuities. HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: 2 Shareholder Suits Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------- Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that two shareholder lawsuits against the Company have been dismissed. Beginning on March 13, 2014, two lawsuits styled as class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against us and several then-current officers of the Company alleging that the Company made false and misleading statements that artificially inflated our stock prices. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that we misrepresented our compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money laundering statutes and that we lacked adequate internal controls. The lawsuits seek damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific amount of damages is not specified. On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff, which remains pending. Both of the March 2014 lawsuits were dismissed voluntarily. One was dismissed during the quarter ended September 30, 2016 and the second on October 6, 2016. IFCO SYSTEMS: "Graham" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Arthur Graham, Arvis Graham, and Marshall Fairley, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. IFCO Systems N.A., Inc., an unknown business entity; CIOX Health, an uknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIVDS1620273, was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00074 to the proceeding. IFCO Systems designs, develops, and manufactures reusable plastic containers for fresh products, including fruits and vegetables. The Plaintiffs appear pro se. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Engineers Fund Sues Over Lidocaine Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 30 BENEFITS FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., SANDOZ, INC., FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., HI-TECH PHARMACAL CO., INC., and AKORN, INC., ACTAVIS HOLDCO U.S., INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00205-CMR (E.D. Pa., January 13, 2017), accuses Defendants of engaging in a conspiracy to fix, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of Lidocaine/Prilocaine topical cream. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC. -- http://www.impaxlabs.com/-- is a technology-based specialty pharmaceutical company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Katie R. Beran, Esq. Brent W. Landau, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 325 Chestnut St., Suite 900 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Phone: (215) 985-3270 Fax: (215) 985-3271 E-mail: kberan@hausfeld.com blandau@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 633-1908 Fax: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com scho@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Jeannine M. Kednney, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Fax: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jkenney@hausfeld.com - and - Frank R. Schirripa, Esq. Daniel B. Rehns, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 185 Madison Ave. New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 213-8311 E-mail: FSchirripa@hrsclaw.com DRehns@hrsclaw.com INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Defending Against "Trahan" Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, that the Company is facing a putative stockholder class action lawsuit captioned Trahan v. Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03161-SEB-TAB (the "Trahan Action"). On August 30, 2016, Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc. (the "Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of August 30, 2016 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories, Inc., a California corporation ("Genesys"), Giant Merger Sub Inc., an Indiana corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Genesys ("Merger Sub"), and, solely for the purposes of Section 5.16 of the Merger Agreement, Greeneden Lux 3 S.aR.L., a societe a responsabilite limitee under the laws of Luxembourg ("Lux 3"), Greeneden U.S. Holdings I, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Holdings I"), and Greeneden U.S. Holdings II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Holdings II"), pursuant to which, among other things, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Genesys (the "Merger"). On November 18, 2016, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, captioned Trahan v. Interactive Intelligence Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-03161-SEB-TAB (the "Trahan Action"). The Trahan Action names as defendants the Company, individual members of the Company's board of directors, Genesys, Merger Sub, Lux 3, Holdings I and Holdings II. The Trahan Action alleges, among other things, that the Company's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to an allegedly inadequate price in the Merger, by conducting an allegedly flawed sales process, and by agreeing to certain deal-protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that allegedly preclude or impede a potential superior proposal. The Trahan Action further alleges that Merger Sub and the other corporate defendants aided and abetted these alleged fiduciary breaches. In addition, the Trahan Action alleges that the definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 4, 2016 relating to the Company's special meeting of shareholders held on November 9, 2016 omitted certain material information in violation of Section 20(a) and Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Among other things, the plaintiff seeks orders certifying the lawsuit as a class action, enjoining defendants from closing the Merger until the Company discloses certain information, and awarding unspecified damages to the plaintiff and the purported class of the Company's shareholders. Although the Company and the individual members of its board of directors believe that the claims and allegations raised in the Trahan Action are without merit and intend to vigorously defend the Trahan Action, its ultimate outcome cannot presently be determined. JCB CLEANING: Faces "Jaramillo" Suit Seeking to Recoup Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE JARAMILLO, LUZ DARY GIRALDO, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. JCB CLEANING SYSTEMS INC., JULIO CACERES and BLANCA CACERES, Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60081-KMW (S.D. Fla., January 13, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for alleged unpaid minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Jcb Cleaning Systems Inc. is in the industrial cleaning services business. The Plaintiffs are represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 503.5131 Fax: (888) 270.5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: "Wandel" Suit Voluntarily Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the defendants in the case, Wandel v. Tyco International plc, has voluntarily dismissed the complaint as to all defendants. On March 1, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Wandel v. Tyco International plc, et al., Docket No. C-000010-16, was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey naming Johnson Controls International plc ("JCI plc"; previously Tyco International plc), the individual members of its board of directors, Johnson Controls, Inc. and a merger subsidiary of JCI plc as defendants. The complaint alleged that, prior to the merger, the JCI plc's directors breached their fiduciary duties and exercised their powers as directors in a manner oppressive to the public shareholders of Tyco in violation of Irish law by, among other things, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value and failing to protect against purported conflicts of interest. The complaint further alleged that JCI plc, Johnson Controls, Inc. and JCI plc's merger subsidiary aided and abetted Tyco's directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the merger between Johnson Controls, Inc. and Tyco's subsidiary. On September 9, 2016, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint as to all defendants. Johnson Controls is a global diversified technology and industrial leader serving customers in more than 150 countries. The Company creates quality products, services and solutions to optimize energy and operational efficiencies of buildings; lead-acid automotive batteries and advanced batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles; and seating and interior systems for automobiles. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Settlement Reached in "Laufer" Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Johnson Controls, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the parties in the case, Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., have reached a settlement agreement. On May 20, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Laufer v. Johnson Controls, Inc., et al., Docket No. 2016CV003859, was filed in the Circuit Court of Wisconsin, Milwaukee County, naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of directors, JCI plc and JCI plc's merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint alleged that Johnson Controls Inc.'s directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger between Johnson Controls Inc. and JCI plc's merger subsidiary by, among other things, failing to take steps to maximize shareholder value, seeking to benefit themselves improperly and failing to disclose material information in the joint proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger. The complaint further alleged that JCI plc aided and abetted Johnson Controls Inc.'s directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other things, to enjoin the merger. On August 8, 2016, the plaintiffs agreed to settle the action and release all claims that were or could have been brought by plaintiffs or any member of the putative class of Johnson Controls Inc.'s shareholders. The settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness of the proposed settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement. In either event, or certain other circumstances, the settlement could be terminated. Johnson Controls is a global diversified technology and industrial leader serving customers in more than 150 countries. The Company creates quality products, services and solutions to optimize energy and operational efficiencies of buildings; lead-acid