/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/070517.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, May 17, 2007, Vol. 9, No. 97
Headlines
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal in "Aucoin"
AMERICAN PROPERTY: Ex-Laborer Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
APEX OIL: Seeks Nixing of Amended Complaint in Ill. Vapors Suit
APPLE COMPUTER: Employee Sues in Calif. for Overtime Work Pay
ARTI PROPERTIES: Ex-Employee Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL: Mo. Court Certifies Suit by Uninsureds
BAYER CORP: Request to Dismiss "Moniz" Antitrust Suit Denied
BLUE CROSS: Settles Suit by Clients with Cancelled Policies
BUSINESS COMPUTER: Insurer Settles Students Lawsuit for $9M
CARDINAL DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Rings Due to High Lead Content
CUTERA INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.D. Calif.
CYNOSURE INC: Still Faces Mass. TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes
DAVIS CREEK: Recalls Beef Products Due to E.coli Contamination
DICKEY PETROLEUM: Calif. Suit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime
DIRECTV GROUP: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Portable DVD Player Promo
DOLE FOOD: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuits in Florida
FAIR ISAAC: "Slack" Case Subject to "Hillis" Suit Settlement
FIRESIDE BANK: Calif. Supreme Court Remands Vehicle Buyer's Suit
FIVE J'S: Truck Drivers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ILLINOIS: County Sued Over Strip Search for Traffic Offense
MEDIMMUNE INC: Faces Lawsuit in Md. Over $15.6B AstraZeneca Deal
MICROSOFT CORP: Florida Schools Benefit from $202M Settlement
PET FOOD COS: Nationwide Suit Filed in Fla. Over Alleged Fraud
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: New "Wheeler" Suit in Early Stages of Discovery
PM BEEF: E. Coli Contamination Triggers Recall of Beef Trim
PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Hotel Taxes
PRICELINE.COM INC: Fla. Hotel Occupancy Lawsuit Dismissed
PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery Ongoing in Suits by Four Cities
PRICELINE.COM INC: Moves for Summary Judgment in Ga. Lawsuit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Bid to Junk Five Hotel Taxes Suits Pending
PRICELINE.COM INC: Files Motion to Stay Fla. City Lawsuit
PRICELINE.COM INC: Plaintiffs in Ohio Suit Seek to Amend Lawsuit
SAGITTARIUS SPORTING: Recalls Grills to Install Hose Connector
SPANDREL SALES: Recalls Kids' Jewelry Due to High Lead Content
SPX CORP: N.C. Court Okays Securities, ERISA Suit Settlements
TRIAD HOSPITALS: June Hearing Set for Settlement with Access Now
TUT SYSTEMS: Lerach Kept Settlement Under Wraps, Plaintiffs Say
UNITED STATES: Paying $34.4M to Settle Va. Suit Over Jet Noise
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: N.J. Suit Says Passats, Jettas Defective
WASTE PRO: Former Employee Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
WORLD ONLINE: Dutch Investors to Sue for Damages in 2000 IPO
New Securities Fraud Cases
OPTIONABLE INC: Sarraf LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
*********
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN LP: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal in "Aucoin"
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs withdrew their notice of appeal -- subject to their
right to reinstate it at a later date -- of the dismissal by the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York of the
remaining claim in the consolidated securities class action,
"Aucoin, et al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P., et al."
The suit names as defendants:
-- AllianceBernstein L.P.,
-- AllianceBernstein Holding L.P.,
-- AllianceBernstein Corp.
-- AXA Financial Corp.,
-- Alliance Bernstein Investment Research and Management,
Inc.,
-- certain current and former directors of the U.S. Funds,
and
-- unnamed Doe defendants.
The Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things:
-- that certain of the defendants improperly authorized
the payment of excessive commissions and other fees
from U.S. Fund assets to broker-dealers in exchange for
preferential marketing services;
-- that certain of the defendants misrepresented and
omitted from registration statements and other reports
material facts concerning such payments; and
-- that certain defendants caused such conduct as control
persons of other defendants.
The Aucoin Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections
34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections
206 and 215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary
duties, and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary
duties.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with
AllianceBernstein, including recovery of all fees paid to
AllianceBernstein pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of
all U.S. Fund-related fees, commissions and soft dollar
payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or discriminatorily
obtained fees and expenses.
Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual
allegations substantially similar to those in the first suit
were filed against the company and certain other defendants.
All nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin Complaint.
They were brought on behalf of shareholders of AllianceBernstein
Funds.
On Feb. 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint that asserted claims substantially similar to
the lawsuits referred above. On April 14, 2005, defendants
moved to dismiss the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint. On
Oct. 19, 2005, the District Court dismissed each of the claims
set forth in the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint, except
for plaintiff's claim under Section 36(b) of the Investment
Company Act.
In January 2006, the District Court granted defendants' motion
for reconsideration and dismissed the remaining claim under
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act. Plaintiffs have
moved for leave to amend their consolidated complaint.
On May 31, 2006, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file their amended complaint. On July 5, 2006,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal, which was subsequently
withdrawn subject to plaintiffs' right to reinstate it at a
later date, according to AllianceBernstein Holding LP's Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The suit is "In re: Alliancebernstein Mutual Funds Excessive Fee
Litigation, Case No. 1:04-cv-04885-SWK," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shirley Wohl Kram.
Representing the plaintiffs are:
Kim Elaine Levy, Esq.
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
New York, NY 10119
Phone: 212-594-5300
Fax: 212-868-1229
E-mail: klevy@milberg.com
- and -
Marshall N. Perkins, Esq.
The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt St.,
Baltimore, MD 21202
Phone: (410) 332-0030
Representing the company are:
Mark Holland, Esq.
Mark Adam Kirsch, Esq.
Clifford Chance US, LLP
31 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019-6131
Phone: (212)-878-8432
Fax: (212)-878-8375
E-mail: mark.holland@cliffordchance.com
mark.kirsch@cliffordchance.com
AMERICAN PROPERTY: Ex-Laborer Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Property Services, Inc., and its owner John Karras are
facing a purported class action filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
Jose Albarracin, who performed worked as a laborer, brought the
action on behalf of himself and other current and former
employees of the defendants that are similarly situated to him
for overtime compensation and other relief under FLSA.
Mr. Albarracin filed the suit on May 14, 2007. It seeks to
recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. He is demanding a jury
trial.
Generally, the suit alleges that Mr. Albarracin and others
similarly situated employees worked in excess of 40 hours in one
or more workweeks during their employment with defendants.
However, defendants did not pay time and a half wages for all of
the overtime hours worked by Mr. Albarracin and other employees
similarly situated to him.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1f43
The suit is "Albarracin v. American Property Services, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:07-cv-14146-KMM," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida under Judge K.
Michael Moore with referral to judge Frank J. Lynch.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
Shavitz Law Group
1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561-447-8888
Fax: 561-447-8831
E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com
APEX OIL: Seeks Nixing of Amended Complaint in Ill. Vapors Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apex Oil Company, Inc., and Sinclair Oil, two oil companies that
recently extricated themselves from a proposed class action over
pollution in the Village of Hartford, Illinois, are seeking the
dismissal of an amended complaint in the matter, Steve Korris of
The St. Clair Record reports.
Both oil firms insist that a new version of the suit offers no
grounds to bring them back into the case, which was filed by
Missouri attorneys in Madison County Circuit Court.
Originally, seven attorneys filed the suit against Premcor
Refining Group Inc., Shell Oil, Apex, Sinclair, and other oil
companies in 2003, blaming them for vapors that rise from an
underground pool of petroleum that is causing damage to Hartford
residents' homes. They proposed and obtained a positive ruling
to make Katherine Sparks as lead plaintiff in the suit (Class
Action Reporter, Dec. 22, 2006).
In May 2006, Madison County Circuit Judge Daniel Stack dismissed
Apex and Sinclair, ruling that the statute of limitations had
run out. Judge Stack, though, gave the Missouri attorneys 30
days to amend the complaint, however, the task took 10 months.
To both Apex and Sinclair, the new complaint looks a lot like
the old one, according to a report by The St. Clair Record.
Apex attorney James O'Brien of St. Louis wrote, "While the
second amended complaint featured a new lead plaintiff -- Vickie
Hopkins had supplanted Katherine Sparks -- little else had
changed."
Mr. O'Brien further wrote, "Plaintiffs have merely reordered and
enunciated allegations that were already contained in the first
amended complaint. The allegations of defendants' duties in the
two complaints are identical right down to the grammatical
errors."
He also wrote that the statute of limitations applied because
suspicious odors started in 1966 and lawsuits started in 1978.
For their part, Sinclair attorney Crystal Lovett-Tibbs of St.
Louis wrote that the only change in the complaint was an
allegation of negligent remediation.
Ms. Lovett-Tibbs wrote, "Plaintiffs fail to even attempt to
allege that the remediation has been performed in violation of
any applicable standard."
Even if they did, according to Ms. Lovett-Tibbs, the statute of
limitations still applied. She also wrote that plaintiffs
failed to name the correct Sinclair defendant.
Finally, Ms. Lovett-Tibbs also wrote, "Plaintiffs have had more
than sufficient notice and time to get this correct and have
repeatedly failed." She pointed, "There comes a time when
plaintiffs must state valid claims against a defendant based on
the actual facts of their case..."
For more details, contact:
Crystal G. Lovett-Tibbs, Esq.
Husch & Eppenberger, LLC
190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600
St. Louis, Missouri 63105-3441
Phone: 314-480-1500
Fax: 314-480-1505
Web Site: http://www.husch.com
- and -
James V. O'Brien, Esq.
Lewis, Rice & Fingersh
500 North Broadway, Suite 2000
St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2147
Phone: 314-444-7600
Telecopier: 314-241-6056
Web Site: http://www.lewisrice.com
APPLE COMPUTER: Employee Sues in Calif. for Overtime Work Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer Inc. is facing a class-action complaint filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Sacramento, accusing it of not paying employees in its call
centers for overtime, the CourtHouse News Service reports.
Named plaintiff Miles Maria says he and others were forced to
work off the clock before and after the regular day, to work
more than eight hours a day and sometimes more than 12 hours a
day at straight time. He alleges that Apple did not pay them
all their commissions and failed to keep accurate payroll
records and failed to pay them off properly when they quit.
The plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and the
class pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
382. The purported class consists of all past and present non-
exempt Apple employees in California during the period from May
2003 to the present and a sub-class of all past and present non-
exempt employees in Apple call centers in California from May
2003 through the present.
According to the complaint, plaintiff is informed and believes
that defendants failed to:
(a) pay all overtime wages owed at the proper rate of
overtime pay;
(b) pay final wages upon termination of employment;
(c) keep proper payroll records in violation of Labor Code
Section 226; and
(d) engaged in Unfair Business Practices, all in violation
of IWC Wage Order No. 7-2001.
Plaintiff prays for judgment brought against defendants as
follows:
-- for an order certifying the proposed class;
-- for an order appointing plaintiff as the representative
of the class;
-- for an order appointing counsel for plaintiff as class
counsel;
-- upon the First Cause of Action, for consequential
damages according to proof and for waiting time
penalties according to proof pursuant to California
Labor Code Section 203;
-- upon the Second Cause of Action, for waiting penalties
according to proof pursuant to California labor Code
Section 203;
-- upon the Third Cause of Action, for damages or penalties
pursuant to statute as set forth in California Labor
Code Section 226, and for costs and attorney's fees;
-- upon the Fourth Cause of Action, for restitution to
plaintiff and other similarly effected members of the
general public of all funds unlawfully acquired by
defendants by means of any acts or practices declared by
this court to be in violation of Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 et. seq., for an
injunction to prohibit defendants to engage in the
unfair business practices complained of herein, for an
injunction requiring defendants to give notice to
persons to whom restitution is owing of the means by
which to file for restitution; and
-- all causes of action for attorneys' fees and costs as
provided by California Labor Code Sections 226 and 1194
and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5 and for such
other and further relief the court may deem just and
proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f38
The suit is "Miles Maria v. Apple Inc., et al., Case No.
07ASO2124," filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Sacramento.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Peter M. Hart, Esq.
Law Offices of Peter M. Hart
13952 Bora Bora Way, F-320
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Phone: (310) 478-5789
Fax: (310) 561-6441
- and -
Kenneth H. Yoon
Law Offices of Kenneth H. Yoon
One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 612-0988
Fax: (213) 947-1211
ARTI PROPERTIES: Ex-Employee Files FLSA Violations Suit in Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arti Properties, Inc., d/b/a ECONOLODGE, faces a purported class
action that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
Tammy Hawkins, a former hourly paid clerical employee of Arti
Properties, brought the suit for unpaid overtime compensation,
declaratory relief, and other relief under FLSA.
Ms. Hawkins filed the suit on May 14, 2007. It seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs. She seeks a jury trial.
In general the complaint states that defendant failed to comply
with FLSA, because plaintiff performed services for defendant
for which no provisions were made by defendant to properly pay
her for all hours worked in excess of the forty within a
workweek.
The complaint defined as a class all employees who are/were
entitled to be paid time and one-half their regular rate of pay
for each hour worked in excess of forty per workweek.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1f41
The suit is "Hawkins v. Arti Properties, Inc., Case No. 2:07-cv-
14143-JEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida under Judge Jose E. Martinez with referral
to Judge Frank J. Lynch, Jr.
Representing the plaintiff is:
Kelly Allyssha Amritt, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan
7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
Davie, FL 33314
Phone: 954-318-0268
Fax: 954-333-3515
E-mail: kelly@cellerlegal.com
BARNES-JEWISH HOSPITAL: Mo. Court Certifies Suit by Uninsureds
--------------------------------------------------------------
A St. Louis City (Mo.) Circuit Court certified as class action a
suit alleging Barnes-Jewish Hospital, part of BJC HealthCare,
overcharged uninsured patients, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
reports.
The class certified by the court consists principally of persons
who received medical services and made no payments, payment
arrangements or requests for forgiveness on bills that were sent
to them, according to a statement from Barnes-Jewish Hospital.
The suit, one of many across the nation, was filed in 2004. It
alleges that the hospital overcharged thousands of uninsured
patients as much as two to three times way back 1999.
The hospital is appealing the ruling, according to the report.
Circuit Judge David Mason presided over the case.
Lead counsel for the plaintiffs is:
Don Downing, Esq.
Gray, Ritter & Graham P.C.
