/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140220.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, February 20, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 36 Headlines AB&I FOUNDRY: Sued by Buyers of Cast Iron Soil Pipe & Fittings ABSOLUTE COLLECTIONS: Sued for Fair Debt Collection Act Violation AFFINION GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices ANNY B. VERA: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages & Damages AT&T INC: Court Awards $5.5MM in Atty. Fees in "Nwabueze" Suit AVANT BUSINESS: "Dolinski" Suit Certified as Collective Action AVATAR TECHNOLOGIES: "Clark" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend BEBE STORES: Illegally & Negligently Contacted Class, Suit Claims CHARLESTON COLLISION: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Suit Says COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA EL RANCHO: Judge Recommends Denial of Class De-Certification Bid EQUAL ENERGY: Being Sold to Petroflow for Too Little, Suit Claims FIRST HORIZON: Faces "Hoilien" Class Action Suit in California FRUITLAND PARK, FL: Feb. 28 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set FXR FACTORY: Recalls Children's Outerwear With Neck Drawstrings GN&RC INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Nail Technician Says GNC CORP: "Calvert" Suit Transferred From N.D. Ohio to Maryland GNC CORP: "Lerma" Suit Transferred From California to Maryland GOGO INC: "Stewart" Antitrust Suit Survives Dismissal Bid GOOGLE INC: Bid for Review of Ruling in Gmail Litigation Tossed HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Directed to Produce Docs for "Webb" TCPA Suit IBERIA LINEAS: Judge Junks Breach-of-Contract Class Action INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Violating Racketeering Act in California INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act in Cal. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in California Over Risperdal Drug JCORP INC: Recalls Children's Clothing With Neck Drawstring KAWASAKI USA: Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles Due to Fuel Leak KENTUCKY: Flemingsburg to Join Class Action Over Loan LCD PANEL COS: Siskinds, Fanshawe College Settle Price-Fixing Suit LIME ENERGY: May 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MADISON SQUARE: Service Employees' Class Action Can Proceed MARIN COUNTY, CA: April 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Class Suit in N.D. Illinois MONTICELLO, MN: Schiff Hardin & Oppenheimer File Class Action NEW WORLD: Recalls Master Kong Noodles Due to Undeclared Egg NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: "Conrad" Suit Transferred to Maryland NUTRIOM LLC: Recalls 226,710 Lbs. of Processed Egg Products ON ASSIGNMENT INC: Accused of FLSA Violations in Pennsylvania PFIZER INC: Sued for Damages Resulting From Use of Lipitor RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 8MM Lbs. of Unwholesome Meat Products RONA INC: Recalls UBERHAUS Wall-Mounted Convection Heater RR2 INC: Sued for Violating FLSA by Failing to Pay Overtime Wage SADER POWER: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Trade Practices SAMIRA ENTERPRISE: Never Paid Extra Halftime OT Rate, Suit Says SANDALWOOD BAR: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum & Overtime Wages SANTA FE NATURAL: Removed "Coles" Class Suit to C.D. California SEWERAGE & WATER: "Crutchfield" Suit to Proceed to Discovery SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: "Dick" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK STARPAC MEAT: Recalls Various Meat Products Due to Undeclared Soy TARGET CORP: Faces "McLarry" Suit in California Over Breach TARGET CORP: Faces "Pietanza" Suit in New York Over Data Breach TARGET CORP: Faces "Sutton" Suit in Washington Over Data Breach TOKYO ELECTRIC: American Veterans File Class Action Over Radiation TROPHY FOODS: Recalls Archer Farms Hickory Smoked Almonds UNILEVER PLC: Settles Class Action Over Suave Product for $10.2MM UNITED STATES: Senator Rand Paul Files Class Action v. NSA WELLS FARGO: Court Narrows Claims in "Cannon" Class Action VECTOR MARKETING: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Upholds $9.2MM Attorneys Fee Award * Line of Baby Walkers, Children's Coats Among Recalled Products ********* AB&I FOUNDRY: Sued by Buyers of Cast Iron Soil Pipe & Fittings -------------------------------------------------------------- Hi Line Supply Company Ltd., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. AB&I Foundry, Tyler Pipe Company, McWane, Inc., Charlotte Pipe and Foundry Company, and Randolph Holding Company LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00265-EMC (N.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) is an antitrust class action brought on behalf of all persons and entities, who purchased cast iron soil pipe and fittings directly from the Defendants within the United States, from January 1, 2006, to the present. The Defendants are the primary sellers and manufacturers of CISP in the United States throughout the Class Period, controlling over 90% of the CISP market. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants held and continue to hold monopoly power over the CISP market in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce L. Simon, Esq. Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq. Michael H. Pearson, Esq. PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433 9000 Facsimile: (415) 433-9008 E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com asheanin@pswlaw.com mpearson@pswlaw.com - and - James B. Sloan, Esq. JAMES B. SLOAN LTD. One Westminster Place Lake Forest, IL 60045 Telephone: (312) 315-5315 Facsimile: (312) 234-6315 E-mail: jsloan@sloanlegal.com - and - Sean F. Sloan, Esq. David A. Baugh, Esq. BAUGH, DALTON, CARLSON, & RYAN, LLC 135 South LaSalle Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 863-3685 Facsimile: (312) 759-0402 E-mail: ssloan@baughdaltonlaw.com dbaugh@baughdaltonlaw.com - and - M. Michael Waters, Esq. VONACHEN, LAWLESS, TRAGER & SLEVIN 456 Fulton Street, Suite 425 Peoria, IL 61602 Telephone: (309) 676-8986 Facsimile: (309) 676-4130 E-mail: mwaters@vltslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kirsten Marie Ferguson, Esq. Daniel Murray Wall, Esq. Timothy L. O'Mara, Esq. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 505 Montgomery St., Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 646-7823 Facsimile: (415) 395-8095 E-mail: kirsten.ferguson@lw.com dan.wall@lw.com tim.omara@lw.com ABSOLUTE COLLECTIONS: Sued for Fair Debt Collection Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shmuel Abrahamovitz, individually and all other similarly situated consumers v. Absolute Collections Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv- 00372-SJ-RER (E.D.N.Y., January 16, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Palace, Esq. 383 Kingston Avenue, #113 Brooklyn, NY 11213 Telephone: (347) 651-1077 Facsimile: (347) 464-0012 E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com AFFINION GROUP: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Trade Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Affinion Group is facing another class action for unfair and deceptive trade practices toward consumers in a case filed by the Diviacchi Law Office. Affinion has already paid millions of dollars in civil claims and state attorney general claims in 47 states for unfair and deceptive trade practice toward consumers previously. The class action complaint alleges that Affinion was aided by its banking clients, such as Century Bank of Massachusetts, and deals with on-paper fraudulent practices by Affinion which could have been a rehearsal for its eventual deceptive internet practices that have caused much of its litigation problems, according to a Diviacchi Law Office press release. Marcella Diviacchi, the plaintiff in the case, claims Affinion and Century Bank allege that Century Bank gave its customers what appeared to be a standard signature cards for signing as part of their opening a bank account that in fact simply by signing allowed Century Bank and Affinion's tradename FSA to unilaterally without further notice or assent to bind the customer to a "PLAN 1" "membership program" in perpetuity and at undisclosed monthly electronic debit from the account. The subsequent debit of at least $4 monthly was hidden as an apparent service charge and went unnoticed for years, according to the suit. The plaintiff claims the membership program is a farce that provides no benefits to the consumer -- especially given that consumers do not even know that they were members of the program. Ms. Diviacchi is seeking class certification and compensatory and punitive damages. She is being represented by Valeriano Diviacchi -- val@diviacchi.com -- of Diviacchi Law Office. The complaint was filed Feb. 7 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Century Bank and Trust Company, which is doing business as Century Bank, was also named as a defendant in the suit. Affinion Group is doing business as Affinion Benefits Group LLC, Affinion Group and Affinion Group Holdings Inc. The case was assigned to District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton. U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts case number: 1:14-cv-10283 ANNY B. VERA: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bonnie Marie Stone, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Anny B. Vera, D.D.S., M.S.C. P.A., a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00076-CEH-KRS (M.D. Fla., January 16, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover unpaid back wages and liquidated damages, and to obtain declaratory relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Vera is a Florida profit corporation with its principal place of business in Volusia County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Bernard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 243-4295 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com AT&T INC: Court Awards $5.5MM in Atty. Fees in "Nwabueze" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- JOY NWABUEZE, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. AT&T INC., et al., Defendants, NO. C 09-01529 SI, (N.D. Cal.) was initiated in 2009 against AT&T, on behalf of a class of current and former customers who had allegedly been billed for unauthorized charges placed by billing aggregators on behalf of third-party providers, a process known as "cramming." Following lengthy negotiations, the parties agreed upon a proposed settlement. On November 27, 2013, the Court approved the proposed settlement, but deferred ruling upon the requested attorneys' fees. The Court ordered Class Counsel to submit supplemental materials detailing the projects and tasks each attorney completed and when the work was done, as well as detailed expense records. Having considered the parties' submissions, including their supplemental filings, District Judge Susan Illston granted the motion for fees in the amount of $5,500,000 saying the percentage- of-recovery cross-check confirms that a fee award of $5,500,000 is reasonable and appropriate in this case. A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/vFChxffrom Leagle.com. AVANT BUSINESS: "Dolinski" Suit Certified as Collective Action -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge P. Kevin Castel granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary certification as a collective action of the case captioned ALLAN DOLINSKI, LIBRADO VASCONCELOS, RAYMOND JOHNSON and ERIK CRESPO, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. AVANT BUSINESS