/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140205.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 5, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 25 Headlines 6PM.COM LLC: "Rivero" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California AL'S RESTAURANT: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Compensation AMERICAN AIRLINES: Judge Tosses Baggage Fee Class Action AMERICAN INT'L: Court Stays Status Conference in "Franco" Suit BLANDON ORNAMENTAL: Class Seeks Payment for OT and Minimum Wages BMW: Sun Roof Defect Claims Sufficient to Represent Class Action CAMCO FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Advantage Bank Sale CREIG NORTHROP: Class Action Over Kickback Scheme Can Proceed DELTA AIR LINES: "Kwok" Suit Over Frequent Flyer Program Dismissed DIAMOND FOODS: Accused of Deceiving Tortilla Chips Consumers EJ STERLING: "Miller" Suit Aims to Recover Unpaid & OT Wages EQUAL ENERGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Oklahoma EUROPEAN MEAT: Recalls 130,000 lbs. of Fresh & Ready-To-Eat Meat FACEBOOK INC: Faces "DiTirro" Suit Over Users' Likenesses FBCS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Class Claims FINISAR CORP: Securities Lawsuit in California Now Dismissed FLOW INTERNATIONAL: AIP Entities Dismissed From Suit Over Merger GALLUP INC: "Fox" Suit Accuses Invasion of Customers' Privacy GENERAL NUTRITION: Sued Over OxyElite Pro Adverse Health Effects GEORGE'S INC: Recalls 1.25MM Lbs. of Frozen Par-Fried Chicken GOLDMAN SACHS: "Kohlenberg" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York GRANITE MAX: Absolute Ordered to Bring Up Default Judgment Matter GUSTO PACKING: Recalls 67,113 Lbs. of Sliced, Spiral Ham Products HEEL INC: Settles Class Action Over Homeopathic Products for $1MM HOUSE OF SMOKE: Recalls 144,000 lbs. of Meat and Poultry Products INFINITY FLOORS: Class Seeks Payment for Unpaid Overtime Wages ISLE OF CAPRI: Settlement of Lawsuit Over Fax Ad Now Final JC PENNEY: Parties Want Texas Securities Lawsuits Consolidated JOS A BANK: Accord in Calif. Labor Lawsuit Wins Final Approval JOS A BANK: Plaintiff in "Camasta" Appeals Dismissal of Complaint JOS A BANK: Faces Lawsuit Over "Deceptive" Sales Practices JP MORGAN: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Maes" Suit KENISHA WIGGINS: "Leftridge" Suit Removed to Conn. District Court LIFE PARTNERS: "Turnbow" Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Lawsuit LIMAN TRADING: Sued by Server Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages LOUIS VUITTON: Settlement in "Morey" Suit Gets Final Court Okay MAZDA MOTOR: Court Dismisses "Gordon" TCCWNA Class Action MEDICENTRES CANADA: Faces $11-Mil. Privacy Breach Class Action MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Underway in Defibrillation Leads Suit MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit Over Statements Regarding INFUSE MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Denies Class Certification in Text-Spam Suit NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Suit in Pa. Over Personal Injury Claims NEW JERSEY, USA: Faces "Galicki" Suit Over Fort Lee Traffic Jam NEW YORK: Bid to Stay Suit vs. OTDA and HRA Denied NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Consumer Privacy Laws, "Kelly" Suit Says OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Suit in Calif. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Labor Suit in Calif. Court in Discovery Phase PILOT FLYING J: Court Narrows Claims in Wright Trans Suit PROCOLLECT INC: Sued for Contacting Customers Without Consent PURE ENCAPSULATIONS: Sued Over Betaine HCl Pepsin Advertising SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Court Dismisses GTA Online Class Action TRUITT BROTHERS: Recalls 1.77MM lbs. of Pasta & Ground Beef WALKER'S FOOD: Recalls 2,446 Lbs. of Chicken Salad Products WEATHERFORD INT'L: Settles Investor Class Action for $52.5MM WET SEAL: Settles Suit Filed in Cal. Court by Former Employees WET SEAL: Appeals Denial of Arbitration in Cal. Labor Lawsuit WET SEAL: Settlement of Discrimination Suit Up for Approval ********* 6PM.COM LLC: "Rivero" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Desiree Rivero v. 6PM.COM, LLC, et al., Case No. BC529764, was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 00186-FMO-JEM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: David W. Reid, Esq. Richard H. Hikida, Esq. Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP APC 4100 Newport Place, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: dreid@trialnewport.com rhikida@trialnewport.com sferrell@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com The Defendants are represented by: Alonzo B. Wickers, IV, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 865 South Figueroa Street Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90017-2566 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: alonzowickers@dwt.com AL'S RESTAURANT: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Al's Restaurant & Pizzeria, LLC, and Lisa Sullivan, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00159 (N.D. Ill., January 9, 2014) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent overtime wages. Al's Restaurant & Pizzeria, LLC is an Illinois limited liability. The Company operates an Italian restaurant in Cicero, Illinois. Lisa Sullivan is a member of Al's Restaurant & Pizzeria, LLC, and is involved in the day-to-day business operation of Al's Restaurant & Pizzeria, LLC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos G. Becerra, Esq. Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq. BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC 332 South Michigan, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 957-9005 Facsimile: (773) 890-7780 E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com pgonzalez@law-rb.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Judge Tosses Baggage Fee Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that a federal judge in Washington state on Jan. 28 threw out a proposed class action against American Airlines Inc. over its alleged failure to reimburse baggage fees for lost luggage, finding that the plaintiff had neglected to file a claim in the company's recently concluded bankruptcy case. U.S. District Judge James L. Robart issued a brief order dismissing the suit brought by Danielle Covarrubias, which had been put on hold for almost two years while American's parent, AMR Corp., reorganized in Chapter 11. "Plaintiff failed to timely file a claim in the bankruptcy case of American Airlines," he said. "As a result of this failure, any claims she may have had against American Airlines are now barred." In 2008, American became the first U.S. carrier to demand a fee for checked luggage -- $25 for the first bag, and increasingly more for each additional bag. Ms. Covarrubias sued American in July 2010, alleging the airline failed to reimburse those baggage fees when it lost passengers' luggage. The plaintiff claimed that, in charging the fee, American had explicitly agreed not to lose, damage or delay delivery of the bag, making reimbursement warranted when such mistakes occurred. After the complaint was amended to add an American affiliate, American Eagle Airlines Inc., and an additional plaintiff, the case survived a motion to dismiss from the airline in April 2011. However, AMR Corp. filed for Chapter 11 in November of that year, putting the case on hold under the bankruptcy's automatic stay. After nearly two years under court protection, AMR completed its reorganization in December by way of an $11 billion merger with US Airways Group Inc., exiting bankruptcy as American Airlines Group Inc. On Dec. 30, American moved to dismiss the instant action, saying neither of the plaintiffs had met the July 16, 2012, deadline for filing proofs of claim in the bankruptcy. Due to this failure, the suit was discharged when American's Chapter 11 plan took effect on Dec. 9. Ms. Covarrubias is represented by Donald W. Heyrich of Heyrich Kalish McGuigan PLLC. American is represented by Michael V. Powell -- mpowell@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord LLP and Dianna Caley -- dcaley@wongfleming.com -- of Wong Fleming. The case is Danielle Covarrubias v. American Airlines Inc., case number 2:10-cv-01158, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. AMERICAN INT'L: Court Stays Status Conference in "Franco" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Saundra B. Armstrong signed a stipulation and order staying the initial status conference in FRANJO, INC., and DMS FACILITY SERVICES, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.; AIU INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN FUJI FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY; CHARTIS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY f/k/a AIG CASUALTY COMPANY f/k/a BIRMINGHAM FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PENNSYLVANIA; COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY; INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA; NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; AIG RISK MANAGEMENT INC., MAURICE R. GREENBERG; and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants, NO. CV-13-4685-SBA,(N.D. Cal.). Franjo, Inc., and DMS Facility Services initiated this action on October 24, 2013, designated Case No. 13-cv-4685, in the United States District Court for the North District of California. In civil actions now pending in multiple other jurisdictions, other plaintiffs have asserted related or similar claims to those made in Case No. 13-cv-4685. On December 19, 2013, the AIG Defendants filed with United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) a motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407, to transfer all related actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, thereby opening MDL No. 2519. According to AIG's memorandum in support of its Section 1407 motion to transfer, counsel for Defendant Greenberg, "while reserving all his rights and objections . . . does not oppose the relief sought on [AIG's motion to transfer]." The JPML has entered a briefing schedule for the motion pending in MDL no. 2519, but there has been no judicial MDL determination and there has been no judicial determination of the relatedness of the aforementioned actions. Pending the JPML's ruling on the AIG Defendants' motion to transfer, the ordered that: 1. The Initial Status Conference that was set for January 22, 2014, is stayed. 2. The deadlines to submit the parties' Rule 26(f) Plan and Initial Disclosures are further stayed. 3. Once there has been a ruling on the AIG Defendants' motion to transfer, the parties will promptly inform the Court, so the Court may take the appropriate action to either transfer the case or reschedule the various matters which have been stayed. A copy of the District Court's January 10, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/zsWWh9from Leagle.com. Deborah R. Rosenthal -- drosenthal@simmonsfirm.com -- (#184241) SIMNIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC San Francisco, California, Drew E. Pomerance -- dep@rpnalaw.com -- (#101239) Nicholas P. Roxborough -- npr@rpnalaw.com -- (#113540) ROXBOROUGH POMERANCE NYE & ADREANI LLP Woodland Hills, California, Derek Y. Brandt -- dbrandt@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS BROWDER GIANARIS ANGELIDES & BARNERD LLC Alton, Illinois, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Franjo, Inc., DMS Facility Services, Inc., and all others Deborah R. Rosenthal (#184241) Derek Y. Brandt similarly situated. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Attorneys for Defendant Maurice R. Greenberg. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LL Attorneys for Defendants American International Group, Inc. AIU Insurance Company, American Fuji Fire and Marine Insurance Company, American Home Assurance Company, Chartis Property Casualty Company f/k/a AIG Casualty Company f/k/a Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, Commerce and Industry Insurance Company, Inc., Granite State Insurance Company, Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire Insurance Company, and AIG Risk Management, Inc. BLANDON ORNAMENTAL: Class Seeks Payment for OT and Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Sergio Pereya, Jose Victor Paz Castejon and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B), v. Blandon Ornamental Iron, Inc. and Raul Blandon, Case No. 1:14-cv-20103-KMW (S.D. Fla., January 9, 2014) is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have employed several other similarly situated employees like them, who have not been paid overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Blandon Ornamental Iron, Inc. is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Company was the FLSA employer of the Plaintiffs during the relevant time period. Raul Blandon is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM BMW: Sun Roof Defect Claims Sufficient to Represent Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that responding to two motions from BMW, Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. Northern District Court of California ruled that plaintiffs Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson have made allegations "sufficient" to represent a class action at the pleading stage of their case against the automaker over an alleged sunroof defect. However, the judge directed the plaintiffs to show cause as to why their motion for injunctive relief should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Sharma and Anderson, BMW owners and California residents, allege their vehicles suffered water damage after the drainage tubes installed to pull water away from the sunroofs did not properly work. They claim the class should include California residents who have "owned or leased any BMW X5 series vehicles, X3 series vehicles and 5 series vehicles." "Where a class action complaint encompasses both a product the plaintiff purchased and a product he did not, the plaintiff sufficiently has standing to proceed with claims on behalf of class members who purchased the latter if 'there is sufficient similarity between the products purchased and not purchased.' . . . In that regard, plaintiffs allege that 'all' of the makes and models identified by plaintiffs as the class vehicles have the same 'design defect.' . . . The court finds such allegations sufficient to allege requisite similarity, and, consequently, suffice at the pleading stage to establish plaintiffs' standing to assert claims on behalf of owners of vehicles other than those purchased by plaintiffs. Addressing plaintiffs request for injunctive relief, the judge writes, "'To seek injunctive relief, a plaintiff must show that he is under threat of suffering injury in fact that is concrete and particularized; the threat must be actual and imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; it must be fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and it must be likely that a favorable judicial will prevent or redress the injury. . . . Here, plaintiffs fail to allege facts to meet the applicable standard. Specifically, plaintiffs fail to allege any facts to support a finding that the requested injunctive relief, if ordered by the court, would redress an 'actual and imminent' threat plaintiffs themselves face from BMW. . . . Indeed, plaintiffs' allege their vehicles already have been repaired. "Accordingly, plaintiffs are hereby directed to show cause, in writing and no later than February 7, 2014, why their claim for injunctive relief should not be dismissed for lack of standing," according to court documents. Furthermore, if the plaintiffs can add additional facts to their case in support of seeking injunctive relief, the judge asked them to file a second amended complaint by February 7 as well. CAMCO FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Advantage Bank Sale ------------------------------------------------------------ The Marietta Times reports that a class action complaint has been filed in Guernsey County by a shareholder of Advantage Bank, on behalf of itself and other shareholders, against Camco Financial, members of its board of directors and Huntington Bancshares Inc. Advantage Bank, which has two offices in Marietta, is currently under the parent company of Camco, with Huntington expected to acquire Camco in February or March. The complaint, filed on Jan. 22, challenges the actions of Camco Financial, detailing the fact that defendants highly favored Huntington Bank to purchase Camco shares, failing to reach out to any other buyers after Huntington expressed interest in purchasing the company. Under the sale agreement between Camco and Huntington, Camco shareholders could elect to receive 0.7264 shares of Huntington stock or $6 in cash for each share of Camco stock. It is alleged that this will protect and advance the interests of Camco's board and hurt the public shareholders. The fiduciary duties of the defendants include: managing Camco in a fair manner, maximizing shareholder value in connection with any change in ownership, refraining from abusing positions of control and not favoring their own interests at the expense of Camco and its shareholders, according to the paperwork filed. It is alleged that the sale agreement between Camco and Huntington personally benefited only those in a position of power with Camco, not the shareholders, and that statements filed with the SEC didn't contain information that should have been disclosed to shareholders, including information that might have affected their agreement for the sale agreement between Camco and Huntington. James Huston, president and CEO of Camco, is alleged to have taken over negotiations between Camco and Huntington, not allowing the formation of an independent committee to evaluate the potential sale of the company. Huston stands to gain more than $3.6 million from the sale agreement between Camco and Huntington, according to the suit. The class action suit alleges that fiduciary duties were breached so that shareholders could not make an informed decision on the sale agreement and claims that the plaintiff and other shareholders have been and will be damaged. The suit seeks to get shareholders compensatory and/or rescsissory damages; award interest, attorney fees, expert fees and other costs; and granting other relief as the court finds proper. CREIG NORTHROP: Class Action Over Kickback Scheme Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------- Ian Duncan, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that a federal judge authorized a class-action suit on Jan. 29 against The Creig Northrop Team, one of Maryland's largest real estate groups, after a Howard County couple accused it of running a half-million dollar kickback scheme with a title insurance company. A suit filed in Baltimore by home buyers Christine and Patrick Baehr alleges The Creig Northrop Team, which has offices across central Maryland, of illegally accepting payments from Lakeview Title in exchange for sending the firm business. The couple is represented by Gregory T. Lawrence of Baltimore law firm Conti Fenn & Lawrence. In court papers, the defendants asked for the case to be thrown out because it was filed too late. U.S. District Judge William D. Quarles rejected the plaintiff's argument that the class should include anyone who bought a home with the Northrop Team and Lakeview back to 2000. Instead, he limited the case to the agent's clients since 2008. The judge dismissed claims against Long & Foster, the broker for the Northrop Team and a claim against the wife of Creig Northrop. DELTA AIR LINES: "Kwok" Suit Over Frequent Flyer Program Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., dismissed the case captioned WYNETTE KWOK, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION FILE. NO. 1:13-CV-1713-TWT, (N.D. Ga.). This is a putative class action against Delta Air Lines regarding its frequent flyer program. It presents the question of whether Delta is contractually required to award frequent flyer miles based upon (1) the direct geographic distance between the origin and destination of a flight, or (2) the distance actually flown. Delta Air Lines filed the motion to dismiss the case. "Contrary to the assertions of both parties, they do not disagree on the meaning of "distance,"" held Judge Thrash. "It is, at bottom, a measurement. The dispute goes to the particular length whose distance is being calculated; the distance of what? The Plaintiff claims that the contract refers to the distance of the actual route traveled. The Defendant claims that it refers to the geographic distance between the origin and the destination." "[T]he plain text supports the Defendant's interpretation," Judge Thrash continued. "The relevant segment reads: "the distance from origin to final destination." This does not refer to the distance flown or the distance of the route taken. It refers to the distance between two points," he said. A copy of the District Court's January 9, 2014 Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/Wz9gMnfrom Leagle.com. DIAMOND FOODS: Accused of Deceiving Tortilla Chips Consumers ------------------------------------------------------------ Dominika Surzyn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Diamond Foods, Inc., a Delaware limited liability company, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-00136-EDL (N.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) alleges that the Company has unlawfully, fraudulently, unfairly, misleadingly and deceptively represented that five varieties of its Kettle Brand TIAS Tortilla Chips are "All Natural," while they contain unnatural, synthetic and artificial ingredients, including maltodextrin or dextrose. The Products are not "natural," and certainly not "All Natural," because they contain unnatural, synthetic ingredients, the Plaintiff alleges. Diamond Foods, Inc., is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco, California. Diamond Foods manufactures, markets, advertises and sells the Products. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (800) 436-6437 Facsimile: (415) 692-6607 E-mail: lopatin@hwrlawoffice.com EJ STERLING: "Miller" Suit Aims to Recover Unpaid & OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Brian Miller, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated who were employed by E.J. Sterling Inc. and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by E.J. Sterling Inc. v. E.J. Sterling Inc., and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by E.J. Sterling Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00141- JGK (S.D.N.Y., January 9, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid wages and overtime wages owed to the Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons, who are presently or were formerly employed by E.J. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have wrongfully withheld wages from the Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals, who worked for the Defendants in the business of selling securities or training to be in the business of selling securities and providing wealth management and investment advice. E.J. Sterling, Inc. is a foreign limited liability company organized in Indiana and headquartered in New York. The Company is engaged in the financial business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd Ambinder, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 111 Broadway, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lambinder@bivas.net - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516)873-9550 Facsimile: (516)747-5024 EQUAL ENERGY: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Oklahoma ----------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Jan. 30 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of holders of Equal Energy Ltd. common shares on December 9, 2013, against Equal, its Board of Directors and Petroflow Energy Corporation and Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp., in connection with the proposed sale of Equal to Petroflow. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from January 30, 2014. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint alleges violations of 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Schedule 14A preliminary information circular and proxy statement filed by Equal with the SEC on December 31, 2013 and disseminated to shareholders in connection with the Proposed Acquisition. In addition, the complaint charges Equal, its Board and/or Petroflow with breaches of fiduciary duty and/or aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Proposed Acquisition. Equal is an oil and gas exploration and production company incorporated in Alberta Canada and based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. On December 9, 2013, Equal announced it had entered into a definitive arrangement agreement with Petroflow under which Petroflow will acquire the Company for $5.43 per share in cash. On December 31, 2013, defendants caused the Company to file the Preliminary Proxy with the SEC advising shareholders to approve the Arrangement Agreement and vote in favor of the Proposed Acquisition. The complaint alleges that the Preliminary Proxy contains false and misleading statements about: (i) the Company's current and future value; (ii) benefits that will flow to Company insiders only as a result of the Proposed Acquisition; (iii) details about the sales process and the conflicts of interests faced by the persons involved; and (iv) the financial analysis conducted by the Company's financial advisor. Unless defendants provide full and fair disclosure of information regarding the Proposed Acquisition in the Preliminary Proxy, the Company's public shareholders will not be able to make an informed decision on the Proposed Acquisition. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of holders of Equal common shares on December 9, 2013. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. With nearly 200 lawyers in ten offices, the firm represents hundreds of public and multi- employer pension funds with combined assets under management in excess of $2 trillion. EUROPEAN MEAT: Recalls 130,000 lbs. of Fresh & Ready-To-Eat Meat ---------------------------------------------------------------- European Meat Products Inc., a Lakewood, Colo., establishment, is recalling approximately 130,000 pounds of fresh and ready-to-eat beef and pork products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain wheat, a known allergen which is not declared on the labels. The products subject to recall includes: -- 16 oz. - vacuum pack plastic bags of "Bo Vien, Huong Duyen - Cooked Beef Meat Balls" -- 100 oz. - vacuum pack plastic bags of "Bo Vien, Huong Duyen - Cooked Beef Meat Balls" -- 16 oz. - vacuum pack plastic bags of "Cha Chien, Huong Duyen - Pork Meat Roll Browned in Soy Bean Oil" -- 16 oz. - plastic tubs of "Moc TUOi, Huong Duyen- Fresh Pork Paste" -- 16 oz. - vacuum pack plastic bags of "Gio-Lua, Huong Duyen - Pork Meat Roll" -- 32 oz. - vacuum pack plastic bags of "Gio-Lua, Huong Duyen - Pork Meat Roll" The products bear the establishment number "EST. 7725" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection. The recalled products were produced prior to Jan. 17, 2014. The products were shipped to distributors, restaurants and retail establishments in California, Colorado, and Illinois. The problem was discovered by FSIS during a routine food safety assessment label review. The problem occurred due to a change in ingredient formulation without a corresponding change in the finished product label. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact Phong Tong, a company executive, at (303) 233-3111. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at askkaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET Monday through Friday. FACEBOOK INC: Faces "DiTirro" Suit Over Users' Likenesses --------------------------------------------------------- Anthony DiTirro, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00132-PSG (N.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) is brought for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The lawsuit results from Facebook's illegal actions in unlawfully using its customers' likenesses and Facebook profiles to create a false impression that its customers are promoting a particular company or product without said customer's knowledge or consent, Mr. DiTirro asserts. Founded in 2004, Facebook, Inc., is the world's largest social media networking web site with over a billion active users as of September 2012. The Company is headquartered in Menlo Park, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Orshansky, Esq. Justin Kachadoorian, Esq. COUNSELONE, P.C. 9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 277-9945 Facsimile: (424) 277-3727 E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com justin@counselonegroup.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 369 S. Doheny Drive, Suite 415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com Facebook, Inc. is represented by: Jeffrey Gutkin, Esq. COOLEY GODWARD KRONISH LLP 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: gutkinjm@cooley.com FBCS INC: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Class Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Tasha Strong, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, 906 Marcella Street, Philadelphia, PA 19124 v. FBCS Inc., 2200 Byberry Road #120, Hatboro, PA 19040; Joseph Neary, Sr.; Joseph Neary, Jr.; Henry Stoughton; and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:14-cv- 00123-NIQA (E.D. Pa., January 9, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and the members of the Class proper overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. FBCS Inc. is an entity based in Hatboro, Pennsylvania. The Individual Defendants are officers of the Company. The Doe Defendants are presently unknown persons. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua S. Boyette, Esq. Richard S. Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10 Cherry Hill, NJ 08003 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com rswartz@swartz-legal.com FINISAR CORP: Securities Lawsuit in California Now Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------ A securities action filed against Finisar Corporation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has been dismissed, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 27, 2013. Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8, 2011. The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. To date, no specific amount of damages have been alleged. The cases were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were appointed and a consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs leave to amend the consolidated complaint. An amended consolidated complaint was filed on February 6, 2013. Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed motion to dismiss the case. On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. On October 25, 2013, the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's dismissal ruling. In addition, two purported shareholder derivative lawsuits related to the Company's March 8, 2011 earnings announcement have been filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara, and a third derivative lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaints assert claims for alleged breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and waste on behalf of the Company. Named as defendants are the members of the Company's board of directors, including the Company's Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer. No specific amount of damages has been alleged and, by the derivative nature of the lawsuits, no damages will be alleged, against the Company. The state court cases have been consolidated and a lead plaintiff has been appointed to file a consolidated complaint. To date, the cases have been stayed pending a ruling in the class action case. Following the September 30 ruling dismissing the class action case, the parties in both the federal and state derivative cases are assessing whether and how to proceed. FLOW INTERNATIONAL: AIP Entities Dismissed From Suit Over Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of Washington for King County entered a stipulated order dismissing without prejudice American Industrial Partners and its affiliates from a consolidated action filed against Flow International Corporation over a merger with Waterjet Holdings, Inc. and AIP/FIC Merger Sub, Inc., according to Flow International's Dec. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013. On September 27, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Company's stockholders in the Superior Court of Washington for King County, docketed as Englehart v. Brown, et al, Case No. 13-2-33726-6 KNT. A second purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the Company's stockholders was filed five days later, on October 2, 2013, in the Superior Court of Washington for King County, docketed as Wulfken v. Brown, et al., Case No. 13-2-34375- 4 KNT. On October 4, 2013, two more purported class action lawsuits on behalf of the Company's stockholders were filed in the Superior Court of Washington for King County, docketed as Papazian v. Brown, et al., Case No. 13-2-34980-9 KNT, and Chu v. Flow International Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-2-34967-1 KNT. On October 8, 2013, another purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of Washington for King County, docketed as Bruno v. Flow International Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-2- 35209-5 KNT. A sixth and final purported class action lawsuit on behalf of the Company's stockholders was filed in the Superior Court of Washington for King County, on October 16, 2013, docketed as Shaev v. Flow International Corporation, et al., Case No. 13-2- 35865-4 KNT. On October 9, 2013, the plaintiff in Englehart filed a Motion for Consolidation of Related Actions and Appointment of Lead Plaintiff and Co-Lead Counsel. Some of the other plaintiffs filed competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On October 23, 2013, the Court consolidated all six actions, appointed Englehart as lead plaintiff and approved Englehart's selection of lead counsel in the consolidated action. On November 19, 2013, an amended consolidated complaint was filed. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to stockholders by failing to take steps to maximize stockholder value or to engage in a fair sale process before approving the proposed acquisition of the Company by American Industrial Partners ("AIP") through its affiliates, AIP Waterjet Holdings, Inc. and AIP/FIC Merger Sub, Inc. (collectively with AIP, "the AIP Entities"). Specifically, the consolidated complaint alleges that the consideration paid by the AIP Entities is grossly inadequate in light of Flow's recent performance and prospects, that the process was designed to ensure that the AIP Entities had the only opportunity to acquire the Company because certain deal protection mechanisms precluded the Company from seeking out or listening to competing offers, and that Flow's Schedule 14A Proxy filed by the Company with the SEC on November 15, 2013 omits certain purportedly material information. The lawsuit alleges that the Board was aided and abetted in its breaches of fiduciary duty by Flow and the AIP Entities. The consolidated complaint names the Company, the members ofthe company's Board of Directors, and the AIP Entities as defendants. The plaintiffs in the consolidated action seek relief that includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the proposed merger, rescission to the extent the merger terms have already been implemented, unspecified damages, and the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. On November 26, 2013, the Court entered a stipulated order dismissing without prejudice the AIP Entities from the consolidated action. That same day, the Court entered a stipulated scheduling order setting a hearing date of December 13, 2013 for any motion for preliminary injunction. On November 22, 2103, a Flow shareholder filed a lawsuit solely on behalf of himself (not on behalf of a purported class) in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. The complaint asserts allegations similar to those alleged in the consolidated class action pending in King County Superior Court. The complaint also alleges that Flow's Board of Directors violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, because Flow's Schedule 14A Proxy purportedly contains materially false or misleading statements, or omits materials facts necessary to make statements therein not false or misleading. The complaint seeks relief that includes an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the proposed merger and payment of attorneys' fees and costs. GALLUP INC: "Fox" Suit Accuses Invasion of Customers' Privacy ------------------------------------------------------------- Ann Fox, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gallup, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00185-CAS-PJW (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) accuses the Defendant of invading the Plaintiff's privacy. Ms. Fox alleges that the Defendant unlawfully contacted her in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. She contends that she did not provide express consent to the Defendant to receive calls on her cellular telephone. Gallup, Inc., is a corporation whose primary corporate address is in Washington, DC. The Company conducted business in the state of California and in the county of Santa Barbara. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDM AN, P.C. 369 S. Doheny Dr., #415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D 1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com GENERAL NUTRITION: Sued Over OxyElite Pro Adverse Health Effects ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Sandeep Barot has filed a class action lawsuit against General Nutrition Center Holdings Inc. after he claims diet pills lead to liver damage. He claims OxyElite Pro is intended to safely provide weight loss, energy and mental focus, however, it instead causes severe adverse health effects. USPLabs LLC was also named as a defendant in the suit. USPLabs sells a variety of energy and weight loss dietary supplements under the brand name of OxyElite Pro through GNC, which are dangerous, sold pursuant to deceptive and unfair practices and are not fit for their intended purpose, according to a complaint filed Jan. 27 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff and all others similarly situated "did not bargain for a product that causes adverse health effects in exchange for their payment of purchase price," according to the suit. Mr. Barot claims several adverse reactions have been reported from consumers who have purchased and ingested the product, including serious liver injury and wrongful death. USPLabs and GNC had actual knowledge of the product's shortcomings, but both failed to timely act to adequately warn consumers of the unfitness of the product, the extreme adverse side effects associated with the product or provide adequate relief to the class of consumers who purchased the product, according to the suit. Mr. Barot claims on Oct. 11, the FDA issued a warning letter to USPLabs regarding OxyElite Pro for its inclusion of aegeline or dimethylamylamine, known as DMAA. Neither aegeline or DMAA has been demonstrated as an ingredient in the food supply as an article used for food in a form in which food has not been chemically altered, according to the suit. Mr. Barot claims neither aegeline nor DMAA is reasonably expected to be safe when used under the conditions recommended on the product's labeling. Mr. Barot purchased the product based on the affirmative representation that it would safely produce energy, increase weight loss and increase mental focus so long as the consumer used the product as directed, according to the suit. Mr. Barot claims he suffered economic damages as a result of purchasing the product. The plaintiff, and no other reasonable consumer, would have purchased the product had they known about the severe adverse effects the product can cause to humans, according to the suit. GNC and USPLabs engaged in unlawful conduct and caused Mr. Barot and the class members to suffer economic damages, physical damage and emotional distress damages. Mr. Barot claims the defendants violated the New Jersey Consume Fraud Act and was unjustly enriched at the class members' expense. Mr. Barot is seeking compensatory and punitive damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. Mr. Barot is being represented by William Riback of the Law Offices of William Riback. The case has been assigned to District Judge Noel L. Hillman. U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey at Camden case number: 1:14-cv-000562 GEORGE'S INC: Recalls 1.25MM Lbs. of Frozen Par-Fried Chicken ------------------------------------------------------------- George's Inc., a Springdale, Ark. establishment, is recalling approximately 1.25 million pounds of frozen par-fried chicken tender products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products are formulated with wheat, a known allergen, which was not properly declared on the labels. The products subject to recall include: -- 10-lb. cases of "George's Uncooked Breaded Chicken Breast Tenderloins" with Case Code 4831 and packaging dates between Feb. 21, 2013 and Dec. 19, 2013. -- 10-lb. cases of "George's Uncooked Chicken Tenderloin Fritters" with Case Code 4861 and packaging dates between Feb. 21, 2013 and Jan. 4, 2014. -- 10-lb. cases of "George's Uncooked Chicken Tenderloin Fritters" with Case Code 4880 and packaging dates between Feb. 21, 2013 and Jul. 19, 2013. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-13584" under the USDA Mark of Inspection and were sold to wholesale locations for distribution to institutional users nationwide. The problem was discovered during a routine label review conducted by the company, which then contacted FSIS. The problem occurred due to isolated printer issues that caused some labels to print without selected ingredients. The issue has been corrected. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Ali Perry at (479) 927-7256. Media with questions about the recall should contact Glen Balch at (479) 927-7105. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. GOLDMAN SACHS: "Kohlenberg" Suit Transferred to S.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit captioned Kohlenberg v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-13701, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00138-KBF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendants and unnamed co- conspirators, which have, from at least February 1, 2010, to the present, monopolized and attempted to monopolize domestic aluminum supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Hilborn, Esq. HILBORN & HILBORN P.C. 999 Haynes Street, Suite 205 Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (248) 642-8350 Facsimile: (248) 642-3016 E-mail: craig@hilbornlaw.com - and - Brian R. Strange, Esq. Keith L. Butler, Esq. John T. Ceglia, Esq. STRANGE &CARPENTER 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 207-5055 Facsimile: (310) 826-3210 E-mail: lacounsel@earthlink.net kbutler@strangeandcarpenter.com jceglia@strangeandcarpenter.com The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Jessica A. Sprovtsoff, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main Street, Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1506 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtner@schiffhardin.com jsprovtsoff@schiffhardin.com GRANITE MAX: Absolute Ordered to Bring Up Default Judgment Matter ----------------------------------------------------------------- In ABSOLUTE ARCHITECTURE, P.C., an Illinois corporation, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GRANITE MAX, INC., an Illinois corporation, and VITO GUARINO, individually Defendants, NO. 13 C 7840, (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff submitted on December 26, 2013, its First Amended Motion for Class Certification. The original motion (Dkt. 12) and Absolute's First Amended Class Action Complaint (Dkt. 11) had been filed on December 23. Because the Dkt. 11 class certification motion supplanted the original of such motion (Dkt. 4), the latter motion is denied as moot, ruled Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur. "Neither this Court's notes on the December 26th hearing nor the docket, both of which reflect that newly-filed Dkt. 12 was entered and continued to February 12, 2014 at 9 a.m., reflects any action as having been taken on Absolute's motion for a default judgment as to defendant Granite Max, Inc. (Dkt. 8), which had been filed on December 2," held Judge Shadur. Accordingly, the Court ordered Absolute's counsel to bring the matter for consideration, failing which Dkt. 8 will be treated as having been withdrawn without prejudice, ruled Judge Shadur in a January 9, 2014 Memorandum Order available at http://is.gd/jVFS3Dfrom Leagle.com. GUSTO PACKING: Recalls 67,113 Lbs. of Sliced, Spiral Ham Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gusto Packing, a Montgomery, Ill. establishment, is recalling approximately 67,113 pounds of sliced, spiral ham products due to concerns about possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The hams were shipped to wholesalers for further distribution in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, while some were exported to Canada. These products are subject to recall: -- 45.5-lb. cases, with six individual sized hams each labeled "Centrella Signature, Hardwood Hickory Smoked, Spiral Sliced Ham with Natural Juices" with the case code "71292603304," packaged on Nov. 29, 2013, having a Use or Freeze by date of "02/06/14." -- 45.8-lb. cases, with six individual sized hams each labeled "AMISH VALLEY, Fully Cooked, Hickory Smoked Spiral Sliced Ham" with the case code "71292645104," packaged on Nov. 29, 2013, having a Use or Freeze by date of "02/06/14." -- 45.8-lb. cases, with six individual sized hams each labeled "AMISH VALLEY, Fully Cooked, Hickory Smoked Spiral Sliced Ham" with the case code "71292645104," packaged on Nov. 30, 2013, having a Use or Freeze by date of "02/06/14." -- 31.6-lb. cases, with four individual sized hams each labeled "Ripple Creek Farms, Fully Cooked, Ready To Eat, Hickory Smoked, Spiral Sliced Ham" with the case code "71292603312," packaged on Nov. 30, 2013, having a Best Before date of "2014 FE 13." Packaging labels bear the establishment number "EST. 2516" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The problem was discovered when Gusto Packing's internal sampling program found some of its products tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes. Those products were frozen and held for reconditioning. Later, Gusto Packing found that some of those ham products inadvertently shipped into commerce. The company then informed FSIS. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk groups are affected. Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections can occur in older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher- risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating the contaminated food. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact the Gusto Packing customer service hotline toll free at 877-984-8786. Media with questions regarding the recall can contact the company's public relations office at 919-255-7944. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. HEEL INC: Settles Class Action Over Homeopathic Products for $1MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Classaura on Jan. 30 disclosed that a proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit involving Heel, Inc. a manufacturer of homeopathic products. The settlement establishes a fund of $1 million and entitles some purchasers of Heel products to claim a refund of up to $150 for past purchases of Heel products. On October 30, 2013, Federal Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel preliminarily approved a settlement resolving a lawsuit between Heel and a class representing consumers of Heel products. The lawsuit claimed that labeling and marketing on homeopathic products manufactured or distributed by defendants Heel, Inc. was false or deceptive. Heel stands by its advertising and denies it did anything wrong. The Court has not decided which side was right. Instead, the parties have decided to settle the case. A settlement fund of $1 million has been set up to pay claims to eligible class members, attorneys' fees and costs, incentive award to the named plaintiff, and the notice and claims administration costs. Heel is also agreeing to make certain changes to the manner in which it labels and advertises the Products. Class members, those who purchased any homeopathic product manufactured or distributed by Heel labeled as "homeopathic" between December 21, 2008 and the Opt-Out Date, as designated by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order, may be eligible for payments under the terms of the settlement and are advised to carefully read the Class Notice as their legal rights may be affected whether they act or not. Class members with proof of purchase may claim up to $150. Class members without a proof of purchase may claim up to $100. The amount class members actually receive may be higher or lower than the amount they claim depending on the number of claims received. To receive money from the settlement, class members must submit a claim form within ninety calendar days of the date the court enters the final judgment approving the settlement. The deadline is forecast to be no earlier than June 5, 2014. Claims can be filed online at the class website, http://www.HeelClassActionSettlement.com/ Class members wishing to exclude themselves from the settlement, comment or object to the settlement, must do so by February 5, 2014. Class members who do nothing, do not receive a share of the settlement and are bound by the Court's decision. This press release is only a summary of the full class action settlement. Detailed information on the terms of the settlement, how to file a claim, object, or exclude yourself and other important information can be obtained by visiting www.HeelClassActionSettlement.com, calling toll-free 1-877-283- 2947, or writing to: Heel Claims Administrator, c/o Classaura, 780 Morosgo Dr. #14103, Atlanta, GA 30324. HOUSE OF SMOKE: Recalls 144,000 lbs. of Meat and Poultry Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- House of Smoke, Inc., a Fort Lupton, Colo. establishment, is recalling approximately 144,000 pounds of meat and poultry products (including bratwurst / brotwurst, fully cooked sausage- type products, and raw fresh products) because of an undeclared allergen and misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products were processed with a releasing agent containing soy lecithin, a known allergen that is not declared on the label. These products are subject to recall: Brotwurst and bratwurst, produced between Jan 24, 2013 and January 24, 2014, packaged in 1-pound packages, 12 per case. These products are included: -- Code 9050 Hickory Smoked Bison Brotwurst little smokies; -- Code 9051 Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst little smokies; -- Code 9100 Hickory Smoked Buffalo Brotwurst; -- Code 9101 Hickory Smoked Buffalo Brotwurst Cheddar & Jalapeno; -- Code 9116 Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst Pork Added; -- Code 9117 Hickory Smoked Elk Brotworst Cheddar & Jalapeno; -- Code 9118 Hickory Smoked Elk Brotwurst With Jalapeno; -- Code 9139 Hickory Smoked Brotwurst; -- Code 9141 Hickory Smoked Coopersmith Brat Wild Boar; -- Code 9144 Hickory Smoked Coopersmith Brat Elk w/ Cheddar; -- Code 9156 Hickory Smoked Boulder Sausage Brotwurst; -- Code 9171 Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Brotwurst; and -- Code 9246 Bison Breakfast Brats 4/1 Fully cooked sausage-type products, produced between Jan. 24, 2013 and Jan. 24, 2014. The products may be packaged in one the following manners: 1-ounce packages, 40 per case; 6-ounce packages, 24 per case; or 1-pound packages, 20 per case. These products are included: -- Code 9052 Hickory Smoked Wild Boar Sausage Little Smokies -- Code 9053 Smoked Rabbit Sausage Rattlesnake & Jalapeno Chardonnay Wine "little smokies" -- Code 9054 Hickory Smoked Andouille Smokies (Pork, Potato, and Onion Product) -- Code 9102 Hickory Smoked Bison Frankfurter -- Code 9103 Hickory Smoked Andouille Sausage (Pork, Potato, and Onion Product) -- Code 9115 Hickory Smoked Duck Sausage w/ Cilantro -- Code 9130 Hickory Smoked Venison Sausage (Pork Added) -- Code 9140 Wild Boar Sausage Hickory Smoked -- Code 9142 Smoked Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine Blueberries, Merlot Wine; -- Code 9145 Hickory Smoked German Style Sausage; -- Code 9184 Hickory Smoked Chorizo; -- Code 9345 Hickory Smoked Norwegian Sausage; -- Hickory Smoked Elk Salami Beef Added; -- Hickory Smoked Elk Sticks Beef Added; -- Hickory Smoked Norwegian Brand Summer Sausage; -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sausage; -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sausage (contains monosodium glutamate); -- Hickory Smoked Beef Sticks; -- Hickory Smoked Buffalo Sausage Beef Added; -- Hickory Smoked Buffalo Sticks Beef Added -- Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Salami (Made With Buffalo, Venison, Elk, Wild Boar, Antelope, and Caribou Added) -- Hickory Smoked Mountain Man Salami (Made With Buffalo, Venison, Elk, Wild Boar, Antelope, and Bear Added); -- Hickory Smoked Venison Sausage Beef Added; -- Hickory Smoked Wild Boar* Sausage *Meat from Feral Swine Raw fresh products, produced between July 24, 2013, and Jan. 24, 2014. The products may be packaged in one these manners: patties/three per pound, in 12 pound cases; 6-pound bags, 12-pound cases; or 12 pound boxes. The following products are included: -- Code 4860 Wild Boar* Meat from Feral Swine Ground Bulk; -- Code 6752 Cold Smoked Ground Turkey Thigh Meat; -- Code 9016 Elk Breakfast Sausage with Apple Slices -- Code 6366 Ground Duck -- Code 9202 Swedish Potato Sausage -- Code 9203 Bison Maple Breakfast Brats 4/1 -- Code 9215 Duck Sausage w/ Cilantro -- Code 9223 Rabbit Sausage Rattlesnake & Jalapeno Chardonnay Wine -- Code 9240 Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine -- Code 9241 Wild Boar Italian Sausage Made from Feral Swine; -- Code 9242 Wild Boar Sausage Made from Feral Swine Blueberries, Merlot Wine; -- Code 9245 Wild Boar Maple Breakfast Sausage; -- Code 9248 Norwegian Breakfast Sausage; -- Code 6751 Ground Turkey Bratwurst; -- Code 13820 Mountain Man Sausage Ground 2/6; -- Code 13721 Buffalo Patties Beef Added 2/1; -- Code 13831 Mountain Man Patties 3/1 The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST 6273" or "P-6273" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection. These products were sold nationwide to distributors, restaurants, and over the Internet. The problem was discovered during a Food Safety Assessment. The firm mistakenly believed the releasing agent was a processing aid that did not need to be declared on the label. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a health care provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify that recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Media outlets and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact James Barsness, President of House of Smoke, at 303-857-2750. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem INFINITY FLOORS: Class Seeks Payment for Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Amancio Mercedes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Infinity Floors, Inc., Ronald Harris and Marci Miller, Case No. 2:14-cv-00101-LDW-WDW (E.D.N.Y., January 9, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff is entitled to, among other things, unpaid overtime, unpaid wages and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Infinity Floors, Inc., is a New York domestic business corporation headquartered in Islandia, New York. The Company owns and operates the Infinity Floors store located in Islandia. The Individual Defendants are owners, officers, directors or managing members of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eliot F. Bloom, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELIOT F. BLOOM, PC Hillside Professional Center, Bldg. B 2 Hillside Avenue Williston Park, NY 11596 Telephone: (516) 739-5300 Facsimile: (516) 739-3202 E-mail: eb.efbesq@gmail.com ISLE OF CAPRI: Settlement of Lawsuit Over Fax Ad Now Final ---------------------------------------------------------- The settlement of a lawsuit filed against Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc. over its alleged sending of unsolicited fax advertisements is now final, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 27, 2013. The company was named as a defendant in a complaint filed in the Circuit Court for Broward County, Florida. The complaint alleged the company sent unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "TCPA"), and sought to certify a class action. The complaint sought statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs and injunction relief. In April 2013, the company entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff and on May 22, 2013, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement and finalized its approval of the settlement in October 2013. Settlement of this matter was finalized during the three months ended October 27, 2013 and payments were within the Company's reserves for this lawsuit. JC PENNEY: Parties Want Texas Securities Lawsuits Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- Various parties filed motions with the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas seeking consolidation of pending securities cases against J. C. Penney Company, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013. From October 1, 2013 through October 24, 2013, four purported class action complaints were filed naming the Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah as defendants, by the following plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division: Marcus (filed October 1, 2013), Erdem (filed October 7, 2013), Murphy (filed October 21, 2013) and Gilbert (filed October 24, 2013). The Marcus, Erdem and Gilbert complaints are purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquiredthe company's common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013. The complaint filed by Murphy is purportedly brought on behalf of persons who acquiredthe company's securities, including common stock, debt securities, and purchasers of call and sellers of put options, during the period from May 16, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and also names William A. Ackman, a former member of the Board of Directors, as a defendant. The complaints allege claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs claim that the defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects that causedthe company's common stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The complaints seek class certification, unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just and proper. On December 2, 2013, various parties filed motions with the court seeking consolidation of the pending cases and appointment of lead plaintiff. The company believes these class action complaints are without merit and the company intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, the company currently believes that the final resolution of these actions will not have a material adverse effect onthe company's results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. JOS A BANK: Accord in Calif. Labor Lawsuit Wins Final Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara granted final approval to the settlement of a labor suit filed against Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013. On March 16, 2012, Neil Holmes, a former employee of the Company, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, filed a Complaint (the "Holmes Complaint") against the Company in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 112CV220780, alleging various violations of California wage and labor laws. The Holmes Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, injunctive relief, monetary damages, penalties, restitution, other equitable relief, interest, attorney's fees and costs. As described inthe company's prior Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, the parties entered into a settlement agreement on April 19, 2013. On September 13, 2013, the Court issued an Order and Judgment granting, among other things, final approval of a class action settlement. The settlement amount had been previously recorded by the Company. JOS A BANK: Plaintiff in "Camasta" Appeals Dismissal of Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Edward Camasta has appealed the dismissal of his First Amended Class Action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. over the company's advertising to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013. On August 29, 2012, Patrick Edward Camasta, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons, filed a putative class action complaint (the "Original Camasta Complaint") against the Company in the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois (Case No. 12CH4405). The Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (Case No. 12 CV 7782). The Original Camasta Complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's pattern and practice of advertising its normal retail prices as temporary price reductions violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Original Camasta Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as a class action, actual and punitive damages, attorney fees and costs and injunctive relief. On February 7, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the Original Camasta Complaint in its entirety, without prejudice. On March 1, 2013, Camasta filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in the said United States District Court making substantially the same allegations as in the Original Camasta Complaint. On July 25, 2013, upon the motion of the Company, the said U.S. District Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order dismissing the First Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. Camasta has appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. JOS A BANK: Faces Lawsuit Over "Deceptive" Sales Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. faces a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756) over its use of the words "free" and "regular price", according to the company's Dec. 5, 2013, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013. On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint (the "Johnson Complaint") against the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756). The Johnson Complaint alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing practices by the Company relating to its use of the words "free" and "regular price". The Johnson Complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including attorneys' fees). The company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously. (The law firm which filed the Johnson Complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs is one of the law firms which filed the "Schneider Complaint," which is discussed in the company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 4, 2013. On July 24, 2013, the Schneider Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Approximately one week later, the substantially similar Johnson Complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.) JP MORGAN: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Maes" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In DANIEL MAES, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JP MORGAN CHASE, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12CV782-JAH (MDD), (S.D. Cal.), before the Court is a joint motion for determination of a discovery dispute filed on December 24, 2013. Through certain Interrogatories and Requests for Production, the Plaintiff seeks the employment records of 16 non-parties who are or were employed by Defendants. Plaintiff claims that these individuals potentially are "aggrieved employees" under California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). The plaintiff has chosen not to seek certification of a class under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. The Defendants object on the grounds that the Plaintiff may not maintain a PAGA representative action in this Court without compliance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and has not made a prima facie showing that the identified employees are potentially aggrieved. The Defendants assert that many of the identified individuals cannot be "aggrieved" under the law. Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin granted in part and denied in part the motion saying the Plaintiff may have the requested discovery regarding any of the 16 identified individuals who are or were employed by Defendants as Business Analysts or Information Analysts in California from February 3, 2011 to date. The Court found that to the extent any of these individuals whose employment records may be discovered executed general releases as part of a severance agreement or agreed to binding arbitration regarding their employment claims, those matters are better considered in the context of whether their claims can be maintained in this action and should not, in this case, preclude discovery. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks to broaden the represented aggrieved employees beyond the 16 he has identified, the Court will require a showing that such employees are likely to be aggrieved and are within the group identified by Plaintiff in his First Amended Complaint, he said. A copy of the District Court's January 10, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/LAxshDfrom Leagle.com. KENISHA WIGGINS: "Leftridge" Suit Removed to Conn. District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit titled Leftridge v. Wiggins, Case No. KNO-FA04-0128, was removed from the Superior Court, New London, to the U.S. District Court United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00026-RNC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is not represented by any law firm. LIFE PARTNERS: "Turnbow" Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- On December 3, 2013, Life Partners Holdings, Inc. issued a press release announcing that the plaintiffs in the case styled Turnbow v. Life Partners, Inc. (Case No. 3:11-CV-1030-M, 2013 U.S. Dist.Ct., N.D. Tex., Dallas Div.) have voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit. The dismissal follows the court's denial of a motion for class certification in the lawsuit, according to the company's Dec. 4, 2013, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. LIMAN TRADING: Sued by Server Over Unpaid Minimum and OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Oner Yilmaz, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Liman Trading, Inc. d/b/a Liman Restaurant, Liman Restaurant, Inc. and Yusuf Basusta, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-00163-NGG-RML (E.D.N.Y., January 9, 2014) is brought on behalf of a class of all employees working as servers, bussers, runners, bartenders and kitchen staff for the Defendants in New York. The Plaintiff is a former server at the Defendants' Turkish Restaurant specializing in seafood located in the Sheepshead Bay neighborhood of Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff brings the action to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed to him pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff also brings claims for unpaid spread of hours premiums and unlawful misappropriation of gratuities pursuant to the NYLL. Liman Trading, Inc. d/b/a Liman Restaurant is an active New York corporation with its principle place of business in Brooklyn, New York. Liman Restaurant, Inc. is an active New York corporation also based in Brooklyn. Yusuf Basusta is the owner and president of the Corporate Defendants, who sets their payroll policies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com graham@peltonlaw.com LOUIS VUITTON: Settlement in "Morey" Suit Gets Final Court Okay --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Q. Hayes granted final approval of a class action settlement in the case captioned DEANNA MOREY, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS VUITTON NORTH AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, CASE NO. 11CV1517 WQH (BLM), (S.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff in this case alleged that Louis Vuitton violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, Cal. Civ. Code Section 1747.08, by requesting and recording personal identification information when shoppers used a credit card for purchases at Louis Vuitton retail stores. The settlement provides Class members with Merchandise Certificates valued at approximately $1 million. Divided by the 23,876 Class members, the settlement provides a $41.00 Merchandise Certificate to each Class member. Given the risk, expense, complexity, and duration of further litigation, the Court found that the amount and terms of the proposed monetary benefits to the Class members are fair and reasonable. The court defined the certified Class as: All persons who made a credit card purchase at a LVNA store in California during the period of time from May 20, 2010 to January 28, 2013 and who were requested to and did provide personal identification information, excluding transactions where such personal identification information was collected for a special purpose incidental but related to the individual credit card transaction, including information relating to shipping, delivery, servicing or repairing of the purchased merchandise or for special orders or paid holds. The Court found that Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees and expenses is fair, reasonable, and appropriate and therefore awarded fees and expenses to Class Counsel in the aggregate amount of $375,000 and an incentive award to Plaintiff in the amount of $5,000 to be paid by the Defendant in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court dismissed with prejudice the action and the claims alleged therein. A copy of the District Court's January 9, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/OtPYwbfrom Leagle.com. MAZDA MOTOR: Court Dismisses "Gordon" TCCWNA Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert B. Kugler dismissed the case captioned THOMAS GORDON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAZDA MOTOR CORPORATION and MAZDA NORTH AMERICAN OPERATIONS, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-3142 (RBK/AMD), (D. N.J.). This matter comes before the Court on a motion by Defendant Mazda Motor of America, Inc. d/b/a Mazda North American Operations to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The complaint is a putative class action alleging a violation of New Jersey's Truth in Contract Consumer Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-1, et seq. (TCCWNA). The Plaintiff alleged that in October 2008, he purchased a 2008 Mazda CX-9 from a Mazda dealership in Turnersville, New Jersey. The Defendant, through the dealer, provided Plaintiff with the following notice at the time of the purchase: "IMPORTANT: If this vehicle is defective, you may be entitled under New Jersey law to a refund of the purchase price or your lease payments. For complete information regarding your rights and remedies under the relevant law, please contact the New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, Lemon Law Unit, at 1100 Raymond Boulevard, Newark, New Jersey, 07102, telephone number: (973) 504-6226." In order to seek these remedies, you must first give written notice to MAZDA, by certified mail, of the nonconforming condition, at the following address and provide MAZDA with a final opportunity to repair it. Judge Kugler held that the notice did not violate the Plaintiff's clearly established legal rights under the Lemon Law, therefore his TCCWNA claim fails as a matter of law. A copy of the District Court's January 13, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/g4nygvfrom Leagle.com. MEDICENTRES CANADA: Faces $11-Mil. Privacy Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- The Edmonton Journal reports that an $11-million class action lawsuit has been filed over a missing laptop containing personal and health information of 620,000 Albertans. Charmaine L'Hirondelle is the representative plaintiff of the statement of claim, filed on Jan. 28, which alleges a breach of information could result in identity theft, land titles and mortgage fraud, and break and entry. None of the allegations have been proven in court. In late September, an unencrypted laptop of an IT consultant for Medicentres Canada went missing. The laptop held a database of personal information -- names, dates of birth, health card numbers, diagnostic and billing codes -- for 620,000 patients who visited Medicentre clinics in Edmonton and Calgary between May 2011 and September 2013. The lawsuit alleges Medicentres failed to protect private information and was negligent in taking more than four months to inform the public about the privacy breach. Medicentres has not filed a statement of defense. MEDTRONIC INC: Pretrial Underway in Defibrillation Leads Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Pretrial proceedings are underway in the Sprint Fidelis Product Liability Claims against Medtronic, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 25, 2013. In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries allegedly related to the Company's Sprint Fidelis family of defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with this matter because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter. MEDTRONIC INC: Faces Suit Over Statements Regarding INFUSE ---------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic, Inc. faces class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota over public statements it made regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product, according to the company's Dec. 3, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 25, 2013. West Virginia Pipe Trades and Phil Pace, on June 27 and July 3, 2013, respectively, filed putative class action complaints against Medtronic and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading public statements regarding the INFUSE Bone Graft product during the period of December 8, 2010 through August 3, 2011. The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in connection with these matters because any potential loss is not currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP. Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from these matters. MICROSOFT CORP: Judge Denies Class Certification in Text-Spam Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Lance Duroni and Matt Fair, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge on Jan. 28 refused to certify a class of consumers accusing Microsoft Corp. of sticking them with the bill for unsolicited text messages advertising its Xbox video game console, ruling that handling the case as a class action would likely prove unmanageable. Plaintiff Neil Smith failed to show that a class action would be better than other methods for handling his claims, coming up short on the so-called "superiority" requirement for class certification, U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino said. The judge cited "overwhelming concerns" that the suit would be unwieldy and that it would be impossible for Mr. Smith to obtain the necessary evidence to support his claims. Mr. Smith sued Microsoft in August 2011, alleging the Xbox manufacturer's texts, which consumers may have had to pay their carriers for receiving, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Starting in at least 2008, according to the suit, Microsoft sent wireless spam to cellphones around the country owned by prospective Xbox customers. Mr. Smith received a transmission identified only as "88202" with a text message advertising "Free Xbox Games Content!" the complaint said. In the Jan. 28 order, Judge Sammartino noted that Come&Stay Inc., the advertising company that sent the offending texts on behalf of Microsoft, had shuttered its U.S. operations in 2009 and dissolved in 2012. Without C&S' records, Mr. Smith won't be able to prove that the 55,000 members of the proposed class didn't provide their consent to receive the texts -- a basic element of any TCPA claim, the judge said. This dearth of records would also prevent Mr. Smith from identifying and notifying individual class members, according to the order, as he only has a list of numbers to which the texts were sent and doesn't know who actually received them. Since the texts were sent more than five years ago, class members would likely not remember having received them, the judge said. In fact, the only point weighing in favor of class certification was that no other lawsuits over the Xbox texts had been filed against Microsoft, according to the judge, who called this factor "a weak one." Mr. Smith is represented by Sean Patrick Reis -- sreis@edelson.com -- of Edelson McGuire LLP. Microsoft is represented by Charles B. Casper -- ccasper@mmwr.com -- of Montgomery McCracken Walker & Rhoads LLP and Thomas W. McNamara -- mcnamarat@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard Spahr LLP. The case is Smith v. Microsoft Corp., case number 3:11-cv-01958, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Suit in Pa. Over Personal Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. National Football League and NFL Properties, LLC, Successor-in-Interest to NFL Properties, Inc., Case No. 2:14- cv-00029-AB (E.D. Pa., January 6, 2014) asserts personal injury claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 550 Broad St., Suite 920 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com - and - Scott A. George, Esq. Terrianne A. Benedetto, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 553-7982 E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com TBenedetto@seegerweiss.com NEW JERSEY, USA: Faces "Galicki" Suit Over Fort Lee Traffic Jam --------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Galicki, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. State of New Jersey, et al., Case No. 2:14- cv-00169-KM-MCA (D.N.J., January 9, 2014) seeks redress for the alleged purposeful, intentional, "callously indifferent" phrase used by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at his January 9, 2014 press conference when describing the actions of Defendants Bridget Anne Kelly, David Wildstein and Bill Baroni and other individuals involved in a political scheme. On September 9, 2013, through September 13, 2013, according to the complaint, Defendants Kelly, Wildstein and Baroni orchestrated, conspired and implemented a political agenda through acts of official misconduct that would back up traffic and clog local roads in and common scheme to close lanes leading to the dedicated toll booths for the George Washington Bridge, which political agenda was designed and intended to cause extreme and heavy traffic delays heading to the Borough of Fort Lee, New Jersey, and surrounding areas. The Plaintiffs assert that they were trapped on local roads for a long period of time and, eventually, arrived to work later than they would have because of the Defendants' alleged actions. The state of New Jersey is a duly constituted governmental entity organized under the Constitution of the United States of America. The other Defendants include the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey; New Jersey Governor Christopher James "Chris" Christie; Bridget Anne Kelly, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Governor's office; David Wildstein, the Director of Interstate Capital Projects of the Port Authority, and a childhood and close friend of Governor Christie; and Bill Baroni, the Deputy Director of the Port Authority and a close personal friend of Governor Christie. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rosemarie Arnold LAW OFFICES OF ROSEMARIE ARNOLD 1386 Palisade Avenue Fort Lee, NJ 07024 Telephone: (201) 461-1116 E-mail: rarnold@rosemariearnold.com NEW YORK: Bid to Stay Suit vs. OTDA and HRA Denied -------------------------------------------------- Judge Lucy Billings of the Supreme Court, New York County denied a motion for a stay of the action captioned QUANISHA SMITH and ANTHONY COLAVECCHIO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KRISTIN M. PROUD, as Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, and ROBERT DOAR, as Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 400903/2010, MOTION SEQ. NO. 005, 2013 NY Slip Op 33509(U). Plaintiffs are public assistance recipients who claim the notices issued by the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) when it charges that they have not complied with work requirements violate the New York Social Services Law (SSL), its implementing regulations, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff class members who receive assistance from the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program further claim that the notices violate federal regulations. "The State defendant nonetheless has sought to stay the entire action, when plaintiffs only have been permitted to amend their complaint, defendants have not yet even answered that complaint, no disclosure has yet been conducted, and no dispositive motions even are pending," Judge Billings held. "For this reason alone, when this action is far short of a dispositive determination, the broad relief State defendant seeks is unwarranted." According to the Court, a stay would prevent the tens of thousands of plaintiff class members from proceeding toward a judicial determination of their rights and defendants' duties on the merits and any relief to which all these plaintiffs may be entitled: rights, duties, and relief that affect the assistance on which plaintiffs rely for their basic subsistence. A copy of the Supreme Court's January 8, 2014 Decision and Order is available at http://is.gd/9ONY6Vfrom Leagle.com. Lester Helfman Esq., Legal Aid Society, 111 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201; and Susan Jacquemot Esq. -- sjacquemot@kramerlevin.com -- Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, 1177 6th Avenue, New York, NY 10036, for Plaintiffs. Stephanie A. Feinberg, Special Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York City Human Resources Administration, 180 Water Street, New York, NY 10038, for Defendant Doar. Domenic Turziano, Assistant Attorney General, 120 Broadway, New York, NY 10271, for Defendant Proud. NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Consumer Privacy Laws, "Kelly" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Troy Kelly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00195-DSF-SH (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) results from the Company's alleged illegal actions in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act; thereby, invading his privacy. Northland Group, Inc. is a corporation whose primary corporate address is in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Company conducted business in the state of California and in the county of Los Angeles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 369 S. Doheny Drive, Suite 415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Still Faces Securities Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------------- In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Litigation continues in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, according to the company's Dec. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 31, 2013. On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and three of its executives, one of whom is a director. All of the complaints alleged that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's business and financial results, in particular regarding the use of its imaging sensors in Apple Inc.'s iPhone. These actions have been consolidated as In re OmniVision Technologies, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-5235 (RMW) (the "Securities Case"). On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 27, 2010 and November 6, 2011, seeking unspecified damages. On March 29, 2013, the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. No trial date has been set. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this action and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate the loss or a range of possible loss. PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Labor Suit in Calif. Court in Discovery Phase -------------------------------------------------------------- A labor suit filed against Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange is in the discovery phase, according to the company's Dec. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013. Tamara Beeney, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corporation, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case No. 30-2011-00459346- CU-OE-CXC. On March 18, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks class certification, the appointment of the plaintiff as class representative, and an unspecified amount of damages and penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case. PILOT FLYING J: Court Narrows Claims in Wright Trans Suit --------------------------------------------------------- WRIGHT TRANSPORTATION, INC., etc., Plaintiff, v. PILOT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION 13-0352-WS-N, (S.D. Ala.) is before the Court on the defendants' motions to dismiss. The plaintiff is a long-haul trucking company with its principal place of business in Mobile County. The defendant Pilot Travel Centers, LLC owns and operates a network of truck stops, travel centers and travel plazas throughout the United States. The complaint sets forth these claims against the designated defendants: * Count One RICO All but Pilot Flying J * Count Two RICO conspiracy All but Pilot Flying J * Count Three Breach of contract Pilot Flying J * Count Four Deceptive trade practices All defendants * Count Five Unjust enrichment All defendants * Count Six Fraudulent misrepresentation All defendants * Count Seven Negligent misrepresentation All defendants * Count Eight Suppression All defendants The complaint also seeks class certification. The defendants have sought dismissal of the complaint in its entirety. In a January 9, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/gPRG84from Leagle.com, District Judge William H. Steele granted the defendants' motions to dismiss with respect to Counts One, Two, Four, Six, Seven and Eight; granted as to Pilot Flying J only with respect to Count Five; and granted as to all class claims. These claims, counts and portions of counts are dismissed, he said. As to Counts One, Two, Six, Seven and Eight, dismissal is with leave to amend. In all other respects, the motions to dismiss are denied, Judge Steel concluded. PROCOLLECT INC: Sued for Contacting Customers Without Consent ------------------------------------------------------------- James Gusman, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ProCollect, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00192-DMG-MRW (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) accuses the Company of negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on his cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Mr. Gusman contends that he did not provide express consent to the Defendant to receive calls on his phone. Procollect, Inc., is a corporation based in Dallas, Texas. The Company conducted business in the state of California and in the county of Los Angeles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.e. 369 S. Doheny Dr., #415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: NBontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com - and - Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com PURE ENCAPSULATIONS: Sued Over Betaine HCl Pepsin Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------- Troy Kelly, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pure Encapsulations Inc. a/k/a Pure Encapsulations, Case No. 8:14-cv-00215 (C.D. Cal., January 9, 2014) arises from the Company's alleged false promotion of its Betaine HCl Pepsin product that it is "naturally derived from sugar beets." The Plaintiff contends that it is a scientific certainty that betaine hydrochloride can only be created synthetically and is not naturally derived, unlike betaine anhydrous, which may be derived from natural food sources such as sugar beets. The Plaintiff adds that the nationwide advertising, promotion, marketing, packaging and selling of Betaine constitutes a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and California's False Advertising Law. Pure Encapsulations Inc. was incorporated in Delaware and is headquartered in Massachusetts. The Company is a formulator, manufacturer and distributor of a variety of health supplements, including Betaine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Jason A. Ibey, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com jason@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 30 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, District of Massachusetts, and docketed under 14-cv-10225 is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Sarepta between July 24, 2013 and November 12, 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 Sarepta securities during the Class Period, you have until March 28, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Sarepta is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the discovery and development of RNA-based therapeutics for the treatment of rare and infectious diseases. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made materially false or misleading statements concerning, among other things, (1) the prospects of the FDA's acceptance for consideration of a New Drug Application ("NDA") for eteplirse, Sarepta's pharmaceutical to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy, based on its Phase IIb study data set, and (2) the significance of that data set. On November 11, 2013, shares of Sarepta declined sharply after the Company announced that it was told by the Food and Drug Administration, (FDA) not to file for accelerated approval of eteplirsen. On this news, shares of Sarepta fell $23.40 per share, more than 64.00%, on intraday trading, to a price of $13.16 on November 11, 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. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Court Dismisses GTA Online Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- James Fudge, writing for GamePolitics, reports that a U.S. District Court in California has dismissed a class action lawsuit that tried to take Take-Two Interactive and its subsidiary Rockstar Games to task for the delayed launch of the multiplayer component for Grand Theft Auto V - Grand Theft Auto Online. The lawsuit (McMahon v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. 5:13-cv-02032-VAP-SP) was filed on October 4 by Bruce McMahon and Christopher Bengtson, but later moved to the federal court in mid-November. The plaintiffs claimed in their complaint that GTA V launched on September 17, 2013 at a "premium" price, dependent on the fact that it contained an online multiplayer component that was to be "available immediately." This, they claimed was a violation by Take-Two subsidiary Rockstar Games of California law that -- in general terms -- prohibited "unlawful," "unfair," or "fraudulent" business practices including false advertising and other statutes related to consumer protection. The lawsuit was in relation to the delay of the online multiplayer component for the game, which didn't launch until Oct. 1. The online portion of the game -- made available to anyone who purchased GTA V-- had its fair share of technical problems at launch to be sure, but it ultimately went online two weeks after the game was released on Xbox 360 and PS3. On Jan. 29 U.S. District Court Judge Virginia A. Phillips disagreed with the plaintiff's arguments and granted Take-Two's motion to dismiss the case. In her decision Judge Phillips referred to the packaging for the game, which did not contain language about multiplayer being available "immediately." The court also took into account disclaimers on the packaging, which warned consumers that online play and other special features in the game "may not be available to all users." The court found these disclaimers to be sufficient enough to alert potential customers purchasing the game that online game play might not be immediately available. TRUITT BROTHERS: Recalls 1.77MM lbs. of Pasta & Ground Beef ----------------------------------------------------------- Truitt Brothers Inc., an East Bernstadt, Ky. establishment is recalling approximately 1.77 million pounds of shelf-stable pasta and ground beef products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products are formulated with hydrolyzed soy protein and dried soy sauce, known allergens, which are not declared on some labels. The products subject to recall includes: -- 3.3-pound cases containing six, 9-ounce microwaveable containers of "Kraft Velveeta Cheesy Skillets SINGLES - ULTIMATE CHEESEBURGER MAC" [a macaroni & cheese product] with a Used By/Sell By date code of " March 02, 2014 - Oct 23, 2014." Identifying UPC code is 2100004329, and case codes are: 00210000432900, 00210000432910, 00210000432925, 00210000464000 and 00210000465100. The products were produced between May 6, 2013 and Jan. 16, 2014 and shipped to Kraft Foods distribution centers and retail locations nationwide. No other Velveeta or Kraft products are impacted by this recall. The problem was discovered during a recent routine quality check conducted by the company, which then contacted FSIS. The company believes the problem occurred when a label supplier inadvertently mixed labels with incorrect ingredient lines with labels containing correct ingredient information. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact the Kraft Foods Consumer Relations Center at 1-800-396-5512. Media with questions about the recall should contact Joyce Hodel, the company's corporate affairs director, at 847-646-4538. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. WALKER'S FOOD: Recalls 2,446 Lbs. of Chicken Salad Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Walker's Food Products Co., a North Kansas City, Mo., establishment, is recalling approximately 2,446 pounds of chicken salad products because of misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products are formulated with a soy protein concentrate, a known allergen, which was not properly declared on the labels. The products subject to recall include: -- 5-lb. plastic tubs of "Walker's All White Chunky Chicken Salad" with packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and Jan. 23, 2014 and use by/sell by dates between July 26, 2013 and March 14, 2014 and sold to wholesale locations in Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. -- 1-lb. plastic tubs of "Walker's All White Chunky Chicken Salad" with packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and Jan. 23, 2014 and use by/sell by dates between July 26, 2013 and March 14, 2014, and sold to retail locations in Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. -- 5-lb. tubs of "Walker's White Chicken Salad Florentine" with packaging dates between June 6, 2013 and Jan. 27, 2014 and use by/sell by dates between July 14, 2013 and March 6, 2014 and sold to wholesale locations for distribution in Kansas and Missouri. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P- 13335" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection. The problem was discovered by an FSIS in-plant inspector during a routine label review. The problem occurred after a change in product suppliers without a corresponding change in label. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. For individuals allergic to soy, consumption of soy protein concentrate presents a reasonable probability of serious health consequences or death. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact James Daskaleas at (816) 472-8121, ext. 15. Media with questions about the recall should contact Mike Stinson at (816) 472-8121, ext. 12. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. WEATHERFORD INT'L: Settles Investor Class Action for $52.5MM ------------------------------------------------------------ Kurt Orzeck and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, report that Weatherford International Ltd. and several executives have agreed to pay $52.5 million to settle an investor class action over tax miscalculations by the energy equipment company that overstated earnings by about $500 million, plaintiffs' attorneys told a New York federal judge on Jan. 29. An attorney for the investors, who argued the company violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by concealing faulty accounting practices that ultimately caused its stock to tank 11 percent, told Law360 late on Jan. 29 that the proposed deal will resolve all their remaining claims. The proposed settlement class -- including court-appointed lead plaintiff American Federation of Musicians and Employers' Pension Fund, and named plaintiff Georgia Firefighters' Pension Fund -- consists of all investors, believed to be numbered in the thousands, who bought Weatherford stock between April 25, 2007, and Mar. 1, 2011. Darren J. Check -- dcheck@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, which is representing the plaintiffs, told Law360 that they look forward to presenting the deal to the court and finalizing it. The investors first brought the suit in March 2011 against the energy equipment company, Weatherford CEO Bernard Duroc-Danner, former Chief Accounting Officer and Vice President of Accounting Jessica Abarca, and former Vice President and Principal Accounting Officer Charles Geer Jr. The suit also named Ernst & Young as a defendant, although U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan tossed the investors' claims against the accounting firm in November 2012. He found, among other things, that the investors' reliance on a series of supposed red flags to support an inference of scienter regarding Ernst & Young's opinions about Weatherford's compliance with generally accepted accounting principles didn't hold up. In the same ruling, Judge Kaplan also determined that the plaintiffs didn't adequately plead that Weatherford and the executives had a motive to commit fraud. He rejected the investors' argument that discretionary bonuses tied to performance targets provided the executives with motive. The judge also rejected another of the plaintiffs' motive theories, which stated that the fraud inflated Weatherford's stock price, allowing it to fund an "aggressive growth strategy," while not becoming an acquisition target itself. The investors noted several acquisitions Weatherford conducted from 2007 to 2009 and further pointed to the company's 2009 annual report, which stated that Weatherford funded its 2008 and 2009 acquisitions through the issuance of $287 million in stock. However, Judge Kaplan refused to throw out claims brought against Weatherford and former vice president and chief financial officer Andrew Becnel regarding statements made about the supposed effectiveness of Weatherford's internal controls, ruling that the investors had sufficiently pled a knowledge of wrongdoing. In light of Mr. Becnel's personal involvement in designing and implementing internal controls, as well as the "stark realities" that were later revealed about the inadequacies of the controls, the judge found the investors adequately alleged scienter against the executive. The judge also let stand claims brought under section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 against the executives. The filing also sought certification of the class, saying it met all the requirements. The plaintiffs are represented by Eli R. Greenstein -- egreenstein@ktmc.com -- Stacey M. Kaplan -- skaplan@ktmc.com -- Jennifer L. Joost, Stuart L. Berman -- sberman@ktmc.com --David Kessler -- dkessler@ktmc.com -- and Darren J. Check of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP and Curtis V. Trinko of the Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP. Weatherford and the executives are represented by Peter A. Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com -- Kevin H. Metz -- kevin.metz@lw.com -- Sarah A. Greenfield -- sarah.greenfield@lw.com -- and Colleen C. Smith -- colleen.smith@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins. The case is Mike Dobina et al. v. Weatherford International Ltd. et al., case number 1:11-cv-01646, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. WET SEAL: Settles Suit Filed in Cal. Court by Former Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- The Wet Seal, Inc. entered into confidential settlement agreements that resolved a labor suit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, according to the company's Dec. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013. On September 29, 2008, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed and paid by the Company from September 29, 2004 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs sought reimbursement for alleged uniform and business expenses, injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties, interest, and attorney's fees and costs. On August 16, 2011, the court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiffs appealed and, on October 12, 2012, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling. On January 23, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied Plaintiffs' petition for review. On February 4, 2013, the Court of Appeals issued an order to send the case back to the trial court to proceed on behalf of only the three named plaintiffs and not as a class action. In October 2013, the Company entered into confidential settlement agreements that resolved the matter. On April 24, 2009, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") requested information and records relevant to several charges of discrimination by the Company against employees of the Company. In the course of this investigation, the EEOC served a subpoena seeking information related to current and former employees throughout the United States. On November 14, 2012, the Company reached resolution with the EEOC and several of the individual complainants that concluded the EEOC's investigation. Between November 2012 and March 2013, the Company paid approximately $0.8 million to settle with individual complainants. The Company also agreed to programmatic initiatives that are consistent with the Company's diversity plan. The Company will report progress on its initiatives and results periodically to the EEOC. Claimants with whom the Company did not enter into a settlement had an opportunity to bring a private lawsuit within ninety days from the date they received their November 26, 2012 right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, however, that time period is tolled for those individuals who are putative class members in a race discrimination class action filed on July 12, 2012 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California with respect to any race discrimination claims they have that are within the scope of the putative class action. On December 12, 2012, the EEOC issued a "for cause" finding related to certain allegations made by one complainant, who is the lead plaintiff in the class action. WET SEAL: Appeals Denial of Arbitration in Cal. Labor Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The Wet Seal, Inc. filed a notice of appeal against an Order denying a motion to compel arbitration in a labor suit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, according to the company's Dec. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013. On October 27, 2011, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former employees who were employed in California during the time period from October 27, 2007 through the present. The Company was named as a defendant. Plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint alleges various violations under the State of California Labor Code and the State of California Business and Professions Code. On March 28, 2012, the court entered an Order denying the Company's motion to compel arbitration. On September 21, 2012, the Company filed a notice of appeal that is currently pending. WET SEAL: Settlement of Discrimination Suit Up for Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- A final approval hearing was held for a settlement reached in a suit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of certain current and former African American retail store employees of The Wet Seal, Inc., according to the company's Dec. 4, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 2, 2013. On July 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of certain of the Company's current and former African American retail store employees. The Company was named as a defendant. The complaint alleged various violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, including allegations that the Company engaged in disparate treatment discrimination of those African American current and former employees in promotion to management positions and against African American store management employees with respect to compensation and termination from 2008 through the present. Plaintiffs also alleged retaliation. Plaintiffs also sought reinstatement or instatement of Plaintiffs and class members to their alleged rightful employment positions, lost pay and benefits allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs and class members, compensatory damages for emotional distress, front pay, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and interest. On May 8, 2013, the Company and Class Representatives filed papers memorializing an amicable resolution to the case pending final court approval. The Settlement Agreement provides for a cash payment of $7.5 million and also includes programmatic relief under which the Company agrees to post open positions, implement new selection criteria and interview protocols, revamp its annual performance reviews and compensation structure, add regional human resource directors, implement more diversity and inclusion communications and training for field and corporate office employees, and enhance its investigations training and processes. The Company has also reflected its commitment to use diverse models in its marketing and to partnerships with organizations dedicated to the advancement and well-being of African Americans and other diverse groups. On June 12, 2013, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement and in June 2013 the Company issued payment to the settlement administrator for $7.5 million. The final approval hearing was held on November 18, 2013 and a decision is currently pending. ********* 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 G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2014. 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 * * *