Gateway One On The Mall, 701 Market Street, Suite 800
St. Louis, Missouri 63101-1826
(Independent City)
Telephone: 314-241-5620
Telecopier: 314-241-4140
Web Site: http://www.grayrittergraham.com
Representing the hospital is:
Bryan Cave LLP
211 N Broadway Ste 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
1 314 259 2000
Phone: Web site: http://www.bryancave.com
BAYER CORP: Request to Dismiss "Moniz" Antitrust Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton allowed chemical companies
accused of price-fixing to be sued by a class of indirect
purchasers under Chapter 93A, Eric T. Berkman of the Lawyers
Weekly reports.
The defendant companies argued that the plaintiff consumers, as
indirect purchasers, had no business relationship with them and
thus no cause of action under Chapter 93A.
Judge Gorton applied the Supreme Judicial Court's 2002 decision
in "Ciardi v. F. Hoffmann LaRoche, Ltd.," in rejecting
defendants' arguments. The court ruled that whether or not the
customer purchased the product indirectly or indirectly, "the
effect is exactly the same: price-fixing by an up-stream
manufacturer results in an unfairly inflated price for the
consumer product to the plaintiff's detriment."
The suit was filed by Shawn Moniz against:
* Bayer Corp.,
* Chemtura Corp. f/k/a Crompton Corp., and
* UniRoyal Chemical Co., Inc.
The suit was originally filed on Feb. 10, 2005 in Middlesex
Superior Court and amended and removed to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 6, 2006.
Defendants are accused of conspiracy from approximately 1994
through 2004 to fix the price of certain rubber and urethane
products. Plaintiff and the other members of the putative class
are indirect purchasers of those products.
Both Chemtura and Bayer have already pled guilty and paid
criminal fines following prosecution by the U.S. Department of
Justice. The plaintiff seeks equitable relief for injuries that
were allegedly caused by the defendants and suffered by the
putative class which purportedly consists of tens of thousands
of persons.
The defendants move to dismiss on three grounds: (1) that the
plaintiff lacks the requisite business relationship with the
defendants for purposes of Chapter 93A, (2) that the plaintiff
lacks standing and (3) that the plaintiff has failed to plead
fraudulent concealment with particularity.
On March 27, the defendants' joint motion to dismiss was denied.
A copy of the judge's order is available for free at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f47
The suit is "Moniz v. Bayer Corp., et al., Case No. 06-10259-
NMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
Representing Bayer is:
Jeffrey J. Upton, Esq.
Hanify & King
Professional Corporation One
Beacon St. Boston, MA
02108-3107 619-423-0400
Fax: 617-423-0400
E-mail: jju@hanify.com
Representing Shawn Moniz is:
Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
Gilman and Pastor LLP
225 Franklin St.
16th Floor Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-742-0700
Fax: 617-742-9701
E-mail: kgilman@gilmanpastor.com
BLUE CROSS: Settles Suit by Clients with Cancelled Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Blue Cross of California, a WellPoint, Inc. subsidiary, reached
a settlement in a class action concerning the cancellation of
health insurance policies that occur after a claim for pre-
authorized medical treatment.
From now on, Blue Cross has agreed that it will not
retroactively cancel insureds' health insurance policies unless
the insured "intentionally misrepresented" information on the
insurance application.
"This will stop the practice of canceling health insurance
policies for honest mistakes, inadvertent errors, or other
inconsistencies that often appear on health insurance
applications," said William Shernoff of the Claremont law firm
of Shernoff, Bidart & Darras, who represents a class of
approximately 6,000 Blue Cross policyholders.
The settlement also includes a new individual health insurance
application that is designed to minimize mistakes and new
procedures to be followed at Blue Cross that will assure
customers that cancellation of insurance policies will only take
place upon a finding of "willful misrepresentation."
Additionally, Mr. Shernoff said, "Even if a cancellation occurs
upon such a finding, the insured will still have a right to
appeal that decision to either the Department of Insurance or
the Department of Managed Health Care."
Mr. Shernoff praised the Department of Managed Health Care and
the Department of Insurance for becoming involved in the
negotiations leading up to the settlement saying they "gave
tremendous input and support to help this settlement become a
reality."
Both the Department of Managed Health Care and the Department of
Insurance had representatives involved in the lengthy mediation
process, presided over by former California Supreme Court
Justice Edward Panelli.
"In addition to the new procedures that Blue Cross will put in
place in the future to end most cancellations, the settlement
also provides remedies for approximately 6,000 Blue Cross
insureds that have already been cancelled under such
circumstances," said Mr. Shernoff who called the settlement "a
major breakthrough."
"Blue Cross should be credited for recognizing this problem and
their willingness to fix it." Mr. Shernoff said, "It will be
interesting to see if other health insurance companies like Blue
Shield, Health Net and others will follow suit."
For more details, contact:
Jason Sanchez, Esq.
Shernoff, Bidart & Darras
Phone: +1-800-458-3386, or Mobile, +1-909-730-2300
E-mail: jsanchez@sbd-law.com
Web site: http://www.sbd-law.com/
BUSINESS COMPUTER: Insurer Settles Students Lawsuit for $9M
-----------------------------------------------------------
An insurance company for the defunct Gig Harbor (Wash.)-based
Business Computer Training Institute agreed to pay $9 million to
former students alleging the vocational school defrauded them,
The (Tacoma) News Tribune reports.
The plaintiffs accused the school of promising low-income
students high-tech training and good-paying jobs, but delivering
substandard training and low-wage jobs. They filed the suit two
years ago. Around that time, the school closed its seven
campuses in Washington and Oregon.
The settlement is still subject to the approval of Pierce County
Superior Court Judge Thomas Larkin. The details, including how
the money will be divided among the former students, is still to
be drafted. Potentially, 28,000 students who attended BCTI from
1985 to 2005 could benefit from the settlement.
The ex-students also have reached a tentative agreement with
BCTI that could yield an additional $55 million from a second
insurance company, according to the plaintiffs' attorney,
Darrell Cochran. The figure represents one-tenth of the
estimated economic damages for the 28,000 students who attended
BCTI, according to the report.
Representing the school is attorney Thomas Merrick.
Representing the students is:
Darrell L. Cochran, Esq.
Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell, Malanca, Peterson & Daheim, LLP
1201 Pacific Avenue, Suite 2100
P.O. Box 1157
Tacoma, Washington 98402
(Pierce Co.)
Phone: 253-620-6500
Cell Phone: 253-988-0271
Fax: 253-620-6565
CARDINAL DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Rings Due to High Lead Content
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Distributing Co. Inc., of Baltimore, Md., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
conducting a voluntary recall of about 300,000 Children's
Turquoise Rings.
According to the company, the recalled rings contain high levels
of lead, which is toxic if ingested by young children and can
cause adverse health effects.
No injuries or incidents have been reported.
The firm said the silver-colored rings have a round turquoise-
colored stone on top. The stone is surrounded by a band of
small silver-colored balls.
These rings were manufactured in China and were being sold in
vending machines located in malls, discount, department and
grocery stores in the Baltimore, Maryland area from August 2002
through April 2007 for 25 cents.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled rings away from
children and throw them away.
Pictures of the products involved is found at:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07189.html
For additional information, call Cardinal Distributing at (800)
368-2062 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or
visit the firm's Web site at http://www.vendingdepot.com.
CUTERA INC: Faces Securities Fraud Litigation in N.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Cutera, Inc. received notice that a purported securities class
action was filed on April 17, 2007 against the company and two
of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, according to the company's May 7, 2007
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
The plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of the company's
common stock from Jan. 31, 2007 through April 4, 2007. The
complaint generally alleges that materially false statements
were made regarding our financial prospects, and seeks
unspecified monetary damages.
The first identified complaint is "Doug Hamilton, et al. v.
Cutera, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-02128," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Vaughn R. Walker
Plaintiff firms in this or similar case:
Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP
100 Park Avenue, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 212-907-0700
Fax: 212-818-0477
E-mail: info@labaton.com
Paskowitz & Associates
60 East 42nd Street, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10165
Phone: 212.685.0969
Fax: 212.685.2306
E-mail: classattorney@aol.com
- and -
Roy Jacobs & Associates
350 Fifth Avenue Suite 3000
New York, NY 10118
E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com
CYNOSURE INC: Still Faces Mass. TCPA Suit Over Unsolicited Faxes
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cynosure, Inc. remains a defendant in a purported class action
filed in Massachusetts state court over allegations it violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
In May 2005, Dr. Ari Weitzner, individually and as putative
representative of a purported class, filed a lawsuit against the
company under the TCPA. The lawsuit alleges that the company
violated the TCPA by sending unsolicited advertisements by
facsimile.
Although the company is continuing to investigate the number of
facsimiles transmitted during the period for which the plaintiff
in the lawsuit seeks class certification, and the number of
these facsimiles that were "unsolicited" within the meaning of
the TCPA, the company expects the number of unsolicited
facsimiles to be very large.
The company reported no development in the matter in its May 7,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007.
Cynosure, Inc. -- http://www.cynosurelaser.com/-- develops,
manufactures and markets treatment systems, which are used by
physicians and other practitioners to perform non-invasive
procedures to remove hair, treat vascular lesions, rejuvenate
skin through the treatment of shallow vascular lesions and
pigmented lesions, and temporarily reduce the appearance of
cellulite. The company markets and sells its products to the
dermatology, plastic surgery and general medical markets,
domestically and internationally.
DAVIS CREEK: Recalls Beef Products Due to E.coli Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Davis Creek Meats and Seafood, a Kalamazoo, Mich. establishment,
is voluntarily recalling approximately 129,000 pounds of beef
products, due to possible contamination with E. coli O157:H7.
Although the product(s) being recalled should be returned to the
point of purchase, consumers preparing other ground beef
products should heed these pieces of advice:
(a) Consumers should only eat ground beef patties that have
been cooked to a safe temperature of 160 §F;
(b) When a ground beef patty is cooked to 160 §F
throughout, it can be safe and juicy, regardless of
color;
(c) The only way to be sure a ground beef patty is cooked
to a high enough temperature to kill harmful bacteria
is to use an accurate food thermometer;
(d) Color is not a reliable indicator that ground beef
patties have been cooked to a temperature high enough
to kill harmful bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7;
(e) Eating a pink or red ground beef patty without first
verifying that the safe temperature of 160 §F has been
reached is a significant risk factor for foodborne
illness; and
(f) Thermometer use to ensure proper cooking temperature is
especially important for those who cook or serve ground
beef patties to people most at risk for foodborne
illness because E. coli O157:H7 can lead to serious
illness or even death. Those most at risk include
young children, seniors, and those with compromised
immune systems.
The beef products were produced between March 1 and April 30,
2007, and were shipped to foodservice distribution centers and
Marketplace stores in Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. The problem
was discovered by Michigan Department of Community Health as
part of an E. coli O157:H7 illness investigation.
The following products subject to recall include boxes of
mechanically tenderized steaks and ground beef of varying
weights. Labels on the boxes bear the establishment number
"Est. 1947A" inside the USDA mark of inspection and a date code
(on the top right corner of the label) between "060" and "120."
Only products with those date codes are subject to recall. Each
box also bears a net weight declaration and the message
"Manufactured for Gordon Food Service" or "Distributed by
Gordon Food Service."
