/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/170601.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 1, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 109 Headlines 1416 CHANCELLOR: Herzfeld Seeks Certification of Dancers Class 1ST STOP: Faces "Jernigan" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation 3D SYSTEMS: Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Denied AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Plaintiffs' New Expert Report Tossed AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Pending AARON'S INC: Class Certification Bid in "Peterson" Suit Denied AJM PACKAGING: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Copeland" Suit AKORN INC: "Ochoa" Suit Claims Merger Deal Inadequate ALIBABA GROUP: Subpoenas Records in Pension Fund Suit ALICE AND OLIVIA: "Bernstein" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime AMEDISYS INC: Parties in Securities Case Agree to Mediate Again ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends "Wang" Class Suit ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends "Meller" Class Suit ATLAS VAN: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Mervyn" Class Suit BAYVILLE AVENUE: Papa Seeks Minimum Pay, Unpaid Overtime & Tips BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Stevens" Class Suit Stayed BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Defending Against "Turner" Suit CALPERS: "Jackson" Suit Alleges Fund Mismanagement CAPES SOKOL: Rectenwald Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement CELADON GROUP: "Teasdale" Sues Over Share Price Drop CENTRAL FREIGHT: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Henry" Suit CONNECTICUT, USA: Liberian Community Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir. CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Parties Continue to Negotiate Deal COOK COUNTY, IL: A&G Foods Sues Over Unauthorized Court Fees CRAFT BREW: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint CTI BIOPHARMA: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Not Yet Set DICK'S SPORTING: "McKenna" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation DOLGENCORP LLC: Certification of Class Sought in "Alla" Suit DUNDRUM LLC: Still Facing "Adsit" Suit Over FDCPA Violation EI DU PONT: Certification of "Chance" Action Under FLSA Sought EZCORP INC: New York Court Dismissed Securities Litigation EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit Remains Pending FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Holt" Suit FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Class Action Ruling FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba's Bid to Certify Class to Be Heard Aug. 1 KOHN LAW: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Dunbar" Suit Brought Under FDCPA GENVEC INC: Proceedings in "Hoose" Securities Suit Stayed HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE: Garcia Sues Over Overtime, Missed Breaks HOME NURSE: Faces "Gonzalez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation INTELEOS INC: Miller's Prelim. Injunction Bid Denied INTERIOR MAGIC: Continues to Face "Bradford" FLSA Suit in Tex. JAB CLOTHIERS: "Akinmeji" Suit Alleges Phony Discounts JIVE SOFTWARE: "Yoshimura" Claims Short-changed on Merger Deal KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Seeks Review of Decision in "Senne" Suit KIDDS RESTAURANTS: Faces "Kroboth" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation MALLINCKRODT PLC: Ct. Consolidates Four Relates Cases MDL 2326: 43,000 Product Liability Cases Filed as of April 26 MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: "Brown" Class Action Pending in Texas MIDLAND CREDIT: Woods Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA MIDLAND FUNDING: Appeals Ruling in "Garcia" Suit to Third Circuit NEBRASKA, USA: Class Suit Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit OSTERKAMP TRANS: "Sanchez" Suit Hits Illegal Background Checks PACE OPPORTUNITY: Class of Employees Certified in "Ellison" Suit PETTA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Graybill" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Laws PINO GROCERY: Perez Alleges FLSA & NY Labor Law Violations PNC FINANCIAL: Supreme Court Denied Petition for Certiorari PNC FINANCIAL: Arbitrators Award $24 Million to Plaintiffs PRESBYTERIAN RETIREMENT: Steele Seeks OT Pay & Retaliation Claim REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,352 Broin II Lawsuits Pending at March 31 REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 26 Smoking Class Action Cases Pending REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Four "Lights" Class-Action Cases Pending REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Stipulation Dismisses RAI from Consumer Action REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Vapor's Bid to Dismiss "Harris" Pending REYNOLDS AMERICAN: July 2018 Hearing on Class Certification Bid REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" and "Parsons" Cases Still Dormant REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Class Actions Remain Pending in Canada REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Petition for Rehearing in ERISA Case Held REYNOLDS AMERICAN: BAT Asks North Carolina Court for Review REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Says Lorillard Required to Indemnify Loews RITE AID: "Herring" Suit Remains Stayed RITE AID: Settlement Reached in "Indergit" Case RITE AID: Defending California Wage-and-Hour Laws RITE AID: Settlement of "Fenley" Case Has Final Approval RITE AID: January 2018 Trial Set in "Hall" Case ROLLING BONES: Fails to Pay Store Manager OT, "Inhofer" Suit Says ROSA'S FIRST: "Salazar" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay SAILS GROUP: Background Checks Done Illegally, Robertson Says SAINTS & SANTOS: Laborers Class Certified in "Castellanos" Suit SERVICE KING: Morales Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements SEVENTY SEVEN: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Patterson-Uti Merger SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: AirTran Appeals Class Certification Order SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Discovery Underway in Suit over Higher Fares SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: To Defend Against Class Suit in Canada STAAR SURGICAL: Still Faces "Todd" Stockholder Securities Suit SWISSPORT FUELING: Holmes Seeks Conditional FLSA Certification TEREX CORPORATION: Filed Motions to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit TEXAS, USA: Smith's Bid to Certify Class of Muslim Inmates Denied TPUSA INC: Fails to Pay Call Center Agents Overtime, Rolle Claims TRANS UNION: Faces "Taylor" Class Suit Alleging FCRA Violations UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Ortez" Suit Under FLSA & State Wage Laws VANCO HEALTH: Faces "Macklin" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation VIVUS INC: Ninth Circuit Has Yet to Schedule Oral Argument WESTERN DENTAL: Illegally Debits Clients' Accounts, King Claims ********* 1416 CHANCELLOR: Herzfeld Seeks Certification of Dancers Class -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled JESSICA HERZFELD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 1416 CHANCELLOR, INC., f/d/b/a THE GOLD CLUB, APM Club, Inc. d/b/a/ THE GOLD CLUB, ANTHONY P. MILICIA, and DOES 1 Through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-04966-MAK (E.D. Pa.), seeks to certify this class: All current and former Dancers who have worked for Defendants at Gold Club in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at any time since August 26, 2011 (the "PA Class"). Ms. Herzfeld also seeks the appointment of Gary F. Lynch, Esq., of Carlson Lynch Sweet Kilpela & Carpenter, LLP as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x00hLrNt The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Hoffer, Esq. SHAFER & ASSOICATES, P.C. 3800 Capital City Blvd., Suite 2 Lansing, MI 48906 Telephone: (517) 886-6560 E-mail: matt@bradshaferlaw.com - and - Pasquale J. Colavita, Esq. PASQUALE J. COLAVITA, P.C. 1026 Winter Street, Suite 300B Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 351-5300 E-mail: pcolavita@gmail.com 1ST STOP: Faces "Jernigan" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Dorothy Jernigan, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 1st Stop Recovery, Inc., a Florida for Profit Corporation, and Judith Marra-Ptashinski, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00265-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., May 15, 2017), alleges that Defendants have violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to work while not clocked in and failing to pay Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, overtime at time-and-one- half of the Plaintiff's regular rate whenever Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, worked in excess of 40 hours per work week. Defendants provide repossession vehicle towing service for financial institutions. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an in- office repossession agent/office assistant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul M. Botros, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: 954 318 0268 Fax: 954 333 3517 E-mail: PBotros@forthepeople.com 3D SYSTEMS: Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration Denied --------------------------------------------------------- 3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Defendants' motion for reconsideration has been denied. The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions and that the former officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on January 14, 2016, which was denied by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 25, 2016 (the "Order"). Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the Order on August 4, 2016, which was denied by Order dated February 24, 2017. 3D Systems Corporation provides comprehensive 3D printing solutions, including 3D printers, print materials, software, on-demand manufacturing services and digital design tools. AARON'S INC: "Byrd" Plaintiffs' New Expert Report Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, Case No. 1:11-cv-00101 (W.D. Pa.), Judge Cathy Bissoon on May 4, 2017, holding that Judge Susan Baxter's order granting Aaron's, Inc.'s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' New Expert Report is affirmed. Meanwhile, Aaron's said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court's decision on plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case, Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, remains pending. In Crystal and Brian Byrd v. Aaron's, Inc., Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., John Does (1-100) Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on May 16, 2011, in the United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania, plaintiffs allege the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee Aspen Way Enterprises ("Aspen Way") knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy in violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and sought certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of a software program called "PC Rental Agent." Plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, which asserts claims under the ECPA, common law invasion of privacy, seeks an injunction, and names additional independently owned and operated Company franchisees as defendants. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages as well as injunctive relief. In March 2014, the United States District Court dismissed all claims against all franchisees other than Aspen Way Enterprises, LLC, dismissed claims for invasion of privacy, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy against all defendants, and denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action, but denied the Company's motion to dismiss the claims alleging ECPA violations. In April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the denial of class certification on the grounds stated by the District Court, and remanded the case back to the District Court for further consideration of that and the other elements necessary for class certification. On January 24, 2017, final briefs were submitted on the remand of plaintiffs' motion for class certification with the District Court, and oral arguments were held on March 30, 2017. The Court's decision is pending. Aaron's, Inc. (the "Company") is an omnichannel provider of lease- purchase solutions. AARON'S INC: Motion to Dismiss "Winslow" Suit Pending ----------------------------------------------------- Aaron's, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations in the case, Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, remain pending. In Michael Winslow and Fonda Winslow v. Sultan Financial Corporation, Aaron's, Inc., John Does (1-10), Aaron's Franchisees and Designerware, LLC, filed on March 5, 2013 in the Los Angeles Superior Court, plaintiffs assert claims against the Company and its independently owned and operated franchisee, Sultan Financial Corporation (as well as certain John Doe franchisees), for unauthorized wiretapping, eavesdropping, electronic stalking, and violation of California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and its Unfair Competition Law. Each of these claims arises out of the alleged use of PC Rental Agent software. The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief and damages as well as certification of a putative California class. In April 2013, the Company removed this matter to federal court. In May 2013, the Company filed a motion to stay this litigation pending resolution of the Byrd litigation, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and a motion to strike certain allegations in the complaint. The Court subsequently stayed the case. The Company's motions to dismiss and strike certain allegations remain pending. In June 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied in July 2015. Aaron's, Inc. (the "Company") is an omnichannel provider of lease- purchase solutions. AARON'S INC: Class Certification Bid in "Peterson" Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron's, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case, Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., has been denied. In Michael Peterson v. Aaron's, Inc. and Aspen Way Enterprises, Inc., filed on June 19, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, plaintiffs claim that the Company and Aspen Way knowingly violated plaintiffs' privacy and the privacy of plaintiffs' law firm's clients in violation of the ECPA and the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a putative nationwide class. Plaintiffs based these claims on Aspen Way's use of PC Rental Agent software. The Court has dismissed all claims except a claim for aiding and abetting invasion of privacy. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification which the Court denied on January 25, 2017. Aaron's, Inc. (the "Company") is an omnichannel provider of lease- purchase solutions. AJM PACKAGING: FLSA Class Certification Sought in "Copeland" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned DARIUS COPELAND v. A.J.M. PACKAGING CORPORATION, Case No. 2:17-cv-10216-RHC-SDD (E.D. Mich.), asks the Court to conditionally certify the proposed collective FLSA class defined as: All hourly non-exempt employees that were employed with Defendant at any of its manufacturing locations at any time in the past three years. The action is for unpaid wages brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and filed as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. The Plaintiff filed the action on January 24, 2017, to challenge the Defendant's alleged enterprise- wide policy and practice of failing to pay overtime wages for all hours of work in excess of 40 in a workweek and for failure to pay a minimum wage for hours 41-45 worked in a work week. Mr. Copeland also asks the Court to: (1) implement a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of Plaintiff's FLSA claims are sent (via US Mail and e-mail) to all hourly warehouse workers for the past three years; (2) require the Defendant to identify potential opt-in plaintiffs; and (3) require the Notice to be posted in the Defendant's workplaces (away from view of the public but in a common place for its employees to view). A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=d7DTmTL6 The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Ave. Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Megan A. Bonanni, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C. 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert J. Finkel, Esq. Michael L. Weissman, Esq. FINKEL WHITEFIELD SELIK 32300 Northwestern Hwy., Suite 200 Farmington Hills, MI 48334-1567 Telephone: (248) 855-6500 E-mail: rfinkel@fwslaw.com mweissman@fwslaw.com AKORN INC: "Ochoa" Suit Claims Merger Deal Inadequate ----------------------------------------------------- Daniel Ochoa, Individually and on Behalf All Others Similarly Situated, and Derivatively on Behalf of AKORN, INC., Plaintiff, v. John N. Kapoor, Ronald M. Johnson, Steven J. Meyer, Brian Tambi, Alan Weinstein, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Adrienne L. Graves, Terry A. Rappuhn, Fresenius Kabi AG, Fresenius SE & Co. KGAA and Quercus Acquisition, Inc., Defendants and Akorn, Inc., nominal Defendant., Case 2017-CH-06928 (Ill. Cir., May 11, 2017) seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from proceeding with, consummating or closing the acquisition of Akorn by Fresenius, rescissory damages in case it pushes through, costs of this action, including reasonable allowance for plaintiff's and experts' fees and such other and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act. Fresenius would acquire Akorn for roughly $4.3 billion. Under the terms of the Merger Agreement, Akorn stockholders will receive only $34 in cash for each share of Akorn common stock they hold which allegedly undervalues the company. The deal adopts preclusive deal protection devices that effectively prevents any alternative bidder from making an offer. Akorn is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets specialized generic and branded pharmaceuticals, over-the-counter drug products and animal health products in the United States. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Craig W. Smith, Esq. Shane P. Sanders, Esq. Scott F. Templeton, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 525-3990 Fax: (619) 525-3991 Email: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com csmith@robbinsarroyo.com ssanders@robbinsarroyo.com stempleton@robbinsarroyo.com - and - David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 231-1058 ALIBABA GROUP: Subpoenas Records in Pension Fund Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the case, Chicago Laborers Pension Fund, Gary Buelow, Rustem Nurlybayev and Michael Hercules, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, Case No. CIV-535692 (Cal. Super., April 1, 2016), the Custodian of Records, Columbia Partners, L.L.C. Investment Management was issued an out of state subpoena to appear in the Delaware Superior Court at the office of the Defendant's counsel on May 31, 2017. On May 16, Alibaba filed a civil case before the Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County (Case No. Case No. N17M-05-186). The California suit was brought on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased Alibaba American Depositary Shares pursuant or traceable to the IPO. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the United States Securities Act of 1933. [BN] Alibaba Group Holding Limited is represented by: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq. RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302) 651-7700 Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Mark C. Molumphy, Esq. Nancy L. Fineman, Esq. Camilo Artiga-Purcell, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 Email: mmolumphy@cpmlegal.com jcotchett@cpmlegal.com nfineman@cpmlegal.com cartigapurcell@cpmlegal.com - and - John H. George, Esq. Shawn A. Williams, Esq. David William Hall, Esq. Christopher Paul Seefer, Esq. ROBBINS, GELLER, RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center, Suite 1800 One Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415) 288-4545 Fax: (415) 288-4534 Email: jgeorge@rgrdlaw.com shawnw@rgrdlaw.com dhall@rgrdlaw.com chriss@rgrdlaw.com - and - Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, California 92037 Tel: (858) 914-2001 Fax: (858) 914-2002 - and - Alexandra P. Summer, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 94010 Burlingame, CA Tel: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 Email: asummer@cpmlegal.com ALICE AND OLIVIA: "Bernstein" Sues Over Missed Breaks, Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Kalee Bernstein, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Alice and Olivia California Holdings, LLC, Alice and Olivia, LLC and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC661262 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2017), seeks actual and compensatory damages, statutory penalties, interest, costs of suit and attorney's fees, restitution and disgorgement, injunctive relief, reasonable attorney's fees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code. Defendants operate retail stores throughout California selling women's clothing where Bernstein worked. She claims unpaid overtime, denied rest periods, did not receive accurate wage statements and did not receive her final paycheck upon termination. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq. Thomas H. Schelly, Esq. LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC 880 Apollo Street, Suite 336 El Segundo, CA 90245 Fax: (310) 322-2252 Phone: (310) 322-2211 AMEDISYS INC: Parties in Securities Case Agree to Mediate Again --------------------------------------------------------------- Amedisys, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties in the securities class action lawsuits have agreed to mediate the case again on June 12, 2017. Between June 10 and July 28, 2010, several putative securities class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the "District Court") against the Company and certain of our former senior executives. The cases were consolidated into the first-filed action Bach, et al. v. Amedisys, Inc., et al. Case No. 3:10-cv-00395, and the District Court appointed as co-lead plaintiffs the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi and the Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System (the "Co-Lead Plaintiffs"). They filed a consolidated, amended complaint which all defendants moved to dismiss. The District Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss on June 28, 2012, and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the "Fifth Circuit"). On October 2, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The defendants request for an en banc review was denied on December 29, 2014 and their Petition for a Writ of Certiorari from the United States Supreme Court was denied on June 29, 2015. After remand to the District Court, the Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a First Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "First Amended Securities Complaint") on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers of Amedisys' securities between August 2, 2005 and September 30, 2011. The First Amended Securities Complaint alleges that the Company and seven individual defendants violated Section 10(b), Section 20(a), and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by materially misrepresenting the Company's financial results and concealing a scheme to obtain higher Medicare reimbursements and additional patient referrals by (1) providing medically unnecessary care to patients, including certifying and re-certifying patients for medically unnecessary 60-day treatment episodes; (2) implementing clinical tracks such as "Balanced for Life" and wound care programs that provided a pre-set number of therapy visits irrespective of medical need; (3) "upcoding" patients' Medicare forms to attribute a "primary diagnosis" to a medical condition associated with higher billing rates; and (4) providing improper and illegal remuneration to physicians to obtain patient certifications or re-certifications. The First Amended Securities Complaint seeks certification of the case as a class action and an unspecified amount of damages, as well as interest and an award of attorneys' fees. All defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Securities Complaint on December 15, 2015. While that motion was pending the parties agreed to mediate the case. This mediation was not successful. On August 19, 2016, the District Court issued its ruling on the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissing with prejudice all claims against two former officers, dismissing all except Section 20(a) claims against three former officers, and denying all other relief. The Company and four individual defendants then filed their answers to the First Amended Securities Complaint on October 20, 2016. The independent executrix of the estate of William F. Borne, who was substituted as a defendant in the case after Mr. Borne's death, filed her answer on February 6, 2017. The case is currently in the early stages of discovery. The parties have agreed to mediate the case again on June 12, 2017. Because the case is in the early stages of litigation, we are unable to assess the probable outcome or reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from the securities litigation described above. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in the securities litigation matter but, if decided adverse to the Company, its impact could be material. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the securities matter described above or the impact of any of the inquiry or litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate. Amedisys is a provider of high-quality in-home healthcare and related services to the chronic, co-morbid, aging American population, with approximately 75% and 79% of the Company's revenue derived from Medicare for the three-month periods ended March 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends "Wang" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the case, Wang v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al. The Company and certain of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company's hepatitis B drug research. The consolidated class action, initially filed as Wang v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07890 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 10, 2014), and Eskinazi v. Arrowhead Research Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-07911 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 13, 2014), asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sought damages in an unspecified amount. Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions captioned Weisman v. Anzalone et al., No. 2:14-cv-08982 (C.D. Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2014), Bernstein (Backus) v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:14-cv-09247 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2014); and Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., No. 2:15-cv-00446 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 22, 2015), were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the facts underlying the securities claims. An additional consolidated derivative action asserting similar claims is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court, initially filed as Bacchus v. Anzalone, et al., (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 5, 2015); and Jackson v. Anzalone, et al. (L.A. Super., filed Mar. 16, 2015). Each of these suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some seek various forms of injunctive relief. On October 7, 2016, the federal district court dismissed the consolidated class action with prejudice. On October 10, 2016 the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated class action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Weisman and Johnson derivative actions have been dismissed without prejudice. The Bernstein derivative action remains pending and is stayed pending the related consolidated class action. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in each of these matters. The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. No such liability has been recorded related to these matters. The Company does not expect these matters to have a material effect on its Consolidated Financial Statements. With regard to legal fees, such as attorney fees related to these matters or any other legal matters, the Company recognizes such costs as incurred. Arrowhead develops novel drugs to treat intractable diseases by silencing the genes that cause them. ARROWHEAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Still Defends "Meller" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in the case, Meller v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. The Company and certain executive officers were named as defendants in a putative consolidated class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company's drug research programs. The consolidated class action, initially filed as Meller v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-08505 (C.D. Cal, filed Nov. 15, 2016 ), Siegel v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-8954 (C.D. Cal., filed Dec. 2, 2016), and Unz v. Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No.2:17-cv- 00310 (C.D. Cal., filed Jan. 13, 2017) asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company's drug research programs and seek damages in an unspecified amount. Additionally, a putative stockholder derivative action captioned Johnson v. Anzalone, et al., (Los Angeles County Superior Court, filed January 19, 2017) asserting substantially similar claims is pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and is stayed pending the related consolidated class action. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters. The Company makes provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. No such liability has been recorded related to these matters. The Company cannot predict the ultimate outcome of this matter and cannot accurately estimate any potential liability the Company may incur or the impact of the results of this matter on the Company. With regard to legal fees, such as attorney fees related to these matters or any other legal matters, the Company recognizes such costs as incurred. Arrowhead develops novel drugs to treat intractable diseases by silencing the genes that cause them. ATLAS VAN: Seventh Circuit Appeal Filed in "Mervyn" Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Thomas Mervyn filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Thomas Mervyn v. Atlas Van Lines, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-03587, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District Court has stricken the Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification last year. The appellate case is captioned as Thomas Mervyn v. Atlas Van Lines, Incorporated, et al., Case No. 17-2036, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that the Appellant's brief is due on or before June 26, 2017, for Thomas Mervyn.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellant THOMAS MERVYN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Andrew Szot, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603-0000 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 E-mail: aszot@millerlawllc.com Defendants-Appellees ATLAS VAN LINES, INCORPORATED; and ACE WORLD WIDE MOVING & STORAGE COMPANY, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similary situated, are represented by: Justin Weiner, Esq. MOLOLAMKEN LLP 300 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 450-6700 E-mail: jweiner@mololamken.com BAYVILLE AVENUE: Papa Seeks Minimum Pay, Unpaid Overtime & Tips --------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriella Papa and Alfredo Montero, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bayville Avenue Hospitality Management, Inc., 12 Bayville Avenue Corp., 12 Bayville Avenue Restaurants, Inc., Long Island Hospitality Management, Inc., Donald R. Finley and any other related entities, Defendants, Case No. 604337/2017 (N.Y. Sup., May 16, 2017), seeks to recover compensation, including unpaid wages and tips owed, plus liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the New York Labor Law. Defendants operate a restaurant and catering venues commonly known as Breaker's Sports Bar and Grill and Shipwreck Tavern where Plaintiffs worked as waiters. Defendants allegedly paid below the applicable minimum wage rate, withheld tip without providing notices and failed to pay proper overtime rate. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Tel: (516) 873-9550 Email: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: "Stevens" Class Suit Stayed ---------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the class action lawsuit by Teresa L. Stevens remains stayed. The Company said, "On or about January 12, 2016, Teresa L. Stevens filed a claim against us and three other defendants asserting for herself and on behalf of a putative class of similarly-situated women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, before the same Court that is hearing the mesh MDL. The complaint, which alleges Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations, fraud, misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices and unjust enrichment, seeks both equitable relief and damages under state and federal law." On January 26, 2016, the Court issued an order staying the case and directing the plaintiff to submit information to allow the FDA to issue a determination with respect to her allegations. BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Defending Against "Turner" Suit -------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company is defending against a class action lawsuit by Carolyn Turner. The Company said, "On February 27, 2017, Carolyn Turner filed a complaint against us and five other defendants asserting for herself and on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated women, that she was harmed by a vaginal mesh implant that she alleges contained a counterfeit or adulterated resin product that we imported from China. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division and alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), negligence, strict liability, breach of an express or implied warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment. Ms. Turner served this complaint against the Company on April 7, 2017. We deny the plaintiff's allegations and intend to defend ourselves vigorously." CALPERS: "Jackson" Suit Alleges Fund Mismanagement -------------------------------------------------- Jason Jackson, an individual, and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. California Public Employees' Retirement System, Board of Administration of California Public Employees' Retirement System, Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. BC661500 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2017), seeks recovery of damages for breach of fiduciary duty, rescission of contract and restitution with interest, consequential damages including expenses incurred, an accounting of all monies that Plaintiffs and class members have paid, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief in breach of fiduciary duties. Defendants constitute a public retirement association authorized by the California Constitution and manages the service retirement of police officers, deputy sheriffs, firefighters, correctional officers, or other public "safety" or similar employees who are state or local employees. The complaint contends that Defendants risked loss of value of the investment by failing to calculate the investment so that it is "cost neutral" and is "present value", failing to calculate the investment so that there is no offset, failing to provide commensurate increases for all investments, investing in military service credit, Additional Retirement Service Credit and Present Value Service Credit despite knowledge of an increased risk of financial loss associated with injury of its members. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Michael Jensen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOHN MICHAEL JENSEN 11500 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Tel: (310)312-1100 CAPES SOKOL: Rectenwald Seeks Prelim. Approval of Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL RECTENWALD and MIRANDA RECTENWALD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CAPES, SOKOL, GOODMAN & SARACHAN, P.C., Case No. 4:16-cv-00676-RLW (E.D. Mo.), moves the Court to enter an order: 1. preliminarily certifying a class of individuals for settlement purposes as set forth in the parties' proposed settlement agreement. The settlement Class comprises of: all individuals in the state of Missouri to whom Defendant sent a letter based on the Template1 in connection with the collection of a consumer debt on or after May 13, 2015 through the preliminary approval date; 2. preliminarily approving the Agreement pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 3. conditionally certifying the Plaintiffs as the named-representatives of the Class; 4. conditionally certifying the Plaintiffs' attorneys as counsel for the Class; 5. approving the form of the proposed class notice and the parties' proposed method of distribution of the Notice to the Class, as set forth in the Agreement; and 6. setting a final fairness hearing to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Defendant is alleged to have violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act with respect to the debt collection letters it sent to Missouri consumers. In particular, Michael and Miranda Rectenwald allege that the Defendant failed to provide proper disclosures mandated by the FDCPA regarding how consumers may dispute the validity of the debts they are alleged to owe, and that the Defendant included other language that overshadowed or was inconsistent with the consumer's right to dispute the debt. According to the Motion, the parties have identified 207 other class members through discovery. Class members, who do not exclude themselves from the settlement will receive a pro-rata share of the $13,000 set aside in the settlement fund. Thus, if no class member opts out, each class member would receive $62.80. Class members will not need to submit a claim form, or any other documentation, to receive a settlement payment. In addition, the Agreement provides that the Defendant will separately pay $1,000 to Mr. Rectenwald and $1,000 to Ms. Rectenwald in statutory damages, plus an additional $1,000 to each of them for their service to the Class. The Defendant also will separately pay the costs of notice and administration of the settlement, plus an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to class counsel, subject to Court approval. The Agreement also requires direct mail notice to the class. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mI5aAOaC The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Panvini, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8875 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: jpanvini@consumerlawinfo.com - and - Anthony LaCroix, Esq. LACROIX LAW FIRM, LLC 406 W. 34th Street, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 399-4380 E-mail: tony@lacroixlawkc.com The Defendant is represented by: R.C. Wuestling, Esq. Susan M. Dimond, Esq. WUESTLING & JAMES, L.C. 720 Olive Street, Suite 2720 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 421-6500 Facsimile: (314) 421-5556 E-mail: wuestling@wuestlginandjames.com dimond@wuestlingandjames.com CELADON GROUP: "Teasdale" Sues Over Share Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------- Nicolas Teasdale, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Celadon Group, Inc., Bobby L. Peavler and Paul A. Will, Defendants, Case 2:17-cv-03319 (S.D. N.Y., May 17, 2017) seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs and expenses in this litigation, including reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees and other costs and disbursements and such other relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Celadon provides long-haul, full-truckload freight service across the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Its subsidiary, Celadon Trucking Service, Inc., also provides supply chain management solutions such as warehousing and dedicated fleet services, as well as freight brokerage services. Defendants failed to disclose that Celadon's equity contribution to its joint venture with Element Financial Corp. was $68.2 million, rather than the $100 million contribution as reported in its public filings, that Celadon is being actively investigated by the SEC, that its financial statement for quarter ended December 31, 2016 could not be relied upon. Shares of the Company fell $0.85 per share or approximately 14% from its previous closing price to close at $5.40 per share on April 5, 2017, damaging investors including the Plaintiff. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: James S. Notis, Esq. Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq. GARDY & NOTIS, LLP Tower 56 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 905-0509 Fax: (212) 905-0508 Email: jnotis@gardylaw.com jsarnelli@gardylaw.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Bradley J. Vettraino Jacob A. Walker BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Tel: (617) 398-5600 Fax: (617) 507-6020 Email: Jeff@blockesq.com Bradley@blockesq.com CENTRAL FREIGHT: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Henry" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Central Freight Lines, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit entitled Rickey Henry v. Central Freight Lines, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00280-JAM-EFB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento. The lawsuit is brought over labor-related issues. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was remanded from the District Court to the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento. The appellate case is captioned as Rickey Henry v. Central Freight Lines, Inc., Case No. 17-15993, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument in the Appellate Case is set for June 13, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee RICKEY HENRY, an individual, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, is represented by: Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com norm@bamlawlj.com - and - Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. BLUMENTHAL & MARKHAM 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 E-mail: kyle@bamlawca.com Defendant-Appellant CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., is represented by: Timothy L. Johnson, Esq. Jonathan Liu, Esq. Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4370 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 E-mail: tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com jonathan.liu@ogletreedeakins.com spencer.skeen@odnss.com CONNECTICUT, USA: Liberian Community Appeals Ruling to 2nd Cir. --------------------------------------------------------------- Liberian Community Association of Connecticut, Ryan Boyko, Emmanuel Kamara, Louise Mensah-Sieh, Assunta Nimley-Phillips, Mary Jean O, Victor Sieh, Laura Skrip, Bishop Harmon Yalartai and Esther Yalartai, plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled LIBERIAN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF CONNECTICUT, et al. v. GOVERNOR DANNEL MALLOY, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00201(AVC), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven), filed an appeal from: * a District Court ruling dated March 30, 2017; * a District Court ruling dated August 1, 2016; and * a District Court judgment dated May 3, 2017. Dannel P. Malloy is the Governor of Connecticut. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs defined the class as: "all individuals who will travel or intend to travel from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea ("Ebola-affected countries") to Connecticut and are at risk of Defendants Malloy and Pino subjecting them to an unlawful and scientifically unjustified quarantine, pursuant to Defendants' quarantine policies and practice." The appellate case is captioned as Liberian Community Association v. Malloy, Case No. 17-1558, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.[BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants Liberian Community Association of Connecticut, Louise Mensah-Sieh, Victor Sieh, Emmanuel Kamara, Assunta Nimley-Phillips, Laura Skrip, Ryan Boyko, Esther Yalartai, Bishop Harmon Yalartai and Mary Jean O, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, are represented by: Michael Joel Wishnie, Esq. YALE LAW SCHOOL P. O. Box 209090 New Haven, CT 06520 Telephone: (203) 436-4780 E-mail: michael.wishnie@yale.edu Defendants-Appellees Dannel P. Malloy, Governor; and Raul Pino, Acting Commissioner of Public Health; and Jewel Mullen, Former Commissioner of Public Health, are represented by: Kimberly P. Massicotte, Esq. CONNECTICUT OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 55 Elm Street, P.O. Box 120 Hartford, CT 06141 Telephone: (860) 808-5318 Facsimile: (860) 808-5386 E-mail: Kimberly.Massicotte@po.state.ct.us CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Parties Continue to Negotiate Deal --------------------------------------------------------- Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties continue to negotiate a possible resolution to a class action lawsuit. In November 2010, a putative class action was filed in the District Court of Blaine county, Oklahoma by Billy J. Strack and Daniela A. Renner as trustees of certain named trusts and on behalf of other similarly situated parties against the Company. The Petition alleged the Company improperly deducted post- production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the proposed class. On November 3, 2014, plaintiffs filed an Amended Petition that did not add any substantive claims, but sought a "hybrid class action" in which they sought certification of certain claims for injunctive relief, reserving the right to seek a further class certification on money damages in the future. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class Certification on January 9, 2015, that modified the proposed class to royalty owners in Oklahoma production from July 1, 1993, to the present (instead of 1980 to the present) and sought certification of over 45 separate "issues" for injunctive or declaratory relief, again, reserving the right to seek a further class certification of money damages in the future. The Company responded to the petition, its amendment, and the motions for class certification denying the allegations and raising a number of affirmative defenses and legal arguments to each of the claims and filings. Certain discovery was undertaken and the "hybrid" motion was briefed by plaintiffs and the Company. A hearing on the "hybrid" class certification was held on June 1 and 2, 2015. On June 11, 2015, the trial court certified a "hybrid" class as requested by plaintiffs. The Company appealed the trial court's class certification order. On February 8, 2017, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling on certification and remanded the case for further proceedings. The plaintiffs filed a Petition for Rehearing which is pending before the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals. The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the ultimate resolution of the action will have on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. It is reasonably possible one or more events may occur in the near term that could impact the Company's ability to estimate the potential effect this matter could have, if any, on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. Plaintiffs have alleged underpayments in excess of $200 million that they may claim as damages, which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes the case meets the requirements for a class action and continues to vigorously defend the case. An unsuccessful mediation was conducted on December 7, 2015. The parties continue to negotiate a possible resolution to the case. However, it is unclear and unforeseeable whether the parties' efforts will result in settlement and the Company will continue to defend the case on all merits and certification issues and, absent settlement, intends to defend the case to a final judgment. Continental Resources, Inc. (the "Company") was originally formed in 1967 and is incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. The Company's principal business is crude oil and natural gas exploration, development and production with properties primarily located in the North, South, and East regions of the United States. COOK COUNTY, IL: A&G Foods Sues Over Unauthorized Court Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ A&G Foods, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Defendant, Case No. 2017-L-004976, (Ill. Cir., May 17, 2017), request an issuance of the Writ of Mandamus and a full and complete accounting of all fees or charges previously collected by the Clerk as an "E-Payment Fee" and surcharges for a "Convenience Fee" and any other relief pursuant to the Clerks of Courts Act. The Clerk presently charges and collects from litigants a surcharge of $2.95 for "E-Payment Fee" and a surcharge of $3.34 as a "Convenience Fee" for all electronic filings both the initial filing as well as subsequent filing in the same case. Neither is authorized by Illinois law and are therefore a burden on the right of the citizens of Cook County to fairly access the courts. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Novoselsky, Esq. NOVOSELSKY LAW OFFICES, P.C. 25 North County Street, First Floor Waukegan, IL 60085 Tel: (847) 782-5800 Email: dnovo@novoselsky.com service@novoselsky.com - and - Jonathan P. Novoselsky, Esq. JONATHAN NOVOSELSKY, P.C. 330 Waukegan Road Glenview, IL 60025 Tel (312) 286-8429 Email: jon@jonathannovoselsky.com CRAFT BREW: Seeks to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint --------------------------------------------------- Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint. On February 28, 2017 and March 6, 2017, respectively, two lawsuits, Sara Cilloni and Simone Zimmer v. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., and Theodore Broomfield v. Kona Brewing Co. LLC, Kona Brew Enterprises, LLP, Kona Brewery LLC, and Craft Brew Alliance, Inc., were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern Division of California. On April 7, 2017, the two lawsuits were consolidated into a single complaint under the Broomfield case. The consolidated lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Kona Brewing Company beer within the relevant statute of limitations period. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants misled customers regarding the state in which Kona Brewing Company beers are manufactured and in describing Kona Brewing Company beer as "craft beer." "We intend to vigorously defend against the foregoing action and, on April 28, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. We have not recorded any liabilities with respect to the claims," the Company said. Craft Brew Alliance, Inc. ("CBA") is the sixth largest craft brewing company in the U.S. and a leader in brewing, branding, and bringing to market world-class American craft beers. CTI BIOPHARMA: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Not Yet Set ------------------------------------------------------- CTI Biopharma Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss has not been set in the case, In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation. The Company said, "On February 10, 2016 and February 12, 2016, class action lawsuits entitled Ahrens v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01044 and McGlothlin v. CTI BioPharma Corp. et al., Case No. C16-216, respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, respectively, on behalf of shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's securities pursuant to our September 24, 2015 public offering and/or shareholders who otherwise acquired our stock between March 4, 2014 and February 9, 2016, inclusive." "The complaints assert claims against the Company and certain of our current and former directors and officers for violations of the federal securities laws under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Sections 10 and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, Plaintiffs' Securities Act claims allege that the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus for the September 24, 2015 public offering contained materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose certain material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects, including with respect to the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib. Plaintiffs' Exchange Act claims allege that the Company's public disclosures were knowingly or recklessly false and misleading or omitted material adverse facts, again with a primary focus on the clinical trials and prospects for pacritinib. "On May 2, 2016, the Company filed a motion to transfer the Ahrens case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The motion was unopposed and granted by the court on May 19, 2016. "On June 3, 2016, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the McGlothlin case with the Ahrens case in order to proceed as a single consolidated proceeding. On June 13, 2016, the court granted the motion to consolidate with the action being captioned In re CTI BioPharma Corp. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 2:16-cv-00216-RSL. "On September 2, 2016, the court appointed Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. On September 28, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order, as revised by order entered December 8, 2016, setting November 8, 2016 as the deadline to file a consolidated class action complaint and deadlines for briefing defendants' motion to dismiss. Briefing concluded on February 22, 2017. A hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss has not been set. "The consolidated class action complaint asserts claims similar to those asserted in the initial complaints, although it no longer asserts claims relating to the September 24, 2015 public offering, but adds claims relating to the Company's October 27, 2015 and December 4, 2015 public offerings. The lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount. "We believe that the allegations contained in the complaints are without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against all claims asserted therein. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time and, as such, we have not recorded an accrual for any possible loss." CTI BioPharma Corp., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the acquisition, development and commercialization of novel targeted therapies covering a spectrum of blood-related cancers that offer a unique benefit to patients and health care providers. DICK'S SPORTING: "McKenna" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRANDON MCKENNA, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., EDWARD W. STACK and LEE J. BELITSKY, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv- 03680 (S.D.N.Y., May 16, 2017), alleges that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies in violation of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act. Specifically, Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Dick's had overstated its adjusted EBITDA amounts; (ii) accordingly, the Company lacked effective internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Dick's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a sporting goods retailer that offers a broad selection of brand name sporting goods equipment, apparel, and footwear. The Company owns and operates Golf Galaxy, Inc., Field & Stream and other specialty chain stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 661-1100 Fax: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com DOLGENCORP LLC: Certification of Class Sought in "Alla" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Seit Alla moves the Court to certify the class described in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned SEIT ALLA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. DOLGENCORP, LLC (d/b/a DOLLAR GENERAL CORPORATION), Case No. 2:17-cv-00657-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion. Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015). To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could commence, the Plaintiff states. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests of the putative class. The Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *14-15 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016) (internal citations omitted) and Chapman should have put a stop to this practice. Unfortunately, they have not, the Plaintiff notes. In dicta, the Supreme Court left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to a class certification motion. Campbell-Ewald Co., 2016 U.S. LEXIS 846 *19 ("We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount."). As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff also wants to be appointed as class representative, and the appointment of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as class counsel. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p44oxTSf The Plaintiff is represented by: Shpetim Ademi, Esq. John D. Blythin, Esq. Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. Denise L. Morris, Esq. ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP 3620 East Layton Avenue Cudahy, WI 53110 Telephone: (414) 482-8000 Facsimile: (414) 482-8001 E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com jblythin@ademilaw.com meldridge@ademilaw.com dmorris@ademilaw.com - and - Allan Kanner, Esq. Cynthia St. Amant, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-5777 Facsimile: (504) 524-5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.stamant@kanner-law.com DUNDRUM LLC: Still Facing "Adsit" Suit Over FDCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Dundrum, LLC continues to face the lawsuit captioned Jennifer L. Adsit, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Dundrum, LLC and Law Offices of James R. Vaughan PC, Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-00110, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington last March 23, 2017. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Acts. According to the complaint, Defendant sent a letter to the Plaintiff which attempts to harass and intimidate her into paying otherwise exempt money. In conjunction with the March 23, 2016 letter to Plaintiff, Defendant also sent the Plaintiff a "Notice of Garnishment and of your rights" and such notice falsely stated that Plaintiff was only entitled to a $200 cash exemption, it adds. Defendant Dundrum is a Washington State corporation engaged in the business of collecting debts within Washington.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kirk D. Miller, Esq. Kirk D. Miller P.S. 421 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 660 Spokane, WA 99201 Tel: (509) 413-1494 Fax: (509) 413-1724 EI DU PONT: Certification of "Chance" Action Under FLSA Sought -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify as a nationwide collective action the lawsuit captioned GENE R. CHANCE v. E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., Case No. 1:16-cv-00376-MAC (E.D. Tex.), to cover all of DuPont's Legacy facilities as follows: All current and former hourly or salaried non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant between September 2, 2013 and the present who received a scheduled overtime allowance, including both day shift and night shift. If you previously received a payment from DuPont, you are still entitled to opt into this lawsuit to receive any additional amount of overtime wages and matching amounts of wages payable to you as liquidated damages under the law. The lawsuit is a putative collective action brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Motion addresses recognition of the matter as a collective action for purposes of the FLSA and requests approval of written notification to putative collective action members, the Plaintiff asserts. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to direct the Defendant to produce the names and addresses of all potential collective action members and that the proposed notices and consent forms be sent out. The Plaintiff further asks that the notice advise employees of the prohibition against the Defendant retaliating against or coercing potential collective action members as to the decision of whether to join into this matter. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=XjTYEjez The Plaintiff is represented by: John Werner, Esq. REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, LLP 801 Laurel Street P.O. Box 26005 Beaumont, TX 77720-6005 Telephone: (409) 838-1000 Facsimile: (409) 833-8236 E-mail: jwerner@rmqlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: M.C. Carrington, Esq. MEHAFFYWEBER, P.C. 2615 Calder Ave. Post Office Box 16 Beaumont, TX 77704 Telephone: (409) 835-5011 Facsimile: (409) 835-5177 E-mail: MCCarrington@mehaffyweber.com EZCORP INC: New York Court Dismissed Securities Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------- Ezcorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Court has entered an order to approve the settlement and dismiss the federal securities litigation in New York. On August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC). That lawsuit named as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Paul. E. Rothamel (the Company's former Chief Executive Officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (the Company's former Chief Financial Officer). That lawsuit was consolidated with a similar lawsuit filed in the same court on October 17, 2014 by the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan and styled Automotive Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:14-cv- 8349-ALC). On November 18, 2014, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under the caption In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC). The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, alleging generally that: * EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's online lending operations in the U.K. (Cash Genie) and Cash Genie's compliance history; * EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the nature of the Company's consulting relationship with Madison Park LLC (as entity owned by Mr. Cohen) and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing to it; * EZCORP's financial statements were false and misleading, and violated GAAP and SEC rules and regulations, by failing to properly recognize impairment charges with respect to the Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond; and * Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP, were aware of and controlled the Company's alleged false and misleading statements and omissions. On March 31, 2016, the Court, in response to the defendants' motions to dismiss, dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims insofar as they were based on (1) the alleged misstatements about the nature of and approval process related to the Company's consulting relationship with Madison Park, (2) the alleged misstatements regarding the impairment of the Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond, and (3) some of the alleged misstatements about Cash Genie. The Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims survived the motions to dismiss insofar as they were based on certain alleged misstatements about Cash Genie. The Section 20(a) claims also survived the motions to dismiss. On November 23, 2016, the parties agreed to a mediated settlement of all remaining claims. The settlement provides for the payment of $5.9 million by the defendants, which was covered by applicable directors' and officers' liability insurance. Following a Settlement Hearing on April 25, 2017, the Court entered an order to approve the settlement and dismiss the case. Ezcorp, Inc. is a provider of pawn loans in the United States and Mexico. EZCORP INC: Motion to Dismiss Texas Suit Remains Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Ezcorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a motion to dismiss a federal securities litigation in Texas remains pending. The Company said, "On July 20, 2015, Wu Winfred Huang, a purported holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas styled Huang v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS). The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw (our chief executive officer) and Mark E. Kuchenrither (our former chief financial officer) and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder." "The original complaint related to the Company's announcement on July 17, 2015 that it will restate the financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of fiscal 2015, and alleged generally that the Company issued materially false or misleading statements concerning the Company, its finances, business operations and prospects and that the Company misrepresented the financial performance of the Grupo Finmart business. "On August 14, 2015, a substantially identical lawsuit, styled Rooney v. EZCORP, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-00700-SS) was also filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On September 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in these two lawsuits filed an agreed stipulation to be appointed co-lead plaintiffs and agreed that their two actions should be consolidated. On November 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the two actions under the caption In re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 1:15-cv-00608-SS), and appointed the two plaintiffs as co-lead plaintiffs, with their respective counsel appointed as co-lead counsel. "On January 11, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of purchasers of our Class A Common Stock between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015. The Amended Complaint asserts that the Company and Mr. Kuchenrither violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, issued materially false or misleading statements throughout the proposed class period concerning the Company and its internal controls, specifically regarding the financial performance of Grupo Finmart. The plaintiffs also allege that Mr. Kuchenrither, as a controlling person of the Company, violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The Amended Complaint does not assert any claims against Mr. Grimshaw. On February 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 11, 2016, and the defendants filed their reply on May 11, 2016. The Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss on June 22, 2016. "On October 18, 2016, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint without prejudice. The Court gave the plaintiffs 20 days (until November 7, 2016) to file a further amended complaint. On November 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Second Amended Complaint"). The Second Amended Complaint raises the same claims dismissed by the Court on October 18, 2016, except plaintiffs now seek to represent a class of purchasers of EZCORP's Class A Common Stock between November 7, 2013 and October 20, 2015 (instead of between November 6, 2012 and October 20, 2015). On December 5, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Compliant. The plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on January 6, 2017, and the defendants filed their reply brief on January 20, 2017. The motion to dismiss is currently pending before the Court. "We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims." Ezcorp, Inc. is a provider of pawn loans in the United States and Mexico. FACEBOOK INC: Seeks Ninth Circuit Review of Ruling in "Holt" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Facebook, Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Christine Holt v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02266-JST, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff seeks to prohibit the Defendant from using or contracting the use of an automatic telephone dialing system without obtaining call recipients' prior express consent pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the California Business and Professions Code. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant sends unsolicited marketing-related text messages to her mobile phone without prior consent. The appellate case is captioned as Christine Holt v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 17-80086, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Respondent CHRISTINE HOLT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Stewart Ryan Pollock, Esq. EDELSON PC 123 Townsend Street, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94107 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 E-mail: spollock@edelson.com - and - John Aaron Lawson, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 N. LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-9730 E-mail: alawson@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com Defendant-Petitioner FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation, is represented by: Devin Anderson, Esq. Andrew Brian Clubok, Esq. Susan E. Engel, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 655 Fifteenth Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 879-5198 E-mail: devin.anderson@kirkland.com andrew.clubok@kirkland.com seengel@kirkland.com - and - Elizabeth L. Deeley, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 California Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 439-1400 E-mail: elizabeth.deeley@kirkland.com FLOTEK INDUSTRIES: Lead Plaintiff Appeals Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Flotek Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the lead plaintiff in a class action lawsuit has filed a notice of appeal in this case. In November 2015, four putative securities class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against the Company and certain of its officers. The lawsuits have been consolidated into a single case, and an amended complaint has been filed. The amended complaint asserts that the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. The complaint seeks an award of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class consisting of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between October 23, 2014 and November 9, 2015, inclusive. On March 30, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Company's motion to dismiss. The lead plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal in this case. Flotek Industries, Inc. is a global, diversified, technology- driven company that develops and supplies chemistry and services to the oil and gas industries, and high value compounds to companies that make cleaning products, cosmetics, food and beverages, and other products that are sold in consumer and industrial markets. FORA FINANCIAL: Dolemba's Bid to Certify Class to Be Heard Aug. 1 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois made a docket entry on May 8, 2017, in the case styled Scott Dolemba v. Fora Financial, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10651 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood. The minute entry states that: -- the Defendants' agreed motion to stay and extend deadlines is granted; -- the case is stayed until August 1, 2017; -- the parties will notify the Court immediately if the mediation is not scheduled as anticipated; -- the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and the Defendants' motion to dismiss are entered and continued to the next status hearing; -- motion hearings set for May 9, 2017, and May 16, 2017, are stricken; -- Initial Status hearing set for May 16, 2017, is stricken and reset for August 1, 2017, at 9:00 a.m.; and -- at least seven days before the initial status hearing, the parties must file a joint written status report, not to exceed five pages in length. A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zgz2aVL4 KOHN LAW: Wins Bid to Dismiss "Dunbar" Suit Brought Under FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. William E. Duffin entered a decision and order in the lawsuit titled AMY DUNBAR v. KOHN LAW FIRM SC, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00088-WED (E.D. Wisc.): -- granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint; -- dismissing as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint; and -- dismissing as moot the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. Amy Dunbar filed the lawsuit on January 19, 2017, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On February 14, 2017, the Defendants, Encore Capital Group Inc., Kohn Law Firm SC, Midland Credit Management Inc., and Midland Funding LLC, moved to dismiss the complaint. The Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 7, 2017, and the Defendants moved to dismiss it on March 21, 2017. The Plaintiff responded to the most recent motion to dismiss and the Defendants replied. According to the Decision and Order, the Court concludes that the Defendants' statement, "NOTICE: This settlement may have tax consequences" was not "false, deceptive, or misleading." A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eJguE5sM GENVEC INC: Proceedings in "Hoose" Securities Suit Stayed --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul W. Grimm approved a stipulation filed by Pillai Sivaraman to stay proceedings in the case captioned James Hoose, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Genvec, Inc., Wayne T. Hockmeyer, William N. Kelley, Stefan D. Loren, Quinterol J. Mallette, Michael Richman, Marc R. Schneebaum, Douglas J. Swirsky, Intrexon Corporation and Intrexon GV Holding, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-00987-PWG (D. Md., April 10, 2017), according to a docket entry dated May 16, 2017. A deal was inked earlier this year for GenVec Inc. to be acquired by Germantown-based Intrexon Corp., reports Tina Reed of Washington Business. The case, brought by investor James Hoose, alleges GenVec issued misleading disclosures in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing on March 17 to convince shareholders to vote in favor of the proposed deal. Hoose alleges the proxy omitted critical information such as potential conflicts of interest faced by management in its relationship with its financial services company. He also raised concerns about how GenVec communicated its expected future value as a stand-alone entity, notes the report. GenVec, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company using differentiated, proprietary technologies to create superior therapeutics and vaccines. GenVec works with leading companies and organizations such as Novartis, Merial, and the U.S. Government to support a portfolio of product programs that address the prevention and treatment of a number of significant human and animal health concerns.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald J. Enright, Esq. Brian D. Stewart, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky LLP 1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115 Washington, DC 20007 Tel: (202) 524-4290 Fax: (202) 333-2121 HARALAMBOS BEVERAGE: Garcia Sues Over Overtime, Missed Breaks ------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL GARCIA on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v. Haralambos Beverage Co. and Does 1-100, Case No. BC660723 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2017), seeks seeking unpaid wages, overtime, meal and rest period compensation, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code. Haralambos Beverage Co. owns and operates trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles and/or industrial work sites where Garcia worked as a driver. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: William Turley, Esq. David Mara, Esq. Jill Vecchi, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 HOME NURSE: Faces "Gonzalez" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ PABLO MICHEL RAMIREZ GONZALEZ and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. HOME NURSE CORP. d/b/a THE PALACE AT HOME, JACOB SHAHAM, HELEN SHAHAM, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-21802-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2017), alleges that Plaintiff has not been paid overtime and/or minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant operates a home care facility. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an attendant for the elderly, caring for the aged and infirmed.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com INTELEOS INC: Miller's Prelim. Injunction Bid Denied ---------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is denied in the case captioned Stephanie Miller and Mary Alyce Dawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Inteleos, Inc. and Ohio corporation, f/k/a the American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00763 (N.D. Ohio, April 10, 2017), according to a Minutes of Conference and Scheduling Order filed in the docket on May 12, 2017. The Minutes of Conference and Scheduling Order signed by Judge Dan Aaron Polster states that on May 11, 2017, the Court held an in- person conference. "For the reasons stated in the Order, Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction is denied. The parties agreed to let that process continue for approximately 60 days, and to hold a call-in teleconference beginning at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, July 13, 2017, to decide how to proceed at that time. The parties agreed to stay litigation through the July 13, 2017 teleconference, and to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint as of right to Monday, August 21, 2017. In anticipation of the July 13, 2017 teleconference, the Court directed the parties to file a joint status report, including any demands or counteroffers, no later than 12:00 noon on Monday, July 10, 2017," Judge Polster opined. The suit alleges that the American Registry of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, Inc., falsely reported that sonography professionals who took certification exams between September 2016 and March 2017 failed the tests when they had, in fact, passed, and that those false reports harmed affected professionals in a number of ways.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marc E. Dann, Esq. William C. Behrens, Esq. The Dann Law Firm Co., LPA P.O. Box 6031040 Cleveland, OH 44103 Tel: (216) 373-0539 Fax: (216) 373-0536 Email: notices@dannlaw.com - and - Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. Zimmerman Law Offices, PC 77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 440-0020 Fax: (312) 440-4180 Email: tom@attorneyzim.com INTERIOR MAGIC: Continues to Face "Bradford" FLSA Suit in Tex. -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Sebastian Bradford, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated Persons, Plaintiff v. Interior Magic of Texas, Inc. and Jonathan C. Roberts, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00907, filed last March 23, 2017, is still pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Plaintiff, who worked as a valet, brought the lawsuit against the Defendants for non-payment of regular wages and overtime premium for all hours worked over 40 in each workweek pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Interior Magic of Texas Inc is in the Interior Design Services business. BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. The Buenker Law Firm 2060 North Loop West, Suite 215 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com JAB CLOTHIERS: "Akinmeji" Suit Alleges Phony Discounts ------------------------------------------------------ Olusola Akinmeji, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Jos. A. Bank (JAB) Clothiers, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 8:17-cv-01349, (Md. Cir., May 16, 2017), seeks economic and compensatory damages, treble damages, actual, general, special, incidental, statutory and consequential damages, injunctive relief, reasonable attorneys' fees, reimbursement of all costs for the prosecution of this action and pre-judgment, post-judgment interest and such other and further relief resulting from fraud, unjust enrichment and in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. Defendant purportedly uses inflated, arbitrary, and false "regular" prices "sales" promotions and "buy-one-take-one" deals. JAB sells men's suits, sports apparel and dress pants at their stores. Plaintiff alleges that their discounts are just mere deductions from a padded regular price and the same goes for "buy- one-take-one" offers. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Beatrice O. Yakubu, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 4725 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20016 Tel: (202) 789-3960 Fax: (202) 789-1813 Email: charles@cuneolaw.com byakubu@cuneolaw.com - and - Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq. HALUNEN LAW 1650 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 605-4098 Facsimile: (612) 605-4099 Email: Wolchansky@halunenlaw.com JIVE SOFTWARE: "Yoshimura" Claims Short-changed on Merger Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Yoshimura, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Jive Software, Inc., Tony Zingale, Elisa Steele, Margaret Breya, Steve Darcy, Phil Koen, Robert Frankfurt, Tom Reilly, Chuck Robel, Gabrielle Toledano and Balaji Yelamanchili, Defendants, 2:17-cv-02910 (E.D.N.Y., May 12, 2017), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from closing the acquisition of Jive Software, Inc. by Jazz MergerSub, Inc., all damages sustained, costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and expenses and such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Jive Software, Inc. has a deal to be acquired by Jazz MergerSub, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Wave Systems Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of ESW Capital, LLC, for $5.25 per share. The Plaintiff finds the deal inadequate given Jive's recent financial performance and strong growth prospects. The trading price of the stock was $5.32 as of May 15, 2017. Its stock price has increased over 45% in the past year. Jive is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Campbell, California in the County of Santa Clara. It provides software sales and services. The Jive Platform integrates cloud and customer-built applications through published application programing interfaces and software development kits. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 971-1341 Email: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com - and - David E. Bower, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC 600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170 Culver City, CA 90230 Tel: (213) 446-6652 Email: dbower@monteverdelaw.com KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Seeks Review of Decision in "Senne" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Defendants Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Aaron Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00608-JCS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco. The appellate case is captioned as Aaron Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., Case No. 17-80088, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 4, 2017, Plaintiffs Aaron Senne, et al., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit. That appellate case is captioned as Aaron Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., et al., Case No. 17-80043, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all minor league baseball players employed by Major League Baseball or any MLB franchise under the Minor League Uniform Player Contract.[BN] The Plaintiffs-Respondents are AARON SENNE, MICHAEL LIBERTO, OLIVER ODLE, BRAD MCATEE, CRAIG BENNIGSON, MATT LAWSON, KYLE WOODRUFF, RYAN KIEL, KYLE NICHOLSON, BRAD STONE, MATT DALY, AARON MEADE, JUSTIN MURRAY, JAKE KAHAULELIO, RYAN KHOURY, DUSTIN PEASE, JEFF NADEAU, JON GASTON, BRANDON HENDERSON, TIM PAHUTA, LEE SMITH, JOSEPH NEWBY, RYAN HUTSON, MATT FREVERT, ROBERTO ORTIZ, WITER JIMENEZ, KRIS WATTS, MITCH HILLIGOSS, BRETT NEWSOME, JAKE OPITZ, DANIEL BRITT, YADEL MARTI, HELDER VELAQUEZ, JORGE JIMENEZ, JORGE MINYETY, EDWIN MAYSONET, JOSE DIAZ, NICK GIARRAPUTO, LAUREN GAGNIER, LEONARD DAVIS, GASPAR SANTIAGO, GRANT DUFF, OMAR AGUILAR, MARK WAGNER, DAVID QUINOWSKI, and BRANDON PINCKNEY, Individually and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated. The Defendants-Petitioners are KANSAS CITY ROYALS BASEBALL CORP.; MIAMI MARLINS, L.P.; SAN FRANCISCO BASEBALL ASSOCIATES, LLC; OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, an unincorporated association, DBA Major League Baseball; ALLAN HUBER SELIG, "Bud"; ANGELS BASEBALL LP; ST. LOUIS CARDINALS, LLC; COLORADO ROCKIES BASEBALL CLUB, LTD.; CINCINNATI REDS, LLC; HOUSTON BASEBALL PARTNERS LLC; ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC; ROGERS BLUE JAYS BASEBALL PARTNERSHIP; PADRES L.P.; SAN DIEGO PADRES BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.; MINNESOTA TWINS, LLC; DETROIT TIGERS, INC.; LOS ANGELES DODGERS LLC; STERLING METS L.P.; AZPB L.P.; NEW YORK YANKEES P'SHIP; RANGERS BASEBALL EXPRESS, LLC; RANGERS BASEBALL, LLC; MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, INC.; MILWAUKEE BREWERS BASEBALL CLUB, L.P.; CHICAGO CUBS BASEBALL CLUB, LLC; PITTSBURGH ASSOCIATES, LP; BASEBALL CLUB OF SEATTLE, LLP; and LOS ANGELES DODGERS HOLDING COMPANY LLC. The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by: Aaron Michael Zigler, Esq. Robert L. King, Esq. Stephen M. Tillery, Esq. KOREIN TILLERY LLC 505 N 7th Street Saint Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-4844 Facsimile: (314) 241-3525 E-mail: azigler@koreintillery.com rking@koreintillery.com stillery@koreintillery.com - and - Bobby Pouya, Esq. Daniel Leon Warshaw, Esq. PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 Facsimile: (818) 788-8104 E-mail: bpouya@pswlaw.com dwarshaw@pswlaw.com - and - Bruce Lee Simon, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON, WARSHAW & PENNEY, LLP 44 Montgomery Street San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-9000 Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by: Elise M. Bloom, Esq. Adam M. Lupion, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 11 Times Square New York, NY 10036-8299 Telephone: (212) 969-3000 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com alupion@proskauer.com - and - Mark David Harris, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 1585 Broadway New York, NY 10036-8299 Telephone: (212) 969-3530 Facsimile: (212) 969-2900 E-mail: mharris@proskauer.com KIDDS RESTAURANTS: Faces "Kroboth" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- NATHANIAL KROBOTH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, against KIDDS RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00519 (S.D. Ill., May 16, 2017), seeks to recover alleged unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act for Plaintiff and other current and former Assistant Managers or Assistant Store Managers, who worked more than 40 hours in any workweek at any Jimmy John's store owned by Defendant. Defendant owns and operates approximately six to ten Jimmy John's franchised locations under one or more franchise agreements with Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC. Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an Assistant Store Manager.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Sarah Arendt, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Phone: (312) 419-1008 Fax: (312) 419-1025 - and - Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Melissa L. Stewart, Esq. Christopher M. McNerney, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 245-1000 Fax: (212) 977-4005 MALLINCKRODT PLC: Ct. Consolidates Four Relates Cases ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Fulton County Employees Retirement System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mallinckrodt PLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17- cv-00534 (D.C., March 23, 2017) was consolidated with Shenk v. Mallinckrodt PLC, Civil Case No. 17-145, Patel v. Mallinckrodt PLC, Civil Case No. 17-171, and Schwartz v. Mallinckrodt PLC, Civil Case No. 17-447, according to a docket entry dated May 17, 2017. The minute order signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan states that "the cases involve common questions of law and fact. Accordingly, the four cases are hereby consolidated. All filings in these consolidated cases should be made, with separate captions for each case, only in Civil Case No. 17-145. The parties shall make no additional filings in Civil Case No. 17-534, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to close Case No. 17-534." Fulton County Employees Retirement System seeks to recover damages on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt securities between July 14, 2014 and January 18, 2017 inclusive (the Class Period) for violation of Federal Securities Laws. Its complaint alleges that Mallinckrodt engaged in a secret and unlawful scheme designed to eliminate all competition for the Company's key drug, H.P. Athar Gel (Acthar), which accounted for as much as 34% of the Company's revenue during the relevant time period. The Company was able to eliminate competition by acquiring the rights to Acthar's sole competing drug, Synacthen Depot (Synacthen) and then proceeded to shut down development and production of that drug. Mallinckrodt is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, markets and distributes branded and generic pharmaceutical products and therapies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. Steven J. Toll, Esq. Elizabeth A. Aniskevich, Esq. