/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/131210.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, December 10, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 244 Headlines 2171 LIQUOR: Class Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Overtime Wages 23ANDME INC: Faces Class Action Over DNA Test False Advertising ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Class Cert. Denial in "Phillips" Suit Reversed BIG CITY GOURMET: Fails to Pay OT for Hours Above 40, Suit Says BRIDGE COFFEE: Sued by Cook Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CAVALRY SPV 1: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CHALET NURSERY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Class Claims COMMONWEALTH BANK: Ready to Defend Potential Bankwest Class Action CREATIVE JUIICES: Recalls Champanades Due to Undeclared Sulphites CROP PRODUCTION: "Heredia" Bias Suit Goes to C.D. Calif. DAVID'S PLACE: Recalls Girl's Long Sleeve Hooded Jacket & Pant Set DENVER GLOBAL: Recalls Multi-Purpose Yard Vehicles DIRECTV INC: 9th Cir. Flips Order Denying Arbitration in Lombardi ECOLAB INC: Removed "Icard" Employment Suit to N.D. California ELECTROLUX HOME: Removed "Waters" Suit to N.D. West Virginia FEDEX GROUND: Removed "Rangel" Employment Suit to C.D. Cal. FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Vehicle Repurchase or Replacement Offer GEICO GENERAL: Improperly Charged Insureds, Class Suit Claims GRUNENTHAL GMBH: Settles Thalidomide Class Action for AUD89MM HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Trader Joe's Butternut Squash Gratin HYDROXATONE LLC: "Sabol" Suit Settlement Approved IKO INDUSTRIES: Ontario Court Certifies Shingles Class Action ING USA: Faces Annuities Fraud Class Action in California IQ FORMULATIONS: Voluntarily Recalls HYDRAVAX 45-Capsule Bottles IXIA: Buy Rating Reiterated Amid Class Action Threats K2 SPORTS: Recalls Kickboards/Scooters Due to Fall Hazard KEYS ARMORED: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages L&L ENERGY: Must Face Securities Class Action Over China Revenue LEHMAN BROTHERS: Hearing Today on Structured Products Settlement LEHMAN BROTHERS: Enters Into Settlement Agreement With Swan City LEHMAN BROTHERS: Sub-Prime Class Action Nears Settlement LEHMAN BROTHERS: Settles CDO Class Action for AUD300 Million MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls QuixelTM Baby Rattle Due to Choking Risk MEDX INC: Owes OT Wages to Field Service Technicians, Suit Claims NATIONAL BETTER: Sells Worthless & Junk Insurance, Suit Claims NEW YORK: Court Won't Dismiss Suit v. Cops Over Occupy Wall St. PNC BANK: Ticket-Padding Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Approval POHANKA AUTO: Faces "Jones" Class Suit Over GAP Agreements ROYAL CROWN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Investor Scheme S.E.B. SERVICE: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in Guards' Suit SAFEGUARD OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says SAM SCHWARTZ: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SEQWATER: Tully Urges Flood Victims to Join Class Action SRAM LLC: Recalls Derailleurs for Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard TOYOTA MOTOR: Kentucky Appeals Court Reverses Class Cert. Ruling UNITED STATES: Cobell Suit Settlement Checks May Go Out in 2014 VIKING RANGE: Faces Class Action Over Refrigerator Defect VIOLIN MEMORY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif. WERNER CO: Accord in "Clemans" Suit Gets Final Court Approval YELP INC: Reviewers' Action May Set Precedence for Similar Suits ********* 2171 LIQUOR: Class Suit Seeks Payment of Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Agustin Munoz Flores, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 2171 Liquor Corp. dba Third Avenue Wine and Liquor Supermarket, Sophia Gutliboushy and Richard Gutliboushy, Case No. 1:13-cv-07727-KBF (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2013) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and other relief. Wine and Liquor Supermarket is a New York domestic corporation based in New York City. Sophia and Richard Gutliboushy is the owners, officers, directors or managing agents of Wine and Liquor Supermarket. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com 23ANDME INC: Faces Class Action Over DNA Test False Advertising --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Jeff Sistrunk and Jeff Overley, writing for Law360, report that DNA tester 23andMe Inc. was hit with a proposed class action on Nov. 27, in which the company is accused of falsely advertising its saliva collection kit and personal genome service product as accurately providing health reports on more than 240 genetic medical conditions. The Nov. 27 lawsuit followed the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to order 23andMe -- run by Anne Wojcicki, the wife of Google Inc. co-founder Sergey Brin -- to halt sales of its genetic tests, saying the unapproved product could result in dangerous false positives or negatives. Plaintiff Lisa Casey alleges that 23andMe's advertisements tout the kits' ability to test for "conditions and traits," "drug response," "carrier status" and other things, while there is no analytical or clinical validation for the kits' advertised uses. In addition, Ms. Casey says 23andMe uses the information it collects from consumers' DNA tests to generate databases and statistical information that the company then markets to other sources and the scientific community in general, even though the test results are meaningless. "Despite defendant's failure to receive marketing authorization or approval from the Food and Drug Administration, defendant has slowly increased its list of indications for the PGS, and initiated new marketing campaigns, including television advertisements in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act," the lawsuit says. The PGS is a direct-to-consumer DNA genetic test sold by 23andMe, according to the complaint. After a consumer purchases the PGS for $99, the company allegedly mails to the customer a packet including a saliva depository, into which the customer spits, thereby providing his or her DNA sample. 23andMe then allegedly runs a DNA test for the various conditions and traits, and mails a report to the customer regarding the risks or family history characteristics such as coronary heart disease or rheumatoid arthritis. "Defendant markets and advertises specific examples of diseases and conditions for which the PGS can aid the consumer. Further, defendant claims, 'Get personalized recommendations. Based on your DNA, we'll provide specific health recommendations for you.' Defendant offers information on a consumer's risk regarding such serious diseases as diabetes, coronary heart disease and breast cancer," the suit says. But the company has marketed and sold the PGS to consumers for years without any analytical or clinical data to support the device's efficacy, and despite lacking the data to support its claims, 23andMe has made material representations to customers, according to Ms. Casey. If the data is unknown or cannot be produced by researchers, then the marketing claims are hollow, misleading and created with the aim of drawing customers to purchase the product, the complaint says. In a Nov. 26 response to the FDA's demand, Ms. Wojcicki acknowledged the company has been behind schedule on its responses to the regulator, but stood by the tests' veracity. 23andMe declined to comment on the suit Dec. 2. Ms. Casey is represented by Mark Ankcorn of Ankcorn Law Firm PC. Counsel information for 23andMe was not available on Dec. 2. The case is Casey v. 23andMe Inc., case number 3:13-cv-02847, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Class Cert. Denial in "Phillips" Suit Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court's denial of class certification in PHILLIPS v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings. The Seventh Circuit found that of 793 members the plaintiff wants certified, all 343 Illinois residents appear to be proper class members, adequately represented by plaintiff Gwendolyn Phillips because the applicable statute of limitations is four years, so that all the debt collection suits against the class members were time-barred and hence violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act -- unless it should turn out that the defendant can dock in the safe harbor of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(c) ("a debt collector may not be held liable in any action brought under this subchapter if the debt collector shows by a preponderance of evidence that the violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the maintenance of procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such error"); or that the defendant has defenses, such as equitable tolling or equitable estoppel, to the bar of the statute of limitations. But all that remains for the district judge to do regarding certification is to determine the proper scope of the class, ruled the Seventh Circuit. It need not be limited to Illinois residents or to claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. But how far it extends (and whether subclasses should be created for residents of different states because of differences among state laws) remains to be determined, the Seventh Circuit added. The case is GWENDOLYN PHILLIPS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSET ACCEPTANCE, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-2251. A copy of the Appeals Court's December 2, 2013 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/Y7tbdkfrom Leagle.com. BIG CITY GOURMET: Fails to Pay OT for Hours Above 40, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Luis Miro, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Big City Gourmet Inc. (d/b/a Big City Gourmet) and Maria Gissondi, Case No. 1:13-cv-07726-DLC (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked. The Defendants own, operate and control a restaurant located in White Plains, New York, under the name "Big City Gourmet." The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com BRIDGE COFFEE: Sued by Cook Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Duran, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Bridge Coffee Shop Inc. (d/b/a Bridge Coffee Shop) and Miguel Perez, Case No. 1:13-cv-06056-MKB-CLP (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that he worked. Mr. Duran, who was employed by the Defendants to work as a cook, further alleges that the Defendants failed to keep accurate records of his hours worked, and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked over 40. The Defendants own, operate, and control a restaurant located in Brooklyn, New York, under the name "Bridge Coffee Shop." Miguel Perez serves or served as owner, manager, principal or agent of Bridge Coffee Shop Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. Lina Marcela Franco, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com lfranco@faillacelaw.com CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Woods, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC and Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case No. 3:13-cv-01339-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., October 31, 2013) alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex D. Weisberg, Esq. WEISBERG & MEYERS, LLC 5722 S Flamingo Rd., Suite 656 Cooper City, FL 33330 Telephone: (954) 212-2184 Facsimile: (866) 577-0963 E-mail: aweisberg@attorneysforconsumers.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew J. Devine, Esq. Robert Franklin Springfield, Esq. BURR & FORMAN, LLP 200 S Orange Ave., Suite 800 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 540-6679 Facsimile: (407) 650-2730 E-mail: mdevine@burr.com fspringf@burr.com CAVALRY SPV 1: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------- Walter Henningsen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cavalry SPV 1, LLC and Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 6:13-cv-03409-BCW (W.D. Mo., October 31, 2013) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul T. Krispin, Jr., Esq. SMITHMARCO, PC 205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 2940 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (314) 667-4382 Facsimile: (888) 418-1277 E-mail: pkrispin@smithmarco.com The Defendants are represented by: Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq. SPENCER, FANE, BRITT & BROWNE LLP-OMAHA 12925 West Dodge Road, Suite 107 Omaha, NE 68154 Telephone: (402) 547-5519 Facsimile: (402) 965-8601 E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com - and - Matthew Stromquist, Esq. PILGRIM CHRISTAKIS LLP 53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1515 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 445-0488 Facsimile: (312) 939-0983 E-mail: mstromquist@pilgrimchristakis.com CHALET NURSERY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Rate, Class Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Saul Del Rio, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Chalet Nursery and Garden Shop, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-07806 (N.D. Ill., October 31, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff and the proposed Class are entitled to compensation for all hours worked and compensation at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any week, in addition to being reimbursed for unauthorized deductions. Chalet Nursery and Garden Shop, Inc., provides landscaping and maintenance services. The Plaintiff is represented by: John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 Facsimile: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com - and - Ana Dominguez, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 784-3541 E-mail: adominguez@fwadvocacy.org The Defendant is represented by: Kathryn Montgomery Moran, Esq. Jeffrey L. Rudd, Esq. Michael C. Stepien, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS LLP 150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 787-4949 Facsimile: (312) 787-4995 E-mail: kathryn.moran@jacksonlewis.com jeffrey.rudd@jacksonlewis.com michael.stepien@jacksonlewis.com COMMONWEALTH BANK: Ready to Defend Potential Bankwest Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Australian Broker Online reports that Commonwealth Bank has claimed it will "confidently defend" itself against allegations it benefited from engineering Bankwest loan defaults. CBA has been plagued by allegations it unfairly forclosed on some of Bankwest's commercial customers since it bought Bankwest from HBOS at just 0.8 times its 2007 book value, and the bank faces possible class action next year. CBA's group general counsel David Cohen told The Australian CBA will "confidently defend its position" should class action occur. Reports claimed that CBA benefited from windfall claims through foreclosing on Bankwest's commercial customers and then invoking the adjustment provisions against HBOS. While this resulted in a AUD26 million increase in the Bankwest purchase price, CBA claimed warranty claims resulted in a payment to CBA of "less than AUD6 million". "No price adjustment for impaired loans could be made through the warranty regime, and none was made," Mr. Cohen said. "There was only a minor level of warranty claims, for matters unrelated to impaired loans, of less than AUD6 million." The price adjustment mechanism could only be invoked up until December 18, 2008 -- the last day of HBOS's ownership of Bankwest -- said Mr. Cohen. "So CBA's subsequent ownership had no influence on the level of impaired loans that could result in a price adjustment for Bankwest." CREATIVE JUIICES: Recalls Champanades Due to Undeclared Sulphites ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: November 29, 2013 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Creative Juiices Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8484 Affected products: -- 750 ml. Premium Red Champanade with UPC number 0 65435 00077 3; -- 750 ml. Premium Peach Champanade with UPC number 0 65435 00055 1; -- 750 ml. Premium Raspberry Champanade with UPC number 0 65435 00044 5; -- 750 ml Premium White Champanade with UPC number 0 65435 00066 7 CROP PRODUCTION: "Heredia" Bias Suit Goes to C.