The products are:
* 010016 TOP BUTT 28/7OZ PRIME
* 165750 STRIP LOIN CHOICE CENTER CUT 2/7#AVG
* 190410 GROUND SIRLOIN 80/20%
* 198560 BALL TIP 32-12OZ-CHOICE-
* 198570 BALL TIP 12-16OZ-CHOICE-
* 242640 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-SELECT SIDE CUT-1/2 CUT
* 281920 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-SELECT SIDE CUT-1/2 CUT
* 350340 STRIP 20-10OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE-1/2"TL
* 425834 GROUND SIRLOIN 80/20 BULK
* 447141 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-SELECT-SIDE CUT-1/4"TM
* 449320 BLLTIP 2DN 28-7OZ BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE
1/8"TM
* 450130 GROUND BEEF PATTY 80/20 FRESH
* 450570 GROUND SIRLOIN COARSE 90/10%
* 511950 STRIP LOIN 8/5# CHOICE CENTER CUT 10OZ
* 556180 GROUND STKBRGR PATTY 80/20
* 571841 GROUND BEEF PATTY 80/20 FRESH
* 572521 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT 3/4"THK
* 612010 BALL TIP 24-9OZ-CHOICE-1/4"TM
* 624460 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ PRIME CENTER CUT 1/2 CUT
* 630680 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ CHOICE SIDE CUT 3/4"THK
* 631530 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-CHOICE-3/4"THK-SIDE CUT
* 671916 GROUND SIRLOIN COARSE 90/10%
* 010007 STRIP LOIN 10-18OZ PRIME CENTER CUT
* 010006 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ PRIME CENTER CUT
* 010032 STRIP LOIN 12-16OZ PRIME CENTER CUT
* 010041 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ PRIME CENTER CUT
* 010051 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ PRIME CENTER CUT
* 010055 STRIP LOIN 24-8Z-CHOICE CENTER CUT NO VEIN
* 105920 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 105940 COULOTTE STK 32-6OZ-CHOICE
* 112750 BALL TIP SIZZLER 12-16OZ-CHOICE
* 113170 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-SELECT
* 116470 TOP BUTT 38-5OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 119675 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 120090 TOP BUTT 28-7OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 120110 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 122131 STRIP LOIN 12-16OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 122140 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 123960 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 124040 STRIP LOIN 24-8OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 124540 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 124570 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 124600 STRIP LOIN 24-8OZ CHEF STYLE
* 124630 BALL TIP SIZZLER 20-10OZ-CHOICE
* 124620 STRIP LOIN 32-6OZ CHEF STYLE
* 124640 BALL TIP SIZZLER 24-8OZ-CHOICE
* 124650 BALL TIP SIZZLER 32-6OZ-CHOICE
* 125042 TOP SIRLN BUTT 20-10OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 125050 BALL TIP SIZZLER 28-7OZ-CHOICE
* 125080 SIRLOIN KABOB/BROCHETTE
* 125060 BALL TIP SIZZLER 38-5OZ-CHOICE
* 125100 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 125110 STRIP LOIN 12-16OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 125120 GROUND SIRLOIN STK 1-12#
* 125070 BALL TIP SIZZLER 48-4OZ-CHOICE
* 125130 GROUND SIRLOIN STK 1-12#
* 125390 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 125400 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 125430 STRIP LOIN 12-16OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 125440 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 125450 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT 1PK
* 125460 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 125480 STRIP LOIN 24-8OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 125520 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 125530 TOP SIRLOIN 24-8OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 125540 TOP SIRLOIN 20-10OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 126080 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 126110 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 126120 STRIP LOIN 24-8OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 126780 STRIP LOIN 12-18OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 126770 STRIP LOIN 32-6OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 126790 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 126800 STRIP LOIN 32-6OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 129280 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 129300 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 134810 TOP SIRLN COULOTTE 24-8OZ-CHOICE
* 137330 BALL TIP SZZLER 30-6.5OZ-CHOICE
* 137980 STRIP LOIN 18-11OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 138740 TOP BUTT 12-16OZ-SELECT SIDE CUT
* 141220 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 141570 TOP BUTT 22-9OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT-NO TM
* 142070 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 142190 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 142381 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-SELECT SIDE CUT
* 142603 BALL TIP 32-6OZ BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE
* 143690 TOP BUTT 8-28OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 146900 TOP SIRLOIN COULOTTE 20-10OZ
* 147220 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT 1"TL
* 147230 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 147730 BALL TIP 24-8OZ-CHOICE-BASEBALL CUT-NO
* 147750 TOP SIRLOIN COULOTTE 16-12OZ
* 149450 STRIP LOIN 24-8OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 151281 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 155810 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 156260 SIRLOIN KNUCKLE 64-3OZ-CHOICE
* 157550 BALL TIP 24-8OZ-8"LNG-CHOICE-0"TM
* 158070 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-CHEF STYLE
* 158380 TOP SIRLOIN BUTT 10-20OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 158450 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 162900 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-BA/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 162910 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT-NO TM
* 163200 BALL TIP 20-10OZ-BA/CHOICE-CLEAN
* 163210 BALL TIP 32-7OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE-CLN-2DWN
* 163230 TOP BUTT 22-9OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT FRZN
* 163240 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT 1"TL
* 165050 BALL TIP 20-10OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE
* 165070 BALL TIP SIZZLER 16-12OZ-CHOICE
* 165060 BALL TIP SIZZLER 24-8OZ-CHOICE
* 165640 BALL TIP STK 32-6OZ-CHOICE
* 166790 STRIP LOIN 22-9OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 167410 TOP SIRLOIN 24-8OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT-NO TM
* 173050 BALL TIP SIZZLER 24-8OZ-SELECT
* 173070 BALL TIP SIZZLER 32-6OZ-SELECT
* 177550 STRIP LOIN 12-18OZ-PRIME CENTER CUT
* 179010 TOP SIRLOIN 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 179460 TOP SIRLOIN 16-12OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 179470 TOP SIRLOIN 20-10OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 179880 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-SELECT-SIDE CUT
* 180000 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 180330 TOP BUTT 14-14OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 180610 TOP BUTT 28-7OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 180790 BALL TIP 24-8OZ-SELECT CLEAN BLUE
* 185260 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 185370 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 187600 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-PRIME CENTER CUT
* 188980 BALL TIP SIZZLER 16-12OZ-SELECT
* 189830 STRIP LOIN 28-7OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 190390 FILET OF SIRLOIN 8-5#-5OZ-CHOICE
* 191690 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 192060 BALL TIP SIZZLE 20-10OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE
* 192570 DICED SIRLOIN COULOTTE 2-6LBS
* 192620 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-SELECT SIDE CUT
* 192810 BALL TIP SIZZLER 48-4OZ-SELECT
* 195970 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 196830 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 198580 BALL TIP 64-8OZ-CHOICE
* 198590 BALL TIP 72-6OZ-CHOICE
* 198810 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 199730 BALL TIP SIZZLER 16-12OZ-SELECT
* 200420 STRIP 16-12OZ SELECT - END-TO-END
* 200460 STRIP 24-8OZ SELECT END-TO-END
* 202020 STRIP LOIN 16-13OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 202090 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-CHOICE END TO END
* 203670 STRIP LOIN 24-8OZ-CHOICE END TO END
* 204290 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 209480 STRIP LOIN 22-9OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 215910 STRIP LOIN 24-8OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 215988 TOP BUTT 22-9OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 216050 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT BASEBALL
CUT
* 217130 TOP BUTT 10-22OZ-CHOICE-FACE CUT
* 217110 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 217180 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 217190 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 217200 TOP BUTT 38-5OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 217470 SIRLOIN KABOB/BROCHETTE
* 217590 TOP BUTT 12-16OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 217610 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 217620 TOP BUTT 22-9OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 217630 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 217650 TOP BUTT 48-4OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 222280 TOP SIRLOIN COULOTTE 32-6OZ-SELECT
* 227280 TOP BUTT 12-16OZ-SELECT-SIDE CUT
* 227910 STRIP LOIN 18-11OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 228540 BALL TIP 20-10OZ-CHOICE NO TRIM
* 228550 BALL TIP STEAK 32-6OZ-CHOICE
* 228560 BALL TIP STEAK 32-6OZ-CHOICE
* 228570 BALL TIP 24-8OZ-CHOICE-NO SEAM
* 228610 BALL TIP 32-6OZ-CHOICE-NO SEAM
* 228701 BALL TIP SIZZLER 48-4OZ-CHOICE
* 228900 STRIPLN 16-12Z-PRIMECC
* 229440 BALL TIP STEAK 12-16OZ-CHOICE
* 229450 BALL TIP STEAK 16-12OZ-CHOICE
* 229470 BALL TIP SIZZLER 16-12OZ-CHOICE
* 229490 BALL TIP SIZZLER 24-8OZ-CHOICE
* 229510 BALL TIP STK 24-8OZ-CHOICE
* 229522 BALL TIP SIZZLER 24-8OZ-CHOICE
* 229540 BALL TIP SIZZLER 28-7OZ-CHOICE
* 229620 STRIP LOIN 38-5OZ CHEF STYLE
* 229610 TOP BUTT 48-4OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 229720 BALL TIP SIZZLER 28-7OZ-CHOICE
* 229730 BALL TIP SIZZLER 32-6OZ-CHOICE
* 229740 BALL TIP SIZZLER 32-6OZ-CHOICE
* 229750 BALL TIP SIZZLER 38-5OZ-CHOICE
* 229760 BALL TIP SIZZLER 40-5OZ-CHOICE
* 229770 BALL TIP SIZZLER 48-4OZ-CHOICE
* 230190 BALL TIP BROCHETTE MEAT
* 230210 BALL TIP FAJITA CUT-CHOICE
* 230230 BALL TIP JULIENNE STRIPS-CHOICE
* 237920 BALL TIP 24-8Z-CHOICE CT FROM 2&UP
* 240030 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 243550 BALL TIP 38-5OZ-CHOICE-NO SEAM
* 244310 TOP BUTT 22-9OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 244980 STRIP LOIN 8-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 245050 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 245580 STRIP LOIN 16-13OZ-CHOICE-TRUE CENTER CUT
* 246100 BALL TIP SIZZLER 28-7OZ-CHOICE
* 248260 TOP BUTT 38-5OZ SELECT CENTER CUT-CUBE X 1
* 252250 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ-CHOICE-NO VEIN
* 252321 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-CHOICE-NO VEIN
* 253130 BALL TIP 22-9OZ-8"LNG-CHOICE-0"TM
* 253320 BALL TIP 32-6OZ-NO ROLL-NO TM
* 262821 BALL TIP STEAK 20-10OZ-CHOICE
* 266770 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 266781 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 268981 BALL TIP STEAK 38-5OZ-CHOICE
* 271420 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 271430 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 271450 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 271530 STRIP LOIN 24-8OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 272700 TOP SIRLOIN 16-12OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 272720 TOP SIRLOIN 24-8OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 272740 TOP BUTT 22-9OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 272760 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 275981 BALL TIP BROCHETTE MEAT
* 283230 BALL TIP 28-7OZ-NO ROLL-JACCARD 6 TIMES
* 286420 BALL TIP 20-10OZ NO ROLL CLEANED
* 333140 BALL TIP 24-8OZ-NO ROLL 2UP
* 334010 STRIP 14-14OZ SELECT END-TO-END
* 336421 TOP SIRLOIN WHOLE-0"TM-CHOICE
* 336480 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 336720 STRIP LOIN 14-15OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT BONELESS
* 336740 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-CHOICE END TO END
* 350330 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-CHOICE-NO VEIN
* 352770 TOP SIRLN COULOTTE
* 353390 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-NO ROLL END TO END
* 353400 BALL TIP 22-9OZ-NO ROLL-JACCARD 4 TIMES
* 353410 BALL TIP 28-7OZ-NO ROLL-8"LNG
* 353420 BALL TIP 32-6OZ-NO ROLL-NO TM
* 362720 BALL TIP 38-5OZ-NO ROLL-NO TM
* 365600 BALL TIP FAJITA CUT CHOICE
* 365610 BALL TIP 32-6OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE-CLEAN
* 373260 TOP BUTT 48-4OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 373540 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ CHEF STYLE
* 379790 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 386230 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-NO ROLL CENTER CUT
* 389470 TOP BUTT 28-7OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 389850 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ SELECT CHEF STYLE
* 389940 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 389950 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ SELECT CENTER CUT
* 389961 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 390060 TOP SIRLOIN COULOTTE 20-10OZ-SELECT
* 390460 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 390920 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-NO ROLL CENTER CUT
* 390950 STRIP LOIN24-8OZ-NO ROLL CENTER CUT
* 401490 BROCHETTE MEAT 1.5" - 1.75" X
* 401481 BALL TIP 24-8OZ-NO ROLL 3&UP-NO TM
* 404980 KABOB/BROCHETTE BALL TIP BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE
* 407960 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-SELECT SIDE CUT
* 416160 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-SELECT SIDE CUT BASEBALL CUT
* 416611 TOP SIRLOIN WHOLE-0"TM-SELECT
* 416650 TOP SIRLOIN CUBES 2" X 2" CHOICE
* 416640 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 418610 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ-SELECT SIDE CUT
* 422580 STRIPLOIN 24-8OZ-NO ROLL END TO END
* 424091 STRIPLOIN 16-12OZ-NO ROLL END TO END
* 430041 STRIPLOIN 12-16OZ-NO ROLL END TO END
* 430110 BALL TIP 28-7OZ-NO ROLL-8"LNG-NO TM
* 431130 TOP SIRLOIN PRIME SIDE CUT
* 431401 STRIP LOIN SELECT CENTER CUT 16-12OZ
* 436800 STRIPLOIN 20-10OZ-NO ROLL END TO END
* 440110 BALL TIP 32-6OZ-NO ROLL-8"LONG
* 441590 STRIP LOIN 40-10OZ SELECT CENTER CUT
* 447201 TOP SIRLOIN COULOTTE 24-8OZ-SELECT
* 448620 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ CHOICE END TO END
* 448650 TOP BUTT 6-32OZ CHOICE SIDE CUT-NO TM
* 448630 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT JACCARD 2 TIMES
* 448980 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-CHEF STY
* 462080 BALL TIP 12-16OZ NO ROLL BUTTERFLY
* 463080 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 470231 STRIPLOIN 32-6OZ-NO ROLL END TO END
* 471980 BALL TIP 24-8OZ NO ROLL CUBED
* 472892 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ CHOICE CENTER CUT 1"TL
* 472911 BALL TIP FAJITA CUT-NO ROLL
* 475710 DICED SIRLOIN COULOTTE 2-6LBS
* 485260 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 495880 BALL TIP 20-10OZ SELECT JACCARD 4 TIMES
* 498420 BALL TIP 24-8OZ-NO ROLL 3&UP-NO TM
* 500960 BEEF SKEWERS 64-2OZ FROZEN
* 503911 BALL TIP 16-12OZ-CHOICE-FROM 3#UP
* 516570 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 521620 BALL TIP STEAK 48-4OZ CHOICE 3#&UP
* 524461 STRIP LOIN 16-13OZ PRIME CENTER CUT JACCARD 2 TIMES
* 528570 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 528861 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT BASEBALL CUT
* 532801 BALL TIP 48-4OZ-CHOICE-FROM 3#DN
* 536403 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ PRIME CENTER CUT BASEBALL CUT
* 538210 BALL TIP SIZZLER 24-8OZ-SELECT- JACCARD 4 TIMES
* 552501 BALL TIP 38-5OZ NO ROLL 8"LNG-CUBER
* 552510 BALL TIP 38-5OZ-NO ROLL-NO TM
* 554023 TOP SIRLN COULOTTE 22-9OZ-PRIME
* 554381 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-SELECT SIDE CUT
* 566261 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-SELECT SIDE CUT
* 567160 BALL TIP BROCHETTE MEAT
* 573770 STRIP LOIN 10-20OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 573790 TOP BUTT 6-30OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 573781 STRIP LOIN 18-11OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 575960 BALL TIP STEAK 38-5OZ CUBED CHOICE
* 577341 BALL TIP 32-6OZ-NO ROLL-NO TM
* 579081 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ-BLACK ANGUS CENTER CUT
* 582230 STRIP LOIN 14-15OZ-BLACK ANGUS CENTER CUT
* 582240 STRIP LOIN 18-11OZ-BLACK ANGUS CENTER CUT
* 590177 BALL TIP 1-2# WHOLE DN-CHOICE
* 593508 STRIP LOIN 28-6OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 596980 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 597901 TOP BUTT 48-4OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 600081 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT 2" FACE
* 600130 STRIP LOIN 6-32OZ SELECT END TO END
* 600120 STRIP LOIN 12-16OZ SELECT END TO END
* 600830 BALL TIP 20-9OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE-CLEAN
* 600840 BALL TIP 16-12OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE-CLEAN
* 603041 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ CENTER CUT CHOICE 0" TM
* 603181 BALL TIP SIZZLER 24-8OZ-SELECT
* 603281 TOP BUTT 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 605940 BALL TIP 24-8OZ-NO ROLL CUBED
* 606341 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ PRIME CENTER CUT
* 608541 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 612821 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 613110 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 613120 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT 1"THK
* 616460 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 616520 BALL TIP STEAK 8" LNG 32-6OZ-SELECT
* 617660 BALL TIP SIZZLER 24-8OZ-CHOICE
* 617970 TOP SIRLOIN COULOTTE 16-12OZ-SELECT
* 618040 SIRLOIN KABOB/BROCHETTE
* 619230 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT-BASEBALL CUT-NO TM
* 621280 TOP BUTT 20-10OZ NO ROLL CENTER CUT KITCHEN ESSENTIALS
* 621290 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ NO ROLL CENTER CUT KITCHEN ESSENTIALS
* 621300 TOP BUTT 32-6OZ NO ROLL CENTER CUT KITCHEN ESSENTIALS
* 621310 BALL TIP 40-4OZ NO ROLL KITCHEN ESSENTIALS
* 621320 BALL TIP 32-6OZ NO ROLL KITCHEN ESSENTIALS
* 621330 BALL TIP 24-8OZ NO ROLL KITCHEN ESSENTIALS
* 621350 STRIP LOIN 24-8OZ UTILITY KITCHEN ESSENTIALS
* 621360 STRIP LOIN 20-10OZ UTILITY KITCHEN ESSENTIALS
* 621370 STRIP LOIN 16-12OZ UTILITY KITCHEN ESSENTIALS
* 622821 TOP SIRLOIN COULOTTE 10-20OZ SELECT
* 622850 TOP BUTT 28-7OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 623180 BALL TIP 16-12OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE JACCARD 2 TIMES
* 623560 BALL TIP 32-6OZ-BLACK ANGUS/CHOICE JACCARD 2 TIMES
* 624421 STRIP LOIN 16-13OZ-SELECT CENTER CUT
* 626160 BALL TIP SIZZLER 28-7OZ-CHOICE BASEBALL CUT
* 631560 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
* 631620 TOP SIRLN BUTT 16-12OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 635120 STRIP LOIN 14-14OZ-CHOICE CENTER CUT
* 635140 TOP BUTT 24-8OZ-CHOICE SIDE CUT
Media and consumers with questions about the recall should
contact company representative David Sanford, at (269) 344-1084
ext. 131.