automotive batteries and advanced batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles; and seating and interior systems for automobiles. JOHNSON CONTROLS: Injunction Request in "Gumm" Suit Underway ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, Gumm et al v. Molinaroli et al., Case No. 2:16-cv- 01093 (E.D. Wisc.), a hearing was held Jan. 4, 2017, before Judge Pamela Pepper on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Danny High, Michael F Holzhauer, Cynthia Pontier, Paul J Pontier, Arlene D Gumm. Johnson Controls, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is scheduled for January 2017 in the case, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al. On August 16, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit, Gumm v. Molinaroli, et al., Case No. 16-cv-1093, was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, naming Johnson Controls, Inc., the individual members of its board of directors at the time of the merger with JCI plc's merger subsidiary and certain of its officers, JCI plc and JCI plc's merger subsidiary as defendants. The complaint asserted various causes of action under the federal securities laws, state law and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights II, including that the individual defendants allegedly breached their fiduciary duties and unjustly enriched themselves by structuring the merger among the JCI plc, Tyco and the merger subsidiary in a manner that would result in a United States federal income tax realization event for the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and allegedly result in certain benefits to the defendants, as well as related claims regarding alleged misstatements in the proxy statement/prospectus distributed to the Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders, conversion and breach of contract. The complaint also asserted that Johnson Controls, Inc., JCI plc and JCI plc's merger subsidiary aided and abetted the individual defendants in their breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment. The complaint seeks, among other things, disgorgement of profits, damages and to enjoin the closing of the merger. On September 30, 2016, approximately one month after the closing of the merger, plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion seeking, among other items, to compel Johnson Controls, Inc. to make certain intercompany payments that plaintiffs contend will impact the United States federal income tax consequences of the merger to the putative class of certain Johnson Controls, Inc. shareholders and to enjoin Johnson Controls, Inc. from reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the capital gains taxes payable by this putative class as a result of the closing of the merger. A hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is currently scheduled for January 2017. Johnson Controls is a global diversified technology and industrial leader serving customers in more than 150 countries. The Company creates quality products, services and solutions to optimize energy and operational efficiencies of buildings; lead-acid automotive batteries and advanced batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles; and seating and interior systems for automobiles. KARDESH PETROLEUM: Faces "Figengul" Suit in E.D.N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kardesh Petroleum Inc. The case is entitled as Hakan Figengul, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kardesh Petroleum Inc., and Dincer Ocak, In his individual capacities, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00242-DRH-AKT (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Denis R. Hurley. Kardesh Petroleum Inc. is in the gasoline business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Delvis Melendez, Esq. 90 Bradley Street Brentwood, NY 11717 Telephone: (631) 434 1443 Facsimile: (631) 434 1443 E-mail: delvisprlaw@aol.com KEMPER SPORTS: Faces "Lall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Lall, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kemper Sports Management, Inc., and The Village Club of Sands Point, Case No. 700853/2017 (N.Y. Super. Ct., January 18, 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 more than a dozen membership clubs across the country in different states which provide restaurant, lodging and recreational facilities to members and the public all year round. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 355-9668 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com KEMPHARM INC: Seeks Removal of "Christians" Suit to Iowa Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The Defendants in the case captioned KEVIN CHRISTIANS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. KEMPHARM, INC., TRAVIS C. MICKLE, PH.D., GORDON K. JOHNSON, R. LADUANE CLIFTON, SVEN GUENTHER, PH.D., CHRISTAL M.M. MICKLE, DANNY L. THOMPSON, MATTHEW R. PLOOSTER, RICHARD W. PASCOE, JOSEPH B. SALURI, DAVID S. TIERNEY, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, CANACCORD GENUITY, INC. and OPPENHEIMER & CO., INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00002-RP-HCA (S.D. Iowa, January 12, 2017), request removal of the action from the Iowa District Court in and for Johnson County to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, Davenport Division. The case alleges violations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. KemPharm, Inc. -- http://www.kempharm.com/-- is a clinical-stage specialty pharmaceutical company. The Defendants are represented by: Stephen J. Holtman, Esq. SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC 115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 Phone: 319-366-7641 Fax: 319-366-1917 E-mail: sholtman@simmonsperrine.com LINCOLN NATIONAL: Faces "Mukamal" Suit in E. Dist. of Pa. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lincoln National Corp. The case is captioned as BARRY MUKAMAL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE MUTUAL BENEFITS KEEP POLICY TRUST; and MILGRIM INVESTMENTS, LP, A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL CORP., and LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 00234-GJP (E.D. Pa., Jan. 17, 2017). The case is assigned to Hon. Gerald J. Pappert. Lincoln National Corporation is a Fortune 250 American holding company, which operates multiple insurance and investment management businesses through subsidiary companies. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. BARRACK RODOS & BACINE 3300 Two Commerce Sq 2001 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963 0600 E-mail: jgolan@barrack.com LINCOLN PROPERTY: "Amos" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay ----------------------------------------------------- Natalie Amos, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lincoln Property Company, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00037, (M.D. Tenn., January 10, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, commissions and bonuses, attorneys' fees and costs, legal and equitable relief as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Business Manager at Gale Lofts, a residential property managed by the Defendant in Nashville, Tennessee. Amos claims overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Timothy L. Miles, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN &GARRISON, LLC Bank of America Plaza 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 Facsimile: (615) 252-3798 Email: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com tmiles@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com LIONS GATE: Stipulation of Settlement Entered in "Levy" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. filed a Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 28, 2016, in connection with a stipulation of settlement regarding the settlement of certain litigation relating to the proposed merger (the "Merger") of Orion Arm Acquisition Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. ("Lions Gate"), with and into Starz, pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of June 30, 2016, by and among Lions Gate, Starz and Merger Sub (as amended, the "Merger Agreement"). The litigation to which the Stipulation relates is a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Levy v. Malone, et al., Index No. 607759/2016 (the "Action"), filed on October 7, 2016 in New York state court by a purported Lions Gate stockholder against Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors. The Action alleges, among other things, that the members of the Lions Gate board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to Lions Gate stockholders and/or aided and abetted breaches of fiduciary duties by others in connection with the proposed Merger, and that Lions Gate and the members of its board of directors failed to disclose material information in the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed on September 7, 2016 on Form S-4 in connection with the proposed Merger. On November 23, 2016, Lions Gate and the other defendants in the Action entered into the Stipulation with the plaintiff providing for the settlement of the Action. The Stipulation contemplates, among other things, that Lions Gate will make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the proposed Merger. Although Lions Gate and the other defendants deny the allegations made in the Action and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of further litigation, Lions Gate agreed to make such supplemental disclosures pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation. The Stipulation is subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Lions Gate's stockholders. A hearing will be scheduled at which the New York state court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Lions Gate challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement contemplated by the Stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Stipulation may be terminated and the defendants would continue to vigorously defend against the allegations in the Action. As widely reported, Lionsgate on Dec. 8 closed its $4.4 billion cash and stock deal to acquire Starz, after the two companies' shareholders approved the merger in a near-unanimous vote. LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Class Certification Briefing Due May 2 ---------------------------------------------------------- Liquidity Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that in the case, Howard v. Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-1183 (D. D.C. 2014), class certification shall be fully briefed by May 2, 2017. On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court") against the Company and its chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer, on behalf of stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock between February 1, 2012, and May 7, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company's growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its share price, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. On October 14, 2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec and the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund as co-lead plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 15, 2014, which alleges substantially similar claims but which does not name the chief accounting officer as a defendant. On March 2, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim or plead fraud with the requisite particularity. On March 31, 2016, the Court granted that motion in part and denied it in part. On May 16, 2016, the Company answered the amended complaint. Pursuant to the scheduling order in this action, document production shall be substantially complete by January 13, 2017, class certification shall be fully briefed by May 2, 2017, all fact discovery shall be completed by August 31, 2017, and expert discovery shall be completed by February 23, 2018. The Company believes the allegations in the amended complaint are without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time. Liquidity ervices operates a network of leading e-commerce marketplaces that enable buyers and sellers to transact in an efficient, automated environment offering over 500 product categories. LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss & Stay Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Howard v. Liquidity Services, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 14-1183 (D. D.C. 2014), Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell on December 21, 2016, entered a Minute Order: (1) denying, without prejudice to any future summary judgment motion, the defendants' Motion for Reconsideration, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54 (b), of the Court's Order granting in part and denying in part the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and (2) denying as moot the defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery. Judge Howell said, "The defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is predicated on "sworn testimony from the four [confidential witnesses] whose statements this Court principally relied on in denying dismissal." Defs.' Mot. Reconsideration at 1, ECF No. 73. According to the defendants, these confidential witnesses disclaimed knowledge of or recanted the allegations attributed to them in the complaint. The plaintiffs respond that, "while Defendants claim to have extracted highly questionable 'recantations' from four of Plaintiffs' confidential witnesses . . . (a claim in and of itself baseless and tethered to a gross distortion of the record), a full thirteen of the twenty CWs referenced in the Amended Complaint have come forward to vouch for the accuracy of their statements." Pls.' Opp'n Mot. Reconsideration at 1, ECF No. 77 (emphasis omitted). "When "faced with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a Sec. 10(b) action, courts must, as with any motion to dismiss for failure to plead a claim on which relief can be granted, accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true." Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. , 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007); accord U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. e-Smart Techs. , Inc., 31 F. Supp. 3d 69, 74 (D.D.C. 2014) ("[T]he Court must 'treat the complaint's factual allegations as true,' and must rely solely on matters set forth therein." (quoting Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc. , 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000))). "This is precisely what the Court did in granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, and there is no compelling reason to revisit that ruling based on material that the defendants obtained during discovery in the intervening months. The argument that it was "clear error" for the Court not to dismiss CFO James M. Rallo from this suit, Defs.' Mot. Reconsideration at 26, likewise fails, since it is premised, in significant part, on sworn testimony from a confidential witness, rather than some shortcoming in the allegations in the complaint. The defendants' motion to stay discovery is denied as moot in light of the dismissal of the motion for reconsideration." LONGWOOD ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Rest Period -------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Sawyer, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Longwood Enterprises, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC647009 (Cal. Super. Ct., January 17, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide second meal breaks, third rest breaks, timely meal breaks and failure to provide accurate and complete wage statements. Longwood Enterprises, Inc. operates a consulting services company located at 4032 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90010. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Jordan D. Bello, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310)432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com jbello@lelawfirm.com METROPOLITAN FIELD: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Wei Wang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Metropolitan Field Services, LLC and Sandy Jiang, Case No. 700868/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 18, 2017), seeks to recover minimum wage, overtime wages, spread of hours compensation, damages for failure to provide wage statements, damages for failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees for violations of the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a residential building located at 142-28, 38th Avenue, Flushing, New York 11354. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com NOVO NORDISK: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ Don Zuk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Novo Nordisk A/S, Lars Rebien Sorensen and Jesper Brandgaard, Case No. 3:17-cv-00358 (D.N.J., January 18, 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. Novo Nordisk is a Danish multinational pharmaceutical company with production facilities in eight countries, and affiliates or offices in 75 countries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 235 Main Street Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (973) 265-1600 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: ek@zlk.com NRA GROUP: Gadime Seeks Final Approval of Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled AYLIN GADIME, an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. NRA GROUP, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company, d/b/a NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, a fictitious entity, Case No. 2:15-cv- 04841-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), moves the Court for an order certifying the case to proceed as a class action and granting final approval to the parties' class settlement agreement. Specifically, the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order: (1) granting final approval of Settlement on the terms and conditions set forth in the Parties' Settlement Agreement and the Court's Order Granting Preliminary Approval; (2) finally certifying a class, for settlement purposes only, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); (3) releasing NRA from all claims and dismissing with prejudice all claims of Class Members who did not timely exclude themselves from the Settlement; (4) approving payments to Plaintiff, Class Members, and Class Counsel; (4) retaining continuing jurisdiction over the settlement proceedings, to ensure the effectuation thereof in accordance with the Agreement and Final Approval Order; and (6) granting related orders and findings as are set forth in the Proposed Final Approval Order. In her amended complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that NRA engaged in false, deceptive, and unfair collection practices, and thereby violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by mailing consumers collection letters, which encourage, but which fail to: (i) disclose a processing fee will be charged when making payments; and (ii) explain how to make a payment without incurring such fees. On September 22, 2016, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary Approval to the Parties' Class Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tVELxbby The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip D. Stern, Esq. Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. STERN THOMASSON LLP 150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor Springfield, NJ 07081-1315 Telephone: (973) 379-7500 Facsimile: (973) 532-5868 E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com andrew@sternthomasson.com - and - Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 522-2621 Facsimile: (888) 522-1692 E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com PARTNERS FOR PAYMENT: Class Certification Sought in "Ashley" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby Ashley asks the Court to enter an order determining that Counts II-III of the action titled KIRBY ASHLEY and PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS EX REL. KIRBY ASHLEY v. PARTNERS FOR PAYMENT RELIEF, DE II, LLC; DANIEL O. BARHAM, and BARHAM LEGAL, LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00149 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendants, and to certify classes pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Count I is a private attorney general claim. Count II is a class claim against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Count I alleges that the Defendants represented that PPR was entitled to enforce notes and mortgages against the Plaintiff and others, when this was not true because PPR lacked a collection agency license. The Plaintiff brings Count II on behalf of two classes, A and B. Class A consists of (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom defendant PPR attempted to collect money (c) on a loan secured by property in which the consumer resided at the time of the loan (d) where any collection activity occurred on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action. Class B consists of (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom defendants Daniel O. Barham or Barham Legal attempted to collect money (c) on behalf of defendant PPR or any other entity whose principal business is the acquisition of delinquent residential mortgage loans but which did not have a collection agency license (d) where any collection activity occurred on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this action. Count III is an Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim against PPR that alleges that the same conduct is unfair or deceptive in violation of the ICFA. The Plaintiff contends that both the FDCPA and the ICFA prohibit "unfair" and "deceptive" acts and practices, and were patterned after Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The Plaintiff brings Count III on behalf of a single class. The class consists of (a) all individuals with Illinois addresses (b) from whom PPR sought to collect money, (c) on or after a date 3 years prior to the filing of this action. The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N7TZV6Ae The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Michelle A. Alyea, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC 20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 739-4200 Facsimile: (312) 419-0379 E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com ccombs@edcombs.com jlatturner@edcombs.com malyea@edcombs.com PAYMENT DATA: Motion to Dismiss "McFarland" Suit Underway --------------------------------------------------------- Payment Data Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the quarterly report ended September 30, 2016, that the company's motion to dismiss the suit by Michael McFarland remains pending. On April 26, 2016, Michael McFarland, derivatively on behalf the Company, re-filed a class-action lawsuit in United States District Court, District of Nevada that was previously filed and dismissed. The Company said, "The suit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment by the our Board of Directors and certain executive officers and directors in connection with excessive and unfair compensation paid or awarded during fiscal years 2013 and 2014. The lawsuit seeks disgorgement of excessive compensation as well as damages in an unspecified amount." "In July 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the case," the Company said. "We believe this claim is without merit and it is unlikely that a loss will be incurred, therefore we have not accrued for a potential loss. However, the outcome of the dispute is still uncertain and it is possible we may incur legal fees and losses in the future." Payment Data provides integrated electronic payment processing services to merchants and businesses, including all types of Automated Clearing House, or ACH, processing, credit, prepaid card and debit card-based processing services. PER MAR: Faces "Bessy" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Wis. Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------- ANTONE BESSY and KANASHA WOODS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PER MAR SECURITY AND RESEARCH CORP., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00034 (W.D. Wis., January 13, 2017), alleges that Defendant maintains unlawful policies of failing to pay Named Plaintiffs and members of the putative classes overtime pay, travel pay, minimum wages, and promised compensation, all in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin law, as well as in breach of employment contracts. PER MAR SECURITY AND RESEARCH CORP. provides security services for clients, including at events. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq. Yingtao Ho, Esq. Erin F. Medeiros, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C. 310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW Milwaukee, WI 53203 Phone: 414-271-4500 Fax: 414-271-6308 E-mail: nde@previant.com yh@previant.com efm@previant.com PERFORMANCE FOOD: "Perez" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to C.D. Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jorge Perez, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, the Petitioner, v. Performance Food Group Inc., a Colorado corporation; Vistar Transportation, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Roma Food Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 3:15- cv-02390, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv- 00357-JAK-SK to the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. John A. Kronstadt. Performance Food Group is an American company that was founded in 1875. The company distributes a range of food products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Alistair Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937 Telephone: (310) 888 7771 Facsimile: (310) 888 0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com - and - Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP 2274 E. Maple Avenue El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292 2350 Facsimile: (424) 292 2355 E-mail: tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Sabrina Alexis Beldner, Esq. Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq. Matthew C. Kane, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 956 3419 Facsimile: (310) 315 8210 E-mail: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com skim@mcguirewoods.com mkane@mcguirewoods.com PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: AA Suncoast Seeks to Certify Two Classes -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled AA SUNCOAST CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, P.A., PALM HARBOR-WEST CHASE MEDICAL GROUP, P.A. d/b/a TAMPA BAY SPINE SPECIALISTS, and SPINAL CORRECTION CENTERS, INC., on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, PROGRESSIVE SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE PROGRESSIVE CORPORATION, Case No. 8:15- cv-02543-RAL-MAP (M.D. Fla.), seek an order certifying two classes and one subclass: A. All Qualified Providers who: (i) received an assignment of benefits from a Claimant under a Progressive PIP policy, (ii) provided initial or follow up medical services to a Claimant after January I, 2013, and (iii) were given notice by Progressive that available PIP benefits were reduced to $2,500 because of a Negative EMC Determination that Progressive obtained from a Non-treating Provider; and B. All Claimants who were notified that Progressive reduced available PIP benefits to $2,500 because of a Negative EMC Determination Progressive obtained from a Non-treating Provider. C. Sub-Class: All Qualified Provider Class Members: (i) who were not paid in full for their services, (ii) who made a pre-suit demand to Progressive for payment pursuant to Section 627.736(10), and (iii) where Progressive received documentation from a duly licensed physician, dentist, physician's assistant or advanced registered nurse practitioner that the Claimant had an Emergency Medical Condition. The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class representatives and their counsel as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0ajjZVkx The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christa L. Collins, Esq. Kathryn Lee, Esq. HARMON, WOODS, PARKER, P.A. 110 North 11th Street, 2nd Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 864-1762 Facsimile: (813) 222-3616 E-mail: service.clc@harmonwoodslaw.com Service.kl@harmonwoodslaw.com - and - Lauren Meksraitis-Elliott, Esq. MICHAEL MEKSRAITIS, CHARTERED 102 S. Westland Avenue Tampa, FL 33606 Telephone: (813) 250-0885 E-mail: lmeksraitis-elliott@verizon.net - and - J. Andrew Meyer, Esq. FINN LAW GROUP, P.A. 7431 114th Ave., Suite 104 Largo, FL 33773-5119 Telephone: (727) 214-0700 E-mail: ameyer@finnlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq. Ross E. Linzer, Esq. AKERMAN LLP One S.E. Third Avenue, 25th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 982-5576 Facsimile: (305) 374-5095 E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com ross.linzer@akerman.com - and - Margaret D. Mathews, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 1700 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 209-5031 Facsimile: (813) 223-2837 E-mail Margaret.mathews@akerman.com QUALITY CARE: Pension Fund Suit in Early Stages ----------------------------------------------- The case, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., is in its early stages and a lead plaintiff has not yet been named, Quality Care Properties, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016. HCP Inc. has reported that, on May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of HCP filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters' Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against HCP, certain of its officers, HCRMC, and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that HCP made certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the DOJ in a pending suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act. As the Boynton Beach action is in its early stages and a lead plaintiff has not yet been named, the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. HCP has reported that it believes the suit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Quality Care Properties, Inc. is a recently formed Maryland corporation that was created to hold the HCR ManorCare, Inc. ("HCRMC") portfolio ("HCRMC Properties"), 28 other healthcare related properties ("non-HCRMC Properties," and, collectively with the HCRMC Properties, the "Properties"), a deferred rent obligation ("DRO") due from HCRMC under a master lease agreement (the "Tranche B DRO") and an equity method investment in HCRMC (together, the "QCP Business") previously held by HCP, Inc. ("HCP"). As of September 30, 2016, QCP was a wholly owned subsidiary of HCP. Prior to or concurrent with the separation from HCP that was completed on October 31, 2016, HCP transferred to certain subsidiaries of QCP the equity of entities that hold the QCP Business. Pursuant to the separation agreement, HCP effected the separation by means of a pro rata distribution of substantially all of the outstanding shares of QCP common stock to HCP stockholders of record as of the close of business on October 24, 2016, the record