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- Crop Production Services Inc. removed the lawsuit styled Jaime Vega Heredia, et al. v. Crop Production Services Inc., et al., Case No. 1456389, on October 31, 2013, from the Superior Court of California, County Santa Barbara, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:13-cv-08053-DSF-SH to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege employment discrimination. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Allen K. Hutkin, Esq. Maria Lerman Hutkin, Esq. HUTKIN LAW FIRM 1229 Higuera Street, 1st Floor San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: (805) 544-1500 Facsimile: (805) 544-1532 E-mail: ahutkin@hutkinlaw.com mhutkin@hutkinlaw.com - and - James H. Cordes, Esq. JAMES H. CORDES LAW OFFICES 831 State Street, Suite 205 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 965-6800 Facsimile: (805) 965-5556 E-mail: jim@jamescordes.com The Defendants are represented by: Allison C. Eckstrom, Esq. Patricia Ann Matias, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 695 Town Center Drive Suite 1500 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 800-7900 Facsimile: (714) 754-1298 E-mail: allison.eckstrom@ogletreedeakins.com patricia.matias@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Evan R. Moses, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART PC 400 South Hope Street Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: evan.moses@ogletreedeakins.com DAVID'S PLACE: Recalls Girl's Long Sleeve Hooded Jacket & Pant Set ------------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with David's Place Off Price Clothing Co. Inc., a division of YMI Jeans, of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 60 Girl's long sleeve hooded jacket and pant sets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The jackets sold with the set have drawstrings through the hood which pose a strangulation hazard to young children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines for children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall includes Wearever Girl brand girl's long sleeve zip-up 100% cotton hooded jackets sold as a set with brown pants. The brown hooded jackets have thin aqua, light pink and light green horizontal stripes and sold in girl's sizes 7 to 16. There is a brown, flat drawstring around the neck of the jackets. "Wearever Girl" is printed on a label on the back inside neck of the jackets and on the pants. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/Jv9FpQ The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory in August 2013 for about $10. Consumers should immediately take the jackets away from children and remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard. Consumers can also contact David's Place to obtain a return address label and instructions for returning the garment for a full refund. DENVER GLOBAL: Recalls Multi-Purpose Yard Vehicles -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Denver Global Products, of Lincolnton, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 11,000 Multi-Purpose Yard Vehicles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The mower blades can detach during use or start without being activated by the operator and the vehicle can move forward unexpectedly, posing a laceration hazard. Also, the fuel lines can leak, posing a fire hazard. Denver Global Products has received 82 reports of blades detaching, one of which resulted in lacerations and bruising to a bystanders legs, and three reports of mower blades starting without the operator activating them with no reported injuries. There have also been three reports of unintended vehicle movement with no reported injuries and 34 reports of fuel leaking with no reported injuries. The recalled products are Raven multi-purpose yard vehicles manufactured between December 26, 2012 and May 7, 2013. The vehicles are gas-powered four-wheeled vehicles designed to be used as a lawn mower, garden tractor or portable generator. The recalled vehicles have a cargo bed and a detachable 46-inch cutting deck. The vehicles are black with red grab-rails on either side of the rear cargo bed, red center panels on the seat and hood and red front suspension components. The first six digits of the serial number indicate the manufacture date in a MM/DD/YY format. The serial number is on an identification plate attached to the lower right-hand chassis rail near the front wheel. "Denver Global Products Inc.," "Model # MPV710-001," "1-888-321-5700" and "www.denverglobal.com" can also be found on the identification plate. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/buHOno The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold exclusively at Lowe's Stores nationwide between January 2013 and May 2013 for about $3,000. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles. Turn off the key switch and remove the key, apply the parking brake, and remove the green and the yellow fuses from the white plastic fuse holders on the right hand side under the seat. Return the unit to your nearest Lowe's store for a full refund. The firm is contacting consumers directly. DIRECTV INC: 9th Cir. Flips Order Denying Arbitration in Lombardi ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court ruling denying a motion to compel arbitration in LOMBARDI v. DirecTV, INC. According to the Ninth Circuit, there is no evidence supporting the Plaintiffs' contention that DirecTV charges an early cancellation fee when a customer rejects the arbitration agreement. In fact, DirecTV's confirmation letter explains that disputes are subject to arbitration, provides a URL for the Customer Agreement and informs the customer that it will issue a full refund if service is cancelled before installation. Although the arbitration agreement is an adhesion contract and "there are circumstances . . . that evidence a degree of procedural unconscionability," that degree "is insufficient to render the arbitration provision unenforceable." The Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings. The case is JOSEPH LOMBARDI; KATHLEEN O'BRIEN; ROBERTA PIFER; EDWARD PIFER; CHRISTINE SCHUESSLER; CHRISTINE SLAKANS; GARY SMITH; SANDRA JOHANNES; IRA BOSHNACK, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants- Appellees, and TRACY TWYMAN; ANNETTE KAHALY; JOHN MULEA; MAUREEN VAN METER; CAROLYN FORBES; LOUIS M. WILSON; PAUL CANNON; SEAN MURRAY; HOYT McBROOM; PATRICIA WILSON; DOROTHY JONES; JOSHUA FOLKERTH; RENATO CAPPUCCITTI; DAVID WARD; KEITH HARPER; JANA HARPER; PAUL BRICE; KAREN BRICE; ALICE M. BRODE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JACK E. BRODE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; EBEN PAGUIRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; TARA MURRAY, Plaintiffs-counter-defendants, v. DIRECTV, INC., Defendant-counter-claimant-Appellant, NO. 10-56602. A copy of the Appeals Court's December 2, 2013 Memorandum is available at http://is.gd/NDSkNLfrom Leagle.com. ECOLAB INC: Removed "Icard" Employment Suit to N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- James M. Icard, an individual; for himself and those similarly situated and Roes 1 through 30,000 and the proposed class v. Ecolab Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CGC-09-495344 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., December 21, 2009) is brought on behalf of Ecolab employees, who are or were Route Managers, who have worked in California, do not cross state lines in performance of their duties, and have not received full and correct pay for all hours worked. Ecolab is a Delaware corporation doing business in the state of California. Ecolab removed the lawsuit on October 31, 2013, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:13-cv- 05097-LB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Jay Palay, Esq. Jenna Holston Strauss, Esq. PALAY LAW FIRM 1484 E Main Street Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 641-6600 Facsimile: (805) 641-6607 E-mail: djp@palaylaw.com jhs@palaylaw.com - and - Alejandro Pedro Gutierrez LAW OFFICES OF HATHAWAY, PERRETT, WEBSTER, POWERS, CHRISMAN & GUTIERREZ Hathaway Building 5450 Telegraph Road, #200 Ventura, CA 93003 Telephone: (805) 644-7111 Facsimile: (805) 644-8296 E-mail: agutierrez@hathawaylawfirm.com - and - Michael Anthony Strauss, Esq. STRAUSS LAW GROUP 1484 E Main Street, Second Floor Ventura, CA 93001 Telephone: (805) 641-9992 E-mail: mas@palaylaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Arch Stokes, Esq. Peter B. Maretz, Esq. STOKES WAGNER HUNT MARETZ & TERRELL 600 West Broadway, Suite 1150 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-4261 Facsimile: (619) 232-4840 E-mail: astokes@stokesroberts.com pmaretz@stokesroberts.com - and - John R. Hunt, Esq. STOKES WAGNER HUNT MARETZ TERRELL 3593 Hemphill Street Atlanta, GA 30337 Telephone: (404) 766-0076 E-mail: jhunt@stokeswagner.com ELECTROLUX HOME: Removed "Waters" Suit to N.D. West Virginia ------------------------------------------------------------ Electrolux Home Products, Inc. removed the purported class action lawsuit captioned Waters, et al. v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Case No. 13-C-118, from the Circuit Court of Brooke County, West Virginia, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:13-cv-00151-FPS to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts product liability claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Edward Wallace, Esq. Michael H. Bowman, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com mhb@wexlerwallace.com aek@wexlerwallace.com - and - Charles M. McCallum, Esq. R. Brent Irby, Esq. MCCALLUM, HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY LLP 905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201 Vestavia Hills, AL 35216 Telephone: (205) 824-7767 Facsimile: (205) 824-7768 E-mail: birby@mhcilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, Esq. FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH BONASSO, PLLC - WHEELING PO Box 6545 Wheeling, WV 26003 Telephone: (304) 230-6600 Facsimile: (304) 230-6610 E-mail: jholmstrand@fsblaw.com FEDEX GROUND: Removed "Rangel" Employment Suit to C.D. Cal. ----------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Rangel, as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-02013- 00678062 (Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., September 24, 2013) challenges the Defendants' alleged systemic illegal employment practices resulting in violations of the California Labor Code, Business and Professions Code and applicable wage orders against the employees of the Defendants. The Defendants have acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious disregard to the rights of all employees in forfeiture of vacation wages, failure to reimburse for all work related travel mileage expenses, failure to properly compensate employees for minimum wages for all hours worked, failure to pay all overtime wages due to incorrect calculation of the regular rate of pay, failure to provide meal and rest breaks, and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, Mr. Rangel alleges. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., was and is a Delaware corporation doing business in the state of California. The Defendants own and operate locations in the state of California including in or around Orange County and employ several hundred non-exempt hourly employees like the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Company removed the lawsuit on October 31, 2013, from the Superior Court of the state of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. FedEx argues that the removal is proper because diversity is established because the Plaintiff and the proposed class are citizens of California and none of the Defendants are citizens of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:13-cv-01718-DOC-JCG to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter M. Hart, Esq. Travis Hodgkins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART 12121 Wiishire Blvd., Suite 205 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 478-5789 Facsimile: (509) 561-6441 E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com thodgkins.loph@gmail.com - and - Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3383 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 Facsimile: (213) 947-1211 E-mail: kyoon@yoon-law.com syasuda@yoonlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ernest W. "Will" Klatte, III, Esq. Summer Young-Agriesti, Esq. Selwyn Chu, Esq. KLATTE, BUDENSIEK & YOUNG-AGRIESTI, LLP 20341 SW Birch, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660-1514 Telephone: (949) 221-8700 Facsimile: (949) 222-1044 E-mail: ewklatte@kbylaw.com syoung@kbylaw.com schu@kbylaw.com FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Vehicle Repurchase or Replacement Offer ------------------------------------------------------------- Rex Potter, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 3:13-cv- 05095-SC (N.D. Cal., October 31, 2013) is brought on behalf of all persons, who purchased or leased a Ford Motor Company vehicle in the state of California and were offered vehicle repurchase or replacement by the Company from four years prior to the filing of the instant Complaint until class certification. The Plaintiff alleges that Ford's improper deductions from, and failure to reimburse and credit the Plaintiff and the other Class Members for, their full statutory repurchase prices violate the Song-Beverly Act, which only permits a single, narrowly-drawn deduction for mileage offset. Ford is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan. Ford designs and manufactures motor vehicles, parts, and other products for sale in the United States and throughout the world. The Plaintiff is represented by: Payam Shahian, Esq. Karen E. Nakon, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC 1875 CenturyPark East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-1040 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 E-mail: pshahian@slpattorney.com knakon@slpattorney.com - and - Dara Tabesh, Esq. ECOTECH LAW GROUP, P.C. 333 First Street, Suite C San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 230-5376 Facsimile: (415) 651-8639 E-mail: dara.tabesh@ecotechlaw.com Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com Ford Motor Company is represented by: Amir M. Nassihi, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P. One Montgomery Street, Suite 2700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: anassihi@shb.com GEICO GENERAL: Improperly Charged Insureds, Class Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Grete Carranza; and Dallis Hughes, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GEICO General Insurance Company; GEICO Indemnity Company; and Government Employees Insurance Company, Case No. 3:13-cv-01932-HZ (D. Ore., October 31, 2013) is brought on behalf of all current and former holders of automobile insurance policies from GEICO General Insurance Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, and Government Employees Insurance Company, who, from October 31, 2007, to the date of trial, have insured more than one vehicle under the same policy with the defendants that sustained damages or losses arising from a single occurrence, but thereafter the Defendants improperly charged their insureds more than one deductible. GEICO General is an affiliate of GEICO Indemnity and Government Employees. GEICO Indemnity is an affiliate of GEICO General and Government Employees. Government Employees is an affiliate of GEICO General and GEICO Indemnity. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve D. Larson, Esq. Keil M. Mueller, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C. 209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 Telephone: (503) 227-1600 Facsimile: (503) 227-6840 E-mail: slarson@stollberne.com kmueller@stollberne.com - and - Rodney F. Pillsbury, Esq. PILLSBURY & READ, P.A. 1204 E. Washington St. Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 241-9828 Facsimile: (864) 241-9818 E-mail: rpillsbury@prlawpa.com GRUNENTHAL GMBH: Settles Thalidomide Class Action for AUD89MM ------------------------------------------------------------- The Australian Associated Press reports that a class action by Australian victims of the morning sickness drug thalidomide against its manufacturer has been settled for AUD89 million. A lawyer for the victims, Peter Gordon, said the settlement, which is subject to court approval, brought to an end a long battle for compensation by the victims. The agreement settles a class action against the drug's distributor Diageo. A class action against the drug's manufacturer Grunenthal will be discontinued, a spokesperson said outside the Victorian Supreme Court. Mr. Gordon told the court the settlement was for AUD89 million and said there was an additional AUD6.5 million in costs. More than 100 group members in Australia and New Zealand will receive compensation, he said. Last year Diageo reached a multi-million dollar settlement with Melbourne woman Lynette Rowe, who was born without arms and legs. Thalidomide drugs were distributed in Australia and New Zealand around 1960 and 1961 by Distillers, which became part of Diageo in 1997. Mr. Gordon last year described Diageo as "good and responsible corporate citizens". Mr. Gordon on Dec. 2 said he was delighted to inform the court of the class action settlement. Several thalidomide victims were in court for the announcement. They did not comment as they left court, but a press conference was set to be held at the offices of their lawyers on Dec. 2. HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Trader Joe's Butternut Squash Gratin ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 2 disclosed that Huxtable's Kitchen Inc. of Vernon, California is voluntarily recalling one specific lot of Trader Joe's Butternut Squash & Creamed Spinach Gratin (SKU 96541) sold in the refrigerated section with "Use By 12/13/13" date, because it may not list wheat and egg in the ingredients. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat and egg run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall affects only Trader Joe's Butternut Squash & Creamed Spinach Gratin bearing the "USE BY 12/13/13" date packaged in 16 oz. tray with a sleeve. The Use By date is printed on the side of the sleeve. The 3270 trays possibly affected were distributed to Trader Joe's stores located in Southern California, Utah, Southern Nevada and Texas. No other lots, products or stores are affected. The same product bearing the "USE BY 12/13/13" date sold in other regions is NOT affected. The voluntary recall was initiated by Huxtable's Kitchen after Trader Joe's discovered that affected packages bearing the label for Butternut Squash & Creamed Spinach Gratin mistakenly contained a corn product made with wheat and egg. Customers who have purchased the Butternut Squash & Creamed Spinach Gratin may return it to Trader Joe's for a full refund. Customers with questions may contact Huxtable's Kitchen, Inc. at 323-923-2888 from 8 AM-4:30 PM PST, Monday-Friday. HYDROXATONE LLC: "Sabol" Suit Settlement Approved ------------------------------------------------- SUSAN SABOL, VALERIE DONE, and KATHLEEN KLODNER on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HYDROXATONE LLC and ATLANTIC COAST MEDIA GROUP LLC, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-CV-04586-KM-MAH, (D. N.J.) is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of a proposed settlement, award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and participation awards. This class action lawsuit was commenced on August 8, 2011, alleging deceptive customer service practices relating to Hydroxatone's risk-free trial offers and auto-shipment of products. District Judge Kevin McNulty accepted voluminous proofs from the parties and from a certain Ms. Margolis as objector, and held a Fairness Hearing with respect to the proposed settlement. Ms. Margolis is the named plaintiff in a separate putative class action against the Defendants, which is assigned to District Judge Chesler. Margolis v. Atlantic Coast Media Group LLC, No. 2:11-cv- 04355-SRC. Before the hearing, Ms. Margolis received access to all discovery produced by the parties, and all documents related to the financial health of the Defendants exchanged by the parties during confirmatory discovery, as well as information regarding the Defendants' insurance coverage. With two potential exceptions, the parties and Ms. Margolis waived the right to present testimony or cross-examine, and relied on the documentary evidence and oral arguments of counsel. After considering Ms. Margolis's objection, along with all related material and exhibits, including some that the Plaintiffs sought to exclude from consideration, and giving due deference to the negotiated settlement, and due consideration to the recommendation of the highly regarded and experienced mediator in the case, Hon. Stephen M. Orlofsky (ret.), Judge McNulty overrules Ms. Margolis' objection, and grants final approval of the settlement agreement. Judge McNulty held that the materials already provided to the Court and the presentation at the Fairness Hearing provide more than sufficient information to evaluate the fairness of the settlement. The total cash payment in the Common Fund of the Settlement Agreement is $3 million. Attorney's fees and costs, participation awards, administrative costs, and costs of the notice will be paid out of the Common Fund prior to any distribution to the Settlement Class. A copy of the District Court's November 26, 2013 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/WtM5xxfrom Leagle.com. IKO INDUSTRIES: Ontario Court Certifies Shingles Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Siskinds LLP on Dec. 2 disclosed that a national class action related to IKO Organic Shingles has been certified by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. IKO Organic Shingles mean all asphalt organic shingles manufactured by or on behalf of IKO Industries Ltd., Canroof Corporation Inc., or I.G. Machine. See the full legal notice (online at www.classaction.ca) for a list of brand names. The class action does not relate to IKO fiberglass shingles. What the Class Action is About -- The representative plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, is claiming damages from the defendants for the alleged negligent design and manufacture of IKO Organic Shingles. Specifically, the representative plaintiff alleges that IKO Organic Shingles were negligently designed and manufactured in a manner that, under normal conditions and usage, would result in premature failure. In addition, with respect to persons in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and/or New Brunswick, the representative plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached the consumer protection legislation by representing that IKO Organic Shingles complied with industry standards when he says they did not comply, or were not adequately tested in order to determine whether they did comply. The representative plaintiff seeks damages, on behalf of himself and the Class, for, among other things, the costs of removing and replacing defective IKO Organic Shingles, including associated labour costs. The defendants deny all of the claims made in the class action. The allegations have not been proven in court. The Class -- The certified class includes current or former owners or lessees of buildings located in Canada that contain or contained IKO Organic Shingles. See the full legal notice available online at www.classaction.ca for the complete class definition. Common Issues -- The class proceeding will determine the common issues relating to whether IKO Organic Shingles defendants were negligent in the design and manufacturing of IKO Organic Shingles and whether the defendants breached the relevant consumer protection legislation. See the full legal notice available online at www.classaction.ca for a complete list of common issues. Opting Out -- Persons can opt out (exclude themselves from) the class action. See the full legal notice available online at www.classaction.ca for details about the consequences of opting out or not opting out, and the process and deadline for opting out. ING USA: Faces Annuities Fraud Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------- BigClassAction.com reports that an annuities class action lawsuit has been filed against ING by Ernest Abbit of California, alleging the financial services firm indexed financial instruments that failed to meet the advertised goals and that company officials failed to properly advise seniors of the risks associated with investing in the annuities. According to the lawsuit, the stated goal of ING indexed annuities, is to provide seniors in various age groups with "protection of principal", which means reducing the risks of investment while using various investments products aimed at "fueling the value of our annuity" "to build up your retirement savings." Mr. Abbit claims ING failed to back up their claims. Mr. Abbit alleges in the class action, that he, and others similarly situated, have lost as much as 20 percent of their savings, "on the first day" of investment, due to the lack of information regarding what the product provided. His returns are allegedly a fraction of those an investor would have received by investing in the S&P 500 as a whole, the index his annuity was allegedly designed to mirror. Specifically, the lawsuit, The ING Annuity Class Action Lawsuit, entitled Ernest O. Abbit, et al. v. ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company, Case No. 13-cv-2310, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, claims that ING's the financial instruments are "wolves-in-sheep's clothing" and that their statements are "opaque." The lawsuit claims that not only did the instruments fail to return as advertised, but that those investments contained "embedded derivatives" similar to those that led to the financial collapse in 2008. ING indexed annuities were structured, the lawsuit claims, so that the company would benefit from any derivatives income while at the same time putting it senior investors at risk for losses. According to the class action, in 2005 the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), which is the financial services industry's self-governing body operating as a private monitor, warned that the products Abbit and others were invested in were accompanied by sales material that "do not fully describe the features and risks of the products. "Maybe it's your stockbroker Other insurance companies allegedly changing their annuity obligations or not being able to meet those obligations are Aviva, Transamerica, The Principal Financial Group, MetLife, Prudential, Guggenheim and Genworth. Variable annuity holders who purchased their annuities in the past three years from those companies may be eligible to file a claim against those companies. IQ FORMULATIONS: Voluntarily Recalls HYDRAVAX 45-Capsule Bottles ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Nov. 29 disclosed that IQ Formulations, of Sunrise, Florida is initiating a precautionary and proactive recall of all lots of its 45-capsule bottles of HYDRAVAX due to potential inclusion of an unlisted ingredient. The FDA has advised IQ Formulations that an analysis of a sample from one lot of HYDRAVAX (Lot # 2458, Exp # 07/16) revealed the presence of an undeclared ingredient -- a diuretic. Diuretics are prescription drugs and thus, are not listed on the packaging label for HYDRAVAX. Consumers are hereby notified not to use the product. Possible effects of using a diuretic include an electrolyte imbalance due to water loss. Symptoms include: polyuria, nausea, vomiting, weakness, lassitude, fever, flushed face, and hyperactive deep tendon reflexes. Fluid and electrolyte imbalances are the most important concern. Excessive doses of diuretics may elicit hyperkalemia, dehydration, nausea, vomiting and weakness and possibly hypotension. Overdosing with a diuretic has been associated with hypokalemia, hypochloremia, hyponatremia, dehydration, lethargy and gastrointestinal irritation. People experiencing these problems should seek immediate medical attention. No illnesses or consumer complaints have been reported to date in connection with this issue. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product. The product comes in a 45 capsule bottle. The recalled HYDRAVAX was distributed nationwide in retail stores and mail order. Production of the product has been suspended while the company continues their investigation as to the source of the potential unlisted ingredient. IQ Formulations receives this product from the manufacturer in sealed packages and with a certificate of analysis that represents that the product contains only the lawful and legitimate listed ingredients. All consumers who have purchased HYDRAVAX 45 capsule bottles are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers and distributors with questions regarding this recall should contact IQ Formulations Customer Service at Recall@iqformulations.com or by phone at 800-626-1022 from Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST. This recall action is being conducted with the knowledge of the FDA. IXIA: Buy Rating Reiterated Amid Class Action Threats ----------------------------------------------------- Dan O'Shea, writing for Light Reading, reports that amid class action lawsuit threats, a delayed SEC filing, and an embarrassing CEO departure, at least one financial analyst is finding something to like about the future of test and measurement firm Ixia. James Kisner, vice president of communications infrastructure equity research at Jefferies, reiterated his Buy rating on Ixia's stock. Mr. Kisner also says in a research note to investors that Ixia stands to benefit from increasing activity in the 40G/10G Layer 2-3 datacenter market, as well as LTE expansion projects, VoLTE launches, and small cell developments. Though Mr. Kisner made a downward adjustment to his fiscal year 2014 earnings per share estimate for Ixia from $1.05 to $1, he cites Ixia's stable relationship with customer AT&T Inc. and Ixia's cost-cutting efforts, such as office closures in Australia and India, as positives. He also says that doom-and-gloom forecasts surrounding major Ixia customer Cisco Systems Inc. "may be overdone," and that Cisco's Imsieme datacenter switch unit likely will continue to need Ixia's test capabilities, as will other vendors in the Layer 2-3 segment. Still, another dark cloud around Ixia has to do with the departure of former CEO Victor Alston after it was discovered he lied about his academic achievements. The scandal was a tough blow for a company already struggling financially, and it caused Ixia to delay its third-quarter 10Q filing with the SEC while the company investigated further. The issue also has inspired several class action lawsuit sharks to circle Ixia during the past two weeks, a period during which it also received a de-listing notice from Nasdaq. Yet, Mr. Kisner downplays the panic. He writes that "the company's auditors had to ensure that Alston's fraudulent behavior didn't extend into his business activity. Based on our conversations with the company, we'd be surprised if we didn't see the 10-Q filed in the next few weeks." Ixia CFO Tom Miller has not currently replied to a request for comment. K2 SPORTS: Recalls Kickboards/Scooters Due to Fall Hazard --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with K2 Sports, of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of about 400 K2 Revo Kick kickboards/scooters. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The front assembly of the kickboards/scooters can break and the handle can detach or partially detach, causing loss of control or loss of balance. This poses a fall hazard to the rider. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves K2 Revo Kick kickboards/scooters with item code I10700100. Revo Kick and the item code are printed on a sticker on the underside of the deck. The kickboard/scooter is made of aluminum, has three wheels, a wooden deck and a vertical handle with a round grip. The kickboards/scooters measure about 32 inches long and 40 inches high. The deck has a red, white and blue design with K2 printed on it. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/Fv58tZ The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Sporting goods stores nationwide and online at K2skates.com from March 2010 through September 2013 for about $200. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled kickboards/scooters and contact K2 Sports for a full refund. KEYS ARMORED: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Eduardo Gonzalez Martinez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Keys Armored Express Inc, Elsa Degraffenreid, and Arturo Cobo, individually, Case No. 4:13-cv-10159-JEM (S.D. Fla., October 31, 2013) is an action to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Keys Armored Express Inc. is a Florida corporation headquartered in Monroe County, Florida, where the Plaintiff worked for the Defendant. Keys Armored provides courier/armored car transportation, for cash and valuables, vaulting, and other related services. Keys Armored employed the Plaintiff from approximately March 2002 through August 17, 2012, as a non- exempt "driver/guard" hourly employee. The Individual Defendants were and are directors or owners of Keys Armored. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com L&L ENERGY: Must Face Securities Class Action Over China Revenue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kat Greene and Ian Thoms, writing for Law360, report that a Seattle-based producer of coal from mines in China can't ditch a securities class action alleging it lied about revenue on three annual reports, triggering a plunge in the stock price when investors found out, according to a ruling on Dec. 3. U.S. District Judge Robert S. Lasnick on Dec. 3 found that putative lead plaintiff Jeff Mills had sufficiently argued that L&L Energy Inc.'s CEO, Dickson Lee, knew the company didn't own two Chinese mines it claimed revenue from in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Lee and the company had motive to lie about the revenue from the mines, Judge Lasnick wrote in the Dec. 3 decision. "Motive for the alleged misstatements exists in the fact that both L&L Energy and defendant Dickson Lee stood to benefit from inflated revenue statements to the extent that they resulted in higher stock prices," Judge Lasnick wrote on Dec. 3. "These defendants sold or donated stock during the relevant period in atypical fashion, making significant profit and/or garnering a large tax deduction." Mr. Mills claims L&L grossly overstated its revenue and profit in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from 2009 to 2011, and misled investors with overly optimistic public statements. When shareholders learned of L&L's alleged misstatements, the company's stock price plummeted, according to the suit filed in Washington federal court in August 2011. The company and its executives "engaged in acts, practices and a course of business that operated as a fraud and deceit upon the purchasers of the company's common stock in an effort to maintain artificially high market prices for L&L's common stock," the complaint said. Mr. Mills, who seeks to represent investors who bought shares of L&L common stock from Aug. 13, 2009, to Aug. 2, 2011, said that the company acknowledged a "material weakness in internal control over financial reporting" and admitted its revenue statements might have been inaccurate. The admission prompted a 16 percent drop in L&L's stock price, according to the complaint. L&L took another hit one month later when financial analyst Glaucus Research Group issued a report that called into question the company's SEC filings from 2009, according to the complaint. The report said the company had overstated its revenue by $65 million and its profits by $19 million in 2009. Glaucus also said L&L had valued its assets at four times their actual worth. After the Glaucus report, L&L's stock price fell more than 17 percent, according to the complaint. In his third amended complaint, Mr. Mills argued in particular that the company included revenue from two mines it claimed to own, but didn't. "Plaintiff's particularized allegations, including allegations of breach and forgery, make it hard to imagine how the inclusion of the mines' revenue in L&L Energy's 2009 10-K could have been an innocent mistake or error on the part of anyone involved in the operations of the company," Judge Lasnick wrote on Dec. 3. While there is a possibility that L&L Energy simply misunderstood the validity of its contracts or Chinese law, the much stronger inference is that it knew of the defects in its claim of ownership at the time it made the revenue statements in the 2009 10-K, the judge wrote in rejecting the company's motion to dismiss the suit. Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Dec. 3. Mr. Mills is represented by Richard A. Smith and Knoll Lowney of Smith & Lowney PLLC and by Laurence M. Rosen and Phillip Kim of the Rosen Law Firm PA. L&L is represented by Douglas W. Greene -- greened@lanepowell.com -- Erin M. Wilson -- wilsonem@lanepowell.com -- Larry Steven Gangnes -- gangnesl@lanepowell.com -- and Ryan P. McBride -- mcbrider@lanepowell.com -- of Lane Powell PC. The case is Jeff Mills v. L&L Energy et al., case number 2:11-cv- 01423, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. LEHMAN BROTHERS: Hearing Today on Structured Products Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York will hold a Settlement Hearing today, December 10, 2013, at 4:30 p.m. at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 21B, New York, NY 10007, to consider whether the settlement in the action entitled, In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation, Case No. 09-MD-2017 (S.D.N.Y.), is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court also will consider a proposed Plan of Allocation for the Net Settlement Fund and the application of Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. The class action Settlement involves securities known as structured products that were issued by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and underwritten and sold by UBS Financial Services Inc. in 2007 and 2008. Structured products are a kind of security that consists of a fixed income security and a type of derivative, such as a basket of securities, options, commodities, or foreign currencies. Some of the structured products involved in the class action also offered "principal protection." The lawsuit alleges that UBSFS violated federal securities laws in underwriting and selling the Structured Products. The plaintiffs contend, among other things, that the offering materials for the Structured Products contained materially false and misleading statements and omitted material information about Lehman's financial condition and about the "principal protection" feature of some of the Structured Products. During the litigation, the plaintiffs also inquired into the procedures by which UBSFS structured, marketed, and sold the Structured Products, the sales commissions earned, and communications between UBSFS financial advisors and customers. UBSFS denies that it did anything wrong, or that any purchasers of Structured Products incurred losses due to any alleged misrepresentations or omissions in the offering materials. A Settlement Fund of $120,000,000 (before deduction of attorneys' fees and expenses and administrative costs) will be distributed to certain investors who bought or acquired the securities during the relevant time period, and who make a "Recognized Claim" under the proposed Plan of Allocation. Plaintiffs estimate that Settlement Class Members who purchased or acquired Structured Products with a total face value of approximately $892 million may have suffered damages during the relevant time period. Assuming all Settlement Class Members submit valid and timely claims, plaintiffs estimate that the average recovery per damaged Structured Product under the Settlement is $1.34 for Structured Products with a face value of $10.00 and $134.00 for Structured Products with a face value of $1,000.00, before deduction of Court-awarded attorneys' fees and expenses and administrative costs. The Plan of Allocation is available at http://is.gd/Lctj28 IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM Postmarked no later than February 4, 2014 EXCLUDE YOURSELF Postmarked no later than November 19, 2013 OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT Received no later than November 19, 2013 SETTLEMENT HEARING December 10, 2013 at 4:30PM United States District Court for the Southern District of New York DO NOTHING Receive no payment and give up your rights. Claims Administrator may be reached at: In re Lehman Brothers Equity/Debt Securities Litigation (Structured Products Litigation) Claims Administrator c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. PO Box 170707 Milwaukee, WI 53217 Tel: 888-211-3565 E-mail: info@LehmanSPSettlement.com Class Counsel may be reached at: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 On the Net: http://www.lehmanspsettlement.com/ LEHMAN BROTHERS: Enters Into Settlement