E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
bloody diarrhea and dehydration. The very young, seniors and
persons with compromised immune systems are the most susceptible
to foodborne illness. Generally, steaks are not considered a
high-risk source of E. coli O157: H7. However, the steak
products subject to recall were mechanically tenderized and that
process may have transferred the bacteria from the surface to
the inside of the product.
FSIS reminds consumers and food preparers that mechanically
tenderized beef products or those injected with a marinade or
solution, require a higher cooking temperature to achieve
microbiological safety than steaks that are not mechanically
tenderized. Therefore, these products should not be served
"rare."
The Food Code, a national guidance document specific to
foodservice, states that injected meats, including those
mechanically tenderized, should be cooked to an internal
temperature of 155øF for a minimum of 15 seconds as measured
with a food thermometer.
Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov.
The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-
888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be
reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday
through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24
hours a day.
DICKEY PETROLEUM: Calif. Suit Aims to Collect Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dickey Petroleum, Inc., on May 4, was named defendant in a
class-action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California alleging Labor Code violations.
Plaintiffs Larry Welch and David Epstein bring this "opt-in"
collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) and an
"opt-out" class action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23 seeking unpaid
overtime compensation and interest thereon, penalties,
injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs.
They bring this action, individually and on behalf of all other
truck drivers employed by, or formerly employed by Dickey
Petroleum and Daniel A. Dickey and their subsidiaries, owners
and affiliated companies, within the State of California:
(a) as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), which includes all persons who are
employed or have been employed by defendants in the
State of California who, within three years of the
filing of the Complaint and to the date of trial
(liability period 1), have worked as a truck driver
hauling bulk petroleum products solely within the State
of California and have worked in excess of 40 hours per
week without being paid overtime compensation by
defendants for those excess hours; and
(b) as an "opt-out" class action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23.,
which includes all persons who are employed or have
been employed by defendants in the State of California
who, within four years of the filing of this Complaint
and to the date of trial (liability period 2), have
worked as a truck driver hauling bulk petroleum
products solely within the State of California and have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being
paid overtime compensation by defendants for those
excess hours.
The complaint alleges that for at least four years prior to the
filing of this Complaint and continuing to the present,
defendants have had a consistent policy of requiring their truck
drivers, including plaintiff, to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without paying them overtime compensation as required by
Federal and State laws.
Questions of law and fact that the purported class raise include
without limitation, whether defendants violated Sections 17200
et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code by
failing to pay overtime compensation to truck drivers who drove
in intrastate transportation in excess of forty (40) hours per
week.
Plaintiffs and the Classes request relief as follows:
-- for a determination that the First Cause of Action under
29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. may be maintained as an
"opt-in" collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) as to the unnamed, but similarly situated truck
drivers comprising Class 1;
-- for unpaid overtime compensation to plaintiff and Class
during liability period 1 according to proof;
-- for additional liquidated damages;
-- for reasonable attorney fees and costs;
-- for prejudgment interest at the prevailing legal rate;
-- for such other and further relief as the Court may deem
proper;
-- for a determination that the Second Cause of Action
under California B&P Code Section 17200 may be
maintained as an "opt-out" class action under F.R.C.P.
23 as to the unnamed truck drivers comprising Class 2;
-- for restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains
and benefits, including restitution of unpaid overtime
compensation to plaintiff and Class 2 during liability
period 2 according to proof;
-- for injunctive relief that defendants be ordered to
cease and desist from unfair business practices in
violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200
et seq.;
-- for prejudgment interest at the prevailing legal rate;
and
-- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f55
The suit is "Larry Welch, et al. v. Dickey Petroleum, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00681-LJO-SMS," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California under Judge
Lawrence J. O'Neill with referral to Judge Sandra M. Snyder.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Jerry Budin, Esq.
Law Office of Jerry Budin
2401 E. Orangeburg Ave., Suite 675-309
Modesto, CA 95355
Phone: (209) 544-3030
Fax:(209) 544-3144
E-mail: jerrybudin@msn.com
DIRECTV GROUP: Faces Suit in Ill. Over Portable DVD Player Promo
----------------------------------------------------------------
The DIRECTV Group, Inc. is facing a purported class action filed
in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Illinois over a promise of
a free portable DVD player for new subscribers, Ann Knef of The
Madison County Record reports.
The case, which was filed on May 9, 2007 by Belleville attorney
Christopher T. Kolker, claims that DIRECTV promises a portable
flat-screen DVD player worth up to $129 for a subscription to
its television services.
However, the suit states that the company sends new customers
either nothing at all or a traditional full-sized stationary DVD
player that must be connected to a TV, and it's worth
considerably less than the DVD player advertised.
Represented by Brad Lakin of Wood River, Mr. Kolker claims the
company advertised the incentive as having a value of up to $169
in some instances. However, Mr. Kolker claims that the Sungale
DVD2028 player, he received is available online for $29.99.
The case, which alleges DirecTV breached contract, was brought
on behalf of all persons who entered into a programming
agreement with DIRECTV and who, within eight weeks of submitting
a valid redemption form, have not received a portable DVD player
with a value of at least the advertised value.
According to a complaint obtained by The Madison County Record,
"Some of the advertisements purport to limit the promise 'while
supplies last.' However, defendants either failed to provide
the promised DVD players even while supplies lasted, never had
supplies of the promised portable DVD players, or knowingly and
intentionally continued to run the advertisements well after
supplies had been depleted."
Mr. Kolker claims that the DVD was advertised with phrases such
as, "Bigger screen for easier viewing," "Light enough to take
wherever you go," "High-output stereo speakers," "One-inch
super-slim design," and "Complete portability with car adapter."
The complaint further states, "Unlike the portable DVD player
that defendant advertised and promised, the Sungale DVD2028
cannot be utilized without connecting it to a separate, stand-
alone monitor, it has no car adapter and cannot operate on DC
power in a vehicle; it has no speakers and produces no sound."
Additionally, the complaint claims there are at least 50 members
in the class and that joinder in a single action is
impracticable. It states that the questions of law and fact
common to all class members are:
-- Whether defendants' conduct resulted in a promise of a
free portable DVD player with a value of at least the
advertised value;
-- Whether defendants' conduct constituted a contractual
offer or acceptance of a contractual offer;
-- Whether the class made or accepted a contractual offer
by entering into programming commitments and submitting
the redemption forms provided by defendants;
-- Whether defendants' conduct constitutes a breach of
contract; and
-- Whether the class members have sustained damages and,
if so, the proper measure of their damages.
For more details, contact:
Bradley M. Lakin
Lakin Law Firm PC
300 Evans Avenue, P.O. Box 229
Wood River, IL 62095-0229
Phone: (618) 254-1127 or (800) 851-5523
Fax: (618) 254-0193
Web site: http://www.lakinlaw.com
DOLE FOOD: Continues to Face Antitrust Lawsuits in Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
Dole Food Co. Inc. remains a defendant in purported class
actions filed by direct and indirect banana buyers in Florida
federal court.
A number of class actions were filed against the company and
three competitors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.
The lawsuits were filed on behalf of entities that directly or
indirectly purchased bananas from the defendants and have now
been consolidated into two separate class actions:
-- one by direct purchasers (customers); and
-- another by indirect purchasers (those who purchased
bananas from customers).
Both consolidated class actions allege that the defendants
conspired to artificially raise or maintain prices and control
or restrict output of bananas.
The company provided no development in the matter in its May 7,
2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 24, 2007.
Dole Food Co. Inc. -- http://www.dole.com/-- is a producer and
marketer of fresh fruit, fresh vegetables and fresh-cut flowers,
and markets a line of packaged foods.
FAIR ISAAC: "Slack" Case Subject to "Hillis" Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The case "Christy Slack v. Fair Isaac Corp. and MyFICO Consumer
Services, Inc.," is subject to the Settlement Agreement
described in the matter, "Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-03400-BBM," according to the
company's May 7, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31,
2007.
Fair Isaac Corp. was named as a defendant in the putative
consumer class action, which had alleged violation of the Credit
Repair Organizations Act. It was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
In the suit, plaintiff claims that the company sold credit
score-related products in violation of the CROA.
The plaintiff is also claiming that the defendants violated
certain procedural requirements of CROA, and violated the
antifraud provisions of CROA, with respect to the sale of credit
score products on the company's myFICO.com website.
The plaintiff also claims that the defendants violated the
California Credit Services Act and were unjustly enriched.
The plaintiff has sought certification of a class on behalf of
all individuals who purchased credit score products from us on
the myFICO.com website in the five year period prior to the
filing of the complaint on Jan. 18, 2005.
This matter is subject to the Settlement Agreement described in
the "Hillis v. Equifax Consumer Services, Inc. et al., Case No.
1:04-cv-03400-BBM," which is pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia.
Information on the "Hillis" settlement is available at:
http://www.hillisslacksettlement.com/
The suit is "Slack v. Fair Isaac Corp. et al., Case No. 3:05-cv-
00257-MHP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Sabrina S. Kim, Esq.
Jeff S. Westerman, Esq.
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, LLP
Phone: 213-617-1200, 212-594-5300, and 213-617-1200
Fax: 213-617-1975, 212-868-1229, and 213-617-1975
E-mail: skim@milbergweiss.com
jwesterman@milbergweiss.com
Representing the defendants is:
Frederick Brown, Esq.
Rebecca Justice Lazarus, Esq.
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP
One Montgomery St., Montgomery Tower, Suite 3100
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415-393-8204 and 415-393-8296
E-mail: fbrown@gibsondunn.com
rjustice@gibsondunn.com
FIRESIDE BANK: Calif. Supreme Court Remands Vehicle Buyer's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of California reversed a judgment of a court
of appeal and remanded for further proceedings a suit filed by a
vehicle buyer against Fireside Bank, but upheld the trial
court's certification order.
In 2001, plaintiff Sandra Gonzales purchased a used van agreeing
to pay monthly payments and to keep the van insured. The dealer
assigned the contract to Fireside Bank, then known as Fireside
Thrift Co. Fireside Bank repossessed the van after certain sums
were allegedly overdue.
It later sent a notice to Ms. Gonzalez, stating that she could
redeem the van by paying the full amount due under the contract
within 15 days. The "total amount due" was $13,843.64, which
later turned out to be in excess of $2,713.46.
Fireside Bank attributes this discrepancy to "a computer error"
and concedes that similarly inaccurate notices were sent to
almost 3,000 other borrowers.
In October 2002, Fireside Bank filed a complaint against
Gonzalez alleging that it had sold the van for $3,100 and
seeking a judgment for the remaining contract balance of
$8,073.47.
The parties filed complaints and cross-complaints under the
Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and Finance Act. In April
2004, Ms. Gonzalez filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings
on Fireside Bank's complaint.
Fireside Bank opposed this motion both on the merits and
procedurally. Procedurally, it argued that before obtaining a
ruling on the motion Ms. Gonzalez must seek or forswear
certification of a class, a potential remedy to which her
counsel had alluded, and the trial court should take the motion
off calendar or deny it without prejudice until class issues, if
any, were resolved.
Judgment, Class Certification
On August 20, 2004, despite these assurances, the trial court
issued formal orders (1) granting class certification, and (2)
granting Ms. Gonzalez's motion for judgment on the pleadings
against Fireside Bank's complaint on the basis that Fireside
Bank had "failed to comply with the notice requirements under
the Rees- Levering Act," thus barring any recovery of a
deficiency judgment.
Fireside Bank sought writ relief. It argued that, by ruling on
the motion for judgment on the pleadings before notice had been
given to the class, the trial court had impermissibly provided
class members an opportunity for one-way intervention. Although
Ms. Gonzalez had acceded to Fireside Bank's request for a
deferred ruling in the trial court, she opposed writ relief,
arguing that the trial court's ruling created no risk of one-way
intervention because it did not resolve the merits of the class
action.
"One-way intervention," is when not-yet-bound absent plaintiffs
may elect to stay in a class after favorable merits rulings but
opt out after unfavorable ones.
The Court of Appeal denied relief, concluding the rule the
Supreme Court endorsed in "Green v. Obledo" governing the order
of operations in class action proceedings was largely a matter
of discretion and was not violated by the trial court. The
Court of Appeal further rejected Fireside Bank's objections to
the merits of the class certification order.
The Supreme Court granted review to address the ongoing
validity, scope, and application of the rule against one-way
intervention.
Supreme Court Reverses
In a ruling filed on April 16, the Supreme Court reversed. It
wrote in an order:
"While the Green rule is subject to exceptions, leaving trial
courts vested with a certain degree of discretion in its
application, no such exception is applicable here and thus the
trial court abused its discretion in acting as it did.
"On the merits, however, its class certification order was
correct. Accordingly, we leave in place the trial court's class
certification order, direct that the trial court's entry of
judgment on the pleadings in favor of Gonzalez be vacated, and
remand for further proceedings."
A copy of the court ruling is available for free at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f4b
The case is NO. CV817959 filed in the Santa Clara County
Superior Court.
