/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070508.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, May 8, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 90
Headlines
ALBERTSON'S INC: Settlement of "Barton" Labor Suit Approved
ALBERTSON'S INC: Continues to Face Calif. WARN Violations Suit
ALBERTSON'S INC: "Dunbar" Labor Law Violations Suit Dismissed
ALBERTSON'S INC: Continues to Face Labor Suit in San Diego Court
ALBERTSON'S INC: Settlement of Suit Over SuperValue Sale Okayed
ANCHORAGE COMMUNITY: Residents Sue Over Unhealthy Sewage System
ARIZONA: Hopis File Suit Over Ill-Timed Pipeline Meetings
AULCORP FOOD: Salmonella Contamination Prompts Cheese Recall
BETTY BRITE: Workers File Suit in Ill. Over Labor Law Violations
BLUE EQUITY: Businesses Sue Over Delayed Spanish Yellow Page Ads
BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues to Face "Marin" Beryllium Lawsuit
BRUSH WELLMAN: "Parker" Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order
BRUSH WELLMAN: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Paz" in Miss.
BRUSH WELLMAN: Seeks to Dismiss Third-Party Beryllium Claims
COMCAST CORP: Faces Breach of Contract Suit Over MFDCs in Mich.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Mulls Dismissal Motion for "Chronister"
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Calif. Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Still Faces "Himmelman" Labor Suit in N.J.
CUSTOM CLEANERS: Class Status Bid for Client's $67M Suit Denied
DOW JONES: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in N.Y. Over News Corp. Bid
DR JAY'S: Employee Files Suit in N.Y. Alleging FLSA Violations
FORWARD INDUSTRIES: Securities Fraud Suit Hearing Set May
GALLIKER DAIRY: Recalls Milk Over-Fortified with Vitamin A
GEORGIA: Court Partly Dismisses Claims in Suit Over HB 1059
HERCULES INC: Oral Argument in Agent Orange Suit Set June 18
ILLINOIS: May 15 Hearing Set in Suit Over City's Towing Practice
LOUD TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Fla. RICO, Antitrust Suit
MENU FOODS: Recalls More Pet Foods Due to Cross-Contamination
NEW ALBERTSON'S: Faces Suit by Sav-on Assistant Store Managers
NORTH SHORE: Fla. Suit Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices
NORTH CAROLINA: Appeals Court Allows Temp. State Workers to Sue
ORANGE 21: Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Gets Court OK
PACIFIC PREMIER: To Appeal Rulings in Mo. SMLA Violations Suit
PPG INDUSTRIES: Plans to Settle Other Automotive Refinish Suits
PPG INDUSTRIES: Working to Settle Flat Glass Antitrust Lawsuits
PRICELINE.COM INC: Enters $80M Deal in Conn. Securities Suit
QUALITY COMMUNITIES: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards
QUOVADX INC: $7.8M Shareholder Suit Deal Granted Final Approval
RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. Tex.
SMARTPAK CANINE: Melamine Contamination Prompts Pet Foods Recall
TJX COS: Motion Filed to Consolidate Privacy Breach Lawsuits
VERMONT: Judge Allows Trial to Proceed in Motorcycle Club's Suit
XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Okla. Natural Gas Royalty Payments Suit
* ISS to Hold May 9 Webcast on Securities Litigation Trends
New Securities Fraud Cases
COAST FINANCIAL: Saxena White Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
*********
ALBERTSON'S INC: Settlement of "Barton" Labor Suit Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in Boise, Idaho granted final approval
to a settlement of 10 purported class or collective actions that
were consolidated in March 1996 in the U.S. District Court in
Boise, Idaho as, "Barton et al. v. Albertson's, Inc."
In September 2000, an agreement was reached and court approval
granted to settle the suits which raised various issues
including "off-the-clock" work allegations and allegations
regarding certain salaried grocery managers' exempt status.
Under the settlement agreement, current and former employees who
met eligibility criteria have been allowed to present their off-
the-clock work claims to a claims administrator.
Additionally, current and former grocery managers employed in
the state of California have been allowed to present their
exempt status claims to a claims administrator. The claims
administrator has assigned values to claims. The value of these
claims can be challenged by either party.
The parties have agreed to resolve all outstanding claims and
the Court granted final approval of that agreement on March 22,
2007.
ALBERTSON'S INC: Continues to Face Calif. WARN Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's Inc. remains a defendant in the purported class
action, "Joanne Kay Ward et al. v. Albertsons, Inc. et al.,"
which was filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California.
The suit alleges that the company and its subsidiaries, Lucky
Stores and Sav-on Drug Stores, paid terminated employees their
final paychecks in an untimely manner. The suit seeks statutory
penalties.
Supervalu Inc., which acquired the company in 2006, reported no
development in the case at its Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
February 24, 2007.
Idaho-based Albertson's, Inc. -- http://www.albertsons.com-- is
an operator of retail food and drug chains in the U.S. As of
February 2, 2006, it operated 2,471 stores in 37 states under
the banners Albertsons, Acme, Bristol Farms, Grocery Warehouse,
Jewel, Jewel-Osco, Max Foods, Osco Drug, Sav-on Drug, Shaw's,
Star Market, Super Saver and Lazy Acres.
ALBERTSON'S INC: "Dunbar" Labor Law Violations Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Complaints in "Dunbar v. Albertson's, Inc.," have been
dismissed, according to Supervalu Inc.'s form 10-K filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended February 24, 2007.
In March 2004, a lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed
against Albertson's in the Superior Court of the State of
California in and for the County of Alameda, California by a
grocery manager seeking recovery including overtime pay based
upon plaintiff's allegation that he and other grocery managers
were improperly classified as exempt under California law.
Class certification was denied in June 2005 and the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion to consolidate trial of approximately
60 claims. The claims have been resolved and all complaints
dismissed, according to the regulatory filing.
Idaho-based Albertson's, Inc. -- http://www.albertsons.com-- is
an operator of retail food and drug chains in the U.S. As of
February 2, 2006, it operated 2,471 stores in 37 states under
the banners Albertsons, Acme, Bristol Farms, Grocery Warehouse,
Jewel, Jewel-Osco, Max Foods, Osco Drug, Sav-on Drug, Shaw's,
Star Market, Super Saver and Lazy Acres. Supervalu Inc.
acquired the company in 2006.
ALBERTSON'S INC: Continues to Face Labor Suit in San Diego Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's Inc. remains a defendant in a suit alleging it
failed to pay wages for time worked during meal breaks by its
non-exempt employees employed in key carrier positions.
Sally Wilcox and Dennis Taber filed the complaint, later
certified as a class action, in California Superior Court in and
for the County of San Diego in August 2004.
The lawsuit further alleges that Albertson's failed to provide
itemized wage statements as required by California law and that
Albertson's failed to timely pay wages of terminated or resigned
employees as required by California law. The lawsuit further
alleges a violation of the California Unfair Competition Law,
Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.
The lawsuit seeks recovery of all wages, compensation and/or
penalties owed the members of the class certified, including
compensation of one hour of pay for rest or meal period
violations and wages for all time worked while employees were
clocked out for meal periods or required to remain on the
premises during meal periods.
The lawsuit further seeks to recover all past due compensation
and penalties for failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements and to pay all wages due at time of termination for
members of the class certified with interest from August 6, 2000
to time of trial.
ALBERTSON'S INC: Settlement of Suit Over SuperValue Sale Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Idaho state court has granted final approval to a settlement
of a lawsuit filed over the sale of Albertson's Inc. to
SuperValu Inc. in 2006.
On June 2, 2006, SuperValu acquired New Albertson's, Inc.
consisting of the core supermarket businesses formerly owned by
Albertson's, Inc.
On January 24, 2006, a class action complaint was filed in the
Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for the
County of Ada, naming Albertsons and its directors as
defendants.
The action, "Christopher Carmona v. Henry Bryant et al., No. CV-
OC 0601251," challenged the agreements entered into in
connection with the series of transactions facilitating the sale
of Albertsons to SUPERVALU, CVS Corp. and an investment group
led by Cerberus Capital Management, L.P.
On May 18, 2006, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding for a full settlement with the plaintiff.
On Dec. 13, 2006, the Court held a hearing for final approval of
the settlement, and on Jan. 23, 2007, issued a Memorandum
Decision and Order granting approval. On March 9, 2007, the
Court issued a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with
Prejudice.
ANCHORAGE COMMUNITY: Residents Sue Over Unhealthy Sewage System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of John's Motel and RV Park in Mountain View Drive,
Anchorage (Alaska) have signed on to sue Anchorage Community
Land Trust, over the company's failure to maintain sewage and
heat systems on the property, Andrea Gusty of CBS 11 News
reports.
According to Ms. Gusty, at least 18 residents are filing the
suit against the owners of the property, claiming they were
mistreated and lied to, causing conditions in their homes that
have made them sick.
Lawyers for the group say they believe that several city and
state laws have been broken at the RV park, causing the park's
residents serious injury and sickness.
Since the health and safety allegations first came out, Suzanne
Little, former head of the company, has resigned.
Anchorage Community can be reached at:
Anchorage Community Land Trust
3142 Mountain View Dr
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: (907) 748-5848
ARIZONA: Hopis File Suit Over Ill-Timed Pipeline Meetings
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action might soon settle the issue whether federal
agencies can conduct important business during ceremonial
holidays when traditional Hopis are bound to be absent, Arizona
Daily Sun reports.
Two Hopis, Valjean Joshevama and Jerry Honawa, filed a suit
against the Office of Surface Mining on the ground that public
meetings on a proposed pipeline were very inconvenient for them
and badly timed. The said meetings about the proposed pipeline
were held between November and February, time for Hopis to
meditate and conduct life-renewing ceremonies, and not for
disputes.
Atty. David Abney is considering filing a class action on behalf
of all Hopis basing on the Religious Restoration Act.
Mr. Abney's contact information:
David L. Abney, Esq.
414 East Southern Avenue
Mesa, AZ 85204
Phone: (480)833-8800
Fax: (480)833-7146
Web site: http://www.ssgplaw.com
AULCORP FOOD: Salmonella Contamination Prompts Cheese Recall
------------------------------------------------------------
AULCORP Food Marketers Inc. of Toronto, Ontario, Canada is
recalling Archer Farms Four Cheese Risotto flavor, 6 oz., with
"Best If Used By 16JUL2008AA".
The firm says it has the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can
result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections
(i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.
The Salmonella contamination was noted after random testing by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
No illnesses have been reported to date.
Archer Farms Four Cheese Risotto, code "Best If Used By
16JUL2008AA" was sold nationwide through Target stores. The
Archer Farms Four Cheese Risotto flavor has been pulled from
Target stores while the FDA and Aulcorp Food Marketers Inc.
continue their investigation as to the source of the
contamination.
The Archer Farms Four Cheese Risotto is packaged in a 6 oz. (170
g.) Paperboard Box with a mustard yellow banner that identifies
this item as the Four Cheese flavor.
Consumers who have purchased the 6 oz. (170g.) packages of
Archer Farms Four Cheese Risotto, code "Best If Used By
16JUL2008AA", are urged to return the item to the nearest Target
store for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Target Guest Relations at
1-800-440-0680.
BETTY BRITE: Workers File Suit in Ill. Over Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Brite Cleaners, Inc., and Greg Ehman were named as
defendants in a purported class action alleging various labor-
related violations.
Gudelia Rocha, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, Portal-to-Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL),
and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), filed
the suit on April 30, 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.
Ms. Rocha, represented by Attorney John William Billhorn,
brought the complaint on behalf of all present and past hourly
or salaried workers of the defendants.
Generally, her complaint states that plaintiffs work or worked
and were for purposes of payroll compensation denied their
premium rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 per workweek.