SERVICE CORPORATION, CHARLES CHIUSANO and RICHARD RIVERA, Defendants, NO. 13 CIV. 4753 (PKC), (S.D. N.Y.). In this lawsuit, the plaintiffs bring wage-and-hour claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and the New York Labor Law on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The Plaintiffs worked as couriers employed by defendant Avant Business Service Corporation. They claim that Avant and the two individual defendants violated federal and state and wage-and-hour laws by failing to pay overtime wages, refusing to reimburse mandatory work-related expenses and requiring employees to work through meal breaks without compensation. Plaintiffs assert that these pay practices were applied to couriers company-wide, and moved for approval of notice as a collective action under the FLSA. The Plaintiffs do not move for certification as a class action under Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ, P., for their New York Labor Law claim. The Court directed the Plaintiffs to submit a revised proposed notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs. A copy of the District Court's January 28, 2014 Memorandum and Order is available at http://is.gd/bu6p45from Leagle.com. AVATAR TECHNOLOGIES: "Clark" Suit Dismissed With Leave to Amend --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN CLARK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AVATAR TECHNOLOGIES PHL, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-2777, (S.D. Tex.) is before the Court on a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for dismissal pending primary jurisdiction referral filed by Defendant Flowroute LLC. In this Class Action Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that Avatar and Flowroute violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), which prohibits making a call using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a cellular telephone service, unless made for emergency purposes or with express consent. The Plaintiff alleged that, in July 2013, Avatar made a call to his cellular telephone using an "artificial or prerecorded voice." The Plaintiff alleged that Avatar made the call using "Flowroute's VoIP services, and employing Flowroute's Calling Name Management Service (CNAM-MS) to alter the caller's identification as it appeared on Plaintiff's cellular phone." In a January 28, 2014 Memorandum and Order available at http://is.gd/64yPnvfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Nancy F. Atlas found that the Plaintiff has failed to state a viable claim for relief against Flowroute. Accordingly, Judge Atlas granted Flowroute's Motion to Dismiss, but the Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint by February 14, 2014, to attempt to assert a viable unjust enrichment and/or Section 227(e) claim. If the Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint, subject to the requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by the February 14, 2014 deadline, the dismissal would be converted to one with prejudice. BEBE STORES: Illegally & Negligently Contacted Class, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melita Meyer, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bebe Stores, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00267-DMR (N.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) is brought for damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies, resulting from the alleged illegal actions of Bebe in negligently and willfully contacting the Plaintiff through "text" messages, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Bebe Stores, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in Brisbane, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Payam Shahian, Esq. Alison E. Wilson, Esq. Karen E. Nakon, Esq. STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES, APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 277-1040 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 E-mail: pshahian@slpattorney.com awilson@slpattorney.com knakon@slpattorney.com CHARLESTON COLLISION: Fails to Properly Pay Overtime, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Marshall Woodley v. Charleston Collision Holdings Corp., Charleston Collision, LLC, Charleston Collision II, LLC, Charleston Collision III, LLC, and Andrew J. Leone, Case No. 2:14- cv-00135-PMD (D.S.C., January 16, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging that the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek for the Defendants, but the Defendants failed to pay these employees one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. Charleston Collision Holdings Corp., LLC, Charleston Collision, LLC, Charleston Collision II, LLC, and Charleston Collision III, LLC are South Carolina for-profit corporations, which collectively conduct business under the trade name "Charleston Collision." Andrew J. Leone is a resident of South Carolina and an owner of Charleston Collision. The Defendants owned and operated auto body repair facilities that restore damaged vehicles under the business name "Charleston Collision." The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW, LLC 321 Wingo Way, Suite 201 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (800) 385-8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net - and - William C. Tucker, Esq. TUCKER LAW FIRM, PLC 223 West Main Street, Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 979-0049 Facsimile: (434) 979-0037 E-mail: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lac T. Hoilien, Trustee of the Lac T. Hoilien Revocable Living Trust Agreement Dated individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., as Original Lender; Bank of America, NA, as Mortgage Servicer and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title thereto; and Does, 