FIVE J'S: Truck Drivers Sue Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Five J's Trucking, Inc. and Mello Milk Transport, Inc. are
facing a class-action complaint, filed on May 3, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging
Labor Code violations.
This is an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b) and an "opt-out" class action pursuant to
F.R.C.P. 23, seeking unpaid overtime compensation and interest
thereon, penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs brought by plaintiffs:
-- Isidro Rodriguez,
-- Lee Avila,
-- Humberto Del Rio,
-- Isalino Fontes,
-- Antonio Ortiz,
-- Enrique Ortiz,
-- Jose Ortiz,
-- Jose De Jesus Ortiz,
-- Kyle Phillips,
-- Mario Pineda,
-- Simon Resendiz,
-- Rafael Romero,
-- Rafael Sanchez,
-- Guadalupe Solano
They bring this action, individually and on behalf of all other
truck drivers employed by, or formerly employed by Dickey
Petroleum and Daniel A. Dickey and their subsidiaries, owners
and affiliated companies, within the State of California:
(a) as an "opt-in" collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b), which includes all persons who are
employed or have been employed by defendants in the
State of California who, within three years of the
filing of the Complaint and to the date of trial
(liability period 1), have worked as a truck driver
hauling bulk petroleum products solely within the State
of California and have worked in excess of 40 hours per
week without being paid overtime compensation by
defendants for those excess hours; and
(b) as an "opt-out" class action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23.,
which includes all persons who are employed or have
been employed by defendants in the State of California
who, within four years of the filing of this Complaint
and to the date of trial (liability period 2), have
worked as a truck driver hauling bulk petroleum
products solely within the State of California and have
worked in excess of 40 hours per week without being
paid overtime compensation by defendants for those
excess hours.
The complaint alleges that for at least four years prior to the
filing of this Complaint and continuing to the present,
defendants have had a consistent policy of requiring their truck
drivers, including plaintiff, to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without paying them overtime compensation as required by
Federal and State laws.
Questions of law and fact that the purported class raise include
without limitation, whether defendants violated Sections 17200
et seq. of the California Business and Professions Code by
failing to pay overtime compensation to truck drivers who drove
in intrastate transportation in excess of forty (40) hours per
week.
Plaintiffs and the Classes request relief as follows:
-- for a determination that the First Cause of Action under
29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. may be maintained as an
"opt-in" collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) as to the unnamed, but similarly situated truck
drivers comprising Class 1;
-- for unpaid overtime compensation to plaintiff and Class
during liability period 1 according to proof;
-- for additional liquidated damages;
-- for reasonable attorney fees and costs;
-- for prejudgment interest at the prevailing legal rate;
-- for such other and further relief as the Court may deem
proper;
-- for a determination that the Second Cause of Action
under California B&P Code Section 17200 may be
maintained as an "opt-out" class action under F.R.C.P.
23 as to the unnamed truck drivers comprising Class 2;
-- for restitution and disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains
and benefits, including restitution of unpaid overtime
compensation to plaintiff and Class 2 during liability
period 2 according to proof;
-- for injunctive relief that defendants be ordered to
cease and desist from unfair business practices in
violation of Business and Professions Code Section 17200
et seq.;
-- for prejudgment interest at the prevailing legal rate;
and
-- for such other and further relief as the court may deem
proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f57
The suit is "Isidro Rodriguez, Et Al. Five J's Trucking, Inc.,
Et Al., Case No. 1:07-cv-00671-LJO-SMS," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California, under
Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, with referral to Judge Sandra M.
Snyder.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Jerry Budin, Esq.
Law Office of Jerry Budin
2401 E. Orangeburg Ave., Suite 675-309
Modesto, CA 95355
Phone: (209) 544-3030
Fax:(209) 544-3144
E-mail: jerrybudin@msn.com
ILLINOIS: County Sued Over Strip Search for Traffic Offense
-----------------------------------------------------------
Winnebago County, the sheriff's department and sheriff officials
are facing a lawsuit brought by a South Beloit woman, claiming
she was strip searched for failing to appear on traffic charges,
Corina Curry of Rockford Register Star reports.
Rosemary Raymundo, 43 years old, was ticketed twice in 2006 for
failing to restrain her children in her car. She was arrested
Jan. 8 at her home for not showing up in Ogle County court last
summer.
According to her lawyer, Attorney James R. Fennerty of Chicago,
she was forced to take off all of her clothes in front of jail
guards and bend over so guards could make sure that she wasn't
trying to sneak something into the jail.
Based on the lawsuit, the county has a policy of strip-searching
all individuals who are booked into the jail, regardless of a
particular suspicion or cause.
The lawsuit is seeking class-action status and demands:
-- monetary damages for Mrs. Raymundo and other members of
the class;
-- a declaration that the jail's policy on strip searches
is unconstitutional; and
-- an injunction ordering the jail to stop violating the
constitutional rights of inmates.
Dick Meyers, Winnebago County sheriff, said the jail staff
didn't do anything wrong and that jail officials can conduct
strip searches on people arrested on outstanding warrants.
Mr. Fennerty called the county's practice "insensitive and
unnecessary."
For more information about the case, contact:
James R. Fennerty, Esq.
Fennerty James R & Associates LLC
36 South Wabash Avenue Suite 1310
Chicago Illinois 60603
Phone: (312) 345-1704
MEDIMMUNE INC: Faces Lawsuit in Md. Over $15.6B AstraZeneca Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
MedImmune, Inc., along with its executives and directors, were
named as defendants in a purported shareholder's class action
that sought to block AstraZeneca PLC's planned $15.6 billion
takeover of the company, Vandana Sinha of The Washington
Business Journal reports.
Company shareholder Chris Larson filed the purported class
action on April 25, 2007 in Montgomery County Circuit Court. He
generally claims that the deal with the British drug company
would unfairly enrich top MedImmune executives at the expense of
shareholders.
The suit also names MedImmune founder and board chair Wayne
Hockmeyer as a defendant. Five other board directors were also
named as defendants:
-- James Cavanaugh,
-- Barbara Hackman Franklin,
-- Elizabeth Wyatt,
-- George Milne, and
-- Robert Hotz
According to the suit, which was disclosed in a recent MedImmune
regulatory filing obtained by The Washington Business Journal,
"Instead of attempting to obtain the highest value reasonably
available for the company's stockholders, defendants spent a
substantial effort tailoring the acquisition to meet the
specific needs of AstraZeneca."
Generally, defendants are withholding key information
shareholders need to evaluate whether the $58 per share offer
from AstraZeneca is fairly priced.
The lawsuit, filed two days after the buyout deal was announced,
claims that leaders of the MedImmune had an unfair advantage in
their negotiations with AstraZeneca PLC to "reap
disproportionate benefits to the exclusion of maximizing
stockholder value."
The suit seeks to stop the merger "unless and until the Company
adopts and implements a procedure or process to obtain the
highest possible value for shareholders."
Maryland-based MedImmune, Inc. -- http://www.medimmune.com/--
is a biotechnology company focusing its efforts on the
therapeutic areas of infectious disease, cancer and inflammatory
disease. The company primarily develops monoclonal antibodies
and vaccines.
MICROSOFT CORP: Florida Schools Benefit from $202M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
More than $93 million in vouchers for computers and software
arrived in school districts across Florida last month, Tania
Deluzuriaga of The Miami Herald reports.
Miami-Dade School received about $20 million, while Broward got
$8 million. The vouchers must be used by June 17, 2010. They
may be applied retroactively to purchases made after April 15,
2003.
The settlement was the outcome of a class action against
Microsoft Corp. filed in 2003. It accused the company of using
its software dominance to arbitrarily increase its prices.
In 2005, a Florida appeals court upheld Microsoft Corp.'s $202
million settlement of the class action that provides benefits to
consumers who purchased licenses for Microsoft operating system,
productivity suite, spreadsheet or word-processing software
between November 16, 1995 and December 31, 2002 for use in the
state.
Under terms of the deal, class action members will receive
vouchers for future technology purchases. Anyone in Florida who
bought a Microsoft product was eligible for a rebate between $5
and $12.
The settlement provided a maximum amount of $202 million. Out
of the unclaimed pool of funds, 50 percent was to be distributed
to public schools.
The Florida Department of Education said that approximately
1,790 schools, as well as nearly 260 in Dade and 130 in Broward,
are eligible for the funds.
Miami Attorney Alan Grunspan, one of the lawyers who pushed the
lawsuit, said he would like all unclaimed funds in class actions
to benefit public education. Now, the unclaimed funds will go
back to the company or are given to charities, he added.
For more information, contact:
Alan Grunspan, Esq.
Carlton Fields, P.A.
4000 International Place
100 SE 2 Street
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305-530-0050
Fax: 305-530-0055
E-mail: agrunspan@carltonfields.com
PET FOOD COS: Nationwide Suit Filed in Fla. Over Alleged Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine J. MacIvor of the Miami litigation law firm of
Maltzman Foreman, PA filed a nationwide class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
companies having a combined approximate 70% of the market share
in the $16 billion dollar a year pet food industry, The North
Country Gazette reports.
Defendants in the suit are:
-- Mars Inc.
-- Proctor and Gamble Co.
-- Colgate Palmolive Company
-- Del Monte Foods, Co.
-- Nestle U.S.A. Inc.
-- Nurto Procucts Inc.
-- Menu Foods, Inc.
-- Menu Foods Income Fund
-- Publix Supermarkets, Inc.
-- Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
-- Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.
-- Pet Supermarket, Inc.
-- Petsmart Inc.
-- Target Corp.
-- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Plaintiffs Renee Blaszkowski, Amy Hollub and Patricia Davis
allege that these companies have spent $300 million a year in
making false and misleading marketing statements regarding the
contents of their pet food to the dog and cat loving American
public.
While these defendants tout their pet food products as choice
cuts of prime beef, chunks of chicken, fish, fresh wholesome
vegetables and whole grains to induce consumers to buy them,
plaintiffs contend the food is actually made from "inedible"
slaughterhouse waste products of the human food chain such as
spines, heads, tails, hooves, hair, and blood.
The lawsuit alleges rendering companies who process this waste
have also added other inedible "waste" such as euthanized cats
and dogs from veterinarian offices and animal shelters, road
kill, zoo animals, rancid restaurant grease, toxic chemicals and
additives. Additionally, dead animals and those declared unfit
for human consumption due to disease and illness are also placed
in the mix, the plaintiffs contend.
The lawsuit further alleges that pet food companies market their
products as wholesome, choice cuts of meat, natural and complete
and balanced diets even though they are fully aware that this
food is largely carbohydrates and sugars combined with toxic
preservatives and additives with very little to no meat at all.
The class includes all persons in the U.S. who purchase, or have
purchased, pet food produced, manufactured, advertised,
marketed, distributed and/or sold by any of the defendants which
lead consumers to believe that they were purchasing, including,
but not limited to, "wholesome," "gourmet," premium," "natural,"
"balanced" and "complete," pet food that was marketed as having
certain ingredients when in fact the pet food contained
ingredients that were not represented in the defendants'
marketing of the pet food and which the defendants never
disclosed to the plaintiffs/class representatives or the class
prior to purchase.
Questions of law and fact that the purported class raises,
include:
(a) whether defendants advertised, marketed and sold pet
food as healthy, human-like and nutritionally balanced
when it contained, including but not limited to, toxic
and dangerous ingredients and chemicals, including but
not limited to, animal bones, blood, pus, intestines,
ligaments, tongues, esophagi, cancerous meat,
euthanized dogs and cats, sodium barbital, and
penthobarbital and failed to fully disclose such facts
in advertising;
(b) whether the defendants knowingly sold pet food that
contained toxic, dangerous and adulterated ingredients
and chemicals and failed to disclose such facts;
(c) whether the defendants advertised, represented or held
itself out as producing or manufacturing pet food
products that were, including but not limited to, safe,
healthy balanced and complete for pets of the
plaintiffs/class representatives and class members when
in fact such pet food was not safe, healthy, balanced
or complete;
(d) whether defendants expressly warranted these pet food
products;
(e) whether defendants expressly purported to disclaim any
express warranty on these pet food products;
(f) whether defendants purported to disclaim any implied
warranty on these pet food products;
(g) whether any limitation on any warranty failed to meet
its essential purpose;
(h) whether defendants' intended that the products be
purchased by plaintiff/class representatives, class
members or others;
(i) whether defendants' intended that the class would feed
the products to their pets;
(k) whether defendants' were negligent in manufacturing or
processing the pet food products;
(l) whether the purchase and/or use of pet food to feed
cats and dogs resulted in loss, injury, or damages to
the plaintiff/class representatives and the class;
(m) whether the defendants' negligence proximately caused
loss or injury or damage to the plaintiffs/class
representatives and the class;
(n) whether the plaintiffs/class representatives and the
class suffered damages;
(o) whether the defendants were unjustly enriched be
selling consumers pet food that was adulterated, did
not comport with their own marketing, contained toxic
substances, and was not nutritionally complete as
advertised;
(p) whether the defendants marketing and advertising was
false and deceptive under applicable state laws; and
(q) whether the defendants violated applicable consumer
statutes requiring that the defendants not to commit
deceptive or unfair trade practices to the detriment of
the consumer.
Plaintiffs/class representatives, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, pray for relief and judgment
against defendants as follows:
-- awarding actual consequential damages;
-- pursuant to Section 501.2075, $10,000 for each violation
of willfully using a method, act, or practice declared
unlawful under Section 501.204;
-- for pre- and post-judgment interest to the class, as
allowed by law;
-- for reasonable attorneys' fees;
-- the return of wrongful, revenue, and benefits, to the
extent, and in the amount deemed appropriate by the
court and such other relief the court deems just and
proper to remedy defendants' unjust enrichment;
-- awarding punitive damages; and
-- granting such other and further relief as allowed by
law.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f36
The suit is "Blaszkowski et al. v. Mars Inc. et al., Case No.
1:07-cv-21221-CMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Catherine J. MacIvor, Esq.
Maltzman Foreman PA
2 S Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2300
One Biscayne Tower
Miami, FL 33131-1803
Phone: 305-358-6555
Fax: 374-9077
E-mail: cmacivor@mflegal.com
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: New "Wheeler" Suit in Early Stages of Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
A newer version of the purported class action, "Cody Wheeler, et
al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al.," is in early stages of
discovery, according to Pilgrim's Pride Corp.'s May 1, 2007 Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended March 30, 2007.