The complaint lists seven counts:
-- Count I = Violation of the FLSA
-- Count II = Willful Violation of the FLSA
-- Count III = Liquidated Dames Under the FLSA
-- Count IV = Violation the IMWL
-- Count V = Violation of the IWPCA
Plaintiff seeks a court order declaring and decreeing company's
practices are in violation of the federal and state statutes
described above.
She is also seeking damages, attorney's fees, costs, and
litigation expenses, as well as additional relief that the court
deems necessary.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1e9a
The suit is "Rocha v. Betty Brite Cleaners, Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:07-cv-02379," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois under Judge Harry D. Leinenweber.
Representing the plaintiff is:
John William Billhorn, Esq.
Billhorn Law Firm
515 N. State Street, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60610
Phone: (312) 464-1450
E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com
BLUE EQUITY: Businesses Sue Over Delayed Spanish Yellow Page Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers, Arkansas attorney Bruce Mulkey in collaboration with
lawyers in New York, Kentucky and Washington, D.C., filed a
class action in Jefferson County Circuit Court on behalf of
Northwest Arkansas business owners who paid to advertise in a
Spanish yellow pages book, Robin Mero of The Morning News
reports.
Filed on behalf of real estate agent Susana Lopez, and the
Swindle Law Firm, the suit alleges breach of contract as the
Spanish yellow pages book wasn't published in January as
promised.
Defendants are Blue Equity LLC, Seccion Amarilla USA LLC, and
Telemex USA LLC.
"For many of the businesses, their peak season is January
through May, and they had no advertising for that time," Brad
Adams, the salesman who sold the advertisements, said.
According to the complaint, Ms. Lopez claims she bought a $600
quarter-page ad inside the book for her company, Lighthouse Real
Estate, and Swindle Law Firm purchased the back cover for
$7,000.
Ken Swindle, a Rogers attorney who bought the back cover on both
the competitor's book and the Seccion Amarilla book, said he
filed the lawsuit because his ad cost $7,000 -- but many other
companies paid far less and couldn't justify suing on their own.
"Mine was the biggest ad, but other companies paid only $500 or
$600, which isn't worth filing a lawsuit over, so they'd say 'I
got ripped off' and let it go," Mr. Swindle said.
According to Mr. Adams, 50,000 copies of the book were to be
published across the state and 30,000 of those were to be
distributed locally. He did not know if the book will still be
printed.
Plaintiffs' attorney, Mr. Mulkey, can be reached at:
Bruce L. Mulkey, Esq.
The Mulkey Attorneys Group
1039 W. Walnut, Suite 3
Rogers, AR 72756-3526
Phone: (479) 631-0481
Fax: (479) 631-5994
BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues to Face "Marin" Beryllium Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
The suit "Marin et al. v. Brushman Wellman Inc." continues
before the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. It
is one of several suits filed against Brush Wellman, a
subsidiary of Brush Engineered Materials Inc., over the hazards
of beryllium.
"Manuel Marin, et al., v. Brush Wellman Inc.," the first of such
purported class actions was filed in Superior Court of
California, Los Angeles County, case number BC299055, on July
15, 2003. The named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin,
Garfield Perry and Susan Perry. The defendants are:
-- Brush Wellman,
-- Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc., and
-- Doe Defendants 1 through 100.
A first amended complaint was filed on Sept. 15, 2004, naming
five additional plaintiffs. The five additional named
plaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion,
James Jones and John Kesselring. The plaintiffs allege that
they have been sensitized to beryllium while employed at the
Boeing Co. The plaintiffs' wives claim loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately 250
members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing or
its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other
consisting of their spouses.
They have brought claims for negligence, strict liability --
design defect, strict liability -- failure to warn, fraudulent
concealment, breach of implied warranties, and unfair business
practices.
The suit seeks injunctive relief, medical monitoring, medical
and health care provider reimbursement, attorneys' fees and
costs, revocation of business license, and compensatory and
punitive damages.
Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and
Kesselring represent current and past employees of Boeing in
California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses. Defendant
Appanaitis Enterprises, Inc. was dismissed on May 5, 2005.
Brush Engineered reported no development in the case at its
April 30, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30,
2007.
Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.
BRUSH WELLMAN: "Parker" Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has yet to rule
on an appeal against a Georgia state court decision granting
summary judgment in favor of defendant in "Parker, et al., v.
Brush Wellman Inc."
The second purported class action filed against Brush Wellman
Inc., a subsidiary of Brush Engineered Materials Inc., over the
hazards of beryllium is "Neal Parker, et al., v. Brush Wellman
Inc." It was filed in Superior Court of Fulton County, State of
Georgia, case number 2004CV80827, on Jan. 29, 2004.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, case number 04-CV-606, on May 4, 2004. The
named plaintiffs are Neal Parker, Wilbert Carlton, Stephen King,
Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins, Leonard Ponder, Barbara King and
Patricia Burns.
The defendants are:
-- Brush Wellman;
-- Schmiede Machine and Tool Corp.;
-- Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc., d/b/a Copper and Brass
Sales;
-- Axsys Technologies Inc.;
-- Alcoa, Inc.;
-- McCann Aerospace Machining Corp.;
-- Cobb Tool, Inc.; and
-- Lockheed Martin Corp.
Messrs. Parker, Carlton, King and Burns and Ms. Watkins are
current employees of Lockheed. Mr. Ponder is a retired
employee, and Ms. King and Ms. Burns and Ms. Watkins are family
members.
Plaintiffs have brought claims for negligence, strict liability,
fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy and punitive damages.
They seek a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to
fund a court-supervised medical monitoring program, attorneys'
fees and punitive damages.
On March 29, 2005, the court entered an order directing
plaintiffs to amend their pleading to segregate out those
plaintiffs who have endured only subclinical, cellular and
subcellular effects from those who have sustained actionable
tort injuries, and that following such amendment, the court will
enter an order:
-- dismissing the claims asserted by the former subset of
claimants, dismissing Count I of the complaint, which
sought the creation of a medical monitoring fund; and
-- dismissing the claims against defendant Axsys
Technologies Inc.
On April 20, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a Substituted Amended
Complaint for Damages, contending that each of the eight named
plaintiffs and the individuals listed on the attachment to the
original complaint, and each of the putative class members have
sustained personal injuries.
Plaintiffs though allege that they identified five individuals
whose injuries have manifested themselves such that they have
been detected by physical examination and/or laboratory test.
On March 10, 2006, the court entered an order construing
defendants' motion to enforce the March 29, 2005 Order as a
Motion for Summary Judgment and granted summary judgment in the
company's favor.
However, plaintiffs have filed an appeal, and the case is now in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, case number 06-
12243-D. Oral argument was held on Feb. 28, 2007, but no
decision has been issued, according to Brush Engineered's April
30, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2007.
Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.
BRUSH WELLMAN: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Paz" in Miss.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed a
District Court's order granting a Motion to Dismiss "Paz, et al.
v. Brush Engineered Materials Inc., et al.," which names Brush
Wellman Inc., a subsidiary of Brush Engineered, as defendant.
The third purported class action against Brush Wellman over the
hazard of beryllium is "George Paz, et al. v. Brush Engineered
Materials Inc., et al." It was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi, case number 1:04CV597,
on June 30, 2004.
The named plaintiffs are George Paz, Barbara Faciane, Joe Lewis,
Donald Jones, Ernest Bryan, Gregory Condiff, Karla Condiff, Odie
Ladner, Henry Polk, Roy Tootle, William Stewart, Margaret Ann
Harris, Judith Lemon, Theresa Ladner and Yolanda Paz.
The defendants are:
-- Brush Engineered Materials Inc.;
-- Brush Wellman Inc.;
-- Wess-Del Inc.; and the Boeing Co.
Plaintiffs seek the establishment of a medical monitoring trust
fund as a result of their alleged exposure to products
containing beryllium, attorneys' fees and expenses, and general
and equitable relief.
They purport to sue on behalf of a class of:
-- present or former Defense Contract Management
Administration (DCMA) employees who conducted quality
assurance work at Stennis Space Center and the Boeing
Co. at its facility in Canoga Park, California;
-- present and former employees of Boeing at Stennis; and
-- spouses and children of those individuals.
Messrs. Paz and Lewis and Ms. Faciane represent current and
former DCMA employees at Stennis. Mr. Jones represents DCMA
employees at Canoga Park. Messrs. Bryan, Condiff, Ladner, Polk,
Tootle and Stewart and Ms. Condiff represent Boeing employees at
Stennis. Ms. Harris, Ms. Lemon, Ms. Ladner and Ms. Paz are
family members.
The company filed a motion to dismiss on Sept. 28, 2004, which
was granted and judgment was entered on Jan. 11, 2005; however,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal.
Brush Engineered Materials Inc. was dismissed for lack of
personal jurisdiction on the same date, which plaintiffs did not
appeal.
On April 7, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit,
in case number 05-60157, certified the question regarding
whether Mississippi has a medical monitoring cause of action to
the Mississippi Supreme Court. The suit is now in the Supreme
Court of Mississippi under Case No. 2006-FC-00771-SCT.
In case number 2006-FC-007712-SCT, the Mississippi Supreme Court
issued an opinion that the laws of Mississippi do not allow for
a medical monitoring cause of action without an accompanying
physical injury on Jan. 4, 2007.
Plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied by the
Mississippi Supreme Court on March 1, 2007. On March 29, 2007,
the Fifth Circuit entered and filed its judgment affirming the
District Court's granting of the company's Motion to Dismiss;
however, this is subject to appeal.
Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.
BRUSH WELLMAN: Seeks to Dismiss Third-Party Beryllium Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman Inc. moved to dismiss a third-party complaint by
Tube Methods, Inc. that seeks to hold Brush Wellman partly
liable for damage claims against Tube Methods in relation to the
hazards of beryllium-containing products.
"Anthony v. Small Tube Manufacturing Corp. d/b/a Small Tube
Products Corp., Inc., et al.," is the fourth purported class
action that Brush Wellman Inc. faces in relation to beryllium.
It was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, Pennsylvania, under Case No. 000525, on Sept. 7, 2006.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under Case No. 06-CV-4419, on Oct. 4,
2006.
The only named plaintiff is Gary Anthony. The defendants are:
-- Small Tube Manufacturing Corp., d/b/a Small Tube
Products Corp., Inc.;
-- Admiral Metals Inc.; Tube Methods, Inc.; and
-- Cabot Corp.
The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a class of current
and former employees of the U.S. Gauge facility in Sellersville,
Pennsylvania who have ever been exposed to beryllium for a
period of at least one month while employed at U.S. Gauge.
The plaintiff has brought claims for negligence. Plaintiff
seeks the establishment of a medical monitoring trust fund, cost
of publication of approved guidelines and procedures for medical
screening and monitoring of the class, attorneys' fees and
expenses.
Defendant Tube Methods, Inc. filed a third-party complaint
against Brush Wellman Inc. in that action on Nov. 15, 2006. Tube
Methods alleges that Brush supplied beryllium-containing
products to U.S. Gauge, and that Tube Methods worked on those
products, but that Brush is liable to Tube Methods for
indemnification and contribution.
Brush moved to dismiss the Tube Methods complaint on Dec. 22,
2006. On Jan. 12, 2007, Tube Methods filed an amended third-
party complaint, which Brush moved to dismiss on Jan. 26, 2007.
Brush Engineered Materials, Inc. -- http://www.beminc.com/--
through its wholly owned subsidiaries, is a manufacturer of
engineered materials serving the global telecommunications,
computer, data storage, aerospace and defense, automotive
electronics, industrial components, and appliance markets.