date for the distribution (the "Spin-Off"). RAYMOND JAMES: Named as Defendant in Jay Peak Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- Raymond James Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the Company and one if its financial advisors are named defendants in various lawsuits related to an alleged fraudulent scheme conducted by Ariel Quiros ("Quiros") and William Stenger ("Stenger") involving the misuse of EB-5 investor funds in connection with the Jay Peak ski resort in Vermont ("Jay Peak") and associated limited partnerships. The Company said, "Plaintiffs in the lawsuits allege that Quiros misused $200 million of the amounts raised by the limited partnerships and misappropriated $50 million for his personal benefit. The plaintiffs also generally allege some combination of the following: that we or our subsidiaries or employees were negligent in supervision, breached fiduciary duty, conspired to breach, and aided and abetted the breach of, fiduciary duty, committed, or aided and abetted, fraud and/or fraudulent inducement, engaged in or facilitated fraudulent transfers, committed conversion, civil theft, and/or commingled investor funds." "There are six civil court actions pending in which we or one of our subsidiaries are named: * On May 3, 2016, Alexandre Daccache filed a purported consolidated class action on behalf of approximately 836 individual investors in seven Jay Peak limited partnerships in the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida, styled Daccache, et al. v. Raymond James Financial, Inc. The plaintiffs demand, among other things, damages in the amount of $250 million, treble damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and unspecified punitive damages. * On May 20, 2016, Michael I. Goldberg, a court-appointed receiver for Jay Peak, filed a complaint against the company and other defendants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, styled Michael I. Goldberg, as Receiver v. Raymond James Financial, Inc. et al. The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages and treble damages under RICO. * On June 3, 2016, Milos Citakovic and other individual investors filed a complaint against RJ&A and a financial advisor in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida, styled Citakovic v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc., and Joel Burstein. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages. * On July 26, 2016, Caterina Calero and other individual investors filed a complaint against RJ&A and other defendants in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court in Miami-Dade County, Florida, styled Caterina Gonzalez Calero v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. et al. ("Calero"). The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages and treble damages for alleged violations of the Florida civil theft statute. * On October 26, 2016, Caroline Walters and other individual investors filed a complaint against RJ&A in the Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida, styled Caroline Walters, et al. v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages in an undetermined amount and treble damages for alleged RICO violations. * On November 7, 2016, Zheng Zhang and other individual investors filed a complaint against RJ&A, and certain other defendants, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, styled Zheng Zhang, et al. v. Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Joel Burstein and Ariel Quiros. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, compensatory damages and punitive damages in an undetermined amount. "Given the early stage of the cases, the complexity of the forensic accounting necessary to determine the amount of actual investor losses, the identification and availability of any assets for recovery by the plaintiffs and the potential for insurance coverage, a range of possible loss in excess of the amount accrued cannot be estimated. While there can be no assurance that we will be successful, we intend to vigorously defend the claims against us," the Company said. Raymond James Financial, Inc. ("RJF" or the "Company") is a financial holding company whose broker-dealer subsidiaries are engaged in various financial services businesses, including the underwriting, distribution, trading and brokerage of equity and debt securities and the sale of mutual funds and other investment products. In addition, other subsidiaries of RJF provide investment management services for retail and institutional clients, corporate and retail banking, and trust services. ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in Colorado Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------------------------- Root9B Technologies, Inc. in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, that an appeal is pending related to a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The Company and two senior executives of the Company are named as defendants (the "Defendants") in a class action proceeding filed on June 23, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On September 24, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to transfer the lawsuit to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On October 14, 2015, the Court appointed David Hampton as Lead Plaintiff and approved Hampton's selection of the law firm Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on January 4, 2016. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of a class of persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between October 17, 2014 and June 15, 2015. In general, the Amended Complaint alleges that false or misleading statements were made or that there was a failure to make appropriate disclosures concerning the Company's cyber security business and products. On February 18, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss and the Company replied on May 4, 2016. On August 3, 2016, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the Court grant Plaintiff's motion to strike certain exhibits from Defendants' motion to dismiss, and on August 4, 2016, the U.S. Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the Court grant in part and deny in part Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. On September 21, 2016 the United States District Court for the District of Colorado dismissed, with prejudice, the class action suit. On October 21, 2016 the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the decision. The clerk of the court notified the parties of the filing for appeal and recorded the opening on November 7, 2016. The Plaintiff's have 40 days thereafter to file their brief, and the Defendants then have 30 days there after to respond to the Plaintiff's brief. "We cannot predict the outcome of this appeal; however, the Company believes the appeal lacks merit. No liability has been recorded in the financial statements for this matter," the Company said. SCI DIRECT: Certification of Class Sought in "Allard" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled LINDA ALLARD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SCI DIRECT, INC. d/b/a NEPTUNE SOCIETY, Case No. 3:16-cv-01033 (M.D. Tenn.), files with the Court her motion for class certification. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=F8K6tIak The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq. THE GLAPION LAW FIRM, LLC 1704 Maxwell Drive Wall, NJ 07719 Telephone: (732) 455-9737 Facsimile: (732) 709-5150 E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com - and - T. Blaine Dixon, Esq. KENNEDY LAW FIRM, PLLC 127 South Third Street Clarksville, TN 37040 Telephone: (931) 645-9900 Facsimile: (931) 920-3300 E-mail: bdixon@klflaw.net SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Suit Still Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer dispute the plaintiffs' assertions and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated action in the case, In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation. The Company said, "In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, we, along with our Chief Executive Officer, have been named as defendants in four putative class actions filed on and after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592- JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential, and restitution), punitive and treble damages; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and costs and attorneys' fees." "The Company and our Chief Executive Officer dispute the plaintiffs' assertions and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated action. At this point in the proceedings, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with the action and, accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in our consolidated financial statements with respect to the action. There can be no assurance that this action, whether as a result of an adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows." The Company is a manufacturer and marketer of branded consumer lawn and garden products. SIGNET JEWELERS: 10,345 Employees Opt In to Collective Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that 10,345 current and former employees have submitted consent forms to opt in to the collective action. In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants") filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants' promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants' motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI's motion was heard on May 4, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI's Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Claimants filed their opposition on December 2, 2015. On December 3, 2015, SJI filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit SJI's Notice of Appeal of the Southern District's November 16, 2015 Opinion and Order. The arbitrator issued an order denying SJI's Motion to Stay on February 22, 2016. SJI filed its Brief and Special Appendix with the Second Circuit on March 16, 2016. The matter was fully briefed and oral argument was heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on November 2, 2016. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed in the AAA Claimants' Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted on June 15, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015. Claimants filed their reply on June 5, 2015. The arbitrator heard oral argument on Claimants' Motion on December 18, 2015 and, on February 29, 2016, issued an Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award and Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period, conditionally certifying Claimants' Equal Pay Act claims as a collective action, and tolling the statute of limitations on EPA claims to October 16, 2003 to ninety days after notice issues to the putative members of the collective action. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's Consideration Of Respondent's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 10, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Renewed Motion To Stay Arbitration Pending The District Court's Resolution Of Sterling's Motion To Vacate Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period on March 31, 2016. Claimants filed their opposition on April 4, 2016. The arbitrator denied SJI's Motion on April 5, 2016. On March 23, 2016 SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion To Vacate The Arbitrator's Equal Pay Act Collective Action Conditional Certification Award And Order Re Claimants' Motion For Tolling Of EPA Limitations Period. Claimants filed their opposition brief on April 11, 2016, SJI filed its reply on April 20, 2016, and oral argument was heard on SJI's Motion on May 11, 2016. SJI's Motion was denied on May 22, 2016. On May 31, 2016, SJI filed a Notice Of Appeal of Judge Rakoff's opinion and order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. SJI's brief was filed September 13, 2016, and Claimants' brief is due on December 15, 2016. Claimants filed a Motion For Amended Class Determination Award on November 18, 2015, and on March 31, 2016 the arbitrator entered an order amending the Title VII class certification award to preclude class members from requesting exclusion from the injunctive and declaratory relief class certified in the arbitration. The arbitrator issued a Bifurcated Case Management Plan on April 5, 2016, and ordered into effect the parties' Stipulation Regarding Notice Of Equal Pay Act Collective Action And Related Notice Administrative Procedures on April 7, 2016. SJI filed in the AAA a Motion For Protective Order on May 2, 2016. Claimants' opposition was filed on June 3, 2016. The matter was fully briefed and oral argument was heard on July 22, 2016. The parties await a ruling on the motion. Notice to EPA collective action members was issued on May 3, 2016, and the opt-in period for these notice recipients closed on August 1, 2016. At this time, 10,345 current and former employees have submitted consent forms to opt in to the collective action. Signet Jewelers Limited is the world's largest retailer of diamond jewelry. SIGNET JEWELERS: "Tapia" Class Suit Underway -------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that in the case, Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation, the class has not yet received notice of the court's certification ruling and has not yet been provided the opportunity to opt in or opt out. On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec.216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on June 3, 2015. On April 6, 2016, the Court conditionally certified an opt-in collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of all current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as nonexempt and who worked in a Zale retail store in the United States at any time from July 3, 2010 to the present. Additionally, the court certified an opt-out class action of the remaining claims on behalf of all current and former hourly employees of Zale Delaware Inc. d/b/a Zale Corporation who were designated by Zale as nonexempt, and worked in a Zale retail store in the State of California at any time from July 3, 2009 through the present. At this time, the class has not yet received notice of the ruling and has not yet been provided the opportunity to opt in or opt out. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this litigation. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. Signet Jewelers Limited is the world's largest retailer of diamond jewelry. SIGNET JEWELERS: Still Faces Dube and Spasov Shareholder Suits -------------------------------------------------------------- Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2016, for the quarterly period ended October 29, 2016, that the Company is defending against the Dube and Spasov shareholder actions. On August 25, 2016, Susan Dube filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, purportedly on behalf of stockholders that acquired the Company's securities between January 7, 2016, and June 3, 2016, inclusive (Dube v. Signet Jewelers Limited, et al., Civ. No. 16-6728 (S.D.N.Y.)). On August 31, 2016, Lyubomir Spasov filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging identical claims against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer (Spasov v. Signet Jewelers Limited, et al., Civ. No. 16-06861 (S.D.N.Y.)). On September 16, 2016, the two complaints were consolidated under case number 16-CV-6728. The complaints allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the Company's business and earnings by failing to disclose that the Company was allegedly experiencing difficulty ensuring the safety of customer's jewelry while in Signet's custody for repairs, a drop- off in customer confidence, and increased competitive pressures. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of the alleged misrepresentations, the Company's share price was artificially inflated. The action seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Company believes that the allegations in the complaints are without merit and cannot estimate a range of potential liability, if any, at this time. Signet Jewelers Limited is the world's largest retailer of diamond jewelry. SIMPLY MAC: Faces "Lotz" Suit for Misclassifying Store Managers --------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS LOTZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SIMPLY MAC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00132 (D. Col., January 14, 2017), alleges that Defendant misclassified Store Managers as exempt under federal overtime laws and failed to pay them overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant owns and operates a chain of retail stores under the trademark "Simply Mac." Defendant describes itself as a "Premier Apple Partner." Defendant offers sales and service of Apple products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan L. Quiles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com SPAR GROUP: Field Specialists' Class Suit Pending in California --------------------------------------------------------------- SPAR Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 21, 2016, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against a class action lawsuit in California state court regarding the treatment of its Field Specialists as independent contractors. The Company executes the services it provides to its domestic clients through independent field merchandising, auditing, assembly and other specialists (each a "Field Specialist"), the vast majority of whom are provided by SBS. The appropriateness of SBS's treatment of its Field Specialists as independent contractors has been periodically subject to challenge (both currently and historically) by various states and others, and SBS's expenses of defending those challenges and other litigation have been paid by the Company (consistent with their Prior Agreements and to endeavor to manage related potential risks). That treatment is being challenged currently in a California class action lawsuit where the State Court separated the issues of independent contractor status and damages, tried the status issue first, and ruled that the Field Specialists were employees because (among other things) they failed to sufficiently exercise their independence. The second stage of the trial will be the determination of damages, if any. The Company said, "When a decision has been reached on those damages, the liability and damage decisions can be appealed to a higher court. There can be no assurance that SBS will succeed in defending any such challenge, the legal expenses of prolonged litigation and appeals could continue to be (and have from time to time been) significant, and any adverse determination could increase the Company's costs of doing business." The Company is a supplier of merchandising and other marketing services throughout the United States and internationally. TESORO REFINING: "Azpeitia" Sues Over Missed Breaks, No Paystubs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Azpeitia, Eileen Foster, Antonio Garcia, and Samantha Scott, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company LLC, Tesoro Logistics GP, LLC and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00123, (N.D. Cal., January 10, 2017), seek relief for breach of the Defendants' legal obligations to authorize and permit rest periods and to furnish timely and accurate wage statements. The suit seeks restitution and injunctive relief pursuant to California Labor Code and applicable California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. Plaintiffs are/were employed as operators at Defendants' Golden Eagle facility located in Martinez, California and Los Angeles Refinery, located in Carson and Wilmington, California. Tesoro Refining and Marketing and Tesoro Logistics own and/or operate the Golden Eagle facility located in Martinez, California. The Golden Eagle facility includes an oil refinery, chemical plant and distribution facilities that are all located in Martinez, California as well as the Los Angeles Refinery that includes an oil refinery, sulfur plant and distribution facilities in Carson and Wilmington, California. Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Smith, Esq. Joshua F. Young, Esq. GILBERT & SACKMAN A LAW CORPORATION 3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (323) 938-3000 Fax: (323) 937-9139 Email: js@gslaw.org jyoung@gslaw.org - and - Randy Renick, Esq. Cornelia Dai, Esq. HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP 128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204 Pasadena, CA 91103-3645 Telephone: (626) 585-9600 Fax: (626) 577-7079 Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com cdai@hadsellstormer.com TEXTURA CORP: Kelsey Moves for Certification of Stockholders Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled FRED KELSEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PATRICK J. ALLIN, JILLIAN SHEEHAN, and TEXTURA CORPORATION, Case No. 1:14-cv-07837 (N.D. Ill.), moves the Court for entry of an order certifying the action as a class action on behalf of this class: All persons who purchased the common stock of Textura Corporation ("Textura") between June 7, 2013 and January 7, 2014, both dates inclusive, and were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are: (a) persons who suffered no compensable losses, e.g., those who bought Textura securities during the Class Period but sold prior to any corrective disclosure; and (b) Defendants, the officers and directors of the Company, at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Fred Kelsey also asks to be appointed as class representative, and for the Court to appoint The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., as lead class counsel, and Heffner & Hurst as liaison counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y4p2Y8Rj The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com - and - Matthew T. Heffner, Esq. HEFFNER & HURST 30 North LaSalle Street, Twelfth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-3466 Facsimile: (312) 346-2829 E-mail: mheffner@shhllp.com TOWNHOUSE DINER: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law --------------------------------------------------------------- OCTAVIO GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against CHRIS AND KATHY RESTAURANT INC. (d/b/a TOWNHOUSE DINER) and CHRIS KONIDARIS Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00295 (S.D.N.Y. January 13, 2017), was brought for alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for alleged violations of the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor. Townhouse Diner is a diner owned by Chris Konidaris. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 UGI CORP: Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that AmeriGas Partners, L.P.'s Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing En Banc with are pending. In connection with AmeriGas Partners, L.P. ("AmeriGas Partners" or the "Partnership")'s 2012 acquisition of the subsidiaries of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. ("ETP") that operated ETP's propane distribution business ("Heritage Propane"), the Partnership became party to a class action lawsuit that was filed against Heritage Operating, L.P. in 2005 by Alfred L. Williams, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. The class action lawsuit alleged, among other things, wrongful collection of tank rental payments from legacy customers of People's Gas, which was acquired by Heritage Propane in 2000. In 2010, the Florida District Court certified the class and in January 2015, the Florida District Court awarded the class approximately $18. In April 2016, the Partnership appealed the verdict to the Florida Second District Court of Appeals (the "Second DCA") and, in September 2016, the Second DCA affirmed the verdict without opinion. Prior to the Second DCA's action in the case, we believed that the likelihood of the Second DCA affirming the Florida District Court's decision was remote. As a result of the Second DCA's actions, in September 2016, the Partnership recorded a $15.0 adjustment to its litigation accrual to reflect the full amount of the award plus associated interest. In October 2016, the Partnership filed a Motion for Written Opinion and for Rehearing En Banc with the Second DCA, which motions are still pending. "We believe we have strong arguments to support the aforementioned motions," the Company said. UGI CORP: Indirect Purchasers' Appeal Remains Pending ----------------------------------------------------- UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that an appeal by indirect purchasers remains pending the Eighth Circuit. Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their direct and indirect customers. The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state antitrust laws. The claims seek treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative classes. On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class action cases to the Western Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri ("District Court"). In July 2015, the District Court dismissed all claims brought by direct customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief brought by indirect customers. The direct customers filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ("Eighth Circuit") and in August 2016, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the direct customer's claims against the Partnership/UGI Corporation. The direct customers filed a petition requesting an en banc review of the Eighth Circuit decision, which is still pending. The indirect customers filed an amended complaint claiming injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont law. In September 2016, the District Court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety. The indirect purchasers appealed this decision to the Eighth Circuit, and the appeal is still pending. On July 21, 2016, several new indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against the Partnership in the Western District of Missouri. The new indirect purchaser class action lawsuit was dismissed in September 2016 and certain indirect purchaser plaintiffs appealed this decision, consolidating their appeal with the indirect purchaser appeal that is pending in the Eighth Circuit. "We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company said. UNION TURNPIKE: "Takhalov" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Eden Takhalov, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Union Turnpike Cafe, Inc., Igor Isacharov, and Ben Isacharov, Case No. 700815/2017 (N.Y. Super. Ct., January 18, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unlawfully retained gratuities, and other penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 187-20 Union Turnpike, Fresh Meadows, New York, 11366. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 UNITED ROAD: Faces "Champagne" Sued Over Excessive Towing Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Jean Champagne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. United Road Towing, Inc. and Pat's Towing, Inc., Case No. 17-0158 (Mass. Cmmw., January 17, 2017), is brought on behalf of all persons charged excessing towing fees in Massachusetts by URT, and any of its brands, including PTI and Export Towing. The Defendants own and operate towing companies in the states of California, Nevada, Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, Tennessee, Florida and Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C. 99 High St., Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com anthony@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE, P.C. 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508)655-1415 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: "Condry" Claims Denial of Service for Women --------------------------------------------------------------- RACHEL CONDRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UnitedHealth Group Inc.; UnitedHealthcare, Inc.; UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company; and, UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00183-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 13, 2017), alleges that Defendants have wrongfully denied and continue to deny Plaintiff and the members of the Class access to and coverage for a vital women's preventive service -- breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling -- which coverage is mandated by The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. UnitedHealth Group Incorporated is a diversified managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen Law Sagafi, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 483 Ninth Street, Suite 200 Oakland, CA 94607 Phone: (510) 254-6808 Fax: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: ksagafi@tzlegal.com - and - Nicholas E. Chimicles, Esq. Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Esq. Stephanie E. Saunders, Esq. CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP 361 W. Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Phone: (610) 642-8500 Fax: (610) 649-3633 E-mail: NEC@chimicles.com KMD@chimicles.com SES@chimicles.com US POSTAL: Greene et al. Seek to Recoup OT Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- SHEKEERA GREENE, THOMAS HOUFF, MICAHEL MILNER, INEASE INMON, JAQUANTE GREEN, DEVON MCKENZIE, JR., JACQUELINE LEWIS, PETER BASSETT, JOSHUA CARTER, ASHLEE FLEMING, HERMAN GOODMAN, RYEISHA HART, SARAH NEAL, ZACHARY PARRY, TERRY PERSON, JR., KIMBERLY PURYEAR, AND MAURICE ANDERSON on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00026-REP (E.D. Va., January 13, 2017), seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation, and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant United States Postal Service is an independent entity of the United States government responsible for providing postal service in the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Paul M. Falabella, Esq. BUTLER ROYALS, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 648-4848 Fax: (804) 237-0413 Email: harris.butler@butlerroyals.com zev.antell@butlerroyals.com paul.falabella@butlerroyals.com US STANDARD: Court Signs Accord Certifying "Echegoyen" Suit Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Kevin McNulty signed the stipulation and order conditionally certifying the collective action titled GLADYS ECHEGOYEN individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. U.S. STANDARD HOLDINGS TRUST, LLC d/b/a STANDARD HOLDINGS MANAGEMENT, LLC, STANDARD HOLDINGS MANAGEMENT, LLC, STANDARD HOLDINGS REALTY GROUP LLC, and ANDRES GARCIA, Case No. 2:15-cv- 06382-KM-MAH (D.N.J.). The Court conditionally certifies a collective action of all nonexempt employees, who worked for Defendants between August 25, 2012, and the present. The Court also approves the proposed Notice of Lawsuit. The Defendants are directed to produce to the Plaintiff within 10 business days a list of names, mailing addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of putative class members. The Plaintiff will mail the Notice of Lawsuit to potential opt-in Plaintiffs by February 6, 2017. The Defendants will post a copy of the Notice of Lawsuit in a conspicuous location at its principal place of business located in Fort Lee, New Jersey. The Plaintiff may mail a Reminder to potential opt-in Plaintiffs no later than March 1, 2017. Potential opt-in Plaintiffs are permitted until 50 days after the deadline to mail the Notice of Lawsuit, that is by March 28, 2017, to file a Consent to Sue form to join the case. The Defendants reserve the right to move for decertification of the collective action after the close of fact discovery. A copy of the Stipulation and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dSpfH6xd The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. SERRINS FISHER LLP 233 Broadway, Suite 2340 New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 571-0700 E-mail: michael@serrinsfisher.