Original Wheeler Litigation
On July 1, 2002, three individuals, on behalf of themselves and
a putative class of chicken growers, filed their original class
action complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas, styled "Cody Wheeler, et al.
v. Pilgrim's Pride Corp."
In their lawsuit, plaintiffs initially alleged that the Company
violated the Packers and Stockyards Act (7 U.S.C. Section 192)
and breached fiduciary duties allegedly owed to the plaintiff
growers.
The plaintiffs also brought individual actions under the Packers
and Stockyards Act alleging, among other things, breach of
fiduciary duties and breach of contract.
On Sept. 30, 2005, plaintiffs amended their lawsuit to join
Tyson Foods, Inc. as a co-defendant. Two additional former
chicken growers were also added as plaintiffs to the lawsuit.
This amendment, which occurred 38 months after the lawsuit's
initial filing, virtually re-wrote most of the allegations. Now
the plaintiffs contend that the Company and Tyson are involved
in a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws.
The plaintiffs' initial allegations, although still contained in
the amended lawsuit, are no longer the sole focus of the case.
On Jan. 3, 2006, the Court entered an Order severing the
plaintiffs' Packers and Stockyards Act and antitrust claims.
The Court ordered that the plaintiffs may proceed with their
Packers and Stockyards Act claims as set forth in Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Complaint.
The Court also ordered that the plaintiffs may proceed with
their respective antitrust claims asserted against the Company
and Tyson in a separate cause of action styled "Cody Wheeler, et
al. vs. Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al."
On March 6, 2006, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification in the original lawsuit. Pilgrim's Pride attacked
the plaintiffs' class certification brief on several grounds,
and ultimately the plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their Motion
for Class Certification on May 26, 2006.
As a result, the Court canceled the class certification hearing
and on June 2, 2006 the Court entered an Order withdrawing
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and prohibiting the
plaintiffs from filing any additional class-action claims
against Pilgrim's Pride in this lawsuit.
Additionally, the two former growers who joined the lawsuit on
Sept. 30, 2005 withdrew from the case. The lawsuit is currently
proceeding with individual claims by the three original
individual plaintiffs against Pilgrim's Pride.
New Wheeler Litigation
On Jan. 3, 2006, an action styled, "Cody Wheeler, et al. v.
Pilgrim's Pride Corp., et al.," arising out of the original
Wheeler litigation described above, was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
The lawsuit was filed by the three original plaintiffs and a
former grower, both in their individual capacities and on behalf
of a putative class of chicken growers.
In the lawsuit, the four plaintiffs allege that the Company and
Tyson are involved in a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust
laws. The proceedings are currently in the early stages of
discovery.
Pilgrim's Pride Corp. -- http://www.pilgrimspride.com/-- is a
producer of poultry in the U.S., Mexico and Puerto Rico. In the
U.S., the Company produces prepared and fresh chicken, and
turkey while in Mexico and Puerto Rico, it produces only fresh
chicken. Through vertical integration, it controls the
breeding, hatching and growing of chickens, and the processing
and preparation, packaging and sale of its product lines.
PM BEEF: E. Coli Contamination Triggers Recall of Beef Trim
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service announced that
PM Beef Holdings, LLC, of Windom, Minn., is voluntarily
recalling approximately 117,500 pounds of beef trim products
used to make ground beef, due to possible contamination with E.
coli O157:H7.
Although the product(s) being recalled should be returned to the
point of purchase, consumers preparing other ground beef
products should heed these pieces of advice:
(a) Consumers should only eat ground beef patties that have
been cooked to a safe temperature of 160 oF;
(b) When a ground beef patty is cooked to 160 oF
throughout, it can be safe and juicy, regardless of
color. The only way to be sure a ground beef patty is
cooked to a high enough temperature to kill harmful
bacteria is to use an accurate food thermometer;
(c) Color is not a reliable indicator that ground beef
patties have been cooked to a temperature high enough
to kill harmful bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7;
(d) Eating a pink or red ground beef patty without first
verifying that the safe temperature of 160 oF has been
reached is a significant risk factor for foodborne
illness; and
(e) Thermometer used to ensure proper cooking temperature
is especially important for those who cook or serve
ground beef patties to people most at risk for
foodborne illness because E. coli O157:H7 can lead to
serious illness or even death.
Those most at risk include young children, seniors, and those
with compromised immune systems.
The trim was produced on March 27, 2007 and was shipped to
distributors and retail outlets in Arizona, Illinois, Iowa,
Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin. Because
these products later became ground beef sold under many
different retail brand names, consumers should check with their
local retailer to determine whether they may have purchased any
of the products subject to recall.
The products subject to recall include:
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS CODE 85 TRIMMINGS, 30216085"
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS CODE 90 TRIMMINGS, 30216090"
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS CODE 95 TRIMMINGS, 30268295"
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS OUTSIDE RND FLAT FOR USL,
30271092"
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS CODE 95 TRIMMINGS, 30568295"
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS SHLD CLOD FOR USL, 30214092"
* Bulk boxes of "SUPERLEAN TRIMMINGS, 30340000"
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS OUTSIDE RND FLAT FOR USL,
30571092."
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS TRIMMINGS, 340072"
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS SHLD CLOD FOR USL, 30514092"
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS CODE 95 TRIMMINGS, 30571295"
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS CODE 95 TRIMMINGS, 30271295"
* Bulk boxes of "BNLS CODE 95 TRIMMINGS, 30567295"
* Bulk boxes of "PREMIUM BEEF TRIM, 1240072"
* Bulk boxes of "BEEF TRIMMINGS - PREMIUM, 240072"
* Bulk boxes of "CHUCK TRIM - SPECIAL, 240080"
* Bulk boxes of "NR CHUCK TRIM, 340080"
* Bulk boxes of "CH PREMIUM TRIM, 78240072"
* Combo bin of "BNLS CODE 8 TRIMMINGS, 40030340080"
* Combo bin of "TESTED 80% LEAN TRIMMINGS, 4000030025"
* Combo bin of "BEEF TRIM CODE 5, 40000340050"
* Combo bin of "CODE 6 TRIM, 40000340865"
Each box bears the establishment number "Est. 683" as well as a
net weight declaration. The possible contamination was
discovered by the Minnesota Department of Health as part of an
illness investigation. E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly
bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea and dehydration. The
very young, seniors and persons with compromised immune systems
are the most susceptible to foodborne illness.
Media and consumers with questions about the recall should
contact company Vice-President for Sales and Marketing John
Hagerla at (507) 831-2761.
Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at
http://www.AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry
Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-
6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached
from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday.
Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Calif. Suit Over Hotel Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Inc., along with other firms, remains a defendant
in a purported class action that were filed by number of cities
and counties on behalf of themselves and other allegedly
similarly situated cities and counties within the same
respective state in connection with the occupancy taxes.
Other defendants in the suits, but not in all cases, are:
-- Hotels.com, L.P.;
-- Hotel.com GP, LLC;
-- Hotwire, Inc.;
-- Cheaptickets, Inc.;
-- Cendant Travel Distribution Services Group, Inc.;
-- Expedia, Inc.;
-- Internetwork Publishing Corp. (d/b/a Lodging.com);
-- Lowestfare.com, Inc.;
-- Maupintour Holding LLC;
-- Orbitz, Inc.;
-- Orbitz, LLC;
-- Site59.com, LLC;
-- Travelocity.com, Inc.;
-- Travelocity.com LP;
-- Travelweb, LLC; and
-- Travelnow.com, Inc.
Each complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated each jurisdiction's respective hotel occupancy tax
ordinance with respect to the charges and remittance of amounts
to cover taxes under each ordinance. Each complaint typically
seeks compensatory damages, disgorgement, penalties available by
law, attorneys' fees, and other relief. Such actions include:
On Dec. 30, 2004, a putative class action complaint, "City of
Los Angeles v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al.," was filed in the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles by the City of Los
Angeles on behalf of itself and a putative class of California
cities, counties and other municipalities that have enacted
occupancy taxes.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts unfair
competition claims under California Business and Professions
Code section 17200, et seq. On May 19, 2005, the court ordered
limited discovery. On Aug. 31, 2005, the City of Los Angeles
filed an amended complaint adding a claim for a declaratory
judgment.
On Sept. 26, 2005, the court sustained the defendants' demurrers
on the ground of improper joinder of defendants and claims, and
therefore, dismissed the amended complaint, with leave to file a
second amended complaint.
On Feb. 8, 2006, the City of Los Angeles filed a second amended
complaint that asserts the same claims but includes additional
allegations of fact.
On March 27, 2006, the defendants filed demurrers to the second
amended complaint. Those demurrers have been fully briefed and
are awaiting decision. On March 31, 2006, the defendants filed
a petition to coordinate of this matter with the case of the
City of San Diego.
On July 12, 2006, that petition was granted, and, as a result,
this case and the City of San Diego case will now proceed in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles.
The City of Los Angeles informed the court that it would submit
on Feb. 21, 2007 a proposed further amended complaint. A March
1, 2007 oral argument was set on defendants' demurrers on
grounds of improper joinder of defendants and claims.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Fla. Hotel Occupancy Lawsuit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the suit, "Leon County and Doris Maloy, Leon County
Tax Collector v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.," which names
Priceline.com Inc. as defendant, agreed to dismiss the case.
On July 27, 2006, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, by Leon
County and its tax collector on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of Florida counties that collect tourist
development taxes.
On Sept. 25, 2006, the company and other defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on the merits. On Dec. 6, 2006, the court
denied defendants' motion to dismiss, but struck from the
complaint plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees. On Dec. 11,
2006, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
lack of jurisdiction in federal court.
After limited discovery on the issue of jurisdiction, on Feb.
21, 2007, the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal of the
action without prejudice.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Discovery Ongoing in Suits by Four Cities
------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Inc. stated at its March 1, 2007 regulatory filing
that discovery is ongoing in these suits filed by a number of
cities and counties in connection with hotel occupancy taxes:
* "City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,"
* "City of Fairview Heights v. Orbitz, Inc., et al.,"
* "City of Findlay v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,"
* "City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
City of Gallup, New Mexico Lawsuit
On May 17, 2006, a putative class action was filed in the 11th
Judicial District Court, County of McKinley, New Mexico, by the
City of Gallup on behalf of itself and a putative class of New
Mexico municipalities, which have enacted lodgers' taxes.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for conversion and a declaratory judgment. On June 23, 2006
defendants removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico.
On July 31, 2006, the company and other defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint. That motion is pending.
On Sept. 29, 2006, the company and other defendants moved to
stay discovery pending a decision on that motion, and on Nov. 2,
2006, the Court granted that motion in part and stayed all
discovery unrelated to class certification.
On Jan. 30, 2007, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motion to dismiss; the court dismissed
plaintiff's conversion and declaratory judgment claims, but
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the tax claims. The
parties are currently conducting discovery.
City of Fairview Heights Lawsuit
On Oct. 5, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County,
Illinois by the City of Fairview Heights on behalf of itself and
a putative class of Illinois taxing authorities that are
allegedly authorized to impose a tax on the business of renting
hotel rooms.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, similar laws in other states,
conversion and unjust enrichment.
On Nov. 28, 2005, the company and certain other defendants
removed this action to the U.S, District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.
On Jan. 17, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
On Feb. 10, 2006, the City of Fairview Heights moved to remand
this action to state court.
On July 12, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims other than the tax claim, denied defendants'
motion to dismiss the tax claim, and denied plaintiff's motion
to remand. The parties are currently conducting discovery.
City of Findlay Lawsuit
On Oct. 25, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Common Pleas Court of Hancock County, Ohio by the City of
Findlay on behalf of itself and a putative class of Ohio cities,
counties and townships that have enacted occupancy or excise
taxes on lodging.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Ohio
Revised Code Chapter 1345, et seq., conversion, a constructive
trust and a declaratory judgment.
On Nov. 22, 2005, the company and certain other defendants
removed this action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.
On Jan. 30, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
On July 26, 2006, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss the Consumer Sales Practices Act claims and denied
defendants' motion to dismiss the remaining claims. The parties
are currently conducting discovery.
City of San Antonio Lawsuit
On May 8, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San
Antonio Division, by the City of San Antonio on behalf of itself
and putative classes of Texas municipalities.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claim
for conversion and a declaratory judgment.
On June 30, 2006, the company and other defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint. On Aug. 28, 2006, the plaintiff moved
for class certification.
Following briefing of the motion to dismiss and motion for class
certification, on Oct. 30, 2006, the plaintiff filed a first
amended complaint that limited the putative classes of Texas
municipalities to 175 specifically enumerated municipalities
that plaintiff alleges to have hotel occupancy tax ordinances
similar to that of the plaintiff.
On Nov. 2, 2006, the court heard argument on the motion to
dismiss and the parties are awaiting a decision. The court
delayed consideration of the motion for class certification
pending briefing on class definition of the first amended
complaint. The parties are currently conducting discovery.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Moves for Summary Judgment in Ga. Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
A motion for summary judgment filed by defendants in the suit,
"City of Rome, Georgia, et al., v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,"
which names as defendant Priceline.com Inc., is being briefed.
On Nov. 18, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by
the City of Rome, Hart County and the City of Cartersville on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of Georgia cities,
counties and governments which have enacted transient occupancy
taxes and/or excise taxes on lodging.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for violation of Georgia's Uniform Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, conversion, unjust enrichment, a constructive
trust and a declaratory judgment.
On Feb. 6, 2006, the company and certain other defendants moved
to dismiss the complaint. On May 8, 2006, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss all claims relating to the Georgia
sales and use tax and denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
excise tax claims.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 7, 2006 naming
additional plaintiffs. The parties are currently conducting
discovery regarding class certification issues.
On Feb. 9, 2007, the defendants moved for summary judgment on
the plaintiffs' claims for plaintiffs' failure to exhaust the
administrative procedures required by Georgia law and
plaintiffs' respective ordinances. That motion is being
briefed, according to the company's March 1, 2007 regulatory
filing.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Bid to Junk Five Hotel Taxes Suits Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Priceline.com Inc. stated at its March 1, 2007 regulatory filing
that its motions to dismiss certain suits filed by a number of
cities and counties in connection with the hotel occupancy taxes
are being briefed.
The suits are:
* "City of Orange, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
* "Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government v.
Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,"
* "County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al."
The company also filed a motion to dismiss the suits:
* "Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau, Inc. and
Marshall County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,"
* "Pitt County v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al."
City of Orange, Texas Lawsuit
On July 18, 2006, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont
Division, by the City of Orange on behalf of itself and a
putative class of Texas municipalities containing hotels in
which rooms were marketed, distributed, sold or resold by
defendants.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for conversion, civil conspiracy, and a declaratory judgment.