COMCAST CORP: Faces Breach of Contract Suit Over MFDCs in Mich.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owners of multi-unit apartments have filed a class-action
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan against Comcast Corp.
Lead plaintiffs Mary L. Regina and Jacqueline Snow Davies allege
breach of contract, claiming they had contracts with Barden
Cablevision to get 2 percent of the money from subscriptions at
their buildings, and when Comcast bought Barden, it repudiated
the deals.
Barden Cablevision, on their own, desired to have cable
television lines wired into the multi-family dwelling complexes
(MFDC) in order to facilitate and encourage the purchase of
cable television services by the tenants. The cable companies
entered into contracts with plaintiffs in which the plaintiffs
agreed to provide access to the cable companies in exchange for
a fee.
Comcast Corp. d/b/a Comcast Cablevision, unilaterally decided
not to pay fees to property owners with MFDCs of 20 or fewer
units.
Defendant advised Ms. Regina that the decision was made
unilaterally, as a business decision, and that if she had a
problem with the decision, she should contact a lawyer.
Plaintiffs seek to enforce the contract rights on behalf of all
persons who own MFDCs of 20 units or less who entered into cable
service agreements with the cable companies but who have not
received cable service fees due to defendant decision not to
make the payments to persons owning MFDC with less than 20
units.
Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:
(a) whether defendant's agreement to pay cable service
franchise fees was terminable without the consent of
class members;
(b) what the term was for defendant obligation to pay the
fees;
(c) whether defendant was within its right to unilaterally
terminate cable service agreement fees to class members
with MFDCs of less than 20 units; and
(d) computing the amount of money damages owed by
defendant.
Plaintiffs request:
-- a finding by the court that defendant's actions
constituted a breach of contract;
-- an order requiring the defendant to make payment to
plaintiff's class for all outstanding cable service
franchise fees;
-- award costs, interest, damages and attorney fees;
-- other, further and additional relief as the nature of
the case may require or as maybe determined to just,
equitable, and proper by the court; and
-- an order appointing plaintiff counsel as class counsel.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1240
The suit is "Regina et al. v. Comcast Corp., Case No. 2:07-cv-
11934-ADT-VMM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan under Judge Anna Diggs Taylor with referral
to Judge Virginia M. Morgan.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Phillip S. Serafini, Esq.
Serafini, Michalowski,
38600 Van Dyke Avenue, Suite 250
Sterling Heights, MI 48312
Phone: 586-264-3756
E-mail: psslaw@msn.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
26000 W. 12 Mile Road
Southfield, MI 48034
Phone: 248-436-8448
E-mail: jthompson@jta-law.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Court Mulls Dismissal Motion for "Chronister"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois has yet to rule on
a motion seeking the dismissal of the class action, "Chronister,
et al. v. Granite City Illinois Hospital Company, LLC d/b/a
Gateway Regional Medical Center," which names Community Health
Systems, Inc. as a defendant.
The complaint, which was served against the company on April 8,
2005, seeks class-action status on behalf of the uninsured
patients treated at Gateway Regional Medical Center and alleges
statutory, common law, and consumer fraud in the manner in which
the hospital bills and collects for the services rendered to
uninsured patients.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.
The company is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss,
according to the company's April 26, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2007.
Brentwood, Tennessee-based Community Health Systems, Inc., --
http://www.chs.net-- through its subsidiaries, owns, leases and
operates acute care hospitals that are the principal providers
of primary healthcare services in non-urban communities.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Calif. Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
has denied a motion for summary judgment filed by Continental
Casualty Co., a subsidiary of CNA Financial Corp. in regards to
the class action, "Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Company, et
al., Case No. CV06-2235 RGK."
The suit was filed on behalf of certain California long-term
health care policyholders, alleging that Continental Casualy
knowingly used unrealistic actuarial assumptions in pricing
these policies, which according to plaintiff, would inevitably
necessitate premium increases.
The plaintiff asserts claims for intentional fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and violations of various California
statutes.
On Jan. 26, 2007, the court certified the case to proceed as a
class action, although Continental Casualty is currently seeking
review of that decision in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Continental Casualty has denied the material allegations of the
amended complaint and intends to vigorously contest the claims.
In February 2007, Continental Casualty and CNA filed motions for
summary judgment seeking judgment as a matter of law in their
favor. In April 2007, the court denied the motions for summary
judgment with the exception of the motion relating to
plaintiffs' claim under the California Legal Remedies Act, which
was dismissed.
The claim under CLRA involved a provision for claims of awards
for attorneys' fees and enhanced damages.
The suit is "Ralph Shaffer v. Continental Casualty Co. et al.,
Case No. 2:06-cv-02235-PSG-PJW," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California under Judge Philip
S. Gutierrez with referral to Judge Patrick J. Walsh.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
Milstein Adelman & Kreger LLP
2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone: 310-396-9600
E-mail: wkreger@maklawyers.com
- and -
Richard J. Arsenault, Esq.
Neblett Beard and Arsenault
2220 Bonaventure Court, P.O. Box 1190
Alexandria, LA 71309-1190
Phone: 318-487-9874
Representing the defendants are:
Brent R. Austin, Esq.
Wildman Harrold Allen and Dixon
225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 2200
Chicago, IL 60606-1229
Phone: 312-201-2848
E-mail: austin@wildmanharrold.com
- and -
Stan Karas, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
Phone: 213-443-3000
E-mail: stankaras@quinnemanuel.com
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Still Faces "Himmelman" Labor Suit in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Casualty Co., a subsidiary of CNA Financial Corp.,
remains a defendant in the wage and hour suit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
W. Curtis Himmelman filed the suit, "Himmelman v. Continental
Casualty Co.," individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated on Jan. 12, 2006.
The case is a purported class action and representative action
brought on behalf of present and former CNA Financial
environmental claims analysts and workers' compensation claims
analysts asserting they worked hours for which they should have
been compensated at a rate of one and one-half times their base
hourly wage.
The claims were originally brought under both federal and New
Jersey state wage and hour laws on the basis that the relevant
jobs are not exempt from overtime pay because the duties
performed are not exempt duties.
On August 11, 2006, the court dismissed plaintiff's New Jersey
state law claims. Under federal law, plaintiff seeks to
represent others similarly situated who opt in to the action and
who also allege they are owed overtime pay for hours worked over
eight hours per day and/or 40 hours per workweek for the period
Jan. 5, 2003 to the entry of judgment.
Plaintiff seeks "overtime compensation," "compensatory, punitive
and statutory damages, interest, costs and disbursements and
attorneys' fees" without specifying any particular amounts, as
well as an injunction.
CNA reported no development in the matter in its April 30, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "Himmelman v. Continental Casualty Co., Case No.
3:06-cv-00166-GEB-JJH," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey under Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr. with
referral to Judge John J. Hughes.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
Locks Law Firm, LLC
457 Haddonfield Road, Suite 500
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Phone: (856) 663-8200
E-mail: slesser@lockslawny.com
Representing the defendants is:
Christopher H. Lowe, Esq.
Sevfarth Shaw, LLP
1270 Avenue Of The Americas, Suite 2500
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 218-5523
E-mail: clowe@ny.seyfarth.com
CUSTOM CLEANERS: Class Status Bid for Client's $67M Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
District of Columbia Civil Judge Neal Kravitz denied a motion
filed by plaintiff Roy Pearson, a judge in Washington D.C., to
expand a case over a pair of lost trousers into a class action,
ABC13 reports.
The civil case will now proceed before another judge in June.
The problem dates back to 2002 when Custom Cleaners, owned by
Koreans Jin and Soo Chung and their son, lost his pair of pants
and about a year later, the same mishap occurred.
Mr. Pearson, representing himself, declared in court papers that
he has been through an ordeal for his first day on the bench
because he was unable to wear his favorite pants. He further
said he has endured both mental and emotional suffering as well
as inconvenience and discomfort.
Mr. Pearson is now seeking $67M in damages and legal fees. He
showed in court papers how he figured out such an enormous
amount, which includes 10 years of car rental fees and the
monetary equivalent for the emotional stress he went through.
He valued the missing pants for $800 in court documents,
according to the report.
According to court documents, Judge Neal Kravitz found the
plaintiff acting in bad faith and with intent to delay the
proceedings. "Indeed, it is difficult to draw any other
conclusion, given the plaintiff's lengthy delay in seeking to
expand the scope of the case, the breathtaking magnitude of the
expansion he seeks, his failure to present any evidence in
support of the thousands of claims he says he wishes to add, and
his misrepresentation concerning the scope of his first amended
complaint," he wrote in court papers.
The Chungs' attorney is Chris Manning.
DOW JONES: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit in N.Y. Over News Corp. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dow Jones & Co. Inc. shareholder, Nora Vines, lodged an investor
lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York accusing
the Bancroft family and Dow Jones' directors of failing to
properly evaluate News Corp.'s bid for the company, Reuters
reports.
Earlier this week, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. made a $5 billion
bid for the publisher of the Wall Street Journal.
The suit alleges the Bancroft family and company directors
exercised poor business judgment and rejected Mr. Murdoch's
offer "in bad faith." It claims the Bancrofts and Dow Jones
directors rejected Mr. Murdoch's offer with the motive of
solidifying their dominance over the company.
According to the lawsuit, the rejection of the offer by the
Bancrofts and directors "represents an ill-considered, hasty
reaction, which did not satisfy their duty to obtain adequate
information before rejecting a bona fide acquisition proposal."
"We have not received a copy of the complaint and, accordingly,
have no comments at this time," said Howard Hoffman, a Dow Jones
spokesman.
The company said its board would not act on Mr. Murdoch's $60
per share offer after a majority of the Bancroft family, which
controls 64.2 per cent of Dow Jones voting stock, indicated they
would veto a deal.
DR JAY'S: Employee Files Suit in N.Y. Alleging FLSA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jay's, Inc. is facing a purported federal class action
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.
Dwayne Pannell filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on May 2, 2007. He brought the
sought on behalf of current and formers of employees of Dr.
Jay's, claming that he and the purported class are:
-- entitled to unpaid wages from Dr. Jay's for overtime
work which they did not receive overtime premium pay;
-- entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA;
-- entitled to back wages from Dr. Jay's for overtime work
for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as
required by the New York Labor Law;
According to the complaint, plaintiff on behalf of himself and
the purported class, request that the court grant the following
relief:
-- class certification for the case;
-- designation of the case as a collective action;
-- declaratory judgment that the company's practices are
unlawful under the FLSA and the New York Labor Law;
-- an injunction against the defendant from engaging in
practices considered unlawful under the FLSA and the
New York Labor Law;
-- an award of unpaid overtime compensation due under the
FLSA and the New York Labor Law;
-- an award of liquidated and/or punitive damages as a
result of the defendant's willful failure to pay
overtime compensation pursuant to the FLSA;
-- an award of prejudgment and post judgment interest;
-- an award of costs and expenses of this action together
with reasonable attorneys' and expert fees; and
-- such other and further relief as the court deems just
and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1ea3
The suit is "Pannell v. Dr. Jay's, Inc., Case No. 1:07-cv-03503-
RMB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York under Judge Richard M. Berman.
Representing the plaintiff are:
Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq.
Berger & Gottlieb
150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212)-228-9795
Fax: (212)-982-6284
E-mail: nyjg@aol.com
- and -
Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq.
The Law Office of Justin A. Zeller, P.C.
222 Broadway, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10038
Phone: (212) 860-9169
Fax: (917) 421-9387
E-mail: Jazeller@zellerlegal.com
FORWARD INDUSTRIES: Securities Fraud Suit Hearing Set May
---------------------------------------------------------
A May 2007 hearing is set in a suit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida by Lynn Finkelstein &
Co., Inc., on behalf of certain of its clients as attorney-in-
fact and all others similarly situated, against Forward
Industries, Inc. and certain of its executive officers.
