/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170512.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, May 12, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 95 Headlines AARP: 9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Insurance Class Action AMERICARE INC: Faces "Polyakov" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Faces "Russell" Suit Over Customer Data Breach AUSTRALIA: Ken Cush Mulls Suit vs. ACT Govt Over Court Orders ADVANCED PLANNING: Maddens Files Suit Over Carwoola Bushfire ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action ANADARKO PETROLEUM: July 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set BANNER HEALTH: New Class Suits Asserting Violations of MHPAEA BANNER LIFE: Miller's Furniture Files Suit Over TCPA Violation BARCLAYS PLC: Investors Said to Plan New FX-Rigging Cases BILLY MCFARLAND: Third Class Action Filed Over Fyre Festival BOSTIK INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Runyon" Class Suit BRITISH COLUMBIA: Judge Approves Class Action Over Fuel Spill CANADIAN MALARTIC: Court Authorizes Residents' Class Action CENTENE CORP: Judge Moves Securities Class Action to Missouri CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Scott Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Circuit CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Leaking Sunroofs CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Warner Sues over Falsified Checkup Info CNX GAS: Seeks Fourth Circuit Review of Decision in "Hale" Suit CONCENTRA HEALTH: Sued for Clearing Driver Who Caused Bus Crash CRST EXPEDITED: Appeals Classes Certification in "Sellars" Suit DELTA NATURAL: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Peoples Natural Merger EAST ST. LOUIS, IL: Settles Class Suit Over Police Officers' Wages EDWIN GOULD: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cruz" Suit Claims EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Files Suit Under Cal. Labor Code EXAR CORPORATION: Marshall Seeks to Enjoin MaxLinear Merger EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Fuller Sues Over Background Check FCA US: Chatom Motor Sues Over EcoDiesel Vehicles FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Fiorentino Sues Over Collection Practices GREENSPOON MARDER: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Debt Collection GREENFIELD CARE: "Clay" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages GUAM, USA: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Davis" Suit to 9th Circuit HONDA MOTOR: CRV Owners File Suit in Cook County Over Odors IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Arthur Kaye Files Securities Suit IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: June 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline JACK ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Dealers' FLSA Suit in Ohio JC PENNEY: Settles Shareholders' Class Action For $97.5-Mil. JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ordered to Pay $110MM to Settle Talc Suit KBR INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action KBR INC: July 3 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set KOHL: Judge Denies Class Certification on Disability Rights Suit LAKE OSWEGO, OR: Judge Hears Arguments in Title IX Class Action LEAPFROG: Judge Not Convinced of Investors' Merger Class Action LIVE VENTURES: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action LOUISIANA: Class Status for Suit vs. Public Defender Board Sought LYFT INC: Price Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to Ninth Circuit LYFT INC: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Circuit MCDONALDS: Settlement in Wage Class Suit Gets Tentative OK MDL 2724: FWK Holdings' Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania MDL 2724: "Castillo" Suit v. Teligent et al. Goes to E.D. Pa. MDL 2724: HMO Louisiana Sues Impax et al. Over Drug Price-Fixing MDL 2724: HMO Louisiana Sues Over Fluocinonide Price Fixing MDL 2773: "Kreuzer" Suit V. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal. MDL 2773: "Rotman" Suit v. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal. MDL 2773: "Schwartz" Suit v. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal. MDLIVE: Asks Court to Dismiss Class Action Over Patient Privacy MICHIGAN: State Secretary Sued Over Suspension of Drivers Licenses MINNESOTA: Judge Stays Further Proceedings in Sex Offender Case MOISES BAKERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Blair-Chick Suit Over Roundup Products MURRAY: Abandons Farmer Payment Clawback, Class Action Dropped MURRAY ENERGY: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation NATIONAL MILK: Consumers Await Refunds from Milk Settlement NELNET INC: Faces "Peterson" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation NEW YORK: Food Cart Owners Sue NYPD, DOH for Trashing Equipment NISSAN: Car Owners Await Dashboard Class Acton Settlement Money NISSAN NORTH: Seeks Dismissal of Panoramic Sunroof Class Action NOBLE ENERGY: "King" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA NOMAX INC: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in St. Louis Heart Center Suit PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Court Approves Final Settlement PCM INC: RM Law Files Shareholders' Class Action PCM INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action PFIZER CANADA: Ontario Class Over Champix(R) Drug Discontinued RAYTHEON COMPANY: Faces Suit over Autism Therapy Benefits RIGHT CHOICE: Faces "Schopp" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation ROAD TRAFFIC: Outa Contemplates Traffic Fine Class Action ROBINSON NURSING: Class Status of Wrongful Death Suit Affirmed SACRAMENTO, CA: Metropolitan Fire Sued over Failure to Pay OT SAMSUNG: Suit Blames Overheated S3 for Pittsburgh House Fire SAMURAI INC: "Mardones" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA SANTA ANA: Faces "German" Suit Over Failure to Pay Workers Wages SAVORY SANDWICHES: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Beck" Suit Says SBBM GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Wages SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Seeks Review of Order in "Cyphert" Class Suit SELECTIVE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Arias" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation SENSAY INC: Faces "Meyer" Suit Over Spam Text Messages SILVERLEAF LAWN: Landscaping Employees File Suit for FLSA Breach SIMILASAN CORP: Settles Homeopathic Products False Labeling Suit SPRINGCO METAL: Faces "Benefield" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation SRM ENTERPRISES: Exotic Dancers Sue for Unpaid Wages STERLING JEWELERS: Settles EEOC's Sex Bias Claims SUNRISE SENIOR: Judge Gives Initial OK to Class Action Settlement SUNRUN INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action SUNRUN INC: Faces Class Action, July 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline SUNSHINE RESTAURANT: "Littlejohn" Suit Seeks OT Wage Under FLSA SURFSTITCH: Faces Second Shareholders' Class Action SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Lundin Files Securities Class Action TENNESSEE: Judge Grants Class Status to Inmates' Hep C Suit U.S. STEEL: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action UNITED KINGDOM: Government Faces Class Suit on Air Pollution US AIRWAYS: Baggage Fee Class Action Suit Reinstated WARSAW, IN: "Williams" Suit Seeks Wages & OT Under FLSA WELLS FARGO: Counsel Struggles to Defend Bank Scandal WESCO AIRCRAFT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "White" Suit Says Y&D MEAT: Faces "Zepeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime * CBA President & CEO Comments on Senate Bill 33 * Class Action Securities Litigation Hits New High in Q1 2017 * "Class Action" Mulled Against Conveyancing Solicitors * Ethan Preston Speaks Up Against Potential Damage of Bill 985 Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Dugger" Denied ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Deposition Denied in "Moore" ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Live Trial Testimony in "Evans" ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Remands Suit vs. Welco for New Trial ASBESTOS UPDATE: PNA Directed to Produce Corporate Rep ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,000 Claims vs. FMC Corp. Pending at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Defends PI Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Continue to Defend Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Faces 3,023 Trauma Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Has 103 Asbestos Suits at April 17 ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Reports $3MM Settlement March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $1.27BB Net Reserves at March 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builders Firstsource Faces Asbestos Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Faces 64 Asbestos Cases at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Faces 16 Asbestos, Tobacco Cases in Md. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Continues to Defend "Parsons" at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Liabilities Could be Significant ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,745 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Faces 7,706 Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Units Still Defend Claims at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Has $1.1MM Reserves at Dec. 31 ********* AARP: 9th Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Insurance Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that unable to dodge allegations that it bilked senior citizens for millions of dollars in health insurance premiums, AARP must return to federal court to address the charges, the Ninth Circuit ruled on May 3, reversing and remanding dismissal of the class action. The three-judge panel found that lead plaintiff Jerald Friedman adequately pleaded that that nation's largest senior citizen lobby "transacts" and "solicits" insurance without a license, and that it tricked members into thinking that a roughly 5 percent fee it adds to their insurance bills is a permissible "royalty," though it actually is an illegal insurance commission. "Friedman has met the not especially onerous burden imposed at the pleading stage of alleging facts, making it plausible that AARP transacts insurance by collecting commissions from its members who purchase UnitedHealth's Medigap policy," Senior Second Circuit Judge Barrington Parker Jr. wrote for the panel, sitting by designation. "Friedman's complaint should not have been dismissed." Mr. Friedman, a Medicare beneficiary, bought supplemental health insurance through a Medigap policy held by AARP and underwritten and sold by UnitedHealth, also a defendant. Mr. Friedman sued AARP and UnitedHealth in January 2014, claiming that the fee is a commission charged on top of monthly premium charges, which AARP is not entitled to collect because it is not licensed to sell insurance in California. He said the conduct violates the California Insurance Code and state unfair competition laws. AARP and UnitedHealth say the fee is a legal royalty payment made by UnitedHealth in exchange for using AARP's intellectual property, such as its logo. Under a joint venture agreement between AARP and UnitedHealth, AARP collects insurance premiums from members and remits them to UnitedHealth. In exchange, UnitedHealth allows AARP to invest the payments before remitting them. AARP deducts 4.95 percent of each dollar paid by UnitedHealth Medigap enrollees before handing over the rest of their premiums to UnitedHealth. U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson, in the Central District of California, dismissed the case in October 2014, finding that Friedman had not adequately alleged that AARP acted as an unlicensed insurance agent that is paid commissions on insurance sales. Judge Pregerson also found that Mr. Friedman failed to allege that AARP "solicits" insurance, because its website does not allow prospective insurance buyers to apply for or buy coverage. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, in a 21-page opinion. AARP and UnitedHealth argued that the fee is not a commission because UnitedHealth's payment to AARP "is calculated as a percentage of all premiums paid in connection with the program, regardless of their source." But noting that Mr. Friedman alleged that anyone who wants to buy Medigap coverage from UnitedHealth must buy AARP's plan and make payments to AARP, the appeals court ruled that there is "no 'source' other than through AARP for the premiums paid to UnitedHealth for Medigap coverage." "At the motion to dismiss stage, we conclude that Mr. Friedman has plausibly alleged this payment to be a 'commission,'" Judge Parker wrote. Citing language from AARP's own marketing materials: "This is a solicitation of insurance," the unanimous panel ruled that Mr. Friedman's claim should not have been dismissed. When Judge Pregerson dismissed the case, "The court's primary rationale was that 'none of those websites permits an individual to purchase insurance coverage or submit an application for insurance,'" Judge Parker wrote. "We are not persuaded, however, that the ability (or lack of ability) to directly purchase or apply for insurance is dispositive," Parker wrote. (Citation omitted.) "Even if consumers cannot directly apply for or purchase insurance through AARP, Friedman has plausibly alleged that AARP's marketing materials are designed to lead its members to contact UnitedHealth to consummate sales of insurance." Despite the ruling, AARP attorney Douglas Winter, of the firm Bryan Cave, was optimistic that AARP will fend off the allegations. "While we are still reviewing the decision, we remain confident that AARP's position will ultimately prevail," he said in an email on May 4. Ninth Circuit Judges Morgan Christen and Richard Tallman also sat on the panel. Mr. Friedman is represented by Andrew Love -- alove@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Francisco, and UnitedHealth by Brian Boyle -- bboyle@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers in Washington. Neither Messrs. Love nor Boyle could be reached for comment on May 3. [GN] AMERICARE INC: Faces "Polyakov" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yevgeniy Polyakov, on behalf of himself, individually, and all others similarly-situated v. Americare, Inc., Case No. 507515/2017 (N.Y. Super Ct., April 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked more than 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Certified Home Health Aide ("CHHA"), providing full time patient care that included more than 20 percent of general household work. Americare, Inc. operates a home healthcare service company located at 171 Kings Highway Brooklyn, New York 11223. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bennitta L. Joseph, Esq. Chaya M. Gourarie, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 225 Broadway, Suite 2700 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 Facsimile: (212) 406-6890 ARBY'S RESTAURANT: Faces "Russell" Suit Over Customer Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY RUSSELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARBY'S RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01529-AT (N.D. Ga., April 28, 2017), was filed over defendant's failure to secure and safeguard its customers' credit and debit card numbers and other payment card data ("PCD"), and other personally identifiable information (PII) which ARG collected at the time Plaintiff made a restaurant purchase at ARG, and for failing to provide timely, accurate and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class members that their Customer Data had been stolen and precisely what types of information were stolen. Defendant is a nationally franchised sandwich restaurant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roy E. Barnes, Esq. John R. Bevis, Esq. J. Cameron Tribble, Esq. THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC 31 Atlanta Street Marietta, GA 30060 Phone: (770) 227-6375 Fax: (770) 227-6373 E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com bevis@barneslawgroup.com ctribble@barneslawgroup.com - and - John Yanchunis, Esq. Marisa Glassman, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-5505 Fax: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com mglassman@fmihepeople.com - and - Paul C. Whalen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C. 768 Plandome Road Manhasset, NY 11030 Phone: (516) 426-6870 E-mail:pcwhalen@gmail.com - and - Jasper D. Ward IV, Esq. JONES WARD PLC Marion E. Taylor Building 312 S. Fourth Street, Sixth Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Phone: (502) 882-6000 Fax: (502) 587-2007 E-mail:jasper@jonesward.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Phone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com AUSTRALIA: Ken Cush Mulls Suit vs. ACT Govt Over Court Orders ------------------------------------------------------------- Megan Gorrey, writing for Canberra Times, reports that a Canberra law firm will investigate a class action against the ACT government after it claimed more than a dozen offenders who breached court orders could have been locked up illegally. Lawyers say detainees serving intensive corrections orders, who were sent to jail for failing to comply with directions from Corrective Services officers without proper powers, could sue the government for wrongful imprisonment under the ACT's Human Rights Act. The government has rejected suggestions the offenders were unlawfully detained after an "administrative oversight" meant staff supervised orders without the necessary legal authority between last March and November. It moved to fix the problem in February, sparking strong criticism from lawyers over a lack of consultation, while the Opposition raised concerns it left staff exposed and could lead to "financial problems" if detainees sought compensation. Intensive corrections orders, or ICOs, were introduced as an alternative to periodic detention last March. They allow offenders to serve their sentences in the community under strict conditions. They're ordered by the courts, but administered by Corrective Services officers, who direct offenders to undergo drug and alcohol tests, enter rehabilitation or carry out community service work. Breaches of those conditions are heard by the Sentence Administration Board, which can then order offenders to spend a short stint in custody. The legal fix was required after the government found out officers were not delegated the proper powers by the director-general and certain directions given in that eight-month period were outside the scope of their authority. The amendment was applied retrospectively, limiting the ability of offenders to pursue compensation. But lawyers from firm Ken Cush and Associates said they would investigate a class action -- a legal challenge mounted on behalf of a group -- for offenders they believed had been unlawfully detained. Senior associate Sam Tierney, who has represented several ACT residents for alleged wrongful imprisonment, said residents had a right to be compensated when their liberty was breached unlawfully under the territory's human rights laws. "Detention which arises when proper legal procedures have not been followed can amount to making a detention unlawful and a right to be compensated is enlivened." Mr Tierney said the amount of compensation detainees could be entitled to would depend on their individual circumstances. "The Australian legal system has a strong and proud history of fiercely protecting people's rights against government excesses including attempts by governments to remove people's rights retrospectively. "This is particularly so where those rights arise from failures on the government's part and directly result in people losing their right to liberty. "There are strong arguments that the ACT government's latest attempt to retrospectively obliterate people's rights in this case would also not be accepted by the courts." Government figures showed 29 people were sentenced to ICOs between March 2 and November 11. Thirteen of those detainees had their order suspended for a breach and were sent to prison for three or seven days. About 55 Corrective Services staff were affected. ACT Human Rights Commissioner Helen Watchirs said the retrospective amendment limited the potential for detainees to claim compensation and the restriction on offenders' liberty would likely be considered reasonable under law. "I'm not sure it would be a strong case. It is possible." A Justice and Community Safety Directorate spokeswoman said the legal changes were made to "remedy a formal deficiency". She would not be drawn on whether the offenders involved had been informed of the glitch. "No offender was wrongfully imprisoned and staff operated under implied authority in executing the conditions of which offenders had undertaken in order to serve their custodial sentence in the community. She said the government had no plans to provide offenders with ex gratia payments -- one-off payments made when the government is prepared to compensate a person, but not admit liability -- as there was "no proper basis" to do so. "The Intensive Corrections Orders were suspended by the Sentence Administration Board because offenders failed to comply with the conditions imposed as part of the order." The ACT Law Society and Bar Association raised concerns the retrospective amendment could have been aimed at heading off possible claims and meant detainees apparently had no redress. The society previously expressed its view ICO breaches, suspensions and cancellations should be dealt with by the sentencing courts rather than the board, which was a government administrative authority. [GN] ADVANCED PLANNING: Maddens Files Suit Over Carwoola Bushfire ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Gorey, writing for The Canberra Times, reports that a Victorian law firm has launched a class action on behalf of those affected by the Carwoola bushfire on February 17, with the lawyer leading the case speculating a claim bill of more than $15 million. Maddens Lawyers issued proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court against Advanced Plumbing and Drains Pty Ltd on behalf of residents and business owners burnt out by the fire. A tradesman came forward after the blaze to claim it was sparked by building work on his property. The man donated $10,000 to one of several Go Fund Me pages set up in the wake of the disaster. Madden's senior partner Brendan Pendergast said the proceedings allege the Carwoola fire ignited on private property in the course of an Advanced Plumbing employee undertaking work involving the use of a power-cutting wheel that caused the discharge of sparks. Mr Pendergast said February 17 was a total fire ban day. "The conditions on the day were hot, dry and windy. The use of steel cutting equipment in these weather conditions, and on a rural property, carries with it a significant bushfire risk," he said. "Our preliminary inquiries indicate that appropriate precautions were not put in place to eliminate or reduce that risk." Mr Pendergast said the class action was a secure and low-risk means for the residents and businesses marred by the fire to claim funds their insurance policies did not cover. "Maddens has extensive experience in representing bushfire victims. We are acutely aware of the emotional and economic impact a bushfire can have on people," he said. "We've successfully settled class actions for four different communities that were burnt out during the Black Saturday bushfires of February 7, 2009. "We have also represented hundreds of bushfire victims impacted by the October 2013 Springwood/Winmalee bushfire and secured millions of dollars of compensation for losses that occurred as a result of that fire. "Quite simply, Carwoola residents have suffered losses that are not their fault. They are losses that would not have occurred had the right procedures been followed. "There is no reason these residents should sit back and just accept that this fire occurred, and accept the damage that it did. "There is every reason for them to ask the question of what they are due, because it is what they deserve." Advanced Plumbing and Drains Pty Ltd have until May 26, 2017 to file a defence to the proceeding. The same law firm has also mounted a class action over the Currandooley fire, which burnt out almost 3400 hectares near Tarago in January. Representing 33 individuals owning 22 properties, Mr Pendergast said the action alleges 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," he said. The blaze started at 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. Infigen has denied any liability. In a statement, the company said Maddens Lawyers had not provided any information to support the amount of loss and damage. "Infigen denies any liability in respect of the alleged loss and damage and will work with its legal advisers to defend the proceedings accordingly. Infigen maintains appropriate insurance," the company said. [GN] ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Bronstein, Gewirtz Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notified investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation and certain of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased Anadarko securities between February 17, 2016 and May 2, 2017, both dates inclusive. Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/apc. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (1) Anadarko's maintenance and safety protocols in respect to certain of its vertical wells were inadequate; (2) due to the foregoing shortcomings, these wells were at an increased risk of explosion; and (3) consequently, Anadarko's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 17, 2017, a deadly explosion killed two individuals and critically injured another in a recently built home located within 170 feet of an Anadarko. On April 26, 2017, The Denver Post reported that Anadarko "plans to shut down 3,000 vertical wells in northeastern Colorado after a fatal home explosion in Firestone near one of its wells." Following this news, Anadarko stock dropped USD2.84 per share, or 4.73%, to close at USD57.12 on April 27, 2017. On May 2, 2017, the Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District, together with the Firestone Police Department and the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, determined that the fatal home explosion was due to a faulty gas line connected to an old well owned by Anadarko. Officials said that the gas line was abandoned, but not disconnected from the wellhead and sealed at both ends. As a result, the line only stopped leaking gas after Anadarko shut down 3,000 wells in the region following the explosion. Following this news, Anadarko stock dropped USD4.54 per share, or 8.07%, to close at USD51.74 on May 3, 2017. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/apcor you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in Anadarko you have until July 3, 2017 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. [GN] ANADARKO PETROLEUM: July 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on May 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Anadarko Petroleum Corporation ("Anadarko" or the "Company") (NYSE:APC) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, and docketed under 17-cv-01372, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Anadarko securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Anadarko securities between February 17, 2016 and May 2, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until July 3, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation engages in the exploration, development, production, and marketing of oil and gas properties. It operates through three segments: Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, Midstream, and Marketing. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Anadarko's maintenance and safety protocols in respect to certain of its vertical wells were inadequate; (ii) due to the foregoing shortcomings, these wells were at an increased risk of explosion; and (iii) that as a result of the foregoing, Anadarko's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 17, 2017, a deadly explosion killed two individuals and critically injured another in a recently built home located within 170 feet of an Anadarko well. On April 26, 2017, post-market, The Denver Post reported that Anadarko "plans to shut down 3,000 vertical wells in northeastern Colorado" following the April 17 explosion. On this news, Anadarko's share price fell $2.84, or 4.73%, to close at $57.12 on April 27, 2017. On May 2, 2017, the Frederick-Firestone Fire Protection District, through a joint effort with the Firestone Police Department and with the assistance of the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, concluded that the fatal home explosion on April 17 was linked to a faulty gas line connected to an old well owned by Anadarko. Officials stated that the gas line had been abandoned, but not disconnected from the wellhead and sealed at both ends. Consequently, the line only stopped leaking gas after Anadarko shut down 3,000 wells in the region following the explosion. On this news, Anadarko's share price fell $4.54, or 8.07%, to close at $51.74 on May 3, 2017. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] BANNER HEALTH: New Class Suits Asserting Violations of MHPAEA ------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports Banner Health and the Kaiser Foundation were recently hit with separate class action lawsuits challenging their denials of certain mental health care coverage. In the case against Banner Health, plaintiffs challenge Banner Health's exclusion of applied behavior analysis therapy from coverage for autism spectrum disorder as "experimental or investigational." Plaintiffs allege that the failure to provide such coverage violates the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act ("MHPAEA"). The case against Kaiser Foundation challenges the denial of coverage for residential treatment and hospitalization for eating disorders. Plaintiff alleges that physicians determined that hospitalization was needed to treat his severe eating disorder, but he could not get the required authorization from the Kaiser Foundation and the denial violates the MHPAEA.[GN] The cases are Etter v. Banner Health, D. Ariz., No. 2:17-cv-01288 (filed May 1, 2017) and Moura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 3:17-cv-02475, (filed May 1, 2017). BANNER LIFE: Miller's Furniture Files Suit Over TCPA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Miller's Furniture of Mercer Company, d/b/a HANEY'S COMFORT LIVING FURNITURE, a Pennsylvania Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, WILLIAM PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, DJM ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, DONALD QUIRKE, and JOHN DOES 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00557-LPL (W.D. Pa., April 28, 2017), alleges that Defendants sent unauthorized advertisements by facsimile in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY underwrites and issues term life insurance policies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Shenkan, Esq. SHENKAN INJURY LAWYER LLC PO Box 7255 New Castle, PA 16107 Phone: 412 716 5800 Fax: 888 769 1774 BARCLAYS PLC: Investors Said to Plan New FX-Rigging Cases --------------------------------------------------------- Kit Chellel and Jeremy Hodges at Bloomberg report that some of the world's biggest investors are working with a U.S. law firm to prepare a fresh wave of litigation against banks accused of rigging foreign exchange markets. BlackRock Inc., Pacific Investment Management Co. and hedge fund BlueCrest Capital Management are working with law firm Quinn Emanuel to recover losses they blame on the manipulation of currency benchmarks, according to two people familiar with the case, who asked not to be identified because nothing has been filed. The target banks, including Barclays Plc, Citigroup Inc., HSBC Holdings Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and UBS Group AG, have been fined billions of dollars for conspiring to rig FX benchmarks. The firm, which will probably file lawsuits in London and New York, is trying to attract additional investors, the people said. Quinn Emanuel's clients will likely opt out of an existing New York class action over currency manipulation that won a total of about USD2 billion in settlements from HSBC, Barclays, RBS, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and others in 2015, according to people with knowledge of the firm's strategy. Opting out of the class action would allow large investors to seek higher settlements by pursuing a global strategy that includes the recovery of losses from London, where a significant portion of global trades are settled. The existing class action is limited to transactions that took place in New York. Opt-Out Fight The two law firms that are running the existing U.S. lawsuit, Hausfeld and Scott + Scott, won't give up control of the case without a fight. In an April 24 letter e-mailed to U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield, lawyers complained that "certain unnamed law firms were sending false and misleading communications to class members to persuade them to opt out of the settlements," the judge said in a court order on May 4. She set a May 12 deadline for the two firms to make a formal request as to what she should do in response. Officials at Scott + Scott and Jim Baxter, a spokesman for Quinn Emanuel in London, declined to immediately comment. A lawyer for Hausfeld in the U.K. couldn't immediately be reached to comment. The Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management Board and California State Teachers' Retirement System are also considering signing up to the new action. "CalSTRS is a member of the FX market manipulation antitrust class and has been evaluating its options, including potentially using Quinn Emanuel or another law firm to file an opt-out case, but has not yet committed to do so," Brian J. Bartow, the California pension's general counsel, said in a statement. "At the moment, CalSTRS remains a member of the class." Other investor groups either declined to comment or didn't return calls and e-mails seeking comment. Global Fines Banks have paid about USD10 billion in fines to global authorities over the last few years to resolve allegations traders tried to manipulate key foreign-exchange benchmarks such as the 4 p.m. WM/Reuters and 1.15 p.m. European Central Bank fixes. The settlements, some of which included guilty pleas in the U.S., came after dozens of individuals were suspended or fired over the behavior. The latest legal campaign threatens to give new impetus to the benchmark rigging scandal, and may force banks into paying significantly higher legal settlements. Banks including UBS, HSBC and RBS declined to comment. Other lenders didn't immediately reply to requests for comment on the lawsuits. At least five people have also been charged in the U.S., including three members of a chat room dubbed "the cartel" that was the focus of the investigation. Some of the men are in talks with the Justice Department on voluntarily coming to the U.S. to fight the charges, Bloomberg reported last month. A fourth member of the group has been cooperating with prosecutors. [GN] BILLY MCFARLAND: Third Class Action Filed Over Fyre Festival ------------------------------------------------------------ Ana Gaca at Spin reports that a third set of Fyre Festival attendees have filed a class-action suit against founders Billy McFarland and Ja Rule, alleging negligence, fraud, and violation of consumer protection law in their promotion of the luxe Bahamas destination festival that turned out to be little more than emergency shelters and cheese sandwiches on a darkened beach. Pitchfork has the full text of the complaint, which was filed in New York federal court. Attendees Matthew Herlihy and Anthony Lauriello each paid USD1,027 for their weekend tickets, including airfare from Miami, according to their lawsuit. They uploaded an additional USD900 and USD1,000 to their respective festival wristbands, which were supposed to enable a "cashless" event. Both men say they haven't been able to access those funds since. Lauriello also claims he was robbed of his clothes and headphones on the island, "because Defendants failed to provide any security." The latest suit also details the "total chaos" of conditions on the beach: "Upon the arrival of guests to the island of Great Exuma for the first weekend, the island was lacking basic amenities, was covered in dirt, and guests had to sleep in tents with wet blankets," the complaint reads. "There were no communal bathrooms or showers, but instead only three showers and a porta potty every 200 yards, which was woefully insufficient for the large number of festival attendees. The food was unappetizing and there were no on-site medical services. Additionally, there were no other basic amenities like soap, sunscreen and shampoo, and no electricity." [GN] BOSTIK INC: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Runyon" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Patrick E. Runyon, Terri E. Runyon, Georganne L. Shuster, Joseph S. Shuster, Everardo Vidrio and Zeferina Vidrio filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Patrick Runyon, et al. v. Bostik, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:16-cv- 02413-RGK-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Riverside. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought the lawsuit on behalf of a California class, which consists of all owners of single-family homes located in California in which Leonard's Carpet Service, Inc. installed ceramic, porcelain, or natural stone floor tiles on concrete substrates using D-70 as part of original/new construction. The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Runyon, et al. v. Bostik, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-80058, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners PATRICK E. RUNYON, as Co-Trustee of The Patrick E. Runyon and Terri E. Runyon Revocable Trust Dated August 7, 2015, JOSEPH S. SHUSTER, GEORGANNE L. SHUSTER, EVERARDO VIDRIO, ZEFERINA VIDRIO, and TERRI E. RUNYON, as Co-Trustee of the Patrick E. Runyon and Terri E. Runyon Revocable Trust Dated August 7, 2015, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, are represented by: Stuart M. Eppsteiner, Esq. EPPSTEINER LAW, APC 5519 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite 5129 San Diego, CA 92117 Telephone: (858) 350-1500 Facsimile: (858) 598-5599 E-mail: Sme@Eppsteiner.Com Defendant-Respondent BOSTIK, INC., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Joshua J. Pollack, Esq. SCHEIDEMANTLE LAW GROUP P.C. 35 East Union Street, Suite B Pasadena, CA 91103 Telephone: (626) 371-0334 Facsimile: (626) 628-1950 E-mail: jpollack@ScheidemantleLawGroup.com Defendant-Respondent LEONARD'S CARPET SERVICE, INC., a California corporation, is represented by: Alan J. Droste, Esq. KING PARRETT AND DROSTE LLP 450 Newport Center Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 644-3484 Facsimile: (949) 644-3993 E-mail: adroste@kpdlex.com BRITISH COLUMBIA: Judge Approves Class Action Over Fuel Spill ------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a British Columbia Supreme Court judge has approved a class-action lawsuit against the provincial government over a fuel spill that forced the evacuation of thousand of residents in the Slocan Valley four years ago. The law firm representing 2,500 residents says it's the first such environmental lawsuit certified by the court against the province of B.C. The firm, Rosenberg Kosakoski Litigation, says in a statement the tanker truck that overturned, spilling 35,000 litres of jet fuel into the Slocan River water system was part of a province-led refuelling operation for firefighting helicopters. The action alleges the province caused the disaster because of operational mismanagement and then failed to adequately respond to the spill, which resulted millions of dollars in damages to private property and the ecosystem. At the time, residents were evacuated and a do-not-use water order was put into effect as the fuel moved from Lemon Creek into the Slocan River. The firm says in the statement that the province contested the class-action application, pointing blame at its co-defendants including the firms contracted by the government to execute the operation. Calgary-based Executive Flight Centre owned the truck that was on its way to supply helicopters battling a nearby wildfire when it overturned into the creek. The statement says Justice David Masuhara rejected the province's position, saying everyone should be concerned when the government fails in its duties to protect the environment and take responsibility for its mistakes. [GN] CANADIAN MALARTIC: Court Authorizes Residents' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Montreal Gazzette reports that a class-action lawsuit brought forward by residents affected by the Malartic gold mine was authorized May 5 by Quebec Superior Court. The Comite citoyens de la zone sud de Malartic notes that the suit against Canadian Malartic could grow to more than CAD40 million. The residents living near the largest open sky mine in an inhabited area in Canada also want to be compensated for damages related to dust, noise and explosions that they have been exposed to for many years. The representative of the class, Louis Trottier, who lives less than 800 metres from the mine, said he was happy with the ruling, which "gives me hope that there might still be a bit of justice in this world." The decision comes two weeks after the Quebec government authorized the mining company to enlarge the mine, a project that will increase its life span by six years, until 2028. The decision from Judge Robert Dufresne notes that the class action "seeks damages of CAD9,000 per year per person for all the nuisances related to dust, noise and blasting since Aug. 1, 2013." The judge also authorized the inclusion of exemplary damages of CAD20 million for denying citizens the right "to the enjoyment of their goods and a quality environment guaranteed by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms." The court excluded, however, the possibility of landowners claiming real-estate losses in the class-action suit. Those claims must be done on an individual basis, the judge ruled. Malartic is 25 kilometres west of Val d'Or in Quebec's Abitibi region. [GN] CENTENE CORP: Judge Moves Securities Class Action to Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Kidd at STL Record reports that a putative class-action lawsuit against a St. Louis health care company that allegedly failed to release accurate financial information has been moved from California to Missouri. According to the suit, Centene Corp. didn't release the correct information on its expected losses over its multibillion dollar acquisition of Health Net Inc. The case, until recently known as Israel Sanchez v Centene Corp., originally was filed Nov. 14 in the U.S. District Court for California's Central District. On March 1, California U.S. District Court Judge Andre Birotte Jr. approved Centene's motion to change the venue to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, saying the location of Centene's headquarters is relevant to the case. "All defendants reside in the Eastern District of Missouri," court documents said. "Although the named plaintiff, Israel Sanchez, resides in this district (California), this is a class action, so his place of residence carries little weight." The location of potential witnesses in the case also had bearing in the venue change, Birotte said in his ruling. "Because the gravamen of this case is whether Centene made false and misleading statements in its quarterly report, Centene departments and personnel responsible for Centene's financial analysis and financial reporting will be key witnesses," Birotte said in the ruling. "The key witnesses are therefore all located in the Eastern District of Missouri." On May 1, the U.S. district judge now overseeing the case, Audrey G. Fleissig, granted a motion by Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund to be the named lead plaintiff in the case. The lawsuit stems from Centene's acquisition last spring of Health Net. Centene, a multinational health care company that provides programs and services to the underinsured and uninsured in the United States, is headquartered in St. Louis. The class action claims that Centene made false and misleading statements about Health Net's insurance programs. Centene failed to reveal that Health Net's programs were significantly underperforming and were generating losses while, at the same time, overstating Net's financial future prospects, according to the lawsuit. In April 2016, Centene released its first quarter financial results that included its USD6 billion acquisition of Health Net. "This strategic acquisition broadens our current service offerings, providing expansion in Medicaid and Medicare programs," Centene said in its announcement. "This acquisition provides further diversification across our markets and products through the addition of government-sponsored care under federal contracts with the Department of Defense and the U.S. Department of Veteran's Affairs, as well as Medicare Advantage. Our consolidated financial statements as of and for the three months ended March 31, 2016 reflect eight days of Health Net operations." That sounded good to investors and resulted in artificially inflated prices for Centene shares, which were as high as USD75.39 per share, according to the lawsuit. "Plaintiff and other members of the Class purchased or otherwise acquired the company's securities relying upon the integrity of the market price of Centene's securities and market information relating to Centene, and have been damaged thereby," the lawsuit said. Days later, Centene filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it was reserving approximately USD300 million for losses associated with Health Net's insurance plan, according to the lawsuit. That news caused Centene's shares price to fall more than 8 percent, closing at USD68.87 per share on July 26, according to the lawsuit. "Then on September 6, 2016, during the middle of the trading session, Leerink Partners, LLC ("Leerink") issued a report downgrading Centene stock due to underperformance of the Health Net legacy insurance programs, including Health Net's California substance abuse programs," the lawsuit said. That caused Centene's shares price to fall another 5 percent, closing at USD65.30 that same day, the lawsuit said. The class action seeks to represent those who acquired Centene securities between April 26, 2016, and Sept. 6, 2016 for alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. [GN] CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Scott Appeals S.D.N.Y. Ruling to Second Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Jay Francis Ensor, Christina Jewel Gateley, Stacy Higgs, Eufemia Jimenez, Matthew A. Medina, Krystal Parker and Maxcimo Scott filed an appeal from a District Court memorandum and order dated March 29, 2017, in their lawsuit titled Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-8333, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City). As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 20, 2017, Chipotle defeated certification of six separate classes involving allegations that the job position of "Apprentice" was misclassified as exempt for purposes of paying overtime wages. The case was brought by seven individuals, who had worked as Apprentices in various Chipotle stores. The named plaintiffs worked in six states while the opt-in plaintiffs worked in 37 states. The appellate case is captioned as Scott v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., Case No. 17-1047, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners Maxcimo Scott, Jay Francis Ensor, Matthew A. Medina, Eufemia Jimenez, Krystal Parker, Stacy Higgs and Christina Jewel Gateley, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2057 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com Defendants-Respondents Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., and Chipotle Services, LLC, are represented by: Abigail Nitka, Esq. MESSNER REEVES LLP 733 3rd Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 663-1874 Facsimile: (212) 490-3038 E-mail: anitka@messner.com CHRYSLER: Faces Class Action Over Leaking Sunroofs -------------------------------------------------- Katherine Coig, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that the lawsuit against Chrysler for leaking sunroofs is still trying to reach class-action status. The lawsuit, which was first filed in 2014, alleges the manufacturer was negligent in disclosing to owners that regular maintenance is needed on affected vehicles' sunroof drain tubes. The vehicles named in the lawsuit include the Jeep Patriot, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep Commander, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Town and Country and Chrysler 300, from model years 2009 to present. The lawsuit was brought forth by David Cox, owner of a 2010 Jeep Patriot. He claims his vehicle's sunroof began leaking after owning the vehicle for the less than a year, and, as a result, has sustained interior damage that lessen the vehicle's resale value. "Within one year of purchase and when the vehicle had approximately 10,000 miles on it, plaintiff Cox's vehicle began leaking from the sunroof damaging the radio in the vehicle," the court document states. "Plaintiff Cox brought his vehicle in to the Chrysler dealer's service department to service the sunroof leak immediately. The Chrysler dealer replaced the radio and cleaned out the sunroof drain tubes. However, the sunroof has leaked several times since the first attempted repair, once again damaging the radio display and causing electrical malfunctions in the sunroof. Thus, on June 26, 2013, plaintiff Cox brought the vehicle in to the Chrysler service department again to service the sunroof leak. However, Chrysler refused to repair the sunroof leak under the warranty stating that clogged drain tubes is a maintenance problem. As a result, plaintiff Cox continues to observe water leaking into and through the sunroof and interior dome light that has resulted in electrical problems, a noticeable musty or moldy smell and water damage to the interior of his vehicle." Mr. Cox claims he was never told by Chrysler that the vehicle's sunroof drain tubes would need routine maintenance. The lawsuit also alleges that Chrysler told a number of owners that the leaking sunroofs were a result of the vehicles being misused. It goes on to claim that even vehicles that were still under warranty were denied repairs by dealers, who claimed the damage was due to the owners not taking the proper steps in maintaining the sunroof drain tubes. Claims in the lawsuit regarding warranty and fraud have been dismissed by the judge, but claims of violating implied warranty and consumer protection laws are continuing. According to the judge, the plaintiffs have not had sufficient time to "engage in merits-based discovery" against Chrysler. [GN] CITIZENS FINANCIAL: Warner Sues over Falsified Checkup Info ----------------------------------------------------------- KEN WARNER, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., BRUCE VAN SAUN, ERIC W. ABOAF, JOHN J. FAWCETT, and JOHN F. WOODS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03004 (S.D.N.Y., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for compensatory damages as a result of Defendants' wrongdoing. The case is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that acquired Citizens' securities between March 18, 2016, and March 29, 2017. Citizens Financial purportedly offers banking products and services through its two operating segments -- Consumer Banking and Commercial Banking -- with a focus on providing local delivery and a differentiated customer experience. On March 29, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Company implemented a program that invited customers into branches for a financial checkup (or "Citizens Checkup") and that the Company claimed 400,000 such meetings occurred in 2016, but that 11 current and former Citizens branch employees in five states claimed that information about some meetings was fabricated by those employees or others as they struggled to meet goals set by the bank. On this news, the Company's stock price declined $0.54 per share to close at $34.49 per share on March 29, 2017, on unusually heavy trading volume. The Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose: (1) that Company employees were falsifying information related to the Citizens Checkup program; (2) that, as a result, the Company's reported Citizens Checkup figures were inflated; and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Citizens' business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Citizens Financial is an American bank headquartered in Providence, Rhode Island, which operates in the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, and New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Casey E. Sadler, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682 5340 Facsimile: (212) 884 0988 E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com CNX GAS: Seeks Fourth Circuit Review of Decision in "Hale" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant CNX Gas Company, LLC, filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit titled JEFFERY CARLOS HALE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. CNX GAS COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:10-cv-00059-JPJ-PMS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia at Abingdon. The appellate case is captioned as CNX Gas Company, LLC v. Jeffrey Hale, Case No. 17-199, 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 action as a class action. The certified class is defined as: All coalbed methane gas ("CBM") claimants who were identified by CNX Gas Company, LLC ("CNX") in filings with the Virginia Gas and Oil Board as unleased owners of CBM estate interests and for whom CNX 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 CNX as a result of a judicial determination of ownership or agreement between September 23, 2010 and January 1, 2016. "Gas claimants" is as defined by Virginia Code Section 45.1-361.1. The Class excludes (a) CNX, (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 CNX'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 CNX in Virginia.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner CNX GAS COMPANY, LLC, is represented by: Jonathan Todd Blank, Esq. James F. Neale, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP P. O. Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902-0000 Telephone: (434) 977-2582 Facsimile: (434) 980-2258 E-mail: jblank@mcguirewoods.com jneale@mcguirewoods.com - and - Tennille Jo Checkovich, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP 800 East Canal Street P. O. Box 3916 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 775-4758 Facsimile: (804) 440-7770 E-mail: tcheckovich@mcguirewoods.com Plaintiff-Respondent JEFFREY CARLOS HALE, on behalf of himself 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 - Steven E. Fineman, Esq. Jennifer Gross, Esq. Daniel Edward Seltz, Esq. David S. Stellings, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP 250 Hudson Street New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 E-mail: sfineman@lchb.com jgross@lchb.com 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 - 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 - 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 - Jennifer Lindsey Shaver, Esq. Post Office 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 CONCENTRA HEALTH: Sued for Clearing Driver Who Caused Bus Crash --------------------------------------------------------------- Tyler Waldman at WBAL reports that victims in the fatal November crash involving a city school bus and a Maryland Transportation Administration bus are filing a class action lawsuit against the clinic chain that cleared the school bus driver and the city schools contractor that employed him. Hassan Murphy of Murphy, Falcon & Murphy and Jonathan Schochor of Schochor, Federico & Staton filed the suit against Concentra Health Services, AA Affordable Transportation and that firm's owners and operators. It names nine victims or next-of-kin as plaintiffs. School bus driver Glenn Chappell died in the crash along with five aboard the MTA bus, including its driver. Only an aide was with Chappell aboard the school bus. At the time of the crash, state officials did not have a valid medical exam certificate for him on file. The complaint alleges that Concentra knew or should have known when they medically cleared Chappell that he had a history of seizures and at least four crashes involving a school bus or personal vehicle where he lost consciousness due to a seizure. They allege Concentra should never have issued the certification in the first place, given his medical and driving history. Concentra didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Furthermore, they allege AA Affordable should have known about his seizure disorder and driving history and failed to ensure he was in fact medically certified to drive at the time of the crash or held a valid commercial driver's license. They allege that they knew he had a seizure-like episode one week prior to the crash and yet continued to let him drive. Michelle Kennedy, who was aboard the MTA bus, said she won't forget that fateful November day. "I'll never forget waking up on the floor of the bus pinned underneath metal and other passengers with glass in my mouth. It's been traumatic. I don't know if I'll ever get over this," she said in a statement. "I want answers, and I want justice for all of us who have suffered. He should never have been driving that bus." The National Transportation Safety Board, in issuing preliminary findings one month after the crash, said Chappell's medical issues may have been a contributing factor to the crash. Antwan Baker lost his wife, Ebonee, who was behind the wheel of the MTA bus. "Our lives changed forever that day. Our kids lost their mother, and I lost my wife and best friend," he said. "They should never have let him drive that bus. This should never have happened." Upon the lawsuit's filing, Hassan Murphy, Managing Partner at Murphy, Falcon & Murphy stated, "It is beyond unbelievable that Concentra and AAAfordable put this man behind the wheel and that they certified him to drive buses full of disabled children. It makes us all angry that they gave this man keys to a school bus, endangering the children he carried and all of us that he encountered, despite his clear history of having seizures while operating vehicles. Concentra's decision to certify this driver, without performing the required inquiry into his medical and driving background, leads to the inevitable conclusion that they operated a rubber-stamp machine that valued profits over the safety of their passengers and every other driver on the road. This tragedy is truly heartbreaking and the fact that it could have been prevented by a series of easy checks that take minutes is unconscionable." Murphy's co-counsel, Jonathan Schochor, Senior Managing Partner of Schochor, Federico & Staton added, "Nothing we can do will take away the pain of the families who lost a loved one, or heal the wounds of those who were injured. Concentra and AAAfordable must be brought to justice for their recklessness. This class action suit is the most efficient and expedient way to help bring closure to the families and justice for those injured." The Complaint requests that the matter be certified as a class action in order to ensure that each victim receives the full measure of damages permitted under the law and to ensure an orderly procedure by which to handle these claims, instead of pursuing multiple separate actions. This procedure will also significantly decrease the cost of each Plaintiff's suit. A copy of the Complaint is attached. [GN] CRST EXPEDITED: Appeals Classes Certification in "Sellars" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant CRST Expedited, Inc., filed an appeal from the District Court's class certification order entered in the lawsuit styled CATHY SELLARS, CLAUDIA LOPEZ and LESLIE FORTUNE, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-00117-LTS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division. The District Court has certified two classes: a. The Hostile Work Environment Class: All women who were or are employed as team truck drivers by CRST Expedited, Inc. at any time from October 12, 2013 to the present, who have been subjected to a hostile work environment based on sex as a result of any of the following alleged CRST policies: (1) failing to find their complaints were corroborated without an eyewitness or admission, (2) failing to discipline drivers after complaints were corroborated; and (3) failure to discipline DMs for failing to promptly respond to sexual harassment complaints. b. The Retaliation Class: All women who were or are employed as team truck drivers by CRST Expedited, Inc. at any time from October 12, 2013 to the present, who have been subjected to retaliation based on sex as a result of CRST requiring them to exit the truck in response to their complaints of sexual harassment. CRST contends that review is needed because the Order violates the commonality, preponderance, and superiority requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Among other things, CRST argues that the Order is erroneous because the District Court did not find that the specified issues were common to each member of each class. The appellate case is captioned as CATHY SELLARS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, et al. v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC., Case No. 17-8018, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by: Tom Newkirk, Esq. NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN PLC 515 E. Locust St., Suite 300 Des Moines, IA 50309 E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com - and - Giselle Schuetz, Esq. Rebecca Houlding, Esq. Joshua Friedman, Esq. FRIEDMAN & HOULDING, LLP 1050 Seven Oaks Ln. Mamaroneck, NY 10543 E-mail: giselle@joshuafriedmanesq.com josh@joshuafriedmanesq.com rebecca@joshuafriedmanesq.com The Defendant-Petitioner is represented by: Kevin J. Visser, Esq. Nicholas Petersen, Esq. SIMMONS PERRINE MOYER BERGMAN PLC 115 Third Street SE, Suite 1200 Cedar Rapids, IA 52401 Telephone: (319) 366-7641 Facsimile: (319) 366-1917 E-mail: kvisser@simmonsperrine.com npetersen@simmonsperrine.com - and - John H. Mathias Jr., Esq. James T. Malysiak, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 222-9350 Facsimile: (312) 527-0484 E-mail: jmathias@jenner.com jmalysiak@jenner.com DELTA NATURAL: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Peoples Natural Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL PARSHALL, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DELTA NATURAL GAS COMPANY, INC., GLENN R. JENNINGS, LINDA K. BREATHITT, JACOB P. CLINE, III, SANDRA C. GRAY, EDWARD J. HOLMES, MICHAEL J. KISTNER, FRED N. PARKER, RODNEY L. SHORT, ARTHUR E. WALKER, JR., PEOPLES NATURAL GAS, PNG COMPANIES LLC, DRAKE MERGER SUB INC., AND STEELRIVER INFRASTRUCTURE FUND NORTH AMERICA LP, Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-00194-KKC (E.D. Ken., April 28, 2017), alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act in relation to the acquisition of Delta Natural Gas Company, Inc. by affiliates of Peoples Natural Gas and SteelRiver Infrastructure Fund North America LP. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, shareholders of Delta will receive $30.50 per share in cash. The case alleges that the Proxy Statement regarding the merger omits material information with respect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the Proxy Statement false and misleading. First, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding Delta's financial projections and the financial analyses performed by the Company's financial advisor, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Advisors, LLC (TPH), in support of its so-called fairness opinion. Second, the Proxy Statement omits material information regarding potential conflicts of interest of TPH. Third, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose whether the confidentiality agreements entered into between Delta and prospective bidders contained standstill and/or "don't ask, don't waive" provisions that were or are preventing those counterparties from submitting superior offers to acquire the Company. Fourth, while one member of the Board will be retained by the post-transaction company, the Proxy Statement fails to disclose the timing and nature of all communications regarding future directorship and/or employment of Delta's directors and officers, including who participated in all such communications. Delta is a natural gas company that distributes or transports natural gas to approximately 36,000 customers located in central and southeastern Kentucky.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randall S. Strause, Esq. STRAUSE LAW GROUP, PLLC 804 Stone Creek Pkwy, Suite 1 Louisville, KY 40223 Phone: (502) 426-1661 E-mail: rstrause@strauselawgroup.com - and - Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Phone: (302) 295-5310 - and - Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: (484) 324-6800 EAST ST. LOUIS, IL: Settles Class Suit Over Police Officers' Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Laura Hellman at Madison Record reports that twelve police officers will receive overtime and back pay wages, as well as attorneys' fees, in a settlement reached with the East St. Louis Park District and its police chief Marion Hubbard. Marquitta McAfee, Draphy Durgins, Jeffrey Waters and Rory Stewart sued Marion Hubbard and the East. St. Louis Park District in 2016. They allege that, under the employ of the defendants, they worked without receiving overtime pay, straight time pay and received less pay than the federal and state minimum wage. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), an additional eight individuals were also named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The East St. Louis Park District police patrol parks including East St. Louis, Alorton, Centreville and Washington Park. It is regularly staffed with 15 part-time police officers. McAfee was awarded USD212.10, Durgins was awarded USD1,235.20, Stewart was awarded USD5,258.60 and Waters was awarded USD5,126.03. These amounts include a 2 percent interest rate for each monthly interval since the lawsuit was filed in May 2016. Attorneys' fees in the amount of USD27,935.20 were also awarded. Under an FLSA class-action settlement, the court considers, "(1) the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement; (3) the stage of the proceeding and the amount of discovery completed; (4) the risks of establishing liability; (5) the risks of establishing damages; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a larger judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery; and (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of all the risks of litigation." The parties' counsel met several times to come to settlement before one was reached. The settlement was not reached until time and payroll records for each plaintiff dating back to 2009 were received. [GN] EDWIN GOULD: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cruz" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cintia Cruz, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Edwin Gould Services for Children And Families, Oasis Outsourcing VI, Inc., and/or any entities affiliated with or controlled by Edwin Gould Services for Children and Families and/or Oasis Outsourcing VI, Inc., Case No. 153684/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in any given week. The Defendants operate an adoption agency located at 151 Lawrence Street, 5th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jack L. Newhouse, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, 7th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT: Sanchez Files Suit Under Cal. Labor Code ---------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON SANCHEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. EXAMINATION MANAGEMENT 19 SERVICES, INC, a Nevada corporation; 20 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-309248 (Cal. Super., County of Santa Clara, April 28, 2017), sues Defendants for alleged failure to pay all minimum and overtime wages owed, failure to provide off-duty meal periods and paid rest breaks, failure to keep accurate records, failure to reimburse all business-related expenses, failure to pay wages in a timely manner upon separation of employment, and penalties under the California Labor Code. The case was also brought under the applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare Commission and the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code. Defendant is in the business of providing medical examination and testing services, medical record retrieval, and other services. Defendants hired Plaintiff to perform medical exams for various insurance applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 488-6555 Fax: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com - and - William L. Marder, Esq. POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP 501 San Benito Street, Suite 200 Hollister, CA 95023 Phone: (831) 531-4214 Fax: (831) 634-0333 EXAR CORPORATION: Marshall Seeks to Enjoin MaxLinear Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD E. MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXAR CORPORATION, RYAN A. BENTON, GARY MEYERS, BEHROOZ ABDI, IZAK BENCUYA, PIERRE G. GUILBAULT, BRIAN HILTON, and JEFFREY JACOBOWITZ, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02334 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks to enjoin a proposed transaction unless and/or until Defendants issue supplemental disclosures to make the recommendation statement not false and/or misleading. The Plaintiff brings the class action on behalf of the public stockholders of Exar Corporation against the members of Exar's Board of Directors for their violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, arising out of their attempt to sell Exar to MaxLinear, Inc. and its affiliated entity Eagle Acquisition Corporation. On March 29, 2017, MaxLinear and the Company announced they had entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger dated March 28, 2017 ("Merger Agreement"), by which MaxLinear, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Eagle Acquisition Corporation, would launch a tender offer to acquire all outstanding shares of Exar in an all-cash transaction for $13.00 per share in cash (Proposed Transaction). The Proposed Transaction is valued at approximately $700 million, or $472 million net of Exar's cash acquired. MaxLinear and its affiliate launched the tender offer on April 13, 2017. Unless extended or terminated earlier, the tender offer is set to expire on May 11, 2017. On April 13, 2017, Exar filed a Schedule 14D-9 Recommendation/ Solicitation Statement (Recommendation Statement) with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Recommendation Statement is materially deficient and misleading because, inter alia, it fails to disclose material information about the financial projections of the Company used by its financial advisor, Cowen and Company, LLC, in its financial analysis provided to the Board, and the conflicts of interest impacting certain members of the Board and entities affiliated with them. The Recommendation Statement contains other material omissions that render it materially misleading, necessitating disclosure of further information about (i) the process culminating in the execution of the Merger Agreement; and (ii) material inputs and assumptions underlying Cowen's financial analysis. Without additional information, the Recommendation Statement is materially misleading in violation of federal securities laws. By unanimously approving the Proposed Transaction and authorizing the issuance of the Recommendation Statement, the Individual Defendants participated in the solicitation even though they knew, or should have known, that the Recommendation Statement was materially false and/or misleading. The Recommendation Statement is an essential link in accomplishing, and receiving shareholder approval for, the Proposed Transaction. Exar Corporation is an American semiconductor manufacturer. Having acquired companies such as hifn, in March 2017, MaxLinear Inc. announced it would buy Exar Corporation for about $661.6 million cash. Exar is listed on the New York Stock Exchange.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Joseph Levi, Esq. Michael H. Rosner, Esq. Justin G. Sherman, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 291 2420 Facsimile: (415) 484 1294 E-mail: rrivas@zlk.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Fuller Sues Over Background Check ------------------------------------------------------- BRIDGETTE FULLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. the Defendant, Case No. 8:17-cv-00740-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks to recover statutory and/or actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs against the Defendant by failing to establish or to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer reports it furnished. The case is a consumer class action brought for a willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), against the Defendant, after Plaintiff obtained a copy of her Experian consumer report and discovered that Experian inaccurately reported tax lien information about her. Experian uses an automated procedure to gather and report tax lien information in consumer reports. However, it does not follow similar procedures to gather updated information after the tax lien has a subsequent disposition i.e., when the lien is satisfied or withdrawn. According to the Complaint, Experian's failure to timely gather subsequent lien dispositions is a violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1681e(b) because Experian has not implemented reasonable procedures (or any procedures whatsoever) to ensure the maximum possible accuracy in the preparation of the consumer reports containing this public record information that it furnished regarding Plaintiff and the class members. The Plaintiff and each putative class member were the subject of a consumer report sold to a third party which inaccurately reflected that one or more of their tax liens was outstanding after it had already been released or withdrawn. Experian Information operates as an information services company. The Company offers credit information, analytical tools, and marketing services. Experian Information Solutions serves clients worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq. Leonard A. Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1800 Diagonal Rd., Ste. 600 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 273 7770 Facsimile: (888) 892 3512 E-mail: matt@clalegal.com lenbennett@clalegal.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq., KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC 4084 University Drive, Suite 202A Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424 7576 Facsimile: (703) 591 9285 E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com FCA US: Chatom Motor Sues Over EcoDiesel Vehicles ------------------------------------------------- CHATOM MOTOR COMPANY, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FCA US, LLC, FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES, N.V., ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, and Robert Bosch LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-02263-EMC (S.D. Ala., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks cost, restitution, damages and disgorgement as a direct result of Defendants' false and misleading representation and warranties of "EcoDiesel" vehicles. FCA US is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler. From at least 2007 to the present, FCA has manufactured and sold cars in the United States. Many vehicles manufactured by FCA have engines designed and/or manufactured by Bosch, including the EcoDiesel versions of vehicles like the Dodge Ram 1500 and Jeep Grand Cherokee. In an effort to appeal to environmentally-conscious consumers, FCA markets its "EcoDiesel" line of vehicles as "clean diesel". FCA advertises that its "EcoDiesel" vehicles have many environmentally-friendly qualities, including ultra-low emissions, high fuel efficiency, powerful torque and high towing capacity. Consumers relied of these representations in deciding whether to purchase or lease FCA's Eco-Diesel vehicles. Similar dealerships, including Plaintiff, relied on FCA and Bosch's false representation in deciding whether to purchase the "EcoDiesel" line of vehicles or accept the vehicles as trade-ins for their dealership, as well as whether to sell those vehicles to their customers. FCA charges a considerable price premium for its EcoDiesel vehicles. For example, the Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price for a new 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited with standard engine is $38,560. It was recently revealed that rather than designing and manufacturing the EcoDiesel vehicles as promised, FCA and Bosch instead devised software that makes the EcoDiesel vehicles appear to function as advertised while under testing conditions. FCA and Bosch installed this software on various makes and models under the "EcoDiesel" brand. FCA US, also known as Fiat Chrysler or simply Chrysler, is the American subsidiary of Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., an Italian controlled automobile manufacturer registered in the Netherlands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Edward Massey, Jr., Esq. CLAY, MASSEU & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 509 Church Street Mobile, AL 36602 Telephone: (251) 433 1000 - and - Stacey Slaugther, Esq. Kaitlyn Johnson, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349 8500 FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Fiorentino Sues Over Collection Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- MARYANN FIORENTINO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 0:17-cv-60801-BB (S.D. Fla., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks to recover statutory damages, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other such other and further relief that the court deems just and proper, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). This class action arises from Defendant's unlawful scheme to collect debts in violation of the FDCPA, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, unfair, and deceptive practices. The FDCPA prohibits collectors of consumer debts from, among other things, using "any false, deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with the collection of any debt." A debt collector's collection communication is deceptive or misleading if, when attempting to collect a time-barred debt, the debt collector does not inform the consumer that, if the consumer makes or even just agrees to make, a partial payment on the debt, it could restart the clock on a long-expired statute of limitations, in effect bringing a long-dead debt back to life. The Defendant has a pattern and practice of attempting to collect consumer debts, which the collector can no longer sue for because of statute of limitations, without notifying the consumer that should they accept one of the offered settlement options it will restart the statute of limitations and substantially affect the consumer's rights. In fact, Defendant FRS's collection letters falsely state that the payment options will not affect the consumer's rights. Financial Recovery provides debt collection services to consumer creditors, finance companies, and debt buyers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Shaw, Esq. M. Perez, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP 110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989 6333 Facsimile: (954) 989 7781 E-mail: jshaw@zpllp.com mperez@zpllp.com - and - Darren R. Newhart, Esq. Consumer Law Organization, P.A. 721 US Highway 1, Suite 201 North Palm Beach, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 692 6013 Facsimile: (305) 574 0132 E-mail: Darren@cloorg.com DCard@Consumerlaworg.com GREENSPOON MARDER: Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------ ILIANA AGUILAR, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00876-JLS-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 1, 2017), seeks to challenge the actions with regard to attempts by Defendant to allegedly unlawfully and abusively collect a debt allegedly owed by Plaintiff in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. GREENSPOON MARDER, P.A. -- http://www.gmlaw.com/-- is a law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Yana A. Hart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 233-7770 Fax: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com yana@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: (800) 400-6808 Fax: (800) 520-5523 - and - Joeseph Samo, Esq. SAMO LAW GROUP 2221 Camino Del Rio South, #305 San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 672-1741 E-mail: joe@samolaw.com GREENFIELD CARE: "Clay" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Letia Clay, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Greenfield Care Center of Gardena, Inc. and Does 1-50, Case No. BC658806 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages and interest thereon for off-the-clock work, waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees, and wage penalties, injunctive relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code. Greenfield Care Center of Gardena, Inc. operates a nursing home company that manages and owns at least 15 facilities in California with more than 700 people in its care. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari E. Moss, Esq. Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq. MOSS BOLLINGER LLP 15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (310) 982-2984 Facsimile: (818) 963-5954 E-mail: ari@mossbollinger.com jeremy@mossbollinger.com GUAM, USA: Seeks Review of Ruling in "Davis" Suit to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants Guam, Guam Election Commission, Alice M. Taijeron, Martha C. Ruth, Joseph F. Mesa, Johnny P. Taitano, Joshua F. Renorio, Donald I. Weakley and Leonardo M. Rapadas filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Arnold Davis v. Guam, et al., Case No. 1:11-cv-00035, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 24, 2017, the Hon. Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied as moot the Defendant's motion for summary judgment. The case is a civil rights action, which deals with the topic of self-determination of the political status of the island and who should have the right to vote on a referendum concerning such. The Plaintiff claims that he is prohibited from registering to vote on the referendum, which is a violation of the Voting Rights Act, the Organic Act of Guam, and his Fifth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment rights. In the complaint, he alleges discrimination in the voting process by Guam and the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that under Guam law, a Political Status Plebiscite is to be held concerning Guam's future relationship with the United States. The appellate case is captioned as Arnold Davis v. Guam, et al., Case No. 17-15719, 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 12, 2017; -- Transcript is due on June 12, 2017; -- Appellants Guam, Guam Election Commission, Joseph F. Mesa, Leonardo M. Rapadas, Joshua F. Renorio, Martha C. Ruth, Alice M. Taijeron, Johnny P. Taitano and Donald I. Weakley's opening brief is due on July 21, 2017; -- Appellee Arnold Davis' answering brief is due on August 21, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ARNOLD DAVIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: J. Christian Adams, Esq. ELECTION LAW CENTER PLLC 300 N. Washington Street, Suite 405 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: (703) 963-8611 Facsimile: (703) 556-6540 E-mail: ADAMS@Electionlawcenter.com - and - Mun Su Park, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PARK & ASSOCIATES P.O. Box 10749 Tamuning, GU 96931 Telephone: (671) 647-1200 Facsimile: (671) 647-1211 E-mail: lawyerpark@hotmail.com - and - Michael Rosman, Esq. CENTER FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS 1233 20th St. NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 833-8400 Facsimile: (202) 833-8410 E-mail: rosman@cir-usa.org Defendants-Appellants GUAM, GUAM ELECTION COMMISSION, ALICE M. TAIJERON, MARTHA C. RUTH, JOSEPH F. MESA, JOHNNY P. TAITANO, JOSHUA F. RENORIO, DONALD I. WEAKLEY and LEONARDO M. RAPADAS are represented by: Kenneth Orcutt, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 287 W. O'Brien Drive Hagatna, GU 98910 Telephone: (671) 475-3324 Facsimile: (671) 477-4703 E-mail: korcutt@guamag.org HONDA MOTOR: CRV Owners File Suit in Cook County Over Odors ----------------------------------------------------------- Chris Hush, writing for NBCC 5, reports that a class action lawsuit was filed on May 10 in Cook County after local owners of Honda CRVs complained of falling ill from an odor -- and their attorney says there could be hundreds of others -- if not more -- who have yet to come forward. Every time Carol gets in her CRV she says she doesn't know when she'll smell gasoline. NBC 5 is not using Carol's last name due to concern over her privacy. "You can turn it on and smell it or you can drive for 10 minutes and smell it," she said. Her attorney, Alexander Loftus, filed a class action lawsuit against American Honda Motor Company -- claiming 2015, 2016, and 2017 model CRVs are filling up with a harmful noxious gasoline odor. "I was afraid that the car might explode," Carol said. "What's going on? Where's the gas? What did I do?" An odor that carol says has even made her kids sick. "They've experienced the headaches and sickness from the fumes," she said. "And I don't know how to protect them when I can't even protect myself." "They keep selling the car, people keep complaining, they don't do anything about it," Mr. Loftus told NBC 5. Mr. Loftus is representing four clients locally but says dozens of people have contacted him about the issue from around the country. The lawsuit claims, despite knowing Honda is selling cars that reek of gasoline, Honda has failed to honor warranties requiring replacement of defective vehicles. "We also have some mixed responses from individual dealerships who try to fix it and they can't figure out how," Mr. Loftus said. A Honda spokesperson tells NBC 5, once they've seen the complaint, they'll be in a better position to consider a comment regarding the allegations. As for Carol who still drives the CRV, she says she used her life savings to purchase the vehicle and can't afford a new car. "This is my only vehicle and I have to rely on this," she said. Mr. Loftus also pointed us to hundreds of complaints that can be found on online message boards. Last year he represented a couple who settled with Honda over the same issue. [GN] IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: Arthur Kaye Files Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR KAYE IRA FCC AS CUSTODIAN DTD 6-8-00, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS, LTD., DAVID FRACTOR, JOHN S. YU, ANDREW GENGOS, MANISH SINGH, LAVOS, LLC, LIDINGO HOLDINGS, LLC, KAMILLA BJORLIN, ANDREW HODGE, BRIAN NICHOLS, and VINCENT CASSANO, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-03250 (C.D. Cal., May 1, 2017), alleges violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. The case claims that the Defendant made statements that were false and misleading. Specifically, that (i) ImmunoCellular retained Lidingo to publish promotional articles designed to unlawfully promote the Company and inflate the price of ImmunoCellular stock; (ii) Defendant was manipulating ImmunoCellular's stock price through an unlawful paid promotional campaign; and (iii) Defendant Singh directly, reviewed, edited and approved promotional articles prior to publication for the purpose of manipulating ImmunoCellular stock; (iv) ImmunoCellular failed to disclose that the most likely cause of fluctuations in its stock price was its own unlawful campaign to pay stock promoters to pump its stock; and (iv) the promotional articles failed to disclose that the authors were compensated from ImmunoCellular or disclose that the articles were part of a paid promotional campaign. ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. is a development stage company that seeks to develop imaging devices with medical diagnostic applications for the treatment of cancer, such as brain, ovarian and other solid tumors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAL LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 L.A., CA 90067 Tell: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 Email: info@glancylaw.com - and - Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Phone: 212-759-4600 Fax: 212-486-2093 E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com fqian@wolfpopper.com IMMUNOCELLULAR THERAPEUTICS: June 30 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against ImmunoCellular Therapeutics, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of ImmunoCellular securities from May 1, 2012 through December 11, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for ImmunoCellular investors under the federal securities laws. The Complaint alleges that that Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that ImmunoCellular retained Lidingo Holdings, LLC to publish promotional articles designed to unlawfully promote ImmunoCellular, which led the market to believe that ImmunoCellular's clinical studies for its product candidate ICT- 107 was going well. As a result of this scheme, ImmunoCellular's share price was artificially inflated. On April 10, 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced enforcement actions against ImmunoCellular, as well as other individuals and entities, for engaging in stock promotion schemes If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 30, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com[GN] JACK ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Dealers' FLSA Suit in Ohio ---------------------------------------------------- JIM LAWRY, and RONDA LAWRY (c/o Christopher Wido, Esq., The Spitz Law Firm, LLC, 25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200, Beachwood, Ohio 44122) On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. JACK ENTERTAINMENT, LLC (c/o CT Corporation System, 1300 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44114) and ROCK OHIO VENTURES LLC (c/o The Corporation Company, 40600 Ann Arbor Road E, Suite 201, Plymouth, Michigan, 48170) and ROCK VENTURES LLC c/o The Corporation Company (40600 Ann Arbor Road E, Suite 201, Plymouth, Michigan, 48170) Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00896 (N.D. Ohio, April 28, 2017), alleges that dealers were not paid for all hours worked, and/or the applicable minimum wage or overtime compensation at a rate of one and one half times their respective regular rates of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek at any time during three years preceding the filing of this action. The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. Jim Lawry primarily deals for Poker games for Defendants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chris P. Wido, Esq. THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC 25200 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 200 Beachwood, OH 44122 Phone: (216) 291-4744 Fax: (216) 291-5744 Email: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com JC PENNEY: Settles Shareholders' Class Action For $97.5-Mil. ------------------------------------------------------------ J. C. Penney Company, Inc., reached an agreement in principle to settle the securities class action lawsuit, Alan B. Marcus, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., et.al., pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that statements made by the Company and its former chief executive and chief financial officers in August and September 2013 misled investors regarding the Company's liquidity prior to the announcement of a public stock offering in September 2013. JCPenney denies the allegations in the lawsuit, but is entering into this settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted litigation. The USD97.5 million settlement will be funded by insurance and will have no financial impact to the Company. The settlement remains subject to final documentation and approval of the District Court following notice to class members. Media Relations: Tel: (972) 431-3400 Email: jcpnews@jcp.com Follow at @jcpnews Investor Relations: Tel: (972) 431-5500 Email: jcpinvestorrelations@jcpenney.com About JC Penney J. C. Penney Company, Inc., one of the nation's largest apparel and home furnishings retailers, is on a mission to ensure every customer's shopping experience is worth her time, money and effort. Whether shopping jcp.com or visiting one of over 1,000 store locations across the United States and Puerto Rico, she will discover a broad assortment of products from a leading portfolio of private, exclusive and national brands. Supporting this value proposition is the warrior spirit of over 100,000 JCPenney associates worldwide, who are focused on the Company's three strategic priorities of strengthening private brands, becoming a world-class omnichannel retailer and increasing revenue per customer. For additional information, please visit jcp.com.[GN] JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Ordered to Pay $110MM to Settle Talc Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Nathan Borney at USA Today reports that a Missouri jury ordered health products giant Johnson & Johnson to pay more than USD110 million to a Virginia woman for allegedly failing to disclose the cancer risk from its baby powder and another product. Lois Slemp, 62, prevailed in the case after suing the company when she was diagnosed in 2012 with ovarian cancer. She alleged that J&J concealed the possibility that talc in its baby powder and Shower to Shower products can cause cancer. The case deepens J&J's legal crisis connected to talc. The company has already lost several similar cases, including verdicts of USD72 million, USD70 million and USD55 million. And it faces multiple federal class-action suits in the matter, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. After three weeks of testimony in Slemp's case, a 12-person jury deliberated for 10 hours before delivering the verdict against J&J. "They chose to put profits over people, spending millions in efforts to manipulate scientific and regulatory scrutiny," said Ted Meadows, a Beasley Allen lawyer representing Stemp and other similar plaintiffs, in a statement. "I hope this verdict prompts J&J to acknowledge the facts and help educate the medical community and the public about the proper use of their products." J&J, which has repeatedly denied the connection between talc and cancer and rejected the suggestion that it should have warned consumers, said in a statement that "we deeply sympathize" with anyone affected by ovarian cancer. But the company said it would appeal the verdict, citing a separate case that it won in March and two other dismissed cases that "further highlight the lack of credible scientific evidence behind plaintiffs' allegations." "We are preparing for additional trials this year and we will continue to defend the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder," the company said in a statement. J&J's stock barely budged in pre-market trading on May 5, falling 0.1% to USD123.87. The company sold the Shower to Shower brand several years ago. KBR INC: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of KBR, Inc. securities (KBR) from February 26, 2016 through April 27, 2017, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for KBR investors under the federal securities laws. To join the KBR class action, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases- 1109.html or call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) KBR's United Kingdom subsidiaries had violated applicable bribery and corruption laws; and (2) as a result, KBR's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 28, 2017, the United Kingdom's Serious Fraud Office confirmed it is investigating "the activities of KBR's UK subsidiaries, their officers, employees and agents for suspected offences of bribery and corruption." On this news, shares of KBR fell USD1.43 per share or over 9% to close at USD14.05 per share on April 28, 2017, damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 3, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://rosenlegal.com/cases- 1109.html or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- or -- kchan@rosenlegal.com Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. [GN] KBR INC: July 3 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on May 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against KBR, Inc. ("KBR" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, and docketed under 17-cv-01375, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired KBR securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased KBR securities between February 26, 2016 and April 27, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until July 3, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. KBR 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. Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company's United Kingdom ("UK") subsidiaries had violated applicable bribery and corruption laws; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, KBR's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 28, 2017, the United Kingdom's Serious Fraud Office confirmed that it had opened an investigation into "the activities of KBR's UK subsidiaries, their officers, employees and agents for suspected offences of bribery and corruption." On this news, KBR's share price fell $1.43, or 9.24%, to close at $14.05 on April 28, 2017. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] KOHL: Judge Denies Class Certification on Disability Rights Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Holland at Cook County Record reports that disability rights class action brought against Kohl's more than two and a half years ago is on the shelf after a federal judge in Chicago denied class certification, saying, because Kohl's store layouts vary from store to store, plaintiffs would have too difficult of a time proving the retailer had in place a nationwide policy diminishing access to people using wheelchairs. In an opinion issued May 2, U.S. District Judge Ronald A. Guzman denied the motion for class certification in a complaint that originated in October 2014 when the Equal Rights Center and six individual plaintiffs sued Kohl's Corporation, alleging the retailer violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York Human Rights Law by designing stores in ways that "prevent individuals with disabilities from navigating their stores with the same ease and dignity as customers without disabilities," according to the original complaint. Last year, Guzman rejected an attempt by Kohl's to strike class allegations and dismiss the suit, which, among other allegations, said side aisles in the retail chain's 1,100 U.S. stores were too narrow, its counters too high and its merchandise displays too difficult for those who need wheelchairs or suffer from other disabilities to browse through with ease. But Guzman did allow the retailer to argue the plaintiffs fail to demonstrate a legally allowable class of plaintiffs exists by filing an amended complaint satisfying that so-called "ascertainability" requirement. Kohl's again tried to strike allegations and dismiss the count alleging ADA violations. Guzman denied that motion and suspended consideration of the class certification to allow the parties to negotiate a settlement. When that proved unsuccessful, Guzman again considered certification. The plaintiffs proposed the class include anyone who shopped at any Kohl's in the 12 months prior to the initial filing while using "wheeled mobility devices" and encountered aisles narrower than 36 inches. Guzman's analysis focused on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, primarily the commonality of shopping experience among all people the class would encompass. He wrote the "plaintiffs acknowledge that Kohl's written Shopability Standards, 'if enforced, would most likely have avoided this lawsuit altogether.' Thus, Plaintiffs challenge not a company-wide policy but daily individual decisions by relevant Kohl's employees in each particular store as to how wide aisles would be and where merchandise racks would be placed." The complaint, Guzman noted, also is weak in naming only 12 shoppers who reported accessibility issues at 17 stores, and includes admission that obstructions could differ from store to store and even by the day a shopper may visit -- insufficient for demonstrating a nationwide policy intended to cause discrimination. Likewise, Guzman wrote the complaint failed to satisfy a numerosity requirement, saying the nationwide statistics used to suggest the number of shoppers affected are weakened because Kohl's doesn't require every store employ an identical layout. "Simply because a store may have one or more aisles that are less than 36 inches does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that it was inaccessible to a person using a wheeled mobility device," Guzman wrote. Finally, Guzman took issue with the plaintiffs' request for an injunction requiring Kohl's to enforce its own corporate policies and comply with ADA guidelines. "Such injunctive relief simply directs Kohl's to obey the law," Guzman wrote. "These types of injunctions are viewed with caution given the possibility for overbreadth and vagueness. . . . Plaintiffs do not indicate how an injunction containing such broad and non-specific language could be enforced given that the layout of over 1,100 stores could and do vary on a daily basis." Kohl's is represented in the case by attorneys from the firm of Baker & Hostetler LLP, with offices in Chicago and Orlando, Fla. [GN] LAKE OSWEGO, OR: Judge Hears Arguments in Title IX Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Jillian Daley, writing for Portland Tribune, reports that LOHS softball players' case would include all female students if the plaintiffs' motion is granted Attorneys in a Title IX case against the Lake Oswego School District debated the potential class-action status on May 3 of a federal lawsuit brought by 10 current and former members of the Lake Oswego High School softball team. U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman used the hearing to clarify key points in the case, but issued no ruling. The crux of the discussion: whether the Title IX case should include every female student at LOHS, and whether the plaintiffs adequately demonstrated that there are systemic inequities between male and female players. "I found this discussion to be very helpful," Judge Beckerman said, adding that she could make a decision on the class-action status within two months. If she approves the motion, the lawsuit would apply not only to the original plaintiffs, but to every female student at the school. That would include about 600 students, or 48 percent of the student body. The class-action motion, filed in December 2016, was intended to spotlight a disparity between the total percentage of female students at the school and the percentage of female students involved in interscholastic athletics (about 37 percent), said Andrew Glascock, who is working pro bono as the attorney for the LOHS softball team and players' families. Mr. Glascock originally filed the Title IX lawsuit against the district on April 4, 2016. The suit states that female softball players have been denied equal access to the kinds of equipment, facilities, funding and fundraising opportunities that male baseball players enjoy. Title IX is a 1972 law that prohibits discrimination based on sex "under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." Another complaint in the class-action legal documents contends that "girls' teams have fewer opportunities to play games and experience the benefits of competition, in comparison to their male counterparts." According to the plaintiffs' motion, LOHS had 23 girls' varsity softball competitions in 2016 and 29 boys' varsity baseball games. The lawsuit does not seek monetary damages, asking the court instead to order the district to make improvements to athletic facilities and make facilities use more equal, Mr. Glascock said. The district has said it has sought to make such reparations, including opening up the baseball teams' artificial-turf field and hitting facility to softball players. The plaintiffs also are represented by Title IX experts from the Legal Aid at Work in San Francisco, a nonprofit organization that works pro-bono cases. On May 3, Legal Aid attorney Kim Turner argued that there are systemic inequities in the district, including fewer levels in each sport for girls than boys. Softball only has a varsity level, for example, while baseball has varsity, junior varsity and freshman teams. "Having been an athlete myself," Ms. Turner said, "the fact that there is no JV team really deprives the girls of the opportunity to scrimmage with another team or work out with another team." Ms. Turner also said that equipment in the LOHS weight room is geared toward male athletes and that girls' basketball had its third level cut three years ago, whereas boys' basketball had a fourth level added recently. There also are more coaches and more publicity for male players, she said. She also said that she had not seen a single example where girls are treated better than boys in athletics in her entire career. "It's the inherent conflict," replied Blake Fry, one of the attorneys for the LOSD. "It's not what Ms. Turner alleges in her experiences." Mr. Fry's arguments included that the legal documents entered by the plaintiff do not prove widespread inequity. For example, he said that there may not have been enough interest to support additional levels or teams in softball and other sports. He also said that more specifics proving that there are inequities at all levels should have been included in legal documents. "The only specific allegations in the claim that are not related to softball," Mr. Fry said, "are just not enough on their own to support a (class-action) claim." Originally, softball players' complaints included that they have no enclosed hitting facility and were not allowed to use the boys' indoor hitting facility. In addition, the softball team previously played on a dirt field at Lake Oswego Junior High, while the baseball team has an artificial-turf field on campus. The softball facilities lacked a bullpen, pitching area, warm-up area, batting cages or a way to separate the field to allow multiple practice stations, the lawsuit said. After the suit was filed, the school district made improvements to areas the team identified as unequal: upgrading the indoor batting facility, adding an outdoor batting facility, putting in a bank of lockers and installing a flagpole at the softball field. But Mr. Glascock said at the time that the changes did not make the district compliant with Title IX. Then in January 2017, the LOSD agreed to open the baseball field and hitting facility at LOHS to female and male athletes from a variety of sports. The field, which was previously used by baseball, lacrosse, cross country, soccer and football players, is now available to softball as well. The district also replaced the field's dirt mound with a removable plastic alternative. Some of the softball team members and their parents attended the hearing and agreed afterwards that they love their school and that they support the bond to repairs schools that is slated to appear on the May 16 ballot. "There is no reason why we wouldn't want this bond to help the schools," said Marna Tomita, mom of LOHS player Anna Tomita. "We just want equality for our daughters." Softball player Kelsey Deos' dad, Kelly Deos, added that participating in this Title IX case and supporting the bond "don't have to be exclusive." Contact Lake Oswego Review reporter Jillian Daley at 503-636-1281 ext. 109 or jdaley@lakeoswegoreview.com. [GN] LEAPFROG: Judge Not Convinced of Investors' Merger Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a federal judge said on May 3 he "just doesn't see" that toy maker Leapfrog's board of directors misled investors to push through a $72 million merger with VTech last year. "The board could have decided to make the judgment you wanted them to make, but that's a business decision, not a falsity issue," U.S. District Judge William Orrick III told an attorney for a class of Leapfrog investors. Lead plaintiff Pete Manger sued Leapfrog and its directors in March 2016, claiming they used deceptively gloomy financial projections to push through the $72 million acquisition, for which shareholders got a "paltry" $1 per share. The merger was completed on April 4, 2016. Class attorney James Wilson Jr. said the board misled investors about how soon it would face a liquidity crisis and lose its ability to borrow money, so it could reject a better offer by L&M Acquisitions, of $1.10 per share. "The liquidity issue is an illusion," Mr. Wilson said, adding that Leapfrog paid off $20 million of its credit debt in January 2016. "Where did that come from if they were struggling?" But Leapfrog's attorney Mark Foster said market demand for the company's educational toys was dwindling year after year, and the company "faced a serious risk of being put out of business" before the end of 2016. The company's revenue, cash on hand and assets had fallen by at least 40 percent each year while its liabilities kept increasing, Mr. Foster told the judge. Mr. Foster said there was nothing misleading about the company's recommendation statement for the merger, which said that Leapfrog faced a "significant possibility" that it would lack the liquidity and credit needed to continue operating by the first or second quarter of 2016. In an opposition to Leapfrog's motion to dismiss, the shareholders said the board "misleadingly focused" on the failure of the LeapTV product, but failed to mention that demand for its Epic tablet product had exceeded sales projections. Still, Judge Orrick did not appear persuaded that the board intentionally misled investors. "Epic's success, it seems, was not hidden," Judge Orrick said. "It didn't mean the company's statements were false or misleading. Liquidity statements about running out of cash by the first quarter don't seem inconsistent." After indicating that he would dismiss the shareholders' second amended complaint, Judge Orrick ended the 20-minute hearing and said he would issue a ruling soon. Mr. Wilson is with Faruqi & Faruqi in New York City; Foster with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco. Leapfrog faces a separate class action, filed in January 2015, accusing it of misleading investors about dwindling prospects for its children's educational toys, including its Leap TV. In February, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen dismissed some claims against Leapfrog in that case, but refused to dismiss allegations based on the company's failure to take a write-off for long-lived asset impairment in the third quarter of 2014. [GN] LIVE VENTURES: Lifshitz & Miller Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Lifshitz & Miller, a securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announces that on May 5, 2017, Lifshitz & Miller filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of Live Ventures Incorporated between November 7, 2016 and January 6, 2017. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Lifshitz & Miller. If you are a Live Ventures investor, and would like additional information about our investigation and complaint, please complete the Information Request Form or contact Joshua Lifshitz, Esq. by telephone at (516) 493-9780 or e-mail at info@jlclasslaw.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a stock promotion scheme to artificially inflate the price of the Company's stock through paid promotional advertisements by undisclosed individuals and companies. As a result of the stock promotion scheme, the complaint alleges defendants caused the Company to issue false and misleading statements in the Company's financial statements throughout the Class Period, including reporting false earnings per share. Investors have 60 days from May 5 to file a motion, with the court, for appointment as a lead plaintiff in this lawsuit. Lifshitz & Miller has extensive experience representing investors in the prosecution of securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation in state and federal courts across the country.[GN] Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. Lifshitz & Miller LLP Phone: 516-493-9780 Facsimile: 516-280-7376 Email:info@jlclasslaw.com LOUISIANA: Class Status for Suit vs. Public Defender Board Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Daley at Nola reports that civil rights advocates hoping to force a rebuild of Louisiana's indigent defense system on May 4 sought class-action status for a lawsuit filed in February against Gov. John Bel Edwards and the state's Public Defender Board. The motion for class certification argues that Louisiana has allowed the system meant to provide constitutionally mandated legal aid for poor criminal defendants to buckle under excessive caseloads, inadequate staffing and deficient funding mechanisms. Supporters said that if the class action request is certified, rulings in the case would apply to nearly 20,000 indigent defendants in the state, likely making it the largest indigent- defense case of its kind. The motion filed in the 19th Judicial District in East Baton Rouge Parish cites a new report solicited by the original 13 plaintiffs from Seattle University law professor Robert Boruchowitz, described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a national expert on public defense. His report concludes that Louisiana's public defender system fails to meet constitutional and professional standards, "and creates an unacceptable risk that indigent defendants throughout the state who are charged in non-capital cases carrying a threat of imprisonment will be denied effective representation by counsel." The underlying lawsuit was filed Feb. 6 by attorneys from the SPLC, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and attorneys from the law firms Jones Walker of New Orleans and Davis, Polk & Wardell of New York. "The report we filed documents what indigent defendants across the state have long known: Louisiana's public defender system is broken," Lisa Graybill, deputy legal director of the SPLC, said in a statement. "This failure has created a two-tiered justice system in Louisiana -- one for those with the money for meaningful representation in court and another for the poor, that simply churns them through the system without providing them the meaningful defense required by the constitution. "Louisiana's public defense system is underfunded, unmonitored, and wholly inadequate. The failure of the system is a statewide problem, and it calls for a statewide remedy." The motion for class certification argues that Louisiana for years has allowed the system to languish under inadequate funding and staffing, resulting in excessive caseloads that prevent even the most dedicated public attorneys from mounting an ethically and constitutionally sound defense for most clients. The claims are echoed in the assessment written by Boruchowitz, who conducted or oversaw law students' visits to nearly 20 Louisiana parishes to research his report. His conclusions were based on court observations, court documents and interviews with public defenders and "other criminal justice stakeholders," according to SPLC spokeswoman Elizabeth Johnson. "The local district defenders are limited in what they can do because of their necessary reliance on inconsistent and erratic sources of funding," Boruchowitz wrote. "These structural barriers make it nearly impossible for most defenders to provide effective representation to most of their clients. "The situation in Louisiana has grown to be so serious that the defenders and judges have come to accept routinely and openly a pattern of practice regarding indigent accused persons that falls well below what the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct require and effectively disregards the ethical responsibilities of both lawyers and judges." Among the biggest shortcomings Boruchowitz said he found throughout the state's public defense system were: -- Public defenders often do not have timely and confidential communications with their clients and cannot exercise informed judgment on the type of investigation needed in their cases. -- Many defenders rarely investigate the facts in their cases, do not conduct motion hearings to the extent that they should, and rarely have the funds or ability to employ expert witnesses. -- Almost none of the state's public defense districts use social workers, which the professor said "can significantly improve plea bargaining results and result in better sentences for the defendants." Boruchowitz's report also zeroed in on problems he specifically found in Orleans Parish, which has the largest population and demand for public defense in the state. The professor described as "a stunning number" the 1,060 cases that were refused or waitlisted in 2016 by Orleans Public Defender Derwyn Bunton's office, which amounted to just over 6 percent of all its new cases. And while Boruchowitz found that the New Orleans defenders have a lower average caseload than nearly all other district defenders in the state, "caseload remains too high, its turnover rate of staff is too high and it does not have enough experienced attorneys to match the complexity of the cases it is assigned." Citing information provided by Bunton, the report said nine attorneys left the Orleans Public Defenders office in 2016, leaving 54 attorneys on staff. The average length of service for existing attorneys in the office is 4.33 years. "The loss of so many experienced attorneys coupled with the relative inexperience of the remaining attorneys makes it quite difficult to provide counsel for the most serious cases," Boruchowitz wrote. The report, again citing data provided by Bunton, also said that the average caseload for New Orleans public defenders was equivalent to 182 felony cases per year for full-time felony lawyers, which Boruchowitz said "is 21.3 percent higher than national and other state standards." Orleans Public Defenders reported winning not guilty verdicts in 23 of 49 felony trials in 2016, an acquittal rate of 46.9 percent. That was among 4,202 felony cases that were closed last year, according to the report. [GN] LYFT INC: Price Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to Ninth Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Steven Price filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled 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. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4, 2017, the District Court gave 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. The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 17-15702, 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 is due on June 12, 2017; -- Appellant Steven Price's opening brief is due on July 20, 2017; -- Appellees Patrick Cotter, Jeffrey Knudtson, Lyft, Inc. and Alejandra Maciel's answering brief is due on August 21, 2017; -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] Objector-Appellant STEVEN PRICE is represented by: Douglas Caiafa, Esq. DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP. 11845 W.Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 444-5240 Facsimile: (310) 312-8260 E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com 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 LYFT INC: Sweeney Appeals Ruling in "Cotter" Suit to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Objector Kerry Ann Sweeney filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled 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. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4, 2017, the District Court gave 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. The appellate case is captioned as Patrick Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 17-15724, 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 is due on June 12, 2017; -- Appellant Kerry Ann Sweeney's opening brief is due on July 20, 2017; -- Appellees Patrick Cotter, Jeffrey Knudtson, Lyft, Inc. and Alejandra Maciel's answering brief is due on August 21, 2017; and -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.[BN] 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 MCDONALDS: Settlement in Wage Class Suit Gets Tentative OK ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News reports that a federal judge preliminarily approved a class action settlement between a McDonald's franchisee and more than 100 current and former employees for California labor law violations. The USD235,000 settlement should net each class member roughly USD150, according to a motion to approve it. All current and future employees will also be paid overtime premiums, and franchise owner Bobby Haynes agreed to review payroll records and pay an additional one hour's wages to each employee for every day he or she was not allowed meal or rest breaks. Cashiers Guadalupe Salazar, Genoveva Lopez and Judith Zarate sued McDonald's and Haynes in March 2014, claiming they were denied meal and rest breaks and that McDonald's miscalculated their wages through a flawed computerized payroll system. The Haynes Partnership has owned eight franchises in Oakland and San Leandro since 2010. Ruling on McDonald's motion for summary judgment in August 2016, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg noted that the Haynes Partnership controlled hiring, firing, discipline, wage-setting and working conditions, and that McDonald's was not a joint employer because it did not make direct personnel decisions. The workers then tried to proceed on an "ostensible agency" theory, whereby a franchisee can be believed by the employee to be acting on behalf of the parent company. But in January, Seeborg denied class certification, finding insufficient evidence to show a common set of circumstances classwide. The class has appealed that ruling to the Ninth Circuit. Ruling from the bench on May 4, Seeborg said he would approve the settlement, but denied Haynes' request to keep employees' contact information away from the plaintiffs' attorneys. The settlement requires that Haynes turn over a putative class list. "The Haynes' position is their business decision to settle is not carte blanche for plaintiffs' counsel to engage in a fishing expedition and an attempt to contact Haynes' employees," Haynes Partnership's attorney Katarzyna Nowak told Seeborg. "Employees have a right to be left alone free of contact from plaintiffs' counsel." Seeborg rejected that, saying he did not believe the plaintiffs' attorneys would misuse the information. "I'm going to leave the status quo," he said. [GN] MDL 2724: FWK Holdings' Suit Transferred to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled FWK HOLDINGS, L.L.C., the Plaintiff, v. MYLAN INC., TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD, TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., and SANDOZ INC., Case No. 1:17-cv- 00626-RBK-JS (filed by Jan. 30, 2017), was transferred on April 24, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden), to the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01847-CMR to the proceeding. The FWK case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 24, 2017. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. par. 1407 to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the reasons stated in the order of August 5, 2016, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The transmittal of this order to the Clerk shall be stayed seven days from the entry. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. The lead case is 1:16-mc-07000-WHP. Mylan develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded generic, and specialty pharmaceuticals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John D. Radice RADICE LAW FIRM, PC 34 Sunset Blvd Long Beach, NJ 08008 Telephone: (646) 245 8502 E-mail: jradice@radicelawfmn.com Attorney for Mylan Inc.: Arnold B. Calmann, Esq. Jakob Benjamin Halpern, Esq. Monvan Hu, Esq. SAIBER LLC One Gateway Center, 1oth Floor Newark, NJ 07102-5311 Telephone: (973) 622 3333 Facsimile: (973) 622 3349 E-mail: abc@saiber.com jbh@saiber.com mhu@saiber.com Attorneys for Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd and Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.: David N. Cinotti, Esq. VENABLE LLP 1270 A Venue of the Americas, 25th Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 370 6279 E-mail: dncinotti@venable.com Attorneys for Sandoz Inc.: Asaad K. Siddiqi, Esq. John B. Mccusker, Esq. MCCUSKER, ANSELMI, ROSEN & CARVELLI, P.C. 210 Park A Venue, Suite 301 Florham Park, NJ 07932 Telephone: (973) 635 6300 Facsimile: (973) 457 0265 E-mail: asiddiqi@marc.law jmcc@marc-law.com MDL 2724: "Castillo" Suit v. Teligent et al. Goes to E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled CESAR CASTILLO, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. TELIGENT, INC., PERRIGO COMPANY PLC, TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., and TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., Case No., 1:16-cv-09592-RMB-KMW (Date Filed Dec. 27, 2016) was transferred on April 24, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Camden), to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-01846-CMR to the proceeding. The Castillo case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 24, 2017. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe. Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. par. 1407 to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for the reasons stated in the order of August 5, 2016, and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Cynthia M. Rufe. This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be stayed 7 days from the entry. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the Panel within this 7-day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel. The lead case is 1:16-mc-07000-WHP. Teligent manufactures and distributes pharmaceutical products. The Company offers creams, ointments, injections, and other medical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa J. Rodriguez, Esq. SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS LLP Woodland Falls Corporate Park 220 Lake Drive East, Suite 200 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1165 Telephone: 856 482 5222 Facsimile: 856 482 6980 E-mail: ljrodriguez@schnader.com Teligent Inc. is represented by: Katelyn O'Reilly, Esq. WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP One Riverfront Plaza 1037 Raymond Boulevard, 6th Floor New Ark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 757 1100 E-mail: koreilly@thewalshfirm.com MDL 2724: HMO Louisiana Sues Impax et al. Over Drug Price-Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE INDEMNITY COMPANY d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA and HMO LOUISIANA, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., SANDOZ, INC., FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., HI-TECH PHARMACAL CO., INC., AKORN, INC., and ACTAVIS HOLDCO U.S., INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv- 01873-CMR (E.D. Pa., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks to recover damages, to the maximum extent allowed by the Sherman Act, as a result of Defendants' price-fixing conspiracy of Lidocaine/Prilocaine. On January 9, 2017, two executives of a manufacturer of generic doxycycline pled guilty in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to criminal price-fixing, thereby confirming the existence of conspiracies among generic drug manufacturers to fix prices. In addition, in December 2016, the Attorneys General of 20 states filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut also alleging price fixing of generic doxycycline. Further 71 generic pricing actions (44 end payor actions, and 27 direct purchaser actions) have been filed in the Federal Courts including 38 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 26 in the Southern District of New York, five in the District of New Jersey, and two in the District of Puerto Rico. This case is brought by Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company and HMO Louisiana, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated indirect purchasers of generic Lidocaine/Prilocaine, to recoup overcharges that resulted from Defendants' price-fixing conspiracies. The Plaintiffs bring this action both individually and on behalf of (a) a national injunctive class of persons or entities in the United States and its territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of generic Lidocaine/Prilocaine, products manufactured by any Defendant from October 1, 2012 to the present, and (b) a damages class of or entities in the states identified herein, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of generic Lidocaine/Prilocaine, products manufactured by any Defendant, other than for resale, from October 1, 2012 to the present. The Defendants engaged in conspiracies to allocate customers, rig bids and fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of generic Lidocaine/Prilocaine. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed Classes paid artificially inflated prices. The Louisiana Health case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 18, 2017. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe. Impax Laboratories is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing, manufacturing and marketing generic and branded products.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Dugan, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. Douglas R. Plymale, Esq. Lanson Bordelon, Esq. Mekel Smith-Alvarez, Esq. One Canal Place 365 Canal Street, Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648 0180 Facsimile: (504) 648 0181 E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com MDL 2724: HMO Louisiana Sues Over Fluocinonide Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE INDEMNITY COMPANY d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF LOUISIANA and HMO LOUISIANA, INC., the Plaintiffs, v. TARO PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES , LTD., TARO PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA INC., FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., SANDOZ, INC., and ACTAVIS HOLDCO U.S., INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-01874-CMR (E.D. Pa., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks to recover damages, to the maximum extent allowed by Sherman Act, as a result of Defendants' price-fixing conspiracy of Fluocinonide. On January 9, 2017, two executives of a manufacturer of generic doxycycline pled guilty in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to criminal price-fixing, thereby confirming the existence of conspiracies among generic drug manufacturers to fix prices. In addition, in December 2016, the Attorneys General of 20 states filed a civil complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut also alleging price fixing of generic doxycycline. Further 71 generic pricing actions (44 end payor actions, and 27 direct purchaser actions) have been filed in the Federal Courts including 38 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 26 in the Southern District of New York, five in the District of New Jersey, and two in the District of Puerto Rico. This case is brought by Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company and HMO Louisiana, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated indirect purchasers of generic Fluocinonide, to recoup overcharges that resulted from Defendants' price-fixing conspiracies. The Plaintiffs bring this action both individually and on behalf of (a) a national injunctive class of persons or entities in the United States and its territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of generic Fluocinonide, products manufactured by any Defendant from October 1, 2012 to the present, and (b) a damages class of or entities in the states identified herein, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories who indirectly purchased, paid and/or provided reimbursement for some or all of the purchase price of generic Fluocinonide, products manufactured by any Defendant, other than for resale, from October 1, 2012 to the present. The Defendants engaged in conspiracies to allocate customers, rig bids and fix, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of generic Lidocaine/Prilocaine. As a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs and the other members of the proposed Classes paid artificially inflated prices. The Louisiana Health case is being consolidated with MDL 2724 in re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 18, 2017. It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are common to the actions previously transferred to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and assigned to Judge Rufe. Taro Pharmaceutical Industries is a research-based pharmaceutical manufacturer publicly listed in the New York Stock Exchange. The company has more than 180 of its own drugs sold all over the world, reaching the markets of over 25 countries.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Dugan, Esq. David S. Scalia, Esq. Douglas R. Plymale, Esq. Lanson Bordelon, Esq. Mekel Smith-Alvarez, Esq. One Canal Place 365 Canal Street, Suite 1000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648 0180 Facsimile: (504) 648 0181 E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com dplymale@dugan-lawfirm.com lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com mekel@dugan-lawfirm.com MDL 2773: "Kreuzer" Suit V. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled David Kreuzer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00526 (date filed March 16, 2017), was transferred on April 25, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for the District of Southern California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-02172-LHK to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is a purchaser of CDMA- and/or premium LTE cellular devices, including an Apple iPhone 6, Apple iPad Mini 2, and Samsung Galaxy S6, each of which contains a baseband processor (also called a modem chipset), which are semiconductor devices that enable cellular communications in cellphones and other products, from January 25, 2013 through the present. The Plaintiff brought the action against Defendant for Qualcomm's unlawful maintenance of a monopoly in baseband processors. Qualcomm has maintained its monopoly by engaging in anticompetitive, exclusionary conduct, including, without limitation: (a) failure to license standard-essential patents to all applicants on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms; (b) withholding Qualcomm's baseband processors unless a customer accepts a license to standard-essential patents on terms imposed by Qualcomm, including excessive and unlawful royalties that the customer must pay when using competitors' processors ("no license-no chips"); (c) refusing to license its cellular standard-essential patents to competitors, in violation of Qualcomm's FRAND commitments; and (d) entering into exclusive dealing arrangements, including with Apple Inc., a large and highly important cellphone manufacturer. Qualcomm's anticompetitive conduct has caused Plaintiff and Class Members to pay inflated prices for each cellular telephone and cellular device they purchased and has excluded competitors, harmed competition, taxed Qualcomm's competitors' baseband processor sales and reduced competitors' ability to compete and incentive to innovate. The Plaintiff brought this action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated for injunctive relief and to recover for the substantial injuries they have suffered as a result of Qualcomm's violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer laws and the common law of unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, monetary damages and all available remedies to which they are entitled for Qualcomm's unlawful conduct. The Kreuzer case is being consolidated with MDL 2773 in re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2017. In its April 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL "share factual questions arising from allegations that Qualcomm: (1) refused to license, or alternatively imposed onerous restrictions on licenses of, its standard essential patents (SEPs) to competing manufacturers of baseband processors; (2) conditioned the supply of its CDMA and premium LTE processors to cellular phone manufacturers on agreements to purchase a license for Qualcomm's entire patent portfolio; (3) entered into exclusive deals with certain cellular phone manufacturers (namely, Apple); and (4) ignored the requirements of various standard setting organizations to license its SEPs on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Plaintiffs in all the actions listed on Schedule A assert similar claims for violations of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. And all of these actions involve overlapping putative nationwide classes of cell phone purchasers. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh. The lead case is 5:17-md-02773-LHK. Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400 5822 Facsimile: (619) 400 5832 Email: hartley@stuevesiegel.com lindner@stuevesiegel.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. Brian M. Hogan, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632 4500 Facsimile: (224) 632 4521 E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com bhogan@fklmlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Asim M. Bhansali, Esq. Eugene Morris Paige, Esq. David W Rizk, Esq. Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq. Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391 5400 Facsimile: (415) 397 7188 E-mail: abhansali@keker.com drizk@kvn.com EMP@kvn.com jsessions@keker.com rvannest@keker.com MDL 2773: "Rotman" Suit v. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Allan Rotman, Shari Cole Phillip James Zacharias, Mary Beth Cummins, Guy Snowdy, Cynthia Bambini, Grant Hauschild, David Floyd, Kim Coughlin, Brandon Fuller, Lisa Patnode, and Nina Bartoshevich, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00260 (filed Feb. 9, 2017), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-02169-LHK to the proceeding. The Rotman case is being consolidated with MDL 2773 in re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2017. In its April 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL "share factual questions arising from allegations that Qualcomm: (1) refused to license, or alternatively imposed onerous restrictions on licenses of, its standard essential patents (SEPs) to competing manufacturers of baseband processors; (2) conditioned the supply of its CDMA and premium LTE processors to cellular phone manufacturers on agreements to purchase a license for Qualcomm's entire patent portfolio; (3) entered into exclusive deals with certain cellular phone manufacturers (namely, Apple); and (4) ignored the requirements of various standard setting organizations to license its SEPs on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Plaintiffs in all the actions listed on Schedule A assert similar claims for violations of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. And all of these actions involve overlapping putative nationwide classes of cell phone purchasers. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh. The lead case is 5:17-md-02773-LHK. Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S Hartley, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400 5822 Facsimile: (619) 400 5832 E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com The Defendants are represented by: Asim M. Bhansali, Esq. Eugene Morris Paige, Esq. David W Rizk, Esq. Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq. Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391 5400 Facsimile: (415) 397 7188 E-mail: abhansali@keker.com drizk@kvn.com EMP@kvn.com jsessions@keker.com rvannest@keker.com MDL 2773: "Schwartz" Suit v. Qualcomm Moved to N.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Jason Schwartz, Suzanne Block Kevin Calero, Carlo Caringal, Ian Carson, Andre Cruz, Lucas Rangel Ferreira, Masood Javaherian, David Koplovitz, Brian Letulle, Deirdre McElhaney, Carmen Minon, Erica Minon, Gabriel Minon, Betsy Santiago, Javier Santiago, and Peter Yee, the Plaintiffs, v. Qualcomm Incorporated, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00166 (filed Jan 27, 2017), was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:17-cv-02166-LHK to the proceeding. The Schwartz case is being consolidated with MDL 2773 in re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April 5, 2017. In its April 5, 2017 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL "share factual questions arising from allegations that Qualcomm: (1) refused to license, or alternatively imposed onerous restrictions on licenses of, its standard essential patents (SEPs) to competing manufacturers of baseband processors; (2) conditioned the supply of its CDMA and premium LTE processors to cellular phone manufacturers on agreements to purchase a license for Qualcomm's entire patent portfolio; (3) entered into exclusive deals with certain cellular phone manufacturers (namely, Apple); and (4) ignored the requirements of various standard setting organizations to license its SEPs on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Plaintiffs in all the actions listed on Schedule A assert similar claims for violations of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. And all of these actions involve overlapping putative nationwide classes of cell phone purchasers. Centralization thus will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, including with respect to class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. Presiding Judges in the MDL is the Hon. Judge Lucy H. Koh. The lead case is 5:17-md-02773-LHK. Qualcomm is an American multinational semiconductor and telecommunications equipment company that designs and markets wireless telecommunications products and services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772 4700 Facsimile: (415) 772 4707 E-mail lking@kaplanfox.com The Defendants are represented by: Asim M. Bhansali, Esq. Eugene Morris Paige, Esq. David W Rizk, Esq. Justina Kahn Sessions, Esq. Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111-1809 Telephone: (415) 391 5400 Facsimile: (415) 397 7188 E-mail: abhansali@keker.com drizk@kvn.com EMP@kvn.com jsessions@keker.com rvannest@keker.com MDLIVE: Asks Court to Dismiss Class Action Over Patient Privacy --------------------------------------------------------------- Evan Sweeny at Fierce Health Care reports that MDLive filed a motion to dismiss a class-action lawsuit that claims the telehealth provider failed to maintain patient privacy, arguing that users knew their information was being shared with a third party. In a motion submitted to a Florida federal judge, MDLive included the company's privacy policy and its terms of use that allowed the telehealth provider to share limited user information with third- party contractors. MDLive user Joan Richards filed a class-action lawsuit claiming the company took continuous screenshots during the first 15 minutes of use while patients were entering their medical history. Richard alleged that information was shared with TestFairy, an Israel-based company contracted to identify bugs and track user experience, without the consent of app users. In a statement to FierceHealthcare, MDLive denied the allegations, adding that it had confirmed no evidence of a HIPAA breach. Lawyers for MDLive argued that the claims were baseless, pointing to specific language within the user agreement that allows the company to share user information with companies contracted to improve the app's usability. "Richards's failure to rely on the actual Terms of Use Contract available on that site, to which every user must affirmatively assent in order to gain access to MDLIVE, is ironic and telling," the motion stated. "The reason for her avoidance of the contract is clear: MDLIVE's Terms of Use Contract exposes her lawsuit as baseless." MDLive's privacy policy states the company may disclose personal information provided by users "to contractors, service providers and other third parties we use to support or business." The motion for dismissal also included screenshots of MDLive's app illustrating registration process in which users must agree to the terms of use before creating an account. The latest wrinkle in the case underscores the importance of the language within a privacy policy, an issue that representatives with the Department of Health and Human Services' Office for Civil Rights and the Federal Trade Commission highlighted during a recent session at Datapalooza.[GN] MICHIGAN: State Secretary Sued Over Suspension of Drivers Licenses ------------------------------------------------------------------ John Steckroth at Click On Detroit reports that a class action lawsuit was filed May 5 against the Michigan Secretary of State which claims the state suspended driver's licenses of people who had safe driving records but couldn't afford to pay traffic fines or court fees. The suit was filed by Equal Justice Under Law, a national civil rights organization, against Ruth Johnson, the Secretary of State. The two named plaintiffs in the suit are Andrian Fowler and Kitia Harris, residents of Detroit and mothers of young children, each stopped for routine traffic violations and unable to afford the fines. Both mother's live below the poverty line and the state suspended their driver's licenses. "Losing a driver's license is an extraordinary punishment that goes far beyond a fine," said Phil Telfeyan, found and executive director of Equal Justice Under Law. "It is an attack on a person's independence, pride, and character. As a nation, we encourage our citizens to be self-sufficient. To take away someone's ability to drive simply because they are too poor to pay a fine is unfair, unjust, and un-American. This lawsuit is the beginning of the process to end the state's unjust system and restore driving rights to tens of thousands of residents." [GN] MINNESOTA: Judge Stays Further Proceedings in Sex Offender Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has stayed further proceedings in a class-action lawsuit over Minnesota's sex offender treatment program while lawyers for the offenders ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review an appeals court finding that the program is constitutional. U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank declared the program unconstitutional after phase one of the case in 2015 because only a handful of offenders had ever won provisional releases. However, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed him in January. In a ruling on May 3, Judge Frank agreed with lawyers who represent more than 700 offenders in the program that it makes sense to put further proceedings for addressing the remaining legal issues on hold for at least 90 days while the Supreme Court considers whether to hear the case. [GN] MOISES BAKERY: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO VALENTIN MUNIZ GONZALEZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), the Plaintiff, v. MOISES BAKERY OF MIAMI, INC. a/k/a MOISES BAKERY, JOAQUIN BRAS, JACQUELIN BRAS, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21528-UU (S.D. Fla., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks to recover overtime wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Between June 1, 2014 to September 1 2014, and from July 12, 2015 to April 4, 2017, Plaintiff worked an average of 48 hours a week for Defendants and was paid an average of $13.54 per hour but was never paid the extra half time rate for any hours worked over 40 hours in a week as required by the FLSA. The Plaintiff claims the half time overtime rate for each hour worked above 40 in a week. According to the Complaint, the Defendants willfully and intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as required by the FLSA as Defendants knew of the overtime requirements of the FLSA and recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants' payroll practices were in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Moises Bakery is a Venezuelan bakery serving empanadas, arepas and other savory snacks, plus coffee and sweet pastries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865 6766 Facsimile: (305) 865 7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM MONSANTO COMPANY: Faces Blair-Chick Suit Over Roundup Products -------------------------------------------------------------- KEVIN BLAIR and GREGORY CHICK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MONSANTO COMPANY and DOE CORPORATIONS 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-50123 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks damages and equitable and declaratory relief against Defendant in violating Illinois's Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law. Monsanto labels its retail Roundup (TM) "Garden Weeds" Weed and Grass Killer products (Roundup Garden Products) as targeting an enzyme that is not found "in people or pets," based on its active ingredient, glyphosate: "Glyphosate targets an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets." However, this claim is false, misleading, and deceptive, as the enzyme that glyphosate targets is found in people and pets. The Plaintiffs bring this deceptive advertising claim on behalf of consumers who purchased the Roundup Garden Products in Illinois and California, and seek relief, including refunds to purchasers. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, targets the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP) synthase. The beneficial bacteria in our gut (and the gut of other mammals), on which the immune systems rely, produce, and utilize EPSP synthase. Thus, the targeted enzyme EPSP synthase is in people and pets. According to the Complaint, the false statement regarding glyphosate and the enzyme is material. There is widespread controversy and concern around glyphosate and its risks. The Complaint says, "Studies indicate that the health of the beneficial bacteria in our bodies is directly linked to our general health. Studies also suggest that glyphosate may be carcinogenic and affect human and animal cardiovascular, endocrine, nervous, and reproductive systems. As a result of the false statements and material omissions, Monsanto was able to sell more Roundup Garden Products and to charge more for the Products than it otherwise would have been." Monsanto Company is a publicly traded American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW GROUP 81 Prospect Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 687 8291 MURRAY: Abandons Farmer Payment Clawback, Class Action Dropped -------------------------------------------------------------- Warwick Long, writing for ABC News, reports that a class action against dairy processor Murray Goulburn has been dropped after the company agreed to abandon its clawback of money from farmers. The company announced it would close three factories, drop its controversial clawback of farmer payments, and borrow money to artificially keep its milk price higher if required. ABC News AudioPlayDisable your screen reader before downloading. Playback starts immediately after pressing enter. Use space bar to pause or play, and up and down arrows to control volume. Use left arrow to rewind and right arrow to fast forward. The package was announced as a way for farmers to repay what they owed when the company suddenly and retrospectively cut prices last year. The company will make payments to suppliers who made contributions under the package. A Victorian law firm said now the money was being returned to farmers, it would drop its case against Murray Goulburn, but would proceed with another against its rival, Fonterra, for doing the same thing. Rural towns fear for the future For the 700 residents of Kiewa-Tangambalanga, losing 135 jobs from Murray Goulburn's factory closure has sent shockwaves through the town. Adley Burstyner principal David Burstyner, who is working with law firm Harwood Andrews, said the result, albeit good, was late. "It provides the financial repayment of what most of what the class action was about. That's good for dairy farmers," he said. Not all good news But the lawyer said it was not all good news for dairy farmers. After Murray Goulburn made its sudden and retrospective cut to prices on April 27, 2016, many farmers decided to leave and take their milk to supply another company. Those farmers will not be repaid money under the decision from Murray Goulburn. Mr Burstyner believed the farmers had a case if they wished to pursue it. "They are a reasonably smaller percentage of the overall bigger picture," he said. "Instead of a $200 million claim, we're now talking about several million. "It's a lot smaller and it may be difficult for those farmers for practical reasons." Fonterra case continues Rival dairy processor Fonterra, which made a decision to cut prices in autumn 2016, is also under legal pressure for a questionable loan scheme. Mr Burstyner has Fonterra suppliers on his books who will continue with a class action up until that company, like Murray Goulburn, agrees to forgive its loan scheme and repay farmers. "One of the things Fonterra says is that we paid those higher prices because we had to match Murray Goulburn," he said. "There are problems with that answer legally, but that is one of the things that Fonterra says. "Now that Murray Goulburn have in effect wound back those financial dynamics, it will be interesting to see if Fonterra does the right thing. "If they don't we will proceed with the class action." [GN] MURRAY ENERGY: Faces "Mitchell" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- JETSON MITCHELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION, THE AMERICAN COAL COMPANY, INC. and DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Defendants, Case No. 3:17-cv-00444 (S.D. Ill., April 28, 2017), arises out of Defendants' alleged failure to provide 60-day advanced notice of the "mass layoff" of nearly hundreds of employees that occurred at its New Future Mine in Galatia, Illinois on or about April 19, 2017 through April 28, 2017, in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Murray Energy Corp. is a privately owned coal company in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin P. Green, Esq. Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq. Thomas J. Lech, Esq. Kevin P. Green, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Phone: 618-656-5150 E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com tlech@ghalaw.com kevin@ghalaw.com NATIONAL MILK: Consumers Await Refunds from Milk Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Holmes and Joe Ducey, writing for ABC15, report that consumers are still waiting for refunds for a class action lawsuit they thought would be resolved by now. It involves allegations of price fixing of dairy products and a $52 million settlement that was to be paid to consumers who bought just about any fresh dairy product in Arizona and 15 other states. The deadline to file was January 31, 2017 and many are asking 'where is the money?' According to a proposed disbursement schedule in the lawsuit documents, the plan was for payments to start being deposited on March 1, 2017. We contacted Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, the law firm that represents the class to find out what happened. Managing partner Steve Berman says it's still held up in court. In a statement he says in part, "we look forward to the court issuing a final ruling on the settlement soon, after which consumers will begin receiving payments." According to court documents, more than 3.5 million people submitted claims, which "has exceeded original predictions", administrative website boughtmilk.com says. Also, instead of the $45 to $70 refund per person, consumers can expect closer to $6. Scott Hardy with Topclassactions.com is not affiliated with the case, but says it is not uncommon for delays with a lawsuit this large. He notes that any objections would have to be resolved before anything could be paid out. No word yet on when that will be, but we'll be watching. [GN] NELNET INC: Faces "Peterson" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDREW PETERSON, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. NELNET, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv- 01064-NYW (D. Col., April 28, 2017), alleges that Nelnet violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff premium overtime compensation. Plaintiff claims he is entitled to unpaid overtime compensation from Nelnet for all hours worked by them in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, and are also entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was filed on behalf Plaintiff and all current and former Account Managers and Call Center Representatives of Defendant. Nelnet is a diverse company that delivers education-related products and services and student loan asset management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 242 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Phone: (970) 214-0562 - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 447-8888 Fax: (561) 447-8831 NEW YORK: Food Cart Owners Sue NYPD, DOH for Trashing Equipment --------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony O'Reilly at Queens Chronicle reports that food cart owners are suing the NYPD and Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for allegedly trashing and illegally throwing away their equipment after random checks. According to the federal class-action lawsuit, provided to the Chronicle last April 4, the city has "a policy of seizing and destroying street vendors' property without any hearing or other constitutionally required due process." The Street Vendor Project at the Urban Justice Center alleges this practice is unconstitutional. "We've heard about this for a little while," said attorney Matt Shapiro. "In these types of cases, the carts are never put through the system. They're just destroyed and disposed of." The lawsuit states 86-year-old Bangladeshi immigrant Sanwar Ahmed -- who sells jhal muri, puffed rice with spices, in Jackson Heights -- was approached by two police officers and two DOH inspectors on June 4, 2016. They then took his cart and food items away in a truck. Ahmed, according to the lawsuit, is a licensed street food vendor. He was allegedly unable to recover the cart after it was taken away and later learned it had been destroyed. Ahmed is suing along with a Brooklyn street vendor and possibly more -- Shapiro said the Street Vendor Project is looking for additional plaintiffs to join the class-action suit. The suit seeks to have the city change its policy on removing food carts from the streets and reimburse the defendants. "If they're going to seize property they have to do it lawfully," Shapiro said. The city Law Department is reviewing the lawsuit. But Shapiro is looking for the city to take action even further, asking it to lift the number of permits available for food vendors -- which has been capped since 1983. Legislation to do that, stuck in the Committee on Consumer Affairs, would double the number of legal food vendors from 4,000 now to 8,000 by 2023 -- with 5 percent set aside for veterans and the disabled. It has the support of many Queens Council members, but at least two are against it. "Not at this particular time," said Councilwoman Karen Koslowitz (D-Forest Hills). "In my district, there's plenty of food carts on Continental [Avenue] itself." Councilman Barry Grodenchik (D-Oakland Gardens) said there is a surplus along Hillside Avenue and Little Neck Parkway in his district. "I first started hearing about this during my campaign," the councilman said. "I do not support it." Both were unaware of the lawsuit and had not heard complaints like the ones raised by the plaintiff. "I would ask what were they doing that warranted inspection," Koslowitz said. The Council Health Committee discussed a bill drafted by the councilwoman that would require mobile food vendors to post their given grade, either A, B or C, received for sanitary inspections. The councilwoman said the bill is popular among vendors and her Council colleagues. "If I saw they had a good grade, maybe I'd stop off and have something," she said. Grodenchik is a supporter of his colleague's bill. "If restaurants have to comply, then why not food vendors?" he asked. The DOH told the Health Committee it has "contemplated" letter grades for street vendors and "agree[s] there should be more transparency about our mobile food vending inspections." [GN] NISSAN: Car Owners Await Dashboard Class Acton Settlement Money --------------------------------------------------------------- Michelle Quesada, writing for WPTV, report that it's been four months since a Nissan class-action settlement was approved, but car owners are still waiting for their money. Two years after Brittany Scardino bought her Nissan Altima, she started noticing her dashboard was becoming sticky, shiny, and caused a dangerous glare on her windshield. "I couldn't see. I almost hit several people in crosswalks, crossing in front of me," said Ms. Scardino. The dash was melting and her Nissan wasn't the only one. Ms. Scardino found out about a class action lawsuit and started working with the Gibbs Law Group to file her claim. She had two options, pay $2,000 up front to repair her car and get reimbursed when the settlement was issued, or file a claim and wait for the settlement check to buy a new dash. "I put it on my credit card thinking I'll get paid in the next few months, I'll just apply it to my credit card," said Ms. Scardino. But that was almost six months ago. Ms. Scardino is working two jobs, a teacher during the day and waiting tables at night just to pay off the dashboard charge. "My interest rate shot up and now I'm having to pay extra while I wait," she added. "It's not pocket change for me." The class-action lawsuit was approved in January. Attorneys say once Nissan provides the funds, car owners will be paid, but the months go by and Ms. Scardino is worried. "That I'm not even going to see the money," she added. WPTV reached a Nissan representative for information on the settlement. A representative is expected to reply on April 27. [GN] NISSAN NORTH: Seeks Dismissal of Panoramic Sunroof Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that Nissan North America Inc. on May 2 urged a California federal court to throw out a proposed class action over panoramic sunroofs that allegedly shatter due to a defect in the glass, saying in part that its warranties don't cover the problem. The U.S. branch of the Japanese automaker is seeking to dismiss an amended complaint brought by three named plaintiffs who say their cars' sunroofs shattered for no good reason. Nissan said on May 2 that the owners can't bring nationwide claims and that claims involving express and implied warranty, as well as fraud, fail completely. The three plaintiffs say that Nissan used tempered glass with ceramic paint in its sunroofs, as opposed to laminated glass some other manufacturers use. Tempered glass allegedly shrinks the outer layer of glass around the inner layer, making it stronger, but capable of shattering the whole sheet if the outer layer is damaged. The ceramic paint, meanwhile is applied for "aesthetic and functional purposes," but weakens the outer layer, the owners said. But all three have conceded that the sunroofs might weaken over time and may shatter due to stress caused by flexing and vibrations occurring during ordinary driving, Nissan said. Since filing her original complaint, California resident Sherida Johnson has been joined by two Nissan owners from New Jersey and New York, and the trio seek to bring claims on behalf of a nationwide class. The automaker rejected their ability to do so, saying that they have no standing to represent car owners from other states who might have claims under their own states' laws, nor can California, New Jersey or New York laws be applied across the board. Nissan also said that the drivers' express warranty claims fail because its limited warranty only covers repairs that correct material or workmanship defects, not design defects. The drivers' claim -- that Nissan chose the wrong type of glass and paint for its panoramic sunroofs -- is a design defect and thus not covered by warranty, the automaker said. As for the Nissan owners' implied warranty claims, Nissan said that Johnson bought her used 2016 Nissan Maxima from CarMax, so Nissan has no implied warranty obligations to her. The same goes for New York plaintiff Subrina Seenarain, who bought her used 2014 Maxima from a dealership, and New Jersey resident Harry Gunsenhouser, who failed to show that the alleged defect actually made his 2015 Nissan Rogue unsellable, the company said. Furthermore, Nissan argued that the plaintiffs' fraud-based claims should all be dismissed, in part because the amended complaint doesn't identify any misrepresentations made by Nissan itself. Ms. Johnson specifically doesn't even say she transacted with the company, it said. After buying her car and an extended service plan from Car Max -- which Nissan said is not a manufacturer's warranty -- Ms. Johnson was driving at about 70 miles per hour on a highway on Halloween when she heard "what sounded like a gunshot." When she pulled over, she found the sunroof was broken and at least some glass had fallen into her car, but she needed to get to work, so she closed the sunroof shade and continued driving. She took the car to CarMax on her lunch break and was told the damage could not be fixed. A Nissan dealer told her something appeared to have hit the glass and that a repair wouldn't be covered by warranty. The dealership replaced the roof and Johnson's car insurance covered all but $185 of the approximately $1,100 cost. She says she's afraid the new sunroof will explode, but still drives the car to work every day, Nissan said. Similarly, Ms. Seenarain was driving on the highway in September when she and her passenger heard "a thunderous pop," and pulled over to find a hole in her sunroof. She took the car to a Nissan dealer and was told the damage wasn't covered by warranty. In Mr. Gunsenhouser's case, his wife was driving in June 2016 when she heard a "very loud popping sound." She didn't see any damage, but debris began falling off her roof when she pulled onto the highway. She pulled over and found that the sunroof had broken. A Nissan dealer told her it wasn't covered by warranty. The plaintiffs could not be reached for comment on May 3. Nissan is represented by William R. Sampson -- wsampson@shb.com -- Amir M. Nassihi -- anassihi@shb.com -- and M. Kevin Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP. The owners are represented by Crystal Foley -- cfoley@simmonsfirm.com -- Paul J. Hanly Jr. -- phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- and Mitchell M. Breit -- mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC and by Gregory F. Coleman, Mark E. Silvey, Adam A. Edwards and Lisa A. White of Greg Coleman Law PC. The case is Johnson v. Nissan North America Inc., et al., case number 3:17-cv-00517, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN] NOBLE ENERGY: "King" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW KING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NOBLE ENERGY, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-01279 (S.D. Tex., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Noble Energy, Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). King and the other drilling consultants like him regularly worked for Noble in excess of 40 hours each week without overtime compensation. Instead of paying overtime as required by the FLSA, Noble improperly classified King and those similarly situated as independent contractors, paying a daily rate with no overtime compensation. Noble is a global oil and gas exploration and production company operating worldwide and throughout the United States, including in Texas. In order to provide services to many of its customers, Noble contracts with certain companies to provide it with employees to perform the necessary work.[BN] The 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 77005 Telephone: (713) 352 1100 Facsimile: (713) 352 3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com litkin@mybackwages.com jbresler@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: 713 877 8788 Facsimile: 713-877 8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com NOMAX INC: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in St. Louis Heart Center Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., filed an appeal from a memorandum & order and judgment both dated March 20, 2017, entered in its lawsuit styled St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00517-RLW, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The appellate case is captioned as St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc., Case No. 17-1794, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows: -- Appendix is due on May 23, 2017; -- Brief of Appellant St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. is due on May 23, 2017; -- Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant; and -- Appellant reply brief is due 14 days from the date the Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the appellee brief.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, is represented by: Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com rkelly@andersonwanca.com - and - Max G. Margulis, Esq. MARGULIS LAW GROUP 28 Old Belle Monte Rd. Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 536-7022 Facsimile: (636) 536-6652 E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com Defendant-Appellee Nomax, Inc., is represented by: Tina N. Babel, Esq. Laura Bailey Brown, Esq. Sarah J. Klebolt, Esq. David P. Stoeberl, Esq. CARMODY MACDONALD P.C. 120 South Central Ave., Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 854-8600 Facsimile: (314) 854-8660 E-mail: tnb@carmodymacdonald.com lbb@carmodymacdonald.com sjk@carmodymacdonald.com dps@carmodymacdonald.com PARKLANE FINANCIAL: Court Approves Final Settlement --------------------------------------------------- A final settlement has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the class action Cannon v. ParkLane Financial Group Limited et al. regarding the ParkLane Funds for Canada Gift Program, which operated from 2005 to 2009. The settlement is a negotiated resolution of disputed claims, the court has not made any finding of liability against any of the Defendants in respect of any of the allegations raised in the class action and the Defendants do not admit any wrongdoing or liability in connection with the class action. Under the terms of the settlement, ParkLane Financial Group Limited, Trafalgar Associates Limited, Trafalgar Trading Limited and Estera Services (Bermuda) Limited as the Trustee of the Bermuda Longtail Trust have paid USD17,500,000 plus interest of USD164,931.50, and the action against them, as well as all cross- claims, counterclaims and third party claims have been dismissed, bringing the class action to an end. This is the second settlement in this class action. In 2013, several Defendants settled with the class, paying a little over USD28 million. The funds from that settlement were distributed to the class in 2014. A notice of the settlement including an explanation of how to make a claim will be sent to the last known address for each class member by mail and email (where known). [GN] PCM INC: RM Law Files Shareholders' Class Action ------------------------------------------------ RM LAW, P.C. disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased PCM Inc. securities between June 17, 2016 and May 2, 2017, inclusive. PCM shareholders may, no later than July 3, 2017, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of PCM and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or to sign up online, visit http://www.maniskas.com/case/pcmi This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that (1) En Pointe's financial statements that PCM filed with the SEC materially overstated the profitability of the business; and (2) consequently, PCM's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. In April 2015, PCM acquired En Pointe Technologies, Inc. and publicly filed En Pointe's supposed financial statements. On May 2, 2017, an article published on Seeking Alpha exposed that PCM has alleged that En Pointe's net income was overstated due to several accounting shenanigans. Following this news, PCM stock dropped USD2.05 per share or roughly 8% to close at USD22.30 on May 2, 2017. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than July 3, 2017, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain RM LAW, P.C. or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. For more information regarding this, please contact RM LAW, P.C. (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (844) 291-9299 or by email at rm@maniskas.com or visit: www.maniskas.com/case/pcmi. For more information about class action cases in general or to learn more about RM LAW, P.C. please visit our website: www.maniskas.com. RM LAW, P.C. is a national shareholder litigation firm. RM LAW, P.C. is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide.[GN] CONTACT: Richard A. Maniskas, Esq. RM LAW, P.C. 1055 Westlakes Dr., Ste. 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel No: 484-324-6800 844-291-9299 E-mail: rm@maniskas.com PCM INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on May 4 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of PCM Inc. securities (PCMI) from June 17, 2015 through May 2, 2017, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for PCM investors under the federal securities laws. To join the PCM class action, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1116.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. In April 2015, PCM acquired the assets of En Pointe Technologies Sales, Inc. According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) En Pointe's financial statements that PCM filed with the SEC materially overstated the profitability of the business; and (2) as a result, PCM's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 3, 2017. If you wish to join the litigation, go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-1116.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767- 3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. [GN] PFIZER CANADA: Ontario Class Over Champix(R) Drug Discontinued -------------------------------------------------------------- David Morritt, Esq., and Geoffrey Hunnisett, Esq., at Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that notwithstanding a large settlement of similar litigation in the United States, the Ontario class proceeding Parker v. Pfizer Canada Inc. was discontinued without costs on April 20, 2017, demonstrating the strategic importance of litigation timing. Background The class proceeding involved a class of persons who had used the prescription drug varenicline (sold in Canada by Pfizer Canada Inc. under the brand name CHAMPIX(R)) as a treatment for nicotine addiction. The representative plaintiff, Mr. Parker, alleged that he and other members of the class had experienced neuropsychiatric adverse events ("NAEs") as a consequence of ingesting CHAMPIX. The evidence at certification At the certification motion, the defendants Pfizer Canada Inc. and Pfizer Inc. argued that Mr. Parker had failed to meet the admittedly low-burden of showing some basis in fact for his claim. Justice Perell, however, found that the evidence adduced by Mr. Parker did establish some basis in fact for the common issues about a duty to warn, and also found "The contemporaneous or near contemporaneous neuropsychiatric events experienced by those using the drug provides some basis in fact to the claim that there was a failure to warn by the manufacturer of the drug." For reasons released June 21, 2012, Justice Perell certified common issues regarding the two corporate defendants' alleged failure to warn of the risk of NAEs when using CHAMPIX. American settlement Shortly thereafter, in February of 2013, a similar claim in the United States regarding the use of varenicline settled for USUSD273 million. Fortunately for the defendants in the Ontario action, the Ontario action did not settle. The parties proceeded with documentary and oral discovery, and Pfizer Canada Inc. produced over 60,000 documents. Awaiting better evidence Before examinations for discovery had completed, Mr. Parker -- presumably hopeful the results would support his allegations -- decided it was appropriate to put the action on hold pending the outcome of a large-scale epidemiological clinical study referred to as the Evaluating Adverse Events in a Global Smoking Cessation Study (or "EAGLES Study"). The results of the EAGLES Study were released in April, 2016 (three years following the settlement in the United States). Disappointingly for Mr. Parker, the study did not support his allegations. The EAGLES Study showed no significant increase in neuropsychiatric adverse events attributable to varenicline. Discontinuance On that basis, Mr. Parker moved to have the action discontinued. Unsurprisingly, Pfizer Canada consented to a discontinuance without costs. Acknowledging that, in the face of the EAGLES Study results, Mr. Parker's prospects of success were "remote", Justice Perell granted the motion for discontinuance on a without costs basis. Conclusion It is not uncommon for Canadian class action litigation to progress behind similar litigation in the United States. In this case, this operated to the benefit of the defendants when additional scientific evidence relevant to the claims being made was released before a settlement or other disposition of the litigation occurred. Because Mr. Parker decided it was appropriate to await the outcome of the EAGLES Study, the defendants were able to obtain the results of the study before trial was imminent. Effectively, the delay allowed the science to catch up with the litigation, while in the United States the latter was ahead of the former which drove a settlement. To the extent that a defendant foresees future study results being released that could affect findings of liability, this case demonstrates the strategic importance of any decision affecting the speed at which the litigation will progress. [GN] RAYTHEON COMPANY: Faces Suit over Autism Therapy Benefits --------------------------------------------------------- S.W., by and through her parents and guardians, K.C.W. and F.W., individually, on behalf of similarly situated individuals, and derivatively on behalf of the Raytheon Health Benefits Plan, the Plaintiff, v. RAYTHEON COMPANY; RAYTHEON HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN; AND WILLIAM M. BULL, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-10786 (D. Mass., May 4, 2017), seeks remedies for Defendants' breach of fiduciary duty under Employment Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), arising out of their failure to comply with the terms of the Plan and relevant federal law. The Plaintiff further seeks to recover the benefits that have been wrongfully denied to S.W. and the class she seeks to represent. It also seeks a court order declaring Defendants' exclusions, limitations, policies and practices related to Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) therapy to treat autism spectrum disorder (ASD) illegal and void. The lawsuit further seeks an injunction to prevent any future or ongoing efforts by Defendants to use and enforce any exclusions, limitations, policies or practices that impermissibly deny, exclude or limit beneficiaries' access to medically necessary ABA therapy to treat ASD under the Plan. Finally, it seeks to require Defendants to provide accurate information concerning the legally-required coverage of ABA under the Plan. S.W. is the two-year-old daughter and dependent of K.C.W. and F.W., and resides in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. S.W. is a beneficiary, as defined by the Employment Retirement Security of Act of 1974 (ERISA), of the Raytheon Health Benefit Plan. S.W.'s coverage is through F.W.'s employment with Raytheon. Defendant Raytheon Health Benefit Plan (Plan) is an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA. The Plan provides health benefits for Raytheon employees and their dependents such as S.W.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Churchill FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607 3260 Facsimile: (617) 448 2261 E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com - and - Eleanor Hamburger, Esq. Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq. SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2560 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 223 0303 Facsimile: (206) 223 0246 E-mail: rspoonemore@sylaw.com ehamburger@sylaw.com RIGHT CHOICE: Faces "Schopp" Lawsuit Alleging TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ George Kenneth Schopp, Plaintiff, v. The Right Choice Heating & Air, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-00289 (E.D. Tex., April 28, 2017), was filed on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant. The case was brought to enforce the consumer- privacy provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Right Choice Heating & Air, Inc. provides air conditioning repair-installation-AC tune up.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100 Southlake, TX 76092 Phone: 817-416-5060 Fax: 817-416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com ROAD TRAFFIC: Outa Contemplates Traffic Fine Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Jacaranda FM reports that the Organisation Undoing Tax Abuse (Outa) is compiling a class action and looking at other legal avenues which will compel the Road Traffic Infringement Agency (RTIA) and relevant metros to withdraw all unlawfully processed traffic fines, Outa said on May 6. "Outa congratulates Fines-4-U and their client Audi Centre Johannesburg on the win against an appeal by the Road Traffic Infringement Agency as regards the unlawfulness of the Aarto [Administrative Adjudication of Road Traffic Offences Act] traffic fine process applied in Johannesburg and Tshwane," Outa chairman Wayne Duvenage said. It was clear to Outa that the traffic infringement authorities had not applied themselves in accordance with the legal processes and regulations under the Aarto Act, as required by law, from as far back as 2008, he said "As per the judgment issued by [High Court] Judge [Bill] Prinsloo on 5th May 2017 for this case. . . the public now has every right to challenge authorities refusing to renew vehicle and drivers' licences where enforcement orders are in place as a result of traffic fines illegally issued in Johannesburg and Tshwane. "This judgment is a win [for] the people and a sure sign that active citizenry, when applied effectively, holds authorities accountable for unjust actions," Duvenage said. "What matters first and foremost is the authorities conduct themselves within the laws of this country before they expect citizens to do the same. As a result of the ruling in favour of the people Outa is compiling a class action and other legal avenues which will compel the RTIA and relevant metros to withdraw all unlawfully processed traffic fines. "This does not suggest Outa supports the idea of unlawful conduct on our roads; it means the authorities need to take the matter of law enforcement seriously. Furthermore, it is important the RTIA shifts its policy of treating traffic enforcement as a revenue generating tool to one of addressing road safety issues," Duvenage said. [GN] ROBINSON NURSING: Class Status of Wrongful Death Suit Affirmed -------------------------------------------------------------- Debra Hale-Shelton at Northwest Arkansas reports that a man whose mother died in one of businessman Michael Morton's nursing homes won a victory May 4 in the Arkansas Supreme Court. Andrew Phillips' lawsuit is still pending, but the court upheld Pulaski County Circuit Judge Tim Fox's decision that granted class-action status to the case in all but one area -- negligence. Phillips filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center LLC in North Little Rock, Central Arkansas Nursing Centers Inc., Nursing Consultants Inc. and Morton in 2015 over the death of Dorothy Phillips, who lived in the nursing home from Aug. 19, 2013, until her death Feb. 22, 2014. Phillips has alleged understaffing and resulting problems in the nursing home. No court has ruled on the lawsuit's allegations. May 4's action concerned only the class-action issues. Justice Rhonda Wood was the only justice to join in the entire opinion as written by Justice Karen Baker. The other five justices on the court -- Chief Justice Dan Kemp and Justices Courtney Goodson, Josephine Hart, Robin Wynne and Shawn Womack -- concurred in part and dissented in part. Morton spokesman Matt DeCample said in an email that Morton's attorneys had no comment on the decision because the case is pending. Phillips' attorneys did not immediately return phone messages seeking comment. Thomas Buchanan, who has represented other plaintiffs suing Morton nursing homes, called the Supreme Court's ruling "absolutely a victory" for Phillips. Buchanan said he had not read the court's majority opinion but said, "I think it was a big win for them [Phillips and his attorneys], quite frankly." In a separate opinion written by Hart and joined by Womack, Hart said she agreed that the negligence claim should be decertified. But she disputed the court's findings that other lawsuit claims were properly certified. In a third opinion written by Kemp and joined by Goodson and Wynne, Kemp said he agreed with the majority opinion on all points except for the negligence claim. He said he believed its class status also should have been upheld. But Baker, writing the majority opinion, said, "Negligence requires an individual analysis of each plaintiff's specific allegations." "Even assuming there are questions common to each class member, we cannot say that these common issues clearly predominate over the individual issues," Baker wrote. The court reversed that single part of Fox's multifaceted ruling and ordered the case back to his court with instructions to decertify the class solely on the negligence claim. The high court rejected Robinson Nursing and Rehabilitation Center's arguments that Phillips had failed to prove some essential elements behind the class-action status on other points. To certify a class, Baker wrote, the circuit court must determine that "there are questions of law or fact common to the class," Arkansas' Rules of Civil Procedure state. "Once commonality is determined when deciding whether to certify a class, the next question is whether common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members," Baker wrote. "The commonality requirement is clearly satisfied because ... Robinson's act of understaffing, independent of any action by Phillips, establishes a common question relating to the entire class," Baker said. "Further we find that the predominance requirement has been satisfied." Baker noted that the lower court had explained that "the common overarching issues concern whether appellants have liability for chronic understaffing under the admission agreement and the asserted statutes." After citing case law, Baker wrote, "Accordingly ... as to the breach of contract, [the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act], and unjust-enrichment claims, we hold that the circuit court correctly found that the commonality and predominance requirements of Rule 23 had been met." Rule 23 refers to a provision in the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Baker also wrote that "Phillips has focused his allegations exclusively on claims of understaffing. Therefore, any class member who has a claim based on an alternate legal theory would be precluded from bringing such a claim." Phillips' attorneys had asked Wood to recuse from the case, but she declined. She ended up siding with Phillips' attorneys on all class-action issues except for the negligence one. The attorneys had cited campaign contributions Wood received from Morton and his businesses and noted that her name had come up in connection with an investigation involving Morton, lobbyist Gilbert Baker and ousted Circuit Judge Michael Maggio. Maggio has pleaded guilty to a federal bribery charge but has appealed his conviction. Baker and Morton have not been charged with a crime. Maggio implicated them, though not by name, in his plea agreement. No one has accused Wood of criminal wrongdoing. [GN] SACRAMENTO, CA: Metropolitan Fire Sued over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracey Valentine, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, Case No. 2:17-at-00424 (E.D. Cal., April 20, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of suit and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District provides fire protection and emergency medical services to all unincorporated areas of Sacramento County, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Mastagni, Esq. Isaac S. Stevens, Esq. Ace T. Tate, Esq. MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT 1912 "I" Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 446-4692 Facsimile: (916) 447-4614 E-mail: davidm@mastagni.com istevens@mastagni.com atate@mastagni.com SAMSUNG: Suit Blames Overheated S3 for Pittsburgh House Fire ------------------------------------------------------------ Aaron Aupperleee at Trib Live reports that a Pittsburgh woman is suing Samsung, claiming her Galaxy S3 cellphone overheated and caused a fire at her mother's North Side home. The fire caused more than USD10,000 in damage, according to the class-action complaint filed on May 4 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit accuses Samsung of being negligent in its design and manufacturing of the phone, misrepresenting and omitting information, and breaching and violating its warranties. A Samsung spokesperson said the company doesn't comment on pending litigation. There have been several reports of Samsung cellphones, including the Galaxy S3, overheating, catching fire or exploding, causing injuries and damage. A class-action lawsuit was filed in October in New Jersey over the Galaxy Note 7, which Samsung stopped selling and replaced because so many models caught fire. Aaron Rihn, an attorney with the Downtown firm Robert Peirce & Associates, which is representing Brittany Jones, said he is working with a Philadelphia law firm that is handling a similar case about a different Samsung device. Jones claims she was charging her cellphone on Dec. 30 in a bedroom at her mother's house on Chautauqua Street. The phone was on a bed when it overheated and caused the bed to catch fire. No one was injured, but the bedroom was damaged and smoke damaged other portions of the home, Rihn said. An investigator found a damaged phone and partially burnt charging cable on the bed and battery of the phone was destroyed, according to a report form the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. The detective ruled the fire was caused by a malfunctioning battery. Anyone who purchased a Galaxy S3 and had damages because it overheated could join the class-action suit if it goes forward. [GN] SAMURAI INC: "Mardones" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wage Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA MARDONES, an individual, Plaintiff, v. THE SAMURAI, INC., a Florida for-profit corporation, and THOMAS BALDWIN, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21543-RNS (S.D. Fla., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the Complaint, the Defendants willfully and intentionally forced Plaintiff to participate in an illegal tip- sharing scheme in which Plaintiff was required to share her tips with non-tipped employees, such as kitchen workers and prep cooks. By forcing Plaintiff to share tips with non-tipped employees, Defendants cannot claim the tip credit and therefore owe Plaintiff the full minimum wage for each hour worked up to forty hours in a week. As a direct and proximate result of forcing Plaintiff to share tips with non-tipped employees, Plaintiff has been damaged for one or more weeks of work with Defendants. The Samurai, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant. The company was founded in 1981 and is based in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler St. Suite 223 Miami Florida 33131 Telephone: (305) 358 6800 Facsimile: (305) 358 6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com SANTA ANA: Faces "German" Suit Over Failure to Pay Workers Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rick German and Brian Peters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Santa Ana Creek Development Company and Does 1-100, Case No. BC658731 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay regular and overtime wages, failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements, and failure to pay all wages due upon separation. Santa Ana Creek Development Company operates an engineering firm located at 2288 North Batavia Street, Orange, California 92865. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Malk, Esq. MICHAEL MALK, ESQ., APC 180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 302 Los Angeles, CA 90035 Telephone: (310) 203-0016 Facsimile: (310) 499-5210 E-mail: MM@MALKLAWFIRM.COM - and - W. Zev Abramson, Esq. Jack J. Gindi, Esq. Nissim Levin, Esq. ABRAMSON LABOR GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 493-6300 Facsimile: (213) 382-4083 E-mail: NISSIM@ABRAMSONLABOR.COM SAVORY SANDWICHES: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Beck" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER BECK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SAVORY SANDWICHES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01009 (D. Colo., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an ASM from approximately 2015 through March 2017. Plaintiff worked for Defendant at stores located in Denver, Lakewood, and Arvada, Colorado. Consistent with the Defendant's policy, pattern and/or practice, Plaintiff and Assistant Store Managers regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked an average of 50 hours per workweek. Defendant owns and operates Jimmy John's franchised locations under one or more franchise agreements with Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 242 Linden Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 214 0562 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com - and - Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419 1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com SBBM GROUP: Faces "Garcia" Suit over Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR GARCIA, and other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. SBBM GROUP LLC d/b/a BRASSERIE AZUR and JEAN PHILIPPE BERNARD, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21511-DPG (S.D. Fla., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The action is brought by Plaintiff and those similarly situated to recover from the Corporate Defendant unpaid overtime compensation including actual damages of $39,501.90, liquidated Damages of $39,501.90, and total Damages of $79,003.80 plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant from September 2015 to March 2017. In total, Plaintiff worked approximately 78 compensable weeks under the Act, or 78 compensable weeks if we count 3 years back from the filing of the instant action. The Defendant paid Plaintiff on average approximately $1,794.00 per week. Prior to the commencement of Plaintiff's employment with the Corporate Defendant, Plaintiff and the Corporate Defendant agreed that Plaintiff was only going to work 40-50 hours per week. Therefore, Plaintiff's above-referenced compensation was intended to pay for only 40-50 hours of work. The Defendant did not properly pay Plaintiff overtime for hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 per week. The Defendant is a chic French-Med eatery with farmhouse feel serving rotisserie chicken, plus Euro-inspired cocktails.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503 5131 Facsimile: (888) 270 5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Seeks Review of Order in "Cyphert" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company and The Scotts Company LLC, and Intervenor James Hagedorn filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Laura Cyphert, et al. v. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-AGS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, San Diego. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, in connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592- JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential, and restitution), punitive and treble damages; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and costs and attorneys' fees. The appellate case is captioned as Laura Cyphert, et al. v. The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, et al., Case No. 17-80060, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents LAURA CYPHERT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, MILT CYPHERT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, and DAVID KIRBY are represented by: Jason Forge, Esq. Rachel L. Jensen, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: jforge@rgrdlaw.com rachelj@rgrdlaw.com Intervenor-Petitioner JAMES HAGEDORN is represented by: Paul D. Clement, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5000 Facsimile: (202) 879-5200 E-mail: paul.clement@kirkland.com - and - Mark Charles Holscher, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: mark.holscher@kirkland.com Defendants-Petitioners THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY and THE SCOTTS COMPANY LLC are represented by: Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. Christopher Chorba, Esq. Bradley Joseph Hamburger, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: (213) 229-7804 Facsimile: (213) 229-6804 E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com cchorba@gibsondunn.com bhamburger@gibsondunn.com - and - Louis A. Chaiten, Esq. JONES DAY 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 586-7244 Facsimile: (216) 579-0212 E-mail: lachaiten@jonesday.com - and - Marjorie P. Duffy, Esq. JONES DAY 325 John H. McConnell Boulevard Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 281-3655 Facsimile: (614) 461-4198 E-mail: mpduffy@jonesday.com - and - Edward Patrick Swan, Jr., Esq. JONES DAY 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121-3134 Telephone: (858) 703-3132 Facsimile: (858) 314-1150 E-mail: pswan@jonesday.com SELECTIVE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Arias" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROILANDIS ARIAS and ALEXANDER PETRILLO, For Themselves and Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. SELECTIVE HEALTHCARE, LLC, GRAEME BAGG, and LANCE SCHNITTMAN, Defendants, Case No. 0:17- cv-60853-KMM (S.D. Fla., May 1, 2017), alleges that Plaintiffs are part of a much larger class of similarly situated current and former employees of Defendants who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek and who earned, but did not receive overtime wages as a result of Defendants' systematic failure to properly calculate and pay overtime wages to their commissioned health insurance agents. The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant, Selective Healthcare, LLC, is an insurance agency. Plaintiff, Roilandis Arias, worked for Defendants from June 2014 to August 5, 2016, performing inside sales of health insurance policies.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian H. Pollock, Esq. FAIRLAW FIRM 7300 N. Kendall Drive, Suite 450 Miami, FL 33156 Phone: 305.230.4884 Fax: 305.230.4844 E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com SENSAY INC: Faces "Meyer" Suit Over Spam Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL MEYER, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SENSAY, INC., a Delaware corporation, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-03046 (N.D. Ill., Apr. 24, 2017), seeks relief including injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from sending unsolicited automated text messages without prior express consent; injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from sending unsolicited automated text messages that includes or introduces an advertisement or constitutes telemarketing without prior express written consent; and award of statutory damages in the minimum amount of $500 for each violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). The case challenges Defendant's practice of sending unsolicited automated text messages to the cellular telephones of Plaintiff and Class members in violation of the TCPA. On February 17, 2016, Plaintiff received a text message (Text) on his cellular telephone stating "A friend of yours thinks you can help people with advice, via texts, on Sensay". The Text was sent from telephone number 844-423-7761. The Text is an advertisement of Defendant's services containing automated content impersonal to Plaintiff. The Defendant sent or transmitted, or had sent or transmitted on its behalf, the Text to Plaintiff's cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368 1500 Facsimile: (847) 368 1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com SILVERLEAF LAWN: Landscaping Employees File Suit for FLSA Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hector Martinez-Canto and Crisantos Santos On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs vs. Silverleaf Lawn & Landscaping, Inc. [Registered Agent) Joel I. Krieger Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown & Enochs (10111 West 87th Street, Overland Park, KS 66212), Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-02252 (D. Kan., April 28, 2017), alleges that Defendant's practices and policies have resulted in Defendant willfully failing to properly pay straight time and overtime due owing to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. In addition, Plaintiffs bring this action as class representatives of Defendant's hourly landscaping employees for Defendant's failure to pay wages due to Plaintiffs and members of the class in violation of the Kansas Wage Payment Act. Defendant operates a landscaping business located in Overland Park, Kansas. Plaintiff Martinez-Canto was employed as an hourly landscaping employee of the Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Kistler, Esq. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 10985 Cody Street, Ste. 135 Overland Park, KS 66210 Phone: (913) 696-0925 Fax: (913) 696-0468 E-mail: mkistler@mbradylaw.com - and - Paul H. Mose, Esq. MOSE LAW LLC 3111 Strong Avenue Kansas City, KS 66106 Phone: (913) 432-4484 Fax: (913) 432-4464 E-mail: Pablo@moselaw.com SIMILASAN CORP: Settles Homeopathic Products False Labeling Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving Similasan Corp., a distributor of homeopathic products. The settlement establishes a $700,000 fund and entitles some consumers who purchased Similasan products to claim a refund or a payment estimated up to $10 to $30. On April 12th, 2017, Federal Judge Cynthia A. Bashant preliminarily approved a settlement of a lawsuit between Similasan and a class representing purchasers of Similasan products. The lawsuit claimed that labeling and marketing on Similasan over-the- counter homeopathic drugs distributed by Similasan Corp. was false or deceptive. Similasan stands by its advertising and denies it did anything wrong. The Court has not decided which side was right. Instead, the parties have decided to settle the case. A settlement fund of $700,000 is being set up to pay claims to eligible class members, attorneys' fees and costs, incentive award to the named plaintiff, and the notice and claims administration costs. Similasan has also agreed to make certain changes to the manner in which it labels and advertises the Products, and has also agreed to provide dilution disclaimers on its websites. Class members, those who purchased certain Similasan homeopathic drugs in all sizes and package iterations for personal or household use between February 10, 2008 and April 12, 2017, may be eligible for payments under the settlement terms and are advised to carefully read the Class Notice as their legal rights may be affected whether they act or not. Class Members may submit a claim form with a declaration that they purchased a class product that did not provide any relief. Alternatively, class members may submit a proof of purchase for each class product purchased. Claimants without a proof of purchase are limited to one claim and may receive payments estimated up to $10 and $30. Claimants with a valid proof of purchase may submit a claim for each class product purchased. The amount class members actually receive may be higher or lower than the amount they claim depending on the number of claims received. To receive money from the settlement, class members must submit a valid claim form within 30 days of the date the court grants final approval to the settlement, or by September 7, 2017. Claims can be filed online at the class website, www.SimilasanClassActionSettlement.com. Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the settlement, comment on the settlement, or object to the settlement, must do so by July 8, 2017. Class members who do nothing will not receive a payment and are bound by the Court's decision. Your rights and options -- and the deadlines to exercise them -- are only summarized in this press release. It is only a summary of the full class action settlement. A Detailed Notice describes, in full, how to file a claim, object, or exclude yourself, and provides other important information. For more information and to obtain a Detailed Notice, claim form or other documents, visit www.SimilasanClassAction.com, call toll-free 1-855-974-6452, or write to: Similasan Class Action, c/o Classaura, 1718 Peachtree St #1080, Atlanta, GA 30309. [GN] SPRINGCO METAL: Faces "Benefield" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT BENEFIELD, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SPRINGCO METAL COATING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-00918-DCN (N.D. Ohio, May 1, 2017), alleges that Defendant's practice of improperly rounding time is always in its favor, which resulted in its employees always losing time worked, and its practice of docking hours worked in 15-minute increments for late arrivals, results and has resulted in Defendant's employees, including Plaintiff being underpaid for overtime hours worked on a nearly daily basis. The case challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Ohio overtime compensation statute. SPRINGCO METAL COATING, INC. -- http://http://www.springco- coatings.com -- is a metal coating job shop. The proposed class is composed of all present and former hourly employees.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. Shannon M. Draher, Esq. Michaela Calhoun, Esq. NILGES DRAHER, LLC 7266 Portage St., N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Phone: 330-470-4428 E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com mcalhoun@ohlaborlaw.com SRM ENTERPRISES: Exotic Dancers Sue for Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------- Louie Torres at Penn Record reports that an exotic dancer has filed a class-action lawsuit against SRM Enterprises LLC, citing alleged unpaid wages, violation of applicable minimum wage law and violation of Workers' Compensation acts for failing to pay its performers a regular hourly rate. Nafeesa Hill filed a complaint on behalf of similarly situated employees on April 27 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that the company, which operates the Vanity Grand Cabaret club in Southeast Philadelphia, failed to properly compensate the plaintiff for her work. According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she was damaged from not being paid hourly wages at the legal rate. The plaintiff holds SRM Enterprises responsible because it allegedly failed to pay standard compensation to the plaintiff, instead relying on customer tips. The plaintiff seeks unpaid minimum wages of USD7.25 for every hour worked, reimbursement, interest, liquidated damages, court costs and any further relief this court grants. She is represented by Peter Winebrake, Esq., R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. and Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. of Winebrake & Santillo LLC in Dresher. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case number 2:17-cv-01927-MAK [GN] STERLING JEWELERS: Settles EEOC's Sex Bias Claims ------------------------------------------------- St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Sterling Jewelers Inc. has settled claims by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that it discriminated against female employees in pay and promotions, but the deal will not affect a similar case brought on behalf of nearly 70,000 women who worked for the company. The settlement was revealed in a joint filing in federal court in Buffalo, N.Y., on May 4 by Sterling, a unit of Signet Jewelers Ltd., and the EEOC. Akron, Ohio-based Sterling will adopt new anti-discrimination policies and train managers on how to avoid bias, but it will not pay any money to settle claims in a 2008 lawsuit by the EEOC that it engaged in a nationwide practice of paying men more than women and favoring them for promotions. Lynn Dennison, Esq. -- lweissberg@swglegal.com -- of Shapiro Weissberg & Garin LLP, Signet's chief legal officer, said in a statement that the company, which denied any wrongdoing, was pleased to resolve the case. "Signet has a sound framework of policies and practices designed to ensure equal opportunity for women and we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind," she said. Sterling, which owns Kay Jewelers and Jared the Galleria of Jewelery, is also facing class action sex discrimination claims in a case brought by female employees in private arbitration. [GN] SUNRISE SENIOR: Judge Gives Initial OK to Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Lidgett at Law360 reports that a California federal judge on May 3 gave initial approval to a USD2.5 million class action settlement to end a suit that claimed Sunrise Senior Living Management Inc.'s alleged policy of making employees receive their final wages through a packet containing an ATM card and blank checks violated state law. U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell signed off on a bid for preliminary approval of a deal to settle a suit brought from Janee Johnson on behalf of others similarly situated that challenged the company's alleged practice of forcing workers to get their final wages through a "pay kit" that contained an ATM card and three blank checks requiring an authorization number as violating the California Labor Code. The judge also conditionally certified a class for settlement purposes that consisted of anyone who was employed by Sunrise in California and received the pay kit upon separation between Dec. 31, 2010, and the date of the preliminary settlement approval. "The court further finds that plaintiff conducted sufficient investigation and research, and that she was able to reasonably evaluate her claims for purposes of settlement," the judge wrote in a short order. "Plaintiff has also provided the court with enough information about the nature and magnitude of the claims being settled, as well as the impediments to recovery, to make an independent assessment of the reasonableness of the terms to which the parties have agreed." Johnson filed her suit in December 2014 in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that the putative class members didn't receive all wages due upon termination, that Sunrise Senior Living Management didn't provide the putative members with a legally sufficient pay stub upon termination, and that the use of the ATM card pay kit violated the California Labor Code. Sunrise Senior Living Management had asserted various defenses, including that the pay kit wasn't unlawful because the employees had the choice between the ATM card and the blank checks and because the workers allegedly could obtain all funds immediately without incurring any fees, according to court documents. The company eventually removed the action, but in June 2015 the case was remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, according to court documents, before eventually landing in federal court. The court eventually dismissed Johnson's third cause of action to the extent it alleged claims for penalties under the California Labor Code, according to court documents. Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment on May 4. Johnson is represented by Timothy B. McCaffrey Jr. -- tbm@cmlegal.com -- and Natasha R. Chesler -- nrc@cmlegal.com -- of Chesler McCaffrey LLP. Sunrise Senior Living Management is represented by Michele L. Maryott -- mmaryott@gibsondunn.com -- Dustin G. May -- dmay@gibsondunn.com -- Jason C. Schwartz -- jschwartz@gibsondunn.com -- and Anna M. McKenzie -- amckenzie@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. The case is Janee Johnson v. Sunrise Senior Living Management Inc. et al, case number 2:16-cv-00443, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] SUNRUN INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrun Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Sunrun stock on the open market from September 16, 2015 through May 2, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sunrun failed to adequately disclose how many customers canceled contracts after signing up for Sunrun's home-solar energy system; (2) discovery of such conduct would subject Sunrun to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential civil sanctions; and (3) as a result, Sunrun's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 3, 2017, The Wall Street Journal reported that Sunrun was the subject of a SEC probe and according to a person familiar with the investigation, "[t]he SEC recently issued a subpoena to Sunrun and interviewed current and former employees about the adequacy of its disclosures on account cancellations." On this news, shares of Sunrun fell USD0.46 per share or over 8% to close at USD4.75 per share on May 3, 2017, damaging investors. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than July 3, 2017. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- or -- gegleston@gme-law.com SUNRUN INC: Faces Class Action, July 3 Lead Plaintiff Deadline -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on May 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Sunrun Inc. ("Sunrun" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:RUN) and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 17-cv-02537, is on behalf of a class consisting of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Sunrun securities, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Sunrun securities between September 16, 2015 and May 2, 2017, both dates inclusive, you have until July 3, 2017 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Sunrun Inc. engages in the design, development, installation, sale, ownership, and maintenance of residential solar energy systems in the United States. The Company markets and sells its products through direct channels, partner channels, mass media, digital media, canvassing, referral, retail, and field marketing. Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Sunrun failed to adequately disclose how many customers canceled contracts after signing up for the Company's home-solar energy system; (ii) discovery of the foregoing conduct would subject the Company to heightened regulatory scrutiny and potential civil sanctions; and (iii) as a result, Sunrun's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 3, 2017, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "SEC Probes Solar Companies Over Disclosure of Customer Cancellations," reporting that the Company was the subject of a probe initiated by the SEC. The Wall Street Journal reported that, according to a person familiar with the investigation, "[t]he SEC recently issued a subpoena to Sunrun and interviewed current and former employees about the adequacy of its disclosures on account cancellations." On this news, Sunrun's share price fell $0.46, or 8.83%, to close at 4.75 on May 3, 2017. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. [GN] SUNSHINE RESTAURANT: "Littlejohn" Suit Seeks OT Wage Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA LITTLEJOHN and SAS STEIN, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. SUNSHINE RESTAURANT MERGER SUB, LLC and SUNSHINE RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC, together d/b/a IHOP, the Defendants, Case No. 0:17-cv-60810-BB (S.D. Fla., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks declaratory relief; overtime compensation for all overtime work required, suffered, or permitted by SRP; liquidated and/or other damages and penalties as permitted by applicable law; benefits recoverable under applicable law; interest; and attorneys' fees and costs. SRP employs exempt-classified Assistant Managers (AMs) and Managers in Training (MITs) at its restaurants. MITs include all employees participating in Defendants' management training program, regardless of the specific position the employee assumed after training. SRP unlawfully classifies all of its AMs and MITs as exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the FLSA. SRP has willfully refused to pay AMs and MITs, including Plaintiffs, required overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. According to its website, SRP operates "over 150 restaurants in Florida and four restaurants in southern Georgia."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Alan L. Quiles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447 8888 Facsimile: (561) 447 8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com SURFSTITCH: Faces Second Shareholders' Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Sue Mitchell, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports that online surf and skate wear retailer SurfStitch is facing its second class action from shareholders who lost money when its share price was wiped out by a series of profit downgrades and ill-advised acquisitions. Vannin Capital, one of the largest litigation funders in the world, has engaged Sydney law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan to file a $100 million class action claim against SurfStitch in the Queensland Supreme Court. The claim is on behalf of shareholders who saw the value of their shares plunge 90 per cent, from around $1.85 to 18.5õ between August 2015 and June 2016, slashing its market value by $500 million. Last June, Melbourne law firm Gadens said it was considering a class action on behalf of shareholders who bought shares in SurfStitch's $83 million initial public offering in December 2014. SurfStitch shares, issued at $1.00, had fallen to 48õ by May 2016 after the company issued a profit warning. Gadens said SurfStitch may have breached its continuous disclosure obligations and failed to keep all shareholders properly informed after co-founder and former chief executive Justin Cameron resigned unexpectedly in March 2016, triggering a chain of events that wiped almost $500 million off the company's market value. Vannin Capital's director of investments Pip Murphy said on May 3 the class action claim would allege that SurfStitch breached its disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct, contravening the Corporations Act 2001 and ASX listing rules, in relation to announcements made to the market concerning a series of acquisitions. Vannin said the claim, believed to be the first shareholder class action under the Supreme Court of Queensland's new class action rules, would be lodged shortly. Quinn Emanuel Partner Damian Scattini -- damianscattini@quinnemanuel.com -- alleged that SurfStitch made a series of "bad deals" for the primary purpose of disguising a shortfall in revenue. "When the rug was finally lifted, the market saw what was underneath and the SurfStitch share price collapsed into that hole," he said. Shareholders who bought shares between August 2015 and June 2016 may be entitled to participate in the class action, he said. SurfStitch shares are now trading around 12.5õ - well below the 20õ a share purportedly offered by digital publisher Kim Sundell's Coastalcoms Group last year. SurfStitch sold Garage Entertainment, a company which makes action-sports films and videos, to Madman Group for a nominal sum after writing down goodwill by $12.5 million last year. Garage was one of five over-priced media and content acquisitions made by Mr Cameron in an attempt to turn SurfStitch into the Amazon Prime of the action sports world. Between December 2014, when the company floated, and December 2015, the online retailer outlaid more than $120 million in cash and shares on five acquisitions, including $24 million for Surf Hardware International, $21 million for Stab, an online surf content platform, Magicseaweed and Rollingyouth, a user-generated surf forecasting network, and $15 million for Garage Entertainment, SurfStitch is being sued by Coastalcoms over a failed content deal and has launched claims and counter claims in the Queensland courts, alleging Coastalcoms conspired with Mr Cameron to enter into contracts designed to inflate revenues and profits. As a result of these contracts, $20.3 million included as revenue in the first half of 2016 had to be reversed in the full-year accounts, contributing to SurfStitch's $155 million bottom-line loss. Mr Scattini said SurfStitch's legal claim against Coastalcoms would make it difficult for the company to defend the class action. "It makes it difficult for them to say these things didn't happen," he said. "I think it's a meritorious case. Their conduct was pretty outrageous and the losses are substantial -- that's what the class action regime is for." [GN] SYNCHRONOSS TECHNOLOGIES: Lundin Files Securities Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Lundin Law PC, a shareholder rights firm, disclosed the filing of a class action lawsuit against Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. concerning possible violations of federal securities laws between December 6, 2016 through April 26, 2017 inclusive. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the firm in advance of the June 30, 2017 lead plaintiff motion deadline. To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com. No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member. According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Synchronoss made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that the Company would not be able to meet revenue guidance provided to investors; that Synchronoss would need to revise its prior guidance; and that as a result of the above, the Company's statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Upon release of this news, shares of Synchronoss lowered in value materially, which harmed investors according to the Complaint. Lundin Law PC was established by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights. TENNESSEE: Judge Grants Class Status to Inmates' Hep C Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Dave Boucher at The Tennessean reports that thousands of Tennessee inmates suffering from a hepatitis C epidemic in state prisons are one step closer to receiving life-saving medication currently provided to a select few. U.S. District Chief Judge Waverly Crenshaw granted class action status on May 4 to a lawsuit filed by two state inmates against the Tennessee Department of Correction. That means that every current or future inmate infected with the potentially deadly liver disease could be in line to receive better treatment. The lawsuit, filed by inmates Charles Graham and Russell Davis, calls on the department to provide medication that can treat hepatitis C to every infected Tennessee inmate, a move experts believe would drastically cut down on the spread of the disease inside and outside of prison but could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars. "Judge Crenshaw's order is the first victory for plaintiffs in their larger legal battle to ultimately force the Department of Correction to diagnose and treat inmates suffering from hepatitis C according to universally accepted minimum medical standards," said Karla Campbell, the lead attorney representing the inmates in the case. Almost every infected inmate is not receiving treatment The department fought the class action status, saying by denying access to the costly but effective medication that they were not violating constitutional rights to care. They also note that there is a treatment protocol established by the state, and that in some cases people with hepatitis C do not require medication in order to overcome the disease. But a 2016 investigation from The Tennessean showed the many shortcomings of the department's policies and the staggering number of inmates suffering who received no medical treatment. In April 2016, the investigation found 3,487 inmates suffering from hepatitis C, while only eight were receiving treatment. As of November, at least 3,669 inmates suffered from hepatitis C with seven undergoing the best available treatment. Experts suspect the real number of infected inmates could be much higher, because the department doesn't test every inmate entering their facilities. There are medicines available that can cure almost every patient, but the regimens can cost USD80,000 or more per person. The department countered that they were offering treatment because they were drawing blood. A national expert told The Tennessean their efforts did not meet standards of treatment. Crenshaw disagreed with the department's defenses, noting the arguments didn't apply to a class action determination. The decision to grant class action status has less to do with the actual merits of the case, but rather whether there is an argument that many people in similar situations should be treated together in the lawsuit. "Plaintiffs are not simply disagreeing with a doctor's course of treatment for a particular person. They are attacking TDOC's statewide policies and procedures applicable to all inmates with hepatitis C," Crenshaw wrote. Department spokeswoman Alison Randgaard said it would be inappropriate to comment on the class certification because the lawsuit is pending. "The department is committed to providing the community standard of care to all inmates," Randgaard said. More money for treatment still up in the air The ACLU of Tennessee and advocacy organization Disability Rights Tennessee are also on the inmates' legal team. Both heralded the judge's decision. "This class certification reinforces the major impact this case has on public health in Tennessee as a whole. The vast majority of Tennesseans in state custody will eventually be released, making both treatment and a failure to treat a public health issue," said Disability Rights Tennessee attorney Liz Logsdon in a news release. Jeannie Alexander, a former prison chaplain and current leader of advocacy organization No Exceptions Prison Collective, said the class action status is another signal that the department needs to pay more attention to the quality of life for the thousands of men and women in their care. "Over and over again, there are issues with health care, there are issues with conditions brought to the attention of department of corrections, and brought to the attention of politicians. But when those cries for help fall on deaf ears, and individuals who have the power to changes things won't do so, we're going to make sure they have to provide that health care. That's the bottom line," Alexander said. In late 2016, Department Commissioner Tony Parker asked for USD4 million in additional money to combat hepatitis C. However, Gov. Bill Haslam only funded half of that request. Lawmakers are still jockeying to determine final budget figures for next year. [GN] U.S. STEEL: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Shareholder rights law firm Johnson & Weaver, LLP disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all purchasers of United States Steel Corporation common stock during the period between November 1, 2016 and April 25, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Defendants are United States Steel Corporation, Mario Longhi, and David B. Burritt. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from today. If you wish to discuss this action, have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights or interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please include your phone number. If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.johnsonandweaver.com. Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, U.S. Steel made materially false and misleading statements regarding its outlook and expected financial performance. The complaint alleges that the true facts, which were known by defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows: (a) While the Company was implementing its Carnegie Way program, it was focused on cutting costs and was not making investments necessary to position U.S. Steel so that it could respond to improved market conditions; (b) Defendants' failure to invest in improving capital assets during the industry downturn, in order to report apparent financial improvements, meant that U.S. Steel had higher production costs than its competitors, even in the face of improved pricing, which would negatively impact its financial results; (c) Defendants were forestalling expensive capital equipment upgrades in order to boost the Company's short- term financial results at the expense of long-term financial performance, leaving U.S. Steel in need of accelerated, costly equipment upgrades that would leave the Company years away from generating improved financial performance; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' statements regarding the Company's outlook and expected financial performance were false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis when made. The complaint alleges that as a result of defendants' false statements and material omissions, U.S. Steel stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, and that after the above revelations were revealed to the market, the price of U.S. Steel stock declined significantly as the artificial inflation was removed. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of U.S. Steel's common stock during the Class Period. Contact: Johnson & Weaver, LLP Jim Baker Tel: 619-814-4471 E-mail: jimb@johnsonandweaver.com About Johnson & Weaver Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, and Georgia. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonandweaver.com.Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. [GN] UNITED KINGDOM: Government Faces Class Suit on Air Pollution ------------------------------------------------------------ Sandra Laville and Anushka Asthana at The Guardian reports that lawyers are taking a class action against the government over its repeated failures to clean up illegal levels of air pollution, the Guardian can reveal, as ministers publish a long-awaited plan to reduce diesel emissions. The unprecedented legal challenge on behalf of asthma sufferers could see ministers paying out significant compensation for allowing the nation's air to exceed legal limits for so long. The government is expected to publish its new air quality plan at midday on April 5 after key local election results have been announced, with a targeted diesel scrappage scheme to cut down on harmful nitrogen dioxide. The strategy will outline ways that central government can support local councils to draw up their own plans, with some expected to be asked to consider charging for the use of polluting vehicles. However, sources said there was no need for all local authorities to use charging and insisted there would be a focus on avoiding anything that might "punish" motorists. Levels of nitrogen dioxide, primarily from diesel traffic, have been at illegal levels in almost 90% of urban areas in the UK since 2010. The government has had a string of humiliating defeats in the courts over its failure to clean up the nation's air -- the latest of which when a high court judge said the continued delays were "a significant threat to public health". He ordered the publication of the new air quality plan by Tuesday. Nitrogen dioxide causes 23,500 of the 40,000 premature deaths caused by air pollution each year, according to the government's own data. In April last year MPs said air pollution was a public health emergency. One move will be to support councils in retro-fitting old buses, which are highly polluting. There will also be a focus on the way that traffic lights can be used to reduce emissions around particular junctions. The Guardian understands that the document will probably name about two dozen locations around the country where "active intervention" is required in order to tackle air pollution problems,. The new list will include Manchester and some unexpected places such as Doncaster, Southend and even the New Forest. Sources said the areas had not been added because of widespread problems but because of localised issues, which are limited to a single junction in some cases. Theresa May said last month that she was "very conscious" that motorists had been encouraged to purchase diesel vehicles when worries were centred on carbon emissions. Some of the biggest issues are in London where the mayor, Sadiq Khan, will be taking action. The legal challenge being brought on behalf of asthma sufferers could see ministers paying out significant compensation for allowing the air pollution to exceed legal limits for so long. Frances Lawson, the barrister who is leading the class action, said: "We are looking to bring a state liability claim against the UK government on the basis that it is in breach of an EU directive and that people have suffered as a result of that breach. "The fact that the UK is in breach of the air quality directive is well established. We believe we can show that people in polluted areas like London are suffering from the symptoms of asthma in part because of excessive levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air they are forced to breathe. "The public has had seven years of excuses from government while the medical evidence about the health impacts of air pollution strengthens all the time. The government has not addressed this issue with the requisite urgency and people are suffering as a result." Dr Claire Holman, an expert in air pollution, who has produced a report to support the class action, said: "I believe there is good, strong evidence that exposure to nitrogen dioxide, both in the long and short term, causes adverse health impacts, particularly on children. "The evidence is strong that nitrogen dioxide pollution causes asthma as well as exacerbating the symptoms where asthma is already present." The Guardian and Greenpeace revealed last month that more than 2,000 schools and nurseries across the country were within 150 metres of a road where nitrogen dioxide levels exceeded the legal limit of 40 ug/m3. Chris Griffiths, professor of primary care and public health at Bart's and the London School of Medicine, said the research on the impact of exposure to traffic fumes was pretty consistent, including include reduced lung growth in children, long-term ill health and premature death. In 2015, the supreme court told ministers it must act to tackle illegal levels of air pollution in the "shortest possible time" after the environmental group ClientEarth took the government to court. ClientEarth took the government back to court last year and a judge ruled that its plans to create five clean air zones in cities across the country were so bad they were illegal. He gave the government until 24 April this year to come up with a new plan, but ministers attempted to delay publication of the policy once more until after the general election on 8 June. Ministers have not denied a leak of the new draft policy which suggested they would introduce a targeted diesel scrappage system. But the plans do not appear to include mandating local authorities to impose pollution taxes on drivers of dirty vehicles -- something which may not satisfy the high court. [GN] US AIRWAYS: Baggage Fee Class Action Suit Reinstated ---------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald at Business Insurance reports a federal appeals court has reinstated a putative class action lawsuit filed by an airline passenger seeking reimbursement of her baggage fee after her luggage was not returned to her until the following day. Hayley Hickcox-Huffman bought a ticket on US Airways to fly from Colorado Springs, Colorado, to San Luis Obispo, California, in 2009 and checked one bag, paying a USD15 fee, according to April 3's ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco in Hayley Hickcox-Huffman v. US Airways Inc.; US Airway Group Inc. Her bag did not show up on the baggage carousel and US Airways, which has since merged with Fort Worth, Texas-based American Airlines Inc., delivered it the next day. Ms. Hickcox-Huffman filed a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in San Jose to get her USD15 back, claiming breach of contract, among other charges. The District Court dismissed her case on the basis her claim was preempted by 1978's Airline Deregulation Act, and Ms. Hickox- Huffman appealed. A unanimous three-judge 9th Circuit panel reinstated the case, holding the deregulation act did not apply. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's 1995 ruling in American Airlines Inc. v. Wolens, "The states may not impose their own rules regarding fares, routes, or services, but may afford relief for breaches of obligations the airlines voluntarily undertook themselves, even when the obligations directly relate to fares, routes, and services," the ruling said. "Because Hickcox-Huffman's claim is for breach of contract of a voluntarily assumed contractual undertaking, and she pleads breach of contract, the claim is not pre-empted by the Airline Deregulation Act as construed by Wolens," said the panel, in reinstating the case and remanding it for further proceedings. [GN] WARSAW, IN: "Williams" Suit Seeks Wages & OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------- DAVID WILLIAMS, Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WARSAW (IN.) COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION, DAVID HOFFERT, Individually, BRANDON PENROD, Individually, JAMIE CORSON, Individually, and CHERYL COOK, Individually, the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00181 (N.D. Ind., Apr. 25, 2017), seeks to recover wages for "hours worked" and overtime, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiff, and similarly situated individuals, have all worked for the Defendant at least three years prior to the filing of the instant action in the capacities of school bus drivers/shuttle drivers, transporting school children from their respective bus stops/homes, to school as school-related activities, and returning them to their respective bus stops/homes. The Complaint relates that the Plaintiff and his nonexempt coworkers are required by WCSD agents to "work" prior to driving the bus to conduct pre-trip and post-trip inspections and to determine the barn vehicle is safe to embark on trips, and cleaned upon return to the "barn". They are not paid for this "work. Rather than being paid by a time clock/timesheet, Defendants have pre-ordained/pre-set amounts of money (wages) the drivers are paid, regardless of the amount of time they work in a day or week that they enter on a "Driver Weekly Log Time" sheet. Moreover, Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals are "engaged to wait" for a school activity to begin and end, but are not paid for such time.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Loren K. Allison, Esq. 1214 Park Ave. Fort Wayne, IN 46807 Telephone: 260.466 5205 E-mail: info@lkallison.com WELLS FARGO: Counsel Struggles to Defend Bank Scandal ----------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Iovino at Courthouse News reports a federal judge May 4 appeared skeptical of Wells Fargo's claim that its board of directors was unaware of the scope of the phony accounts scandal that already has cost the bank more than USD300 million in penalties for the misconduct. During a hearing on a motion to dismiss a shareholder class action, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar appeared to reject arguments that a December 2013 article in the Los Angeles Times could not have put the board on notice about the widespread nature of the bank's bogus accounts scandal. "I find it very difficult to read this article and conclude the conduct was geographically limited and not about the unauthorized opening of accounts," Tigar said. Wells Fargo attorney Brendan Cullen, Esq. -- cullenb@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP said one could read the article and conclude the problem was limited to Los Angeles and Orange counties, and there was nothing inherently illegal about the company's practice of encouraging employees to cross-sell multiple products to customers. Cullen added that even though former CEO and Chairman of the Board John Stumpf discussed the L.A. Times article with board members at a meeting, it is not known exactly what he said there. Tigar replied: "I'm having trouble imagining Mr. Stumpf telling the board about the L.A. Times article and saying it's good news." Wells Fargo is asking the judge to dismiss the class action from shareholders who claim the board of directors breached its fiduciary duty by failing to stop a scandal that has cost the bank more than USD300 million in fines and settlements and potentially billions more in lost revenue. Wells Fargo paid USD185 million in September 2016 to settle claims that its employees opened some 2.1 million unauthorized accounts, sometimes forging customers' signatures, to meet aggressive sales quotas. The bank said it has ended its sales quota program, clawed back USD75 million from two former top executives, and agreed to pay another USD32 million for the sham accounts scandal. The shareholders say the board was put on notice about the scandal by "numerous red flags," including warnings from employees, prior litigation, internal reports, investigations by regulators, and the L.A. Times article of 2013. But John Cove, Esq. -- jcove@shearman.com -- of Shearman & Sterling LLO representing the board's independent directors, said the bank's charter includes an exculpatory clause that protects its directors from liability unless they are found to have acted in bad faith or engaged in intentional misconduct. Because the charter falls under the jurisdiction of the Delaware's corporation laws, the plaintiffs must allege "a particular factual allegation," that the board knew of the conduct and did nothing, Cove said. "The complaint is absolutely devoid of any inference that they knew the company wasn't doing anything about it or that the controls were inadequate," Cove told the judge. Representing the shareholders, Richard Heimann, Esq. of Lieff Caresser Heimann & Bernstein said the board had been on notice for years about its employees' illegal conduct, stemming from the bank's very public strategy to maximize profits. "It comes down to whether the totality of circumstances give rise to a reasonable inference that the board would have been made aware," Heimann said. The class attorney pointed out that the 2013 Times article detailing how the bank's sales quotas pushed employees to break the law was based on interviews with seven employees and 28 former employees, from nine states. Heimann said "no reasonable board member" could have believed the problem was limited to Southern California, or that adequate controls were in place, given the revelations in that article, a steady stream of lawsuits, regulatory investigations and internal complaints from employees. After about an hour of debate, Tigar took the arguments under submission. Cullen is with Sullivan & Cromwell in Palo Alto; Cove with Shearman & Sterling; and Heimann with Lieff Caresser Heimann & Bernstein, both of San Francisco. In the September 2016 class action, lead plaintiff Victoria Shave claimed the bank lost USD19 billion in stock value within eight days of Sept. 8, 2016, when it paid USD185 million to settle claims of misconduct. A consulting firm concluded in October that the bank could lose USD212 billion in deposits and USD8 billion in revenue over the next 18 months because of the scandal, according to Forbes. Wells Fargo announced in March that it had opened 42 percent fewer checking accounts and had 55 percent fewer credit-card applications in February this year, compared to February 2016. [GN] WESCO AIRCRAFT: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "White" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Khayyam White, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. WESCO Aircraft Hardware Corp. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC658654 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 21, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay hourly-paid and non-exempt employees for all hours worked, missed meal periods and rest breaks. WESCO Aircraft Hardware Corp. distributes aerospace products and provides supply chain management services to the aerospace industry globally. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com Y&D MEAT: Faces "Zepeda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------- Jose T. Zepeda and Heber J. Zepeda, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. David Oberman, Yossi "Doe," Shlomo "Doe," and Y&D Meat Corporation d/b/a Y&D Meat, Case No. 507766/2017 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 20, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a butcher shop located at 5314 16th Avenue, Ste. 140 Brooklyn, New York 11204. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq. Thomas H. Andrykovitz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN 501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1900 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-8999 Facsimile: (212) 949-5085 * CBA President & CEO Comments on Senate Bill 33 ------------------------------------------------ Simone Lagomarsino, president & CEO of the California Bankers Association, in an article for Sacramento Bee, says that an editorial in the Bee, "Wells Fargo needs to back bill to allow suits" (April 24), was strongly supportive of Senate Bill 33, a measure that seeks to promote class action lawsuits where trial attorneys, not consumers, are the winners. SB 33 is not a narrowly tailored proposal. Instead, it applies to "financial institutions," a term so broadly defined to include any business that engages in financial activities, including insurance, and which is why more than 30 wide-ranging business trade associations strongly oppose this measure. Under this bill, arbitration would be prohibited not only if a relationship with a consumer was created fraudulently, but also if the relationship was created by unlawfully using the consumer's personal identifying information. Ms. Lagomarsino says "We believe that this measure will prompt a wide range of claims used to defeat otherwise valid arbitration agreements. We continue to believe that arbitration is a better alternative to class action litigation that enriches trial attorneys and ultimately fails to benefit the consumer." The Bee also noted that this bill was even more important given that President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order that "stepped toward dismantling" the Dodd-Frank Act. In fact the order merely requested that the Treasury Department review the Dodd-Frank Act's orderly liquidation authority and its process for designating nonbanks as systemically important financial institutions. "Our association is on record advocating for meaningful reform, not repeal, of Dodd-Frank, so that our community banks aren't crushed by a one-size-fits-all regulatory system. Dodd-Frank has resulted in more than 20,000 pages of new regulations -- why shouldn't we pause to ensure they are having the intended impact and not negatively impacting our banking community's ability to serve and meet the needs of their local businesses and communities?" Ms. Lagomarsino says. "Banks are the pillars of our communities. We support more than $130 billion of California's economic output, employ hundreds of thousands of Californians and contribute more than $100 million to charities annually. We understand the need for and can support legislation that provides actual needed consumer protection -- but not legislation that only purports to do so." [GN] * Class Action Securities Litigation Hits New High in Q1 2017 ------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald at Business Insurance reports that the heighted pace of f ederal securities class action litigation reported for 2016 continued during this year's first quarter, says a survey issued on May 4. Plaintiffs filed a record 127 federal class action securities cases during the first quarter, which was almost twice the 64 filed in 2016's first quarter, according to a report issued by Boston-based Cornerstone Research and Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse in Stanford, California. They previously reported a record 270 filings in 2016. The report said all industry sectors showed markedly increased activity. Litigation activity, though, has been particularly notable in the biotech, pharmaceuticals and health care sectors, increasing to 36 in the first quarter of 2017 compared with 15 during 2016's first quarter, according to the report. [GN] * "Class Action" Mulled Against Conveyancing Solicitors ------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Clover, Esq. -- sarah.clover@clydeco.com -- Tony Nurse- Marsh, Esq. -- tony.nurse-marsh@clydeco.com -- and Philip Evans, Esq. -- philip.evans@clydeco.com -- of Clyde & Co LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that recent press, television and radio coverage has raised the potential for litigation against conveyancing solicitors for allegedly failing properly to advise large numbers of clients about onerous ground rent clauses contained in leasehold contracts. The leases in question are said to relate to new build properties sold since 2007 with high ground rents which can double every 10 or 25 years, or are linked to the rate of inflation. These expensive ground rent clauses are also said to render the properties difficult to sell. Leasehold Law, an ABS, is understood to be seeking to sign up potential claimants for 'group litigation' against the conveyancing solicitors involved, with one report alleging that solicitors' liability could exceed GBP500 million. However, it is currently unclear what stage the potential claimants are at and how such claims, or litigation, would be funded. This is also not a new issue, or the first time that concerns about onerous ground rents have been raised in the legal, housing and parliamentary sphere. In recent years, there has been criticism of a number of major developers, one of which has apparently made a considerable provision in its accounts to compensate customers. Prospects of the Court granting a Group Litigation Order ("GLO") The procedural rules for group litigation are covered by Part 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). Group litigation proceedings, in contrast to the US "class action" procedure, must be brought on an opt-in basis, so claimants must actively choose to take part should they wish to receive a share of any damages recovered. The Court has discretion whether to grant a GLO and would only do so to provide for the effective case management of claims which give rise to "common or related issues of fact or law" (CPR 19.10). Accordingly, until the facts and details of the claims and parties are known there is no certainty that litigation would proceed under a GLO, assuming that the Professional Negligence Pre-Action Protocol did not resolve the issues first. It is also noteworthy that claimants or defendants may apply to the Court for a GLO, or the Court may make an order of its own initiative. Alternatives to a GLO In the case of Hobson v Ashton Morton Slack Solicitors [2006] EWHC 1134 (Admin), the Court dismissed the claimants' application for a GLO on the basis that insufficient consideration had been given to pursuing a more cost efficient means of resolving the dispute, such as a 'test case' or 'consolidation' (which is also predicated on effective case management with claimants being permitted to use a single claim form to start all claims). It had not been demonstrated that either method was inappropriate or inaccessible and no group litigation issue had been sufficiently or precisely identified. More recently, Schmitt v DePuy International Ltd [2016] EWHC 638 (QB) (21 March 2016), was a product liability case involving a number of claims against the same manufacturer. Even though it was accepted that there were common or related issues of fact and law and a large enough group of claimants, the Court still concluded that it would be more appropriate to have a test case or for the claims to be consolidated. Challenges and benefits of GLOs or other "group action" Clearly the prospect of any type of group litigation, or claims, involving common facts, parties or practice can present unique challenges for solicitors and their insurers. Depending on the case, these can include issues of notification, aggregation and the coordination of claims amongst multiple or individual insureds. From our experience of advising on the defence of multiple claims, the likelihood of publicity is invariably a consequence, but effective case management through a GLO, or other group litigation procedure, can be beneficial for defendants and insurers, particularly in relation to coordination, outcomes and issues of costs. Defendants therefore have an opportunity to be proactive, at an early stage in the dispute resolution process, which could enable large numbers of claims to be dealt with far more efficiently. What next? Many claimant law firms or alternative business structures periodically seek to bring large numbers of very similar claims, arising from similar facts, where the alleged negligence arises from a common or repeated error. Whether such claims are of sufficient merit to overcome initial scrutiny and justify the pursuit of formal group litigation is always uncertain, with some potential actions falling at the first hurdle, and others being dismissed much later at great financial cost, even if a primary risk of a finding of, for example, breach of duty can be identified. Claimants must establish all of the elements of their cause of action in order to recover damages and as a result many test or lead cases fail. In relation to the recently reported matters, many of the potential claims may now be statute barred given the passage of almost a decade in some cases. Others may turn on the extent of the advice received, which parties were involved and whether the purchasers would always have gone ahead anyway, even before questions of actual loss come into play. In the immediate term, affected firms may have to deal with requests by former clients, or claims companies, for the release of files and will need to consider the nature of those requests carefully and how best to respond to them. Something more nuanced than a bland rejection of the request, or the wholesale provision of the file, is likely to be necessary and more prudent. We are therefore continuing to monitor developments in this area and will provide further updates in due course. [GN] * Ethan Preston Speaks Up Against Potential Damage of Bill 985 -------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that veteran attorney Ethan Preston knows the world of class actions very well. He's successfully represented thousands of people in consumer and small class action lawsuits as a Texas attorney through his firm Ethan Preston Law, where much of his focus is on consumer technology and consumer privacy cases. He now feels compelled to stand up for the rights of consumers in a slightly different way. He is speaking out against the potential damage the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017 could do to consumer rights. Sometimes referred to as Bill 985, it made its way through Congress on March 8, 2017 and is now awaiting consideration by the Judiciary Committee in Senate. "This bill shouldn't pass if you think that class actions and consumer litigation generally add any value to society," says Preston. Many trial attorneys, including Ethan Preston, believe class actions exist to ensure that consumers can aggregate their complaints in a broad based, meaningful way in a format that can hold big companies and corporate entities to account when necessary Mr. Preston, and others including the Centre for Public Justice, warn that should Bill 985 be signed into law it could dramatically change class action and change it in a way that is decidedly not friendly to consumers. "Bill 985 reads a lot like a wish list from the US Chamber of Commerce. From my perspective one of the biggest problems is section 1716 that basically says that you can only certify a class where all the members of the class have suffered the same type and scope of injuries," says Mr. Preston. That might not sound that bad but if you're a lawyer you realize just how limiting that could be. "In a stock fraud case that language suggests that everyone has to have the same damages," says Mr. Preston. "You might have to separate classes based, perhaps, on the number of shares an individual held. It becomes obviously unworkable." "In a consumer fraud situation it could mean, did you buy one bottle of fake peanut oil or did you buy two bottles?" says Mr. Preston. "It would prevent, from my perspective, any type of class certification from going forward except in extraordinarily, excruciatingly narrow situations." Bill 985 also seeks to have a class action member essentially prove that they are eligible to be part of the class action. That, argues, Ethan Preston, would require a lot of procedural work that would allow corporations to evade responsibility for their actions. For example, sometimes class actions are used to take on debt collectors that use illegal ways to collect money such as harassing people with late night phone calls. The Fair Debt Collection Act only covers people who borrowed money for personal use and not business use. If a class action was launched against an unfair debt collector under the new proposed bill people would have to first prove the money they owed was borrowed for personal use. "One of the arguments that debt collectors like to make is that they 'don't keep records as to what is personal use and what is not. They put them all together and we collect them all the same way'. "You would be unable to determine which is a personal debt without going to each member of the class and asking them whether the debt incurred was business or personal. You would never be able to certify a Fair Debt Collection Practices (FDCP) class action suit again because the debt collectors would throw out all the records identifying which is a personal debt or a business debt," says Mr. Preston. The Fairness in Class Action Litigation had its origin with lawmakers who argued that lawyers were unfairly profiting from class action suits while leaving little in the way of compensation leftover for the members of the class. Mr. Preston argues that just isn't true and the real intention of the Fairness in Class Actions Law 2017 is to prevent consumers from taking companies to court at all. Bill 985 is also trying to curtail the ability of class action suits to shift the burden of legal costs to the defendant. This is particularly important when the amount of money owed to the consumers is small. If the suit involved, for example, consumers being paid $10 for every harassing phone by debt collector the actual amount the total compensation per consumer would be tiny. The real deterrent is asking the courts to make the bad debt collector pay the attorney fees. "There are a number of consumer protection statutes that would be affected. These cases would no longer go forward as class actions because attorneys can't get paid. No one would take the case," says Preston. Bill 985 is being widely condemned by trial attorneys across the country. Although a previous version was brought forward several years ago and failed, attorneys for consumers and attorneys involved in class action suits believe that because the House and the Senate are now controlled by Republicans it may be possible for the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Bill 2017 to become law this time around and have a serious impact on consumer rights. Mr. Preston urges consumers to call their Senator and tell them to vote no! Their consumer's rights are on the line. [GN] Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid to Remand "Dugger" Denied ---------------------------------------------- In this products liability case captioned JOHN C. DUGGER, JR., as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOHN C. DUGGER, SR., et al. v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, as successor in interest to Buffalo Pumps, Inc., et al., Civil No. CCB-16-3912 (D. Md.), the estate of John C. Dugger and others have sued various manufacturers and distributors of asbestos-containing products and insurer Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. The plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on October 26, 2016. On December 7, 2016, one defendant -- Crane Co. -- removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court on January 6, 2017. Crane Co. responded, and the plaintiffs replied. No oral argument is necessary. Judge Catherine C. Blake of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland denied the plaintiffs' motion for remand. A full-text copy of the Memorandum dated May 5, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/UZAsid from Leagle.com. John Dugger, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos. John Dugger, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by James Edward Garland, Law Offices of Peter Angelos. Melody Natishin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of Peter Angelos. John Dugger, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of Peter Angelos. Dana Buzgierski, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of Peter Angelos. Rana Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of Peter Angelos. Matthew Dugger, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of Peter Angelos. Julia Dugger, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of Peter Angelos. To The Use of Sandra Dugger, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of Peter Angelos. To The Use of Sandra Dugger, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M. Cantor, Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos & James Edward Garland, Law Offices of Peter Angelos. John Crane-Houdaille, Inc., Defendant, represented by Leianne S. McEvoy, Miles and Stockbridge PC. E.L. Stebbing & Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Esq. -- lgrenzer@bodie-law.com -- Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. Hampshire Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by David W. Allen, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. Lloyd E. Mitchell, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason Richard Waters, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker & Helyna M. Haussler, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman and Dicker LLP. J.H. France Refractories Co., Defendant, represented by: Laura D. Abenes, Esq. GAVETT, DATT BARISH PC Metro Executive Park I 15850 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 330 Rockville, MD 20855-2675 Tel: 301-948-1177 Fax: 301-948-4334 The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Esq. -- tfroberts@Venable.com -- Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond, Esq. -- srichmond@Venable.com -- Venable LLP. MCIC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David J. Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC. Certainteed Corporation, Defendant, represented by Laura A. Cellucci, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Cooper Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Pfizer, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC. Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. The Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust, Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP. Crown, Cork and Seal Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Theodore F. Roberts, Venable LLP & Scott Mason Richmond, Venable LLP. Georgia-Pacific, LLC, Defendant, represented by Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Greene, Tweed & Co., Defendant, represented by Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla. Phelps Packing and Rubber Co., Defendant, represented by William Carlos Parler, Jr., Parler and Wobber LLP. Paramount Packing & Rubber, Inc, Defendant, represented by Laura D. Abenes, Gavett, Datt Barish PC. Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas B. Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Tate Engineering Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Frank F. Daily, III, Law Offices of Frank F. Daily PA. Keeler/Door-Oliver Boiler Company, Defendant, represented by Laura D. Abenes, Gavett, Datt Barish PC. Zurn Industries, LLC, Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. Weil-McLain, Defendant, represented by Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla. A.O. Smith Corporation, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC & Thomas L. Doran, DeCaro Doran Siciliano Gallagher and DeBlasis LLP. Burnham, LLC, Defendant, represented by Vincent J. Palmiotto, DeHay & Elliston, LLP & Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Riley Power, Inc, Defendant, represented by Vincent J. Palmiotto, DeHay & Elliston, LLP & Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Trane U.S. Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Jermaine Derville Haughton, Miles & Stockbridge P.C.. Superior Boiler Works, Defendant, represented by Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Crane Co., Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC & Rachelle A. Schofield, MacDonald Law Group, LLC. Honeywell International Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew R. Schroll, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by John C. Ruff, DeHay and Elliston LLP & Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Dale Klein, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut and Klein PA. Borgwarner Morse Tec, Inc., Defendant, represented by Pamela Thomas Broache, Goldberg Segalla. Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by Vincent J. Palmiotto, DeHay & Elliston, LLP & Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Ford Motor Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michelle Noorani, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. Friction Materials Inc., Defendant, represented by Neil Joseph MacDonald, MacDonald Law Group, LLC. Holman Enterprises, Inc., Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp., Defendant, represented by Robert Dale Klein, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut and Klein PA. Maremont Corporation, Defendant, represented by Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla. The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, Defendant, represented by Douglas B. Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Pneumo Abex Corporation, Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Parker-Hannifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Johanna Gibbon, Troutman Sanders LLP. Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Siobhan R. Keenan, Baxter Baker Sidle Conn and Jones PA. Standard Motor Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Johanna Gibbon, Troutman Sanders LLP. Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Warren N. Weaver, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP & Michelle Noorani, Whiteford Taylor and Preston LLP. Carlisle Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Quigg, Meringer Zois and Quigg LLC. Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Thomas Wharton, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut and Klein PA. Navistar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael Thomas Wharton, Wharton Levin Ehrmantraut and Klein PA. Kelsey-Hayes Co., Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. Mack Truck, Defendant, represented by Eric Michael Leppo, Semmes Bowen and Semmes PC. Paccar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla. Alfa Laval, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. Air and Liquid Systems Corporation, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. Carver Pump Co., Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. Copes-Vulcan, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Elliott Turbomachinery Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Steven Andrew Luxton, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. FMC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. The Gorman-Rupp Company, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. Goulds Pumps (IPG), Inc., Defendant, represented by Steven Andrew Luxton, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP. Howden Buffalo, Inc., Defendant, represented by Siobhan R. Keenan, Baxter Baker Sidle Conn and Jones PA. M.T. Davidson Co., Defendant, represented by Scott Hamilton Phillips, Semmes Bowen and Semmes PC. Eaton Hydraulics, Inc., Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. Viking Pump, Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. Warren Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Malcolm Sean Brisker, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP & Terri Lynn Goldberg, Goodell DeVries Leech and Dann LLP. BW/IP International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla. Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corporation, Defendant, represented by Scott J. McDowell, Goldberg Segalla LLP & Thomas Peter Bernier, Goldberg Segalla. Atwood & Morrill, Defendant, represented by Gerry H. Tostanoski, Tydings and Rosenberg LLP. Patterson Pump Company, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. Jerguson Gage & Valve Company, Defendant, represented by Robin Silver, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Velan Valve Corp., Defendant, represented by Anthony B. Taddeo, TaddeoSturm PLC & Louis E. Grenzer, Jr., Bodie, Dolina, Hobbs, Friddell & Grenzer, PC. Flowserve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas B. Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC, Jermaine Derville Haughton, Miles & Stockbridge P.C. & Michael L. Haslup, Miles and Stockbridge PC. Flowserve US Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas B. Pfeiffer, Miles and Stockbridge PC & Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. The William Powell Company, Defendant, represented by Patrick C. Smith, Dehay and Elliston LLP. GTE Products of Connecticut Corporation, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. Gorman-Rupp Company, Defendant, represented by F. Ford Loker, Jr., Miles and Stockbridge PC. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Deposition Denied in "Moore" ----------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Howell of the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Asheville Division, ordered that Plaintiffs' Request for Leave to Take Such Deposition will be denied without prejudice in the case captioned HOWARD MILTON MOORE, JR., and LENA MOORE, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, No. 1:16 CV 157 (W.D.N.C.). The Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Protective Order From the Second Videotaped Deposition of Howard Milton Moore and Request for Leave to take such Deposition. A full-text copy of the Order dated May 8, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/ItNihY from Leagle.com. Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice. Howard Milton Moore, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Janet Ward Black, Ward Black, P.A.. Lena Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin W. Paul, Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC, pro hac vice & Janet Ward Black, Ward Black, P.A.. Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller. AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Timothy W. Bouch, Leath Bouch Crawford & von Keller. General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jennifer M. Techman, Evert Weathersby Houff. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Keith E. Coltrain, Wall, Templeton & Haldrup, PA. Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by Moffatt G. McDonald, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, Scott E. Frick, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice, W. David Conner, Haynsworth, Sinkler, Boyd P.A., pro hac vice & Charles Monroe Sprinkle, III, Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, P.A.. 3M Company, Defendant, represented by Michael Casin Griffin, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. Domco Products Texas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Timothy Peck, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP. ASBESTOS UPDATE: No Live Trial Testimony in "Evans" --------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. JEANNE EVANS, as Executor for the Estate of FREDERICK EVANS JR. and JEANNE EVANS, As Spouse Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Docket No. 190109/2015, Motion Seq. No. 021 (N.Y. Sup.), Defendant Crane Co. moves for an Order to Show Cause for an order quashing the trial subpoena of Defendant Burnham, LLC, pursuant to CPLR Section 2304 and CPLR Section 3101(a)(4). Crane also seeks a protective order barring enforcement of the subpoena pursuant to CPLR Section 3103. Crane was dismissed from the case on April 5, 2017. Subsequently, a trial subpoena was served on counsel for Crane via personal service on or about April 12, 2017. The Trial Subpoena requests that Crane produce a person most knowledgeable to appear for trial, submit live testimony, and produce numerous voluminous documents, including Crane Co.'s historical sales records and catalogs, interrogatory responses, and several other items. Crane requests that the court quash Burnham's subpoena and order that Burnham may take no live trial testimony in this action from any Crane representative. The Supreme Court, New York County, ordered that Crane's application is granted and that Burnham may not take live trial testimony in this action from Crane. A full-text copy of the Decision & Order dated May 4, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/asN5eu from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Remands Suit vs. Welco for New Trial --------------------------------------------------------------- The estate of Ronnie Startley filed a complaint against Welco Manufacturing Company, claiming that asbestos from Welco's products caused Ronnie to contract mesothelioma. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of Welco, because no witness could specify how often Ronnie used Welco's products in his work. The Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division, found the evidence sufficient to create an issue of material fact as to whether use of Welco's products caused Ronnie to develop mesothelioma. The Appellate Court also held that Illinois law applies to the case, the estate presented sufficient evidence to show that Welco had a duty to warn users of the dangers of asbestos dust, and the estate presented sufficient evidence to show that the specific kinds of asbestos fiber found in Welco's products caused Ronnie to develop mesothelioma. Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment entered in favor of Welco and remanded for a new trial. The appeals case is Jo Ann STARTLEY, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Ronnie A. Startley, Deceased, and on Behalf of Their Children, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELCO MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, No. 1-15-3649 (Ill. App.). A full-text copy of the Opinion dated May 9, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/p2QzME from Leagle.com. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PNA Directed to Produce Corporate Rep ------------------------------------------------------ Plaintiffs, Pamela Coleman and Jody Coleman Nolte filed a Motion to Compel to Produce a Corporate Representative Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) filed by Defendant Pilkington North America, Inc., seeking to compel PNA to produce a corporate representative to testify regarding certain topics. PNA has filed an Opposition. Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel. Specifically, the court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to topic number 52. The court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to topic number 40 only to the extent this topics seeks information prior to 1972. The court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to topic numbers 12, 22, 32, 37, 38, 15, 25, and 35. The court denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to topic numbers 13, 17, 21, 23, 27, 14, 24, 34, 16, 26, 36, 18, 19, 20, and 45 to the extent these topics seek information for the time period following Decedent's employment at the Shreveport plant. The court grants Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to topic number 52. The case is WILLIAM D. COLEMAN, v. ANCO INSULATIONS, INC. ET AL., Civil Action No. 15-821-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La.). A full-text copy of the Ruling and Order dated May 8, 2017, is available at https://is.gd/ZBT1GD from Leagle.com. Pamela Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by Susannah B. Chester- Schindler, Waters & Kraus, LLP. Jody Coleman Nolte, Plaintiff, represented by Susannah B. Chester- Schindler, Waters & Kraus, LLP. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Susan M. Rogge, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC, H. Minor Pipes, III, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver LLC & Kimberly R. Silas, Barrasso Usdin Kupperman Freeman & Sarver, L.L.C.. Safety National Casualty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Chris James LeBlanc, Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, LLP & William Eugene Scott, III, Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, LLP. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company, Defendant, represented by Kristopher T. Wilson, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Katherine L. Osborne, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard. Pilkington North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Culp, Rasmussen Willis Dickey Moore, pro hac vice, Matthew S. Jensen, Rasmussen Willis Dickey & Moore, LLC, pro hac vice & Jane H. Barney, J.H. Barney Law Firm, LLC. Bedivere Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Samuel M. Rosamond, III, Taylor Wellons Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam D. deMahy & Angela Jacketti O'Brien, Louisiana Department of Justice - Office of Attorney General. ASBESTOS UPDATE: 8,000 Claims vs. FMC Corp. Pending at Dec. 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- FMC Corporation is still facing around 8,000 premises and product asbestos claims in several jurisdictions at December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Like hundreds of other industrial companies, we have been named as one of many defendants in asbestos-related personal injury litigation. Most of these cases allege personal injury or death resulting from exposure to asbestos in premises of FMC or to asbestos-containing components installed in machinery or equipment manufactured or sold by discontinued operations. "The machinery and equipment businesses we owned or operated did not fabricate the asbestos-containing component parts at issue in the litigation, and to this day, neither the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration nor the Environmental Protection Agency has banned the use of these components. Further, the asbestos-containing parts for this machinery and equipment were accessible only at the time of infrequent repair and maintenance. A few jurisdictions have permitted claims to proceed against equipment manufacturers relating to insulation installed by other companies on such machinery and equipment. We believe that, overall, the claims against FMC are without merit. "As of December 31, 2016, there were approximately 8,000 premises and product asbestos claims pending against FMC in several jurisdictions. Since the 1980s, approximately 113,000 asbestos claims against FMC have been discharged, the overwhelming majority of which have been dismissed without any payment to the claimant. Since the 1980s, settlements with claimants have totaled approximately US$80 million. "We intend to continue managing these asbestos-related cases in accordance with our historical experience. We have established a reserve for this litigation within our discontinued operations and believe that any exposure of a loss in excess of the established reserve cannot be reasonably estimated. Our experience has been that the overall trends in asbestos litigation have changed over time. Over the last several years, we have seen changes in the jurisdictions where claims against FMC are being filed and changes in the mix of products named in the various claims. Because these claim trends have yet to form a predictable pattern, we are presently unable to reasonably estimate our asbestos liability with respect to claims that may be filed in the future." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/MPbGoB ASBESTOS UPDATE: W.W. Grainger Still Defends PI Suits at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- W.W. Grainger, Inc. continues to defend itself against various personal injury lawsuits arising from alleged exposure to asbestos or silica, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. W.W. Grainger states, "The Company has been named, along with numerous other nonaffiliated companies, as a defendant in litigation in various states involving asbestos and/or silica. These lawsuits typically assert claims of personal injury arising from alleged exposure to asbestos and/or silica as a consequence of products purportedly distributed by the Company. "In 2016, the Company was named in new lawsuits relating to asbestos involving approximately 70 new plaintiffs, while lawsuits relating to asbestos and/or silica involving approximately 80 plaintiffs were dismissed with respect to the Company, typically based on the lack of product identification. "At December 31, 2016, the Company is named in cases filed on behalf of approximately 480 plaintiffs in which there is an allegation of exposure to asbestos and/or silica. The Company has denied, or intends to deny, the allegations in all of the lawsuits. If a specific product distributed by the Company is identified in any of these lawsuits, the Company would attempt to exercise indemnification remedies against the product manufacturer. "In addition, the Company believes that a substantial number of these claims are covered by insurance. The Company has entered into agreements with its major insurance carriers relating to the scope, coverage and costs of defense of lawsuits involving claims of exposure to asbestos. "While the Company is unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, it believes that the ultimate resolution will not have, either individually or in the aggregate, a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/wF8vlx ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaman Corp. Continue to Defend Suits at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kaman Corporation said in its Form 10-K filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016, that based on information currently available, it does not believe that the resolution of any currently pending asbestos-related matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company states, "Like many other industrial companies, the Company and/or one of its subsidiaries may be named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos integrated into certain products sold or distributed by the Company and/or the named subsidiary. A substantial majority of these asbestos-related claims have been covered by insurance or other forms of indemnity or have been dismissed without payment. The rest have been resolved for amounts that are not material to the Company, either individually or in the aggregate. "The Company has unrecorded Asset Retirement Obligation's ("AROs") that are conditional upon certain events. These AROs generally include the removal and disposition of non-friable asbestos. The Company has not recorded a liability for these conditional AROs at December 31, 2016, because the Company does not currently believe there is a reasonable basis for estimating a date or range of dates for major renovation or demolition of these facilities. In reaching this conclusion, the Company considered the historical performance of each facility and has taken into account factors such as planned maintenance, asset replacements and upgrades, which, if conducted as in the past, can extend the physical lives of the facilities indefinitely. The Company also considered the possibility of changes in technology and risk of obsolescence in arriving at its conclusion." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/ODA67t ASBESTOS UPDATE: Manitowoc Co Still Defends Suits at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ The Manitowoc Company, Inc., continues to defend itself against various asbestos-related lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "The Company is involved in numerous lawsuits involving asbestos-related claims in which the Company is one of numerous defendants. After taking into consideration legal counsel's evaluation of such actions, the current political environment with respect to asbestos related claims, and the liabilities accrued with respect to such matters, in the opinion of management, ultimate resolution is not expected to have a material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. "Our results of operations may be negatively impacted by product liability lawsuits. "Our business exposes us to potential product liability claims which may be alleged in connection with the design, manufacture, sale and use of our products. Certain of our businesses also have experienced claims relating to past alleged asbestos exposure. Neither we nor our affiliates have to date incurred material costs related to these asbestos claims. We vigorously defend ourselves against current claims and intend to do so against future claims. "We also maintain certain insurance policies which may limit our financial exposures. We do not believe the outcome of such matters will have an adverse effect on our financial position; however, any significant liabilities which are not covered by insurance could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operation and cash flows. Likewise, a substantial increase in the number of claims that are made against us or the amounts of any judgments or settlements could materially and adversely affect our reputation and our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/mH9OOS ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA LLC Faces 3,023 Trauma Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC, a subsidiary of MSA Safety Incorporated, is still facing 3,023 cumulative trauma product liability claims arising from exposures to harmful substances including asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states, "Our subsidiary, Mine Safety Appliances Company, LLC (MSA LLC) is presently named as a defendant in 1,794 cumulative trauma lawsuits comprised of 3,023 claims. Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis, mesothelioma, or coal worker's pneumoconiosis. "The products at issue were manufactured many years ago and are not currently offered by MSA LLC. Although we have reserved against the portion of claims outstanding, the reserve does not take into account all the currently pending coal dust claims against MSA LLC or any incurred but not reported (IBNR) claims, which losses could have a materially adverse effect on our business, operating results, financial condition and liquidity. Because litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and unfavorable rulings or developments could occur, there can be no certainty that MSA LLC may not ultimately incur charges in excess of presently recorded liabilities with respect to claims included within the existing reserve or related to claims not included in the reserve. "We will adjust the reserve for our liability relating to cumulative trauma claims from time to time based on the maturation of claims, developing facts and circumstances, and if actual experience is worse than previously projected. These adjustments may reflect changes in estimates for claims currently covered by the reserve, as well as estimated liabilities for claims not presently covered by the reserve and IBNR claims, in the event we become able to reasonably assess the probability and estimate the magnitude of potential losses. These adjustments may be material and could increase the year over year variability of our financial results." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://is.gd/NGzUck ASBESTOS UPDATE: Park-Ohio Has 103 Asbestos Suits at April 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. disclosed in a Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 17, 2017, that the Company, through several subsidiaries, is subject to various pending and threatened lawsuits in which claims for monetary damages are asserted in the ordinary course of business. The Company is a co-defendant in approximately 103 cases asserting claims on behalf of approximately 199 plaintiffs alleging personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos. Park-Ohio Holdings Corp. is a global, diversified industrial holding company providing integrated supply chain management services and engineered products. ASBESTOS UPDATE: PPG Industries Reports $3MM Settlement March 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- PPG Industries, Inc., reports asbestos settlement-net of $3 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 20, 2017. The Company also reported asbestos settlement under current liabilities of $831 million for the three months ended March 31, 2016. It notes that assets and liabilities of PPG's flat glass business were classified as held for sale as of March 31, 2016. The business was sold on October 1, 2016. PPG Industries, Inc., supplies products for the manufacturing, construction, automotive, chemical processing, and other industries worldwide. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Has $1.27BB Net Reserves at March 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc., reported net asbestos reserves of $1.27 billion at March 31, 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. The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos claims from the Company's policyholders (which includes others seeking coverage under a policy). Factors underlying these claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the continued focus by plaintiffs on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation. The focus on these defendants is primarily the result of the number of traditional asbestos defendants who have sought bankruptcy protection in previous years. In addition to contributing to the overall number of claims, bankruptcy proceedings may increase the volatility of asbestos- related losses by initially delaying the reporting of claims and later by significantly accelerating and increasing loss payments by insurers, including the Company. The bankruptcy of many traditional defendants has also caused increased settlement demands against those policyholders who are not in bankruptcy but remain in the tort system. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers. The Company continues to be involved in coverage litigation concerning a number of policyholders, some of whom have filed for bankruptcy, who in some instances have asserted that all or a portion of their asbestos-related claims are not subject to aggregate limits on coverage. In these instances, policyholders also may assert that each individual bodily injury claim should be treated as a separate occurrence under the policy. It is difficult to predict whether these policyholders will be successful on both issues. To the extent both issues are resolved in a policyholder's favor and other Company defenses are not successful, the Company's coverage obligations under the policies at issue would be materially increased and bounded only by the applicable per- occurrence limits and the number of asbestos bodily injury claims against the policyholders. Although the Company has seen a reduction in the overall risk associated with these lawsuits, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company but which could result in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated. There also may be instances where a court may not approve a proposed settlement, which may result in additional litigation and potentially less beneficial outcomes for the Company. As in the past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement opportunities. In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by individuals challenging insurers' conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. It is possible that the filing of other direct actions against insurers, including the Company, could be made in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs will be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims and has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions. The Company's quarterly asbestos reserve reviews include an analysis of exposure and claim payment patterns by policyholder category, as well as recent settlements, policyholder bankruptcies, judicial rulings and legislative actions. The Company also analyzes developing payment patterns among policyholders in the Home Office and Field Office, and Assumed Reinsurance and Other categories as well as projected reinsurance billings and recoveries. In addition, the Company reviews its historical gross and net loss and expense paid experience, year- by-year, to assess any emerging trends, fluctuations, or characteristics suggested by the aggregate paid activity. Conventional actuarial methods are not utilized to establish asbestos reserves nor have the Company's evaluations resulted in any way of determining a meaningful average asbestos defense or indemnity payment. Over the past decade, the property and casualty insurance industry, including the Company, has experienced net unfavorable prior year reserve development with regard to asbestos reserves, but the Company believes that over that period there has been a reduction in the volatility associated with the Company's overall asbestos exposure as the overall asbestos environment has evolved from one dominated by exposure to significant litigation risks, particularly coverage disputes relating to policyholders in bankruptcy who were asserting that their claims were not subject to the aggregate limits contained in their policies, to an environment primarily driven by a frequency of litigation related to individuals with mesothelioma. The Company's overall view of the current underlying asbestos environment is essentially unchanged from recent periods and there remains a high degree of uncertainty with respect to future exposure to asbestos claims. Because each policyholder presents different liability and coverage issues, the Company generally reviews the exposure presented by each policyholder at least annually. Among the factors which the Company may consider in the course of this review are: available insurance coverage, including the role of any umbrella or excess insurance the Company has issued to the policyholder; limits and deductibles; an analysis of the policyholder's potential liability; the jurisdictions involved; past and anticipated future claim activity and loss development on pending claims; past settlement values of similar claims; allocated claim adjustment expense; potential role of other insurance; the role, if any, of non-asbestos claims or potential non-asbestos claims in any resolution process; and applicable coverage defenses or determinations, if any, including the determination as to whether or not an asbestos claim is a products/completed operation claim subject to an aggregate limit and the available coverage, if any, for that claim. Net asbestos paid loss and loss expenses in the first quarter of 2017 were $58 million, compared with $37 million in the same period of 2016. Net asbestos reserves were $1.27 billion at March 31, 2017, compared with $1.77 billion at March 31, 2016. The Travelers Companies, Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a range of commercial and personal property, and casualty insurance products and services to businesses, government units, associations, and individuals in the United states and internationally. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Builders Firstsource Faces Asbestos Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Builders Firstsource, Inc., is involved in various claims including that related to asbestos in products manufactured and distributed, and services provided by the Company, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "We are involved in product liability, product warranty, casualty, construction defect, asbestos, vehicle and other claims relating to the products we manufacture and distribute, and services we provide that, if adversely determined, could adversely affect our financial condition, operating results, and cash flows. We rely on manufacturers and other suppliers to provide us with many of the products we sell and distribute. Because we have no direct control over the quality of such products manufactured or supplied by such third-party suppliers, we are exposed to risks relating to the quality of such products. In the fourth quarter of 2016, the Company has seen an increased occurrence of known and threatened legal claims, primarily related to construction defect type claims. We are also involved in several asbestos personal injury suits due to the alleged sale of asbestos-containing products by legacy businesses that we acquired. In addition, we are exposed to potential claims arising from the conduct of our respective employees and subcontractors, and builders and their subcontractors, for which we may be contractually liable. Although we currently maintain what we believe to be suitable and adequate insurance in excess of our self-insured amounts, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain such insurance on acceptable terms or that such insurance will provide adequate protection against potential liabilities. Product liability, product warranty, casualty, construction defect, asbestos, vehicle, and other claims can be expensive to defend and can divert the attention of management and other personnel for significant periods, regardless of the ultimate outcome. Claims of this nature could also have a negative impact on customer confidence in our products and our company. In addition, we are involved on an ongoing basis in other types of legal proceedings. We cannot assure you that any current or future claims against us will not adversely affect our financial condition, operating results and cash flows." Builders FirstSource, Inc. manufactures and supplies building materials, manufactured components, and construction services to professional contractors, sub-contractors, and consumers in the United States. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Faces 64 Asbestos Cases at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., faces 64 asbestos cases as of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and Pennsylvania. There were 64 asbestos cases pending as of December 31, 2016. Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is generally unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. As of December 31, 2016, the estimated range of the Company's loss on a pending claim was $0.2 million to $0.6 million and the accrued amount was $0.2 million. A table in https://is.gd/yadaUm sets forth information related to our historical product liability costs associated with the company's asbestos litigation. Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc. is a technology-based manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and systems with a real estate segment. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Faces 16 Asbestos, Tobacco Cases in Md. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector Group Ltd., is currently a defendant in 16 multi-defendant personal injury cases in Maryland that allege claims arising from asbestos and tobacco exposure, according to Vector's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The tobacco defendants, including Liggett, moved (or are in the process of moving) to dismiss the cases. In the past, motions to dismiss have generally been successful, typically resulting in the dismissal without prejudice of the tobacco company defendants. Recently, however, a Maryland intermediate appellate court ruled, in Stidham, et al. v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, et al., that dismissal of tobacco company defendants may not be appropriate where the asserted injury is based on both asbestos and tobacco exposure ("synergy cases"). In May 2016, the Court of Appeals for Maryland (Maryland's highest court) heard oral argument on the appeal of the intermediate appellate court's decision. In July 2016, the Court of Appeals ruled that joinder of tobacco and asbestos cases may be possible in certain circumstances, but plaintiffs must demonstrate at the trial court level how such cases may be joined while providing appropriate safeguards to prevent embarrassment, delay, expense or prejudice to defendants and "the extent to which, if at all, the special procedures applicable to asbestos cases should extend to tobacco companies." The Court of Appeals remanded these issues to be determined at the trial court level. It is possible that Liggett and other tobacco company defendants will not be dismissed from pending synergy cases, and may be named as defendants in asbestos-related personal injury actions in Maryland going forward, including approximately 20 additional synergy cases currently pending in Maryland state court. Vector Group Ltd., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes in the United States. The Company is also involved in the real estate business through its subsidiary. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liggett Continues to Defend "Parsons" at Dec. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Liggett Group LLC, a subsidiary of Vector Group Ltd., continues to defend itself in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class action raising personal injury claims for exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers, according to Vector's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. As of December 31, 2016, three actions were pending for which either a class had been certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification where Liggett is a named defendant. Other cigarette manufacturers are also named in these actions. One of these is Parsons v. AC & S Inc. In February 1998, in Parsons v. AC & S Inc., a purported class action was commenced on behalf of all West Virginia residents who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from exposure to cigarette smoke and asbestos fibers. The complaint seeks to recover $1,000 in compensatory and punitive damages individually and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the class. The case is stayed due to the December 2000 bankruptcy of three of the defendants. Vector Group Ltd., through its subsidiaries, manufactures and sells cigarettes in the United States. The Company is also involved in the real estate business through its subsidiary. ASBESTOS UPDATE: OfficeMax Liabilities Could be Significant ----------------------------------------------------------- OfficeMax Inc. warns that some liabilities, including that for asbestos, that it agreed to assume after the sale of its paper, forest products and timberland assets could turn out to be significant, according to Office Depot, Inc.'s Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. In connection with OfficeMax's sale of its paper, forest products and timberland assets in 2004, OfficeMax agreed to assume responsibility for certain liabilities of the businesses sold. These obligations include liabilities related to environmental, asbestos, health and safety, tax, litigation and employee benefit matters. The Company states: "Some of these retained liabilities could turn out to be significant, which could have an adverse effect on our results of operations. Our exposure to these liabilities could harm our ability to compete with other office products distributors, who would not typically be subject to similar liabilities." On November 5, 2013, Office Depot, Inc. merged with OfficeMax Incorporated. Office Depot currently operates under the Office Depot(TM) and OfficeMax(TM) brands and utilizes other proprietary company and product brand names, including Grand & Toy(TM) in Canada. Office Depot, Inc. is a global supplier of office products and services. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Albany Int'l. Faces 3,745 Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ Albany International Corp. is defending itself against 3,745 asbestos claims as of December 31, 2016, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The Company states: "Albany International Corp. is a defendant in suits brought in various courts in the United States by plaintiffs who allege that they have suffered personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products that we previously manufactured. We produced asbestos-containing paper machine clothing synthetic dryer fabrics marketed during the period from 1967 to 1976 and used in certain paper mills. Such fabrics generally had a useful life of three to twelve months. "We were defending 3,745 claims as of December 31, 2016." A table in https://is.gd/1SJWPt sets forth the number of claims filed, the number of claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved, and the aggregate settlement amount during the periods presented. "We anticipate that additional claims will be filed against the Company and related companies in the future, but are unable to predict the number and timing of such future claims. "Exposure and disease information sufficient to meaningfully estimate a range of possible loss of a particular claim is typically not available until late in the discovery process, and often not until a trial date is imminent and a settlement demand has been received. For these reasons, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to pending or future claims. "While we believe we have meritorious defenses to these claims, we have settled certain claims for amounts we consider reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. Our insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case and funded settlements under a standard reservation of rights. As of December 31, 2016, we had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 37,489 claims. The total cost of resolving all claims was $10.2 million. Of this amount, almost 100% was paid by our insurance carrier. The Company's insurer has confirmed that although coverage limits under two (of approximately 23) primary insurance policies have been exhausted, there still remains approximately $2.5 million in coverage limits under other applicable primary policies, and $140 million in coverage under excess umbrella coverage policies that should be available with respect to current and future asbestos claims. ASBESTOS UPDATE: Brandon Drying Faces 7,706 Claims at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------- Brandon Drying Fabrics, Inc., a subsidiary of Geschmay Corp., which is a subsidiary Albany International Corp., is also a separate defendant in many of the asbestos cases in which Albany is named as a defendant, according to Albany's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. Brandon was defending against 7,706 claims as of December 31, 2016. A table at https://is.gd/1SJWPt sets forth the number of claims filed, the number of claims settled, dismissed or otherwise resolved, and the aggregate settlement amount during the periods presented. The Company states: "We acquired Geschmay Corp., formerly known as Wagner Systems Corporation, in 1999. Brandon is a wholly owned subsidiary of Geschmay Corp. In 1978, Brandon acquired certain assets from Abney Mills ("Abney"), a South Carolina textile manufacturer. Among the assets acquired by Brandon from Abney were assets of Abney's wholly owned subsidiary, Brandon Sales, Inc. which had sold, among other things, dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent, Abney. Although Brandon manufactured and sold dryer fabrics under its own name subsequent to the asset purchase, none of such fabrics contained asbestos. Because Brandon did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and because it does not believe that it was the legal successor to, or otherwise responsible for obligations of Abney with respect to products manufactured by Abney, it believes it has strong defenses to the claims that have been asserted against it. As of December 31, 2016, Brandon has resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal, 9,900 claims for a total of $0.2 million. Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of the total indemnification and defense costs related to these proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights. The remaining 11.8% of the costs had been borne directly by Brandon. During 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover 100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy limits and the standard reservation of rights, and to reimburse Brandon for all indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to these proceedings. "For the same reasons with respect to Albany's claims, as well as the fact that no amounts have been paid to resolve any Brandon claims since 2001, we do not believe a meaningful estimate can be made regarding the range of possible loss with respect to these remaining claims. "In some of these asbestos cases, the Company is named both as a direct defendant and as the "successor in interest" to Mount Vernon Mills. We acquired certain assets from Mount Vernon in 1993. Certain plaintiffs allege injury caused by asbestos- containing products alleged to have been sold by Mount Vernon many years prior to this acquisition. Mount Vernon is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company against any liability arising out of such products. We deny any liability for products sold by Mount Vernon prior to the acquisition of the Mount Vernon assets. Pursuant to its contractual indemnification obligations, Mount Vernon has assumed the defense of these claims. On this basis, we have successfully moved for dismissal in a number of actions. "Although we do not believe, based on currently available information, that a meaningful estimate of a range of possible loss can be made with respect to such claims, based on our understanding of the insurance policies available, how settlement amounts have been allocated to various policies, our settlement experience, the absence of any judgments against the Company or Brandon, the ratio of paper mill claims to total claims filed, and the defenses available, we currently do not anticipate any material liability relating to the resolution of the aforementioned pending proceedings in excess of existing insurance limits. "Consequently, we currently do not anticipate, based on currently available information, that the ultimate resolution of the aforementioned proceedings will have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. Although we cannot predict the number and timing of future claims, based on the foregoing factors and the trends in claims against us to date, we do not anticipate that additional claims likely to be filed against us in the future will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. We are aware that litigation is inherently uncertain, especially when the outcome is dependent primarily on determinations of factual matters to be made by juries." Albany International Corp. is a global company of advanced textiles and materials processing company. ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Auto Units Still Defend Claims at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- Subsidiaries of U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc., continues to face several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes containing asbestos, according to U.S. Auto's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. A wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, Automotive Specialty Accessories and Parts, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Whitney Automotive Group, Inc. (WAG), are named defendants in several lawsuits involving claims for damages caused by installation of brakes during the late 1960's and early 1970's that contained asbestos. WAG marketed certain brakes, but did not manufacture any brakes. WAG maintains liability insurance coverage to protect its and the Company's assets from losses arising from the litigation and coverage is provided on an occurrence rather than a claims made basis, and the Company is not expected to incur significant out- of-pocket costs in connection with this matter that would be material to its consolidated financial statements. U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. is an online provider of automotive aftermarket parts and repair information. ASBESTOS UPDATE: State Auto Has $1.1MM Reserves at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------- State Auto Financial Corporation has $1.1 million asbestos reserves, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016. The property and casualty industry has experienced significant loss from claims related to asbestos, environmental remediation, product liability, mold and other mass torts. The Company states: "Because we have insured primarily product retailers and distributors, we do not expect to incur the same level of liability, particularly related to asbestos, as companies that have insured manufacturing risks." Asbestos reserves are $1.1 million, and environmental reserves are $15.1 million, for a total of $16.2 million, or 1.4% of net losses and loss expenses payable. Asbestos reserves decreased $0.1 million and environmental reserves increased $3.8 million from 2015. State Auto Financial Corporation is a property and casualty insurance holding company. ********* 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 * * *