On Sept. 12, 2006, the company and other defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint. The motion is being briefed and is
awaiting decision.
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government Lawsuit
On Sept. 21, 2006, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky by the
Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government on behalf of itself
and a putative class of Kentucky cities, counties and townships
that have enacted transient room taxes.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for conversion, money had and received, unjust enrichment, a
constructive trust, and a declaratory judgment.
On Dec. 15, 2006, the plaintiff moved to amend the complaint to
make certain changes to the identity of the defendants. That
motion was granted, and, on Jan. 8, 2007, plaintiff filed its
amended complaint.
On Dec. 22, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the original
complaint, and, on Jan. 17, 2007, renewed their motion to
dismiss with respect to the amended complaint. Defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint is being briefed.
County of Nassau Lawsuit
On Oct. 24, 2006, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Nassau
County on behalf of itself and a putative class of New York
cities, counties and other local governmental entities that have
imposed hotel taxes since March 1, 1995.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for conversion, unjust enrichment and a constructive trust.
On Jan. 31, 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
That motion is being briefed.
Pitt County Lawsuit
On Dec. 1, 2005, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the North Carolina General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division by Pitt County on behalf of itself and a putative class
of North Carolina political subdivisions that impose occupancy
taxes.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for violation of North Carolina General Statute Section 75-1, et
seq., conversion, a constructive trust and a declaratory
judgment.
On Feb. 13, 2006, the defendants removed this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. On
March 13, 2006, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
and that motion was heard on Oct. 17, 2006. The parties are
awaiting a decision on the motion to dismiss.
Lake County Convention and Marshall County Lawsuits
On June 12, 2006, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana by the Lake
County Convention and Visitors Bureau and Marshall County on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of Indiana counties,
convention and visitors bureaus and any other local governments
which have enacted or benefit from taxes on innkeepers.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary
duties. On Nov. 3, 2006, the company and other defendants moved
to dismiss the complaint. That motion is being and is awaiting
decision.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Files Motion to Stay Fla. City Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants in the suit, "City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com,
L.P., et al.," which names Priceline.com Inc. as defendant,
filed a motion to stay the case.
In July 2006, a putative class action was filed in the Circuit
Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, in and for Duval County, Florida
by the City of Jacksonville on behalf of itself and a putative
class of Florida counties that collect tourist development taxes
and/or convention development taxes and that have elected self-
administration of such taxes.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for conversion, unjust enrichment, a constructive trust, and a
declaratory judgment.
On Sept. 22, 2006, the company and other defendants moved to
stay this action in favor of "Leon County (Fla.) and Doris
Maloy, Leon County Tax Collector v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,"
and that motion is pending.
PRICELINE.COM INC: Plaintiffs in Ohio Suit Seek to Amend Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the suit, "City of Columbus, et al. v. Hotels.com,
L.P., et al.," which names Priceline.com Inc. as defendant,
filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to strike all
class action allegations from the complaint.
On Aug. 8, 2006, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio by the
Cities of Columbus and Dayton on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of Ohio cities, counties and townships that have
enacted occupancy or excise taxes on lodging.
In addition to the tax claims, the complaint also asserts claims
for unjust enrichment, money had and received, conversion, a
constructive trust, and a declaratory judgment.
On Sept. 25, 2006, the company and other defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint. The motion to dismiss is pending. On
Sept. 27, 2006, the company and other defendants moved to
transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, where the City of Findlay case is pending.
On Jan. 8, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and
recommendation that the case be transferred to the Northern
District of Ohio.
Plaintiffs have filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendations, and the parties are currently
briefing those objections.
They have also filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint
to strike all class action allegations from the complaint. That
motion is being briefed.
SAGITTARIUS SPORTING: Recalls Grills to Install Hose Connector
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sagittarius Sporting Goods, of China, in cooperation with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is voluntarily
recalling about 36,500 units of Perfect Flame Four-Burner Gas
Grills.
The company said some of these grills could be missing a hose
that connects the grill manifold to the side burner, which poses
a risk of fires and burn injuries to consumers.
About 30,000 of these grills in inventory have already been
inspected, and 17 units were found to have missing hoses and
repaired. No injuries or consumer incidents have been reported.
The recall involves 25-inch by 18-inch Perfect Flame brand,
four-burner, stainless steel gas grills with date codes JU, JV,
JW, JX, JY, or JZ.
The name "Perfect Flame" is on the grill hood. The model
number, 2518SL, and the date code are located on a label inside
the left front door of the grill.
L G Sourcing, of North Wilkesboro, N.C. imported these gas
grills that were manufactured in China and were being sold at
Lowe's retail outlets nationwide from September 2006 through
February 2007 for about $400.
Consumers should inspect their grills before initial use to
determine whether the hose that attaches to the side burner is
missing. If it is, stop using the grill and contact
Sagittarius. Sagittarius will inspect the grill and install a
free replacement hose.
Call Sagittarius toll-free at (888) 804-7455 between 8 a.m. and
6 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday and between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.
on Friday.
SPANDREL SALES: Recalls Kids' Jewelry Due to High Lead Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Spandrel Sales and Marketing Inc., of Tempe, Ariz., in
cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, is
voluntarily recalling nearly 200,000 Children's Necklaces,
Bracelets and Rings.
Spandrel said the recalled jewelry contains high levels of lead.
Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause
adverse health effects.
The company has received neither injuries nor incidents reports.
The recalled jewelry includes pendants that hang from silver-
colored bracelet and necklace chains, and silver-colored rings
with a charm on top. Charm shapes include silver-colored
crosses, suns, moons, stars, butterflies, cupids, angels, keys,
elephants, hands, cell phones, fish, and shoes.
These pieces of jewelry were manufactured in China and were
being sold in vending machines located in malls, discount,
department and grocery stores nationwide from February 2007
through March 2007 for 25 cents.
Consumers should immediately take the recalled rings and
necklaces away from children and throw them away.
Photos of the jewelry:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml07/07188.html
For additional information, contact Spandrel Sales and Marketing
toll-free at (877) 213-0500 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. MT Monday
through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.ssmvending.com
SPX CORP: N.C. Court Okays Securities, ERISA Suit Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina gave final approval to settlements reached in two
purported class actions filed against SPX Corp., according to
the company's May 2, 2007 Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended May 2, 2007.
Securities Fraud Litigation
Beginning in March 2004, multiple class action complaints
seeking unspecified monetary damages, were filed or announced by
certain law firms representing or seeking to represent
purchasers of our common stock during a specified period against
the company and certain of its current and former executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs generally allege that defendants made false and
misleading statements regarding the forecast of its 2003 fiscal
year business and operating results in order to artificially
inflate the price of its stock.
These complaints were consolidated into a single amended
complaint against the company and its former Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer and President.
On Sept. 20, 2004, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated action in its entirety.
ERISA Litigation
On April 23, 2004, an additional class complaint seeking
unspecified monetary damages was filed in the same court on
behalf of participants in the company's employee benefit plans,
alleging breaches of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 (ERISA) by the company, its then general counsel and the
Administrative Committee regarding one of its 401(k) defined
contribution benefit plans arising from the plan's holding of
company stock.
On June 10, 2005, a first amended complaint was filed in the
ERISA suit, adding as defendants certain current and former
directors and administrative committee members.
The first amended complaint generally tracks the factual
allegations in the securities class action. On July 25, 2005,
the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended ERISA
complaint in its entirety.
On Sept. 8, 2005, the plaintiffs moved the court to certify the
proposed class in the ERISA suit. The company opposed that
motion.
Settlements
On Oct. 9, 2006, the company reached an agreement in principle
to settle both the securities class action and the tag-along
ERISA action.
The settlement is subject to court approval. On Dec. 22, 2006,
the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and
scheduled a settlement hearing.
On April 10, 2007, the court conducted the settlement hearing
and, on April 13, 2007, the court entered an order and final
judgment in each case approving the settlement and dismissing
the settled claims with prejudice.
Under the terms of the settlement, the company's aggregate net
settlement payment, after reimbursement by our insurer, is $5.1
million, which is recorded in the company's condensed
consolidated balance sheets as of March 31, 2007 and Dec. 31,
2006. The payment is expected to be made into the settlement
fund by the end of the second quarter of 2007.
SPX Corp. -- http://www.spx.com/-- s a global multi-industry
manufacturing company that provides flow technology, test and
measurement products and services, thermal equipment and
services, and industrial products and services. The company's
infrastructure-related products and services include wet and dry
cooling systems, thermal service and repair work, heat
exchangers and power transformers into the global power market.
SPX Corp. ERISA Litigation
c/o Claims Administrator
Heffler, Radetich & Saitta L.L.P.
P.O. Box 130, Philadelphia, PA 19105-0130
Phone: 1-800-252-5745
Web site: http://www.hrsclaimsadministra.com
TRIAD HOSPITALS: June Hearing Set for Settlement with Access Now
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas will
hold on June 13, 2007 a hearing on a proposed settlement of a
class action on disabled accessibility issues against Triad
Hospitals Inc., The Fort Wayne News Sentinel reports.
On May 8, 2001, Florida-based Access Now Inc., a nonprofit, all-
volunteer disability advocacy organization, filed the suit
claiming U.S. hospitals owned by Triad Hospitals Inc. violate
the Americans With Disabilities Act's "equal access" rule.
Defendants in the 2001 lawsuit include:
-- MCSA LLC,
-- Medical Park Hospital LLC,
-- Northwest Hospital LLC,
-- San Leandro Hospital LP,
-- Women and Children's Hospital LLC,
-- Lake Area Surgicare LP,
-- Carlsbad Medical Center LLC,
-- Lea Regional Hospital LLC,
-- Las Cruces Medical Center LLC,
-- Claremore Regional Hospital LLC,
-- Willamette Valley Medical Center LLC,
-- Physicians and Surgeons Hospital of Alice LP,
-- Brownwood Hospital LP,
-- College Station Hospital LP,
-- Triad Denton Hospital LP,
-- Victoria of Texas LP,
-- Gulf Coast Hospital LP,
-- Longview Medical Center LP,
-- Terrell Hospital LP,
-- Navarro Hospital LP,
-- Pampa Hospital LP,
-- San Angelo Hospital LP,
-- Piney Woods Healthcare System LP,
-- Greenbriar VMC LLC,
-- ARMC LP,
-- Barberton Health System LLC,
-- Bluffton Health System LLC,
-- Dupont Hospital LLC,
-- Hot Springs National Park Hospital Holdings LLC,
-- IOM Health Systems LP,
-- Jonesboro Hospital LLC,
-- Mary Black Health System LLC,
-- Massillon Health System LLC,
-- McKenzie-Willamette Regional Medical Center,
Associates LLC,
-- QHG of Enterprise Inc.,
-- QHG of Gadsden Inc.,
-- QHG of Jacksonville Inc.,
-- QHG of Lake City Inc.,
-- QHG of South Carolina Inc.,
-- QHG of Springdale Inc.,
-- Rehab Hospital of Fort Wayne General Partnership,
-- Russellville Holdings LLC,
-- Searcy Holdings LLC,
-- St Joseph Health System LP,
-- Triad of Alabama LLC,
-- Vicksburg Health LLC,
-- Warsaw Health System LLC,
-- Wesley Health System LLC,
-- Women's Center of Northwest Arkansas LLC,
-- Woodward Health System LLC
The suit alleges that many Triad hospitals have "physical,
communication, structural and program barriers" that hinder
people with disabilities.
The class action involves issues of "physical barriers,
communication barriers, adoption of service animal policies -
both mobility and sensory barriers."
Steve Doyle of The Huntsville Times reported on Feb. 23 that
lawyers for the two sides have reached a proposed settlement.
Triad spokeswoman Martha Crombie said, "We entered into a
settlement agreement in 2002, and now what we're seeing is the
end of this."
A legal notice about the settlement, published in The Times,
said Crestwood would make "modifications and alterations" to
restrooms, parking lots, paths of travel and other common areas.
The oldest parts of Crestwood's campus date to 1982 -- eight
years before Congress passed the Americans With Disabilities
Act.
According to Jennifer L. Boen of The Fort Wayne News Sentinel,
although the settlement gives Triad and other defendants four
years to make needed changes, the changes will soon be the
responsibility of Community Health Systems (CHS) of Franklin,
Tenn.
In late March, Triad agreed to the sale of the company for $6.8
billion, which will make Community Health the largest publicly
traded hospital company in the nation. The sale is expected to
close by the third quarter of the year.
Ms. Crombie said the proposed settlement covers 11 hospitals,
including five in Alabama: Crestwood, Gadsden Regional Medical
Center, Jacksonville Medical Center, Medical Center Enterprise
and Flowers Hospital in Dothan.
The proposed settlement calls for the named medical centers to
"make modifications and alterations to their facilities,
including public restrooms, paths of travel, parking and other
public areas within the facilities, with the express purpose of
improving and/or providing equal access to and usability of the
facilities by persons with disabilities."
At hospitals that need improvements, work may include adding
wheelchair ramps, widening doorways and increasing the number of
handicapped parking spaces, Ms. Crombie said.
Court documents showed "No money damages are to be paid to
members of the class."
Founded in 1998, Access Now has filed dozens of federal lawsuits
to force hospitals, department stores, stadiums and other public
places to provide equal access to people with disabilities.
The suit is "Access Now Inc., et a.l v. Crestwood Healthcare, et
al., Case No. 3:01-cv-00869," filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas under Judge Sam A. Lindsay.
Representing plaintiffs are:
Charles Duke Ferguson, Esq.
David E. Marko, Esq.
de la O, Marko, Magolnick & Leyton PA
3001 SW 3rd Ave
Miami, FL 33129
Phone: 305/285-2000
Fax: 305/285-5555
E-mail: ferguson@dmmllaw.com
Representing defendants is:
John D. Bosco
Baker & McKenzie - Dallas
2300 Trammell Crow Center
2001 Ross Ave
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214/978-3000
Fax: 214/978-3099
E-mail: john.d.bosco@bakernet.com
TUT SYSTEMS: Lerach Kept Settlement Under Wraps, Plaintiffs Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case "Yusty et al. v. Tut Systems, Inc. et
al., Case No. 4:01-cv-02659-CW," filed, on May 4 a motion in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
saying their lawyer failed to inform them of the settlement of
the suit, CNN Money reports.