The company was served with the summons and the purported class
action complaint on Oct. 3, 2006. The complaint alleges that
the Company during the purported class period July 25, 2005, to
Feb. 2, 2006, made certain misrepresentations of fact, or failed
to disclose certain material facts, and violated certain
generally accepted accounting principles in the presentation of
its financial statements included in its periodic reports filed
with the Commission pursuant to the Exchange Act.
On Nov. 15, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
that purports to state substantially identical claims. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, as amended, in
its entirety for failure to satisfy the pleading requirements of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and
Plaintiff's attorneys filed a responsive motion and brief.
The Company filed its brief in response in February 2007. The
parties to this action anticipate attendance at a May 2007
hearing called by the judge assigned to hear this case at which
a schedule for discovery and motion practice may be proposed.
The Company has directors and officers' liability insurance,
including entity coverage. The Company has, in the course of
defending the complaint, incurred legal and other expenses up to
the retention amount of $250,000, in its directors and officers
liability insurance policy and that incurring expenses not
covered by this policy may adversely affect its reported results
of operations in future periods.
The suit is "Lynn Finkelstein v. Ball, et al., Case No. 1:06-cv-
21922-UU," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Ursula Ungaro.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Julie Prag Vianale, Esq.
Vianale & Vianale
2499 Glades Road, Suite 112
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: 561-392-4750
Fax: 392-4775
E-mail: jvianale@vianalelaw.com
- and -
Barbara Podell, Esq.
Berger & Montague, P.C.
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6365
Phone: 215-875-3000
Fax: 875-4673
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Charles Christian Kline, Esq.
White & Case
200 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 4900
Miami, FL 33131-2352
Phone: 305-371-2700
Fax: 358-5744
E-mail: ckline@whitecase.com
GALLIKER DAIRY: Recalls Milk Over-Fortified with Vitamin A
----------------------------------------------------------
Galliker Dairy Co. of Johnstown, Pennsylvania, with the
knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, is recalling half-gallon
packages of Galliker's Healthy Chekd Calcium Enriched Fat Free
Milk because they are over-fortified with Vitamin A. High
levels of Vitamin A can be harmful to people with Vitamin A
sensitivity.
Only products coded May 14, 2007 are affected. The product
comes in a 64-ounce (One Half-Gallon), plastic package marked
with the code date on the front of the package. The UPC for
this product is 070474-001766.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.
The recall was initiated after a chemical test indicated that
over-fortification occurred. All of Galliker's processing
documents indicate that the proper procedures were followed.
Currently the company and the Pennsylvania Department of
Agriculture are reviewing how vitamins are added to this
product. Only this one product is involved. All distribution
was contained within the state of Pennsylvania.
Production of this product will continue while this incident is
investigated. Products having any other code date are not
affected.
Retailers are asked to pull-from-sale all unsold Galliker's
Healthy Chekd Calcium Enriched Fat Free Milk with the code date
of May 14, 2007 and return them for full refund.
Consumers with any questions may contact the company at 800-477-
6455.
GEORGIA: Court Partly Dismisses Claims in Suit Over HB 1059
-----------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper on March 30, 2007 issued
these rulings in "Whitaker et al. v. Perdue et al., Case No.
4:06-cv-00140-CC":
(a) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer and
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint are
denied as moot; and
(b) Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint is granted in part and denied in
part.
The suit was filed on June 20, 2006 by registered sex offenders
Wendy Whitaker, Joseph Linaweaver, Janet Jenkins Allison, James
Victor Wilson, Jeffery York, Dewayne Owens, Al Reginald Marks,
Lori Sue Collins, and Reverend Joel Jones, challenging certain
provisions of Act No. 571 (HB 1059).
HB 1059
The Act provides, in pertinent part, that no individual required
to register as a sex offender "shall reside or loiter within
1,000 feet of any child care facility, church, school, or area
where minors congregate."
The Act defines "areas where minors congregate" as including
"school bus stops," and "school bus stops" are defined as school
bus stops "as designated by local school boards of education or
by a private school." In addition, the Act provides that no
individual required to register as a sex offender "shall be
employed by any child care facility, school, church, or by any
business entity that is located within 1,000 feet of a child
care facility, a school, or a church."
Defendants in the case are:
-- Gov. Sonny Perdue;
-- Georgia Attorney;
-- General Thurbert E. Baker;
-- Scot Dean, Chief of Probation in Cedartown; and
-- Polk County Sheriff Robert Sparks.
The Act was scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2006. On July
28, 2006, the Court entered an Order denying Plaintiffs'
Motion for Temporary Restraining Order as to the Sheriffs of
Burke and Richmond counties, insofar as it appeared that the
local school boards of education in those counties had not
designated school bus stops, and directing Plaintiffs and the
Sheriff of Columbia County to file a consent order reflecting
the agreement reached at the hearing.
That same day, the Court entered an Order certifying, for the
duration of this litigation, a Plaintiff class consisting of all
persons who are registered, who are required to register, or who
in the future will be required to register as sex offenders
under Georgia law. Plaintiff Reverend Joel Jones was not a
member of the Plaintiff class in this case.
On August 24, 2006, the Court entered an Order certifying, for
the duration of this litigation, a Defendant class consisting of
all Sheriffs in the State of Georgia and naming the Sheriff of
Columbia County as the class representative.
Claims
Plaintiff alleges that the Act will force thousands of
registered sex offenders from their homes, jobs, and churches.
Plaintiffs contend that the Act is unconstitutional because it
violates:
(1) a section in the U.S. Const. art. that prohibits ex
post facto laws, Bills of Attainder, and laws that
impair the obligation of contracts;
(2) the procedural component of the Due Process Clause;
(3) the substantive component of the Due Process Clause and
the right to family privacy;
(4) the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons
Act;
(5) the Free Exercise Clause and the right to freedom of
association;
(6) the Takings Clause;
(7) the right to interstate and intrastate travel; and
(8) the Eight Amendment's prohibition on cruel and
unusual punishment.
Plaintiffs request that the Court declare certain portions of
the Act unconstitutional and permanently enjoin the enforcement
of those provisions.
Rulings
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer and Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint are denied as moot. The
court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint, but allowed Plaintiffs to amend their
complaint within 20 days of the date of this Order to assert a
claim that the provision of the Act that prohibits registered
sex offenders from working within 1,000 feet of churches
violates the Free Exercise Clause and to assert vagueness and
overbreadth claims.
A copy of the ruling is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e98
The suit is "Whitaker et al. v. Perdue et al., Case No. 4:06-cv-
00140-CC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia under Judge Clarence Cooper.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Stephen Brooks Bright, Esq.
Southern Center for Human Rights
83 Poplar Street, N.W.
Atlanta GA 30303-2122
Phone: 404-688-1202
E-mail: sbright@schr.org
- and -
Margaret Fletcher, Esq.
Garrett of the ACLU Foundation of Georgia, Inc.
Suite 514 75 Piedmont Avenue, Atlanta, GA 30303,
Phone: 404-523-6201
E-mail: mgarrett@acluga.org
HERCULES INC: Oral Argument in Agent Orange Suit Set June 18
------------------------------------------------------------
A June 18, 2007 oral argument is scheduled before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit by plaintiffs in two class
actions alleging personal injuries in relation to Agent Orange
exposure.
Currently, Hercules Inc. is a defendant in approximately 28
lawsuits, including two purported class actions, where
plaintiffs allege that exposure to Agent Orange caused them to
sustain various personal injuries.
On February 9, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York issued a series of rulings granting several
motions filed by defendants in the two cases that had been
remanded to the U.S. District Court by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 2nd Circuit on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The suits are:
* "In re: "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation: Joe
Isaacson, et al. v. Dow Chemical Company, et al.,(MDL
381, CV 98-6383 (JBW)," and
* "Daniel Raymond Stephenson, et al. v. Dow Chemical
Company, et al., CV 99-3056 (JBW)."
In relevant part, those rulings held that plaintiffs' claims
against the defendant manufacturers of Agent Orange that were
brought in the state courts are properly removable to federal
court under the "federal officer removal statute" and that such
claims are subject to dismissal by application of the
"government contractor defense."
The Court then dismissed plaintiffs' claims, but stayed its
decision to allow plaintiffs to obtain additional discovery and
to move for reconsideration of the Court's decision. A hearing
on the motion for reconsideration was held on February 28, 2005.
By Orders dated March 2, 2005, the Court denied reconsideration,
lifted the stay of the earlier decision, and dismissed
plaintiffs' claims in all of the lawsuits that were before the
Court at that time.
Plaintiffs have appealed those dismissals to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Oral argument before the Court of
Appeals is currently scheduled on June 18, 2007.
Hercules is a leading global manufacturer and marketer of
specialty chemicals and related services for a broad range of
business, consumer and industrial applications.
Representing the company is:
William Andrew, Esq.
Krohley of Kelley, Drye & Warren, L.L.P.
101 Park Avenue, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10178
Phone: (212) 808-7747, -7800
Fax: 212-808-7897
E-mail: wkrohley@kelleydrye.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Stephen B. Murray, Jr., Esq.
Murray Law Firm
909 Poydras Street, Suite 2550
New Orleans, LA 70112-4000
Phone: 504-525-8100
- and -
Gerson H. Smoger, Esq.
Smoger & Associates, P.C.
3175 Monterey Boulevard, Suite 3
Oakland, CA 94602
Phone: 510-531-4529
Fax: 510-531-4377
E-mail: gersonsmoger@earthlink.net
ILLINOIS: May 15 Hearing Set in Suit Over City's Towing Practice
----------------------------------------------------------------
A May 15 status hearing is slated for a purported federal class
action against the City of North Chicago and one of its police
officers in relation to the towing of a local resident's
vehicle, Judy Masterson of Waukegan News Sun.
Reginald Alexander filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 2, 2007. Attorney
Earline D. Navy is Mr. Alexander's legal representative in the
case.
In general, the suit accuses North Chicago Police Officer Donald
Florance of making an "unreasonable search and seizure" and
impounding Mr. Alexander's vehicle on Jan. 26.
Besides the City and Officer Florance, others listed as
defendants in the suit are:
-- John Doe,
-- Richard Doe, and
-- Police Officers of the City of North Chicago Waukegan
According to a complaint, obtained by The Waukegan News Sun,
Officer Florance stopped Mr. Alexander, because a passenger in
his vehicle was not wearing a seatbelt. It goes on to allege
that that the officer then searched the vehicle without Mr.
Alexander's consent.
After the search, Mr. Alexander, who possessed a license and
showed proof of insurance, said that he watched as his car was
towed from the scene.
The complaint, which noted that Mr. Alexander could not afford
the towing and storage fees, stated, "The last time the
plaintiff saw his automobile it was in a fenced area of the
towing company's property. The owner of the towing company
informed him that his car had been used by the fire department
to practice use of the 'jaws of life.'"
The suit, which is seeking $300,000 in damages, is a class
action for "all persons or entities who have and their vehicles
towed, seized or taken in any manner by the City of North
Chicago through its police officers in violation of their
constitutional rights."
Commenting on the case, North Chicago attorney Chuck Smith told
Waukegan News Sun that the suit did not make clear what
ordinance was being contested.
Specifically, Mr. Smith said, "Our insurance defense counsel has
started the discovery process to have the plaintiff state
exactly ordinance he seeks to challenge."
He adds, "A state statute allows for seizure of a vehicle used
in the commission of a crime. I don't know if he's challenging
that statute or our towing ordinance. The suit does not
specifically mention the ordinance."