Agreement With Swan City ---------------------------------------------------------------- The West Australian's Yolanda Zaw and The Australian Associated Press report that the City of Swan has reached a settlement agreement in its class action against collapsed American investment bank Lehman Brothers, paving the way for eight other WA councils to seek damages of almost AUD50 million. The city, along with Parkes and Wingecarribee shire councils in NSW, were the lead claimants in the class action that involved 72 councils, charities and churches. The organizations sued Lehman Brothers Australia for AUD248 million, claiming the bank had failed to warn of risks in complex financial derivatives, known as collateralized debt obligations. On Dec. 2, a conditional settlement was reached, establishing that company liquidators PPB Advisory distribute more than 50‹¨« in the dollar to claimants. The other WA councils -- Melville, Albany, Geraldton-Greenough, Kwinana, Augusta-Margaret River, Coolgardie and Ravensthorpe and the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council -- will now begin a claims-resolution process for payouts. City of Swan executive manager corporate Colin Cameron said the council could receive up to AUD2.5 million from the settlement. "We welcome the settlement and are relieved that the action has finally come to resolution," he said. "We have worked very hard since this began in July 2007 to ensure that we get as much compensation as possible, not just for our council but all councils and organizations involved across Australia." Mr. Cameron said there was one outstanding legal action the council would pursue against rating agency Standard & Poor's. PPB Advisory said they were hopeful of paying creditors in or around the first quarter of next year. "This will bring total recoveries to more than $550 million, which is an excellent outcome for local creditors caught up in what has been the largest corporate collapse in history," it said. The settlement will go to the Federal Court for ratification. LEHMAN BROTHERS: Sub-Prime Class Action Nears Settlement -------------------------------------------------------- ABC News reports that a group of Australian councils, churches and charities that lost millions of dollars in the US sub-prime mortgage crisis are has reached a settlement with the liquidator of the collapsed investment bank Lehman Brothers. Publicly listed litigation funder Bentham IMF has told the share market it expects to the four-year-long class action to culminate in a settlement worth AUD170 million. Bentham IMF, which until Nov. 30 was known as IMF Australia, says it will earn between AUD30 million and AUD40 million for its role in funding the proceedings. John Walker from Bentham IMF says the 69 councils, churches and charities involved should expect to receive about half of the money they invested. "The distribution from Lehman will only be around 50 cents in the dollar of their loss," he said. "We're seeking the other 50 cents from the ratings agency Standard and Poor's, which we say was responsible, collectively with Lehman. "Our fee is around 35 cents in the dollar, and that would need to be taken out of the money to be received from Lehman and hopefully to be received from Standard and Poor's." The settlement still requires court approval, but Mr. Walker expects the distributions be paid between April and June next year. Bentham IMF's share price has climbed after the announcement. LEHMAN BROTHERS: Settles CDO Class Action for AUD300 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Dow Jones Newswires reports that a group of Australian towns, charities and churches that purchased risky U.S. mortgage-backed securities sold by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.'s Australian unit settled its class-action lawsuit against the failed investment bank, paving the way for the creditors to recover $300 million Australian dollars (US$273 million) in the coming year. PBB Advisory, the liquidators of Lehman Brothers Australia Ltd., said on Dec. 2 that creditors of dozens of Australian councils, churches and charities that invested in collateralized-debt obligations, or CDOs, with Lehman Brothers Australia could expect to begin receiving checks early next year. "We are hopeful of making distributions to all creditors in or around the first quarter of 2014," said PBB's Marcus Ayres in a statement. The proposed A$300 million distribution would come on top of an earlier A$250 million paid out directly to Australian councils and charities from their Lehman-originated investments. The latest settlement, which requires an Australian court's approval, is expected to speed recoveries of more than 50 cents on the dollar for the Australian investors that sunk hundreds of millions of dollars into CDOs, a type of security backed by a mix of bonds, loans and other assets, that later imploded. An Australian court ruled last year that Lehman Brothers Australia misled unsophisticated investors about the risks associated with the CDOs and was responsible for the investors' losses. John Walker, an executive director of Bentham IMF Ltd., which funded a class-action lawsuit against Lehman, said in an interview on Dec. 2 that about A$170 million is earmarked for about 70 Australian councils and charities that signed on to the lawsuit. Bentham IMF expects to recover A$30 to A$40 million from the distribution, he said. Some 250 other small Australian investors, not part of the lawsuit, with similar claims can also expect to recover about 50 cents on the dollar, he said. He said the Australian litigation funding company spent nearly A$11 million to pursue the lawsuit. Previous attempts to settle the class-action lawsuit were hampered by the risk of jeopardizing insurance recoveries. But in October, a group of insurers agreed to pay A$48 million to settle Australian investors' CDO claims. "Securing this insurance settlement was a critical first step in unraveling the estate," Mr. Ayres said, adding that the investor settlements likely will bring total recoveries to more than A$550 million, "which is an excellent outcome for local creditors caught up in what has been the largest corporate collapse in history." Lehman Australia filed for the equivalent of bankruptcy protection in Australia in 2009 with a plan that liquidators would sell off the unit's assets and wind down the business. The collapse of Lehman's New York-based holding company in September 2008 triggered foreign bankruptcy proceedings for more than 80 of the bank's far-flung affiliates. Lehman has reached settlements on intercompany claims with virtually all of its foreign affiliates, including those in the U.K., Switzerland, Japan and Hong Kong. Lehman's New York-based holding company has paid creditors nearly $50 billion since officially exiting from bankruptcy protection in March 2012. That figure is expected to grow to more than $80 billion, Lehman said earlier this summer. Although Lehman's holding company is out of bankruptcy, the remnants of its estate continue to wrangle with creditors over billions of dollars in disputed claims. The case is expected to continue for several more years as a New York-based team liquidates the estate's assets. MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls QuixelTM Baby Rattle Due to Choking Risk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 4, 2013 Posting date: December 4, 2013 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-37061 Affected products: Manhattan Toy QuixelTM Baby Rattle The recall involves the Manhattan Toy QuixelTM Baby Rattle. The plastic rattles feature coloured arches (red, orange, green, and blue) with sliding beads on each of the single arches. The arches are held together by a single string of red, white, and blue elastic. The rattle measures about 12.7 centimetres (5 inches) in diameter. The product was sold with or without a box. The coloured arches can break near the ends, releasing a small part which can pose a choking hazard to small children. Health Canada has not received any reports of incidents or injuries in Canada. For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them keep children safe when they play with toys, see General toy safety tips. Approximately 4,100 units of the recalled products have been sold in Canada and about 8,300 have been sold in the United States at specialty toy and baby stores and online at firm's website. The recalled toys were manufactured in China and sold from September, 2011 through October, 2013 in Canada and the United States. Companies: Distributor Manhattan Group LLC Minneapolis Minnesota United States Consumers should immediately take these rattles away from young children and return it to the store where purchased for a full refund. MEDX INC: Owes OT Wages to Field Service Technicians, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Basterash, Carl R. Clark, in his capacity as Trustee in Bankruptcy for the estate of Larry D. Gasper, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. MEDX, Inc., MEDX, LLC, Sean McDermott, and Eric Ellingson, Case No. 1:13-cv-07814 (N.D. Ill., October 31, 2013) seeks monetary damages for the Defendants' alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for failure to pay overtime wages in compliance with the FLSA. The Plaintiffs also seek monetary damages for the Defendants' alleged wrongful termination of Larry D. Gasper immediately following his complaints to the Defendants relating to their failure to pay overtime compensation. MEDX, Inc. and MEDX, LLC, both headquartered in Arlington Heights, Illinois, are providers of new, remanufactured and refurbished nuclear medicine equipment, accessories and parts. MEDX, LLC acquired the assets of MEDX, Inc. in a transaction which became effective December 31, 2011. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. David E. Stevens, Esq. Sarah J. Arendt, Esq. WERMAN LAW OFFICE, P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com dstevens@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com - and - Kevin J. Dolley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC 34 N. Brentwood Blvd., Suite 207 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314)645-4100 Facsimile: (314)647-4300 E-mail: kevin@dolleylaw.com NATIONAL BETTER: Sells Worthless & Junk Insurance, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Iulia Filip, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a predatory insurance group deceived thousands of consumers by selling "junk insurance" plans with low caps and extremely limited benefits, advertising it as comprehensive medical insurance, consumers claim in a class action. Lead plaintiff Jacquelyn Weaver sued The National Better Living Association, Allied Health Benefits, The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York, Albert Cormier Solutions and Health Lead Systems, in Alabama Federal Court. Weaver claims the companies targeted consumers who couldn't afford employer-sponsored plans or did not qualify for them, and persuaded them to buy worthless insurance policies and pay "membership" fees to the association. "This action challenges a deceptive and predatory 'association plan' insurance scam designed to enrich defendants at the expense of vulnerable consumers seeking individual health insurance," the lawsuit states. "The scheme is carried out by setting up a dubious 'group association,' which is nothing more than a subterfuge to evade regulatory oversight. Then, as part of the association's purported 'group benefit,' the defendants deceptively market and sell certain worthless, junk insurance under the auspices of comprehensive, major medical insurance to consumers who cannot afford or are ineligible for credible coverage. In truth, the purported 'coverage' is extremely limited and essentially worthless, often leaving consumers with substantial unpaid medical bills and medical debt. This scheme, which has reaped substantial profits for the defendants, was played upon the named plaintiff and thousands of other vulnerable consumers across the United States." The Norcross, Ga.-based National Better Living Association claims to be a membership association that offers health and wellness services, including medical insurance group benefits. "Defendant The National Better Living Association was formed under dubious circumstances with loose membership criteria for the sole (and improper) purpose of soliciting and selling health insurance nationally to the insurance buying public," the complaint states. "The health insurance sold by NBLA and its agents is purposefully bundled with other purported 'benefits,' such as travel discounts or prepaid legal services, to obfuscate the Association's actual purpose of soliciting and selling health insurance under the auspices of a 'group association' or 'group benefit,' thus fostering a belief in consumers that the association coverage is 'group' coverage with benefits and protections similar to job- based group insurance." (Parentheses in complaint). Allied Health Benefits, which shares an address with The National Better Living Association, promoted and sold the association's membership and insurance products through contracts with third- party telemarketers. Defendants Albert Cormier Solutions and Health Lead Systems acted as telemarketing agents for the association, according to the complaint. Tennessee-based Albert Cormier was dissolved in 2011 and its assets were distributed, according to publicly available information. Health Lead Systems, a Texas corporation, could not be reached at its former phone number. The association and its agents sold so-called health policies with poor coverage and limited benefits to consumers in Alabama and other states. By buying the policies, underwritten by AIG subsidiary The United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York, consumers automatically became members of the association and were charged association fees on top of the insurance premiums, according to the complaint. Weaver claims the defendants targeted people like her, who could not afford comprehensive medical insurance from major providers. In February 2009, Weaver says, she entered her information on one of the defendants' Web site and received a quote for a purported group-based health insurance policy. Weaver says she believed she was dealing with a legitimate health insurance company which would provide her comprehensive health coverage. She claims the defendants intentionally misrepresented the policies as inexpensive health plans with great coverage, when in fact they were so limited as to be worthless. The association claimed the insurance would provide full coverage for all pre-existing conditions and would offer group benefits such as a major medical insurance plan, according to the complaint. In reality, Weaver says, the buyers paid out-of-pocket premiums for useless coverage and ended up with substantial medical bills. She claims the defendants took advantage of state regulators' lack of authority over "limited benefit plans" and association coverage to carry out their misleading marketing scheme. Hundreds of defrauded consumers have filed online complaints and other lawsuits against the defendants over their misleading practices, and some states have shut down the scheme, according to the complaint. In February 2012, Montana's Commissioner of Securities and Insurance announced a settlement with the National Better Living Association and several of its affiliates, which relieved Montana victims of more than $170,000 in medical debt that resulted from the company's allegedly illegal marketing of health insurance policies. Weaver seeks class certification, restitution and damages for RICO violations, conspiracy, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The National Better Living Association did not reply to a request for comment November 21, 2013. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Brent Irby, Esq. MCCALLUM, HOAGLUND, COOK & IRBY LLC 905 Montgomery Highway, Suite 201 Vestavia Hills, AL 35216 Telephone: (205) 824-7767 Facsimile: (205) 824-7768 E-mail: birby@mhcilaw.com The case is Weaver v. National Better Living Association, Inc., The, et al., Case No. 4:13-cv-02112-VEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. NEW YORK: Court Won't Dismiss Suit v. Cops Over Occupy Wall St. --------------------------------------------------------------- PHEOBE BERG, TOSHIRO KIDA, JOHN RIVERA, DANYA ROZENTAL and JOHNATHAN JETTER, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER RAYMOND KELLY, CHIEF OF NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT JOSEPH ESPOSITO, et al., Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 3391 (TPG), (S.D.N.Y.) alleges that officers of the New York City Police Department (NYPD) violated plaintiffs' rights under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and their rights under the Constitution of the State of New York. The alleged violations occurred on November 30, 2011. Plaintiffs attended a protest as part of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and NYPD officers allegedly refused to allow plaintiffs to exit a barricaded area for approximately two hours. On March 6, 2013, the Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings for failure to state a claim and failure to fulfill conditions precedent to suit. District Judge Thomas P. Griesa denied Defendants' motion to dismiss, saying it is not appropriate at this stage to rule on the merits of the case. "However, a summary judgment motion, or cross-summary judgment motions, may be appropriate in order to avoid a drawn-out litigation with full discovery and trial," Judge Griesa added. "The court will confer with counsel." A copy of the District Court's November 21, 2013 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/t74VqBfrom Leagle.com. PNC BANK: Ticket-Padding Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that concertgoers who paid extra fees at the PNC Bank Arts Center in Holmdel, N.J., will get up to $38 million in free and reduced admission under a settlement given preliminary approval on Dec. 2. U.S. Magistrate Judge Douglas Arpert in Trenton certified the class in Katz v. Live Nation Inc. and set a Feb. 7 fairness hearing on the settlement. The plaintiffs claim that Live Nation, the amphitheater's operator, added arbitrary and unreasonable charges labeled as "parking fee," "ticket fee" and "charity fee" to the ticket cost. The $6 parking fee was charged regardless of whether the patron arrived alone in a car, came in a carpool or took public transportation. The ticket fee of $6 to $12 allegedly was never explained, and no services or consideration were provided for it. The charity fee ranged from 25 cents to $1.25, but Live Nation refused to name an organization that received it, the plaintiffs claim. The suit called the ticket and charity fees "a contrivance for defendants to arbitrarily inflate ticket prices." In addition, Live Nation offered a "No Service Fee Wednesdays" promotion for online tickets but continued to charge a parking fee and increased the base admission price on those tickets, hiding rather than eliminating the fees, the suit claimed. Under the settlement, Live Nation would pay at least $105 to 362,928 class members eligible for relief for online purchases through livenation.com or ticketmaster.com from June 23, 2003, to June 15, 2011. Each class member would get three, free, lawn tickets to select events at the PNC Bank Arts Center or the Susquehanna Bank Center in Camden. Each ticket would have an average face value of $33.25, plus a $5 discount code for online purchase of a ticket to a Live Nation concert in any venue. Lead plaintiff Michael Katz of Freehold bought nine tickets to a Blink 182 concert on June 6, 2009, for a base admission price of $7.75 per ticket. He also was charged $6 for parking and a $6.25 ticket fee, which also encompassed the charity fee, for a total of $20 per ticket. On June 10, 2009, he bought seven more tickets to the same concert, in the same section, on No Service Fee Wednesday. That day, the base admission was $29 per ticket, with no ticket fee but a $6 parking fee, which added up to $35 per ticket. The plaintiffs claim the fees violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act. They sought an injunction against the parking, ticket and charity fees and against misleading no-service-fee promotions. The suit also sought statutory and treble damages and attorney fees. No injunction was included in the settlement, reached after more than three years of mediation with Stephen Orlofsky, a former federal judge now with Blank Rome in Princeton. The class was represented by Andrew Wolf and Henry Wolfe of the Wolf Law Firm in North Brunswick and Olimpio Lee Squitieri -- lee@sfclasslaw.com -- of Squitieri & Fearon in New York. Mr. Wolf says the settlement did not provide injunctive relief because that was "not something [Live Nation] would agree to." He said of the case, "It was a hard settlement. And we believe in the end we got a fair and reasonable settlement for the class." Live Nation's lawyer, Philip Sellinger of Greenberg Traurig in Florham Park, declines to comment, saying only "We look forward to the final resolution of this matter."? POHANKA AUTO: Faces "Jones" Class Suit Over GAP Agreements ---------------------------------------------------------- Eunice and Barbara Jones filed a complaint against the Pohanka Automotive Group and Suntrust Bank for allegedly violating and conspiring to violate statutory and common law obligations. The Plaintiffs and the Class are persons, who entered into expensive so-called "GAP Agreements" when financing their motor vehicle purchases. The GAP Agreements were represented as "debt cancellation agreements" which Maryland law defines as agreements "between a credit grantor and a borrower which provide[] for cancellation of the remaining loan balance in the event of theft or total destruction of the collateral for the loan after application of the proceeds of any insurance maintained on the collateral for the loan." However, the Plaintiffs allege, the GAP Agreements sold to them and the Class are phony debt cancellation agreements -- not true debt cancellation agreements. The Plaintiffs argue that these GAP Agreements promise benefits that are illusory and their terms are illegal. Pohanka Auto North, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland. Pohanka Auto North, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling new and used vehicles to consumers. Pohanka Chevrolet, Inc., a Maryland corporation headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland. Pohanka Chevrolet, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling used vehicles to consumers. Pohanka Hyundai, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland. Pohanka Hyundai, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling new and used vehicles to consumers. Pohanka Imports, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland. Pohanka Imports, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling new and used vehicles to consumers. Pohanka MB, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Salisbury, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland. Pohanka MB, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling new and used vehicles to consumers. Pohanka NMH, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland. Pohanka NMH, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling new and used vehicles to consumers. Pohanka of Clarksville, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland. Pohanka of Clarksville, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling used vehicles to consumers. Pohanka of Salisbury, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland. Pohanka of Salisbury, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling new and used vehicles to consumers. Pohanka Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland. Pohanka Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling used vehicles to consumers and is used as a central administrative hub through which the Pohanka Automotive Group shares information, forms, expenses and carries out its scheme to deny consumers disclosures about vehicles known to have been previously repossessed. Pohanka SHO, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland. Pohanka SHO, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling new and used vehicles to consumers. Pohanka TM, Inc., a Maryland entity headquartered in Marlow Heights, Maryland, owns and operates car dealerships and whose subsidiaries own and operate car dealerships located in the state of Maryland. Pohanka TM, Inc. is primarily engaged in selling new and used vehicles to consumers. Suntrust Bank is a Georgia entity headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Suntrust regularly purchases and accepts assignment of retail installment vehicle financing contracts originated by car dealers in Maryland, including the retail installment contracts of the Plaintiffs and numerous other vehicle purchasers in Maryland. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard S. Gordon, Esq. Martin E. Wolf, Esq. Benjamin H. Carney, Esq. GORDON & WOLF, CHTD. 102 W. Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 402 Towson, Maryland 21204 Telephone: (410) 825-2300 E-mail: rgordon@gordon-wolf.com mwolf@gordon-wolf.com bcarney@gordon-wolf.com - and - Mark H. Steinbach, Esq. O'TOOLE, ROTHWELL, NASSAU & STEINBACH 1350 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Ste 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 775-1550 E-mail: writemhs@gmail.com - and - Robert K. Jenner, Esq. Justin A. Browne, Esq. Sam M. Collings, Esq. JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165 Baltimore, Maryland 21208 Telephone: (410) 653-3200 E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com JBrowne@myadvocates.com scollings@myadvocates.com The case is Jones, et al. v. Pohanka Auto North, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-03238-DKC (D. Md., Oct 31, 2013), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt). ROYAL CROWN: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Investor Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan Hicks, writing for CBC News, reports that more than 460 investors from across the country hoped to cash in on undiscovered gold in British Columbia's interior. But instead of striking it rich, they are suing the mining company for millions in a class action lawsuit after they say their money disappeared and the Canada Revenue Agency ruled their income tax deductions invalid. "It's affected my ability to enjoy some of my retirement plans in terms of travel, improvements around the house, acting as a safeguard for my old age," Ed Walker of Winnipeg, who says he lost tens of thousands of dollars in the alleged scheme, told the CBC News I-Team in an interview. Reynold Robertson, the lawyer representing investors, estimates the lawsuit is worth at least C$10 million. The investors -- who are mostly from Saskatchewan and Manitoba, with some from Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick -- are suing Royal Crown Gold Reserve Inc., its president Douglas Stewart Scott and his associate Claude Taillefer for deceit, misrepresentation, and breach of contract. It also said the prominent legal firm, McMillan LLP, and one of its lawyers, Michael Friedman, were negligent. "Our motto -- let's get the gold!" is how Scott signed off in a 2009 letter addressed to Royal Crown investors. In order to get to the gold, the company needed money. Through sales agents, investors said Royal Crown sold them parts of the mine at C$100,000 per unit. Investors allege that Royal Crown, Messrs. Scott and Taillefer lied to them about the mine's potential. According to the claim, they only had to put down C$25,000 in cash and the remaining C$75,000 could be covered by a promissory note, which investors would pay back once the mine started making money. In addition, investors said they paid four per cent interest per year on the promissory note plus administration costs. They also said they expected to receive at least C$3,000 per year in royalties. But investing in a larger-than-life pot of gold wasn't the only enticement for investors, according the lawsuit. A document produced by Royal Crown says investment in the mine, located 10 kilometres southwest of Cranbrook, B.C., qualified as a "Canadian development expense" under the Income Tax Act. This led investors to believe they could deduct 30 per cent of their investment from their income taxes and could continue to do so on a declining basis "until the entire cost [had] been written off." Tax shelter 'inducement' "It was considered to be quite an inducement," said Mr. Robertson, the Saskatoon lawyer representing investors. Investors said sales agents