Plaintiffs -- Carlos Horacio Yusty, Andres Jaramillo, and
Rodrigo Jaramillo -- claim that lawyer Bill Lerach, kept it
secret that he had won a $10 million settlement in the class
action he'd filed for them back in 2001.
Plaintiffs claim they had never been told about the settlement
Mr. Lerach won two years earlier and that all the money from it
had already been doled out.
The new claims about Mr. Lerach arise in a securities class
action "Yusty v. Tut Systems," which he filed in July 2001 on
behalf of named plaintiffs.
In May 2004, the case was settled for $10 million, with 25% of
that - $2.5 million - going for attorneys' fees.
Class Action Reporter ran a story on Aug. 2, 2004 that
defendants reached a settlement in "In re Tut Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. C-01-2659-JCS," in
December 2003.
The Company's insurance carriers agreed to pay $10 million, on
behalf of the Company, to settle the suit. The settlement
includes a release of all defendants. The insurance carriers
paid the settlement amount to plaintiffs' escrow agent in
January 2004. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement
on February 24, 2004 and finally approved the settlement on May
14, 2004. The settlement became final on June 15, 2004, the
date when the appeals period ended.
The suit is "Yusty et al. v. Tut Systems, Inc. et al., Case No.
4:01-cv-02659-CW," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Claudia Wilken.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Bruce G. Murphy
Law Offices of Bruce G. Murphy
265 Llwyds Lane
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Phone: 772-231-4202
Fax: 772-231-7222
E-mail: bgm@brucemurphy.biz
UNITED STATES: Paying $34.4M to Settle Va. Suit Over Jet Noise
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Virginia Justice Department and the U.S. Navy have reached a
settlement with approximately 3,400 property owners in Virginia
Beach and Chesapeake, Va., regarding litigation relating to jet
noise at a naval air base.
Under the terms of agreement, the participating plaintiffs agree
to dismiss their claims and acknowledge that the settlement does
not constitute an admission of liability by the U.S.
"We are pleased that the federal government and residents near
the Naval Air Station Oceana and Naval Auxiliary Landing Field,
Fentress have been able to reach an amicable resolution in this
matter and avoid further litigation," said Matthew J. McKeown,
Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's
Environment and Natural Resources Division. "This resolution
signals an end to six years of litigation and provides positive
results for the citizens as well as the government."
The class action stems from the relocation of 156 Navy F/A-18
C/D Hornet fighter jets from Cecil Field, Fla., to Naval Air
Station Oceana in Virginia Beach, Va., between December 1998 and
July 1999.
Plaintiffs own approximately 2,100 properties and alleged in a
group of nine lawsuits filed between April 2001 and June 2005
that the introduction of the Hornets resulted in a substantial
increase in overflights and jet noise. Under the settlement,
the federal government will pay the plaintiffs an amount not to
exceed $34.4 million.
The first of a series of trials was scheduled to begin in
October 2006, but the parties agreed to postpone trial to pursue
settlement. After several months of discussions, including
mediation proceedings before Judge Eric Bruggink of the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims, the parties finalized the terms of the
settlement.
A large majority of the participating plaintiffs will also grant
to the U.S. a permanent easement over their properties to
accommodate existing and additional future Naval aircraft
operations.
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: N.J. Suit Says Passats, Jettas Defective
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schoengold Sporn Laitman & Lometti, P.C. filed
on May 11, 2007 a class-action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, accusing Volkswagen of
America Inc. and Volkswagen of America, Inc. d/b/a Audi of
America, of selling Passats and Jettas with leaky sunroofs and
bad pollen filters from 1997 through 2007.
Plaintiffs John M. Dewey, Patrick DeMartino and Patricia Romeo
allege violations of:
(a) Section 56 of the Consumer Fraud Act of New Jersey;
(b) Sections 2-313 (express warranty), 2-314 (implied
warranty of merchantability) of the New Jersey Uniform
Commercial Code;
(c) common law fraud;
(d) negligent misrepresentation; and
(e) unjust enrichment
in connection with defendants' design, manufacturing, marketing,
sale and distribution of defectively designed vehicles despite
their knowledge of the problems.
The complaint alleges the vehicles suffer from two distinct and
serious latent design defects:
-- the first is a defect in design of the pollen filter
gasket area; and
-- the second is a defect in design of the sunroof drain.
According to the complaint, both defects cause, inter alia,
serious flooding in the body of the car which significantly
impairs the safety, usability and the value as well as causing
damages to the vehicles. The suit further alleges that despite
their longstanding knowledge of the problems, defendants failed
to warn and disclose to the consumers that the vehicles were
predisposed to flooding that would lead to serious and dangerous
damage to the major electrical components, which caused the
motor to either non-function or malfunction.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their vehicles
were impaired due to Defendants' failure to warn of the design
defects and Defendants' failure to properly and adequately set
forth proper maintenance guidelines.
As a result of Defendants' omissions and/or misrepresentations,
owners and/or lessees of Class Vehicles have allegedly suffered
ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or loss in
value.
The action is brought by Plaintiffs individually and on behalf
of all those persons who currently own or lease, or who has
owned or leased, any Volkswagen Passat or Jetta (model years
1998 through and including 2006) or Audi (model years 1997
through and including 2006).
Common questions of law and fact common that the purported class
raises include:
(a) whether the Class Vehicles were designed with defects
in the pollen filter and the sunroof drain;
(b) whether the Class Vehicles are predisposed to flooding,
as a result of the design defects;
(c) whether the Class Vehicles sustained damage directly or
indirectly from the design defects;
(d) whether the design defects and/or inadequate
maintenance recommendations cause significant safety
risks;
(e) whether Defendants knowingly failed to disclose and
warn of the design defects with the intent that others
rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission;
(f) whether Defendants misrepresented the cause of the
flooding problems in Class Vehicles;
(g) whether Defendants used or employed unconscionable
commercial practices in connection with the sale or
lease of Class Vehicles;
(h) whether Plaintiffs and members of the Class are
entitled to entry of final injunctive relief compelling
Defendants to recall, inspect and, as necessary,
Effectively repair and/or replace the design defects
and the resultant problems from flooding in Class
Vehicles;
(i) whether Plaintiffs and members of the Class are
entitled to entry of final injunctive relief compelling
Defendants to fully and adequately inform consumers of
the design defects and/or inadequate maintenance
recommendations;
(j) whether Plaintiffs and members of the Class are
entitled to actual damages representing the
ascertainable loss of money and/or property and/or
value that have been and/or will be suffered by
Plaintiffs and members of the Class as a result of the
design defects;
(k) whether Defendants breached their implied warranties in
that the Class Vehicles were defectively designed with
respect to the pollen filter and the sunroof drain;
(l) whether Defendants breached their implied warranties in
that the Class Vehicles were accompanied by an owner's
manual that incorporated inadequate maintenance
specifications;
(m) whether Defendants breached their express warranties in
that the Class Vehicles were defectively designed with
respect to the pollen filter and the sunroof drain;
(n) whether Defendants breached their express warranties in
that the Class Vehicles were accompanied by an owner's
manual that incorporated inadequate maintenance
specifications;
(o) whether Defendants intentionally or negligently
misrepresented material facts concerning the design
defects in the Class Vehicles;
(p) whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by their
misrepresentations, fraud and breaches of warranty;
(q) whether Class members are entitled to monetary damages
and injunctive relief;
(r) whether the Court should establish a constructive trust
funded by the benefits conferred upon the Defendants by
their wrongful and unlawful conduct;
(s) whether the CFA, the UCC and the common laws were
violated by Volkswagen's conduct as alleged herein;
(t) whether statements made by Volkswagen to Plaintiffs and
the Class members in its documents (i.e., owner's
manuals, maintenance books, marketing brochures and
materials) were materially false and misleading in
that: the pollen filter and sunroof drain were
defective by design;
(u) whether Defendants had a duty to disclose material
facts concerning the serious problems that would
inevitably result from its inherently defective design
in the pollen filter and sunroof drain to their
consumers;
(v) whether Defendants should be enjoined from engaging in
such practices with respect to the Class Vehicles with
defective pollen filter and sunroof drain, known by
them to cause serious problems;
(w) whether Defendants should have a maintenance directive
on checking the drains in the pollen filter and sunroof
drain areas for clogs as part of its recommended
scheduled maintenance service;
(x) to what extent the Class has sustained damages; and
(y) to what extent Defendants should be held to account for
its wrongful conduct.
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, pray for relief and judgment, as follows:
-- determining that this action is a proper class action,
designating Plaintiffs as Lead Plaintiffs and
Plaintiffs' counsel as Lead Counsel, and certifying
Plaintiffs as Class representatives under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
-- awarding compensatory and punitive damages in favor of
Plaintiffs and the other Class members against
Defendants for all damages sustained as a result of
Defendants' wrongdoing, including violation of the CFA,
in an amount to be determined at trial, including
interest thereon;
-- requiring Defendants to account for and/or pay in
damages to Plaintiffs and the Class the amounts by which
Volkswagen was unjustly enriched due to its wrongful
conduct;
-- awarding Plaintiffs and the Class their reasonable costs
and expenses incurred in this action, including counsel
fees and expert fees, as well as incidental (costs of
parts and repairs to the cars expended by the class) and
consequential (loss of use and/or expenditures for
substitute transportation; and lost wages) damages;
-- awarding injunctive relief by ordering Volkswagen to
issue corrective actions including notification, recall,
inspection and, as necessary, repair and/or replacement
of the defective and damaged parts in the Class Vehicles
and imposing a constructive trust upon monies obtained
by Volkswagen as a result of the alleged wrongful
conduct;
-- such other and further relief as the Court may deem just
and proper.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://ResearchArchives.com/t/s?1f53
The suit is "Dewey et al v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., Case
No. 2:07-cv-02249-FSH-PS," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, under Judge Faith S. Hochberg, with
referral to Judge Patty Shwartz.
Representing plaintiffs is:
Francis John Vernoia, Esq.
Genova, Burns, & Vernoia, Esqs.
Eisenhower Plaza II
354 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 2575
Livingston, NJ 07039-1023
Phone: (973) 533-0777
E-mail: fvernoia@gbvlaw.com
WASTE PRO: Former Employee Files FLSA Violations Lawsuit in Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Pro Of Florida, Inc. is facing a purported class action
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
James Rogers, a former employee of the defendant, brought the
action on behalf of himself and other current and former
employees of the defendants that are similarly situated to him
for overtime compensation and other relief under FLSA.
Mr. Rogers filed the suit on May 14, 2007. He seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs. He is demanding a jury trial.
Generally, the suit alleges Mr. Rogers and others similarly
situated employees worked in excess of forty hours in one or
more workweeks during their employment with defendants.
The complaint states the defendant did not pay time and a half
wages for all of the overtime hours worked by Mr. Rogers and
other employees similarly situated to him, during the three-year
statute of limitations period between approximately May 2004 and
the present, because defendant unilaterally deducted time from
plaintiff's and other employees' hours worked for a meal break
each day, regardless of whether plaintiff and the similarly
situated employees actually took a bona fide meal break.
Such unilateral deductions from plaintiff's total hours worked
resulted in him and other employees similarly situated across
Florida, not receiving the full measure of overtime wages to
which they are entitled, according to the suit.
A copy of the complaint is available free of charge at:
http://researcharchives.com/t/s?1f44
The suit is "Rogers v. Waste Pro of Florida, Inc., Case No.
2:07-cv-14147-JEM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida under Judge Jose E. Martinez with
referral to Judge Frank J. Lynch.
Representing the plaintiffs is:
Keith Michael Stern
Shavitz Law Group
1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: 561-447-8888
Fax: 561-447-8831
E-mail: kstern@shavitzlaw.com
WORLD ONLINE: Dutch Investors to Sue for Damages in 2000 IPO
------------------------------------------------------------
The Amsterdam Court of Appeals ruled that World Online
International N.V. and its managers ABN Amro Holding N.V. and
Goldman Sachs acted improperly in the company's 2000 initial
public offering.
It also ruled, however, that Dutch shareholders association VEB
had improperly constructed a class action seeking damages for
losses. VEB estimates that around 150,000 investors lost EUR3
billion in the IPO.
On four counts, the prospectus was incorrect and incomplete,
resulting in World Online, ABN Amro and Goldman Sachs misleading
investors, Telecom Paper reports, citing court documents. With
regards to the class action, the court said the suit is
deficient in some aspects, including assuming representation for
investors. VEB is representing some 11,000 investors in the
suit.
The association said it will modify its complaint and file a
claim for damages. It estimates damages to run into hundreds of
millions of euros.
World Online is now part of Italian internet group Tiscali.
New Securities Fraud Cases
OPTIONABLE INC: Sarraf LLP Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP commenced a securities fraud
class action on behalf of those investors who acquired the
securities of Optionable Inc. during the class period May 6,
2005 to May 10, 2007.
The lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and names as defendants Optionable
Inc. and certain of its top executives.
The complaint alleges that Optionable and certain of its
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making misleading statements concerning the company's business
prospects and growth.
Specifically, throughout the class period, defendants failed to
disclose the following facts:
(a) Optionable was engaged in improper deals with its
biggest client, the Bank of Montreal ("BMO");
(b) Optionable's business was extremely dependent upon
BMO; and
(c) defendants were able to retain BMO only because they
helped its star options trader mismark options, falsify
the trading price at which BMO traded those options,
and hide massive losses incurred by BMO as a result of
those trades.
While the stock was trading at artificially inflated prices, as
a result of this fraudulent scheme, defendants sold shares of
Optionable, for proceeds of over $28 million.
On April 27, 2007, BMO announced that it had lost between $300
and $400 million on trades executed through Optionable. In
response to this disclosure, the company's stock dropped 33%.
Then, on May 8, 2007, BMO announced it was suspending all of its
business relationships with Optionable. Finally, on May 10,
2007, it was disclosed that Deloitte & Touche LLP had conducted
an audit of the trades BMO had conducted with Optionable and
found that there had been "serious mismarking of the book of
natural gas options." On this news, the price of Optionable
fell further to $0.84, representing a total drop of nearly 90%.
During the class period, Optionable stock traded as high as
$9.10 per share.
The law firm of Sarraf Gentile LLP represents the plaintiff.
Members of the class described above may move the court no later
than July 10, 2007 for appointment as lead plaintiff.
For additional information about the lawsuit, please contact:
Joseph Gentile, Esq.
Sarraf Gentile LLP
485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1005
New York, New York 10018
Phone: 212-868-3610
Fax: 212-918-7967
E-mail: joseph@sarrafgentile.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 * * *