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-00133-JM-WVG (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda Z. Voss, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS 100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14, Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (888) 999-4313 Facsimile: (818) 813-4489 E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FCRA -------------------------------------------------------------- Lac T. Hoilien, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., as Original Lender; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Trustee of CWHEQ Revolving Home Equity Loan Trust, Series 2005-D; Bank of America, N.A., as the Mortgage Servicer and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff' title, or any cloud on Plaintiff' title thereto; and Does, 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-00125-MMA-WVG (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda Z. Voss, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS 100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14, Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (888) 999-4313 Facsimile: (818) 813-4489 E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net EL RANCHO: Judge Recommends Denial of Class De-Certification Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston disregarded a motion to modify the scheduling order in MARGARITA ROSALES and ANGELICA ROSALES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EL RANCHO FARMS and DOES 1-20, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:09-CV-00707-AWI-JLT, (E.D. Cal.). Defendant El Rancho Farms had sought modification of the Court's Scheduling Order to permit the filing of an additional dispositive motion to request decertification of the class. Magistrate Thurston recommended that the motion for decertification be denied because the Defendant failed to meet its burden to demonstrate decertification is proper in the face of Plaintiffs demonstration that their damages stem from the defendant's actions. The individual damages calculations do not mandate decertification of the class, she said. "These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. [Section] 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California," Magistrate Judge Thruston said. A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/dEMhyUfrom Leagle.com. EQUAL ENERGY: Being Sold to Petroflow for Too Little, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Montemarano, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Equal Energy Ltd., Michael Doyle, Lee Canaan, Michael Coffman, Victor Dusik, Don Klapko, Kyle Travis, Robert Wilkinson, Petroflow Energy Corporation, and Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp., Case No. 5:14-cv-00058-C (W.D. Okla., January 16, 2014) is brought in connection with Petroflow's proposed acquisition of the outstanding shares of Equal. The Proposed Buyout is the product of a flawed process that is designed to ensure the sale of Equal to Petroflow on terms preferential to Petroflow and other Equal insiders and to subvert the interests of the Plaintiff and the other public stockholders of the Company, according to the complaint. Equal Energy Ltd. is an exploration and production oil and gas company with its head office in Calgary, Canada, and its principal executive offices in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Petroflow Energy Corporation is an independent exploration and production company based in Tulsa, Oklahoma and incorporated in Delaware. Petroflow's focus is to apply new exploration, completion, development techniques to old fields to unlock previously untapped reserves that were either passed over or never fully exploited. Petroflow Canada Acquisition Corp. is an Alberta, Canada corporation and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petroflow. Merger Sub was created solely for the purposes of effectuating the Proposed Buyout. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Hartman, Esq. Jack C. Moore, Esq. HARTMAN, BLACKSTOCK & MOORE 6520 S. Lewis Avenue, Suite 15 Tulsa, OK 74136 Telephone: (918) 712-3246 Facsimile: (918) 712-5042 E-mail: jack.moore@andrewshartman.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com FIRST HORIZON: Faces "Hoilien" Class Action Suit in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Lac T. Hoilien, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. First Horizon Home Loan Corporation, as the Original Lender; The Bank of New York, Trustee of First Horizon Alternative Mortgage Securities Trust 2007- Fa-3; Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, as the Mortgage Servicer and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff' title, or any cloud on Plaintiff' title thereto and, does, 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv- 00110-H-NLS (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) alleges that the Defendants, and each of them, cannot show proper receipt, possession, transfer, negotiations, assignment and ownership of the borrower's original Promissory Note and Deed of Trust, resulting in imperfect security interests and claims in the Plaintiff's property. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda Z. Voss, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS 100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14, Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (888) 999-4313 Facsimile: (818) 813-4489 E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net FRUITLAND PARK, FL: Feb. 28 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA Case No.: 2013 CA 400 JAMES RICHARDSON, individually, and MICHAEL HOWARD and NANCY HOWARD his wife, individually and as a Representative of a Class of all similarly situated others, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF FRUITLAND PARK, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Defendant. NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT To All Potential Members of the Following Class: Water utility customers of the City of Fruitland Park who have paid police service fees, fire service fees, or both, to the City of Fruitland Park since the enactment of Ordinance 2009-014. THIS NOTICE AFFECTS YOUR RIGHTS. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY Pursuant to the Court's October 14, 2013 Notice of Pendency of Class Action, unless you already opted-out or opt-out of the lawsuit on or before February 28, 2014, you are covered by and will be bound by the settlement of a class action lawsuit involving the City's charging of police fees and fire service fees. Summary Of Lawsuit: Plaintiffs, James Richardson and Michael and Nancy Howard, sued the City of Fruitland Park on February 1, 2013. The Plaintiffs allege the City of Fruitland Park's enactment of Ordinance 2009-014, which imposed police and fire service fees, is an attempt to levy non-ad valorem taxes in violation of the Florida Constitution. The Plaintiffs ask the Court to declare the Ordinance unconstitutional and order the City of Fruitland Park to refund all of the police and fire service fees it has collected. The Court certified this lawsuit as a class action by Court Order on September 12, 2013. Michael Howard and Nancy Howard serve as class representatives and their attorney is Derek A. Schroth of Bowen Radson Schroth, P.A. who also serves as class counsel. Summary Of Proposed Settlement: The named Plaintiffs and the City have reached a settlement. The City will stop charging the police and fire service fees and set up a common fund of $530,000. The fund will be used to pay a refund of fees paid by the class members and to pay for attorney's fees and costs, Class Representative fees, fees to class members who provided extraordinary services, and the City's costs to administer the fund and pay class members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The amount of attorney's fees and costs, Class Representatives' fees, and fees to class members who provided extraordinary services shall be determined by the Court. The amounts sought for such fees and costs are as follows: attorney's fees and costs ($255,000), Class Representative fees ($24,000), fees to class members who provided extraordinary services ($10,000) and the City's costs to administer the fund and pay class members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, (estimated at $1000). The amount of refund made to class members shall be reduced by the pro rata share of that class member's contribution toward the fees and costs awarded by the Court. Any remaining money in the common fund after payment of the fees, costs and refunds will be used by the City for the Fire Department. Court Hearing Concerning the Settlement: The Court will conduct a hearing on March 5, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. at the Lake County Judicial Center, East Wing, Fifth Floor, 550 West Main Street, Tavares, Florida 32778 to determine whether the proposed settlement agreement is fair and reasonable. You may attend the hearing, but can only be heard at the hearing if you file written objection(s) pursuant to the below terms. Objections to the Settlement: If you believe the Court should not approve the settlement, you may advise the Court of your objection(s). In order to be considered, your objections must be in writing, signed, contain the style of the case (as shown on the top of page one of this notice), and sent via first-class mail to: Clerk of the Lake County Circuit Court, 550 West Main Street, Tavares, Florida 32778. A copy should also be mailed to class counsel (Derek Schroth, 600 Jennings Ave., Eustis, Fl. 32726) who will forward a copy to the City's attorneys. Your objection(s) will not be considered by the Court unless received on or before February 28, 2014. Your written objection(s) should specify in detail the factual basis and/or legal grounds on which you base your objection(s). If you provide written objection(s), you may appear in person at the hearing and be heard before the Court on March 5, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., as described above, to express your objection(s) concerning the settlement. An attorney may also appear at the hearing on your behalf. If you and/or your attorney intend to appear at the hearing and be heard on your objection(s), you must timely provide written objection(s). Any class member who fails to file a timely written objection(s) may appear at the hearing, but may not be heard before the Court at the hearing to voice objection(s) relating to the proposed settlement. Entry of Judgment: If the settlement is approved by the Court, the Court will enter a judgment approving the settlement and dismissing this action with prejudice. All class members will be bound by the judgment which will bar class members from asserting any claims against the City for police and fire service fees. All class members are deemed to have waived the protection provided by any state law with respect to unknown claims at the time of a general release, and the general release forever discharges any claims relating to the City's police and fire service fees by a class member whether known or unknown to the class member at the time of the Court's order approving the Settlement Agreement. Further Information: The nature of this lawsuit and the proposed settlement are summarized in this Notice. More detailed information, including a copy of the settlement agreement, may be obtained from class counsel (Derek Schroth, 600 Jennings Ave. Eustis, Fl. 32726 352-589-1414). PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE JUDGE OR THE CLERK OF THE COURT WITH ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE SETTLEMENT. IF THE SETTLEMENT IS APPROVED, THE CITY WILL SEND YOU OR MAKE AVAILABLE TO YOU (1) A CLAIM FORM TO PROPERLY COMPLETE AND SUBMIT TO THE CITY AND (2) AFTER VERIFICATION OF PAYMENT OF THE FEES, A CHECK. BY ORDER OF THE COURT FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LAKE COUNTY, FLORIDA LAK1269366 01/29/14 FXR FACTORY: Recalls Children's Outerwear With Neck Drawstrings --------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 14, 2014 Posting date: February 14, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Strangulation Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-37991 Affected products: FXR Factory Racing Inc. brand children's upper outerwear with hood and/or neck drawstrings Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caught on playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in strangulation, or in the case of vehicles, the child being dragged. Neither Health Canada nor FXR Factory Racing Inc. has received reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of this product. Approximately 34,357 recalled items were distributed in Canada. The recalled items were sold from August 2008 to January 2014 at FXR Factory Racing stores and authorized dealers across Canada. The recalled items were manufactured in China and Vietnam. Companies: Distributor FXR Factory Racing Inc. Oak Bluff Manitoba Canada Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the garment to eliminate the hazard. GN&RC INC: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Nail Technician Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pelegrina Escalante and other similarly-situated individuals v. GN & RC, Inc., d/b/a J & N Nail Salon, and Richard Chin Quee, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-20184-JEM (S.D. Fla., January 16, 2014) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the laws of the United States. GN & RC, Inc., doing business as J & N Nail Salon, is a Florida corporation, having its place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. J & N Nail Salon is a retail business offering beauty and nail care services in the Westland Mall in Hialeah, Florida. Richard Chin Quee is the owner or director of J & N Nail Salon. The Plaintiff was a non-exempt employee and she worked as a nail technician at J & N Nail Salon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com GNC CORP: "Calvert" Suit Transferred From N.D. Ohio to Maryland --------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Calvert v. GNC Corporation, Case No. 4:13- cv-01697, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore). The Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00123-JFM to the proceeding. GNC CORP: "Lerma" Suit Transferred From California to Maryland -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Lerma v. GNC Corporation, Case No. 3:13-cv-00933, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00120-JFM to the proceeding. GOGO INC: "Stewart" Antitrust Suit Survives Dismissal Bid --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward M. Chen denied a motion to dismiss a second amended complaint in the case captioned JAMES STEWART, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOGO, INC., Defendant, NO. C-12-5164 EMC, (N.D. Cal.). Gogo, Inc. is a company that provides broadband internet access to passengers on commercial aircraft. Plaintiffs James Stewart, Joel Milne, and Joseph Strazullo have filed a class action against Gogo, asserting that it has violated, inter alia, federal antitrust law because it has an unlawful monopoly in the "market for inflight internet access services on domestic commercial airline flights within the continental United States." Gogo filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs have alleged plausible antitrust claims. Judge Chen directed Gogo to respond to the operative complaint within 30 days from the date of the order. A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/MhdU6C from Leagle.com. GOOGLE INC: Bid for Review of Ruling in Gmail Litigation Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on September 26, 2013, granted in part and denied in part Google Inc.'s motion to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated complaint in the multi-district litigation captioned IN RE: GOOGLE INC. GMAIL LITIGATION, CASE NO. 5.13-MD-2430-LHK, (N.D. Cal.) Google then filed a motion for Section 1292(b) Certification for Interlocutory Review of the September 26, 2013 Order. In a January 27, 2014 Order available at http://is.gd/tnlqEFfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Lucy H. Koh denied the request saying, "Due to the considerable expenses that have already accrued and the fact that the current case schedule contemplates trial in October 2014, the Court finds that termination of the litigation is more likely to be materially advanced by proceeding to final judgment." HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Directed to Produce Docs for "Webb" TCPA Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action captioned JASMINDA WEBB, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP LLC, Defendant, NO. C. 13-00737 RS, (N.D. Cal.), plaintiff Jasminda Webb alleges defendant Healthcare Revenue Recovery Group LLC (HRRG) made calls to her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Following a dispute regarding the scope of pre-certification discovery, the magistrate judge assigned to this action on December 3, 2013, ordered HRRG to produce certain documents and materials. HRRG seeks review of the magistrate's non-dispositive ruling. District Judge Richard Seeborg overruled the objection and affirmed the magistrate judge's December 3, 2013 order. In addition, counsel for Webb is prohibited from using HRRG's call list to contact putative class members without court