provided them with a copy of a letter from McMillan LLP addressed to Royal Crown and its president, Mr. Scott, which said the tax write-off was valid. In a letter dated Dec. 5, 2005, the firm wrote, "Based on the facts outlined above, we are of the opinion that amounts paid by investors to acquire legal and beneficial ownership of the Mining Claim should constitute a 'Canadian development expense' for the purpose of section 66.2 of the Tax Act." One of Friedman and McMillan's lawyers, Keith Kilback of Kanuka Thuringer LLP, said it "would not be appropriate to comment on the matter at this time" due to ongoing court actions. However, in Friedman and McMillan's statement of defense, he wrote the letter was targeted to Royal Crown only and did not consider any tax advantages that potential investors might receive. The statement of defense stated that at the time the letter was written, Royal Crown had not decided if it would sell parts of the mine to investors and the law firm "never authorized the use of its name or its opinion letters . . . in connection with the marketing, promotion, or sale of Mining Claims." "I thought there was a bona fide opportunity here," said Mr. Walker. The 65 year-old retiree purchased two units of Royal Crown, paying out C$40,000 plus interest charges and administrative fees of C$7,000. After The CRA audited his tax returns, Mr. Walker said officials ruled his deductions invalid. Mr. Walker had to pay them back with interest, totalling C$55,000. Gold not uncharted territory for investor Gold mine investment was not uncharted territory for Mr. Walker. He had successfully invested in gold twice before. But the retired telecommunications worker -- who has accepted that his investment Royal Crown is gone -- is still hurt by the alleged scheme. "[I'm] very upset. I don't necessarily show my emotions to a degree. But it's a loss of a fair amount of money," he said. Mr. Walker is one of the investors already registered in the lawsuit. He has not heard from Royal Crown or Scott since March 2012. CBC News has tried to contact Royal Crown Gold Reserve Inc., as well as Scott and Taillefer, but was unable to reach them. In their statement of defense filed in 2010, they said "the plaintiffs have not suffered any loss except their original investment which is still an interest in property which Scott intends to develop as a producing gold mine." It goes on to state, "What the purchaser is now saying is that such an investment does not meet his high expectations both from a tax point of view and mining point of view and that he is desirous of getting his money back, although he has no equitable or legal right to do so." Some investors went bankrupt: lawsuit lawyer Investors purchased the mine claims through sale agents. According to the lawsuit, Winnipeg alternative investment adviser Neil Friesen sold the majority of Royal Crown claims, 58.28 per cent. Saskatoon-based CDS Consulting Inc sold 32.23 per cent. CBC News reached out to Mr. Friesen but has yet to hear back. CDS Consulting has since gone out of business and its chief executive officer, Dean Stanzel, declined an interview request. For some investors, the consequences have been devastating, according to lawsuit lawyer Robertson. "Some of them have gone broke, gone bankrupt, at an age and time in life when it's the worst time to go bankrupt," he said. Mr. Walker said when Mr. Scott came to Winnipeg to meet with investors in December 2009, some of them were so worried about their money, they were in tears. They "were depending on this as an income stream for their retirement and they're in very bad shape," Mr. Walker said. "It's hurtful to see that go on. I really think something needs to be done about this." Investor wants accountability Mr. Walker said when investments fall apart, as he alleges has happened in the case of Royal Crown, there is not enough accountability. "If you look to the U.S., you'll see there's much more aggressive action on any of these kinds of activities, more so than we have in Canada. I think there's an opportunity there to make some improvements to the public," he said. The investors' lawyer said retirees are "prey" for potentially high-risk and fraudulent schemes. He believes, with an aging population, that we will see more cases like Royal Crown. "Retirees are looking to make investments and hopefully enhance their retirement benefits as they go forward," said Mr. Robertson. Investor held gold in his hand Mr. Walker believes that some work was done to try and get the mine operating. He recalls the December 2009 meeting at the Clarion Hotel in Winnipeg, when Scott tried to explain the progress of the mine. Mr. Walker says Mr. Scott showed off a sample of gold that was extracted from a road the company built to the mine. Contact the I-Team "Actually, I held it in my hand . . . several ounces of gold in a pill bottle. That was just what was presented as evidence there's some progress, there's some gold even on the surface without digging any further." Through various letters, Mr. Walker said the company relayed numerous reasons to investors as to why the mine was not producing any gold. "It was a zigzag pattern of 'gee whiz' frustration and then a bit of euphoria -- 'We're going to be there, let's go, let's go, let's hang on a little longer.' And then at the end, disappointed," he said. Mr. Walker said he has not heard from Royal Crown since March 2012. He said, to his knowledge, that little vial of gold was the only gold ever extracted by the company. None of the allegations have been proven in court. Commercial and corporate lawyer Maureen Ward from Bennett Jones LLP said no amount of regulation can protect individual investors alone. "There's no real way to prevent other than to raise awareness," she said, adding that she believes this lawsuit is significant due to the millions at stake. S.E.B. SERVICE: Conditional Class Cert. Granted in Guards' Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Amadou Barry and Gungor Akcelik, plaintiffs in a putative collective and class action, worked as security guards at S.E.B. Service of New York, a company owned by Robert DiNozzi. The Plaintiffs sued SEB, alleging it violated the Fair Labor Standard Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the New York Labor Law Sections 652, 663, Section 190 et seq., and New Jersey law by failing to pay overtime and other required compensation to similarly situated undercover and uniformed guards. Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims for nationwide classes of uniformed and undercover guards. The Honorable Sandra L. Townes referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Joan M. Azracks for decision. In a November 22, 2013 Memorandum and Order available at http://is.gd/bFOf7ofrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Azracks said conditional certification for all undercover and uniformed guards is warranted because the Plaintiffs' assertions that they were paid at improper rates suggests that the guards are similarly situated with respect to this practice and to Plaintiffs' allegation of a general policy to deny overtime. The Court conditionally certifies plaintiffs' claims based on hours shorting and payment of overtime at improper rates. Magistrate Judge Azracks ordered the parties to provide by December 11, 2013, a revised proposed notice form to the Court and for the Plaintiffs to file their amended complaint. The case is AMADOU BARRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. S.E.B. SERVICE OF NEW YORK, INC., and ROBERT DINOZZI, Defendants, NO. 11-CV-5089 (SLT) (JMA), (E.D. N.Y.). Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Putative Class: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Suzanne B. Leeds, Esq. Virginia & Ambinder LLP 111 Broadway #1403 New York City, NY 10006 Telephone:(212) 943-9080 - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Jessica L. Parada, Esq. Leeds Brown Law, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514-1851 Telephone: (800) 585-4658 Richard J. Rabin -- rrabin@akingump.com -- Anastasia Kerdock -- kerdock@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendants. SAFEGUARD OPERATIONS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gloria Alexander, individually and/or on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Safeguard Operations LLC; and Safeguard Storage Properties, LLC d.b.a. Safeguard Self Storage, 1:13-cv- 06061-RRM-JMA (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2013) is brought on behalf of a putative class and collective action members, who were or are employed by Safeguard Storage Properties, LLC and Safeguard Operations LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Safeguard Properties, both doing business under the trademark of "Safeguard Self Storage." Ms. Alexander alleges that she was denied minimum wage compensation, "gap time" compensation, overtime premium compensation for hours in excess of 40 in a workweek, and reimbursement for the cost of purchasing and laundering mandatory uniforms. Safeguard Operations and Safeguard Properties are Delaware domestic corporations doing business in New York and are headquartered Atlanta, Georgia. Safeguard Operations is an alter- ego affiliate of Safeguard Properties with the same ownership, management and corporate offices. Safeguard operates 63 storage facilities in six states: Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. There are 23 storage facilities in New York State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew B. Stoll, Esq. STOLL, GLICKMAN & BELLINA, LLP 475 Atlantic Avenue, Third Floor Brooklyn, NY 11217 Telephone: (718) 852-3710 Facsimile: (718) 852-3586 E-mail: astoll@stollglickman.com SAM SCHWARTZ: Faces "Miller" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ William Miller, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Sam Schwartz Engineering, PLLC, Sam Schwartz, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:13-cv-07758-PGG (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2013) alleges that the Plaintiff and the Class are allegedly entitled to, among other things, unpaid wages from the Defendants for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by law. Sam Schwartz Engineering, PLLC, is a New York corporation headquartered in New York. Sam Schwartz is an owner or part owner and principal of Sam Schwartz Engineering. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Steven Samuel, Esq. David Stein, Esq. SAMUEL & STEIN 38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 Facsimile: (212) 563-9870 E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com The Defendants are represented by: David Lenefsky, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DAVID LENEFSKY One Columbus Place, Suite S48C New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 586-0088 Facsimile: (212) 586-0066 E-mail: david@lenefskylaw.com SEQWATER: Tully Urges Flood Victims to Join Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- The Satellite reports that flood victims have been urged by Cr Paul Tully to sign up to a potential AUD1 billion class action that could see them compensated for damage to their homes and businesses. The class action, launched by litigation backer IMF Australia and law firm Maurice Blackburn against the Queensland Government, Sunwater and Seqwater, is now certain to go ahead. Cr Tully has also rejected criticism of the class action by Premier Campbell Newman. Mr. Newman warned those signing up for the class action that lawyers might end up being the major beneficiaries of the class action. He said "I would hate to see any sort of payout to them (victims), if that ultimately happened, being gobbled up in legal fees." But Cr Tully said "Maurice Blackburn and IMF are on a maximum takeout of about 30%". "Campbell Newman was suggesting that if people get involved they might end up with nothing, but he is just trying to scare people out of lodging," Cr Tully said. "But 70% of something is better than 100% of nothing. "I am encouraging people to sign up because this is the only opportunity for residents and business owners to be compensated for their losses caused by the mismanagement of the Wivenhoe Dam in 2011. "The flood commission of inquiry found that the dam had not been managed in accordance with the manual, and that will form one element of the claim against the State Government." IMF Australia and Maurice Blackburn are the ones taking the risk on behalf of flood victims. "They are in for millions of dollars already," Cr Tully said. "There are very few flood victims who would be able to employ engineers, hire experts and hydrologists from overseas and put together a legal case against the State Government. "Clive Palmer is about the only person in Queensland who could run his own legal action." Goodna was the hardest-hit suburb in south-east Queensland in January 2011 with a total of 600 flood-affected properties. Cr Tully lost his family home in the flood and said the announcement the class action would go ahead was a "major ray of hope for all flood victims". He called on the State Government to enter negotiations in good faith for a settlement of the class action without the need for expensive legal trial proceedings. "The State Government must act as a model litigant to ensure all flood victims are fairly compensated for their losses," Cr Tully said. Flood victims must sign up for the class action by February 28, 2014. Meetings for registrants will be held on Sunday, December 15, at The Greek Club, South Brisbane, from 1:00 p.m., and on Monday, December 16, at the Metro Hotel International, Ipswich, starting at 7:00 p.m. For more information about the meetings or to register for the floods class action, visit www.imf.com.au/wivenhoe or phone 1800016464. SRAM LLC: Recalls Derailleurs for Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with SRAM, LLC, of Chicago, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,700 bicycle chain derailleurs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The rear derailleur's rear pivot pin can loosen or dislodge causing the rear derailleur to jam or interfere with the wheel, posing a fall hazard. The firm has received reports of 43 incidents in the U.S. with one report of scrapes and bruises. The SRAM RED WiFLi Rear Derailleur is a device that moves a bicycle chain gears on the rear wheel. The name SRAM RED and the serial number of the derailleur are located on the back of the inner pulley wheel cage plate and visible when looking thru the spokes of the bicycle wheel. Serial numbers of affected products begin with one of the following four-digit codes: -- 31T2, 37T2, 43T2, 49T2, 03T3, 09T3; -- 32T2, 38T2, 44T2, 50T2, 04T3, 10T3; -- 33T2, 39T2, 45T2, 51T2, 05T3, 11T3; -- 34T2, 40T2, 46T2, 52T2, 06T3; -- 35T2, 41T2, 47T2, 01T3, 07T3; -- 36T2, 42T2, 78T2, 02T3, 08T3 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/NCJ2Oa The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at specialty bicycle retailers nationwide from September 2012 to November 2013 for approximately $380 as an aftermarket installation. They were also sold as original equipment on new high-end bicycles. Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles with the recalled SRAM RED derailleurs and return the bicycles to the place of purchase or any SRAM dealer for a free replacement, including installation. Consumers who bought the derailleurs as a stand- alone product can take them to the place of purchase for a free replacement or, for those who can make the equipment change themselves, contact SRAM for instructions on how to return the recalled product for the free replacement. TOYOTA MOTOR: Kentucky Appeals Court Reverses Class Cert. Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Adkins, writing for Georgetown News-Graphic, reports that the Kentucky Court of Appeals has reversed a Scott County circuit judge's action certifying a class action in six Toyota employees' lawsuit against the company. Further, the court said Scott County Circuit Judge Rob Johnson improperly reopened the case in 2007. UNITED STATES: Cobell Suit Settlement Checks May Go Out in 2014 --------------------------------------------------------------- Lenzy Krehbiel-Burton, writing for Tulsa World, reports that for some Native Americans across Oklahoma, the check will be in the mail next year. On Dec. 2, the Garden City Group, a court-appointed, third-party claims administrator used in the Cobell vs. Salazar federal class- action lawsuit, announced that settlement checks for the more than 500,000 trust administration class members could start going out in early 2014, pending completion of identification confirmation of all eligible class action members. Earlier this year, the Garden City Group announced its intentions to distribute settlement funds by year's end, but under the terms of the settlement agreement, it cannot do so until all eligible class-action members are identified. Final eligibility appeal paperwork was due in September. The members of the trust administration class stand to make at least $800 each, plus a share of the balance of the settlement funds as calculated by the Department of the Interior using a formula based on the activity in the individual trust accounts. Once the eligible recipients are determined, it will take the Department of the Interior about a month to calculate each plaintiff's settlement amount, then an additional three weeks to print and mail the checks. Between its two beneficiary classes, the Cobell settlement will pay out $1.5 billion to Native Americans across the country who had ownership interest in land or funds held in trust by the federal government generated by economic activity on trust land between 1985 and Sept. 30, 2009. Among the recipients are an estimated 50,000 Oklahomans. The 327,957 members of the first class each received $1,000 in December 2012 for the historical accounting portion of the settlement. The remaining $1.9 billion will used to establish a fund for the voluntary consolidation of trust land where the ownership has been fractured as land was passed from generation to generation. Up to $60 million of the fund can be used to provide scholarships for American Indians and Alaska Natives to attend college or vocation school. VIKING RANGE: Faces Class Action Over Refrigerator Defect --------------------------------------------------------- Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that New Jersey consumers have hit appliance maker Viking Range LLC and parent company The Middleby Corp. with a putative class action over allegedly defective door hinges on certain Viking refrigerators that they say put users in harm's way. In a Nov. 27 complaint in Morris County Superior Court, two couples target 11 Viking refrigerator model numbers and cite recalls that the U.S. Consumer Safety Product Commission announced in 2009 and this year. Viking, which Middleby acquired in December 2012, didn't timely report the alleged defect, and repairs after the first recall often failed to correct the problem, according to the complaint. The suit alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Products Liability Act and calls for a class of New Jersey residents who have been injured or shouldered damages because of the door hinges. "[T]he refrigerators and its component parts were defective as to the design and manufacture, in that the bolts and hinges used to hold the refrigerator doors on the unit itself were defective and would sheer off, causing the large heavy doors to fall off," the complaint said, adding that, "Defendant Viking's refrigerators were unsafe for their intended use as they caused an unreasonably dangerous condition." A Middleby representative did not immediately return a request for comment. The named plaintiffs are Ronald J. Piemonte, Suzzanne E. Piemonte, Marianne A. Willis and William J. Willis. Besides Viking and Middleby, the suit also names Oberg & Lindquist Corp., a retail kitchen and appliance center, and two appliance repair companies, Morris County Appliance Repair and A & E Appliances & Repairs, as defendants. In 2009, Viking reported to the CPSC that door hinges on certain refrigerators made between July 1999 and April 2006 had been reported to loosen, causing the door to separate from the unit, according to the complaint. Viking had received 57 reports of doors detaching, including four reports of injuries, the complaint said. The CPSC that year announced a recall of 45,000 Viking refrigerators, and Viking in 2011 agreed to pay a $450,000 penalty over allegations that it knew about the manufacturing defect for several years before reporting it to the regulator, according to the complaint. Earlier this year, CSPC announced another recall of about 31,000 Viking refrigerators sold between November 2005 and August 2012 over problems with detached doors, the complaint said. Viking had received another 39 complaints of falling refrigerator doors, including 12 reports of injuries such as fractures, bruises or cuts, according to the complaint. Plaintiff Suzzanne Piemonte claims that she was injured this year when the door of her Viking refrigerator detached and landed on top of her. Two years earlier, one of the defendant repair companies had purportedly fixed the refrigerator in compliance with the 2009 recall, according to the complaint. Ms. Piemonte didn't break any bones, but the accident worsened other existing medical conditions, the complaint said. An attorney for the plaintiffs did not immediately return a request for comment. The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin E. Barber -- kbarber@n-blaw.com -- of Niedweske Barber Hager LLC. Counsel information for Viking and Middleby was not immediately available. The case is Piemonte et al v. Viking Range LLC et al, case number L-3145-13 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County. VIOLIN MEMORY: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP on Dec. 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Violin Memory, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 13-cv-05515, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Violin Memory between September 27, 2013 and November 21, 2013 both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased Violin Memory securities during the Class Period, you have until January 27, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Violin Memory develops and supplies memory-based storage systems for high-speed applications, servers and networks in the Americas, Europe and the Asia Pacific. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Violin Memory's statements about the Company's projected revenues for its flash memory sales were based on materially flawed projections; (2) the Company could not in fact reach the revenue goals it had touted to investors and, (3) as a result of the foregoing, Violin Memory's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On November 21, 2013, the company announced its financial results for the third fiscal quarter of 2014. The company reported a higher-than-expected net loss of $0.85 cents a share, and sales of $28.3 million, which were below analysts' expectations. In addition, the company provided revenue guidance between $30 million and $32 million for its 2014 fiscal fourth quarter -- well-below consensus estimates in the range of $44 million. During the earnings call that followed the announcement of financial results, the Company's officers were barraged with questions regarding how the Company could have missed its prior guidance by such a large margin, and also questions regarding why the Company did not inform investors earlier in time regarding the large gap between the sales and revenue figures touted by the Company in presentations to investors and the actual results. On this news, Violin Memory's stock price fell $3.16 per share or more than 47%, from its $6.00 closing price on November 21, 2013, trading as low as $3.18 per share in intraday trading on November 22, 2013. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. WERNER CO: Accord in "Clemans" Suit Gets Final Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ronald B. Leighton granted final approval of class settlement in the case captioned LLOYD CLEMANS, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons and entities, Plaintiffs, v. NEW WERNER CO. d/b/a WERNER CO., a Delaware corporation; NEW WERNER HOLDING CO (DE), LLC d/b/a WERNER HOLDING CO.; a Delaware corporation; LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., a North Carolina corporation; and LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC., a North Carolina corporation Defendants, CASE NO. 3:12-CV-05186, (W.D. Wash.) The Settlement Class is defined as: all individual persons or entities in the United States who currently own a Werner Model S2208 or S2210 steel attic ladder designated as Marks 1, 2, 3 or 4 (an attic ladder which was manufactured from September 2003 to September 2005 and contains one or more cast zinc hinges). The Settlement provides all eligible Class Members with a free comparable replacement ladder shipped directly to their homes. The straight-forward claims process applies equally to all Class Members, and assistance is available -- from Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator -- for Class Members who need help in establishing eligibility for relief under the Settlement. A copy of the District Court's November 22, 2013 Order and Final Judgment is available at http://is.gd/1mJYIyfrom Leagle.com. YELP INC: Reviewers' Action May Set Precedence for Similar Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pierre Zarokian, writing for Search Engine Journal, reports that a recent class action lawsuit filed in California could result in getting unpaid wages for Yelpers, or Yelp Reviewers. The lawsuit states that the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") law has been violated by Yelp. Although the lawsuit seems ridiculous, the attorneys of the case believe otherwise. If the lawsuit is successful it could set precedence for numerous similar lawsuits. Next, people might sue any site that accepts free reviews or guest article posts! Mr. Zarokian spoke to Daniel Bernath, one of the attorneys at "The Yelp Class-Action Law Firm," the law firm created just to bring this lawsuit forward. He felt that Yelp is violating current laws by the way it treats its reviewers. The lawsuit claims that reviewers are encouraged to write free reviews and instead of payment, they are awarded badges, such as "Elite" Status, "First to Review," "Review of the Day," "Duke," "Duchess, " "King," and "Queen." In addition, Yelp often holds parties for their Elite reviewers where they offer them free drinks and food. The lawsuit also claims Yelp has a cult like environment. Mr. Zarokian reached out to Yelp for commenting. They called the lawsuit "frivolous" and think the court system will be wasting its time. Here is what their PR rep had to say: "The argument that voluntarily using a free service equates to an employment relationship is completely without merit, unsupported by law and contradicted by the dozens of websites like Yelp that consumers use to help one another." Mr. Zarokian also talked to a couple of attorneys to get some legal expertise regarding the chances of this lawsuit prevailing. Eric Goldman, a law professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, feels that: "This lawsuit is doomed to fail. It's a broad-based attack on the user-generated content (UGC) ecosystem, and there's no chance that courts will say that every author publishing their content online are employees of the publishing websites." However Mr. Goldman feels that the Elite users may pose a more serious challenge, as "its Elite members check off more factors on the various multi-factor tests for classifying employees." Mr. Goldman has written about a similar case. In 2012, the Huffington Post won a case brought forward by unpaid contributors. Aaron Minc, a Defamation Attorney, has a detailed analysis of this case on his blog. He states: "Yelpers sign up for Yelp pursuant to its "terms of use" and are not "hired" or "fired." Yelpers write content how, when, and where they want. Finally, Yelp users are neither given nor promised any formal monetary compensation." If this lawsuit prevails, many online review websites and news websites that accept guest posts will need to revise their business practices. Review websites may actually have to start paying reviewers a small fee or come up with some solid proof agreements with their reviewers to avoid getting sued in the future. For those interested in joining the lawsuit or to learn more about it, visit http://www.yelpclassaction.info ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2013. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200. * * * End of Transmission * * *