/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170511.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 11, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 94 Headlines 234 EAST: "Luna" Raises FLSA, NYLL Claims Over Non-Tipped Duties 500.COM LIMITED: Settlement in Stockholder Action Okayed AA AFFORDABLE: "Kennedy" Suit Moved to Maryland Federal Court ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Class Certification Denied in "Bolling" Suit AIR EV: "Ferrell" Suit Removed to to E.D. Ark. AKAL SECURITY: Faces Class Action Over Lunch Break Policy AKORN INC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation ALARM.COM INC: Court Certified 3 Classes in Abante Rooter Suit ALCOBRA LTD: Class Suit over MDX Drug Trial Underway ALLIANZ ASSET: Class Certification Bid Taken Under Submission AMERICAN CITY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York APPLE HOSPITALITY: "Moses" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class APPLEBEE'S SERVICES: August 1 Settlement Approval Hearing Set ARS NATIONAL: Saroza Sues over Debt Collection Practices BANCO BRADESCO: "Operation Zealots" Class Action Suit Underway BANNER BANK: "Bolding" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages BUFFALO WILD WINGS: FLSA and State Law Violation Claims Ongoing CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action May Spur Collapse of Teams CANINE FRIENDLY: "Zapata" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay CEMEX SAB: Evidentiary Hearing in Israeli Lawsuit Still Ongoing CEMPRA INC: Still Defends North Carolina Securities Class Suits CHINA FINANCE: Final Distribution Motion to be Filed by June 19 CHRYSLER: Seeks Subpoena Against Lawyer in UConnect Class Action COMBE INC: Finkelstein & Krinsk's Hair Dye Suit Underway CORESITE REALTY: Court Sets June 5 to Hear Employment Class Pact COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Suit Alleges FACTA Violations CUBESMART: Awaits Court Action on Amended Class Action Complaint DAILY NEWS: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Suit on Behalf of RMBS Trusts DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Denies Royal Park's Class Certification Bid DIRECT AIRLINE: FairLaw Firm Files Wage Class Action DONOSTIA LLC: Faces "Hart" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation DRYSHIPS INC: Law Firms Investigate Potential Securities Claims DUN & BRADSTREET: Pentz Seeks Review of Ruling in "Thomas" Suit EL SUSHI LOCO: "Rivera" Seeks Payment of Unpaid Regular, OT Wages EQT PRODUCTION: Appeals Ruling in "Adkins" Suit to 4th Cir. EQT PRODUCTION: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of "Adair" Suit Ruling EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Still Defends 3 MERS-Related Litigations EXPEDIA INC: Still Defends in Putative Class Action Litigations FCC ENVIRONMENTAL: "Butler" Sues for Unpaid Overtime Wages FORD MOTOR: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action in Illinois FYRE MEDIA: Faces Second Class Action Over Fyre Festival G4S SECURE: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, "Arteaga" Suit Says GAZIT-GLOBE: Court Sets Document Disclosure Hearing for May 25 GC SERVICES: Faces "Grichetchkina" Suit in E.D. New York GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces Class Action Suits over 2014 Recalls GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal on Shareholder Class Suit Accord Pending GENERAL MOTORS: Still Defends in Airbag Inflators Class Actions GERBER FOOD: 9th Cir. Revives Baby Food False Advertising Suit GOLD'S GYM: Fails to Pay Fitness Instructors, "Sands" Suit Says GOPRO INC: Still Defends Calif. Shareholder Class Suits GRUPO AVAL: Still Defends in Constitutional Actions in Colombia HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: "Gumbs" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. HERTZ GROUP: "Campos" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks HEWLETT PACKARD: Court Tosses Discount Drugs' Suit HI-SHEAR CORP: "Torres" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime IMPERIAL PARKING: "Felix" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law INFIGEN'S CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Currandooley Fire INSULET CORP: Securities Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss INTER-CON SECURITY: Faces "Powers" Wage-and-Hour Suit INVENTURE FOODS: "Robinson" Sues Over Share Price Drop K12 INC: Consolidated Securities Class Action Suit Still Ongoing KBR INC: Securities Case Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval KELLY SERVICES: Settles FCRA Background Check Case for $6.7MM KENNEDY RIG: "Andrio" Suit Asserts FLSA Breach KIMS NAILS: Faces "Lazo" Suit in Southern District of New York LG DISPLAY: Settled with Plaintiffs in LCD Panel Suit at Apr. 27 LG DISPLAY: Class Action Pact with 3 Canadian Provinces Reached LG DISPLAY: Hatzlacha Class Action Case in Israel Still Ongoing LG DISPLAY: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Class Action Underway LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Has Deal to Resolve Alabama Cases vs. Units LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Cardiology Patient Claims in W.Va. Pending LIONBRIDGE TECH: Laborers' Fund Disputes Merger Deal LYFT INC: Gaussoin Appeals Order in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Cir. MACY'S CREDIT: "Clark" Sues Over TCPA Violations in Fla. MAIBEC INC: Stern Appeals From D.N.J. Decision to Third Circuit MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces "Hartley" Suit Over TCPA Violations in Cal. MERIDIAN CARE: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages METALLINE FIRE: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. New York MIDLAND FUNDING: Eric Hilton Sues Over Debt Collection Suit MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Mellon" Suit in E.D. New York MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Caruso" Suit in E.D. New York NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Suit Concluded at March 31 NATIONAL CREDIT: Valenzuela Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Charleston" Suit in E.D. New York NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Levinson" Suit in E.D. New York NEIMAN MARCUS: 9th Cir. Revives "Last Call" Stores Price Tag Suit NEW YORK: Court Denied Class Certification in "Brooks" Suit NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Pisk" Suit in E.D. New York NYU HOSPITALS: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, "Valentine" Suit Says ONE UP: "Salanitri" Suit Seeks Withheld Wages Under Labor Law PAPA JOHN'S: "Hatmaker" Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements PARK WEST EXECUTIVE: Seeks Review of Decision in "Faroque" Suit PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES: Quinonez Seeks to Certify Class PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Faces "Eger" Suit in S.D. Indiana PLANNERNET INC: Faces "Champagne" Suit Over Unpaid Wages, OT Pay PNM RESOURCES: Unit Still Faces Navajo Nation Allottee Matters QUALCOMM INC: Carr Sues for Monopoly of Modem Chipset Market QUEMETCO INC: "Ramirez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court RENAISSANCE HOME: Faces "Barnhill" Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Raabe Sues Over Defective Washing Machines SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Law Firm Investigates Potential Suit SECURE COLLATERAL: Snyder Sues Over Debt Collection Practices SENTRY CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed SHREE LAXMI: Faces "Pacheco" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations SONOMA MISSION: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action TOKAI PHARMA: Defending Class Suits over Otic Pharma Deal TOP LINE: Faces "Frisbie" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations TRICKEY'S SERVICE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Fees TWITTER INC: Faces Securities Class Actions in California U.S. SECURITY: "Cogburn" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class U.S. XPRESS: Ayala Suit to Certify Class of Truck Drivers UNIVERSAL TAX: D&B Seeks to Certify Tax Software Purchasers Class US COMPLIANCE: Faces "Cross" Suit Over TCPA Violation in Or. VOLARIS: Right to Appeal Dismissal of IPO-Related Suit Expires WELLS FARGO: Still Defends RMBS Trust Complaints in New York WELLS FARGO: Asks Court to Deny Class Certification in "Nguyen" WHITING PETROLEUM: "Schindler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Ulbrich Says YIN WALL: Baumann Farms Seeks to Certify Ginseng Growers Class * Defendants Losing War in Securities Class Actions ********* 234 EAST: "Luna" Raises FLSA, NYLL Claims Over Non-Tipped Duties ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE JACINTO MENDEZ LUNA and WILLAN ORLANDO ORELLANA MENDOZA individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, against 234 EAST 4TH STREET RESTAURANT, CORP. (d/b/a SECARA RESTAURANT), ADOLFO TORO, and CHRISTIAN CAICEDO Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03164 (S.D.N.Y., April 28, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs were employed as a cook, busboy, bartender, host, book keeper, and waiter but were required to spend a considerable part of their work day performing non-tipped duties, unrelated to tip work. Plaintiffs seek to recover 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 owned, operated, or controlled a Cuban restaurant. Plaintiffs were employed as a cook, busboy, bartender, host, book keeper, and waiter.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317 1200 Fax: (212) 317 1620 500.COM LIMITED: Settlement in Stockholder Action Okayed -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California has dismissed with prejudice a purported stockholder class action lawsuit against 500.com Limited on March 6, 2017, according to the Company's Form 20-F filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Court also issued a final judgment approving the settlement entered into by the parties in the action. On February 27, 2015, the lawsuit consisting of purchasers of the Company's American depositary shares (ADSs) during the period between November 22, 2013 and February 25, 2015, captioned Fragala v. 500.com Limited, et al., Case No. 15-CV-1463-MMM (E), was filed in the Court against the Company, certain of its executive officers, and the underwriters for its initial public offering. On July 7, 2015, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of lead counsel to represent the purported class in the litigation. On September 15, 2015, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the Company's ADSs during the period between November 22, 2013 and March 2, 2015. The amended complaint alleges that the Company's prospectus, registration statement, and other filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from October 22, 2013 to March 2, 2015 contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On January 22, 2016, lead plaintiff and the underwriter defendants stipulated to the dismissal of the underwriter defendants with prejudice. On March 15, 2016, the Court denied the motion to dismiss filed by the company and those of its executive officers named in the suit, stating that the issues raised in the motion are more appropriately resolved on a motion for summary judgment. On September 12, 2016, the parties entered into a written agreement to settle the matter for US$2.5 million, inclusive of fees and costs, subject to Court approval. The Company paid US$1.5 million for the settlement, and the remaining US$1.0 million was covered by the insurance company. On November 1, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and preliminarily certified a class for settlement purposes. On March 6, 2017, the Court held the final fairness hearing and issued a final judgment approving the settlement, certifying the settlement class, and dismissing the action with prejudice. 500.com Limited provides online sports lottery services in the People's Republic of China. It operates as an aggregator and processor of lottery purchase orders from its registered user accounts. It was formerly known as 500wan.com Limited and changed its name to 500.com Limited in October 2013. The Company was founded in 2001 and is based in Shenzhen, the People's Republic of China. AA AFFORDABLE: "Kennedy" Suit Moved to Maryland Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Michelle Kennedy and Antwan Baker, Individually, and on behalf of the Estate of Ebonee Baker; T. B., a minor by his parent and next fiend, Antwan Baker; T. A., a minor by her next friend, Antwan Baker; Helen Morgan; and Darryl Spence, the Plaintiffs, v. Domonick Dry, Each Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated; AA Affordable Transportation, LLC; Tracy Dabo; Aliyu Dabo; Concentra Health Services, Inc., doing business as American Current Care, P.A., trading as Concentra Urgent Care; American Current, P.A., doing business as Concentra Health Services, Inc., trading as Concentra Urgent Care; and Occupational Health Centers of the Southwest, P.A., doing business as Concentra Medical Centers, trading as Concentra Urgent Care, the Defendants, Case No. 24-C-17-002426 OT, was removed on May 4, 2017 from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, to the U.S. District Court for District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:17-cv-01226-JFM to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge J. Frederick Motz. AA Afordable provides transportation services throughout the Baltimore, Maryland area.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Schochor, Esq. SCHOCHOR FEDERICO AND STATON PA The Paulton 1211 Saint Paul St Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 234 1000 Facsimile: (410) 234 1010 E-mail: jschochor@sfspa.com - and - William Hughes Murphy, Jr., Esq. MURPHY FALCON AND MURPHY One South St 23rd Fl Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 951 8744 Facsimile: (410) 539 6599 E-mail: billy.murphy@murphyfalcon.com The Defendants are represented by: John T Sly, Esq. WARANCH AND BROWN LLC 1301 York Rd Ste 300 Lutherville, MD 21093 Telephone: (410) 821 6014 E-mail: jsly@waranch-brown.com ADELPHIA SUPPLY: Class Certification Denied in "Bolling" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Manish S. Shah entered an order in the lawsuit styled Bolling Prescription Lab, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. Adelphia Supply USA, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-01485 (N.D. Ill.), denying Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice as premature. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on May 5, 2017, continued status hearing is set for June 28, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=uqpmopaN AIR EV: "Ferrell" Suit Removed to to E.D. Ark. ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned JAMES W. FERRELL, Individually and as Class Representative, Plaintiff, AIR EV AC EMS INC., d/b/a AIR EV AC LIFETEAM, Defendant, Case No. CV-2017-35-4, filed on March 1, 2017, was removed from the Circuit Court of Drew County, State of Arkansas, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas on April 28, 2017, and assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-00124-DPM. Defendant allegedly violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act by concealing the prices it intended to charge for air ambulance services provided to Plaintiff and purported class members. Defendant operates an air ambulance service business. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.C. Gibson, III GIBSON & KEITH, PLLC 119 South Main Street Post Office Drawer 447 Monticello, AR 71657 Phone: 870/367-2438 Fax: 870 367 8306 E-mail: ccgiii@gibsonandkeith.com The Defendant(s) is represented by: Scott Poynter, Esq. Nate Steel, Esq. Alex T. Gray, Esq. Jeremy Hutchinson, Esq. STEEL, WRIGHT, GRAY & HUTCHINSON, PLLC 400 W. Capitol Ave., Suite 2910 Little Rock, AR 72201 Phone: (501) 251-1587 E-mail: scott@poynterlawgroup.com nate@swghfirm.com alex@swghfirm.com jeremy@swghfirm.com - and - Joshua L. Fuchs, Esq. Elizabeth G. Myers, Esq. JONES DAY 717 Texas, Suite 3300 Houston, TX 77002-2712 Phone: 832-239-3939 Fax: 832-293-3600 E-mail: jlfuchs@jonesday.com egmyers@jonesday.com AKAL SECURITY: Faces Class Action Over Lunch Break Policy --------------------------------------------------------- Lhalie Castillo, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that an air security officer has filed a class-action lawsuit against a company with operations in Alexandria over allegations of labor code violations. Hayward Dean, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on April 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division against Akal Security Inc. alleging that the New Mexican subcontractor violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant has a company policy of docking one hour of pay on return flights for a lunch break. The plaintiff alleges he and other air security officers did not get to take these breaks. The plaintiff holds Akal Security Inc. responsible because the defendant also allegedly did not pay regular wages for the hours worked that were improperly deducted for the forced lunch break and failed to pay overtime wages. The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages and all other relief that the court deems appropriate. He is represented by James Sudduth III -- James@SAA.legal -- of Sudduth & Associates LLC in Lake Charles and Matthew Sarelson of Kaplan Young & Moll Parr¢n PLLC in Miami. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division Case number 1:17-cv-00543 [GN] AKORN INC: Class Certification Sought in Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit RE AKORN, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:15-cv-01944 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of: "all persons or entities who purchased or acquired shares of Akorn, Inc.'s common stock between May 6, 2014 and April 24, 2015, and who were damaged thereby". A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b2JmFuJ2 The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. Louis C. Ludwig, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: 312-377-1181 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com lcludwig@pomlaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Joshua L. Crowell, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201 9150 E-mail: info@glancylaw.com - and - John S. Monical, Esq. Peter E. Cooper, Esq. Mitchell B. Goldberg, Esq. LAWRENCE, KAMIN, SAUNDERS & UHLENHOP, L.L.C. 300 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 372 1947 ALARM.COM INC: Court Certified 3 Classes in Abante Rooter Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled ABANTE ROOTER AND PLUMBING, INC., MARK HANKINS, AND PHILIP K. CHARVAT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALARM.COM INCORPORATED AND ALARARM.COM HOLDINGS, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-06314-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order: 1. denying Defendants' motion to strike the expert report of Anya Verkhovskaya; 2. granting Defendants' motion to strike the expert report of Jeffery Hansen; 3. denying Defendants' to strike the declaration of Rachel Hoover; 4. granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify three classes under Rule 23(b)(3): Cell Phone Class: "all persons in the United States, to whom: (a) Alliance or its agents, on Defendants' behalf, instituted one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendants' goods or services; (c) to a recipient's cellular telephone number; (d) through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) at any time since October 15, 2013; (f) except those persons that provided Defendants with their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) from Alliance or its agents, on Defendants' behalf". Residential Class: "all persons in the United States to whom: (a) Alliance or its agents, on Defendants' behalf, initiated one or more non-emergency telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendants' goods or services; (c) to a recipient's residential telephone line; (d) through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice; (e) at any time since October 15, 2013; (f) except those persons that provided Defendants with their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) from Alliance or its agents, on Defendants' behalf"; and National Do-Not-Call Class (DNC Class): "all persons in the United States who: (a) received more than one call, made by Alliance on Defendants' behalf; (b) promoting Defendants' goods or services; (c) in a twelve- month period; (d) on their cellular telephone line or residential telephone line; (e) whose cellular or residential telephone line number(s) appear on the National Do-Not-Call Registry; (f) at any time since June 30, 2010; (g) except those persons that provided Defendants with their telephone number(s) prior to receiving call(s) from Alliance or its agents, on Defendants' behalf"; and 5. appointing Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel; and A case management is scheduled for May 30, 2017, at 1:00 p.m., with a joint statement due pursuant to the Local Rules. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W48pyXYU ALCOBRA LTD: Class Suit over MDX Drug Trial Underway ---------------------------------------------------- Alcobra Ltd. is facing class action complaint for allegedly making false or misleading statements regarding its MDX drug candidate clinical trial, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. On February 17, 2017, a class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its current officers (one of whom also is a director) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case was filed on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired the Company's publicly-traded securities between August 13, 2015 and January 17, 2017. The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company and the individual defendants made false or misleading statements relating to the results of the Company's second Phase III clinical trial for its MDX drug candidate. The Company disclosed that at this preliminary stage, it cannot assess the exposure under such complaint. Alcobra Ltd., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on the development and commercialization of proprietary pharmaceutical products. Its product candidates include Abuse-Deterrent Amphetamine Immediate-Release (ADAIR), a proprietary, abuse- deterrent oral formulation of immediate-release (short-acting) dextroamphetamine for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy; and Metadoxine Extended Release (MDX), a proprietary oral drug for the treatment of ADHD and other cognitive disorders, including Fragile X syndrome. Alcobra Ltd. was founded in 2008 and is headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel. ALLIANZ ASSET: Class Certification Bid Taken Under Submission ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled Aleksandr Urakhchin et al. the Plaintiff, v. Allianz Asset Management of America, L.P., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-01614-JLS-JCG (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order taking Plaintiff's motion for class certification under submission. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UQvp05Ug The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl Engstrom, Esq. Kai Richter, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 1048 Irvine Ave Ste 572 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 295 7209 The Defendants are represented by: James Fleckner, Esq. Paul Nemser, Esq. GOODWIN & BOSTON 100 Northern Avenue Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 570 1153 Facsimile: (617) 523 1231 E-mail: jfleckner@goodwinlaw.com AMERICAN CITY: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against American City Business Journals, Inc. The case is styled as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. American City Business Journals, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03316 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017). American City publishes local business news and information for readers and advertisers in the United States. It publishes daily newspapers, journals, and magazines; and metropolitan business newsweeklies for sports fans, sports business readers, and classic car enthusiasts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465 1188 Facsimile: (212) 465 1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com APPLE HOSPITALITY: "Moses" Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled SUSAN MOSES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE HOSPITALITY REIT INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-03131-DLI-SMG (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move Court for an order: 1. preliminarily certifying a Settlement Class for the purposes of settlement; 2. preliminarily approving terms of the Settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement; 3. approving the form and method for providing notice of the Settlement to the Settlement Class; 4. preliminarily certifying Plaintiff and Alfred and Frances Woods as class representatives; 5. appointing Interim Class Counsel; and 6. scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing on, inter alia, final approval of the Settlement and class certification. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ALzFn8oy The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Gray, Esq. Michael J. Giarrusso, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. GRAY, P.C. 360 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 838 3221 Facsimile: (212) 937 3139 - and - Jeffrey M. Salas, Esq. John C. Wang, Esq. SALAS WANG LLC 73 West Monroe, Suite 219 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 803 4963 Facsimile: (312) 244 3151 - and - James J. Eccleston, Esq. Stephany D. McLaughlin, Esq. ECCLESTON LAW, LLC 55 W. Monroe, Suite 610 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332 0000 Facsimile: (312) 332 0003 APPLEBEE'S SERVICES: August 1 Settlement Approval Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- David Hutton, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that employees at several Applebee's locations in southern Illinois are poised to receive a settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging they were not correctly compensated for their work. Amy Cook and Devin Muscarella filed the lawsuit against Applebee's Services Inc. in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, alleging the defendants failed to properly compensate them for their work. According to the original lawsuit, Cook and Muscarella alleged that 26 Applebee's locations in southern Illinois required tipped employees to wash dishes, prepare food and perform other tasks that should have bumped them up to minimum wage. The chain also allegedly took back their previously earned vacation pay. According to the initial complaint, Applebee's stiffed the workers on vacation pay they had accrued, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. The U.S. District Court last month offered preliminary approval of a proposed class settlement, scheduled a hearing for approval and set a proposed class notice. According to records, the court has ruled that the settlement is within the range of possible approval and offered preliminary approval. "The agreement is the result of arm's-length negotiations between attorneys familiar with wage and hour class action litigation generally, and with the legal and factual issues of this case in particular," the court wrote in its documents. Analytics Consulting LLC has been appointed as settlement administrator, according to court records. Class members are not required to submit a claim form to participate in the settlement and receive a monetary award. Applebee's was ordered to provide Analytics Consulting with a complete list of all class members, including names, Social Security numbers, employee identification number and last-known mailing address and telephone number. Analytics Consulting will then mail a short-form class notice to class members within the parameters of the agreement. Members who object to any term of the settlement must do so in writing and consistent with the relevant provision of the agreement. The written objection must be sent to Analytics Consultants. Class members may elect to opt out of the proposed settlement by written request. A hearing for final approval is set for 1 p.m. on Aug. 16 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. At that time, class members can show cause why the agreement should or should not be approved. At the final approval hearing, the court will determine whether the proposed settlement, and any application for attorneys' fees or reimbursement of expenses, will be approved. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois case number 3:13-cv-01289-SMY-SCW [GN] ARS NATIONAL: Saroza Sues over Debt Collection Practices -------------------------------------------------------- NESTOR SAROZA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ARS NATIONAL SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-03160-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover actual and statutory damages for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). According to the complaint, Defendant's May 5, 2016 letter seeks to induce consumers to make full payment of amounts sought, or full payment under a payment plan, by promising consumers the benefits of updated credit reporting. In fact, consumers are entitled to receive updated credit reporting even where they make only interim payments. Plaintiff suffered injury in fact by being subjected to unfair and abusive practices of the Defendant. Plaintiff suffered actual harm by being the target of the Defendant's misleading debt collection communications. Defendant violated Plaintiff's right not to be the target of misleading debt collection communications. Defendant violated Plaintiff's right to a truthful and fair debt collection process. Defendant used materially false, deceptive, misleading representations and means in its attempted collection of Plaintiff's alleged debt.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507 6300 BANCO BRADESCO: "Operation Zealots" Class Action Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------------- An amended "Operation Zealots" class action that named Banco Bradesco S.A. as one of the defendants is in a preliminary stage, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In May 2016, Bradesco became aware of the indictment of three members of its Executive Board of Directors by the Federal Police, in the scope of the so-called "Operation Zealots". On July 2016, the Federal Public Prosecution filed an accusation against all three members of the Board of Executive Officers and a former member of its Board of Directors, which was received by the Judge of the 10th Federal Court of Judicial Section of the Federal District. The Management conducted a thorough internal evaluation of the records and documents related to the indictment and found no evidence of any illegality committed by its representatives. The executives of Bradesco have already submitted their respective defenses in the criminal proceedings, pointing out the facts and evidence demonstrating their innocence. Bradesco is cooperating with the authorities and appropriate regulatory authorities, providing the information requested, in Brazil and abroad. On account of the news published in the media, on the indictment in the "Operation Zealots", a class action was filed in the District Court of New York on June 2016. On September 2016, Bradesco voluntarily attended the proceedings of the Class Action and agreed with the plaintiff a term for the submission of the revocation of the suit until December 2016. On October 2016, the Plaintiff Leader presented the addendum of the Initial Petition, appointing as defendants Bradesco and three members of its Board of Executive Officers. According to the demand, investors who purchased preferred American Depository Shares ("ADS") of Bradesco between April 2012 and July 2016 would have suffered losses provoked by Bradesco due to a supposed violation regarding the American law of capital markets, according to communication to the Market on May, June and July 2016. Considering that the demand is in a preliminary stage, it is not possible at present to make a risk rating, and there is not yet evidence to support a risk assessment. Banco Bradesco S.A. provides banking and financial products and services to individuals, companies, and corporations and institutions. The Company operates in two segments, Banking; and Insurance, Pension Plans and Capitalization Bond. Banco Bradesco S.A. was founded in 1943 and is headquartered in Osasco, Brazil. BANNER BANK: "Bolding" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Bolding and Michael Manfredi, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Banner Bank, a Washington Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00601 (W.D. Wash., April 17, 2017) seeks declaratory judgment, equitable relief and damages for Defendant's failure to pay non-exempt Residential Lenders (Loan Officers) overtime wages in accordance with the law, where commissions earned were not included in the calculation of the regular rate of pay for determination of proper overtime wages; and for Defendant's failure to properly record and pay wages to employees for all hours worked, instituted to secure the protection of and to redress the deprivation and interference pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiffs were employed as a mortgage loan officers by the Defendant. Defendant Banner Bank is a Washington state chartered commercial bank and a subsidiary of Banner Corporation, headquartered in Washington. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. G. Blankenship, Esq. Robin J. Shishido, Esq. Jordan A. Taren, Esq. The Blankenship Law Firm, P.S. 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3250 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 343-2700 Fax: (206) 343-2704 Email: sblankenship@blankenshiplawfirm.com rshishido@blankenshiplawfirm.com jtaren@blankenshiplawfirm.com BUFFALO WILD WINGS: FLSA and State Law Violation Claims Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. continues to face class action suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York state law and in other states as of September 27, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 26, 2017. On June 2, 2015, two of the Company's former employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a collective action under the FLSA and putative class action under New York state law against the Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The claim alleges that the Company has a policy or procedure requiring employees who receive compensation in part through tip credits to perform work that is ineligible for tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in violation of the FLSA and New York state law. On September 27, 2016, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to include putative class action claims under the laws of seven additional states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. It believes there is a reasonable possibility of loss related to these claims; however, given the early stage of the case, the Company is currently unable to determine the potential range of exposure, if any. Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. owns, operates, and franchises restaurants under Buffalo Wild Wings, R Taco, and PizzaRev names. The company's restaurants provide various food products, as well as non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverages. The Company was founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. CANADIAN HOCKEY: Class Action May Spur Collapse of Teams -------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that Hockey commentator Don Cherry believes that if the Canadian Hockey League loses class action lawsuits brought against it by former players many of its teams will go out of business. Mr. Cherry spoke out in his Coach's Corner segment on May 2 during the first intermission of Game 3 in the Ottawa Senators-New York Rangers' Eastern Conference semifinal. "What worries me is that the judge isn't in the hockey world," said Mr. Cherry. "If they ever have this class action suit, if it ever comes through, it will close at least half (of the major junior hockey teams). "There's about nine teams making money right now that I know of. The rest have to fold." Mr. Cherry was referring to a class action lawsuit against the Ontario Hockey League that was granted certification on May 2 by Ontario Superior Court Justice Paul Perrell with some conditions. The court ruled that players with the OHL's three American teams were exempt from the class action. Parallel class actions are also pending in the Western Hockey League and Quebec Major Junior Hockey League. The three major junior hockey leagues, featuring a combined 60 teams of players between the ages of 16 and 20, fall under the umbrella of the Canadian Hockey League. The WHL is the biggest with 22 teams, the OHL has 20 and the QMJHL 18. Mr. Cherry was a co-owner, general manager and coach for the Mississauga IceDogs from 1998 to 2002. The team later became the Niagara IceDogs. On May 2, Mr. Cherry mentioned his former ownership in the OHL before saying how damaging a successful suit would be to amateur hockey in Canada. "That means no more scholarships, no place for anyone to go," said Mr. Cherry. "This is absolutely ridiculous. "It's the best players in the world. They pay for all your equipment, they give you money, they give you billets, sticks are $1,000 right now. If this ever goes through it will kill hockey." The three suits contend that players have been paid less than the minimum wage required by law in their regions and asks for $180 million in back wages, overtime and vacation pay. Sam Berg, a former Niagara IceDogs forward, and Daniel Pachis, a former member of the Oshawa Generals, were recognized as the representative plaintiffs against the OHL. Lucas Walter, a former player in the WHL and the QMJHL, is the representative player in those suits. The suits argue the standard agreements players sign pay them as little as $35 per week for between 40 to 65 hours of work. The allegations have yet to be proven in court. The lawsuit against the OHL will proceed under claims of breach of employment law, but not under breach of contract, Justice Perell said in his ruling. The OHL maintains that players are not employees and the benefits the players receive from the league and teams "far exceed the employment standards benefits sought in the claim." During certification hearings last month in Toronto, the OHL said that some teams would fold and others would have to reduce or eliminate some player benefits if the plaintiffs won their case. [GN] CANINE FRIENDLY: "Zapata" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------- Orlando Zapata, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Canine Friendly Coalition, Inc. d/b/a Desert Star Home Health and Roberto Herrera, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00131, (W.D. Tex., April 27, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, litigation costs, costs of court, and pre- judgment and post-judgment interest under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. Defendants provide home health services to individuals in Texas where Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Licensed Vocational Nurse whose primary duty was to travel to the homes of Defendants' customers to provide nursing care. Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq. DUNHAM & JONES, P.C. 1800 Guadalupe Street Austin, TX 78701 Tel: (512) 777-7777 Fax: (512) 340-4051 E-Mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com CEMEX SAB: Evidentiary Hearing in Israeli Lawsuit Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Evidentiary hearing continues in an Israeli class action litigation against a subsidiary of CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. and three other companies, according to CEMEX's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The court has set July 12, 2017 as the date to hear evidence on behalf of two other companies. On June 21, 2012, one of CEMEX's subsidiaries in Israel was notified about a class action suit against it and other three companies filed by a homeowner who built his house with concrete supplied by CEMEX in October of 2010. The class action argues that the concrete supplied to him did not meet with the Israeli ready-mix strength standard requirements and that as a result CEMEX acted unlawfully toward all of its customers who received concrete that did not comply with such standard requirements. As per the application, the plaintiff claims that the supply of the alleged non-conforming concrete has caused financial and non- financial damages to those customers, including the plaintiff. CEMEX presumes that the class action would represent the claim of all the clients who purchased the alleged non-conforming concrete from its subsidiary in Israel during the past 7 years, the limitation period according to applicable laws in Israel. The damages that could be sought amount to approximately 276 million Israeli Shekels (approximately US$75.99 million as of March 31, 2017, based on an exchange rate of 3.632 Israeli Shekels to US$1.00). CEMEX's subsidiary submitted a formal response to the corresponding court. The applicant requested the court to join all claims brought by him. In a hearing held on December 20, 2015, the preliminary proceeding was completed and the court set dates for hearing evidence on May 8, 10 and 16, 2016. Moreover, the court decided to join together all claims against all four companies, including CEMEX's subsidiary in Israel, in order to simplify and shorten court proceedings, however, the court has not formally decided to join together all claims. On the hearing dates, the applicants in all four claims presented evidence, including expert testimony. The evidentiary hearing has not been completed as of March 31, 2017. As of March 31, 2017, CEMEX's subsidiary in Israel is not able to assess the likelihood of the class action application being approved or, if approved, of an adverse result, such as an award for damages in the full amount that could be sought, but if adversely resolved CEMEX does not believe that the final resolutions would have a material adverse impact on its results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V., together with its subsidiaries, produces, markets, distributes, and sells cement, ready-mix concrete, aggregates, clinker, and other construction materials. The Company also offers various complementary construction products, including asphalt products; concrete blocks and roof tiles; architectural products; concrete pipes for storm and sanitary sewers applications; and other precast products comprising rail products, concrete floors, box culverts, bridges, drainage basins, barriers, and parking curbs. In addition, it provides building solutions for housing projects, pavement projects, and green building consultancy services; and information technology solutions and services. The Company has operations in Mexico, the United States, Europe, South America, the Caribbean, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. CEMEX, S.A.B. de C.V. was founded in 1906 and is headquartered in San Pedro Garza Garcia, Mexico. CEMPRA INC: Still Defends North Carolina Securities Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Cempra, Inc. continues to defend itself in securities class action lawsuits in North Carolina, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On November 4, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina, Durham Division, naming the Company and certain of the Company's officers as defendants, and alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the defendants between May 1, 2016 and November 1, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the Class Period and seeks damages, costs and expenses and such other relief as determined by the Court. Two substantially similar lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court, Middle District of North Carolina on November 22, 2016 and December 30, 2016, respectively. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend the lawsuits vigorously. It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. Cempra, Inc., a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company, focuses on developing anti-infectives for the acute care and community settings to meet critical medical needs in the treatment of infectious diseases in North America. Its lead product candidate is solithromycin, which is in Phase III clinical trials developed in oral capsules, intravenous, and suspension formulations for the treatment of community-acquired bacterial pneumonia in adults and children, as well as for ophthalmic infections and other indications. The Company is also developing fusidic acid, an antibiotic, which is in Phase III clinical trials for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. In addition, it is developing other uses for solithromycin and fusidic acid, as well as analogs from its macrolide platform for non-infectious disease programs; and macrolides for treating diabetic gastroparesis and gastroesophageal reflux disease. It has a collaborative research and development and license agreement with Optimer Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Company was formerly known as Cempra Holdings, LLC and changed its name to Cempra, Inc. in February 2012. Cempra, Inc. was founded in 2005 and is headquartered in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. CHINA FINANCE: Final Distribution Motion to be Filed by June 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- A court has ordered the plaintiffs in a securities class action filed against China Finance Online Co. Limited to submit their motion for final distribution of a settlement amount on or before June 19, 2017, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company was named as a defendant in a putative securities class action, Wang, et al., v. China Finance Online Co. Limited, 1:15-cv-07894-RMB. The original complaint was filed on June 5, 2015 in the Central District of California. The case was subsequently consolidated with several other similar actions and transferred to the Southern District of New York, where an amended consolidated complaint was filed in December 2015. The amended consolidated complaint alleged that the Company violated Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by failing to disclose certain of its transactions involving Langfang Shengshi Real Estate Development Co. Limited as related party transactions. The amended consolidated complaint also made claims under Exchange Act Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 against certain of the Company's current officers and its current and former auditors and under Exchange Act Section 20(a) against certain of its current officers and former directors. Lead plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed (without prejudice) all defendants other than the Company from the action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 8, 2016, to which plaintiffs filed an opposition on May 6, 2016 and the Company filed a reply on May 13, 2016. During a mediation session in May 2016, the parties agreed to settle the action for US$3.0 million. The settlement was preliminarily approved on November 18, 2016 and notice of the settlement was provided to putative class members. No class members objected to the settlement and none requested exclusion. The settlement includes a release of all claims asserted in the Complaint (or any of the previous versions of the complaint) or all claims that could have been asserted based on the same operative facts at issue in the Complaint. This release applies not only as to the Company, but also as to individuals and entities included within the definition of "Releasees," which definition includes, among others, current and former officers and directors of the Company. Following a March 21, 2017 fairness hearing, an order was entered on March 24, 2017 approving the settlement. The order reflects that a judgment in the action will be entered after lead plaintiffs file their motion for final distribution of the settlement amount, which is due on or before June 19, 2017. Assuming the court enters the judgment as anticipated by the settlement approval order and there are no appeals, the approval of the settlement will become final (and no longer subject to appeal) 30 days after the judgment is entered. China Finance Online Co. Limited, a web-based financial services company in China, provides Chinese retail investors with online access to securities and commodities trading services, wealth management products, securities investment advisory services, as well as financial database and analytics services to institutional customers. The Company's prominent flagship portal site, www.jrj.com, is ranked among the top financial websites in China. It was founded in 1998 and is based in Beijing, the People's Republic of China. CHRYSLER: Seeks Subpoena Against Lawyer in UConnect Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Madison County Record reports that trade secrets that car maker Chrysler entrusted to former U.S. attorney Stephen Wigginton for a class action at U.S. district court in East St. Louis turned into public record in California. A lawyer seeking a subpoena for Mr. Wigginton in San Francisco filed the secrets as exhibits on April 24, and didn't move to seal them until Chrysler did, on April 27. As of May 2, the public could not see them. The California court's public information officer, Lynn Fuller, said she would try to find out how long the exhibits were public record. The exhibits relate to an electronic system, uConnect, at the center of the action in U.S. district court at East St. Louis. There, Mr. Wigginton's clients claim remote hackers can seize control of their vehicles. The California subpoena seeks third party documents from Cisco Systems. On the day Chrysler moved to seal the California record, it moved for sanctions in the court at East St. Louis. Chrysler counsel Sharon Rosenberg -- rosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com -- of Thompson Coburn in St. Louis, wrote that plaintiffs violated a protective order. "Not only did plaintiffs include information in a public court filing that was derived solely from documents designated confidential during the course of this action, they quoted from these documents in public filings," Ms. Rosenberg wrote. "This use of information culled from confidential documents in a public filing is no different in effect than if plaintiffs had filed the actual confidential documents in the public record. "Sanctions are particularly appropriate here where plaintiffs' quoting of confidential documents in a public filing, combined with their lackadaisical approach to correcting the clear violation of one of this court's orders, suggests that the violation which occurred was intentional." Ms. Rosenberg wrote that on April 25, Chrysler received a binder containing a motion to compel Cisco to comply with a subpoena. "While it was clear that the papers related to this case, they had no designated court or case number, were unsigned, and bore no file stamp," she wrote. She further wrote that the binder didn't indicate whether or where the papers were filed. Ms. Rosenberg wrote that Chrysler contacted plaintiffs' counsel on April 26, and learned that they filed the papers in the Northern District of California. She wrote that as she filed the motion, more than 24 hours later, confidential information remained a matter of public record. Attached to the filing was a chain of messages between Ms. Rosenberg and Mr. Wigginton on April 26, starting with her request for a copy with a file stamp, at 9:36 a.m. "If these Cisco motion to compel documents were in fact filed with a court, not under seal, plaintiffs are in clear violation of the protective order," she wrote. If that was the case, she wrote, she demanded immediate corrective action. The message chain shows that at 2:20 p.m., she wrote that since she hadn't heard back, she assumed plaintiffs had in fact filed confidential information in public court documents. Mr. Wigginton replied at 2:23 p.m., and attached the California documents. He disagreed about violating the protective order, but wrote that plaintiffs would address her concerns by asking the California court to seal portions of the brief. At 3:26 p.m., Ms. Rosenberg wrote, "Your response is insufficient." At 3:42 p.m., Mr. Wigginton wrote that out of an abundance of caution he would ask local counsel to take actions as soon as possible. At 4:42 p.m., Ms. Rosenberg wrote that she was available to meet and confer today, and she underlined today. "I would hope that given the urgent nature of this matter one of the seven counsel of record can make themselves available," she wrote. At 5:13 p.m., Mr. Wigginton wrote, "When I arrived at the office I did not plan to be in dispute with you and your client today. Like your office we have other matters scheduled. Due to the tone and tenor of your emails and the allegations you have made, which we disagree, with this dispute and subsequent discovery disputes of this nature as well as the ones we will be bringing will be handled at my level." The next day, when Ms. Rosenberg moved for sanctions, she filed a separate motion to seal an exhibit in support of the motion. She wrote that plaintiffs issued a subpoena to Cisco last September, for documents back to 2010, and a dispute ensued. She wrote that plaintiffs initiated the California action to compel production and that they included documents about Chrysler's general design and development process and about its specific engineering and testing. She wrote that from the information, competitors could determine efforts Chrysler undertook to evaluate and improve products. "Additionally, the information relates to cyber security threats and defensive measures," she wrote. Magistrate Judge Donald Wilkerson ordered plaintiffs to respond by May 4. Also on the 27th, in California, Chrysler moved to strike the California action. On May 1, in California, Cisco moved to extend its deadline for responding to the subpoena from May 8 to a week after a ruling on Chrysler's motion to strike. Belleville lawyer Brian Flynn stands as lead plaintiff in both actions. [GN] COMBE INC: Finkelstein & Krinsk's Hair Dye Suit Underway -------------------------------------------------------- Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP, LLP, an investment and consumer protection national law firm, is currently proceeding with a class action lawsuit filed against Combe, Inc., the manufacturer of Just for Men hair dye products (Case No. 37-2016-00039671-CU-BT-CTL). Plaintiff's counsel is seeking information from Just for Men consumers describing the adverse reactions that may have been experienced over the past decade including, but not limited to, the suffering of welts, burns, lesions, wounds, skin depigmentation, and/or other adverse reactions that resulted from using Just For Men product. The underlying complaint alleges Combe failed to warn consumers of the injuries caused by Just For Men and by doing so, gained sales by consumers who would have otherwise proceeded differently. If you purchased Just for Men hair dye product and suffered any of the reaction(s) mentioned above please contact Finklelstein & Krinsk, LLP and ask for Shannon [619-238-1333], or email your response to ska@classactionlaw.com. A qualified attorney will call you back to answer any questions you may have and/or discuss what assistance we may be able to provide. The lawsuit was filed on November 10, 2016 in San Diego on behalf of a California class. CORESITE REALTY: Court Sets June 5 to Hear Employment Class Pact ---------------------------------------------------------------- A hearing for Superior Court approval of an agreement to settle a class action suit against CoreSite Realty Corporation regarding alleged employment law violations has been scheduled for June 5, 2017, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On July 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, against the Company, alleging various employment law violations related to overtime, meal and break periods, minimum wage, timely payment of wages, wage statements, payroll records and business expenses. On March 15, 2016, the Company filed a responsive pleading generally denying the allegations. On July 27, 2016, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, pursuant to which the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. The settlement, which remains subject to Superior Court approval, resolves the matter on a class-wide basis, on behalf of all non-exempt employees in California, as well as related class action lawsuit filed on July 22, 2016, alleging similar claims, in exchange for a US$600,000 payment to be made by the Company. A hearing for Superior Court approval of the settlement has been scheduled for June 5, 2017. The Company disclosed that there can be no assurance that the settlement will be finally approved by the Superior Court. It said it intends to vigorously defend this legal proceeding if the settlement is not approved. CoreSite Realty Corporation engages in the ownership, acquisition, construction, and management of data centers. It was founded in 2010 and is headquartered in Denver, Colorado. COSTCO WHOLESALE: "Paci" Suit Alleges FACTA Violations ------------------------------------------------------ EMIGUELA PACI, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 2017-CH-06413 (Ill. Cir. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks damages, punitive damages, attorney's fees and costs, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). Emiguela Paci individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons brings the complaint against Costco for willfully violating the FACTA amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), in that Costco printed the first six digits of her American Express credit card account number, in addition to the last four digits, on an electronically printed receipt she was provided with by Costco inside a Costco store. Costco Wholesale is the largest American membership-only warehouse club that provides a wide selection of merchandise, and as of 2015, was the second largest retailer in the world after Walmart.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 350 S. Northwest HWY, Ste. 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 696 7282 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Telephone: (847) 696 7282 E-mail: cwamer@wamer.legal CUBESMART: Awaits Court Action on Amended Class Action Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- An amended complaint in a putative class action filed in New Jersey against CubeSmart is still pending court approval, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On July 13, 2015, the putative class action was filed against the Company in the Federal District Court of New Jersey seeking to obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of New Jersey consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Company brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, which motion was granted in part and denied in part. The plaintiff has moved to file an amended complaint to re-allege the action dismissed by the Court, which motion is presently pending decision. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action. CubeSmart is an equity real estate investment trust. The firm invests in the real estate markets of the United States. It engages in ownership, operation, acquisition and development of self-storage facilities. The firm was formerly known as U-Store- It Trust. CubeSmart was founded in July 2004 and is based in Malvern, Pennsylvania. DAILY NEWS: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Daily News L.P. The case is captioned as Phillip Sullivan Jr., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Daily News L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-03314 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017). Daily News publishes newspaper. It also distributes news and features online through its website. The company was incorporated in 1992.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. DEUTSCHE BANK: Still Defends Suit on Behalf of RMBS Trusts ---------------------------------------------------------- CDF Funding, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-D filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017, that Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (DBTCA), as indenture trustee, continues to defend itself in a derivative and class action complaint filed on behalf of private-label RMBS trusts. 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 National Trust Company (DBNTC) and DBTCA 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 US$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, in connection with 62 trusts governed by indenture agreements, plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, violation of the TIA, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty to avoid conflicts of interest. The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered total realized collateral losses of US$9.8 billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum certain. On July 15, 2016, DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 23, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' conflict-of-interest claim, thereby dismissing it, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to plaintiffs' breach of contract claim (except as noted below) and claim for violation of the TIA, thereby allowing those claims to proceed. On January 26, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation and proposed order dismissing plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty. On January 27, 2017, the court entered the parties' joint stipulation and ordered that plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty be dismissed. On February 3, 2017, following a hearing concerning DBNTC and DBTCA's motion to dismiss on February 2, 2017, the court issued a short form order dismissing (i) plaintiffs' representation and warranty claims as to 21 trusts whose originators and/or sponsors had entered bankruptcy and the deadline for asserting claims against such originators and/or sponsors had passed as of 2009 and (ii) plaintiffs' claims to the extent they were premised upon any alleged pre-Event of Default duty to terminate servicers. On March 27, 2017, DBNTC and DBTCA filed an answer to the amended complaint. Discovery is ongoing. DEUTSCHE BANK: Court Denies Royal Park's Class Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied on March 21, 2017, Royal Park Investments SA/NV's motion for class certification in a complaint against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (DBNTC), according to the Form 10-D/A filed by GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-GCJ7 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from March 11, 2017 to April 12, 2017. On June 18, 2014, Royal Park Investments SA/NV filed a class and derivative action complaint on behalf of investors in ten residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) trusts against DBNTC in the District Court asserting claims for alleged violations of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 (TIA), breach of contract and breach of trust based on DBNTC's alleged failure to perform its duties as trustee for the trusts. Royal Park's complaint alleges that the total realized losses of the ten trusts amount to over US$3.1 billion, but does not allege damages in a sum certain. On February 3, 2016, the court granted in part and dismissed in part plaintiffs' claims: the court dismissed plaintiff's TIA claim and its derivative theory and denied DBNTC's motion to dismiss the breach of contract and breach of trust claims. On March 18, 2016 DBNTC filed an answer to the complaint. On May 26, 2016, Royal Park filed a motion for class certification. On March 21, 2017, the court denied Royal Park's motion for class certification, but granted Royal Park leave to renew its motion to propose a redefined class. Discovery is ongoing. DIRECT AIRLINE: FairLaw Firm Files Wage Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- MENAFN reports that Azor, et al. v. Direct Airline Services, Inc. and Oasis Outsourcing, Inc., a lawsuit involving allegations of unpaid Living Wages in violation of Section 2-8.9 of the Miami- Dade County Code, has been filed as a class action in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The Plaintiffs in this action, represented by Brian Pollock of FairLaw Firm, Ronald Rodman and Elizabeth Estrada of Friedman, Rodman & Frank, are hourly employees who claim that they did not receive the proper Living Wage of 15.52 per hour because their employers improperly deducted money from their pay for participating in their employers' Health Benefit Plan, even though they specifically declined / rejected this participation in writing. In this putative collective action lawsuit, the hourly employees allege that Direct Airline Services, Inc. and Oasis Outsourcing, Inc., violated, and continue to violate, the Section 2-8.9 of the Miami-Dade County Code, by failing to properly compensate them at the full Living Wage rate of 15.52 per hour. Azor, et al. v. Direct Airline Services, Inc. and Oasis Outsourcing, Inc. (Miami-Dade Circuit Court Case Number: 17-007921 CA 01) was filed in the Eleventh Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida. The presiding judge is Judge Lisa Walsh. The FairLaw Firm and Friedman, Rodman, & Frank intend to ask Judge Walsh to certify the case as a "Class Action" so that they can proceed on behalf of other hourly ployees who worked for the Defendants at the Miami International Airport and who were subject to the same pay practices. FairLaw Firm overtime attorney Brian H. Pollock (http://www.fairlawattorney.com)along with Ronald D. Rodman and Elizabeth Estrada (http://www.floridainjurylawyer.pro)is representing the hourly airport employees in an effort to recover the remainder of the Living Wage owed to them. According to a Section 2-8.9 of the Miami-Dade Code, Plaintiffs seek to recover the remainder of the hourly Living Wage owed to them, plus a penalty of 500 per week for each employee who was underpaid, plus their attorneys' fees and costs. All hourly employees who currently work for and/or who used to work for Direct Airline Services, Inc. and/or Oasis Outsourcing, Inc. at the Miami International Airport within the two (2) years and who were not paid proper Living Wages are eligible to join the case. For more information about Azor, et al. v. Direct Airline Services, Inc. and Oasis Outsourcing, Inc., or to join the case, please contact the FairLaw Firm at (305) 230-4884 or visit http://www.fairlawattorney.comor Friedman Rodman & Frank at (305) 448-8585 or visit http://www.floridainjurylawyer.pro.