approval. "HRRG is ordered to comply with the order forthwith," concluded Judge Seeborg. A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/BvN0b9from Leagle.com. IBERIA LINEAS: Judge Junks Breach-of-Contract Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal judge on Feb. 12 junked a proposed breach-of-contract class action in which Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana SA passengers sought damages for flight delays, finding that a European Union regulation providing for such compensation didn't apply in the United States. Granting summary judgment to Iberia, U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin said the four lead plaintiffs -- whose trips between the U.S. and Europe were delayed by Iberia-operated planes -- didn't have a cause of action in U.S. courts and that their claim was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act anyway. Iberia argued that the E.U. regulation contains language stating that each member state must designate a body responsible for its enforcement and that passengers have to complain to those entities. Plaintiffs claimed that the regulation allows passengers to seek legal redress from courts under procedures of national law and to take the proceedings before the competent courts or bodies. Siding with Iberia, Judge Durkin said on Feb. 12 that the word "national" in the phrase "national law" actually referred to E.U. member states, not courts in other countries. Under an E.U. regulation enacted by the European Commission, airlines must compensate passengers for some delays and cancellations departing from or arriving at airports in member states, according to court documents. But while the plaintiffs want to apply the regulation to flight itineraries that began or ended in the U.S., the ADA applies to foreign air carriers and flights that travel between the U.S. and a foreign country, Judge Durkin ruled. Moreover, the E.U. regulation applies to flights departing from the U.S. only when the flight is operated by an E.U. air carrier, whereas the plaintiffs bought tickets from a U.S.-based carrier for travel in which part of their itinerary was handled by European airlines. Two of those plaintiffs, James and Lauren Mitchell Varsamis, claimed that the American Airlines Inc. conditions to which they agreed when buying their tickets showed that it acted as Iberia's agent through the sale, and that that agency relationship created a contract between Iberia and the Varsamises that applied to their travel. Iberia countered that the section in American's conditions cited by the plaintiffs only applies to carriers with which American has "interline" agreements, whereas Iberia and American have a "code share" agreement in which American sells seats on Iberia flights using American flight designator codes such as the ones the Varsamises bought. The judge said on Feb. 12 that, regardless of Iberia's rebuttal, the portion of American's conditions that directs ticket holders to the tariff preempts the rest of American's conditions with respect to the Varsamises' foreign travel. As for the plaintiffs' contention that a provision in American's code share agreement providing that the operating carrier would indemnify the marketing carriers over passenger claims caused by delays, the judge said the Varsamises hadn't explained how that meant Iberia had a contractual relationship with them. Judge Durkin also said the plaintiffs hadn't cited any authority supporting their argument that they formed a contract with Iberia by checking in and boarding one of the airline's planes, nor had they explained why Iberia's conditions should govern such an informal transaction. The judge thus, in the second memorandum opinion and order, granted Iberia's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the Varsamises' breach-of-contract claim in the putative class action. The plaintiffs and proposed class are represented by Hank Bates of Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC and Jennifer W. Sprengel of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP. The defendants are represented by Christopher R. Christensen -- cchristensen@condonlaw.com -- and Anthony U. Battista -- abattista@condonlaw.com -- of Condon & Forsyth LLP and Brent Austin of Eimer Stahl LLP. The case is Theodoros Giannopoulos et al. v. Iberia Lineas Aereas de Espana SA et al., case number 1:11-cv-00775, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Violating Racketeering Act in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lac T. Hoilien, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Indymac Bank FSB, as Original Lender; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a Mortgage Servicer and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title thereto; and Does, 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv- 00111-CAB-KSC (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda Z. Voss, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS 100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14, Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (888) 999-4313 Facsimile: (818) 813-4489 E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net INDYMAC BANK: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act in Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- Lac T. Hoilien, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Indymac Bank FSB; as Original Lender; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Mortgage Servicer and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title thereto and, does, 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv- 00123-H-JMA (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) accuses the Defendants of violating the California Business and Professions Code, the California Civil Code, the Truth in Lending Act and other