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael K. Chong, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL K. CHONG, LLC 2 Executive Drive, Suite 720 Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: (201) 708-6675 Facsimile: (201) 708-6676 E-mail: MKC@mkclawgroup.com VITAL RECOVERY: Faces "Thomas" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vital Recovery Services, Inc. The case is captioned as Susan Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vital Recovery Services, Inc., First Financial Investment Fund V, LLC, First Financial Investment Fund Holdings, LLC, and First Financial Investment Fund I, the Defendants, Case No. 7:17-cv- 00330 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2017). The Defendant is a third-party collection agency. The Plaintiff appears pro se. WAWA INC: Gervasio et al. Allege Labor Law Violations ----------------------------------------------------- Anthony Gervasio, Richard Bongiovanni, Michael Dinse and James Cloud, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarl situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wawa, Inc. and Wild Goose Holding Co., Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00245-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., January 12, 2016), seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. Wawa, Inc. -- https://www.wawa.com/ -- owns and operates a chain of convenience retail stores. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph D. Monaco, III, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH MONACO, P.C. 1317 Morris Avenue Union, NJ 07083 Phone: (212) 486-4244 Fax: (646) 807-4749 - and - Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 545-1199 Fax: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com droth@hgrlawyers.com WGL HOLDINGS: Defending Class Suit Over Apartment Fire ------------------------------------------------------ WGL Holdings, Inc. and Washington Gas Light Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 22, 2016, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, that the Company is defending against a class action lawsuit related to an explosion and fire at an apartment complex. Washington Gas continues to support the investigation by the NTSB into the August 10, 2016 explosion and fire at an apartment complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring, Maryland. On November 2, 2016, two civil actions were filed in the District of Columbia Superior Court against WGL Holdings and Washington Gas (as well as a property management company that is not affiliated with WGL Holdings or Washington Gas), by residents of an apartment complex on Arliss Street in Silver Spring Maryland, relating to the August 10, 2016 incident that occurred at the apartment complex. In one lawsuit, 29 plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for, among others, wrongful death and personal injury. The other action is a class action suit seeking total damages stated to be less than $5 million for, among others, property damage and various counts relating to the loss of the use of the premises. Both actions allege causes of action for negligence, product liability, and declaratory relief. The Company said, "We also understand from press reports that additional civil actions relating to this incident have been filed on behalf of individual residents of the apartment complex, but we have yet to be served for any such additional actions. We maintain excess liability insurance coverage from highly-rated insurers, subject to a nominal self-insured retention. We believe that this coverage will be sufficient to cover any significant liability to it that may result from this incident. Washington Gas was invited by the NTSB to be a party to the investigation and in that capacity continues to work closely with the NTSB to help determine the cause of this incident. Information about our obligations as a signed party to the investigation can be found in the form of the Certificate of Party Representation, which is available on the investigations page of the NTSB website -- https://is.gd/a9qrlS -- and 49 CFR 831.13." Through its wholly owned subsidiaries, the Company sells and delivers natural gas and provide energy-related products and services to customers primarily in the District of Columbia and the surrounding metropolitan areas in Maryland and Virginia, although our non-utility segments provide various energy services across the United States. WILD BLUE: "Brown" Suit Seeks Overtime, Deductions, Late Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Ahsinet Brown, Ashley Thompson, Precious Jackson, Tynise Watson and Sandra Adarquah, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wild Blue Orchid, Inc. (d/b/a Chocolat), Moca Bar and Grill, Inc. and Leon Ellis, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00169, (S.D. N.Y., January 10, 2017), seeks compensatory damages, including back pay, front pay, punitive and liquidated damages, damages for emotional distress, liquidated damages, penalties, costs of action including expert fees, pre- judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and such other and further legal and equitable relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws. Chocolat and Moca are restaurant and bar/lounge located at 2223 and 2210 Frederick Douglass Blvd., New York, NY 10026 owned and operated by Wild Blue Orchid, Inc. owned by Ellis. Ahsinet Brown, Ashley Thompson, Precious Jackson, Tynise Watson and Sandra Adarquah worked as hostesses. They complain about unpaid overtime, unlawful meal deductions and late salaries. Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald Cohen, Esq. Joshua Fitch, Esq. Ilyssa Fuchs, Esq. COHEN & FITCH LLP 233 Broadway, Suite 1800 New York, NY 10279 Tel: (212) 374-9115 Email: gcohen@cohenfitch.com jfitch@cohenfitch.com ifuchs@cohenfitch.com WINDY CITY: Sued Over Excessive Medical Equipment Rental Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Yahaira Liera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Windy City Medical Specialists, LLC and Advanced Billing Collection Specialists, Inc., Case No. 2017CH00649 (Ill. Cir. Ct., January 17, 2017), is brought on behalf of all individuals who rented medical equipment from Windy City and Advanced who were charged unreasonable rates for medical equipment in excess of the rates charged for like and similar equipment and who were improperly charged for medical equipment after the equipment had been returned. The Defendants supply medical equipment and supplies for rent or purchase to consumers, through their medical providers, and provide marketing, web design, networking, consulting and billing services to medical providers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry D. Drury, Esq. LARRY D. DRURY, LTD. 100 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 346-7950 Facsimile: (312) 346-5777 E-mail: ldd@larrvdrurv.com WOODMERE CLUB: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees ---------------------------------------------------------- Adalberto Rodriguez and Jose Rodriguez-Vargas, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. Woodmere Club, Inc. d/b/a Woodmere Country Club, James Hallquist, and John Booth, Case No. 600442/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., January 17, 2017), seeks to redress the economic loss suffered by the Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated as a result of the Defendants' "rounding off" of the time actually worked by their employees each day, which resulted in the failure to pay all wages due under the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own and operate a private country club located at 99 Meadow Drive, Woodmere, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neil M. Frank, Esq. FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 500 Bi-County Boulevard, Suite 465 Farmingdale, NY 11735 Telephone: (631)756-0400 Facsimile: (631)756-0547 E-mail: Nfrank@laborlaws.com ZILLOW GROUP: Has Settlement with Labor Department -------------------------------------------------- Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 28, 2016, that the Company has entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor that will resolve the DOL's compliance review. On May 5, 2016, Zillow, Inc. ("Zillow") agreed to settle a class action lawsuit in the United Stated District Court, Central District of California, with the caption Ian Freeman vs. Zillow, Inc., which involved allegations that Zillow failed to provide meal and rest breaks, failed to pay overtime, and failed to keep accurate records of employee's hours worked, in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and California law with respect to certain inside sales consultants. The settlement, which includes payment by Zillow of up to $6,000,000, is subject to court approval and contingent upon Zillow's resolution of a review by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor (the "DOL") of Zillow's compliance with certain wage and hour laws with respect to Zillow inside sales consultants employed in its California and Washington offices during a two year period between 2013 and 2015. On November 28, 2016, Zillow entered into a settlement agreement with the DOL that will resolve the DOL's compliance review. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Zillow agreed that it will make the voluntary payments contemplated by the Freeman settlement and establish and maintain certain procedures to promote future compliance with the FLSA. The settlement agreement with the DOL does not require Zillow to make any payments which are in addition to those contemplated by the Freeman settlement. Zillow has not admitted liability with respect to either the DOL settlement or the Freeman settlement. ********* 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 * * *