[GN] DONOSTIA LLC: Faces "Hart" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- ERIC HART, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against DONOSTIA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00134 (W.D. Tex., April 28, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff and other and Assistant Store Managers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff worked an average of 60 hours per workweek. Plaintiff sometimes worked 75 hours per workweek. Defendant owns and operates Jimmy John's franchised locations. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an Assistant Manager.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn Coyle, Esq. Christopher Benoit, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF LYNN COYLE, PLLC 2515 North Stanton Street El Paso, TX 79902 Phone: (915) 532-5544 Fax: (915) 532-5566 E-mail: lynn@coylefirm.com chris@coylefirm.com - and - Sally Abrahamson, Esq. Michael N. Litrownik, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 245-1000 Fax: (212) 977-4005 E-mail: sabrahamson@outtengolden.com mlitrownik@outtengolden.com - and - LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 522-9000 Fax: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com DRYSHIPS INC: Law Firms Investigate Potential Securities Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- MarineLog reports that an item in the Wall Street Journal has been followed by announcements from a number of law firms saying that they are investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of DryShips Inc. resulting from allegations that DryShips may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. Among the law firms pursuing investigations is Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, which describes itself as a corporate litigation boutique. The firm notes that from November 9 through November 16, 2016, DryShips' stock price rose from $163 to $2,336 per share. It cites the Wall Street Journal as reporting that "day after shares peaked," DryShips "embarked on a series of stock sales totaling more than $500 million," and continued to describe how DryShips sold its stock to Kalani Investments, which then sold the stock to "small investors." It further reported that this "sequence of events" could "yield" George Economou, DryShips' Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, "tens of millions in profits." Since DryShips stock peaked in mid-November at $2,336, the stock has dropped 99.9%, to $1.30 as of April 28, 2017, said the firm in a press release issued on May 1, 2017. [In after hours trading today, it had fallen to $1.06.] Citing the same Wall Street Journal story and the same share price movements, the Rosen Law Firm, which describes itself as "a global investor rights law firm," says that it is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by DryShips investors. The investigation concerns whether DryShips and certain of its officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Another law firm investigating DryShips is Scott + Scott. So, too, is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP. As is Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP. [GN] DUN & BRADSTREET: Pentz Seeks Review of Ruling in "Thomas" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Objector James E. Pentz filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Thomas, et al. v. Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-03194-BRO-GJS, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Jeffrey A. Thomas filed suit against DBCC alleging that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act because it placed telephone calls to the Plaintiff's cell phone using an automatic telephone dialing system. The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Thomas, et al. v. Dun and Bradstreet Credibility Corp., Case No. 17-55486, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by May 11, 2017; -- Transcript must be filed by court reporter on August 9, 2017; -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record must be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1 on September 18, 2017; and -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record must be served and filed pursuant to FRAP 32 and 9th Cir. R. 32-1 on October 18, 2017.[BN] EL SUSHI LOCO: "Rivera" Seeks Payment of Unpaid Regular, OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Rivera, on behalf of all similarly situated employees Plaintiff, v. El Sushi Loco, Inc., Defendant, Case No. BC659483, (Cal. Super., April 27, 2017), seeks all wages due, reimbursement for necessary business expenditures under the California Labor Code, including both regular and overtime wages, compensation for missed meal and rest periods in violation of applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders, final pay upon termination or resignation as well as damages, declaratory and injunctive relief resulting from failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements and restitution relief under the California Business and Professions Code for unfair business practices. Defendant operates a restaurant that offers Mexican-inspired Japanese sushi rolls and noodles where Plaintiff worked as a server. Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Atoy H. Wilson, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550 Facsimile: (562) 590-8400 Email: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net awilson@mahonev-law.net EQT PRODUCTION: Appeals Ruling in "Adkins" Suit to 4th Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendant EQT Production Company filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled EVA MAE ADKINS, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, Case No. 1:10-cv-00041-JPJ-PMS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Abingdon. The appellate case is captioned as EQT Production Company v. Eva Adkins, Case No. 17-196, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 28, 2017, the Hon. James P. Jones granted the renewed motion for class certification and the lawsuit is certified as a class action with respect to these claims: a. The claims for conversion, excluding the issue of the applicability of the First Marketable Product Rule; and b. The claims for breach of contract, excluding the issues of the Defendant's allegedly improper deductions and applicability of the First Marketable Product Rule, and conditional upon a motion being filed within 30 days requesting the substitution of an appropriate class representative and an order thereafter being duly entered by the Court granting such substitution. Two subclasses are certified as to: (1) the claims for conversion (the "Conversion Class"), which is defined as: Each person to whom EQT Production Company ("EQT") has paid since June 8, 2005, or is currently paying royalties under a lease or leases on coalbed methane gas ("CBM") produced by EQT from the Nora Field in Virginia and whose lease or leases do not contain language expressly authorizing the lessee to deduct or expressly precluding the lessee from deducting the cost of gathering, treating, compression, dehydration, processing, and/or transportation when calculating royalty payments, according to business records maintained by EQT. The Conversion Class excludes (a) EQT, (b) the federal government, (c) any person who serves as a judge in this civil action and his/her spouse, (d) any person who operates a CBM well in Virginia, and (e) any person who holds a working interest ownership in a CBM well operated by EQT in Virginia. (2) the claims for breach of contract (the "Breach of Contract Class"), which is defined as: Each person to whom EQT Production Company ("EQT") has paid since June 8, 2005, or is currently paying royalties under a lease or leases on coalbed methane gas ("CBM") produced by EQT from the Nora Field in Virginia and whose lease or leases do not contain language expressly authorizing the lessee to deduct or expressly precluding the lessee from deducting the cost of gathering, treating, compression, dehydration, processing, and/or transportation when calculating royalty payments, and whose lease or leases are identical "Type A" leases as categorized by the plaintiff's expert, Alyce Hoge, according to business records maintained by EQT. The Breach of Contract Class excludes (a) EQT, (b) the federal government, (c) any person who serves as a judge in this civil action and his/her spouse, (d) any person who operates a CBM well in Virginia, and (e) any person who holds a working interest ownership in a CBM well operated by EQT in Virginia.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY is represented by: Mark Edward Frye, Esq. PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE 804 Anderson Street Bristol, TN 37620-2009 Telephone: (423) 793-4815 E-mail: mfrye@pennstuart.com - and - Stephen McQuiston Hodges, Esq. Seth Michael Land, Esq. Wade Wallihan Massie, Esq. PENNSTUART 208 East Main Street P. O. Box 2288 Abingdon, VA 24212-2288 Telephone: (276) 628-5151 Facsimile: (276) 628-4918 E-mail: shodges@pennstuart.com sland@pennstuart.com wmassie@pennstuart.com Plaintiff-Respondent EVA MAE ADKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Elizabeth A. Alexander, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN AND BERNSTEIN LLP 150 Fourth Avenue North One Nashville Place Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 313-9000 E-mail: ealexander@lchb.com - and - Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-0000 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com - and - Daniel Edward Seltz, Esq. David S. Stellings, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 250 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: dseltz@lchb.com dstellings@lchb.com - and - Charles F. Barrett, Esq. CHARLES BARRETT, PC 6518 Highway 100, Suite 210 Nashville, TN 37205 Telephone: (615) 515-3393 Facsimile: (615) 515-3395 E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW OFFICES P. O. Box 927 Lexington, MS 39095-0000 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - David Malcom McMullan, Jr., Esq. DON BARRETT PA 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Jennifer Lindsey Shaver, Esq. P. O. Box 2032 Abingdon, VA 24212 Telephone: (276) 525-1103 - and - Jackson Stuart White, Jr., Esq. WHITE LAW OFFICE P. O. Box 286 Abingdon, VA 24212-0000 Telephone: (276) 619-3831 EQT PRODUCTION: Seeks 4th Cir. Review of "Adair" Suit Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ EQT Production Company filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled ROBERT ADAIR, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, Case No. 1:10-cv- 00037-JPJ-PMS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Abingdon. The appellate case is captioned as EQT Production Company v. Robert Adair, Case No. 17-195, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 28, 2017, the Hon. James P. Jones granted the renewed motion for class certification and certified the lawsuit as a class action. The certified class is defined as: All coalbed methane gas ("CBM") claimants who were identified by EQT Production Company ("EQT") in filings with the Virginia Gas and Oil Board as unleased owners of CBM estate interests and for whom EQT has applied, as of the later of the date of this Court's class certification order or the resolution of an interlocutory appeal of such order, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 45.1-361.22:2(A), for the release of funds held in escrow or internally, and all such gas claimants who have received distributions from escrow or directly from EQT as a result of a judicial determination of ownership or agreement between June 15, 2010 and January 1, 2016. "Gas claimants" is as defined by Virginia Code Section 45.1-361.1. The Class excludes (a) EQT, (b) any person who serves as a judge in this civil action and his/her spouse, (c) any individuals who have received a Court-supervised accounting of EQT's CBM royalty payments into escrow or internal suspense, and (d) any person who operates a CBM well in Virginia and any person who holds a working interest in a CBM well operated by EQT in Virginia.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY is represented by: Mark Edward Frye, Esq. PENN, STUART & ESKRIDGE 804 Anderson Street Bristol, TN 37620-2009 Telephone: (423) 793-4815 E-mail: mfrye@pennstuart.com - and - Stephen McQuiston Hodges, Esq. Seth Michael Land, Esq. Wade Wallihan Massie, Esq. PENNSTUART 208 East Main Street P. O. Box 2288 Abingdon, VA 24212-2288 Telephone: (276) 628-5151 Facsimile: (276) 628-4918 E-mail: shodges@pennstuart.com sland@pennstuart.com wmassie@pennstuart.com Plaintiff-Respondent ROBERT ADAIR, and on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, is represented by: Don Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW OFFICES P. O. Box 927 Lexington, MS 39095-0000 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Richard R. Barrett, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC P. O. Box 339 Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-4960 Facsimile: (866) 430-5459 E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net - and - David Malcom McMullan, Jr., Esq. Sara Katherine Riley, Esq. DON BARRETT PA 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Esq. LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 275 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-0000 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: ecabraser@lchb.com - and - Daniel Edward Seltz, Esq. David S. Stellings, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 250 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: dseltz@lchb.com dstellings@lchb.com - and - Peter G. Glubiak, Esq. GLUBIAK LAW OFFICE 19840 King William Road P. O. Box 27 King William, VA 23086 Telephone: (804) 769-1616 Facsimile: (804) 769-1897 E-mail: glubiaklaw@aol.com - and - Brian Herrington, Esq. HERRINGTON LAW PA 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (601) 376-9331 E-mail: bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com - and - Larry D. Moffett, Esq. DANIEL COKER HORTON & BELL, PA 265 North Lamar Boulevard Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 232-8979 Facsimile: (662) 232-8940 E-mail: lmoffett@danielcoker.com - and - Jackson Stuart White, Jr., Esq. WHITE LAW OFFICE P. O. Box 286 Abingdon, VA 24212-0000 Telephone: (276) 619-3831 EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Still Defends 3 MERS-Related Litigations ------------------------------------------------------------ EverBank Financial Corp continues to defend itself in three class action lawsuits related to Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS), according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. Mortgage Electronic Registration Services (MERS), EverHome Mortgage Company, EverBank and other lenders and servicers that have held mortgages through MERS are parties to the following material and class action lawsuits where the plaintiffs allege improper mortgage assignment and, in some instances, the failure to pay recording fees in violation of state recording statutes: (1) State of Ohio, ex. rel. David P. Joyce, Prosecuting Attorney General of Geauga County, Ohio v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., filed in October 2011 in the Court of Common Pleas for Geauga County, Ohio; and (2) Delaware County, PA, Recorder of Deeds v. MERSCORP, Inc., et al., filed in November 2013 in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. On November 16, 2016, the surrounding counties of Portland Oregon filed a MERS lawsuit against EverBank, MERS and other financial institutions in Mulmoth County entitled County of Clackamas, et al. v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc, et al. In these material and class action lawsuits, the plaintiffs in each case generally seek judgment from the courts compelling the defendants to record all assignments, restitution, compensatory and punitive damages, and appropriate attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and contest all such claims vigorously. EverBank Financial Corp, a savings and loan holding company, provides a range of financial products and services to individuals, and small and mid-size businesses in the United States. It operates through Consumer Banking and Commercial Banking. It offers its products and services through integrated online and mobile financial portal, and financial centers. EverBank Financial Corp was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida. EXPEDIA INC: Still Defends in Putative Class Action Litigations --------------------------------------------------------------- Expedia, Inc. and its units continue to defend themselves in various putative class action proceedings as disclosed in the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On March 7, 2017, a putative class action was filed in the same court as the Buckeye Tree Lodge lawsuit, 2020 O Street Corporation, Inc. v. Expedia, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:17-cv- 01186-JSC, asserting Lanham Act claims, and claims for unfair competition, unjust enrichment and restitution. The court determined that the case was related to the earlier filed Buckeye Tree Lodge case, and therefore assigned the matter to the same judge. In an Israeli putative class action lawsuit, Hotels.com filed an application with the court on March 15, 2017 challenging service of process. On March 10, 2017, HomeAway.com, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the Arnold v. HomeAway, Inc., et al. case. Expedia, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as an online travel company in the United States and internationally. The Company operates through four segments: Core OTA, Trivago, Egencia, and HomeAway. It facilitates the booking of hotel rooms, airline seats, car rentals, and destination services from its travel suppliers; and acts as an agent in the transactions. The company serves leisure and corporate travelers, offline retail travel agents, and travel service providers through Expedia.com, Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Wotif.com, Wotif.co.nz, lastminute.com.au, lastminute.com.nz, travel.com.au, CarRentals.com, and Orbitz.com Websites; and Travelocity, HomeAway, Egencia, trivago, Classic Vacations, Expedia Local Expert, and Expedia CruiseShipCenters brands, as well as Expedia Affiliate Network. It also engages in advertising and media business. The Company was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in Bellevue, Washington. FCC ENVIRONMENTAL: "Butler" Sues for Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Norman Butler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FCC Environmental Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01192 (S.D. Tex., April 17, 2017) seeks to recover overtime wages and liquidated damages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. FCC knowingly, willfully and with reckless disregard carried out its illegal pattern of failing to timely pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees' overtime compensation for all of the overtime hours they worked. Plaintiff Butler was employed by FCC as a waste disposal driver at their Houston Texas facility within the relevant time period. Defendant FCC Environmental Services, LLC operates in the waste disposal industry in three states Alabama, Florida and Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Autin W. Anderson, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Anderson2X, PLLC 819 N. Upper Broadway Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 452-1279 Fax: (361) 452-1284 Email: austin@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com FORD MOTOR: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Action in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Dorrian, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Hispanic applicants were systemically denied line-worker jobs at Ford Motor Co.'s Chicago assembly plant since at least 2013, a lawsuit alleges (Chaidez v. Ford Motor Co., N.D. Ill., No. 1:17-cv-03244, class action filed 4/28/17). The bias, based on race or national origin, may be either the result of intentional discrimination or an unintended consequence of Ford's hiring practices at the plant, a group of seven job applicants allege in the proposed class action. The result is that the Harvey, Ill., facility employs a primarily black workforce "to the overwhelming detriment of Hispanic and/or Latino applicants," the April 28 complaint states. Hiring is done mostly through an unemployment office: Ford typically tells existing employees when it will be hiring line workers, and the employees tell interested applicants they know to apply through the unemployment office. While a small percentage of line workers at the plant are Hispanic, since 2013, few if any new hires have been Hispanic, according to the complaint. The seven named plaintiffs each applied and was qualified for work at the facility but was denied a job on one or more occasions. The lawsuit claims applicants who fill out a form with the Harvey unemployment office are supposed to have their names added to a referral list and then be sent to a third-party consultant for pre-employment testing. The testing includes a basic skills test, drug testing and a background check. "Either the pre-employment testing creates an impermissibly adverse impact on Hispanics and/or Latinos, or Ford itself is excluding" such workers from the hiring process, the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois states. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission made the first type of alleged discrimination a focus of its strategic enforcement plan for 2017-2021. The agency will target class-based recruitment and hiring practices that discriminate based on a protected status, such as race or national origin. Specifically, the agency is on watch for employers "steering" a group of workers into or away from certain jobs through screening tools or similar practices that have a disproportionate impact based on the protected status, the EEOC said in its October 2016 plan. Union Chair Behind Intentional Bias? The discrimination, if intentional, has been carried out through a scheme put in place by Allan Millender, the United Auto Workers' plant chairman, who is black, the plaintiffs contend. Ford was or should have been aware of Mr. Millender's biased influence over line worker hiring, according to the lawsuit. The company previously fired Millender following earlier allegations of discrimination but reinstated him under an agreement with the UAW, it asserts. The automaker benefits from the alleged scheme cooked up by Millender "and his cohorts," the complaint alleges. Mr. Millender's union standing is enhanced by his influence on hiring, which facilitates collective bargaining that benefits the automaker, the workers charge. The Harvey unemployment office carried out the scheme in concert with or at the direction of Mr. Millender, according to the complaint. The complaint includes both disparate treatment and disparate impact claims under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Mr. Millender and other "unknown persons" are sued individually. Bizzieri Law Offices LLC represents the proposed class. The firm didn't respond May 1 to Bloomberg BNA's request for comment. A Ford spokesman told Bloomberg BNA May 1 that the company doesn't discriminate and won't comment on pending cases. "While we cannot comment on pending litigation, it is the long- standing policy of Ford Motor Company to not discriminate on the base of race, color, religion, age, sex, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity," the spokesman said by email. No attorney had filed an appearance yet for the individual defendants. The United Auto Workers, which isn't named as a party to the lawsuit, declined to comment. [GN] FYRE MEDIA: Faces Second Class Action Over Fyre Festival -------------------------------------------------------- Chris Cooke, writing for Complete Music Update, reports that the Ja Rule-backed Fyre Festival may have been a traumatic experience for those who attended, but it's proving to be the most entertaining of events for everyone else. And it could all prove pretty lucrative for the lawyers too, as a second class action in relation to the aborted island extravaganza was filed on May 2. As previously reported, the Fyre Festival, due to take place on the island of Great Exuma in the Bahamas, was promoted as a luxury experience with tickets priced at up to $12,000. The brainchild of Ja Rule and computer programmer Billy McFarland, and promoted by an assortment of influencers on the social networks, Fyre was an ambitious endeavour that crashed spectacularly. As soon as festival-goers started arriving, it became clear organisers hadn't managed to build the required infrastructure for a basic music festival, let alone the luxury experience that had been sold to ticket-buyers. The whole thing quickly became a PR disaster as early arrivals to the festival island started posting a steady stream of photos of the unfolding shambles to the same social networks that had been so deftly employed to promote the event. Meanwhile others stuck on aeroplanes that had been chartered by Fyre Media to get festival-goers to Great Exuma, but which were going nowhere, posted footage of airline staff announcing that the party was off. Press statements were quickly issued apologising profusely for the debacle but promising that Fyre Festival 2018 would deliver the goods, while the tourist board for the Bahamas hit out at the negative portrayal of Great Exuma as some sort of remote hell hole surrounded by shark infested waters. Celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos was the first to chase the metaphorical ambulance seen speeding away from Great Exuma, quickly filing a lawsuit on behalf of one festival-goer seeking $5 million in damages for "alleged fraud, breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and negligent misrepresentation". It's a class action that Mr. Geragos reckons could ultimately involve over 150 people and seek a minimum of $100 million in damages. A second class action was filed in relation to the event in the LA County Superior Court on May 2 with John Girardi representing Chelsea Chinery, Shannon McAuliffe and Desiree Flores. This case accuses the Fyre Festival of breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and fraud, and hits out at the way the event was marketed in addition to the shitstorm that occurred once festival- goers arrived on site. Mr. Girardi's lawsuit alleges that, not only did so called social media influencers make promises about the Fyre Festival that organisers were in no position to deliver on, but they didn't declare that they were being paid to big up the event, breaching FTC rules. Says the legal papers, according to The Hollywood Reporter, "social media 'influencers' made no attempt to disclose to consumers that they were being compensated for promoting the Fyre Festival". Anyone who bought tickets to the Fyre Festival is invited to join Girardi's class action, with the class being split into three groups: those who spent money on tickets but didn't actually depart for the festival before it crashed and burned; those who got stuck on aeroplanes destined for the event; and those who actually spent some time on Great Exuma. Quite how lucrative all this litigation turns out to be presumably depends on whether the courts allow plaintiffs to go after Ja Rule and Billy McFarlane personally, in addition to the Fyre Media company which you have to think is unlikely to survive the fall out of the aborted event. Both class actions currently name the rapper and the computer programmer as co-defendants. [GN] G4S SECURE: Fails to Pay OT & Minimum Wages, "Arteaga" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID ARTEAGA, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), the Plaintiff, v. G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA), INC. a Florida corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RGl7859072 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover overtime compensation, minimum wages for all hours worked, and premium wages under California Labor Code. Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt, hourly-paid employee Security Guard in Orange County from approximately 2012 through the present. Defendants continue to employ non-exempt, hourly-paid Security Guards at multiple client sites throughout California. The Plaintiff and class members worked in excess of eight hours in a day, in excess of 12 hours in a day, and/or in excess of 40 hours in a week without receiving overtime compensation. For example, Defendants had a policy and/or practice of failing to adequately staff guard coverage at customer sites and not taking sufficient efforts to coordinate employee schedules to permit meal breaks. In addition, Defendants had a policy and/or practice of requiring Plaintiff and class members to remain "on-call" and on- duty by requiring them to monitor their post or a communications device during their meal. This time was spent off-the-clock and was not paid by Defendant. As a result, Plaintiff and other class members were required to work through meal periods, cut their meal periods short, suffer interruptions during meal periods, and/or take meal periods after extended periods of time as a result of Defendants' inadequate scheduling and on-duty practices. Because Plaintiff and class members worked shifts of eight hours a day and/or 40 hours in a week, some of this uncompensated work time qualified for overtime premium. The Defendants provide security monitoring and protection services, including the staffing of Security Guards at client sites to monitor and report security breaches at those locations, to clients throughout the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. THE BAINER LAW FIRM 1901 Harrison St., Suite 1100 Oakland, CA 04612 Telephone: (510)922 1802 Facsimile: (510)844 7701 E-mail: mbainer@bainerlawfirm.com GAZIT-GLOBE: Court Sets Document Disclosure Hearing for May 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- Additional hearing on document disclosure in a consolidated shareholders' case against Gazit-Globe Ltd., among other defendants, is set for May 25, 2017, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In July and August 2014, a number of lawsuits were filed with the Economic Affairs Division of the Tel Aviv District Court requesting class action certification against U. Dori Construction Ltd. (Dori Construction), Amos Luzon Development and Energy Group Ltd. (together, Luzon Group), their directors and officers and their auditors, as well as against Gazit-Globe Israel (Development) Ltd. (Gazit Development) and Gazit-Globe. The motions deal with damage allegedly caused to the shareholders of Dori Construction and/or Luzon Group, respectively, as a result of the publication of allegedly erroneous information by Dori Construction, including in its financial statements, and as a result of its alleged failure to report, at the required time, material adverse information concerning the financial results and financial position of Dori Construction and Luzon Group. The claims alleged include claims under the Securities Law, 1968, for inclusion of erroneous information in financial statements and deficient and erroneous reporting, a negligent tort claim under the Torts Laws and a breach of statutory duty claim under the Securities Law and the Regulations promulgated thereunder, as well as the Companies Law. The aggregate amount of such claims is approximately NIS75 million, which is not material for the Company. The motions have been consolidated into a single proceeding (apart from three motions that have been dismissed). The Company and the other respondents have submitted their responses to the amended motion, subsequent to which the petitioners filed their replies and also added and lodged a motion for disclosure of documents which do not belong to the Company or Gazit Development. In December 2015, a preliminary hearing was held on the amended motion, as a result of which the parties agreed to transfer the proceeding to mediation. The parties further agreed that, at this stage, the hearing on the motion for disclosure of documents would be deferred. In August 2016, the petitioners notified the Court of the failure of the mediation proceeding. The petitioners requested to resume the hearing of the motion for the disclosure of documents and to provide for further deliberation in the proceeding. On February 12, 2017, a hearing was held on the motion for the disclosure of documents, in which the Court ordered the parties to reach understandings with respect to the requested documents. The petitioners updated the court about the pending matters and an additional hearing was scheduled for May 25, 2017, regarding the motion for the disclosure of documents. At this preliminary stage of the proceeding, the outcome of the lawsuit cannot be assessed. Additionally, two derivative actions were filed in 2014 against Dori Construction and Luzon Group and their directors and officers in connection with a dividend distribution made by Dori Construction to its shareholders. The court has decided that a ruling with regard to the procedural rules in these motions will be granted at a later date, following the filing of the unified motion to certify the lawsuit as a class action. Since the sale of the Company's interests in Luzon Group, the Company is no longer receiving updates regarding the status of these proceedings. Gazit-Globe Ltd., through its subsidiaries, acquires, owns, develops, operates, and manages supermarket-anchored shopping centers in North America, Europe, and internationally. The Company was incorporated in 1982 and is headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel. GC SERVICES: Faces "Grichetchkina" Suit in E.D. New York -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited Partnership. The case is captioned as Natalia Grichetchkina, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-02718 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017). GC Services is a privately-held outsourcing provider of call center management and collection agency services in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Igor B Litvak, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (646) 796 4905 Facsimile: (718) 408 9570 E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com - and - Daniel C Cohen, Esq. Daniel Cohen, PLLC 407 Rockaway Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11212 Telephone: (646) 645 8482 Facsimile: (347) 665 1545 E-mail: dancohenlaw@gmail.com GENERAL MOTORS: Still Faces Class Action Suits over 2014 Recalls ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company continues to defend itself in putative class action lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada related to its various recalls in 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. In 2014, General Motors announced various recalls relating to safety, customer satisfaction and other matters. Those recalls included recalls to repair ignition switches that could under certain circumstances unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding loss of power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash. Through April 17, 2017, the Company was aware of 100 putative class actions pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S. and 20 putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in 2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). In general, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, such as alleged benefit-of-the-bargain damages or damages related to alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as well as punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief. There are also two civil actions brought by state governmental entities relating to the 2014 recalls that seek injunctive relief as well as civil penalties and attorneys' fees for alleged violations of state laws. General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. It operates through GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations, GM South America, and GM Financial segments. The Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan. GENERAL MOTORS: Appeal on Shareholder Class Suit Accord Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company is still awaiting court action on an appeal from an order approving the settlement of a shareholder class suit filed in Michigan, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Eastern District) on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from November 17, 2010 to July 24, 2014 (Shareholder Class Action), the lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers' Retirement System, alleged that GM and several current and former officers and employees made material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings and other public statements. On May 23, 2016 the Eastern District entered a judgment approving a class-wide settlement of the Shareholder Class Action for US$300 million. One shareholder has filed an appeal of the decision approving the settlement. General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. It operates through GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations, GM South America, and GM Financial segments. The Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan. GENERAL MOTORS: Still Defends in Airbag Inflators Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------------- Several putative class actions against General Motors Company, among other defendants, in the U.S., Mexico and Canada are still ongoing, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. Through April 17, 2017, the Company was aware of one putative class action pending against GM in federal court in the U.S., one putative class action in Mexico and seven putative class actions pending in various Provincial Courts in Canada arising out of allegations that airbag inflators manufactured by Takata are defective. In addition, the New Mexico Attorney General has initiated litigation against Takata and numerous automotive manufacturers, including GM. At this early stage of these proceedings, the Company is unable to provide an evaluation of the likelihood that a loss will be incurred or an estimate of the amounts or range of possible loss. General Motors Company designs, builds, and sells cars, trucks, crossovers, and automobile parts worldwide. It operates through GM North America, GM Europe, GM International Operations, GM South America, and GM Financial segments. The Company was founded in 1897 and is based in Detroit, Michigan. GERBER FOOD: 9th Cir. Revives Baby Food False Advertising Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Merrit Jones, Esq., of Bryan Cave, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the Ninth Circuit has revived a proposed class action against Gerber, saying the mother who sued it for labeling its sugar-laden baby food as "natural" only had to prove the labels were misleading, not necessarily false. "Even technically correct labels can be misleading," the panel wrote in an unpublished order reversing the district court's dismissal of the putative class action. In Bruton v. Gerber Food Products Co., Case No. 5:12-cv-02412-LHK, the plaintiff alleged that labels on certain Gerber baby food products included claims about nutrient and sugar content that were impermissible under Food and Drug Administration regulations incorporated into California law. She challenged the labels that describe the food as "excellent source," "good source," "as healthy as fresh," "no added sugar" and "natural." The products include a variety of snack foods that allegedly mislead consumers about being good sources of vitamins C and E, iron and zinc, and support "healthy growth and development." The district court denied class certification, and granted summary judgment for the company in 2013. The plaintiff appealed, and on May 3 a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel reversed and remanded, with one judge dissenting in part and concurring in part. The panel held the district court erred when it held the class was not "ascertainable" and that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the claims on Gerbert's products in violation of FDA regulations were likely to mislead the public. "Bruton's theory of deception does not rely on proving that any of Gerber's labels were false," the panel wrote, finding she had a viable claim for deception. "Rather, Bruton contends that the combination of (a) the presence of the claims on Gerber's products (in violation of FDA regulations), and (b) the lack of claims on competitors' products (in compliance with FDA regulations), made Gerber's labeling likely to mislead the public into believing that Gerber's products were of a higher quality than its competitors' products. "Doubtless, Bruton's theory of deception is unusual. But even technically correct labels can be misleading." Despite the panel's ruling, a Gerber representative said the company expects the case will ultimately be dismissed. As we have previously reported, in the past several years, numerous private lawsuits have been filed by consumers, particularly in California, alleging that marketing and labeling of food products violate false advertising laws. At first those lawsuits targeted products labeled or marketed as "Natural" or "All Natural" when they contained any minimally processed ingredient. More recent lawsuits have targeted makers of sodas, fruity beverages, cereals, and other snack foods marketed as healthy, alleging that they are not healthy due to their high sugar content. Such lawsuits alleging violation of state false advertising laws can subject companies to potential liability of thousands of dollars per violation. For example, California's false advertising law, Business and Professions Code Sec. 17500, carries potential penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, and the state's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code Secs. 1750, et seq., provides minimum statutory penalties of $1,000 per violation, restitution, and punitive damages. [GN] GOLD'S GYM: Fails to Pay Fitness Instructors, "Sands" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE SANDS, individually and on 12 behalf of all other similarly aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. GOLD'S GYM INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Texas Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. BC660124 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and costs and attorneys' fees, pursuant to Labor Code. The Defendant offers a variety of fitness classes at each of its locations including cycling, martial arts, yoga, and Zumba. Defendant employs Aggrieved Employees to teach these sessions offered at each location. The Defendant compensated Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees at approximately $28 to $40 per hour of teaching (Class Rate). In addition to the time spent teaching classes, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees perform other work outside the class time including (1) scheduling, planning, preparing, and rehearsing for each class; (2) arriving prior to session start time in order to set up the room; (3) selecting music and compiling soundtracks for the class; (4) straightening up/ storing equipment and cleaning up the room after the class; and (5) staying after the session end time to talk with the students ("Non-Classroom Time"). Defendant has no practice or policy in place to record time spent on such work and does not compensate Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees for such work. This work includes, but is not limited to, creating routines and compiling music for classes, and driving between different clubs. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for her non-classroom time. During the Class Period, Plaintiff did not qualify for any of the exemptions set forth in IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001 section 1(A) because she was paid on an hourly and not on a salary basis. Therefore, Defendant was required to comply with the Wage Order No. 4-2001 with regard to wage and hour obligations to Plaintiff, including but not limited to, the obligation to pay her at least minimum wage for all hours worked. However, throughout the Class Period, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for her Non Classroom Time. Defendant had no practice or policy in place to compensate Plaintiff for any work performed outside of class time. Throughout the Class Period, Defendant failed to provide any mechanism for Plaintiff to record her Non-Classroom Time. The Defendant is a privately owned and operated fitness center chain with 3 corporate locations in California including Venice, Long Beach and Pasadena.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julian Hammond, Esq. Polina Pecherskaya, Esq. Arj Cherniak, Esq. HAMMONDLAW, P.C. 1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410 Baltimore. MD 21208 Telephone: (310)601 6766 Facsimile: (310)295 2385 E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com achemiak@hammondlaw.com GOPRO INC: Still Defends Calif. Shareholder Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------- GoPro, Inc. remains a defendant in a variety of shareholder class action lawsuits in California, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. Beginning on January 13, 2016, the first of four purported shareholder class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers (the "GoPro Defendants"). Similar complaints were filed on January 21, 2016, February 4, 2016, and February 19, 2016. Each of the complaints purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between July 21, 2015 and January 13, 2016 for the first three complaints and between November 26, 2014 and January 13, 2016 for the last filed complaint. Each complaint purports to allege that defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and each seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. On April 21, 2016, the court consolidated the complaints and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the first three actions (the "Camia Investments Class Action"); the court allowed the fourth action to proceed separately as to the period November 26, 2014 through July 20, 2015 (the "Majesty Palms Class Action") and appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel for that action. The lead plaintiff in the Majesty Palms Class Action did not file an amended complaint and voluntarily dismissed the Majesty Palms Class Action on July 28, 2016. On September 26, 2016, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Camia Investment Class Action. That motion was heard on January 19, 2017 and is pending decision by the court. On January 25, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of its current and former directors and executive officers and underwriters of the Company's IPO ("Defendants"). The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's stock pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's IPO and alleges claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The suit seeks unspecified damages and other relief. A similar complaint was filed on May 13, 2016, and consolidated on June 7, 2016. Defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to the consolidated action. On July 13, 2016, the court sustained the demurrer dismissing the complaint with leave to amend the complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 7, 2016. Defendants filed a demurrer to the amended complaint on October 28, 2016. On December 16, 2016, the court overruled the demurrer with respect to the Section 11 and 15 claims and sustained the demurrer in part and overruled the demurrer in part with respect to the Section 12(a)(2) claim. On November 16, 2016, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and Mr. Woodman, its Chairman and CEO ("Defendants"). The complaint purports to bring suit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 4, 2016. The complaint purports to allege that Defendants made false and misleading statements about the Company's business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, fees and costs. On February 6, 2017, the court appointed lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 14, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint against the Company and certain of its officers ("GoPro Defendants") on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between September 19, 2016 and November 8, 2016. On April 13, 2017, the GoPro Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The motion is currently set for hearing in June 2017. GoPro, Inc. develops and sells mountable and wearable cameras, and accessories in the United States and internationally. It markets and sells its products through retailers and distributors, as well as through its Website. It was formerly known as Woodman Labs, Inc. and changed its name to GoPro, Inc. in February 2014. The Company was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in San Mateo, California. GRUPO AVAL: Still Defends in Constitutional Actions in Colombia --------------------------------------------------------------- Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. and its subsidiaries continue to defend themselves in constitutional actions in Colombia, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company, its banking subsidiaries, Corficolombiana, Porvenir and its other subsidiaries are party to collective or class actions ("acciones populares" or "acciones de grupo," respectively). Collective actions are court actions where an individual seeks to protect collective rights and prevent contingent damages, obtain injunctions and damages caused by an infringement of collective rights of which the following are the most significant. All pension and severance fund administrators in Colombia, including Porvenir, are subject to at least two class actions in which certain individuals are alleging that the pension and severance funds administrators have caused damages to their customers by (1) paying returns earned by the severance and pension funds below the minimum profitability certified by the Superintendency of Finance, and (2) making payments to its customers -- under the scheduled retirement system -- below the established standards. Additionally, Porvenir and certain other pension and severance funds are subject to a constitutional action relating to charging commissions above the legally established limits for contributions to mandatory pension funds. These constitutional actions are seeking the payment of the alleged damages caused to fund managers' customers. "No provisions have been established in connection with these three constitutional actions because the amount is unquantifiable, and we consider the probability of loss to be remote," the Company said. Banco de Bogota, Banco de Occidente Banco Popular and Corficolombiana are subject to a constitutional action filed by certain individuals on behalf of the Department of Valle del Cauca (Departamento del Valle del Cauca) against several financial institutions (including Banco de Bogota, Banco de Occidente, Banco Popular and Corficolombiana) claiming that the Department has paid interest in a manner prohibited by law, in connection with a credit facility granted to the Department. In addition, the plaintiffs are claiming that the defendants did not pay the alleged real value of the shares of Sociedad Portuaria de Buenaventura and Empresa de Energia del Pacifico, on a sale transaction of said shares. The Company considers the probability of loss in connection with this constitutional action to be low (eventual) and, therefore, have not recorded any provision. Banco AV Villas is subject to constitutional actions brought against several companies in the financial sector in Colombia in connection with the recalculation of mortgage interests that allegedly damaged several mortgage lenders. The Company believes that the probability of loss in connection with these constitutional actions is remote. Grupo Aval Acciones y Valores S.A. provides a range of financial services and products to public and private sector customers in Colombia and Central America. It operates through Banco Bogota S.A., Banco de Occidente S.A., Banco Popular S.A., Banco AV Villas S.A., and Corficolombiana S.A. segments. The Company was founded in 1870 and is based in Bogota, Colombia. HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS: "Gumbs" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled DR. PAMELA GUMBS, doing business as: UNITED PHARMACY, A SOLE PROPRIETOR, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; and ED NASRAH doing business as: DANIELS PHARMACY A SOLE PROPRIETOR, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED WITHIN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, the Plaintiffs, v. HERITAGE PHARMACEUTICALS INC., AUROBINDO PHARMA USA, INC., CITRON PHARMA, LLC, and TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Case No. 17-CV-2084, was transferred on May 4, 2017 from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), to the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern District of California. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-02042-CMR to the proceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Cynthia M. Rufe. Heritage Pharmaceuticals is a manufacturer of generic pharmaceuticals based in Eatontown, New Jersey and established in 2006.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Mason, Esq. Frederick P. Furth, Esq. FURTH SALEM MASON & LI LLP 101 California St Suite 2710 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 365 9685 E-mail: FPFURTH@AOL.COM - and - Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq. Patrick Bradford Clayton, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA 456 Montgomery St 17th Fl San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 788 7210 E-mail: fscarpulla@zelle.com - and - George L. Saunders, Esq. Terry Rose Saunders, Esq. THE SAUNDERS LAW FIRM 120 North Lasalle St Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 444 9656 - and - Quentin L. Kopp, Esq. 380 West Portal Ave San Francisco, CA 94127 Telephone: (415) 681 5555 Attorneys for Heritage Pharmaceuticals Inc.: Joseph C. Hansen, Esq. Rachel S. Brass, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 555 Mission St Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 393 8380 Attorneys for Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc.: Jennifer Briggs Fisher, Esq. WAYNE A. MACK, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP Spear Tower One Market Plaza Suite 2200 San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 Telephone: (415) 957 3226 E-mail: wamack@duanemorris.com Attorney for Citron Pharma, LLC Christine C. Levin, Esq. DECHERT LLP Cira Center 2929 Arch St. Philadelphia, PA 19104 Telephone: (215) 994 4000 E-mail: christine.levin@dechert.com Attorney for Teva Pharmaceuticals, INC. Thomas J. Amburgy, Esq. KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 1633 Broadway New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 506 1802 HERTZ GROUP: "Campos" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Missed Breaks -------------------------------------------------------------- Alfonso Campos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. Hertz Equipment Rental Corp, Herc Rentals Inc., The Hertz Corporation, Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG17858299, (Cal. Super., April 27, 2017), seeks unpaid premium wages and interest for failure to authorize or permit meal periods, statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements, and waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment. The suit also seeks injunctive relief and other equitable relief pursuant to the California Labor Code. Plaintiff worked as a driver for the Defendants' vehicle rental business. Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granbeiry, Esq. Vanessa Kamau, Esq LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 HEWLETT PACKARD: Court Tosses Discount Drugs' Suit -------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an order in the lawsuit styled Discount Drugs of Illinois Inc., the Plaintiff, v. Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01298 (N.D. Ill.), striking Plaintiff's motion to certify class as moot. According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on May 5, 2017, John Doe 1-12 defendants are dismissed without prejudice. Status hearing set to May 19, 2017 is stricken. A copy of the Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OymKN7sH Discount Drugs is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC 134 N LaSalle Dr # 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: 312-658-5500 HI-SHEAR CORP: "Torres" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Armando Wong, in behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hi-Shear Corporation, Lisi Aerospace North America, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Defendants, Case BC659251 (Cal. Super., April 27, 2017) seeks unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and for the attorney's fees and costs under the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code and applicable Wage Orders issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The complaint says Defendants failed to provide adequate rest periods, unpaid vested vacation wages, failed to properly calculate overtime wages vis-a-vis accurate and complete wage statements, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay former employees all earned and unpaid wages, applicable civil penalties, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and interest pursuant to the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders. [BN] Hi-Shear Corporation is a division of Lisi Aerospace that manufactures high tensile strength fasteners and structural components used for the airframe as well as the engine of the aircraft. Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq., Esq. Joshua M. Webster, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 IMPERIAL PARKING: "Felix" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wilner Felix, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly- situated, the Plaintiff, v. Imperial Parking (U.S.), LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 706045/2017 (S.D. Fla., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover entire unpaid wages, including his unpaid vacation time, maximum liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and maximum recovery for violations of New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Plaintiff brings the NYLL Spread of Hours claim on behalf of himself and a class of other similarly situated current and former hourly employees of Defendant: 1) who worked for Defendant within New York State; 2) who were paid an hourly rate equal to the applicable New York State minimum wage rate or lower; and 3) were not paid an extra hour of pay for each day that they worked a spread of hours in excess of 10 hours; during the six year period prior to the filing of this action, to entry of judgment in this case. Imperial Parking offers parking services. The company was incorporated in 1989 and is based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Imperial Parking (U.S.), Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Imperial Parking Corp.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740 1000 Facsimile: (718) 740 2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com INFIGEN'S CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Currandooley Fire ------------------------------------------------------------ Louise Thrower, writing for Goulburn Post, reports that a Victorian legal firm has mounted a class action over the Currandooley fire which burnt out almost 3400 hectares near Tarago in January. Maddens Lawyers of Warrnambool will represent 33 individuals owning 22 properties in the NSW Supreme Court action. The firm's class action principal, Brendan Pendergast, said the action alleged that Infigen Energy "was aware of the risk that a bird strike to its high voltage power line could cause a fire." Further, it was aware of previous similar incidents but "failed to take appropriate steps to address the risk until after the fire." Infigen has denied any liability for the outbreak. A spokesman said the company maintained "appropriate insurance." The blaze started at Infigen's Capital Wind Farm off Taylors Creek Road, near Tarago on the morning of January 17. It tore through 3384ha, fanned by strong winds and fuelled by high heat and dry conditions. It destroyed a house at Mount Fairy, 80ha of crops, eight sheds, 10.5km of windbreaks, cattle yards, stock water tanks and over 150km of fencing, Local Land Service figures revealed. A total 230 animals died and 110 were destroyed on welfare grounds. A NSW Rural Fire Service investigation found that a bird struck a high-voltage power line transferring electricity from Infigen's Woodlawn wind farm to a substation at the Capital wind farm. The bird caught fire, dropped to the ground, sparking the blaze. Mount Fairy couple Fred Kuhn and Liz Stewart are the lead plaintiffs. More than 40 of Mr Kuhn's 150 sheep had to be put down after the outbreak. Mr Pendergast claimed Infigen "failed to exercise reasonable care and to address this very serious issue until after the fire." "We are saying that the line design is inappropriate. Its configuration should be such that when a bird lands on an energised conductor it doesn't cause a short circuit and for a bird to ignite," he said. "In most cases the birds would simply die a horrible death but in under the right climatic conditions, it can cause a fire . . . We say this is foreseeable." The action also claims that Infigen only mitigated fire risk by slashing grass beneath power poles in the days following. It had also built 12-metre diameter gravel 'pads' at their base for the same reason. "This is not a theory of a few disgruntled property owners. They are the steps the company took after the fire," Mr Pendergast said. In February the company acknowledged the actions but said it was about "improving processes" and reducing the risk of birds catching fire. While Maddens is seeking damages for 22 large and small properties, he says there are another six for which he's awaiting instructions from owners. Mr Pendergast said total damage across the fire ground could be as high as $20 million. He has not identified a compensation amount for the class action. However an Infigen spokesman no information had been provided to support the $20m figure. "Nor has the amount of the loss and damage claimed been quantified in the statement of claim," the spokesman said. Mr Pendergast attended several Tarago community meetings after the fire. Writs for the class action were issued in the NSW Supreme Court on May 2 and the company was served with the notice on May 3. A directions hearing is expected to be held in several months. Meantime, police said a coronial brief on the fire was still being prepared. Mr Pendergast said Maddens Lawyers would seek leave to appear if a coronial inquiry was held. His firm has also mounted a class action over the Carwoola fire, east of Queanbeyan, which destroyed 3100ha in February. It was allegedly started by a property owner operating an angle grinder. [GN] INSULET CORP: Securities Class Action Survives Motion to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on May 3 disclosed that a class action complaint filed against Insulet Corporation (PODD) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court") survived the motion to dismiss. The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Insulet securities between May 7, 2013 and April 30, 2015, for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Insulet's officers and directors. Insulet, a medical device company, develops, manufactures, and sells insulin delivery systems for people with insulin-dependent diabetes in the United States and internationally. In 2013, Insulet began selling a new version of its infusion system known as the OmniPod Eros ("Eros"). Insulet Accused of Concealing Problems with its Infusion System According to the complaint, on May 7, 2013, Insulet's former Chief Executive Officer, Duane DeSisto, touted the company's launch of its Eros system, noting that customers' initial feedback was excellent, that Insulet had transitioned all of its new customers to the new Eros, and that as a result, Insulet's growth was surging in the U.S. and overseas. The complaint alleges that in reality, Insulet was experiencing significant manufacturing and quality issues with Eros including defective needle and alarm mechanisms. Despite these ongoing setbacks, Insulet officials repeatedly assured investors that any problems were unexceptional and had been fully addressed and corrected. On January 7, 2015, Insulet disclosed that it was appointing six new executives from outside the company into key leadership positions and that its fourth quarter 2014 revenue would be $5 to $8 million less than the company's recent guidance due to reduced demand for Eros product from Insulet's distributors. Insulet's Chief Executive Officer, Patrick Sullivan, subsequently admitted that Eros had experienced serious problems and that the company's new patient growth in the U.S. had actually been declining rather than increasing over the past year. Insulet had been masking the deterioration in its core business by manipulating the use of the "new patient stats" metric, which were inflated and misleading. As news of Insulet's troubles reached the market, its stock price declined by approximately 30% to close at $26.97 per share on May 1, 2015. On March 17, 2017, the Court denied Insulet's motion to dismiss the securities class action complaint. Insulet Shareholders Have Legal Options Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder information form on the firm's website. Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which they have invested. [GN] INTER-CON SECURITY: Faces "Powers" Wage-and-Hour Suit ----------------------------------------------------- RICHARD POWERS and EUGENE D. OLIVER, as individuals and on behalf of all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC, a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC660133 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks compensation for work performed and monies due themselves and the Plaintiff Class. The case arises out of the failure to pay all compensation, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay all wages, failure to pay overtime and/or double-time, "off the clock" work, failure to pay wages upon ending of employment, and failure to keep accurate payroll records; to certain California employees of the Defendant. The proposed Plaintiff Class consists of all current and former non-exempt hourly employees including, but not limited to, security officers and related positions employed by Defendant in the state of California from four years prior to the date of the filing of this lawsuit through judgment in this action. Inter-Con Security provides physical security solutions. Its services include program management, security consulting and training.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin Mahoney, Esq. Na'Shaun L. Neal, Esq. Treana L. Allen, Esq. Keren B. Serrano, Esq. MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 249 East Ocean Blvd, Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590 5550 Facsimile: (562) 590 8400 E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net nneal@mahoney-law.net tallen@mahoney-law.net kserrano@mahoney-law.net INVENTURE FOODS: "Robinson" Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ John Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Inventure Foods, Inc., Terry McDaniel and Steve Weinberger, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01258 (D. Ariz., April 27, 2017), seeks damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act. Inventure Foods, Inc. manufactures and markets healthy/natural and indulgent specialty snack food products in the United States and internationally. It operates in two segments, Frozen Products and Snack Products. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose that the company lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and financial reporting, that the company's statements of operations in its fiscal year 2015 results press release contained incorrect figures. On this news, Inventure's share price fell $0.13, or 2.58%, to close at $4.91 on March 16, 2017. The stock price continued to decline in the following trading days, falling $0.48 per share (9.7%) on March 20, 2017, and $0.41 per share (9.2%) on March 21, 2017, to close at $4.02 per share on March 21, 2017. Johnson owns shares of Investure. Plaintiff is represented by: Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. MARTIN & BONNETT, PLLC 1850 N. Central Ave. Suite 2010 Phoenix, AZ 85004 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 Email: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. Hui M. Chang, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com hchang@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com K12 INC: Consolidated Securities Class Action Suit Still Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- K12 Inc. continues to defend itself in consolidated securities class action litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On July 20, 2016, a securities class action lawsuit captioned Babulal Tarapara v. K12 Inc. et al was filed against the Company, two of its officers and one of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-04069 ("Tarapara Case"). The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between November 7, 2013 and October 27, 2015, inclusive, and alleges violations by the Company and the individual defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and violations by the individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief. Additionally, on September 15, 2016, a second securities class action lawsuit captioned Gil Tuinenburg v. K12 Inc. et al was filed against the Company, two of its officers and one of its former officers in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 3:16-cv-05305 ("Tuinenburg Case"). On October 6, 2016, the Court consolidated the Tarapara Case and the Tuinenburg Case, appointed Babul Tarapara and Mark Beadle as lead plaintiffs, and recaptioned the matter as In Re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation. On December 2, 2016, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against us. The amended complaint named an additional former officer as a defendant and specified a class period start date of October 10, 2013. The amended complaint alleges materially false or misleading statements and omissions regarding the decision of the Agora Cyber Charter School not to renew its managed public school agreement with us, student academic and Scantron results, and other statements regarding student academic performance and K12's academic services and offerings. On January 30, 2017, the Company filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The lead plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 1, 2017. On March 31, 2017, the Company filed its response to the lead plaintiffs' opposition to the motion to dismiss. A hearing on the motion to dismiss the amended complaint was held on April 19, 2017. The Company intends to continue to defend vigorously against each and every allegation and claim set forth in the amended complaint. K12 Inc., a technology-based education company, offers proprietary curriculum, software systems, and educational services to facilitate individualized learning for students primarily in kindergarten through 12th grade. It manages virtual and blended public schools. The Company also offers curriculum and technology solutions; full-time virtual and blended programs, semester courses, and supplemental educational products; teacher training, teaching, and other support services to public schools, school districts, private schools, charter schools, early childhood learning centers, and corporate partners. In addition, it provides FuelEd suite of offerings, such as K12 curriculum, FuelEd online courses, and FuelEd anywhere learning systems; and PEAK, a proprietary software system designed to manage in a single-user interface, multiple, and independent online school-based functions. Further, the company operates online private schools, including The K12 International Academy, the George Washington University Online High School, and the Keystone School. Additionally, it provides access to the online lessons and curriculum through proprietary learning management system; learning kits; student computers; and management, technology, and educational services. The Company sells individual online courses directly to families who desire to educate their children outside of the traditional public school system or to supplement their child's existing public school education without the aid of an online teacher. It serves customers in the United States and internationally. K12 Inc. was founded in 2000 and is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. KBR INC: Securities Case Settlement Gets Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- KBR, Inc. has received preliminary court approval on April 6, 2017 for the settlement of a securities class action suit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. Lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and IBEW Local 58/NECA Funds, sought class action status on behalf of the Company's shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, its former chief executive officer, its previous two former chief financial officers, and its former chief accounting officer, arising out of the restatement of the Company's 2013 annual financial statements, and seek undisclosed damages. The Company reached an agreement to settle this case as of January 11, 2017 and accrued the proposed settlement amount as of December 31, 2016 in "other current liabilities" on its consolidated balance sheets, net of insurance proceeds, which did not have a material impact to its financial statements. On April 6, 2017, the Company received preliminary Court approval for the settlement. KBR, Inc. provides professional services and technologies across the asset and program life-cycle within the government services and hydrocarbons industries worldwide. The Company operates through three segments: Government Services, Technology & Consulting, and Engineering & Construction. KBR, Inc. was founded in 1901 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. KELLY SERVICES: Settles FCRA Background Check Case for $6.7MM ------------------------------------------------------------- According to an article posted by Bob Mather at Preemploy, Kelly Services has agreed to settle a class action lawsuit for allegedly violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). As mentioned in our white paper -- Top 3 FCRA lawsuits and how to prevent them -- the background check release form is a top target for class action lawyers looking to capitalize on big paydays. According to topclassactions.com, plaintiffs allege that between July 18, 2012 and January 23, 2014, Kelly Services provided its employees and job applicants with a FCRA disclosure form to conduct background checks that also contained a liability release. Unfortunately, this is in clear violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The Alleged Improper Sentences The first allegedly improper sentence stated, "To the fullest extent permitted by law, I release Kelly, its employees, agents, successor and assigns, from any and all claims, actions or liability whatsoever that are in any way related to the procurement of a consumer report about me, or any subsequent investigation(s) of my background or personal history." The second allegedly improper sentence stated: "I understand that this Authorization is not a contract for continued employment and does not alter the at-will nature of my employment or offered employment." Plaintiffs claimed that the inclusion by Kelly Services of the waiver and disclaimer on the disclosure form violated the FCRA's stand-alone disclosure requirement. Kelly Services denies the allegations but has agreed to settle the FCRA class action lawsuit to avoid the risk and expense of ongoing litigation. Approximately 221,216 class members are eligible for benefits from the Kelly Services class action settlement. The Settlement Agreement Under the settlement agreement, Kelly Services will provide plaintiffs and the proposed class with several benefits, with the primary one being a settlement fund on Kelly Services' part of $6,749,000, none of which will revert to Kelly Services. Of this fund, it is contemplated that: -- Up to 33% (approximately $2,250,000) will go to class counsel for fees -- Administrative expenses (about $330,000) -- Incentive awards to Plaintiffs ($2,500 each) will also be deducted from the fund -- After all these deductions, the payout, assuming all 220,000 potential class members make a claim, will be about $41 for an Adjudicated Ineligible class member and about $14 for those who received a favorable rating In addition to providing cash benefits to eligible Class Members, Kelly Services has also agreed not to include a liability release on its FCRA disclosure form for five years. If you're interested in learning more about how your background check policy can remain compliant with FCRA regulations, contact us for a free consultation to see how Pre-employ can help you steer clear of class action lawsuits. [GN] KENNEDY RIG: "Andrio" Suit Asserts FLSA Breach ---------------------------------------------- Jose Andrio, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Kennedy Rig Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01194 (S.D. Tex., April 17, 2017) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant has a policy, enforced at all of its locations throughout the United States, of denying Plaintiff and putative class members compensation at time and a half and paying only straight time for hours worked above 40 per week. Plaintiff Jose Andrio worked for Kennedy Rig Services, LLC as a Welder. Kennedy Rig Services, LLC (trade name Kennedy Fabricating) is in the Machine Moving and Rigging business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taft L. Foley, II, Esq. The Foley Law Firm 3003 South Loop West, Suite 108 Houston, TX 77054 Tel: (832) 778-8182 Fax: (832) 778-8353 Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com KIMS NAILS: Faces "Lazo" Suit in Southern District of New York -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kims Nails at York Avenue, Inc. The case is titled as Maria Carmelina Tamay Lazo, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kims Nails at York Avenue, Inc., doing business as: Kims Nail Salon; Vera Nail & Salon, Inc., doing business as: Kims Nail Salon; Margaret Kim; and Jung Im Kim, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03302 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017). Kims Nails offers manicures and pedicures services.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. LG DISPLAY: Settled with Plaintiffs in LCD Panel Suit at Apr. 27 ---------------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. disclosed in its Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that as of April 27, 2017, it has reached settlement with each of the plaintiffs in multi-district litigation proceedings, which are class action lawsuits in the United States that were transferred to the Northern District of California. After the commencement of the U.S. Department of Justice investigation, a number of class action complaints were filed against LG Display, LG Display America and other TFT-LCD panel manufacturers in the United States and Canada alleging violation of respective antitrust laws and related laws. In a series of decisions in 2007 and 2008, the class action lawsuits in the United States were transferred to the Northern District of California for pretrial proceedings. In March 2010, the federal district court granted the class certification motion filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, and granted in part and denied in part the class certification motion filed by the direct purchaser plaintiffs. In January 2011, 78 entities (including groups of affiliated entities) submitted requests for exclusion from the direct purchaser class. In April 2012, ten entities (including groups of affiliated companies) submitted requests for exclusion from the indirect purchaser class. In addition, since 2010, the attorneys general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin filed complaints against LG Display, alleging similar antitrust violations as alleged in the MDL Proceedings. In June 2011, LG Display reached a settlement with the direct purchaser class, which the federal district court approved in December 2011. In July 2012, LG Display reached a settlement with the indirect purchaser class plaintiffs and with the state attorneys general of Arkansas, California, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Wisconsin, which was approved by the federal district court in April 2013 and, in the case of the state attorneys general actions, by their respective state governments. LG Display has since reached settlement with each of the attorneys general that had filed action. In addition, in relation to the MDL Proceedings, in 2009, ATS Claim, LLC (assignee of Ricoh Electronics, Inc.), AT&T Corp. and its affiliates, Motorola Mobility, Inc. ("Motorola"), and Electrograph Technologies Corp. and its subsidiary filed separate claims in the United States, and all of the actions were subsequently consolidated into the MDL Proceedings. In 2010, TracFone Wireless Inc., Best Buy Co., Inc. and its affiliates, Target Corp., Sears, Roebuck and Co., Kmart Corp., Old Comp Inc., Good Guys, Inc., RadioShack Corp., Newegg Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., Sony Electronics, Inc. and its affiliate, SB Liquidation Trust and the trustee of the Circuit City Stores, Inc. Liquidation Trust filed separate claims in the United States. In 2011, the AASI Creditor Liquidating Trust on behalf of All American Semiconductor Inc., CompuCom Systems, Inc., Interbond Corporation of America, Jaco Electronics, Inc., Office Depot, Inc., P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc., ABC Appliance, Inc., Schultze Agency Services, LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and its affiliate, T-Mobile U.S.A., Inc., Tech Data Corporation and its affiliate filed similar claims in the United States. In 2012, ViewSonic Corp., NECO Alliance LLC, Rockwell Automation LLC, Proview Technology Inc. and its affiliates filed similar claims. In November 2013, Acer America Corporation and its affiliates filed similar claims in the United States. The cases were transferred to the MDL Proceedings for pretrial proceedings. In December 2012, Sony Europe Limited and its affiliate filed similar claims in the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom. In July 2015, LG Display was dismissed from the Motorola case and as of April 27, 2017, LG Display has reached settlement with each of the other plaintiffs mentioned. LG Display Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells thin-film transistor liquid crystal display and organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology-based display panels in the Republic of Korea, the Americas, Europe, Asia, and internationally. It offers various display panels primarily for use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors, tablet computers, and mobile devices. The Company also provides panels for industrial and other applications, including entertainment systems, automotive displays, portable navigation devices, and medical diagnostic equipment. It serves end-brand customers and their system integrators. The Company was formerly known as LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and changed its name to LG Display Co., Ltd. in February 2008. LG Display Co., Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. LG DISPLAY: Class Action Pact with 3 Canadian Provinces Reached --------------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. has reached settlement with the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec with regards to class action complaints filed in 2007, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In 2007, class action complaints were filed against LG Display and other TFT-LCD manufacturers in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class in May 2011. In April 2014, the Company appealed the class certification decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which upheld the lower court's decision in an order dated December 2015. In November 2016, LG Display reached settlement with the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. LG Display Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells thin-film transistor liquid crystal display and organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology-based display panels in the Republic of Korea, the Americas, Europe, Asia, and internationally. It offers various display panels primarily for use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors, tablet computers, and mobile devices. The Company also provides panels for industrial and other applications, including entertainment systems, automotive displays, portable navigation devices, and medical diagnostic equipment. It serves end-brand customers and their system integrators. The Company was formerly known as LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and changed its name to LG Display Co., Ltd. in February 2008. LG Display Co., Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. LG DISPLAY: Hatzlacha Class Action Case in Israel Still Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. continues to defend itself in a class action complaint filed in December 2013 by Hatzlacha, a consumer organization, on behalf of Israeli consumers in the Central District in Israel, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In June 2015, LG Display and other defendants filed a motion to cancel leave to serve process, which was denied in March 2016. In April 2016, LG Display and other defendants appealed this decision to the District Court for the Central District. In December 2016, the District Court for the Central District granted the appeal, holding that the leave to serve the class action on LG Display (and the other defendants) outside the jurisdiction of Israel is revoked. In January 2017, Hatzlacha filed a motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. LG Display Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells thin-film transistor liquid crystal display and organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology-based display panels in the Republic of Korea, the Americas, Europe, Asia, and internationally. It offers various display panels primarily for use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors, tablet computers, and mobile devices. The Company also provides panels for industrial and other applications, including entertainment systems, automotive displays, portable navigation devices, and medical diagnostic equipment. It serves end-brand customers and their system integrators. The Company was formerly known as LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and changed its name to LG Display Co., Ltd. in February 2008. LG Display Co., Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. LG DISPLAY: Bid to Dismiss Calif. Class Action Underway ------------------------------------------------------- LG Display Co., Ltd. is awaiting court action on its request to dismiss a class action civil lawsuit filed against the Company, among others, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the Company's Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In September 2016, the lawsuit was filed against the Company, LG Display America, Inc. and others in the District Court, alleging participation in an agreement with other companies not to solicit one another's employees. In January 2017, LG Display filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions against the plaintiffs. LG Display Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells thin-film transistor liquid crystal display and organic light-emitting diode (OLED) technology-based display panels in the Republic of Korea, the Americas, Europe, Asia, and internationally. It offers various display panels primarily for use in televisions, notebook computers, desktop monitors, tablet computers, and mobile devices. The Company also provides panels for industrial and other applications, including entertainment systems, automotive displays, portable navigation devices, and medical diagnostic equipment. It serves end-brand customers and their system integrators. The Company was formerly known as LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. and changed its name to LG Display Co., Ltd. in February 2008. LG Display Co., Ltd. was founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Has Deal to Resolve Alabama Cases vs. Units ------------------------------------------------------------- Agreements to resolve various actions in Alabama, including two putative class action lawsuits, have been reached as it pertains to entities affiliated with LifePoint Health, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company and/or Vaughan Regional Medical Center and several of the Company's subsidiaries, as well as Dr. Seydi V. Aksut and certain parties unaffiliated with the Company, are named defendants in 26 individual lawsuits filed since December 2014, and two putative class action lawsuits, all filed in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama. As more fully described below, agreements to resolve all of these matters have been reached as it pertains to entities affiliated with the Company. The lawsuits in Alabama alleged that patients at Vaughan Regional Medical Center underwent improper interventional cardiology procedures. One of the putative class action lawsuits, filed on November 21, 2014, sought certification of a class consisting of all Alabama citizens who underwent an invasive cardiology procedure at any Company-owned Alabama hospital and who received notice regarding the medical necessity of that procedure. The other putative class action lawsuit, filed on February 6, 2015 also in the Circuit Court for Dallas County, Alabama, sought certification of a class of individuals that underwent an interventional cardiology procedure that was not medically necessary and performed by Dr. Aksut. This second action asserted, among other claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), which, if successful, would result in the awarding of treble damages for any injury resulting from the RICO violation and attorneys' fees. In March 2015, the Company removed the second class action to the U.S. District Court in Mobile, Alabama. By Order dated March 28, 2016, the United States District Court Judge dismissed with prejudice the RICO claim and refused to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. In a filing made April 7, 2016 the plaintiffs appealed the District Court's Order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. By opinion dated March 1, 2017, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered this action be remanded back to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama for additional proceedings. Following this order, Dr. Aksut and others filed a petition for rehearing en banc by the Eleventh Circuit. While this petition was pending, joint motions to dismiss this putative class action were filed by plaintiff's counsel as to the Company's affiliated entities. In February 2017, the Company settled the claims against it, its subsidiaries and Vaughan Regional Medical Center with the individual plaintiffs and claimants, which included an agreement to dismiss the putative class action pending in the Eleventh Circuit. The Company has also reached an agreement in principle to settle the first putative class action lawsuit. As of April 28, 2017 (the date of the Form 10-Q filing), the Company believes that all such settlements will be accomplished within the amounts previously accrued for loss contingencies for cardiology-related lawsuits. However, there can be no assurance that the Company will complete any or all of these settlements, that definitive settlement documentation will be agreed upon by all parties, that the courts overseeing the putative class action lawsuits will approve those settlements, or that the final resolution will not materially exceed the amounts previously accrued. LifePoint Health, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates community hospitals, regional health systems, physician practices, outpatient centers, and post-acute facilities in the United States. Its hospitals offer a range of medical and surgical services, such as general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics, emergency room care, radiology, oncology, diagnostic care, coronary care, rehabilitation, and pediatric services, as well as specialized services, including open-heart surgery, skilled nursing, psychiatric care, and neuro-surgery. The Company's hospitals also provide various outpatient services comprising same-day surgery, laboratory, X-ray, respiratory therapy, imaging, sports medicine, and lithotripsy. In addition, it owns and operates schools of nursing and other allied health professions. The Company was formerly known as LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. and changed its name to LifePoint Health, Inc. in May 2015. LifePoint Health, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Cardiology Patient Claims in W.Va. Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Despite entering into settlements to resolve lawsuits in West Virginia in early 2017, LifePoint Health, Inc. continues to face claims filed by cardiology patients at Raleigh General Hospital, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. The Company and two of its subsidiaries, including Raleigh General Hospital, as well as Dr. Kenneth Glaser, have been named in 82 individual lawsuits filed in the circuit court of Raleigh County, West Virginia. Additionally, three patients had notified Raleigh General of their claims and intent to file a lawsuit. These lawsuits and claims alleged that patients at Raleigh General Hospital underwent unnecessary interventional cardiology procedures. In January 2017, all parties to these lawsuits and claims entered into settlement agreements settling all claims against the Company, its subsidiaries, Raleigh General Hospital and Dr. Glaser. Following these settlements, two additional lawsuits were filed against the same parties alleging the same claims. These two lawsuits were settled in March 2017. All of these settlements were accomplished within the amounts previously accrued for loss contingencies for cardiology-related lawsuits. In addition, in February 2017, the Company received a notice of claim with respect to a putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia against it, two of its subsidiaries, Raleigh General Hospital and Dr. Glaser, alleging that patients at Raleigh General Hospital underwent medically unnecessary interventional cardiology procedures and seeking to certify a class of such patients. The new claims seek compensatory and punitive damages, costs, attorneys' fees and other available damages. Additional claims, including claims involving patients to whom the Company did not send notice, have been threatened and may be asserted against the Company or the hospital. Any present or future claims that are ultimately successful could result in the Company and/or the hospitals being found liable. Such liability could be material. LifePoint Health, Inc., through its subsidiaries, owns and operates community hospitals, regional health systems, physician practices, outpatient centers, and post-acute facilities in the United States. Its hospitals offer a range of medical and surgical services, such as general surgery, internal medicine, obstetrics, emergency room care, radiology, oncology, diagnostic care, coronary care, rehabilitation, and pediatric services, as well as specialized services, including open-heart surgery, skilled nursing, psychiatric care, and neuro-surgery. The Company's hospitals also provide various outpatient services comprising same-day surgery, laboratory, X-ray, respiratory therapy, imaging, sports medicine, and lithotripsy. In addition, it owns and operates schools of nursing and other allied health professions. The Company was formerly known as LifePoint Hospitals, Inc. and changed its name to LifePoint Health, Inc. in May 2015. LifePoint Health, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is based in Brentwood, Tennessee. LIONBRIDGE TECH: Laborers' Fund Disputes Merger Deal ---------------------------------------------------- Laborers' Local #231 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rory J. Cowan, Edward A. Blechschmidt, Michael G. Dallas, Guy L. De Chazal, Susan Jane Kantor, Paul A. Kavanaugh, Jack Noonan, James A. Quella, Claude P. Sheer, H.I.G. Capital L.L.C., LBT Acquisition, Inc., LBT Merger Sub, Inc. and Lionbridge Technologies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00478, (D. Del., April 27, 2017), seeks damages sustained, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lionbridge and an affiliate of private equity firm H.I.G. Capital L.L.C. engaged in a merger in which Lionbridge stockholders received $5.75 per share in cash and Lionbridge became a wholly owned subsidiary of HIG. The merger agreement values the Company at about $356 million. In advocating the merger, the defendants espoused financial projections that completely ignored concrete business plans and a valuation of the company that was based on those projections which analysts estimate at close to a billion. Lionbridge provides translation and localization, digital marketing, global content management and application testing services to the world's top brands. Rory J. Cowan served as CEO of Lionbridge during the merger. Laborers' Local #231 Pension Fund owned 4,170 shares of Lionbridge common stock before the Merger closed. Plaintiff is represented by: David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 231-1058 - and - Christopher H. Lyons, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 414 Union Street, Suite 900 Nashville, TN 37219 Tel: (615) 244-2203 - and - Patrick J. O'Hara, Esq. CAVANAGH & O'HARA 2319 West Jefferson Street Springfield, IL 62702 Tel: (217) 544-1771 LYFT INC: Gaussoin Appeals Order in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Christine Gaussoin filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-04065-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 17-15692, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4, 2017, the District Court gave on March 28, 2017, final approval to a $27 million settlement between ride-hail app Lyft and its drivers, who claimed they were classified as independent contractors so Lyft could skirt minimum wage laws. Objector James Page previously filed an appeal in the lawsuit. That appellate case is captioned as Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 17-15648. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Transcript must be ordered by May 10, 2017; -- Transcript is due on June 9, 2017; -- Appellant Christine Gaussoin's opening brief is due on July 19, 2017; -- Appellees Patrick Cotter, Jeffrey Knudtson, Lyft, Inc. and Alejandra Maciel's answering brief is due on August 18, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Objector-Appellant CHRISTINE GAUSSOIN is represented by: Michael F. Creamer, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL CREAMER 5375 Industrial Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (714) 901-8504 Plaintiffs-Appellees PATRICK COTTER, ALEJANDRA MACIEL and JEFFREY KNUDTSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Matthew David Carlson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 466 Geary Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: mcarlson@llrlaw.com - and - Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com Defendant-Appellee LYFT, INC., is represented by: Simona Agnolucci, Esq. R. James Slaughter, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 E-mail: sagnolucci@keker.com rslaughter@kvn.com - and - Thomas M. McInerney, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Steuart Tower One Market Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-4810 Facsimile: (415) 442-4870 E-mail: tmm@ogletreedeakins.com MACY'S CREDIT: "Clark" Sues Over TCPA Violations in Fla. -------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Clark, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Macy's Credit and Customer Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-00692-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla., April 17, 2017) seeks to stop Defendant from calling Plaintiff's cellular phone for an alleged debt in violation of the Telephone Consumer Practices Act. Defendant intentionally harassed and abused Plaintiff on numerous occasions by calling several times during one day and on back to back days, with such frequency as can reasonably be expected to harass, says the complaint. Macy's Credit and Customer Services Inc. provides credit card services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq. Amanda J. Allen, Esq. The Consumer Protection Firm, PLLC 210-A South MacDill Avenue Tampa, FL 33609 Tel: (813) 500-1500 Fax: (813) 435-2369 Email: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com MAIBEC INC: Stern Appeals From D.N.J. Decision to Third Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Ilene Stern and Melissa McCaffrey filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Ilene Stern, et al. v. Maibec Inc., Case No. 3-11-cv-03951, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 19, 2017, the Hon. Peter G. Sheridan entered an order: a. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; b. granting Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony of Plaintiffs' expert Mr. Dean Rutila; c. denying Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony of Defendant's expert Dr. Barry Goodell; d. granting Plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony of Defendant's expert Mr. Jan Kalas; and e. denying Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiffs' new arguments and documents submitted in reply on motion for class certification or in the alternative for permission to file sur-reply. The appellate case is captioned as Ilene Stern, et al. v. Maibec Inc., Case No. 17-8011, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner ILENE STERN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com - and - Susana Cruz-Hodge, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0211 E-mail: scruzhodge@litedepalma.com - and - Benjamin D. Elga, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: belga@cuneolaw.com - and - Jonas P. Mann, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 15910 Ventura Boulevard Suite 1600, Encino Plaza Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 839-2333 Facsimile: (818) 986-9698 E-mail: jmann@baronbudd.com Plaintiffs-Petitioners ILENE STERN, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, and MELISSA MCCAFFREY are represented by: Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC 570 Broad Street, Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 623-0211 jdepalma@litedepalma.com Defendant-Respondent MAIBEC INC. is represented by: Michael R. McDonald, Esq. Caroline E. Oks, Esq. Christopher Walsh, Esq. GIBBONS PC One Gateway Center Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 596-4827 Facsimile: (973) 639-6295 E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com coks@gibbonslaw.com cwalsh@gibbonslaw.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Faces "Hartley" Suit Over TCPA Violations in Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Hartley, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Marriott International, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00770-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal., April 17, 2017) seeks damages and injunctive relief resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently and/or intentionally contacting Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Complaint said: "In or around January 2017, Defendant started calling Plaintiff's cellular telephone ending in 3472 regarding marketing for Marriott vacations or rewards." Plaintiff did not give prior express consent for Defendant to call him. Defendant Marriott owns and operates a chain of over 3,000 hotels in North America, including in all 50 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Veronica McKnight, Esq. Hyde & Swigart 221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com bonnie@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Kazerouni Law Group, APC 245 Fischer Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com MERIDIAN CARE: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Carrie Johnson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Meridian Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01301 (S.D. Tex., April 27, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime with damages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees and costs and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Meridian provides home care for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities where Plaintiff was employed as a direct care provider. Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. Bridget Davidson, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 METALLINE FIRE: Faces "Castro" Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Metalline Fire Door Co., Inc. The case is captioned as Elvis Israel Guerrero Castro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Metalline Fire Door Co., Inc., William Rodriguez, Individually, an Lydia Rodriguez, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03322 (S.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017). Metalline Fire manufactures metal fire doors, screws, bolts, nuts, washers, and springs.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MIDLAND FUNDING: Eric Hilton Sues Over Debt Collection Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- ERIC HILTON, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC; MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC.; ENCORE CAPITAL GROUP, INC.; and LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL R. STILLMAN, P.C., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-11366-VAR- MKM (E.D. Mich., April 28, 2017), alleges that Defendant Midland Funding, acting through Midland Credit Management, and on behalf of Encore Capital Group, Inc., violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in impermissibly causing Stillman Law Office to file a debt collection lawsuit in state court against Plaintiff that was time barred. Midland Funding LLC is engaged in the business of taking title to chargedoff consumer debts, including credit card, auto deficiency and telecom receivables purchased from national financial institutions, major retail credit corporations, telecom companies and resellers of such portfolios.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Curtis C. Warner, Esq. WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC 350 S. Northwest HWY, Ste. 300 Park Ridge, IL 60068 Phone: (847) 701-5290 E-mail: cwarner@warner.legal - and - John A. Evancek, Esq. KELLEY & EVANCHECK PC 43695 Michigan Ave. Canton, MI 48188 Phone: (734) 397-4540 E-mail: john@kelawpc.com MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Mellon" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. The case is captioned as Kathleen Mellon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02695 (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2017). Monarch Recovery, an accounts receivable management company, provides financial recovery solutions. It offers collection and payment.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. MONARCH RECOVERY: Faces "Caruso" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. The case is captioned as James Caruso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02710 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017). Monarch Recovery, an accounts receivable management company, provides financial recovery solutions. It offers collection and payment.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. NABORS INDUSTRIES: Shareholder Class Suit Concluded at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action filed against Nabors Industries Ltd., et al., in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has been concluded as of March 31, 2017, after the court has denied the plaintiffs' Motion for Reargument, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. On July 30, 2014, the Company and Nabors Red Lion Limited ("Red Lion"), along with C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("C&J Energy") and its board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges that the members of the C&J Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger of the Company's Completion & Production Services business with C&J Energy, and that Red Lion and C&J Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger rescinded. On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court"). On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order. Nabors and the C&J Energy defendants filed a motion to dismiss that was granted by the Chancellor on August 24, 2016, including a ruling that C&J Energy could recover on the bond that was posted to support the temporary restraining order. The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal on September 22, 2016. On March 23, 2017, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reargument, which was denied on March 31, 2017, concluding the case. Nabors Industries Ltd. provides drilling and rig services. The company offers equipment manufacturing, rig instrumentation, optimization software, and directional drilling services; and It provides patented steering systems and rig instrumentation software systems, including ROCKIT directional drilling system that provides data collection services to oil and gas exploration and service companies; REVit control system, a stick slip mitigation system; RIGWATCH software, which monitors a rig's real- time performance and offers daily reporting for drilling operations; and DRILLSMART software that allows the drilling system to adapt to operating parameters and drilling conditions. The company also provides measurement while drilling systems and services; manufactures and sells top drives, catwalks, wrenches, draw works, and other drilling related equipment; and offers well- site services, such as engineering, transportation and disposal, construction, maintenance, well logging, directional drilling, data collection, and other support services. The Company was founded in 1968 and is headquartered in Hamilton, Bermuda. NATIONAL CREDIT: Valenzuela Sues Over Unsolicited Telephone Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER VALENZUELA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL CREDIT ADJUSTERS, L.L.C., and DOES 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00790 (C.D. Cal., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff's cellular telephone, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff also brings an action for damages as an individual consumer for Defendant's violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA) which prohibit debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices. Beginning February of 2017 and continuing at least through March of 2017, Defendant contacted Plaintiff on her cellular telephone number ending in -0713, in an effort to collect an alleged debt owed from Plaintiff. The Defendant called Plaintiff from telephone numbers confirmed to belong to Defendant, including without limitation (714) 795-2438, (714) 795-2494, (718) 795-2481, and (714) 795-2493. In a call from Defendant on March 2, 2017, Plaintiff explicitly revoked any consent Defendant may have had to call her on her cellular telephone. However, Defendant continued to call Plaintiff several times following her revocation of consent to be called. National Credit is debt collection company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206 4741 Facsimile: (866) 633 0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Charleston" Suit in E.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case is titled as Nicole Charleston, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02686 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017). Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Levinson" Suit in E.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case is entitled as Dennis Levinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02688 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017). Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer relationship and accounts receivable management services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com NEIMAN MARCUS: 9th Cir. Revives "Last Call" Stores Price Tag Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda G. Ciccatelli, writing for IPWatchdog, reports that in September 2014, a California woman named Linda Rubenstein sued Neiman Marcus over allegedly misleading price tags at their "Last Call" line of stores. In the case, Ms. Rubenstein alleged that the company misled consumers at its Last Call stores with prices tags that listed a cost "compared to" a fictitious higher price, designed to lure shoppers into thinking they are getting a deal. In December of 2014, U.S. District Judge S. James Otero dismissed Ms. Rubenstein's suit with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim and failure to allege fraud with particularity. Recently, her putative class action revived when a Ninth Circuit panel agreed that a lower court prematurely tossed her case. The panel found that Ms. Rubenstein had sufficiently alleged her false advertising and unfair business practices claims by showing that Neiman Marcus may have made misleading statements about its Last Call merchandise. Char Pagar -- cpagar@vlplawgroup.com -- partner at VLP Law Group, sat down with IPWatchdog in a recent interview to shed some light on this particular case and how customers can protect themselves from false advertising in general. These days, false advertising allegations can come from federal regulators like the FTC, state regulators like the State Attorneys General, competitors, or class action attorneys purporting to act on behalf injured customers. "For advertisers, responding to allegations of false advertising can be an expensive task that consumes resources the advertiser would often prefer to use in other ways," she explained. "The final resolution of such cases may require the advertiser to make financial payments and to change its business practices in specific ways on a go-forward basis." As of late, according to Pagar, there have been many factors of false advertising, including federal and state regulators, plaintiffs' class action attorneys, and competitors -- who are active and willing to challenge advertising conduct that they believe is inappropriate. In the Neiman Marcus case, the plaintiff asserts that the "compare-to" price tags on items in Neiman Marcus' Last Call stores are deceptive because they believe that the retailer can't show that the same or similar items were offered by either Neiman Marcus stores or competitor stores at that compare-to price. So, the District Court dismissed the case because it agreed with Neiman Marcus that the plaintiffs' complaint didn't describe the alleged deception in sufficient detail. On April 18, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court and held that the plaintiffs did include sufficient detail about the alleged deception in their complaint. "It appears that this case will now go back to the District Court for litigation of the substantive issues asserted the complaint," Pagar said. "Many other retailers are already currently facing putative class action cases as well as regulatory challenges alleging that the retailers' discount/sale pricing claims are deceptive," she explained. "This decision provides more support to the challengers in those cases, and is likely to cause concern among those retailers who currently face such challenges as well as among other retailers who haven't (yet) faced such a challenge." So, how can customers protect themselves from false advertising? From a consumer perspective, in Pagar's opinion, the critical issue is for consumers is to keep themselves informed about the products that they purchase. Consumers should research the products they want to buy and understand what the quality issues are, what the pricing range is, and where the items are available for purchase. She added, "Pricing issues are one area where consumers have an excellent ability to make prudent marketplace decisions for themselves. All they need to do is comparison shop -- online, offline, with a comparison shopping app, or via other mechanisms -- to understand what item they are purchasing and how they personally want to value each item." [GN] NEW YORK: Court Denied Class Certification in "Brooks" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned DERRICK BROOKS, CLIFTON DEMECO, and BRIAN BLOWERS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SAMUEL D. ROBERTS, Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01025-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge David N. Hurd entered an order 1. denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification of: Class A: "[a]ll New York State residents receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits who, since January 1, 2016, have had, are now having, or will have their benefits terminated for allegedly failing to meet a work requirement after receiving benefits for three out of thirty-six months"; Subclass A: "[a]ll New York State residents receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits who, since January 1, 2016, have had, are now having, or will have their benefits terminated for allegedly failing to meet an ABAWD work requirement after receiving benefits for three out of thirty-six months and as to whom [d]efendant failed to provide a pre-termination notice that is both adequate and is mailed at least 10 days before the effective date of the termination"; and Subclass B: "[a]ll New York State residents receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits who, since January 1, 2016, have had, are now having, or will have their benefits terminated for allegedly failing to meet an ABAWD work requirement after receiving benefits for three out of thirty-six months and as to whom [d]efendant has failed to send any initial written notice that the individual has been determined to be an ABAWD"; 2. denying Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; 3. denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7); 4. granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6); and 5. directing Defendant to file an answer to the remaining claims within 20 days of the date of this Memorandum- Decision and Order. The Court said, "Plaintiffs have failed to affirmatively demonstrated compliance with Rule 23's requirements and therefore their motion for class certification will be denied. As plaintiffs can show no irreparable harm that would result from the denial of their request for a preliminary injunction, the motion for a preliminary injunction will be denied. Further, defendant has failed to show that the United States Department of Agriculture is a necessary party and thus his motion to dismiss for failure to join a necessary party will be denied. Finally, plaintiffs cannot plausibly state a claim that their due process rights were violation when defendant classified them as ABAWDs, issued the allegedly defective Notice of Able Bodied Adults Without Dependents Status to plaintiff Blowers, failed to notify plaintiffs Brooks and DeMeco in writing of their classification, or failed to provide an individualized inquiry whereby plaintiffs would be screened for an exemption. This is so because plaintiffs were not deprived of any protected property interest at that time". Derrick Brooks, Clifton DeMeco, and Brian Blowers seek relief on behalf of themselves and a putative class of fellow New York State residents receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP") benefits, commonly referred to as food stamps, who have had, are now having, or will have their benefits terminated. The benefits were terminated following New York's implementation of a federal rule imposing a three month time limit on receipt of food stamps by able bodied adults without dependents ("ABAWDs") unless they meet work requirements. The Plaintiffs seek relief from defendant Samuel D. Roberts ("defendant"), in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (the "OTDA"). The OTDA is designated by the United States Department of Agriculture (the "USDA") Food and Nutrition Service (the "FNS") as the state agency to provide food stamp benefits to low income New York residents like plaintiffs. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ivu0z8ze The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc Cohan, Esq. Petra T. Tasheff, Esq. NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & ECONOMIC JUSTICE, INC. 275 Seventh Avenue - Suite 1506 New York, NY 10001 - and - Albany Saima A. Akhtar, Esq. Susan C. Antos, Esq. EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER 119 Washington Avenue, 2nd Floor Albany, NY 12210 The Defendant is represented by: Eric T. Schneiderman, Esq. C. Harris Dague, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK ASS'T ATTORNEY GENERAL The Capitol Albany, NY 12224 NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Pisk" Suit in E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Northstar Location Services, LLC. The case is captioned as Geraldine Pisk, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02719 (E.D.N.Y., May 4, 2017). Northstar Location provides a full-service receivables debt collection solution with unparalleled service, support and performance to clientele.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. SANDERS LAW, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 281 7601 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com NYU HOSPITALS: Fails to Pay Wages & OT, "Valentine" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- COLETTE VALENTINE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NYU HOSPITALS CENTER, the Defendant, Case No. 154138/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, and pre- and post-judgment interest under New York Labor Law (NYLL). The Defendant has allegedly engaged and continues to engage in illegal and improper wage practices. These practices include: (a) requiring hourly schedulers to perform work without compensation during meal breaks; (b) requiring hourly schedulers to perform work without compensation before the start of their scheduled shift; (c) requiring Hourly Schedulers to perform work without compensation after the end of their scheduled shift; (d) failing to pay hourly schedulers at their straight or agreed upon rate for all hours worked under 40 hours in a week; (e) failing to pay hourly schedulers overtime of time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a week; and (f) failing to provide accurate wages statements.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Ginsberg, Esq. THE LAW FIRM OF LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C. 1613 Northern Boulevard Roslyn, NY 11576 Telephone: (516) 625 0105 ONE UP: "Salanitri" Suit Seeks Withheld Wages Under Labor Law ------------------------------------------------------------- SHANE SALANITRI individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated who were employed by DAREN TROUSDELL and ONE UP GAMES, LLC d/b/a ONEUP SPORTS and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by ONE UP GAMES, LLC d/b/a ONEUP SPORTS, the Plaintiffs, v. DAREN TROUSDELL and ONE UP GAMES, LLC d/b/a ONEUP SPORTS and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by ONE UP GAMES, LLC d/b/a ONEUP SPORTS, the Defendants, Case No. 154136/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover all improperly withheld wages, pursuant to New York Labor Law (NYLL). Shane Salanitri worked for Defendants from August 2016 to December 2016, performing work for Defendants' digital sports business including but not limited to video editing work. The Plaintiff typically worked approximately three to six days per week from 7:00 p.m. until 12:45 a.m. to 2:30 a.m., with a 30-minute lunch break. From the period of October 2016 to December 2016, the Plaintiff was not paid at all for the hours he worked. OneUp Games provides mobile sports platforms. The company offers live-action mobile sports applications that offer social gaming, live content, messaging, and revenue generating features; fan- focused team applications with live game casts, social gaming, in- stadium utility and proximity networks, revenue driving features, and social experiences; a mobile sports platform that combines content, live-sports data, and social experiences with an integrated managed advertising and sponsorship offering.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212 943 9080 Facsimile: 212 943 9082 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com PAPA JOHN'S: "Hatmaker" Seeks Unpaid Wages, Reimbursements ---------------------------------------------------------- Tammy Hatmaker, Stephen Hatmaker and Kendall Peyton, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Papa John's Ohio, LLC, PJ Ohio, LLC, Serazen, LLC, BLD Brands, LLC, PJ Pizza, Ohio, LLC, PJ Las Vegas, LLC, PJ North Carolina, LLC and Doug Pak, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00146 (S.D. Ohio, April 27, 2017), seeks unpaid minimum wages, reimbursement of expenses, liquidated damages, compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses of this action, together with reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees and such other legal and equitable relief as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio's Prompt Pay Act. Defendants own and operate twenty-seven Papa John's Pizza restaurants in the Dayton, Ohio and Cincinnati, Ohio area, and a total of seventy-three Papa John's Pizza restaurants in Ohio, Nevada and North Carolina. Tammy Hatmaker and Stephen Hatmaker worked for Defendants as pizza delivery drivers at their Papa John's Pizza restaurant on Brandt Pike in Dayton, Ohio. They use their own vehicles to deliver pizzas. Peyton worked at their Airway Road location in Dayton, Ohio. Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Biller, Esq. Andrew Kimble, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 3825 Edwards Road, Suite 650 Cincinnati, OH 45209 Tel: (513) 651-3700 Fax: (513) 665-0219 Email: abiller@msdlegal.com akimble@msdlegal.com PARK WEST EXECUTIVE: Seeks Review of Decision in "Faroque" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants John M. Ahern, Zachary Berman, Park West Executive Services and Town Car International Holdings, LLC, took an appeal from the District Court's memorandum and order adopting the report and recommendation dated March 31, 2017, in the lawsuit styled Faroque v. Park West Executive Services, Case No. 15-cv-6868, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff sought damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws. Mr. Faroque was allegedly employed by the Defendants as a driver and worked between 80-90 hours per week and was not compensated for work in excess of 40 hours per week. He also said he was not reimbursed for work related expenses, such car maintenance, toll fees and fuel. Town Car International is a New York corporation, headquartered in Long Island City and provides personnel transportation services to companies. The Company is owned by Zachary Berman and John M. Ahern. The appellate case is captioned as Faroque v. Park West Executive Services, Case No. 17-1029, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees Mohammad O. Faroque, Khaled Khan, MD Imranul Haque, Khandker Haque, Mohammed S. Alam, Asad Ikbal and Mohammed E. Karim, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, are represented by: Jeanne Christensen, Esq. WIGDOR LLP 85 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 257-6800 Facsimile: (212) 257-6845 E-mail: jchristensen@wigdorlaw.com Defendants-Appellants Park West Executive Services, DBA Town Car International; Town Car International Holdings, LLC; Zachary Berman, in his individual and professional capacities; and John M. Ahern, in his individual and professional capacities, are represented by: Allan Scott Bloom, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: abloom@proskauer.com PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES: Quinonez Seeks to Certify Class ----------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled BRIANNA QUINONEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHARMACEUTICAL SPECIALTIES, INC., a foreign business corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-05966-BRO-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court on August 14, 2017 for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all California consumers who purchased a product in the Vanicream SPF 50+ product line, within the applicable statute of limitations, for personal use until the date notice is disseminated. Excluded from this Class are Defendants and its officers, directors and employees and those who purchased a Product in the Vanicream SPF 50+ product line for the purpose of resale"; and 2. approving the Farahi Law Firm, APC as class Counsel. The lawsuit concerns the Vanicream SPF 50+ product, a line of sunscreen products labeled with a SPF 50+. The Vaincream SPF 50+ product is sold online and at a variety of the third-party retailers including Walgreens, drugstore.com, eBay.com, Amazon.com, coolibar.com, CVS, Wal-Mart, Rite Aid, Shopko, Kerr Drug and Target. Since launching the Vanicream SPF 50+ products, Defendant has consistently conveyed the message to consumers throughout the United States, including California, that the Vanicream SPF 50+ products provide superior UVB protection compared to comparable lower SPF valued products, including the Vanicream SPF 50+ Products. They do not. The research conducted by Consumer Report in May 2016 revealed that one of the sunscreens in the 20 percent that received a score of good, fair, or poor is Vanicream SPF 50+ which tested for SPF 17. Subsequent testing by Plaintiff confirmed this result. Defendant's superior UVB protection claims are false, misleading and deceptive. The Defendant distributes, markets, and sells a variety of products for the skin and face. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HomqH28l The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Farahi, Esq. Raymond M. Collins, Esq. FARAHI LAW FIRM, APC 2276 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 230 Torrance, CA 905050 Telephone: (310) 774 4500 Facsimile: (424) 295 0557 E-mail: Justin@farahilaw.com raymond@farahilaw.com PHOENIX FINANCIAL: Faces "Eger" Suit in S.D. Indiana ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Phoenix Financial Services LLC. The case is titled as SUSAN EGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PHOENIX FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC and PENDRICK CAPITAL PARTNERS II, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01437-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind., May 4, 2017). The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Tanya Walton Pratt. Phoenix Financial offers investment banking and financial advisory services to public and private growth companies and middle market.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig B. Sanders, Esq. BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Telephone: (516) 203 7600 Facsimile: (516) 706 5055 E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com PLANNERNET INC: Faces "Champagne" Suit Over Unpaid Wages, OT Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Champagne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Plannernet, Inc., a North Carolina Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-02128-SK (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2017) seeks unpaid wages, damages, restitution and other relief pursuant to California Labor Code. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has a policy of misclassifying non-exempt employees as independent contractors, thereby: (1) unlawfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of eight in a day or 40 in a week; (2) unlawfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with timely, statutorily-mandated meal and rest periods and/or failing to properly compensate them for meal and rest period violations; (3) willfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with wages for hours worked on a weekly or semi-monthly basis; (4) willfully failing to provide Plaintiff and similarly situated employees with accurate semi-monthly itemized wage statements; (5) willfully failing to pay compensation owed in a prompt and timely manner to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees whose employment with Defendants has terminated; (6) failing to reimburse mandatory employee expenses; and (7) violating California's Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"). Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Meeting Manager. Defendant acts as a temporary staffing agency that provides its clients with attendee personnel for seminars, conferences, symposia, trade shows, corporate meetings and dinners at various events throughout the United States and in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John E. Hill, Esq. Enrique Martinez, Esq. Law Offices of John E. Hill 333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94621 Tel: (510) 588-1000 Fax: (510) 632-1445 Email: enriquemartinez@hill-law-offices.com - and - Ramsey Hanafi, Esq. Quintana Hanafi, LLP 870 Market Street, Suite 1115 San Francisco, CA 94102 Tel: (415) 504-3121 Fax: (415) 233-8770 Email: info@qhplaw.com PNM RESOURCES: Unit Still Faces Navajo Nation Allottee Matters -------------------------------------------------------------- PNM Resources, Inc.'s wholly-owned subsidiary, Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), continues to defend itself in legal proceedings related to Navajo Nation allottee matters, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017. A putative class action was filed against PNM and other utilities in February 2009 in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Plaintiffs claim to be allottees, members of the Navajo Nation, who pursuant to the Dawes Act of 1887, were allotted ownership in land carved out of the Navajo Nation and allege that defendants, including PNM, are rights-of-way grantees with rights-of-way across the allotted lands and are either in trespass or have paid insufficient fees for the grant of rights- of-way or both. In March 2010, the court ordered that the entirety of the plaintiffs' case be dismissed. The court did not grant plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, finding that they instead must pursue and exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking redress in federal court. In May 2010, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which was denied by the BIA Regional Director. In May 2011, plaintiffs appealed the Regional Director's decision to the DOI, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Interior Board of Indian Appeals. Following briefing on the merits, on August 20, 2013, that board issued a decision upholding the Regional Director's decision that the allottees had failed to perfect their appeals, and dismissed the allottees' appeals, without prejudice. The allottees have not refiled their appeals. Although this matter was dismissed without prejudice, PNM considers the matter concluded. However, PNM continues to monitor this matter in order to preserve its interests regarding any PNM- acquired rights-of-way. In a separate matter, in September 2012, 43 landowners claiming to be Navajo allottees filed a notice of appeal with the BIA appealing a March 2011 decision of the BIA Regional Director regarding renewal of a right-of-way for a PNM transmission line. The allottees, many of whom are also allottees in the above matter, generally allege that they were not paid fair market value for the right-of-way, that they were denied the opportunity to make a showing as to their view of fair market value, and thus denied due process. On January 6, 2014, PNM received notice that the BIA, Navajo Region, requested a review of an appraisal report on 58 allotment parcels. After review, the BIA concluded it would continue to rely on the values of the original appraisal. On March 27, 2014, while this matter was stayed, the allottees filed a motion to dismiss their appeal with prejudice. On April 2, 2014, the allottees' appeal was dismissed with prejudice. Subsequent to the dismissal, PNM received a letter from counsel on behalf of what appears to be a subset of the 43 landowner allottees involved in the appeal, notifying PNM that the specified allottees were revoking their consents for renewal of right of way on six specific allotments. On January 22, 2015, PNM received a letter from the BIA Regional Director identifying ten allotments with rights-of-way renewals that were previously contested. The letter indicated that the renewals were not approved by the BIA because the previous consent obtained by PNM was later revoked, prior to BIA approval, by the majority owners of the allotments. It is the BIA Regional Director's position that PNM must re-obtain consent from these landowners. On July 13, 2015, PNM filed a condemnation action in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico regarding the approximately 15.49 acres of land at issue. On December 1, 2015, the court ruled that PNM could not condemn two of the five allotments at issue based on the Navajo Nation's fractional interest in the land. PNM's motion for reconsideration of this ruling was denied. On March 31, 2016, the Tenth Circuit granted PNM's petition to appeal the December 1, 2015 ruling. On September 18, 2015, the allottees filed a separate complaint against PNM for federal trespass. Both matters have been consolidated and are stayed while PNM pursues its appeal before the Tenth Circuit. On June 27, 2016, PNM filed its opening brief in the Tenth Circuit. Amicus briefs were filed in support of PNM's position. On October 5, 2016, the United States, the Navajo Nation, and individual allottees filed their response briefs. After the response briefs were filed, other entities requested leave to file amicus briefs addressing arguments raised in the United States' response brief. Oral argument before the Tenth Circuit was heard on January 17, 2017. PNM cannot predict the outcome of these matters. PNM Resources, Inc., through its subsidiaries, engages in the energy and energy-related businesses in the United States. It operates through Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) and Texas-New Mexico Power Company (TNMP) segments. The PNM segment is primarily involved in the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. It generates electricity using coal, natural gas and oil, nuclear fuel, solar, wind, and geothermal energy sources. The TNMP segment provides regulated transmission and distribution services. PNM Resources, Inc. was founded in 1917 and is headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico. QUALCOMM INC: Carr Sues for Monopoly of Modem Chipset Market ------------------------------------------------------------ Lindsey Carr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Qualcomm Incorporated, Defendant, Case No. 5:17-cv-02133 (N.D. Cal., April 17, 2017) seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief for injuries suffered as a result of inflation of price paid by Plaintiff for iPhones and iPads due to Qualcomm's unlawful maintenance of monopoly power. During the Class Period, Qualcomm engaged in the monopolistic and anticompetitive conduct in unreasonable restraint of trade and commerce in violation of the Cartwright Act, California Business and Professions Code. As alleged, Qualcomm acquired and maintained a monopoly in the Modem Chipset Market, says the complaint. Defendant Qualcomm also entered into anticompetitive agreements with Apple. The anticompetitive agreement had the cause and effect of limiting competition in the market for Cellular Device Components, it adds. Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated ("Qualcomm") is one of the largest producers and sellers of baseband processors, which is an integral part of any smartphone. Co-Conspirator Apple Incorporated ("Apple") design, markets and sells iPad tablet computers, which run Apple's iOS mobile operating system. Apple designs, markets and sells iPhone smartphones which run Apple's iOS mobile operating system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. Nicomedes S. Herrera, Esq. Ryan J. McEwan, Esq. Kyla J. Gibboney, Esq. Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 500-6800 Fax: (415) 395-9940 Email: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com mweiler@saverilawfirm.com nherrera@saverilawfirm.com rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com kgibboney@saverilawfirm.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michael J. Kane, Esq. Berger & Montague, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 875-3000 Fax: (215) 875-4604 Email: ecramer@bm.net mkane@bm.net QUEMETCO INC: "Ramirez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Federal Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Salvador C. Ramirez, on behalf of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quemetco, Inc. and Does 1-20 inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC652619, was removed on May 4, 2017 from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-03384 to the proceeding. Quemetco recycles used lead-based batteries from vehicles and other lead bearing scrap to reclaim lead and other recyclable materials.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. Attorneys for Quemetco, Inc.: Andrew L Satenberg, Esq. MANATT PHELPS AND PHILLIPS 11355 West Olympic Blvd Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312 4000 Facsimile: (310) 312 4224 E-mail: asatenberg@manatt.com RENAISSANCE HOME: Faces "Barnhill" Sues Over Unpaid OT Pay ---------------------------------------------------------- Latoya Barnhill, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Renaissance Home Health Care Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00815 (N.D. Ohio, April 17, 2017) is brought against the Defendant as a result of Defendant's practices and policies of not paying its non-exempt home health aides, including Plaintiff, overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a home health care business. Plaintiff was employed as a home health aide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Chastity L. Christy, Esq. The Lazzaro Law Firm, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: 216-696-5000 Fax: 216-696-7005 Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com lori@lazzarolawfirm.com SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Raabe Sues Over Defective Washing Machines --------------------------------------------------------------- LINDA L. RAABE, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, THE HOME DEPOT, INC., LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC., BEST BUY CO., INC., SEARS HOLDING CORPORATION, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-at-00476 (E.D. Cal., May 4, 2017), seeks relief in the form of: (1) an injunction against Defendants from any further sales of the Recalled Washing Machines and to take such other remedial action as may otherwise be requested herein; and (2) money damages to adequately and reasonably compensate owners of the Recalled Washing Machines who have, through no fault of their own, purchased defective and dangerous Samsung washing machines. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other purchasers of the Recalled Washing Machines in the United States, its possessions, or territories from March 2011 to November 2016. Plaintiff. The suit relates to the marketing and selling of certain defective Samsung home washing machines that have latent and inherent defects and Samsung's failed recall of these same washing machines. These washing machines "explode," or suffer catastrophic failure during a given machine's normal usage because of a design defect and/or manufacturing flaw. On January 30, 2013, Raabe purchased a Recalled Washing Machine (model number WA400PJHDWR/AA) from a Best Buy store in Citrus Heights, California On November 4, 2016, Samsung began a recall (Recall No. 17-028) of 34 distinct models (the "Recalled Washing Machine(s)"), all being models of Samsung top-load washing machines, including the model purchased by Plaintiff as described above. The stated reason for the recall is that "[t]he [Samsung] washing machine top can unexpectedly detach from the washing machine chassis during use, posing a risk of injury from impact." The recall bulletin further notes that "Samsung has received 733 reports of washing machines experiencing excessive vibration or the top detaching from the washing machine chassis. There are nine related reports of injuries, including a broken jaw, injured shoulder, and other impact or fall-related injuries." See https://is.gd/8cu8B0 According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the remedies provided in Samsung's recall bulletin allow consumers the option of any one of the following: (1) an in-home repair or retrofit that includes reinforcement of the washer's top and a free one-year extension of the manufacturer's warranty; (2) a rebate to be applied towards the purchase of a new Samsung or other brand of washing machine, along with free installation of the new unit and removal of the old unit; or (3) a full refund for consumers who purchased their washing machine within the past thirty days of the recall announcement. None of the options were available to Plaintiff because: (1) the retrofit that Samsung proposes does not actually fix the machine so that Plaintiff can use it as intended at sale; (2) the rebate is a fraction of the cost of replacement; and (3) Plaintiff purchased her machines before the recall. Samsung Electronics supplies consumer electronics and digital products in the United States. The company operates through two divisions, Consumer Business Division and Enterprise Business Division.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Robert Noblin, Esq. Robert S. Green, Esq. GREEN & NOBLIN PC 4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor Long Beach, CA 90804 Telephone: (562) 391 2487 Facsimile: (415) 477 6710 E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com gnecf@classcounsel.com SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Law Firm Investigates Potential Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Parker, writing for Market Exclusive, reports that SeaWorld Entertainment Inc. is the subject of a class action investigation by law firm Andrews & Springer LLC. The law firm alleges that it is investigating the company over a possible breach of fiduciary duty. The announcement comes as the company prepares to unveil its first quarter earnings on May 9, 2017. Class Action Lawsuit Information is still sketchy on what the company could have done wrong in relation to its duty of protecting investor's interests. The only thing that is clear at the moment is that the law firm is encouraging owners of SeaWorld Entertainment shares to log in to their website if they wish to protect their investments and receive additional information. Even as Andrew & Springer lodges investigations into the company's operations it appears some investors remain confident about the company's long-term prospects. Hill Path Holdings is fresh from announcing a 7.7% stake in the theme park and Entertainment Company. SeaWorld Positive Analysts Ratings The company also continues to enjoy favorable ratings on the Street equity researchers at Janney Montgomery having reiterated a buy rating on the stock. In a research note issued to investors on April 13th 2017, the researchers reiterated a share price target of $24 representing potential upside of more than 30% from the current levels. Ahead of the company's earnings call on May 9 researchers at Zack Investment Research remain confident of the theme park company posting sales of $207.09 for the first quarter. Consensus estimates from eight analysts currently stands at the company posting revenues of $213.15 million with the lowest estimate standing at $199.5 million. Should SeaWorld meet analysts' estimates on sales then the same would represent a negative year over year growth given that it posted sales of $220.4 million for the same quarter last year. SeaWorld Entertainment stock has been on an impressive run in the market this year and is currently trading at highs of $17.77 a share. The stock is slowly closing in on its 52-week highs of $20.17 a share. It now awaits to be seen if the class action lawsuit at hand will have any impact more so in affecting investor's sentiments going forward. [GN] SECURE COLLATERAL: Snyder Sues Over Debt Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW PAUL SNYDER, the Plaintiff, v. SECURE COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT and NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, the Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00727-HGD (N.D. Ala., May 4, 2017), seeks remedies under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), including statutory damages, actual damages, and the costs of the action, together with a reasonable attorney's fee as determined by the court. The case concerns Secure Collateral's violations of the FDCPA. Secure Collateral (or one of its agents) calls consumers, alleging that the consumers owe debts and falsely represents that it is not a debt collector. Navy Federal uses Secure Collateral as its agent and is therefore a party to the misrepresentations and impermissible conduct of Secure Collateral as it is done on their behalf. Throughout these interactions, Secure Collateral does not accurately identify itself. Secure Collateral does not indicate that it is a debt collector, or that it is attempting to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used for that purpose. In fact, Secure Collateral explicitly and deceptively states that it is not a debt collector. Snyder took out a car loan with Navy Federal Credit Union. Snyder subsequently fell behind on his loan payments, at which point, Navy Federal made arrangements with Secure Collateral to collect on his debt. On January 27, 2017, Snyder and his brother, Daniel, received calls on their cellular telephones from an individual who identified himself as Steven of Secured Collateral. Steven explicitly stated he was not a debt collector, but stressed the importance of Snyder's matter. Secure Collateral specializes in the location (skip tracing) of collateral across the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D.G. Pantazis, Jr., Esq. WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS, FISHER & GOLDFARB, L.L.C. The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 - and - Daniel B. Snyder, Esq. GAINES LLC 2160 Highland Ave. South, Suite 101 Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 314 0500 SENTRY CREDIT: Placeholder Bid for Class Certification Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit entitled SHEILA SCHMITZ and ROBERT SCHMITZ, as Representatives of the Estate of JOANNE SCHMITZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SENTRY CREDIT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00647-DEJ (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class and subclass; appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives; appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel; and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that Plaintiffs file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XdV2kAmc The Plaintiffs are represented by: John D. Blythin, Esq. Shpetim Ademi, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482 8000 Facsimile: (414) 482 8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com SHREE LAXMI: Faces "Pacheco" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME GARCIA PACHECO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against SHREE LAXMI RESTAURANT INC. (d/b/a SWAGAT), ABISHEK SHARMA, and LALA R. SHARMA, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03165 (S.D.N.Y., April 29, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff was ostensibly employed as a delivery worker, but he was required to spend a substantial amount of time each day performing non-tipped duties unrelated to delivery work. The case seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the N.Y. Labor Law. Swagat is an Indian restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 SONOMA MISSION: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Payne, writing for The Press Democrat, reports that Sonoma Mission Inn is expected to pay nearly $1 million to settle a class-action lawsuit with former spa employees. A tentative ruling on May 2 from Judge Rene Chouteau gave final approval to the 103-member class, each expected to receive an average of $6,200. Judge Chouteau also approved a $331,000 payout to the San Francisco-based lawyers, finding the amount was high for Sonoma County but justified considering no local lawyers would take the case without a retainer. The Willow Stream Spa workers claimed unfair labor conditions spanning 2012 to 2015. Some reported being scheduled to provide treatments without adequate breaks. Others said they received no overtime when working more than 40 hours per week. [GN] SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Glancy Prongay Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on May 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of persons and entities that acquired Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. ("Synchronoss" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SNCR) securities between May 5, 2016, and April 27, 2017 inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court no later than June 30, 2017 to serve as lead plaintiff. Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. On April 27, 2017, the Company issued a press release entitled "Synchronoss Announces Management Changes; Company Issues Preliminary First Quarter 2017 Results." Therein, the Company disclosed that it expected "total revenue for the first quarter of 2017 to be $13 million to $14 million less than the company's previously announced guidance" and that it expected operating margins of 8% to 10% which was also less than previously announced guidance. The Company stated that it was "disappointed with [its] Q1 performance in this first quarter following our acquisition of Intralinks," and further disclosed that its Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Ronald Hovsepian, and its Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), John Frederick were leaving the Company. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $11.33 per share, or 46%, to close at $13.29 per share on April 27, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume. The filed complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that the newly- acquired Intralinks was underperforming; (2) that the Company's integration of other acquisitions was underperforming; (3) that the Company was facing serious hurdles integrating, and capitalizing on, its newly acquired companies; (4) that, as such, the Company's guidance was overstated; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Synchronoss' business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. If you purchased shares of Gigamon during the Class Period you may move the Court no later than June 30, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. [GN] TOKAI PHARMA: Defending Class Suits over Otic Pharma Deal --------------------------------------------------------- Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has provided supplemental disclosures to a definitive proxy statement, which is the subject of two putative securities class actions filed against the Company, among other defendants. These litigation-related disclosures are stated in the Company's Form 8-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 11, 2017, a copy of which can be accessed at https://is.gd/ugbKvD On April 7, 2017, the Company filed a definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A (the "Definitive Proxy Statement") with the SEC with respect to the special meeting of Tokai's stockholders scheduled to be held on May 9, 2017 in order to, among other things, obtain the stockholder approvals necessary to complete the purchase by Tokai of all of the ordinary and preferred shares of Otic Pharma, Ltd., a private limited company organized under the laws of the State of Israel ("Otic"), in exchange for shares of Tokai common stock (the "Otic Transaction"), on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Amended and Restated Share Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 2, 2017, among Tokai, Otic, and the shareholders of Otic named therein (the "Share Purchase Agreement"). In connection with the Otic Transaction, two putative securities class actions have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Tokai, Jodie P. Morrison, Seth L. Harrison, Stephen Buckley, Jr., Cheryl L. Cohen, David A. Kessler, and Joseph A. Yanchik, III. The two complaints are captioned as follows: Bushansky v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-10621-DPW (filed April 11, 2017), and Wilson v. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-10645-DPW (filed April 14, 2017) (together, the "Stockholder Litigation"). Each lawsuit alleges that the Definitive Proxy Statement made false and misleading statements and omissions in connection with the Otic Transaction, in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9, promulgated thereunder. Each plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all persons and entities that own Tokai common stock. Each lawsuit seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctions of the Otic Transaction unless Tokai discloses certain information requested by plaintiff, rescission and unspecified damages if the Otic Transaction is consummated, and attorneys' fees. The Company believes that no supplemental disclosures are required under applicable laws. However, to avoid the risk of the Stockholder Litigation delaying or adversely affecting the closing of the Share Purchase Agreement and to minimize the expense of defending the Stockholder Litigation, and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, the Company is making certain disclosures in its Form 8-K filing to supplement and revise those contained in the Definitive Proxy Statement. The litigation-related supplemental disclosures contained below should be read in conjunction with the Definitive Proxy Statement, which is available on the Internet site maintained by the Securities and Exchange Commission at http://www.sec.gov,along with periodic reports and other information the Company files with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company and the other named defendants deny that they have committed or assisted others in committing any violations of law or breaches of duty to Company stockholders, and expressly maintain that they have complied with their fiduciary and other legal duties and are providing the litigation-related supplemental disclosures below solely to try to eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation, to put the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest, and to avoid any possible delay to the closing of the Share Purchase Agreement that might arise from further litigation. Nothing in the litigation-related supplemental disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the litigation-related supplemental disclosures. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a biopharmaceutical company, focuses on developing and commercializing therapies for prostate cancer and other hormonally-driven diseases. Its lead drug candidate is galeterone, an oral small molecule that is in various clinical trials for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer. The Company's androgen receptor degradation agents drug discovery program is focused on identifying and developing compounds for patients with androgen receptor signaling diseases, including prostate cancer. Tokai Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was founded in 2004 and is headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts. TOP LINE: Faces "Frisbie" Suit Alleging FLSA, NYLL Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN FRISBIE, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TOP LINE RESTAURANTS, INC., TOP LINE MANAGEMENT, LLC, FEAST FOODS, LLC, FEAST AMERICAN DINERS, LLC, and REVEILLE MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:17-cv-06270 (W.D.N.Y., April 28, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid premium overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an Assistant Manager at the Denny's restaurant located in Horseheads, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Phone: (914) 934-9200 Fax: (914) 934-9220 Email: seth@klafterolsen.com fran@klafterolsen.com christopher.timmel@klafterolsen.com - and - Drew Legando, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: (216) 522-9000 Fax: (216) 522-9007 Email: drew@lgmlegal.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street, NE, Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20002 Phone: (202) 470-3520 Fax: (202) 800-2730 Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com jrathod@classlawdc.com TRICKEY'S SERVICE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that a Wood River towing service seeks to dismiss a customer's class action over alleged excessive fees, arguing that the plaintiff is a member of a proposed class in a similar lawsuit. Michael Ledbetter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed his complaint Feb. 22 against Trickey's Service Inc. and Jean Kainz. In his complaint, Mr. Ledbetter claims his Jeep was stolen on Feb. 15. When the vehicle was located, it was towed by Trickey's Service. Mr. Ledbetter claims he only became aware that his Jeep had been towed after a friend saw his vehicle in the defendant's lot in Wood River. The plaintiff claims he was able to retrieve his vehicle after paying a total charge of $538. He claims he was charged a full day's storage rate even though the actual storage time was only a few hours. Mr. Ledbetter alleges the defendants charged him substantially more than similar charges for voluntary tows and they forced payment by threatening to charge increasing storage fees. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit on March 24 through attorneys Mark Goldenberg -- mark@ghalaw.com -- and Kevin Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- of Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli PC in Edwardsville. They claim that after the police located Ledbetter's stolen vehicle, they contacted Trickey's Service to tow the car. They argue that counts I and II should be dismissed because they are identical to the unjust enrichment allegations made against Trickey's in a similar lawsuit filed by the same attorney for plaintiff Lucas Clark last year (16-L-638). The case is currently pending in Madison County. Based on Mr. Ledbetter's allegations in counts I and II, he is a member of the putative class described in Clark, which includes "all persons who, on or after May 6, 2011, had vehicles towed and stored by Trickey's Service, Inc., at the direction of someone other than the vehicle owner or operator, and where charged fees for towing in excess of the rate charged to tow non-police towns." "Because Ledbetter's claims are identical to Clark's, Ledbetter is a member of Clark's putative class, and the claims are being pursued by the same attorney before the same Judge, Ledbetter will suffer no prejudice by dismissal of his duplicative action," the motion states. The defendants also argue that counts III and IV should be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim for fraud. They claim the plaintiff failed to assert that Kainz made any false statement of material fact, that any allegedly fraudulent statements were made to induce the plaintiff to act or that he relied upon or was deceived by such statements. They say Kainz made truthful statements that "alerted" customers to Trickey's Service's practices, and anyone who heard the statements could not have been damaged by relying on them. Even if Ledbetter did allegedly hear fraudulent statements from Kainz, "his allegations and sworn statements demonstrate that he did not believe any alleged misrepresentations or act in reliance thereon," the motion states. Mr. Ledbetter seeks an award of more than $50,000, plus costs of the suit. He is represented by Thomas Maag of Maag Law Firm LLC in Wood River. Madison County Circuit Court case number 17-L-267 [GN] TWITTER INC: Faces Securities Class Actions in California --------------------------------------------------------- Wallace Witkowski, writing for Marketwatch, reports that Twitter Inc. said it is facing class-action lawsuits in California alleging securities violations, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on May 2. Twitter said "current and former officers" of the company have been named as defendants in pending class-action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and the Superior Court for San Mateo County in California. Twitter did not disclose any further detail of the lawsuits. Twitter shares rose 0.2% to $18.28 after hours. [GN] U.S. SECURITY: "Cogburn" Suit Seeks to Certify Employee Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled JARED COGBURN, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. SECURITY ASSOCIATES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00029- TWP-MCLC (E.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to: 1. authorize this case to proceed as a collective action for overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and supplemental Tennessee state law claims, on behalf of: "non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant at the HSN facility in Greeneville, Tennessee1 and were required to perform compensable work without being compensated for such work"; 2. issue an Order directing Defendant to immediately provide a list of names, last known addresses, and last known telephone numbers for all putative class members who worked for Defendant within the last six years; 3. issue an Order that notice be prominently posted at the facility where putative class members work, attached to current employees' next scheduled paycheck, and be mailed to the employees so that they can assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this litigation; and 4. order that the opt in plaintiffs' consent forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WX6ysf8W The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael L. Russell, Esq. Emily S. Emmons, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC 341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230 Franklin, TN 37067 Telephone: (615) 354 1144 E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com eemmons@gilbertfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Edward E. Hollis, Esq. Samantha R. Chapman, Esq. Gregory P. Abrams, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46240 Telephone: (317) 237 0300 Facsimile: (317) 237 1000 E-mail: edward.hollis@FaegreBD.com samantha.chapman@FaegreBD.com gregory.abrams@FaegreBD.com - and - Robert L. Bowman, Esq. Brandon L. Morrow, Esq. KRAMER RAYSON LLP P. O. Box 629 Knoxville, TN 37901-0629 Telephone: (865) 525 5134 Facsimile: (865) 522 5723 E-mail: rlbowman@kramer-rayson.com bmorrow@kramer-rayson.com U.S. XPRESS: Ayala Suit to Certify Class of Truck Drivers --------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY AYALA, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., U.S. XPRESS, INC., and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-GW-KK (C.D. Cal.), the Mr. Anthony Ayala will move the Court on June 15, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. or at such other date and time as may be ordered by the Court for an order certifying a class of: "all truck drivers who have worked in California for US Xpress after the completion of training while residing in California (as reflected by their mailing addresses provided to US Xpress) at any time since four years before the filing of this legal action until such time as there is a final disposition of this lawsuit". In addition, the Plaintiff also asks that the Court appoint him as Class Representative. Plaintiff also requests that the Court appoint his counsel -- Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho; Law Offices of James M. Sitkin; and Swartz Swidler LLC -- as Class Counsel. The motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3, which took place on March 24, 2017, and May 4, 2017. A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SPtxRoC9 The Plaintiffs represented by: David Borgen, Esq. James Kan, Esq. Raymond A. Wendell, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763 9800 Facsimile: (510) 835 1417 E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com jkan@gbdhlegal.com rwendell@gbdhlegal.com - and - James M. Sitkin, Esq. Justin L. Swidler, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC 1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 318 1048 Facsimile: (415) 362 3268 E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com jswidler@swartz-legal.com rswartz@swartz-legal.com UNIVERSAL TAX: D&B Seeks to Certify Tax Software Purchasers Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit styled D&B ENTERPRISES LLC d/b/a BAIN ACCOUNTING/TAX, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL TAX SYSTEMS, INC. d/b/a CCH SMALL FIRM SERVICES, the Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-05702 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order: 1. certifying a class of: "all persons that purchased CCH SFS's ATX 2012 professional tax software for use in preparing individual and business tax returns for the 2012 tax year". 2. appointing the named Plaintiff as class representative; and 3. appointing its counsel as Class Counsel. The case concerns Defendant deliberate, profit-driven, decision to conceal significant, widespread defects plaguing its ATX 2012 tax preparation software ("ATX 2012") -- about which it knew prior to selling the software to 28,535 solo or small firm tax professionals ("Class Members") for the 2012 tax season. Alternatively, the Plaintiff seeks to certify a Rule 23(c)(4) Core Issues Class. The Core Issues include but are not limited to, whether Universal omitted a material fact concerning ATX 2012, whether ATX 2012 was of merchantable quality; whether ATX 2012 was unfit for the ordinary purposes for which it was used; whether ATX 2012 conformed to the quality of other brands in the marketplace, or was of the same average grade, quality and value as similar goods sold under similar circumstances; whether an implied contract in fact to repair the software was formed through Defendant's actions; and whether Universal's retention of the payments for the software was unjust under the circumstances. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jyDCzVpN The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. Daniel J. Kurowski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (708) 628 4949 Facsimile: (708) 628 4950 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com dank@hbsslaw.com - and - Don M. Downing, Esq. Gretchen Garrison, Esq. Jason D. Sapp, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. 701 Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241 5620 Facsimile: (314) 241 4140 E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com jsapp@grgpc.com US COMPLIANCE: Faces "Cross" Suit Over TCPA Violation in Or. ------------------------------------------------------------ Patrick Cross, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. US Compliance Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00609-CL (D. Or., April 17, 2017) seeks damages, injunctive relief and any other legal remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system or prerecorded voice for the purpose of marketing to non-customer of US Compliance Services, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. McGlothlin, Esq. Hyde & Swigart 23 Newtown St. Medford, OR 97501 Tel: (602) 265-3332 Fax: (602) 230-4482 Email: david@westcoastlitigation.com VOLARIS: Right to Appeal Dismissal of IPO-Related Suit Expires -------------------------------------------------------------- Controladora Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V. (Volaris) disclosed in its Form 20-F filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 that the plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit related to the Company's Initial Public Offering has not appealed the judge's decision to dismiss the case and that the time to appeal has expired. Accordingly, any right of the plaintiff to pursue the litigation has ended. The Company and its CEO, CFO, certain of its current directors and certain of its former directors, as well as certain underwriters were among the defendants in a putative class action commenced on February 24, 2015 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of American depositary shares (ADSs) in and/or traceable to the September 2013 IPO. The complaint, which also named as defendants the underwriters of the IPO, generally alleged that the registration statement and prospectus for the ADSs contained misstatements and omissions with respect to the recognition of non-ticket revenue in violation of the federal securities laws, and sought unspecified damages and rescission. The motion to dismiss requested by the Company and all defendants was granted with prejudice in their favor on July 6, 2016. Controladora Vuela Compania de Aviacion, S.A.B. de C.V. provides air transportation services for passengers, cargo, and mail in Mexico and internationally. The Company was founded in 2003 and is headquartered in Mexico City, Mexico. WELLS FARGO: Still Defends RMBS Trust Complaints in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. continues to defend itself in legal actions in the state and district courts of New York regarding residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts, according to the Form 10-D/A filed by GS Mortgage Securities Trust 2012-GCJ7 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the monthly distribution period from March 11, 2017 to April 12, 2017. On June 18, 2014, a group of institutional investors filed a civil complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo Bank"), in its capacity as trustee under 276 residential mortgage backed securities ("RMBS") trusts, which was later amended on July 18, 2014, to increase the number of trusts to 284 RMBS trusts. On November 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the state court action without prejudice. That same day, a group of institutional investors filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") against Wells Fargo Bank, alleging claims against the bank in its capacity as trustee for 274 RMBS trusts (the "Federal Court Complaint"). In December 2014, the plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss their original state court action was granted. As with the prior state court action, the Federal Court Complaint is one of six similar complaints filed contemporaneously against RMBS trustees (Deutsche Bank, Citibank, HSBC, Bank of New York Mellon and US Bank) by a group of institutional investor plaintiffs. The Federal Court Complaint against Wells Fargo Bank alleges that the trustee caused losses to investors and asserts causes of action based upon, among other things, the trustee's alleged failure to: (i) notify and enforce repurchase obligations of mortgage loan sellers for purported breaches of representations and warranties, (ii) notify investors of alleged events of default, and (iii) abide by appropriate standards of care following alleged events of default. Relief sought includes money damages in an unspecified amount, reimbursement of expenses, and equitable relief. Other cases alleging similar causes of action have been filed against Wells Fargo Bank and other trustees in the District Court by RMBS investors in these and other transactions, and these cases against Wells Fargo Bank are proceeding before the same District Court judge. A similar complaint was also filed May 27, 2016 in New York state court by a different plaintiff investor. On January 19, 2016, an order was entered in connection with the Federal Court Complaint in which the District Court declined to exercise jurisdiction over 261 trusts at issue in the Federal Court Complaint; the District Court also allowed plaintiffs to file amended complaints as to the remaining, non-dismissed trusts, if they so chose, and three amended complaints have been filed. On December 17, 2016, the investor plaintiffs in the 261 trusts dismissed from the Federal Court Complaint filed a new complaint in New York state court (the "State Court Complaint"). According to the Form 10-D/A, there can be no assurances as to the outcome of the litigations, or the possible impact of the litigations on the trustee or the RMBS trusts. However, Wells Fargo Bank denies liability and believes that it has performed its obligations under the RMBS trusts in good faith, that its actions were not the cause of any losses to investors, and that it has meritorious defenses, and it intends to contest the plaintiffs' claims vigorously. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association provides personal, small business, and commercial banking services. It was formerly known as Wells Fargo Bank American Trust Company and changed its name to Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in January, 1962. The Company was founded in 1852 and is based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association operates as a subsidiary of WFC Holdings Corporation. WELLS FARGO: Asks Court to Deny Class Certification in "Nguyen" --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned HUY NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05239-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the Court for an order denying class certification. The Defendant said, "At the very minimum, no late pay class can be certified beyond December 31, 2016. Plaintiff, who is the sole proposed class representative, last worked for Wells Fargo in 2015. Effective January 2017, however, Wells Fargo thoroughly revamped its HMC compensation plan to better clarify that no incentive pay is earned until the 16th day of the month following the month of loan activity. While Plaintiff's counsel might argue that the new plan is still non-compliant with Section 204, the fact that Plaintiff never worked under that Plan and the Plan is so different from the ones under which he did work, should preclude him from representing a class challenging the 2017 Comp Plan. Accordingly, if the Court is inclined to certify any sort of late pay class, the cut-off date for that class should be no later than December 31, 2016". A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ipzncD1b Attorneys for Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.: Thomas R. Kaufman, Esq. Paul Bmkowitz, Esq. Jason P. Brown, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue or the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055 Telephone: (310) 228 3700 Facsimile: (310) 228 3701 E-mail: tkaufinan@sheppardmullin.com pberkowitz@shepparamullin.com jpbrown@sheppardmullin.com WHITING PETROLEUM: "Schindler" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------ Craig Schindler, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Whiting Petroleum Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-01051, (D. Colo., April 27, 2017), seeks unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, unpaid benefits and compensation, pre- and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Whiting is an independent exploration and production company with an oil-focused asset base. Whiting operates throughout the United States, including Colorado where Plaintiff worked as a rig welder. Throughout his employment with Whiting, he was classified as an independent contractor and paid the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek, with no overtime compensation, says the complaint. Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 352-1100 Fax: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com litkin@mybackwages.com jbresler@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: (713) 877-8788 Fax: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com mparmet@brucknerburch.com WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Fails to Pay Regular & OT Wages, Ulbrich Says -------------------------------------------------------------- BARTON ULBRICH, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a Delaware Regular and Overtime Wages); corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC660208 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 4, 2017), seeks to recover regular and overtime wages pursuant to the California Labor Code. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a non-exempt Shipper Receiver at one of Defendants' business locations in the city of Pasadena from October 2011 to June 2016. Plaintiff's job duties primarily consisted of operating and maintaining the stock room and other related tasks. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were required to undergo security bag checks and were not paid for the time spent going through the bag checks; were not provided with a compliant 30-minute, duty-free meal period; and were unable to take full, 30-minute duty-free meal breaks due to understaffing and a heavy workload. Their meal breaks were also interrupted because work needed to be done and no one else was available to do it. Defendants did not pay meal period premium wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees when compliant meal periods were not provided. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. is an American publicly traded consumer retail company that sells kitchenwares and home furnishings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald H. Bae, Esq. Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq. AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP 1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200 Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (213) 674 6080 Facsimile: (213) 674 6081 YIN WALL: Baumann Farms Seeks to Certify Ginseng Growers Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled BAUMANN FARMS, LLP, a Wisconsin limited liability partnership; GLENN HEIER; and AARON KAISER, the Plaintiffs, v. YIN WALL CITY, INC., an Illinois corporation; SUT I. FONG; CHOENG SAT O; YIN WALL CITY, INC., a Texas corporation; and YIN WALL CITY, DALLAS, INC., a Texas Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-605-WED (E.D. Wisc.), Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of: "all individuals and entities engaged in the business of cultivating ginseng in the State of Wisconsin who have registered as ginseng growers with Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection between January 2010 and the date of judgment, as mandated by Wis. Stats. par. 94.50(2), excluding Defendants, and all officers, directors, employees and agents of Defendants". The case is an action for unfair competition and false advertising in violation of section 43(a) of the U.S. Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1125(a). The Ginseng Board of Wisconsin, Inc. is a non-stock, not for profit corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Wisconsin, located in Marathon City, Wisconsin. The creation of GBW was authorized by a marketing order issued by Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) pursuant to Wis. Stats. Chapter 96 and the Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter ATCP 140.2. By virtue of Wis. Stats. Par 94.50(2) and the Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter ATCP, each and every ginseng grower in the State of Wisconsin must register annually with DATCP, and is represented by GBW in its marketing and sales efforts. In 2017 one hundred 180 ginseng growers registered with DATCP. Plaintiffs Baumann Farms, LLP, Glenn Heier, and Aaron Kaiser are all Wisconsin ginseng growers, with ginseng farms located in Marathon County, Wisconsin. Growers have all registered as such with DATCP. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=m0e4Ay7q The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael T. Hopkins, Esq. Telephone: (888) 227 1655 757 N. Broadway, Suite 201 Milwaukee, WI 53202 E-mail: mth@ip-lit.us * Defendants Losing War in Securities Class Actions --------------------------------------------------- Douglas Greene, Esq., of Lane Powell PC, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the securities class action war is about far more than the height of the pleading hurdles plaintiffs must clear, the scorecard of motions to dismiss won and lost, or median settlement amounts. It is a fight for strategic positioning -- about achieving a system of securities litigation that sets up one side or the other to win more cases over the long term. How this war plays out has real-world consequences for the people sued in securities class actions. Defendants win a lot of battles. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 was an enormous victory for the defense bar, imposing high pleading burdens on plaintiffs and establishing a safe harbor for forward-looking statements that, in Bill Lerach's famous words, gives defendants "license to lie." The rate of dismissal is markedly higher than the dismissal rate in other types of complex federal litigation. And cases that survive motions to dismiss typically settle for predictable amounts. But despite their success in battle, defendants are losing the war. The root of the problem is the defense side's lack of a centralized command, which creates a mismatch in expertise, experience, and efficiency. While the plaintiffs' bar is relatively small, with about a dozen firms that dominate, the defense bar is highly splintered, comprising many dozens of firms that can credibly pitch a case, with multiple possible lead partners within each firm -- some qualified and some, frankly, not qualified. As a result, the average plaintiffs' partner is many times more experienced than the average defense partner. While the plaintiffs' bar's specialized composition and small size yield a unified approach, the splintered nature of the defense bar makes this impossible for defendants. While the defense bar has achieved significant legislative and judicial success, it has come with costly collateral consequences. While the plaintiffs' bar's contingent-fee structure incentivizes efficiency, the defense bar is wildly inefficient due to hourly billing and the view that D&O insurance reimbursement is "free money." This penalizes the defense firms' clients -- both in individual cases and on the whole -- by leaving less insurance money for a vigorous defense and settlement. How can the defense bar approximate the plaintiffs' bar's advantages? Given the competitive legal environment and large- firm economics, the defense bar can't achieve a centralized command on its own. The only way to do so is to give greater control to D&O insurers, the player with the greatest economic and strategic stake in both individual cases and on the whole. Winning the securities litigation war isn't an abstraction or a dispute about allocation of money between law firms and insurance companies. It's about the safety and comfort of real people who face securities litigation. At the core of every securities case are people accused of doing something wrong -- not just directors and officers, but also hard-working company employees who find themselves at the center of a securities suit. Just the idea of securities class actions makes businesspeople uncomfortable. So the most fundamental question we on the defense side must ask ourselves is: how does the system of securities litigation defense position directors and officers to withstand securities litigation safely and comfortably? To state the obvious, defendants are entitled to a system that allows them a fair fight with sufficient insurance resources. Mr. Greene says "I have divided this analysis into two blog posts. In this post (Part I), I explain how and why the plaintiffs' bar is stronger than ever. In my next post (Part II), I'll analyze the current state of the defense bar, explain why defendants are losing the war despite winning many battles, and propose a solution to the current mismatch between counsel for plaintiffs and defendants." Part I: The Plaintiffs' Bar Is Back -- and Better than Ever "When I was a young lawyer, most of my cases were against Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach. I still remember the San Diego office's phone number by heart (619-231-1058) -- remember when we had to call people to communicate with them? Of course, there were several other strong plaintiffs' firms and prominent lawyers, including some of my favorite lawyers in the plaintiffs' bar -- though from my vantage point, Lerach and Weiss loomed large. "The downfall of Lerach and Weiss is well-known, so I won't recount it here. Many defense lawyers still discuss it with odd glee. To me, it was sad and unfortunate. My direct contacts with them made huge impressions on me. For example, one of Bill Lerach's oral arguments remains the most impressive advocacy I've ever witnessed. And I'll always remember the throng of defense lawyers at the first IPO Securities Litigation hearing turning to watch Mel Weiss enter the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse Ceremonial Courtroom, on September 7, 2001. "Lerach and Weiss helped shape and police our system of disclosure and governance, and our markets, corporate governance, and retirement savings are better off for it. I believe that most public company disclosure deciders see the image of Bill Lerach when they decide whether or not to disclose something. "So their exit naturally left a void in the plaintiffs' bar. But a remarkable thing has happened: their protÇgÇs, who are my contemporaries and counterparts -- as well as other senior plaintiffs' lawyers and their protÇgÇs, plus some new entrants into the plaintiffs' securities class action market, described below -- have not only filled the gap, but have bolstered the bar. The plaintiffs' bar is now back, and better than ever." Looking back, several things converged to cause this. The first was the stock options backdating scandal, which began with a study by University of Iowa professor Eric Lie that showed an unusually large number of stock option grants to executives at stock price lows. Since few of the companies exposed in the scandal suffered stock-price drops, the vast majority of the dozens of options cases were filed as shareholder derivative claims, on behalf of the company, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and proxy- statement misstatements. At the time, the most prolific securities class action firm was Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins, the successor of Bill Lerach's firm and the predecessor of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd. If they filed a derivative suit on behalf of a company, it meant they could not sue the company in a securities class action. For this simple reason, many people, including me, did not think they would file many options backdating derivative cases. But they did -- and they filed a lot of them. Not only did they file a lot of them, they defeated motions to dismiss and achieved settlements involving unprecedented types of corporate governance reforms and plaintiffs' attorneys' fee awards. Their large fee awards increased the fee awards of smaller plaintiffs' firms. By the time they were finished, the plaintiffs' firms that filed options backdating cases made a mint. Then, toward the end of the options backdating scandal, the credit crisis happened and started a new wave of shareholder litigation, this time both securities class actions and shareholder derivative actions. The plaintiffs' bar had a war chest and was ready for battle. The larger plaintiffs' firms won lead plaintiff roles in the mega securities class actions and also represented plaintiffs in large individual actions. While that was going on, the Chinese reverse-merger scandal happened. That created a new breed of securities class action plaintiffs' firms. Historically, the Reform Act's lead plaintiff provisions incentivized plaintiffs' firms to recruit institutional investors to serve as plaintiffs. For the most part, institutional investors have retained the larger plaintiffs' firms, and smaller plaintiffs' firms have been left with individual investor clients who usually can't beat out institutions for the lead-plaintiff role. At the same time, securities class action economics tightened in all but the largest cases, placing a premium on experience, efficiency, and scale. As a result, larger firms filed the lion's share of the cases, and smaller plaintiffs' firms were unable to compete effectively for the lead plaintiff role, or make much money on their litigation investments. The China cases changed this dynamic. Smaller plaintiffs' firms initiated the lion's share of them, as the larger firms were swamped with credit-crisis cases and likely were deterred by the relatively small damages, potentially high discovery costs, and uncertain insurance and company financial resources. Moreover, these cases fit smaller firms' capabilities well; nearly all of the cases had "lawsuit blueprints" such as auditor resignations and/or short-seller reports, thereby reducing the smaller firms' investigative costs and increasing their likelihood of surviving a motion to dismiss (and thus reducing the likelihood of dismissal and no recovery). The dismissal rate was indeed low, and limited insurance and company resources prompted early settlements in amounts that, while on the low side, yielded good outcomes for the smaller plaintiffs' firms. With these recoveries, these firms built up momentum that kept them going even after the wave of China cases subsided. For the last several years, following almost every "lawsuit blueprint" announcement, a smaller firm has launched an "investigation" of the company, and they have initiated an increasing number of cases. Like the China cases, these cases tend to be against smaller companies. Thus, smaller plaintiffs' firms have discovered a class of cases -- cases against smaller companies that have suffered well-publicized problems (reducing the plaintiffs' firms' investigative costs) for which they can win the lead plaintiff role and that they can prosecute at a sufficient profit margin. As smaller firms have gained further momentum, they have expanded the cases they initiate beyond "lawsuit blueprint" cases -- and they continue to initiate and win lead-plaintiff contests primarily in cases against smaller companies brought by retail investors. The securities litigation landscape now clearly consists of a combination of two different types of cases: smaller cases brought by a set of smaller plaintiffs' firms on behalf of retail investors, and larger cases pursued by the larger plaintiffs' firms on behalf of institutional investors. This change is now more than five years old, and appears to be here to stay. Plaintiffs firms thus have us surrounded -- no public company can fly under the radar anymore. Plaintiffs' firms of all types have made a lot of money over the past decade. They're now filing a record number of cases, even subtracting out the federal-court merger cases. And on the whole, they're strong lawyers, with some genuine superstars among them. Yet, though expanded, the number of firms is small, with about a dozen in the core group. This gives them the practical ability to take common strategic, economic, and legal positions -- even if they don't always see eye-to-eye or get along. "In Part II, I'll analyze the current state of the defense bar, explain why defendants are losing the war despite winning key legislative and judicial battles, and propose a solution to the mismatch between the plaintiffs' bar and defense bar. Please stay tuned." [GN] ********* 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 Joseph Cardillo at 856-381- 8268. * * * End of Transmission * * *