A city ordinance adopted in 2004 allows for the impoundment of
any vehicle used to carry an illegal firearm or ammunition,
controlled substance, open alcohol or in connection with
prostitution and other crimes. An amendment to the ordinance,
which also allows for towing for lack of license and insurance,
was approved last year.
Attorney Elijah Rosenblum told Waukegan News Sun that the case
is set to go before Judge Joan Lefkow for a status hearing on
May 15.
The suit is "Alexander v. Florance et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-
00509," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under Judge Joan H. Lefkow.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Earline D. Navy, Esq.
2813 19th Place
North Chicago, IL 60064
Phone: (847) 625-0006
E-mail: enavy@comcast.net
Representing the defendants are:
Elisha S. Rosenblum, Esq.
O'Halloran, Kosoff, Helander & Geitner, P.C.
650 Dundee Road, Suite 475
Northbrook, IL 60062
Phone: (708) 291-0200
E-mail: esrosenblum@okgc.com
LOUD TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of Fla. RICO, Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
LOUD Technologies Inc. and its subsidiary, St. Louis Music Co.
are seeking the dismissal of a purported class action, "Ace Pro
Sound and v. Albertson, et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.
The lawsuit, filed by Ace Pro Sound and Recordings and served
upon the Company on or about Nov. 29, 2005, alleges individual
and class action claims against the Company, as well as other,
unrelated defendants.
The claims include civil conspiracy, tortuous interference,
violation of Florida's state and the Federal Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act as well as Section 1 and
Section 2 Sherman Act antitrust claims.
The company has filed a motion to dismiss this case, according
to the company's April 16, 2007 Form 10-K filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
Dec. 31, 2006.
The suit is "Ace Pro Sound and v. Albertson, et al., Case No.
05-CV-23098," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Marcia G. Cooke.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Michael Laurence Feinstein, Esq.
888 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-767-9662
Representing the defendants are:
Dianne O. Fischer, Esq.
Kluger, Peretz, Kaplan & Berlin, P.L.
Miami Center - 17th Floor, 201 South Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, Florida 33131
Phone: (305) 379-9000
Fax: (305) 379-3428
Web site: http://www.kpkb.com
Douglas Elias Ede, Esq.
Salas Ede Peterson & Lage
6333 Sunset Drive
South Miami, FL 33143
Phone: 305-663-0000
- and -
Margaret M. Zwisler, Esq.
Lantham & Watkins, LLP
555 11th Street, N.W., Suite 1000
Washington, District of Columbia 20004-1304
Phone: 202-637-2200
Telecopier: 202-637-2201
Web Site: http://www.lw.com
MENU FOODS: Recalls More Pet Foods Due to Cross-Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Menu Foods has previously recalled wet cat and dog food produced
with adulterated wheat gluten supplied by ChemNutra Inc.
Menu Foods is now expanding the recall to include cuts and gravy
and select other products which do not include ChemNutra wheat
gluten but which were manufactured at any of Menu Foods' plants
during the period that ChemNutra wheat gluten was used at that
plant, to the extent they have not already been subject to a
recall, due to the possibility of cross-contamination.
Menu Foods has received a report from a customer and has
received study results, both of which indicate cross-
contamination.
Thus, Menu advises the public that additional items in the U.S.
and Canada have been added to the recall list. A further two
varieties for Europe have been added to the recall list.
The recall dates of those products previously recalled have been
modified to include all dates during the period that ChemNutra
wheat gluten was used in the applicable Menu plant. All of
these products, including the expanded dates, have previously
been withdrawn from the market and should already be off the
retailer shelves.
Menu estimates that this additional recall represents less than
5% of the products that have already been recalled or withdrawn.
List of additional pet food products involved in the recall can
be found at http://www.fda.gov/oc/po/firmrecalls/menu05_07.html
An updated list of the recalled products, including the new
addition, is available at the Menu Foods website at
http://www.menufoods.com
For additional information, contact 1-866-895-2708.
NEW ALBERTSON'S: Faces Suit by Sav-on Assistant Store Managers
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Albertson's, Inc. is named defendant in a consolidated class
action filed by Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. assistant store
managers in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles,
California.
In April 2000, a class action complaint, "Gardner, et al. v.
American Stores Co., et al.," was filed in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California, against:
* Albertsons, Inc.,
* American Stores Company,
* American Drug Stores, Inc.,
* Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc., and
* Lucky Stores, Inc., wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Albertsons, Inc.,
New Albertson's, Inc. consist of the core supermarket businesses
formerly owned by Albertson's, Inc. operating under Sav-On
banners among others.
The suit was filed by assistant managers seeking recovery of
overtime based on plaintiffs' allegation that they were
improperly classified as exempt under California law. In May
2001, the court certified a class with respect to Sav-on Drug
Stores assistant managers.
A case with very similar claims, involving the Sav-on Drug
Stores assistant managers and operating managers, "Rocher,
Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.," was also filed in
April 2000 against Albertsons, Inc.'s subsidiary Sav-on Drug
Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles, California. It was certified as a class action in June
2001 with respect to assistant managers and operating managers.
The two cases were consolidated in December 2001. New
Albertson's was added as a named defendant in November 2006.
Plaintiffs seek overtime wages, meal and rest break penalties,
other statutory penalties, punitive damages, interest,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.
NORTH SHORE: Fla. Suit Alleges Illegal Debt Collection Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of James, Hoyer, Newcomer, and Smiljanich, P.A.
filed a class action in Tampa, Florida on behalf of a
Clearwater, Florida woman against North Shore Agency, Inc. of
Westbury, Long Island, New York, over alleged illegal debt
collection practices.
Lead plaintiff Casey Joy alleges that North Shore Agency's
collection practices violate the Federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act and Florida's Consumer Collection Practices Act.
The suit alleges that North Shore Agency, Inc. mass mailed
threatening debt collection letters to intimidate consumers into
paying non-existent debts.
Further, it alleges North Shore Agency, Inc. is sending
collection letters to consumers who do not owe this money.
These collection letters fail to notify customers how to
challenge the validity of the debt as required by law.
The Better Business Bureau of New York found North Shore Agency
Inc. has a "pattern of complaints" and has not corrected the
underlying reason for the complaints.
Ms. Joy is a resident of Florida who seeks to represent all
persons nationwide who were victimized by the illegal debt
collection practices used by North Shore Agency, Inc.
Jesse Ray, an attorney with James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich,
P.A., a Tampa firm that frequently represents victims of
corporate fraud, stated, "We have received hundreds of
complaints from consumers around the country regarding North
Shore Agency's collection practices."
It appears North Shore Agency's collection letters are an effort
to coerce consumers into paying for magazine subscriptions they
do not want.
North Shore Agency, Inc. is a subsidiary of Outsourcing
Solutions Inc. North Shore Agency, Inc. claims on its Web site
that the company is one of the nation's largest billing and
collection letters companies, and specializes in the creation,
production, printing, preparation and mailing of billing,
collection and direct response marketing letters throughout the
U.S. and Canada.
The Web site also claims North Shore Agency, Inc. mails hundreds
of millions of invoices, reminder notices, order verifications
and collection letters each year.
The suit is "Casey Joy et al. v. North Shore Agency, Inc., Case
No. 8:CV-00769-T-17EAJ."
For more information, contact:
Jesse Ray, Esq.
James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich, P.A.
One Urban Centre, Suite 550
4830 West Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, Florida 33609-2517
Phone: 813-286-4100
Fax: 813-286-4174
Website: http://www.jameshoyer.com
NORTH CAROLINA: Appeals Court Allows Temp. State Workers to Sue
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state Appeals Court ruled that temporary state employees who
said they deserved the benefits of permanent employees after
working for more than 12 months may sue the state, ABC 13
reports.
The lawsuit, filed by four employees represented by N.C. Justice
Center and lawyers from Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, claims that
state agencies are violating a state law that limits temporary
work contract to 12 months.
The state Appeals court overturned the decision of the lower
court in its ruling on May 2. It held that "sovereign immunity"
is not applicable on claims for breach of contract and that the
temporary workers were unlawfully denied of their retirement
benefits, health insurance and vacation leaves. The appellate
court added that the Wake County judge was wrong in rejecting
the case.
The plaintiffs' lawyers, who strongly believe that there are
other similar cases across the state, are seeking for class-
action status.
For more information, contact:
Kilpatrick Stockton LLP
31 West 52nd Street
14th Floor
New York, New York 10019
(New York Co.)
Phone: 212-775-8700
Fax: 212-775-8800
Web Site: http://www.KilpatrickStockton.com
ORANGE 21: Calif. Securities Fraud Suit Settlement Gets Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
issued an order approving Orange 21 Inc.'s agreement to settle a
consolidated securities class action that was pending in the
Court against certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors and dismissing the action with prejudice.
Initially, two stockholder class actions were filed. A
consolidated complaint was later filed on Oct. 11, 2005, which
purported to seek unspecified damages on behalf of an alleged
class of persons who purchased the company's common stock
pursuant to the registration statement filed in connection with
the company's public offering of stock on Dec. 14, 2004.
The complaint alleged that the company and its officers and
directors violated federal securities laws by failing to
disclose in the registration statement material information
about plans to make a change in its European operations, its
dealings with one of its customers and whether certain of its
products infringe on the intellectual property rights of Oakley,
Inc.
The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the
court granted on March 29, 2006. The court allowed plaintiffs
to file an amended complaint only with respect to their claim
about a European distribution change. Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint dated April 7, 2006.
On May 7, 2006, the company filed a motion to dismiss that
amended complaint. No discovery has been conducted.
On Jan. 16, 2007, the company announced that it had reached an
agreement to settle this action, subject to court approval
(Class Action Reporter, Jan. 17, 2007).
Under the proposed settlement, $1.4 million will be paid to the
class of plaintiffs and for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees from
proceeds of our directors' and officers' insurance. The company
will pay no amounts.
Mark Simo, Orange 21's Chief Executive Officer, commented on the
dismissal, "We are very happy to have this distraction behind
us. With this distraction removed we look forward to
contributing even more time and attention to our current
business initiatives."
The first identified complaint is "Christine Pittman, et al. v.
Orange 21, Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, (San Diego)
402 West Broadway
San Diego, CA, 92101
Phone: 619.230.0800
Fax: 619.230.1874
E-mail: info@barrack.com
Brodsky & Smith, LLC
11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 610.668.7987
Fax: 610.660.0450
E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com
Federman & Sherwood
120 North Robinson, Suite 2720
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Phone: 405-235-1560
E-mail: wfederman@aol.com
Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1250
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 877.493.5366
Fax: 619.238.5425
Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A.
World Trade Center-Baltimore
401 East Pratt, Suite 2525
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: 410.332.0030
E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 206.749.5544
Fax: 206.749.9978
E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com
Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
330 Main Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Phone: 800.797.5499
Fax: 860.493.6290
E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com
- and -
Smith & Smith, LLP
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Phone: 215.638.4847
Fax: 215.638.4867
PACIFIC PREMIER: To Appeal Rulings in Mo. SMLA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., and Pacific Premier Bank are
planning to appeal certain rulings made in a purported class
action filed against them in the Circuit Court of Clay County,
Missouri.
The suit, "James Baker v. Century Financial, et al." was filed
in February 2004. It is alleging various violations of
Missouri's Second Mortgage Loans Act (SMLA) by charging and
receiving fees and costs that were either wholly prohibited by
or in excess of that allowed by the Act relating to origination
fees, interest rates, and other charges.
The complaint seeks restitution of all improperly collected
charges and interest plus the right to rescind the mortgage
loans or a right to offset any illegal collected charges and
interest against the principal amounts due on the loans.
The trial court denied the Bank's motion for dismissal due to
limitations without comment in 2005 and the company's motion to
dismiss due to federal preemption of state law because the Bank
is a federal savings bank was denied in August 2006.