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. / Fifth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 408-4600 Fax: (202) 408-4699 Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com dsommers@cohenmilstein.com eaniskevich@cohenmilstein.com - and - Maya Saxena, Esq. Joseph E. White, III, Esq. Lester R. Hooker, Esq. Saxena White, P.A. 5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601 Boca Raton, FL 33486 Tel: (561) 394-3399 Fax: (561) 394-3382 Email: msaxena@saxenawhite.com jwhite@saxenawhite.com lhooker@saxenawhite.com - and - Steven B. Singer, Esq. 4 West Red Oak Lane, Suite 312 White Plains, NY 10604 Tel: (914) 437-8551 Fax: (888) 631-3611 Email: ssinger@saxenawhite.com MDL 2326: 43,000 Product Liability Cases Filed as of April 26 ------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that as of April 26, 2017, approximately 43,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been asserted against the Company. The Company said, "The pending cases are in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of one certified and three putative class actions, and fewer than 25 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims. Over 3,100 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts." "On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. "As of April 26, 2017, we have entered into master settlement agreements in principle or are in final stages of entering one with certain plaintiffs' counsel to resolve an aggregate of approximately 37,000 cases and claims. These master settlement agreements provide that the settlement and distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditional upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. Of the approximately 37,000 cases and claims, approximately 12,000 have met the conditions of the settlement and are final. All settlement agreements were entered into solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing." MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS: "Brown" Class Action Pending in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned Nathanael Brown, for himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mid-America Apartments, LP, as successor in merger to Post Apartment Homes, LP d/b/a Post South Lamar, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00307 filed on April 10, 2017, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The Plaintiff seeks to recover statutory remedies for himself and the Class for unreasonable and excessive rent late fees assessed during the Class Period. The Plaintiff says Defendants are not permitted to seek alleged damages for breach of contract against Plaintiffs or the class for late payment of rent. Mid-America Apartments, LP is a real estate investment trust (REIT) that focuses primarily on the acquisition, development, redevelopment and management of multifamily homes throughout the Southeast and Southwest regions of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason W. Snell, Esq. The Snell Law Firm, PLLC Chase Tower 221 W. 6th Street, Suite 900 Austin, TX 78701 Tel: (512) 477-5291 Fax: (512) 477-5294 Email: firm@snellfirm.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Woods Moves for Class Certification Under FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Kevin Woods, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 2:17-cv-00600-RGK-JPR (C.D. Cal.), asks the Court to certify this Class: All persons in the United States whom Defendant tried to contact in an effort to collect an alleged debt that was time barred within one (1) year of filing this complaint wherein Defendant failed to disclose that payment on the alleged debt would revive the statute of limitation. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Kevin Woods also asks to be appointed as Class Representatives, and for the appointment of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., as Class Counsel. The Court will commence a hearing on January 29, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., to consider the Motion. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xlqgxIGr The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. Thomas E. Wheeler, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780, Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com twheeler@toddflaw.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Appeals Ruling in "Garcia" Suit to Third Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Midland Funding LLC filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Rufino Garcia v. Midland Funding LLC, Case No. 1-15-cv-06119, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The nature of suit is stated as consumer credit. The appellate case is captioned as Rufino Garcia v. Midland Funding LLC, Case No. 17-2104, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee RUFINO D. GARCIA, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, is represented by: Christopher Markos, Esq. WILLIAMS CUKER & BEREZOFSKY 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 557-0099 E-mail: cmarkos@wcblegal.com Defendant-Appellant MIDLAND FUNDING LLC is represented by: Ellen E. Lavelle, Esq. Ronald M. Metcho, II, Esq. Andrew M. Schwartz, Esq. DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN, P.C. 2000 Market Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 575-4564 Facsimile: (215) 575-0856 E-mail: eelavelle@mdwcg.com rmmetcho@mdwcg.com amschwartz@mdwcg.com NEBRASKA, USA: Class Suit Certification Sought in "Johnson" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scotty R. Glassco, one of the Plaintiffs of the lawsuit styled JAMES D. JOHNSON and SCOTTY R. GLASSCO, et al. v. NDCS DIRECTOR SCOTT R. FRAKES, Case No. 8:17-cv-00039-RGK-PRSE (D. Neb.), moves the Court for class action certification and appointment of class counsel. Scott R. Frakes is the director of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services. Mr. Glassco contends that questions of law are common to each of the 900+ plaintiffs whether, among other things, the NDCS is unlawfully depriving prison good time credit toward the maximum portion of sentences when mandatory minimum criminal sentences are imposed in light of the fact that the plain and unambiguous language of the prison good-time statute at Nebraska Revised Statute. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OKG7obCN OSTERKAMP TRANS: "Sanchez" Suit Hits Illegal Background Checks -------------------------------------------------------------- Adriana C Sanchez, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, v. Osterkamp Transportation Group, Osterkamp Trucking, Inc., Dedicated Fleet Systems, Inc., Frontier Transportation, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC661121 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2017), seeks statutory and civil penalties, punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs of suit, interests, reasonable attorney's fees and such other relief under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants acquired credit and background reports on himself in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com PACE OPPORTUNITY: Class of Employees Certified in "Ellison" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Robert W. Schroeder, III, conditionally certifies the collective action entitled Angela Ellison, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Pace Opportunity Centers, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv-01263-RWS (E.D. Tex.), under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, authorizes the Plaintiff's counsel to issue opt-in notices and consent to join forms to: all current and/or former employees of Pace Opportunity Centers, Inc. ("Pace" or "Defendant") who, at any time during the time period of three years preceding the date of this order to the end of the Notice Period identified below, were paid a salary, and worked as Case Managers and/or QIDPs (the "Putative Collective Action Members"). The Court also approves this schedule: * Deadline: 7 Business Days After the Date of this Order. Description: Defendant shall disclose the full names, last known addresses, last known email addresses, and dates of employment of the Putative Collective Action Members. This information shall be produced in a usable electronic format if same is readily available to Defendant. * Deadline: 20 Calendar Days After Receipt of the Contact Information for the Putative Collective Action Members from Defendant. Description: Plaintiff's Counsel shall send by mail a copy of Notice and CTJ (the "Notice Packet") to the Putative Collective Action Members. Plaintiff's Counsel may enclose a postage paid, self-addressed envelope in the Notice Packet. * Deadline: 60 Days After the Date the Notice Packet is Mailed to Putative Collective Action Members. Description: The Putative Collective Action Members shall have 60 days to return their signed CTJ for filing with the Court. Electronically signed CTJs are permitted by the Court. That 60 day period shall begin to run three days after the mailing of the Notice Packet by Plaintiff's Counsel (the Notice Period"). CTJs shall be considered timely received for purposes of opting into this lawsuit if postmarked or faxed no later than the end of that Notice Period and filed by Counsel for Plaintiff promptly thereafter. Within 24 hours of mailing the Notice Packets, the Putative Collective Action members, Counsel for the Plaintiff will file a notice with the Court through the Court's ECF system advising of the date of the mailing. The Defendant is further ordered to provide Counsel for the Plaintiff with the last four digits of the Social Security Number for Putative Collective Action Members whose Notice Packet is returned undeliverable. The Defendant will provide that data within four business days of being notified by Counsel for the Plaintiff that the Notice Packet for any Putative Collective Action Member was returned as undeliverable. The Plaintiff is authorized to send an additional Notice Packet to any Putative Collective Action Member whose initial notice was returned as undeliverable. The envelope, in which the Notice Packets will be mailed, state on the outside, in regular or bold typeface: "Notice of Unpaid Overtime Lawsuit - Deadline to Join." A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RJQGga1N PETTA ENTERPRISES: Faces "Graybill" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Graybill (9473 Macedonia Rd., Hopewell, Ohio 43746) Plaintiff, v. Petta Enterprises, LLC aka Petta Enterprises of PA, LLC (128 Steubenville Ave., Cambridge, Ohio 43725), Case No. 2:17- cv-00418-GCS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, May 16, 2017), alleges on behalf of Plaintiff and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, that Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but was not paid one and one-half his regular rate for all hours worked over 40 as a result of Defendant's policies. The case alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act. Named Plaintiff worked in a number of multiple manual laborer positions for Defendant's environmental cleaning services at oil rigs for Defendant's oil and gas industry customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1457 S. High St. Columbus, OH 43207 Phone: 614-949-1181 Fax: 614-386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com - and - Peter A. Contreras, Esq. CONTRERAS LAW, LLC PO Box 215 Amlin, OH 43002 Phone: 614-787-4878 Fax: 614-923-7369 Email: peter.contreras@contrerasfirm.com PINO GROCERY: Perez Alleges FLSA & NY Labor Law Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- MIGUELINA PEREZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PINO GROCERY CORP. and FEDERICO DE LA ROSA a/k/a FEDERICO DELAROSA, Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-02965 (E.D.N.Y., May 16, 2017), alleges that although Plaintiff and others similarly situated often worked as many as forty-seven hours in a workweek, or more, Defendants failed to pay overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek at 1-1/2 times the regular rate of pay. The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Defendants own, operate and manage a restaurant in New York City. Plaintiff was employed as a fulltime restaurant worker.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES 110 State Highway 35, Suite #10 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: (718) 799-9111 Fax: (718) 799-9171 E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com PNC FINANCIAL: Supreme Court Denied Petition for Certiorari ----------------------------------------------------------- The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the U.S. Supreme Court has denied the petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a decision in the interchange litigation. In March 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's reversal of the order approving a settlement in the cases that had been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation (Master File No. 1:05-md- 1720-JG-JO). The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (PNC) is one of the largest diversified financial services companies in the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PNC FINANCIAL: Arbitrators Award $24 Million to Plaintiffs ---------------------------------------------------------- The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that arbitrators have reached a unanimous decision awarding the plaintiffs a total of $24 million in the CBNV Mortgage Litigation. Between 2001 and 2003, on behalf of either individual plaintiffs or proposed classes of plaintiffs, several separate lawsuits were filed in state and federal courts against Community Bank of Northern Virginia (CBNV), a PNC Bank predecessor, and other defendants asserting claims arising from second mortgage loans made to the plaintiffs. The state lawsuits were removed to federal court and, with the lawsuits that had been filed in federal court, were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Community Bank of Northern Virginia Lending Practices Litigation (No. 03-0425 (W.D. Pa.), MDL No. 1674). In October 2011, the plaintiffs filed a joint consolidated amended class action complaint covering all of the class action lawsuits pending in this proceeding. The amended complaint named several defendants, including CBNV. As relevant to CBNV, the principal allegations in the amended complaint were that a group of persons and entities collectively characterized as the "Shumway/Bapst Organization" referred prospective second residential mortgage loan borrowers to CBNV, that CBNV charged these borrowers improper title and loan fees at loan closings, that the disclosures provided to the borrowers at loan closings were inaccurate, and that CBNV paid some of the loan fees to the Shumway/Bapst Organization as purported "kickbacks" for the referrals. The amended complaint asserted claims for violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), as amended by the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The amended complaint sought to certify a class of all borrowers who obtained a second residential non-purchase money mortgage loan, secured by their principal dwelling, including from CBNV, the terms of which made the loan subject to HOEPA. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, unspecified damages (including treble damages under RICO and RESPA), rescission of loans, declaratory and injunctive relief, interest and attorneys' fees. In November 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In June 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing the claims of any plaintiff whose loan did not originate with or was not assigned to CBNV, narrowing the scope of the RESPA claim, and dismissing several of the named plaintiffs for lack of standing. Also in June 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was granted in July 2013. In July 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the grant of class certification by the district court. The Company said, "In November 2015, we filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the decision of the court of appeals, which was denied in February 2016. We filed motions with the district court for decertification and summary judgment in April 2016." "In August 2016, we reached a settlement with the plaintiffs. In December 2016, the court granted final approval of the settlement. Under this settlement, the matter was submitted to binding arbitration in February 2017 before a panel of three arbitrators, who were to determine whether we would pay the plaintiff class either an amount (inclusive of class counsel fees and expenses) we proposed ($24 million) or an amount proposed by the plaintiffs ($70 million), with no discretion to choose any other amount. The arbitrators reached a unanimous decision in March 2017 deciding in favor of our position and awarding the plaintiffs a total of $24 million." The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. (PNC) is one of the largest diversified financial services companies in the United States and is headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. PRESBYTERIAN RETIREMENT: Steele Seeks OT Pay & Retaliation Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rhonda Steele, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Presbyterian Retirement Communities, Inc., Case No. 6:17-cv-00871, (M.D. Fla., May 16, 2017), seeks unpaid overtime wages and a claim for retaliation pursuant to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, wrongful termination claim pursuant to the Florida Whistleblower Act and claim for negligent retention and supervision pursuant to Florida common law. Presbyterian Retirement is in the business of developing and operating retirement communities that provide independent living, assisted living and nursing care to its residents. Steele was employed by the Defendant as kitchen staff at their retirement community located at 70 West Lucerne Circle, Orlando, Florida. She claims unpaid overtime and did not receive accurate wage statements. She allegedly was terminated for complaining. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Adams, Esq. N. Ryan Labar, Esq. LABAR AND ADAMS, P.A. 2300 E. Concord St. Orlando, FL 32803 Tel: (407) 835-8968 Fax: (407) 835-8969 Email: sadams@labaradams.com rlabar@labaradams.com REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 2,352 Broin II Lawsuits Pending at March 31 -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that as of March 31, there were 2,352 Broin II lawsuits pending in Florida. There have been no Broin II trials since 2007. Broin v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade County, Fla., filed 1991), was a class action brought on behalf of flight attendants alleged to have suffered from diseases or ailments caused by exposure to ETS in airplane cabins. In October 1997, RJR Tobacco, Lorillard Tobacco, Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., and other cigarette manufacturer defendants settled Broin, agreeing to pay a total of $300 million in three annual $100 million installments, allocated among the companies by market share, to fund research on the early detection and cure of diseases associated with tobacco smoke. It also required those companies to pay a total of $49 million for the plaintiffs' counsel's fees and expenses. RJR Tobacco's portion of these payments was approximately $86 million; Lorillard Tobacco's was approximately $57 million; and B&W's was approximately $31 million. The settlement agreement, among other things, limits the types of claims class members may bring and eliminates claims for punitive damages. The settlement agreement also provides that, in individual cases by class members that are referred to as Broin II lawsuits, the defendant will bear the burden of proof with respect to whether ETS can cause certain specifically enumerated diseases, referred to as "general causation." With respect to all other liability issues, including whether an individual plaintiff's disease was caused by his or her exposure to ETS in airplane cabins, referred to as "specific causation," individual plaintiffs will bear the burden of proof. On September 7, 1999, the Florida Supreme Court approved the settlement. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: 26 Smoking Class Action Cases Pending -------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that 26 class-action cases, excluding the shareholder case, were pending in the United States against Reynolds Defendants as of March 31. These class actions seek recovery for personal injuries allegedly caused by cigarette smoking or, in some cases, for economic damages allegedly incurred by cigarette or e-cigarette purchasers. In 1996, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Castano v. American Tobacco Co. overturned the certification of a nation-wide class of persons whose claims related to alleged addiction to tobacco products, finding that the district court failed to properly assess variations in the governing state laws and whether common issues predominated over individual issues. Since the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Castano, few smoker class-action complaints have been certified or, if certified, have survived on appeal. Eighteen federal courts, including two courts of appeals, and most state courts that have considered the issue have rejected class certification in such cases. Apart from Castano, only two smoker class actions have been certified by a federal court -- In re Simon (II) Litigation and Schwab [McLaughlin] v. Philip Morris USA Inc., both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York and were later decertified. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Four "Lights" Class-Action Cases Pending ----------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that four "lights" class- action cases are pending against RJR Tobacco or Brown & Williamson Holdings, Inc., two in Illinois state court and two in Missouri state court. The classes in these cases generally seek to recover compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive and other forms of relief, and attorneys' fees and costs from RJR Tobacco and/or B&W. In general, the plaintiffs allege that RJR Tobacco or B&W made false and misleading claims that "lights" cigarettes were lower in tar and nicotine and/or were less hazardous or less mutagenic than other cigarettes. The cases typically are filed pursuant to state consumer protection and related statutes. The seminal "lights" class-action case is Price v. Philip Morris, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000), an action filed against the predecessor of Philip Morris USA Inc., referred to as Philip Morris. In March 2003, the trial court entered judgment against Philip Morris in the amount of $7.1 billion in compensatory damages and $3 billion in punitive damages. In December 2005, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion reversing and remanding with instructions to dismiss the case. On December 5, 2006, the Illinois Supreme Court issued its mandate, and the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal later in December 2006. In multiple filings since December 2008, the Price plaintiffs have argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Good v. Altria Group, Inc. rejected the basis upon which the Illinois Supreme Court had reversed the Price trial court's 2003 judgment and, on that basis, have attempted to reinstate that judgment. In April 2014, the intermediate appellate court reinstated the trial court's 2003 judgment. In November 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court (1) vacated the lower courts' judgments, (2) dismissed the case without prejudice to allow the plaintiffs to file a motion to have the Illinois Supreme Court recall its December 5, 2006, mandate that had reversed the trial court's 2003 judgment, and (3) directed entry of a judgment of dismissal. The plaintiffs then moved in the Illinois Supreme Court to have that court recall its December 5, 2006 mandate. On January 11, 2016, the Illinois Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. The plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 2016, which was denied on June 20, 2016. In Turner v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR Tobacco "lights" cigarettes in November 2001. In November 2003, the Illinois Supreme Court granted RJR Tobacco's motion for a stay pending the court's final appeal decision in the Price case described above. The stay subsequently expired, and the court accordingly scheduled a series of status conferences, all of which were continued by agreement of the parties. The status conference scheduled for March 29, 2017 did not occur and has not been rescheduled. In Howard v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. Madison County, Ill., filed 2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of B&W "lights" cigarettes in December 2001. In June 2003, the trial judge issued an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the Price case described above. In August 2005, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court's stay order. There is currently no activity in the case. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed 2000), the trial court certified a class of purchasers of RJR Tobacco "lights" cigarettes in December 2003. A status conference is scheduled for June 5, 2017. In Black v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. (Cir. Ct. City of St. Louis, Mo., filed 2000), a putative class action filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of B&W "lights" cigarettes, a status conference is scheduled for June 5, 2017. In the event RJR Tobacco and its affiliates or indemnitees lose one or more of the pending "lights" class-action suits, RJR Tobacco, depending upon the amount of any damages ordered, could face difficulties in its ability to pay the judgment or obtain any bond required to stay execution of the judgment which could have a material adverse effect on RJR Tobacco's, and consequently RAI's, results of operations, cash flows or financial position. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Stipulation Dismisses RAI from Consumer Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties have filed a joint stipulation dismissing RAI and related entities from the case, In In re Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal., filed 2015). In In re Fontem US, Inc. Consumer Class Action Litig. (U.S.D.C. C.D. Cal., filed 2015), the plaintiffs brought a class action against RAI, Lorillard, another RAI affiliate, and two other defendants on behalf of putative classes of California, New York, and Illinois purchasers of blu brand e-cigarettes. This action results from the consolidation of two actions -- Diek v. Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Whitney v. ITG Brands, LLC. The plaintiffs allege that certain advertising, marketing and packaging materials for blu brand e-cigarettes made deceptive claims, omitted material information, or failed to contain required disclosures. On behalf of one or more of the classes, the plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, equitable relief, and compensatory and punitive damages under California Civil Code Sec.1,750 et seq., California Business & Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq., California Business and Professions Code Sec.17,500 et seq., New York General Business Law Sec. 349, and Illinois Consumer Fraud And Deceptive Business Practices Act Sec. 505/1 et seq. Pursuant to the terms of the asset purchase agreement relating to the Divestiture, RAI tendered the defense of the now-consolidated Diek and Whitney actions to, and sought indemnification for those actions from, ITG. Pursuant to the terms, limitations and conditions of the asset purchase agreement relating to the Divestiture, ITG agreed to defend and indemnify RAI and its affiliates against losses arising from the operation of the blu brand e-cigarette business. On May 20, 2016, the trial court stayed the matter pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' rulings in Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. (decided January 3, 2017), Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. (pending), and Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC (decided September 30, 2016). The stay did not apply to finalizing the pleadings and related briefing. On May 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which the defendants moved to dismiss. On November 1, 2016, the trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in substantial part, finding that federal law preempted all of the plaintiffs' claims except those based on alleged violations of California's Proposition 65 under California's Business and Professions Code Sec.17,200 et seq. On March 8, 2017, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the November 1, 2016 order and certify that order for interlocutory appeal and ordered the defendants to respond to the second amended complaint. On April 21, 2017, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing RAI and related entities from the action. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Vapor's Bid to Dismiss "Harris" Pending -------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a decision is pending on RJR Vapor's motion to dismiss the "Harris" lawsuit. In Harris v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., filed 2015), the plaintiff brought a class action against RJR Vapor on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of VUSE e-cigarettes. The plaintiff alleges that RJR Vapor failed to advise users that they potentially could be exposed to formaldehyde and acetaldehyde. The plaintiff asserts failure to warn claims under California's Proposition 65, as well as California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17,200 et seq. and California Civil Code Sec. 1,750 et seq. and seeks declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and damages. RJR Vapor moved to dismiss contending, among other things, that plaintiff's action was governed in its entirety by Proposition 65 and that the plaintiff failed to give the 60-day pre-suit notice required by Proposition 65, requiring that the entire case be dismissed with prejudice. The motion to dismiss was argued on March 2, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the court granted RJR Vapor's motion to dismiss but provided the plaintiff leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on October 31, 2016, and RJR Vapor has again moved to dismiss. Oral argument occurred on January 19, 2017. A decision is pending. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: July 2018 Hearing on Class Certification Bid --------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that a hearing on the class certification motion in the No Additive/Natural/Organic Claim Cases is set for July 13-14, 2018. Following the FDA's August 27, 2015, warning letter to SFNTC relating to the use of the words "natural" and "additive-free" in the labeling, advertising and promotional materials for NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes, plaintiffs purporting to bring claims on behalf of themselves and others have filed putative nationwide and/or state-specific class actions against SFNTC and, in some instances, RAI. A total of 16 such actions have been filed in nine U.S. district courts. Each of these cases is discussed below. In various combinations, plaintiffs in these cases generally allege violations of state deceptive and unfair trade practice statutes, and claim state common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment based on the use of descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free" in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. The actions seek various categories of recovery, including economic damages, injunctive relief (including medical monitoring and cessation programs), interest, restitution, disgorgement, treble and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 6, 2016, the plaintiffs in one action filed a motion before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to consolidate these actions before one district court for pretrial purposes. On April 11, 2016, the JPML ordered that these cases be consolidated for pretrial purposes before Judge James O. Browning in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, referred to as the transferee court, and the then- pending and later-filed cases now are consolidated for pretrial purposes in that court. The cases that were filed in or transferred for pretrial purposes to the transferee court are as follows: * Sproule v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D. Fla., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class of purchasers of Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes. * Brattain v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative class of California purchasers of Natural American Spirit brand cigarettes. * Rothman v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative class of New York purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Dunn v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Minnesota subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Haksal v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M., filed 2015), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and California, Illinois, Minnesota, and New Mexico subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Cuebas v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and New York subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Okstad v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class and sixteen putative state-based subclasses (Alabama, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Ruggiero v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.D.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Maryland subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Waldo v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D. Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Grandison v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. E.D.N.Y., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and California, Florida and New York subclasses) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Gudmundson v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. V.I., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative class of U.S. Virgin Islands purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * LeCompte v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative class of California purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * White v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. D.N.M., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC on behalf of a putative nationwide class of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Johnston v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. S.D Fla., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and Florida subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Cole v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D. N.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC and RAI on behalf of a putative nationwide class (and North Carolina subclass) of purchasers of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. * Hebert v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co., Inc. (U.S.D.C. M.D. N.C., filed 2016), is an action against SFNTC, RAI and RJR Tobacco on behalf of a putative class of purchasers in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio and Washington of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT cigarettes, and a nationwide putative class of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand menthol cigarette purchasers (and subclass of such purchasers in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois and New Mexico). The transferee court entered a scheduling order requiring the plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint. On September 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint naming SFNTC, RAI, and RJR Tobacco as defendants. That complaint alleges violations of 12 states' deceptive and unfair trade practices statutes -- California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia -- based on the use of descriptors such as "natural," "organic" and "100% additive-free" in the marketing, labeling, advertising, and promotion of SFNTC's NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT brand cigarettes. It also asserts unjust enrichment claims under those 12 states' laws and asserts breach of express warranty claims on behalf of a national class of NATURAL AMERICAN SPIRIT menthol purchasers. The state deceptive and unfair trade practice statutory and unjust enrichment claims are brought on behalf of state-specific classes in the 12 states listed above and, in some instances, state-specific subclasses. The consolidated amended complaint seeks class certification, payment for class notice, injunctive relief, monetary damages, prejudgment interest, statutory damages, restitution, and attorneys' fees and costs. On November 18, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Before responding to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on January 12, 2017. On February 23, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for May 12, 2017. The transferee court's scheduling order, as amended, provides for the plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by April 3, 2018, and a hearing on the class certification motion on July 13-14, 2018. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Jones" and "Parsons" Cases Still Dormant ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that these class action lawsuits remain dormant: In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct. Orleans Parish, La., filed 1997), the plaintiff brought a class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of a putative class of Louisiana residents who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, allegedly suffered injury as a result of exposure to ETS from cigarettes manufactured by defendants. The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. In March 2016, the court entered an order staying the case, including all discovery, pending the completion of the smoking cessation program ordered by the court in Scott v. The American Tobacco Co. In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Ohio County, W. Va., filed 1998), the plaintiff brought a class action against asbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of a putative class of persons who allegedly have personal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirable asbestos fibers and cigarette smoke. The plaintiff seeks to recover $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages individually for her purported injuries and an unspecified amount for the class in compensatory and punitive damages. In December 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc., Desseaux Corporation of North America and Armstrong World Industries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to all defendants who filed for bankruptcy. The case remains pending against the other defendants, including RJR Tobacco and Lorillard Tobacco, but it has long been dormant. In Jones v. American Tobacco Co., Inc. (Cir. Ct., Jackson County, Mo., filed 1998), the plaintiff filed a class action against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR Tobacco, B&W, Lorillard Tobacco, and parent companies of U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR and Lorillard, on behalf of a putative class of Missouri tobacco product users and purchasers who allegedly became addicted to nicotine. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages. There is currently no activity in this case. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Class Actions Remain Pending in Canada --------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that seven putative class actions have been filed against various Canadian and non-Canadian tobacco-related entities, including RJR Tobacco and one of its affiliates, in Canadian provincial courts. In these cases, the plaintiffs allege claims based on fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of warranty, breach of warranty of merchantability, and of fitness for a particular purpose, failure to warn, design defects, negligence, breach of a "special duty" to children and adolescents, conspiracy, concert of action, unjust enrichment, market share liability, and violations of various trade practices and competition statutes. The plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of proposed classes of persons allegedly suffering from tobacco-related disease as a result of smoking defendants' cigarettes and seek recovery of compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, recovery of government health-care benefits, interest, and costs. Pursuant to the terms of the 1999 sale of RJR Tobacco's international tobacco business, RJR Tobacco has tendered the defense of these seven actions to JTI. Subject to a reservation of rights, JTI has assumed the defense of RJR Tobacco and its current or former affiliates in these actions. Plaintiffs' counsel have been actively pursuing only Bourassa, the action pending in British Columbia, at this time. * In Kunka v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Jud. Centre, filed 2009), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased or smoked defendants' cigarettes and suffered, or currently suffer, from tobacco-related disease, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. * In Dorion v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of Queen's Bench, Alberta Jud. Centre of Calgary -- filed 2009), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who purchased or smoked defendants' cigarettes and suffered, or currently suffer, from tobacco-related disease, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. * In Semple v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Sup. Ct. Nova Scotia, Halifax, filed 2009), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class comprised of persons who purchased or smoked defendants' cigarettes for the period from January 1, 1954, to the expiry of the opt-out period as set by the court and suffered, or currently suffer, from tobacco-related disease, as well as restitution of profits and reimbursement of government expenditure for health- care costs allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. * In Adams v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ct. of Queen's Bench, Jud. Centre of Regina, filed 2009), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who were alive on July 10, 2009, and suffered, or currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, heart disease or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have brought a motion challenging the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan court. * In Bourassa v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (Sup. Ct. of British Columbia, Victoria Registry, filed 2010), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or currently suffer, from chronic respiratory diseases, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. The plaintiff filed a motion for certification in April 2012, and filed affidavits in support in August 2013. An amended claim was filed in December 2014. * In McDermid v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd. (Sup. Ct. of British Columbia, Victoria Registry, filed 2010), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or currently suffer, from heart disease, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as disgorgement of revenues earned by the defendants from January 1, 1954, to the date the claim was filed. RJR Tobacco and its affiliate have filed a challenge to the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. * In Jacklin v. Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (Ontario Super. Ct. of Justice, St. Catherines, filed 2012), the plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed class of persons who were alive on June 12, 2007, and suffered, or currently suffer, from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, or cancer, after having smoked a minimum of 25,000 of defendants' cigarettes, as well as restitution of profits, and reimbursement of government expenditure for health-care benefits allegedly caused by the use of tobacco products. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Petition for Rehearing in ERISA Case Held ------------------------------------------------------------ Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the plaintiff's petition for rehearing in the ERISA Litigation was held May 12, 2017. In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the previously related entities had to be divided into two separate plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco, as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November 1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000, contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds. In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot. In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which the court granted in September 2008. A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. On February 25, 2013, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary could have made the same decision and thus the plan's loss was not caused by the procedural prudence which the court found to have existed. On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, referred to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district court applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants did not cause any loss to the plan, determined the test was whether a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision and remanded the case back to the district court to apply the "would have standard." On February 18, 2016, the district court dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that the defendants have shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a fiduciary acting with prudence would have divested the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the time and in the manner that the defendants did. On March 17, 2016, the plaintiff appealed arguing that the district court erred in finding that a hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have divested the NGH and Nabisco Funds at the same time and in the same manner as RJR. On April 28, 2017, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of RJR. The plaintiff's petition for rehearing was May 12, 2017. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: BAT Asks North Carolina Court for Review ----------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that BAT petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals' decision. RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors and BAT have been named as defendants in a putative class-action lawsuit captioned Corwin v. British American Tobacco PLC, brought in North Carolina state court, referred to as the North Carolina Action, by a person identifying himself as a shareholder of RAI. The North Carolina Action was initiated on August 8, 2014, and an amended complaint was filed on November 7, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the members of the RAI board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to RAI shareholders by approving the share purchase by BAT and the sharing of technology with BAT, as well as that there were various conflicts of interest in the transaction. More specifically, the amended complaint alleges that (1) RAI aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by its board of directors and (2) BAT was a controlling shareholder of RAI and, as a consequence, owed other RAI shareholders fiduciary duties in connection with the BAT Share Purchase. The North Carolina Action seeks injunctive relief, damages and reimbursement of costs, among other remedies. On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the North Carolina Action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and votes scheduled for January 28, 2015. RAI and the RAI board of directors timely opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was scheduled to occur on January 16, 2015. RAI believed that the North Carolina Action was without merit and that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January 17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that lawsuit. The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and release the disclosure claims which were or could have been asserted in the North Carolina Action. In consideration of the partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus, which it did on January 20, 2015. On August 4, 2015, the trial court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure claims. The plaintiff appealed. On February 17, 2016, the trial court approved the partial settlement, including the plaintiff's unopposed request for $415,000 in attorneys' fees and costs. The partial settlement did not affect the consideration paid to Lorillard shareholders in connection with the Lorillard Merger. On December 20, 2016, the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the claims against RAI and RAI's Board of Directors on the grounds that the plaintiff could not state a direct claim against RAI's Board of Directors for breach of fiduciary duties. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the claims against BAT. On January 4, 2017, BAT filed a motion for rehearing en banc of the Court of Appeals' opinion, which was denied on February 2, 2017. On February 27, 2017, BAT petitioned the North Carolina Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals' decision. REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Says Lorillard Required to Indemnify Loews ------------------------------------------------------------- Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that Lorillard is required to indemnify Loews in class action lawsuits. In 2008, Loews Corporation, referred to as Loews, entered into an agreement with Lorillard, Lorillard Tobacco, and certain of their affiliates, which agreement is referred to as the Separation Agreement. In the Separation Agreement, Lorillard agreed to indemnify Loews and its officers, directors, employees and agents against all costs and expenses arising out of third party claims (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, interest, penalties and costs of investigation or preparation of defense), judgments, fines, losses, claims, damages, liabilities, taxes, demands, assessments, and amounts paid in settlement based on, arising out of or resulting from, among other things, Loews's ownership of or the operation of Lorillard and its assets and properties, and its operation or conduct of its businesses at any time prior to or following the separation of Lorillard and Loews (including with respect to any product liability claims). Loews is a defendant in three pending product liability actions, each of which is a putative class action. Pursuant to the Separation Agreement, Lorillard is required to indemnify Loews for the amount of any losses and any legal or other fees with respect to such cases. Following the closing of the Lorillard Merger, RJR Tobacco assumed Lorillard's obligations under the Separation Agreement as was required under the Separation Agreement. RITE AID: "Herring" Suit Remains Stayed --------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended March 4, 2017, that the case, Herring v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.), remains stayed. As of March 4, 2017, the Company is aware of 10 putative class action lawsuits that were filed by purported stockholders, against the Company, its directors (the Individual Defendants, together with Rite Aid, the Rite Aid Defendants), WBA and Victoria Merger Sub Inc. ("Victoria") challenging the transactions contemplated by the Merger agreement. Eight (8) of these actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (Smukler v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Hirschler v. Standley, et al., Catelli v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Orr v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., DePietro v. Standley, et al., Abadi v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Mortman v. Rite Aid Corp., et al., Sachs Investment Grp., et al v. Standley, et al.). One (1) action was filed in Pennsylvania in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County (Wilson v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.). The Company said, "The complaints in these nine (9) actions alleged primarily that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to deal protection devices that allegedly prevented the directors from obtaining higher offers from other interested buyers for Rite Aid and allegedly failing to protect against certain purported conflicts of interest in connection with the Merger. The complaints further alleged that we, WBA and/or Victoria aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the closing of the Merger as well as money damages and attorneys' and experts' fees." "On December 23, 2015, the eight (8) Delaware actions were consolidated in an action captioned In re Rite Aid Corporation Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 11663-CB (the "Consolidated Action"). In addition to the claims asserted in the nine (9) complaints discussed above, the operative pleading in the Consolidated Action also included allegations that the preliminary proxy statement contained material omissions, including with respect to the process that resulted in the Merger agreement and the fairness opinion rendered by our banker. "On December 28, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a motion for expedited proceedings, which the Court orally denied at a hearing held on January 5, 2016. On March 11, 2016, the Court granted the plaintiffs' notice and proposed order voluntarily dismissing the Consolidated Action as moot, while retaining jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. On April 15, 2016, we reached a settlement in principle related to this matter for an immaterial amount. On May 11, 2016, the Court entered a stipulated order regarding notice of payment thereof and final dismissal of this matter. "A tenth action was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania District Court"), asserting a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against the Rite Aid Defendants, WBA and Victoria and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants and WBA (Herring v. Rite Aid Corp., et al.). The complaint in the Herring action alleges, among other things, that we and the Individual Defendants disseminated an allegedly false and materially misleading proxy. The complaint sought to enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed Merger, a declaration that the proxy was materially false and misleading in violation of federal securities laws and an award of money damages and attorneys' and experts' fees. "On January 14 and 16, 2016, respectively, the plaintiff in the Herring action filed a motion for preliminary injunction and a motion for expedited discovery. On January 21, 2016, the Rite Aid Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Herring complaint. At a hearing held on January 25, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court orally denied the plaintiff's motion for expedited discovery and subsequently denied the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction on January 28, 2016. "On March 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court appointed Jerry Herring, Don Michael Hussey and Joanna Pauli Hussey as lead plaintiffs for the putative class and approved their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel. "On April 14, 2016, the Pennsylvania District Court granted the lead plaintiffs' unopposed motion to stay the Herring action for all purposes pending consummation of the Merger." Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the United States based on both revenues and number of stores. RITE AID: Settlement Reached in "Indergit" Case ----------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended March 4, 2017, that the parties in the case, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., have reached a settlement in principle of this matter, for an immaterial amount of money. The Company said, "We have been named in a collective and class action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store managers working in our stores at various locations around the country. The lawsuit alleges that we failed to pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief, including liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for overtime pay." "On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the us as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action. Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. "On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability only, but denied it as to damages, and denied our motion for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims. "We filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014. We subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied in September 2014. Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to liability only has been sent to approximately 1,750 current and former store managers in the state of New York. Discovery related to the merits of the claims is ongoing. "On January 12, 2017, the parties reached a settlement in principle of this matter, for an immaterial amount of money, which is subject to preliminary and final approval by the court. "On January 19, 2017, the court entered an order staying the case indefinitely pending preliminary and final court approval. "In the event the settlement does not receive preliminary and/or final approval by the court, the litigation will resume. If such occurs, we presently are not able to either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit. Our management believes, however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit." Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the United States based on both revenues and number of stores. RITE AID: Defending California Wage-and-Hour Laws ------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended March 4, 2017, that the Company is currently a defendant in several lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws. The Company said, "We are currently a defendant in several lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging violations of California wage-and-hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, failure to pay for missed meals and rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). The class actions pertaining to failure to reimburse business expenses and provide employee seating purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. The single-plaintiff and multi-plaintiff lawsuits regarding failure to pay overtime and failure to pay for missed meals and rest periods, in the aggregate, seek substantial damages. We have aggressively challenged the merits of the lawsuits and, where applicable, the allegations that the cases should be certified as class or representative actions." Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the United States based on both revenues and number of stores. RITE AID: Settlement of "Fenley" Case Has Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended March 4, 2017, that in 56the business expense class action (Fenley v. Rite Aid Corporation, Santa Clara Superior Court), the parties reached a settlement pursuant to which we will pay an immaterial amount to settle the class claims. The court granted final approval of the settlement on February 3, 2017. Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the United States based on both revenues and number of stores. RITE AID: January 2018 Trial Set in "Hall" Case ----------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the fiscal year ended March 4, 2017, that the court scheduled the "Hall" case for trial on January 26, 2018. The Company said, "In the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. We filed our motion for decertification, which motion was granted in November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which appeal was granted in May 2014. We filed a petition for review of the appellate court's decision with the California Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014." "Proceedings in the Hall case were stayed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. That decision was rendered on April 4, 2016. A status conference in the case was held on November 18, 2016, at which time the court lifted the stay and scheduled the case for trial on January 26, 2018." Rite Aid is the third largest retail drugstore chain in the United States based on both revenues and number of stores. ROLLING BONES: Fails to Pay Store Manager OT, "Inhofer" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JARED INHOFER Plaintiff, vs. ROLLING BONES OUTFITTERS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:17-cv-05041-JLV (D.S.D., May 16, 2017), was filed on behalf of the Plaintiff and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging that Plaintiff worked overtime for Defendant without receiving any of the compensation to which he was entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Rolling Bones Outfitters in this District as a store manager.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael W. Strain, Esq. STRAIN MORMAN LAW FIRM 1134 Main Street - P.O. Box 729 Sturgis, SD 57785 Phone: (605) 347-3624 ROSA'S FIRST: "Salazar" Labor Suit Claims Unpaid Overtime Pay ------------------------------------------------------------- Cynthia Salazar, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rosa's First Quality Home Healthcare, LLC and Balinda Antoine, Defendants, Case No. 4:17-cv-00399, (N.D. Tex., May 16, 2017), seeks actual damages in the amount of all unpaid wages and overtime compensation, overtime compensation for all unpaid hours worked in excess of forty hours with liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this action, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rosa's First Quality Home Healthcare operates a home healthcare services company where Salazar worked as a home attendant. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: John H. Allen III, Esq. Jennifer Williams, Esq. Amber L. Martin, Esq. JACKSON ALLEN & WILLIAMS, LLP 3838 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Tel: (214) 521-2300 Fax: (214) 452-5637 Email: tallen@jacksonallenfirm.com jwilliams@jacksonallenfirm.com amartin@jacksonallenfirm.com SAILS GROUP: Background Checks Done Illegally, Robertson Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Shadea Robertson, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated, v. The Sails Group, Inc., Supported and Independent Living Services (Sails) Bakersfield, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC661122 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2017), seeks statutory and civil penalties, punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs of suit, interests, reasonable attorney's fees and such other relief under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, California's Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act and Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act. Defendants required plaintiff to fill out and sign a "Reference Release Form" and a "Driving Record Authorization Form. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used these forms to acquire credit and background reports on herself in connection with their hiring process without providing proper disclosures and obtaining proper authorization in compliance with the law. [BN] Plaintiffs are represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Thomas Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Email: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com SAINTS & SANTOS: Laborers Class Certified in "Castellanos" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Ivan L. R. Lemelle granted the Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for disclosure of the names and addresses of the potential opt-in plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JOSE CASTELLANOS v. SAINTS & SANTOS CONSTRUCTION, L.L.C., ET AL., Case No. 2:16-cv-02501-ILRL- JCW (E.D. La.). The class conditionally certified for the purposes of the Plaintiff's collective action claims is defined as: "All employees of Saints & Santos Construction who performed or are performing manual labor for Saints & Santos Construction during the previous two years, January 2015 to May 2017, and who are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 207 and who did not receive full overtime compensation." The Parties are ordered to meet, confer, and thereafter submit to the Court a joint proposal of notice. The Defendants must provide the Plaintiff's counsel with all potential opt-in plaintiffs' names and last known mailing address. Following submission of the notice to opt-in, Plaintiff Consent forms must be postmarked and deposited in the U.S. Mail on or before 45 days following the first mailing of the Notice. Each form will be marked with the date received by counsel, and Consents to join will be treated as filed on the date marked, so long as they are filed with the Court within one week of the date marked. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9FahWzRA SERVICE KING: Morales Seeks Overtime Pay, Reimbursements -------------------------------------------------------- Abelardo Morales, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Service King Paint & Body, LLC, a limited Liability Company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC661567 (Cal. Super., May 16, 2017), seeks compensatory damages for minimum and overtime compensation due, interest thereon at the statutory rate, actual damages, all wages due terminated employees, costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further relief pursuant to the California Labor Code. Service King owns and operates a network of auto collision repair facilities and auto painting services as well as reassembly, cleaning of vehicle and car rental and towing services. Plaintiff claims to have worked off-the-clock, worked through meal/rest break, incurred business-related expenses that weren't reimbursed and did not receive wage statements. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK LLP 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Website: www.bamlawca.com - and - Mauro Fiore Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MAURO FIORE, JR, APC 136 E. Lemon Avenue Monrovia, CA 91016 Phone: (626) 856-5856 SEVENTY SEVEN: Faces "Scarantino" Suit Over Patterson-Uti Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Scarantino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Seventy Seven Energy Inc., Jerry L. Winchester, Victor Danh, Andrew Axelrod, Douglas Wall, David King, Edward J. Dipaolo, Steven Hinchman, Patterson-Uti Energy, Inc. and Pyramid Merger Sub, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2017-0278 (Del. Ch., April 10, 2017) seeks to recover damages from an alleged proposed transaction pursuant to which Seventy Seven Energy Inc. will be acquired by Patterson-UTI Energy, Inc. and Pyramid Merger Sub, Inc. The Plaintiff, a purported stockholder of Seventy Seven Energy, challenges the disclosures made in connection with the merger. Specifically, he alleges that Seventy Seven Energy's board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by failing to disclose in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the merger certain allegedly material information. The Company operates as a diversified oilfield services company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Tel: (302) 295-5310 - and - RM Law P.C. 1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 3112 Berwyn, PA 19312 Tel: (484) 324-6800 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: AirTran Appeals Class Certification Order ------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that AirTran has filed a conditional notice of cross-appeal to appeal the Court's order certifying a class. A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary AirTran Airways, Inc. (collectively with AirTran Holdings, Inc., "AirTran") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009. The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic flights beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May 2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single federal district court judge in Atlanta. A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the consolidated action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to add claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on competitive routes and to raise prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble damages for the amount of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the Consolidated Amended Complaint sought injunctive relief against a broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as attorneys' fees. On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta opposed. On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining claims. On July 12, 2016, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of all persons who paid first bag fees to AirTran or Delta from December 8, 2008 to November 1, 2014 (the date on which AirTran stopped charging first bag fees). Defendants have appealed that decision, and the appeal is pending. On March 29, 2017, the Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all claims against AirTran. On April 13, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the district court's judgment. On April 24, 2017, AirTran filed a conditional notice of cross- appeal to appeal the Court's order certifying a class. AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing, including those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends to defend vigorously any and all such allegations. Southwest Airlines Co. operates Southwest Airlines, a major passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in the United States and near-international markets. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Discovery Underway in Suit over Higher Fares ---------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the parties in a class action lawsuit are currently engaged in discovery. On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the Company, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines to limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar class action complaints were filed in the United States District Courts for the Central District of California, the Northern District of California, the District of Columbia, the Middle District of Florida, the Southern District of Florida, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the Eastern District of Louisiana, the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District of New York, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of Oklahoma, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, the District of Vermont, and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. On October 13, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation centralized the cases to the United States District Court in the District of Columbia. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the consolidated cases alleging that the defendants conspired to restrict capacity from 2009 to present. The plaintiffs seek to bring their claims on behalf of a class of persons who purchased tickets for domestic airline travel on the defendants' airlines from July 1, 2011 to present. They seek treble damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and expenses. On May 11, 2016, the defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and on October 28, 2016, the Court denied this motion. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend these civil cases. Southwest Airlines Co. operates Southwest Airlines, a major passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in the United States and near-international markets. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: To Defend Against Class Suit in Canada ---------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company intends to vigorously defend a class action lawsuit in Canada. On July 8, 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action filed in the Federal Court in Canada alleging that the Company, Air Canada, American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and United Airlines colluded to restrict capacity and maintain higher fares for Canadian residents traveling in the United States and for travel between the United States and Canada. Similar lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 15, 2015, Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan on August 4, 2015, Superior Court of the Province of Quebec on September 21, 2015, and Ontario Superior Court of Justice on October 6, 2015. In December 2015, the Company entered into Tolling and Discontinuance agreements with putative class counsel in the Federal Court and British Columbia and Ontario proceedings and a discontinuance agreement with putative class counsel in the Quebec proceeding. The other defendants entered into an agreement with the same putative class counsel to stay the Federal Court, British Columbia and Quebec proceedings and to proceed in Ontario. On June 10, 2016, the Federal Court granted plaintiffs' motion to discontinue that action against the Company without prejudice and stayed the action against the other defendants. On July 13, 2016, the plaintiff unilaterally discontinued the action against the Company in British Columbia. On February 14, 2017, the Quebec Court granted the plaintiff's motion to discontinue the Quebec proceeding against the Company and to stay that proceeding against the other defendants. On March 10, 2017, the Ontario Court granted the plaintiff's motion to discontinue that proceeding as to the Company. The Saskatchewan claim has not been served on the Company, and the time for the Company to respond to that complaint has not yet begun to run. The plaintiff in that case generally seeks damages (including punitive damages in certain cases), prejudgment interest, disgorgement of any benefits accrued by the defendants as a result of the allegations, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing and intends to vigorously defend this civil case in Canada. Southwest Airlines Co. operates Southwest Airlines, a major passenger airline that provides scheduled air transportation in the United States and near-international markets. STAAR SURGICAL: Still Faces "Todd" Stockholder Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- STAAR Surgical Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the stockholder securities litigation by Edward Todd. On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiff claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and omitted material information from our investors between February 27, 2013 and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at STAAR's Monrovia manufacturing facility. On October 20, 2014, plaintiff amended its complaint, dismissed two Company officers, added one other officer, reduced the alleged Class Period to November 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014, and demanded compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. On January 5, 2017, the court granted plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification. Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against this lawsuit. The Company has not recorded any loss or accrual in the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements at March 31, 2017 and December 30, 2016 for this matter as the likelihood and amount of loss, if any, has not been determined and is not currently estimable. STAAR Surgical Company designs, develops, manufactures, and sells implantable lenses for the eye and companion delivery systems used to deliver the lenses into the eye. SWISSPORT FUELING: Holmes Seeks Conditional FLSA Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff moves the Court for conditional certification of the collective action entitled ETHAN A. HOLMES, for himself and on Behalf of those similarly situated v. SWISSPORT FUELING, INC., a Delaware Corporation, SWISSPORT SA FUEL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-00669-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.). The Amended Complaint in the lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff, representing six other Opt-In Party Plaintiffs, as well as all other similarly situated employees, have been damaged as a result of the Defendants' failure to properly compensate the Plaintiffs for all hours worked by them, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff will serve upon the Defendants' various Interrogatories requesting the name and address of all employees part of the Asserted Class, to wit: All current and former aircraft fuelers employed by the Defendants' located at the Southwest Florida International Airport, and/or located at any other airport in the State of Florida, and/or located at any other airport located around the country, who were not paid for all hours actually worked due to various auto-deduction policies implemented by the Defendants and who are, were or have been employed for any length of time since on or after August 30, 2013, three (3) years prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. The Plaintiff also asks the Court to require the Defendants to produce, within 30 days, the names and last known addresses of all aircraft fuelers employed by the Defendants at RSW, at any other airport in the state of Florida, and located any other airport around the country, for the period beginning three years prior to the initiation of the lawsuit to the present; and to authorize the Plaintiff to send notice to each employee and seeking their consent to opt-in. A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=NuvVD1Dw The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael G. Fink, Esq. MIKE FINK LAW FIRM, P.A. 2029 Bayside Parkway Fort Myers, FL 33901 Telephone: (239) 939-1906 E-mail: MFink@MikeFinkLaw.net The Defendants are represented by: Patrick M. Muldowney, Esq. Meagan L. Martin, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Post Office Box 112 Orlando, FL 32802-0112 Telephone: (407) 649-4000 E-mail: pmuldowney@bakerlaw.com mmartin@bakerlaw.com TEREX CORPORATION: Filed Motions to Dismiss Securities Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the Company has filed motions to dismiss the securities lawsuit. In 2010, the Company received complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits as follows: * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of securities laws was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al. * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April 12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and Terex Corporation. These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they purchased the Company's securities and in the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of fiduciary duties. The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in its favor. The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with federal securities laws and Delaware law with respect to these matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the securities lawsuit. The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit. Terex is a global manufacturer of lifting and material processing products and services that deliver lifecycle solutions to maximize customer return on investment. TEXAS, USA: Smith's Bid to Certify Class of Muslim Inmates Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hon. Ron Clark denies the Plaintiff's motion for class certification submitted in the lawsuit styled TIMOTHY JOHN SMITH v. BRYAN COLLIER, ET AL., Case No. 6:17-cv-00073-RC-KNM (E.D. Tex.). Bryan Collier is the Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Timothy John Smith, an inmate confined at the Coffield Unit of the Texas prison system, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brings the civil rights lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The complaint was referred to United States Magistrate Judge K. Nicole Mitchell, who issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Mr. Smith's motion for class certification be denied. Mr. Smith has filed objections. Mr. Smith is an adherent of the Muslim faith. His lawsuit concerns the prison system's grooming policy in relation to the exercise of his religious beliefs. He acknowledges that the prison system has adopted new guidelines because of other lawsuits. He complains, however, that the new guidelines do not provide for all of the practices of his religious beliefs as a Muslim. He is seeking class certification for the 6,000 to 7,000 Muslim inmates, who share his beliefs. According to the order, Judge Mitchell found that Mr. Smith has not satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) & (b). In particular, as a pro se prisoner litigant, he has not demonstrated that he would be an adequate representative in behalf of his fellow inmates in a class action lawsuit. The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration, and having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Mr. Smith to the Report, the Court is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and Mr. Smith's objections are without merit, Judge Clark explains. Therefore, the Court adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court, and denies Mr. Smith's motion for class certification. A copy of the Order is available at no charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7WiwcTvi TPUSA INC: Fails to Pay Call Center Agents Overtime, Rolle Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMELLA ROLLE, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. TPUSA, INC. and TPUSA-FHCS, INC. d/b/a TELEPERFORMANCE, Delaware Corporations, Defendants, Case No. 2:17- cv-14168-DMM (S.D. Fla., May 16, 2017), alleges that Defendants required their Agents to work a full-time schedule, often including overtime. However, Defendants did not compensate their Agents for all work performed; instead, Defendants only paid their Agents for the time spent on the telephone and available to accept calls. This practice resulted in Agents not being paid for all time worked and for all of their overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act." Defendants offer call center services to their clients and employed workers to receive and respond to customer calls on behalf of those clients. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly agent.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick H. Gonyea, Esq. Richard J. McIntyre, Esq. McIntyre Thanasides Bringgold ELLIOTT GRIMALDI & GUITO, P.A. 500 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 200 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (813) 223-0000 Fax: (813) 899-6069 E-mail: patrick@mcintyrefirm.com nichola@mcintyrefirm.com rich@mcintyrefirm.com nichola@mcintyrefirm.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: 248-355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com TRANS UNION: Faces "Taylor" Class Suit Alleging FCRA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, and Zachary Taylor, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated v. Trans Union, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv- 00376-REP (E.D. Va., May 16, 2017), alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Trans Union LLC develops and delivers information and risk management solutions. The Company offers various credit monitoring products, risk management solutions, marketing services, and other related solutions. Trans Union provides its products and services throughout the world. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq. Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. KELLY & CRANDALL PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7570 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com - and - Emily Connor Kennedy, Esq. Mark Clifton Leffler, Esq. BOLEMAN LAW FIRM 2104 Laburnum Ave., Suite 201 Richmond, VA 23227 Telephone: (804) 358-9900 Facsimile: (804) 358-8704 E-mail: ecf@bolemanlaw.com mcleffler@bolemanlaw.com - and - Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 Facsimile: (757) 930-3662 E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Ortez" Suit Under FLSA & State Wage Laws -------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL ORTEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC., an Ohio corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:17-cv-01202-CMA (D. Col., May 16, 2017), alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay him, and other employees who were similarly situated, the federal minimum wage for all of the hours they worked, and by failing to pay them overtime compensation for the hours they worked in excess of 40 per week. The case was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Orders. Also, Plaintiff alleges that UPS retaliated against him in violation of the FLSA by terminating his employment and failing to hire him on a permanent basis because he complained about UPS's pay policies and practices. UPS also retaliated against him in violation of the public policies enunciated in Colorado Wage and Hour Law and the Colorado Labor Peace Act. United Parcel Service Inc. is principally engaged in the business of international package delivery. Plaintiff was employed by UPS as a seasonal employee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Miller, Esq. Adam M. Harrison, Esq. SAWAYA & MILLER 1600 Ogden Street Denver, CO 80218 Phone: 303.839.1650 E-mail: dmiller@sawayalaw.com aharrison@sawayalaw.com VANCO HEALTH: Faces "Macklin" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------- RUTH MACKLIN, individually on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VANCO HEALTH CARE AND REHABILITATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00855 (M.D. Tenn., May 16, 2017), alleges that when Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours during a week, Defendant did not compensate her at a rate of "one and one-half times the regular rate at which the employee is actually employed" for the first 40 hours of work under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Vanco Health Care and Rehabilitation, Inc. is a nursing center.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nina Parsley, Esq. MICHAEL D. PONCE & ASSOCIATES 1000 Jackson Road, Suite 225 Goodlettsville, TN 37072 Phone: (615) 851-1776 E-mail: nina@poncelaw.com VIVUS INC: Ninth Circuit Has Yet to Schedule Oral Argument ---------------------------------------------------------- Vivus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 3, 2017, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2017, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has not yet scheduled the matter for oral argument or consideration in the shareholder lawsuit. On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud against the Company and three of its former officers and directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 114-cv-261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California's securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for the Company's success, including with respect to the launch of Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit. Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8 million, and sought damages and other relief. On July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv- 03263. The Jasins' federal complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on facts substantially similar to those alleged in their state court action. On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their state court action with prejudice. Defendants moved to dismiss the federal action and moved to dismiss again after plaintiffs amended their complaint to include additional factual allegations and to add seven new claims under California law. The court granted the latter motion on June 18, 2015, dismissing the seven California claims with prejudice and dismissing the two federal claims with leave to amend. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on August 17, 2015. Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint as well. On April 19, 2016, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 18, 2016. Briefing on the appeal has now been completed. The Ninth Circuit has not yet scheduled the matter for oral argument or consideration. The Company maintains directors' and officers' liability insurance that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipated cost of the remaining Jasin action, subject to the use of our financial resources to pay for our self-insured retention and the policies' terms and conditions. The Company and the defendant former officers and directors cannot predict the outcome of the lawsuit, but they believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to continue vigorously defending against the claims. VIVUS is a biopharmaceutical company developing and commercializing innovative, next-generation therapies to address unmet medical needs in human health, with two approved therapies and one product candidate in active clinical development. Qsymia(R) (phentermine and topiramate extended release) is approved by FDA for chronic weight management and STENDRA(R) (avanafil) is approved by FDA for ED and by the EC under the trade name, SPEDRA, for the treatment of ED in the EU. Tacrolimus is in active clinical development for the treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension, or PAH. WESTERN DENTAL: Illegally Debits Clients' Accounts, King Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Renata King, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Western Dental Services, Inc., and Does 1- 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. BC661485 (Cal. Super, May 16, 2017), seeks injunctive relief, statutory damages, treble damages and all other relief in violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Defendants debited Plaintiff's bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers, used an automatic telephone dialing system in connection with collection on alleged debts without the call recipient's prior express consent. Western Dental Services, Inc. provides dental care services whom Plaintiff allegedly owes. [BN] Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Meghan E. George, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com mgeorge@toddflaw.com ********* 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 * * *