The lawsuit is now in the preliminary phase of discovery. The
company intends to appeal the trial court's ruling on the
limitations as the loans in questions were originated no later
than 1997 and Missouri has a six-year statute of limitations,
according to the company's April 26, 2007 Form 10-K/A filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal
year ended April 26, 2007.
Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc. -- http://www.ppbi.net/home/--
serves as the holding company for Pacific Premier Bank, which
provides banking services within its targeted markets in
Southern California businesses.
PPG INDUSTRIES: Plans to Settle Other Automotive Refinish Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. is working to settle remaining litigations
related to alleged antitrust violations in the U.S. automotive
refinish industry, according to the company's April 30, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
There are class actions in six states that mimic, "In re
Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1426,"
but were filed pursuant to state statutes on behalf of indirect
purchasers of automotive refinish products.
The plaintiffs in these cases have not yet specified an amount
of alleged damages.
The cases are in state courts in California, Maine,
Massachusetts, Tennessee and Vermont, and a federal court in New
York City.
PPG believes that there was no wrongdoing on its part, and
believes it has meritorious defenses to the independent state
court cases.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, PPG agreed to settle the
California state court cases and it is considering potential
settlement of the remaining state court cases.
Necessary court proceedings will follow before the settlement of
the California states court cases becomes final and non-
appealable.
PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- operates in five
segments: Industrial Coatings, Performance and Applied Coatings,
Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals and Glass.
PPG INDUSTRIES: Working to Settle Flat Glass Antitrust Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. and various co-defendants are working to
settle flat glass antitrust class actions filed in federal and
state courts in Pennsylvania, California, and Tennessee,
according to company's April 30, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2007.
These suits allege that the company acted with competitors to
fix prices and allocate markets in the flat glass.
Twenty-nine glass antitrust cases were filed in federal courts,
all of which were consolidated as a class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. All of
the other defendants in the glass class action antitrust case
settled with the plaintiffs and were dismissed from the case.
On May 29, 2003, the court granted PPG's motion for summary
judgment dismissing the claims against PPG in the glass class
action antitrust case.
The plaintiffs in that case appealed that order to the U.S.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On Sept. 30, 2004, the U.S.
Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the
dismissal of PPG and remanded the case for further proceedings.
PPG petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for permission to appeal
the decision of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals,
however, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected PPG's petition for
review.
On Oct. 19, 2005, PPG entered into a settlement agreement to
settle the federal glass class action antitrust case in order to
avoid the ongoing expense of this protracted case, as well as
the risks and uncertainties associated with complex litigation
involving jury trials.
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, PPG agreed to pay $60
million and to bear up to $500,000 in settlement administration
costs.
The U.S. District Court entered an order on Feb. 7, 2006,
approving the settlement. This order is no longer appealable.
As a result of the settlement, PPG also paid $900,000 pursuant
to a pre-existing contractual obligation to a plaintiff that did
not participate in the federal glass class action antitrust
case.
Separately, on Nov. 8, 2006, PPG entered into a class-wide
settlement agreement to resolve all claims of indirect
purchasers of flat glass in California. PPG agreed to make a
payment of $2.5 million, inclusive of attorneys' fees and costs.
On Jan. 30, 2007, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. The Court has also approved the form of notice to
the settlement class and has scheduled a hearing on final
approval of the settlement for July 10, 2007.
Independent state court cases remain pending in Tennessee
involving claims that are not included in the settlement of the
federal and California glass class action antitrust cases.
Notwithstanding that PPG has agreed to settle the federal and
California glass class action antitrust cases, and is
considering settlement of the Tennessee cases.
PPG Industries, Inc. -- http://www.ppg.com/-- operates in five
segments: Industrial Coatings, Performance and Applied Coatings,
Optical and Specialty Materials, Commodity Chemicals and Glass.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Enters $80M Deal in Conn. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com, Inc. agreed to settle a federal securities class
action that was filed against the company in 2000 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the class will
receive $80 million in return for a release, with prejudice, of
all claims against the company and the individual defendants
that are related to the purchase of the company's securities by
class members during the class period.
The company's insurance carriers will fund $30 million of the
settlement. The settlement is subject to approval by the Court
after notice to the class.
In connection with the settlement, the company expects to incur
a net charge of approximately $55 million in the 1st quarter of
2007, representing the settlement amount and estimated legal
expenses relating to the settlement.
The original complaint alleges that the defendants issued
materially false and misleading information regarding
Priceline's financial condition and prospects.
Specifically, the complaint charges that defendants
misrepresented that the Company would soon be profitable, that
the Company's customer loyalty was accelerating and that the
Company's business model would continue to be effective.
Twenty-two cases were filed, and later assigned to Judge Dominic
J. Squatrito. On Sept. 12, 2001, Judge Squatrito ordered that
these cases be consolidated under the Master File No. 3:00cv1884
(DJS), and he designated lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs'
counsel.
The suit is "In Re: Priceline.com Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 00-CV-01884," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut under Judge Dominic J. Squatrito.
Plaintiff firms named in complaint:
Hurwitz & Sagarin
147 North Broad St., P.O. Box 112
Milford, CT 06460-0112
Phone: 203.877.8000
Johnson & Perkinson
1690 Williston Road
South Burlington, VT 05403
Phone: 802.862.0030
Fax: 802.862.0060
E-mail: JPLAW@adelphia.net
Schatz & Nobel, P.C.
330 Main Street
Hartford, CT, 06106
Phone: 800.797.5499
Fax: 860.493.6290
E-mail: sn06106@AOL.com
Scott & Scott LLC
P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue
Colchester, CT, 06415
Phone: 860.537.5537
Fax: 860.537.4432
E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
35 East State Street, Media, PA, 19063
Phone: 877.891.9880
E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com
Stull, Stull & Brody
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 310.209.2468
Fax: 310.209.2087
E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com
- and -
Weiss & Yourman
The French Building, 551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600
New York, NY, 10126
Phone: 212.682.3025
Fax: 212.682.3010
E-mail: info@wyca.com
QUALITY COMMUNITIES: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quality Communities, Inc. is facing a class-action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
alleging Labor Code violations.
This is a wage and hour action to vindicate the rights afforded
to plaintiffs and the Class by FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et
seq., the California Labor Code, California Business and
Professions Code, and California contract and common law claims.
Lead plaintiffs Pedro Viramontes, Samuel Viramontes and Gonzalo
Perez bring this action on behalf of all non-exempt persons who
are employed or have been employed by Quality Communities in the
State of California who, within four years of the filing of this
Complaint, have worked as hourly and/or piece rate employees and
were not paid all lawful wages and/or reimbursed for necessary
expenses.
The claims of this lawsuit spring from a pattern of employer
misconduct and wrongdoing that is a characteristic of the labor
system utilized by Quality Communities in California, where
unpaid and improperly paid labor, as alleged herein, is a common
business practice, and where the employer externalizes the costs
and risks of capital expenditures upon its employees.
The core of defendant's violations revolve around:
(a) the systematic failure to pay minimum, and premium
overtime wages;
(b) failure to indemnify for all necessary expenditures
incurred;
(c) requiring employees without compensation to supply
tools equipment as a condition of employment;
(d) requiring employees without compensation to provide
their automobiles and trucks for transportation and
hauling of tools, equipment, and supplies, failure to
keep accurate time records; and
(e) failure to provide rest or meal periods (or pay the
statutory compensation due).
Questions of law and fact common to the class include:
(a) whether DEFENDANT failed to pay premium overtime wages
for hours worked in excess of 8 hours in one day, 40
hours in a workweek, and on the seventh day of a
workweek without overtime pay;
(b) whether DEFENDANT failed to pay minimum wages for all
hours worked;
(c) whether DEFENDANT failed to permit rest periods of at
least (10) minutes per four hours worked or major
fraction thereof and failing to pay such employees one
(1) hour of pay at the employee's regular rate of
compensation for each workday that the rest period was
not provided;
(d) whether defendant failed to provide, to work at least
five hours without a meal period and failing to pay
such employee one (1) hour of pay at the employee's
regular rate of compensation for each workday that the
meal period was not provided;
(e) whether defendant failed to provide accurate itemized
wage statements;
(f) whether defendant failed to maintain accurate time-
keeping records;
(g) whether defendant failed to reimburse employees for
expenses reasonably incurred or charged employees to
provide supplies required for employment;
(h) whether DEFENDANT failed to pay wage deductions to the
proper state and federal authorities;
(i) whether DEFENDANT violated the California Labor Code
and wage orders by failing to pay all earned wages
and/or premium wages due and owing at the time that any
Class member's employment with defendant terminated;
(j) whether DEFENDANT violated the California Labor Code
and wage orders by willfully refusing to pay all wages
due;
(k) whether DEFENDANT committed unlawful business practices
in violation of section 17200 et seq. of the Business
and Professions Code by the above practices and other
violations of the California Labor Code.
(l) whether DEFENDANT committed unfair business practices
in violation of section 17200 et seq. of the Business
and Professions Code by violating the public policies
underlying the California Labor Code and/or wage
orders;
(m) whether DEFENDANT breached written or implied
contractual terms with plaintiffs and other Class
members;
(n) whether DEFENDANT improperly converted employees labor,
property, or monies for the use of defendant;
(o) whether defendant failed to provide required safety
equipment;
(p) whether PLAINTIFFS and the other Class members are
entitled to damages, restitution, statutory penalties,
injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages,
attorney's fees and costs, and other relief pursuant to
the FLSA, California Labor Code and wage orders,
Conversion and Contractual causes of action, and
Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.;
and
(q) whether injunctive relief is required to ensure
defendants' provide employment documents to its
employees upon demand.
Plaintiffs pray for judgment for PLAINTIFFS and the Class as
follows:
-- for compensatory damages in an amount according to proof
with interest thereon;
-- for economic and/or special damages in an amount
according to proof with interest thereon;
-- for a declaratory judgment that DEFENDANT violated the
rights of plaintiffs and the Class under the FLSA, 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the California Labor Code,
and applicable wage orders as set forth in the preceding
paragraphs;
-- award PLAINTIFFS and the Class statutory damages or, in
the alternative, actual damages for defendant's
violations of the FLSA;
-- that DEFENDANT be enjoined to comply with Labor Code
Section 226(b) and (c) and afford plaintiffs and the
Class the right to inspect or copy the records
Pertaining to plaintiffs;
-- that defendant be found to have engaged in unfair
competition in violation of California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.;
-- that DEFENDANT be ordered and enjoined to make
restitution to plaintiffs and the Class due to their
unfair competition, including disgorgement of their
wrongfully-obtained revenues, earnings, profits,
compensation, and benefits, pursuant to California
Business and Professions Code Sections 17203 and 17204;
-- that defendant be enjoined from continuing the unlawful
course of conduct as alleged herein;
-- for premium pay and statutory penalties pursuant to
Labor Code Section 203 excluding any penalties available
solely through the procedures detailed in Labor Code
Section 2698 et seq.;
-- for premium wages pursuant to Labor Code Sections 226
and 226.7;
-- for minimum wages pursuant to Labor Code Section 1197,
1194(a), 1194.2, and Wage Order 16;
-- for liquidated damages pursuant to Labor Code Section
1194.2;
-- for penalties pursuant to Labor Code Section 226.
-- for restitution of expenses incurred pursuant to Labor
Code 2802;
-- for attorneys' fees, interests, and costs of suit under
FLSA, Labor Code Sections 226, 1194, 2802, and pursuant
to the private attorney provisions of California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1021.5;
-- for unpaid wages, overtime and other relief as provided
by the California Labor Code; and
-- for such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper excluding any penalties available solely
through the procedures detailed in Labor Code Section
2698 et seq.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1e97
The suit is "Viramontes et al. v. Quality Communities, Inc.,
Case No. 2:07-cv-00843-FCD-EFB," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California under Judge Frank
C. Damrell, Jr., with referral to Judge Edmund F. Brennan.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Esq.
Law Office of Mallison & Martinez
1042 Brown Avenue, Suite A
Lafayette, CA 94549-3902
Phone: 925-283-3842
Fax: 925-283-3426
E-mail: hectorm@mallisonlaw.com
QUOVADX INC: $7.8M Shareholder Suit Deal Granted Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Colorado granted final court approval
to a $7.8 million settlement of the class action "Special
Situations Fund III, L.P. et al. v. Quovadx, Inc."
This is the final resolution of the three legacy shareholder
lawsuits that arose from the Company's 2004 restatement of
historical financial results.
On Dec. 26, 2006, the company entered into a memorandum of
understanding with lead plaintiffs to settle claims brought in
the class action originally entitled, "Henderson v. Quovadx,
Inc. et al.," filed on May 17, 2004.
The suit, subsequently consolidated under the caption, "Special
Situations Fund III, L.P. et al. v. Quovadx, Inc.," is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.
Under the terms of the MOU, Quovadx will pay $7.8 million, by
Jan. 15, 2007, into a settlement fund established by the lead
plaintiffs' counsel in exchange for a release with prejudice of
all claims that were or could have been asserted by the
plaintiffs against the company and the former individual
defendants arising out of or relating to the acquisition of
Quovadx common stock in connection with Quovadx's December 2003
exchange offer for all outstanding shares of Rogue Wave
Software, Inc.
The lead plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses, in amounts
approved by the court, as well as the cost of administering the
settlement, will be paid from the settlement fund.
The company previously accrued $3.3 million dollars in the first
quarter of 2006, or approximately $0.08 per share, as a
preliminary estimate of the settlement amount.
Based on the MOU, the company expects to accrue an additional
settlement expense of $4.5 million, or approximately $0.11 per
share, in its fourth quarter 2006 results of operations.
The suit is "Special Situations Fund III, L.P. et al. v.
Quovadx, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-01006-RPM," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Richard
P. Matsch.
Representing defendants are:
Hugh Gottschalk, Esq.
John Mark Vaught, Esq.
Michael T. Williams, Esq.
Wheeler Trigg Kennedy, LLP
1801 California Street, #3600
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303-244-1858 or 303-244-1800 or 303-244-1867
Fax: 303-244-1879 or 303-2563867
E-mail: gottschalk@wtklaw.com or vaught@wtklaw.com or
williams@wtklaw.com
Representing plaintiffs are:
Michael Jeffrey Hahn, Esq.
Lawrence M. Rolnick, Esq.
Gavin J. Rooney, Esq.
Lowenstein Sandler, PC
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
Phone: 973-597-2526 or 973-597-2468 or 973-597-2472
Fax: 973-597-2527 or 973-597-2469 or 973-597-2400
E-mail: mhahn@lowenstein.com or rolnick@lowenstein.com
or grooney@lowenstein.com
- and -
Marc Bradley Kramer, Esq.
Marc B. Kramer, Atty at Law
150 John F. Kennedy Parkway, #100
Short Hills, NJ 07078
Phone: 973-847-5924
Fax: 973-847-6005
E-mail: MarcBKramer@cs.com
RADIOSHACK CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corp. and certain of its former and current directors
and officers are parties to two putative class actions that were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on March 16, 2007, and March 27, 2007, respectively.
The suits are:
-- "Damore v. RadioShack et al.," and
-- "Hawana v. RadioShack et al."
These actions purport to be brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased RadioShack's common stock between Jan. 14, 2003, and
June 7, 2006.
The complaints allege, among other things, that the company
failed to disclose material adverse facts about its financial
well-being, business relationships, and prospects.
The complaints seek, among other things, a declaration that the
actions are a proper class action, as well as awards for damages
and interest, reasonable costs and expenses (including
attorneys' and experts' fees), according to the company's April
27, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The first identified complaint is "Richard Damore, et al. v.
RadioShack Corporation, et al.," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA, 92101
Phone: 619-231-1058
Fax: 619-231-7423
- and -
Provost & Umphrey Law Firm, LLP
3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Phone: 214-744-3000
Fax: 214-744-3015
E-mail: info@provostumphrey.com
SMARTPAK CANINE: Melamine Contamination Prompts Pet Foods Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
SmartPak Canine conducted a voluntary nationwide recall on all
lots of LiveSmart Adult Lamb and Brown Rice food. This product
tested positive for presence of melamine in a test conducted
Friday.
The LiveSmart Lamb formula is only sold in portion-paks shipped
straight to the consumer's home each month, so there are no bags
of potentially affected product on store shelves anywhere in the
country. The focus of the recall has been informing affected
customers via telephone, email, and letter.
Ninety-nine percent of the roughly 220 pet owners feeding
LiveSmart Adult Lamb via its portion pak pet food subscription
service were contacted by live phone contact or message, and/or
email. The company has had live contact with the majority of
affected pet owners, and is continuing an aggressive outreach
program to ensure that the notification has been received. To
reduce likelihood of pet owners continuing to feed the food,
replacement product is being shipped to affected customers free
of charge.
At the time the recall was initiated, there had not been any ill
effects reported in dogs. Through the efforts to reach out to
all customers, the company has become aware of two instances of
vomiting and learned that a 10 year old Rottweiler had passed
away two weeks previous to the recall.
These reports have been forwarded to FDA and are being
investigated by the company's Medical Director to determine if
they are connected with the LiveSmart Adult Lamb formula. The
company has asked that any dogs showing signs of kidney illness
(loss of appetite, weakness, vomiting, diarrhea, excessive
thirst) be seen by their veterinarian.
The company is presently investigating the source of the
contamination in conjunction with its contract manufacturer,
Chenango Valley Pet Food.
The LiveSmart Adult Lamb formula does not contain rice protein
concentrate nor wheat gluten. All the meat and vegetable
matter, with the exception of New Zealand lamb, is of US origin.
It appears that the product may have been cross contaminated at
the Chenango plant by a prior batch of food unassociated with
SmartPak that contained an ingredient that had been contaminated
with melamine.
SmartPak has also tested each of its other four brands for
melamine contamination, and there was no melamine detected in
the samples of these foods. Those brands are LiveSmart Adult
Chicken and Brown Rice, LiveSmart Senior Chicken and Brown Rice,
and LiveSmart Puppy Chicken and Brown Rice.
Questions regarding this recall may be directed to Paal Gisholt,
the company's president and CEO, who may be reached at 800 461-
8898. Affected customers are asked to call the company's toll
free customer service number at 800 461-8898, which is available
24/7. Additional information will be reported on the company's
website as it becomes available.
Consumers with questions about the pet food they use should
visit the FDA Web site at http://www.fda.gov
TJX COS: Motion Filed to Consolidate Privacy Breach Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in one Computer Intrusion cases filed against TJX
Cos. Inc. lodge a motion with the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1838, to have all of
the actions pending in federal court in the U.S. and Puerto Rico
transferred to the District of Massachusetts for pretrial
consolidation.
The plaintiffs filed the motion on February 15, 2007, and TJX
has supported that motion.
Since mid-January, 2007, a number of putative class actions have
been filed against TJX in state and federal courts in Alabama,
California, Massachusetts and Puerto Rico, and in provincial
Canadian courts in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec and Saskatchewan, putatively on behalf of customers,
including all customers in the U.S., Puerto Rico and Canada,
whose transaction data were allegedly compromised by the
Computer Intrusion.
An action has also been filed against TJX in federal court in
Massachusetts putatively on behalf of all financial institutions
who issued credit and debit cards purportedly used at TJX stores
during the period of the security breach. The actions assert
claims, generally, for negligence and related common-law and/or
statutory causes of action stemming from the Computer Intrusion,
and seek various forms of relief including damages, related
injunctive or equitable remedies, multiple or punitive damages,
and attorney's fees.
Various wholly-owned subsidiaries of TJX, as well as Fifth Third
Bank and/or Fifth Third Bancorp, are also named as defendants in
several of the actions. These cases are all in their initial
phases, and no discovery has commenced.
The U.S. actions are:
(1) "Miranda, et al. v. TJX, Inc., et ano., 07-cv-01075, a
putative class action filed on Jan. 31, 2007 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of "all TJX customers
who made credit card transactions at TJX's stores during the
period that the security of [d]efendants computer systems were
compromised and the privacy or security of whose credit card,
check card, or debit card account, transaction or non-public
information was compromised."
The complaint asserts claims for negligence per se, negligence,
bailment and breach of contract, and also names Fifth Third
Bancorp as a defendant. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages,
credit monitoring, injunctive relief, attorney's fees and costs.
(2) "AmeriFirst Bank v. TJX Companies, Inc., et al., 07-cv-
10169," a putative class action filed on Jan. 31,
2007 in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of "all financial
institutions that issued credit cards and/or debit cards to its
customers that were used at any of TJX's outlets and/or stores
during the period of the security breach."
The complaint asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract
and negligence per se, and also names Fifth Third Bancorp and
Fifth Third Bank as defendants. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages including for recovery of the cost of
issuance of replacement cards and liability for unauthorized
transactions, as well as injunctive relief, attorney's fees and
costs.
(3) "Buckley, et al. v. TJX Companies, Inc., 07-cv-10209,"
a putative class action filed on Feb. 2, 2007 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of "all individuals
in the U.S. whose personal or financial data was stolen, or
cannot definitively be determined not to have been stolen, from
TJX as a result of the conduct described herein."
The complaint asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract
and bailment, and TJX has received a related demand letter
purporting to assert a further claim on behalf of individuals in
the U.S. and Canada under Massachusetts General Laws, c. 93A.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, creation of a fund for
future damages, credit monitoring, injunctive relief, attorney's
fees and costs.
(4) "Gaydos v. TJX Companies, Inc., et ano., 07-cv-10217,"
a putative class action filed on Feb. 5, 2007 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of "all persons or
entities in the U.S. who have had personal or financial data
stolen from TJX's computer network, and who were damaged
thereby." The complaint asserts a claim for negligence, and
also names Fifth Third Bancorp as a defendant. The plaintiff
seeks compensatory damages, credit monitoring, injunctive
relief, attorney's fees, costs and interest.
(5) "McMorris v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et ano., 07-
0460," a putative class action filed on Feb. 5, 2007
in the Superior Court of Middlesex County,
Massachusetts.
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of "[r]esidents of
Massachusetts who made purchases and paid by credit or debit
card or check or who made a return at one or more Marshalls,
T.J. Maxx, HomeGoods, or A.J. Wright stores in the U.S. in 2003
or from May to December 2006."
The complaint asserts claims for negligence and violation of
Massachusetts General Laws c. 214, SS1B, and TJX has received a
related demand letter asserting a further claim under
Massachusetts General Laws, c. 93A. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages, credit monitoring, injunctive relief,
attorney's fees, costs and interest.
(6) "Cohen, et al. v. TJX Companies, Inc., et ano., 07-cv-
10280," a putative class action filed on Feb. 15,
2007 in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts/
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of "all persons or
entities in the U.S. who have had personal or financial data
stolen from TJX's computer network, and who were damaged
thereby." The complaint asserts a claim for negligence, and
also names Fifth Third Bancorp as a defendant. Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, credit monitoring, injunctive relief,
attorney's fees, costs and interest.
(7) "Salinas, et ano. v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et al.,
BC367531," and "Pickering v. The TJX Companies, Inc.,
et al., BC367530," putative class actions filed on
March 8, 2007 in the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, California.
The plaintiffs in each case purport to represent a class of
'[a]ll California residents whose debit cards, check cards,
credit cards (including American Express, Discover, MasterCard
or Visa accounts), transaction or other personal or non-public
information, including information at any TJX retail store such
as T.J. Maxx and Marshalls, was maintained, provided to others
and/or subject to unauthorized release by Defendants from
January 2003 through the date of [j]udgment."
The complaints in each case assert claims for negligence and for
violation of California Civil Code SS1781.81, California Civil
Code SS1798.82, and California Civil Code SS 17200, and also
name T.J. Maxx of CA, LLC and Fifth Third Bancorp as defendants.
The plaintiffs in each case seek compensatory damages,
injunctive and equitable relief including implementation of
security measures, notification to customers and credit
monitoring, and attorney's fees, costs and interest.
(8) "Tennent v. The TJX Companies, Inc., et ano., 07-cv-
00484," a putative class action filed on March 16,
2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.
The plaintiff purports to represent a class of "all TJX
customers who entered into credit card transactions at TJX's
stores and whose personal and/or financial information was
stored in [d]efendant's databases during the period that the
security of said databases was compromised." The complaint
asserts claims for negligence per se, negligence, and bailment,
and also names Fifth Third Bancorp as a defendant. The
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, credit monitoring,
injunctive relief, attorneys fees and costs.
(9) "Rivas, et ano. v. TJX Companies, Inc., 07-cv-10565," a
putative class action filed on March 23, 2007 in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of "all individuals
in the U.S. whose personal or financial data was stolen, or
cannot definitively be determined not to have been stolen, from
TJX as a result of the conduct" alleged in the complaint. The
complaint asserts claims for negligence, breach of contract,
bailment and for violation of Massachusetts General Laws c. 93A,
SS2. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble damages
with respect to the statutory violation claim, injunctive
relief, a fund to compensate future damages, attorney's fees,
interest and costs.
VERMONT: Judge Allows Trial to Proceed in Motorcycle Club's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court of the District of Vermont denied a
motion from the defense asking that the court rule in its favor
on the case, "Pathfinders Motorcycle Club et al. v. Prue et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00330-jgm."
The ruling effectively put the case on track for a trial in six
to eight months, Patrick J. Crowley of The Brattleboro Reformer
reports.
On Dec. 22, 2005, The Pathfinder Motorcycle Club filed a civil
rights suit against former Sheriff Sheila Prue, several
deputies, and the town of Jamaica and its Select board.
The suit alleged that the club's civil rights were violated when
the town of Jamaica asked the sheriff's department to stop the
club's annual rally in August 2004 because the participants
lacked state-approved tires, goggles, helmets, directional
signals and license plates. The suit claims that the bikers
were lied to about those Vermont requirements.
In January, the District Court denied class-action status to the
lawsuit, saying there was no record of the club's lawyer
handling these types of cases (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 14,
2007).
Specifically, the judge wrote in his ruling, "The record
contains no information suggesting plaintiffs' counsel is
knowledgeable or experienced, either with civil rights
litigation or class-action practice," according to the report.
The court granted class-action status to the case after William
Palmieri, the club's attorney filed a motion for reconsideration
along with paperwork showing his qualifications. The class
action will now be able to include every person that signed up
for the Red Fox Turkey Run motorcycle ride in 2004.
Recently, attorney from both sides of the lawsuit were able to
address J. Garvan Murtha in person for the first time.
The defense argues in the motion that deputies of the sheriff's
department, as law enforcement, should have "qualified immunity"
for their actions, which ultimately led to the cancellation of
the Red Fox Turkey Run on Aug. 8, 2004, an on- and off-road
motorcycle rally that deputies suspected of being a race.
Defense attorney Jeffrey S. Marlin wrote in its summary judgment
motion, "Although plaintiffs claim that the sheriff's department
defendants violated a wide array of constitutional rights,
plaintiffs had no clearly established right to:
(1) hold the event without permits required under the
racing statute;
(2) drive motorcycles that failed to comply with Vermont's
motor vehicle laws on public ways; or
(3) hold the event on private property."
In denying the motion, Judge Murtha overruled the argument of
qualified immunity. The judge commented, "If I were to grant
your motion, the Second Circuit would reverse it in about two
seconds."
After the ruling, Judge Murtha said that the discovery process
could resume. The two sides then discussed deadlines and
scheduling, after that Judge Murtha said he expected the case to
go to trial in six to eight months, if needed.
The suit is "Pathfinders Motorcycle Club et al. v. Prue et al.,
Case No. 1:05-cv-00330-jgm," filed in the U.S. District Court of
the District of Vermont under Judge J. Garvan Murtha.
Representing the plaintiffs is
William S. Palmieri, Esq.
The Law Offices of William S. Palmieri, L.L.C.
205 Church Street, Suite 311
New Haven, CT 06510
Phone: (203) 562-3100
Fax: (203) 498-6076
E-mail: wpalmieri@hotmail.com
Representing the defendants is
James F. Carroll, Esq.
English, Carroll, Ritter & Boe, P.C.
64 Court Street
Middlebury, VT 05753
Phone: (802) 388-6711
Fax: (802) 388-2111
E-mail: jcarroll@ecrlaw.com
XTO ENERGY: Still Faces Okla. Natural Gas Royalty Payments Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
No hearing has been scheduled for the class action, "Beer, et
al. v. XTO Energy Inc.," which is pending in the District Court
of Texas County, Oklahoma by royalty owners of natural gas wells
in Oklahoma.
The plaintiffs allege that XTO Energy has not properly accounted
to the plaintiffs for the royalties to which they are entitled
and seek an accounting regarding the natural gas and other
products produced from their wells and the prices paid for the
natural gas and other products produced, and for payment of the
monies allegedly owed since June 2002, with a certain limited
number of plaintiffs claiming monies owed for additional time.
A hearing on the class certification has not been scheduled,
according to Hugoton Royalty Trust's April 30, 2007 Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
XTO Energy Inc. -- http://www.xtoenergy.com/en/home.html-- and
its subsidiaries are engaged in the acquisition, development,
exploitation and exploration of producing oil and gas
properties, and in the production, processing, marketing and
transportation of oil and natural gas.
* ISS to Hold May 9 Webcast on Securities Litigation Trends
-----------------------------------------------------------
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), the world's leading
provider of corporate governance and proxy voting services, will
hold a special Governance Forum webcast, Accountability Goes
Global: International Investors and U.S. Securities Class
Actions, on Wednesday, May 9 at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
Recent media reports have noted that the class action concept,
while often foreign to non-U.S. investors, is increasingly
taking hold worldwide, as investors seize the power that
collective action offers to similarly situated litigation
groups.
During ISS' forum, panelists Mark Willis, a Partner at Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld, Toll, P.L.L.C.; and Elli Kioupi, General
Counsel at Avalon Holdings, will discuss why international
investors are becoming more active in U.S. class action cases.
Adam Savett, ISS Vice President of Securities Class Action
Services, will moderate the panel and also share some of the key
findings from his forthcoming paper, Accountability Goes Global:
International Investors and U.S. Securities Class Actions.
ISS recently studied the prevalence of international investors
that filed lead plaintiff motions to better quantify the level
of international involvement in federal securities class
actions.
The study confirms the anecdotal evidence that international
investors have been active in U.S. courts for some time, and
that investors hailed from 17 different countries and were
represented by 23 different law firms.
The law firm that represented international institutional
investors most often was Milberg Weiss & Bershad, LLP, followed
by Schiffrin, Barroway, Topaz & Kessler, LLP, and Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A.
ISS launched its Governance Forum initiative in 2004 as a free
client service to foster constructive dialogue around important
corporate governance issues facing institutional investors. To
attend the online forum, please register at:
http://www.issproxy.com/globalaccountability/index.jsp.
For more details, contact:
Cheryl Gustitus
ISS Senior Vice President, Communications
Phone: +1-301-556-0538
E-mail: cheryl.gustitus@issproxy.com
- or -
Sarah Cohn
ISS Director of Communications
Phone: +1-212-354-4643
E-mail: sarah.cohn@issproxy.com
New Securities Fraud Cases
COAST FINANCIAL: Saxena White Files Fla. Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. filed a suit on behalf of shareholders against
Coast Financial Holdings Incorporated (CFHI) in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida on April 12,
2007.
The complaint seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who acquired Coast Financial
Holdings securities from January 21, 2005 through January 19,
2007. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements contained in press releases and filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission during the
class period.
During the class period, defendants issued quarter after quarter
of improving financial results, and touted the strength of the
company's assets including its residential construction loan
portfolio. Defendants reported strong growth in the loan
portfolio, but failed to disclose that a significant portion of
CFHI's loans were concentrated in projects with a company called
Construction Compliance Incorporated.
In fact, as revealed in a February 4, 2007 article published in
the St. Petersburg Times, the relationship between CCI and CFHI
began in early 2004, when CCI's owner Jesse Battle formed a
relationship with a mortgage company called American Mortgage
Link and with senior lender Phillip Coon from CFHI to establish
a no-money-down investment program to sell houses.
Pursuant to this program, borrowers would put little or no money
as down payments, and take out construction loans in their name
that CCI would then use to construct the homes. CCI used the
credit lines for construction and to pay the interest on the
loans. Once the projects were completed, borrowers would sell
the homes in a relatively short time period for fast profits.
At the start of the class period, defendants knew but failed to
disclose that CFHI had increased its business with CCI, and was
vulnerable by having extended millions of dollars in connection
with highly speculative CCI projects. Defendants not only
failed to disclose the nature of the relationship with CCI, but
also failed to increase CFHI's loan loss reserves associated
with the risky CCI loans.
Beginning on January 19, 2007, the true nature of the CCI
relationship and CFHI's resulting exposure started to surface.
On January 19, 2007, it was revealed that CCI withdrew tens of
millions of dollars from CFHI and never completed construction
on many homes.
According to a February 4, 2007 article published by the St.
Petersburg Times, CFHI financed at least 482 of the CCI loans
and is on the hook for upwards of $77 million in loans, which
customers may never repay. As a result, defendants revealed
that CFHI's loan portfolio associated with CCI was most likely
impaired because CCI could not complete a significant portion of
their construction projects. As a result, defendants were
forced to add $14 million to CFHI's loan loss reserves to
account for the CCI projects.
Currently, defendants are seeking to bail out of CFHI by
courting a buyer for the company, even though it will be at a
significantly depressed price. A Miami banking analyst quoted
in the St. Petersburg Times article noted that "[i]t's going to
be like visiting the clearance rack in the back of the store.
They're not going to pay top price for Coast, this time next
year, Coast will be a footnote in history."
In response to the news, the price of CFHI stock fell 25% on
unusually large trading volumes. On January 22, 2007, when
additional information about the true high-risk composition of
CFHI's loan portfolio was revealed, the stock fell another 29%,
resulting in massive losses to CFHI investors.
If you are a member of the class described above, you may move
the court no later than May 21, 2007 to become lead plaintiff.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Maya Saxena, Esq.
Saxena White P.A.
2424 North Federal Highway Suite 257
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 394-3399
Fax: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: msaxena@saxenawhite.com
Web Site: http://www.saxenawhite.com
- and -
Joseph White, Esq.
Saxena White P.A.
2424 North Federal Highway Suite 257
Boca Raton, FL 33431
Phone: (561) 394-3399
Fax: (561) 394-3382
E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
Web Site: http://www.saxenawhite.com
*********
A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.
Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.
*********
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., Frederick, Maryland
USA. Glenn Ruel Senorin, Ma. Cristina Canson, and Janice
Mendoza, and Mary Grace Durana, Editors.
Copyright 2007. 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 $575 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 Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.
* * * End of Transmission * * *