laws. The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda Z. Voss, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LINDA Z. VOSS 100 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 14, Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (888) 999-4313 Facsimile: (818) 813-4489 E-mail: lzvoss@pacbell.net JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in California Over Risperdal Drug --------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin A. Verkest and Lori L. Mckee-Callanan v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. also known as Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.; Janssen LP; Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC, and "John Doe" 1-5 (said names being fictitious, as the true names are presently unknown), in their individual and official capacities, Case No. 3:14-cv-00106-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) is based upon the Defendants' alleged violations of the laws of the Unites States and of the state of California in the manufacture, marketing and distribution of a defective and unreasonably dangerous medication -- Risperdal (also known by the generic name risperidone. The Plaintiffs seek compensatory, equitable, injunctive, punitive, and declaratory relief for the debilitating physical, psychological, pecuniary and related injuries for which the Defendants are allegedly liable. Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., also known as Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., and Janssen, LP, is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey. J&J manufactures, markets, and sells a wide range of pharmaceutical, medical and related products. Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company, whose sole member is Centocor Research & Development, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Medtronic Puerto Rico Operations Co. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Medtronic, Inc., existing by virtue of the laws of the Cayman Islands, with its principal place of business in Villalba, Puerto Rico. The Defendants "John Doe" 1-5 are unknown directors, officers, managers, employees, agents, contractors, subsidiaries or closely related entities. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cristopher G. Sabol, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CRISTOPHER G. SABOL 7985 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 109-80 West Hollywood, CA 90046 Telephone: (323) 383-1155 E-mail: sabolesq@gmail.com JCORP INC: Recalls Children's Clothing With Neck Drawstring ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 14, 2014 Posting date: February 14, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Strangulation Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-38005 Affected products: Children's clothing with neck drawstrings sold exclusively at Triple Flip stores under the Triple Flip brandname. The recall involves these products: Brand Product description Model number ----- ------------------- ------------ Triple Flip Hooded dress 9XT260-203 Girl's hooded jacket 9XT264-203 Girl's high collar jacket 9XT289-203 Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined that drawstrings on children's outerwear can become caught on playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in strangulation, or in the case of vehicles, the child being dragged. Neither Health Canada nor JCorp Inc. Triple Flip have received reports of incidents or injuries related to the use of these products. Approximately 1,115 units of the recalled products were sold in Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from September to November 2011 at Triple Flip stores. Companies: Importer JCorp Inc., Division Frenchies Montreal Quebec Canada Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the garments to eliminate the hazard. KAWASAKI USA: Recalls Off-Road Motorcycles Due to Fuel Leak ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Kawasaki Motors Corp. U.S.A., of Irvine, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 10,000 Off-road motorcycles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Fuel can leak from between the fuel tank and fuel tap, posing a fire hazard. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves model year 2010, 2011 and 2012 KLX110 and KLX110L off-road motorcycles. The motorcycles have a 110 cubic centimeter engine, a green fuel tank, shroud cover and fenders, a black seat and white side covers. "Kawasaki" is on both sides of the shroud cover. Model names and numbers are on both side covers directly beneath the seat. KLX110 models have an automatic clutch, a shift pedal and no clutch lever on the handlebars. The seat height for these models is about 27 inches. KLX110L models have a manual clutch, a shift pedal and a clutch lever on the handlebars. The seat height for these models is about 29 inches. The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and sold at Kawasaki dealers nationwide from November 2009 to January 2014 for about $2,100 to $2,350. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled off-road motorcycles and contact a Kawasaki dealer to schedule a free repair. Kawasaki is contacting its customers directly. KENTUCKY: Flemingsburg to Join Class Action Over Loan ----------------------------------------------------- Christy Hoots, writing for The Ledger Independent, reports that the city of Flemingsburg will be taking part in a class action lawsuit against the Kentucky Department of Insurance to recover borrowed money. On Jan. 6, 2010, the Kentucky League of Cities Insurance Services Association loaned $5.5 million for workers' compensation and $2.5 million for property and liability insurance to the Kentucky School Boards Insurance Trust. This was a loan approved and directed by the KDOI. KSBIT was an organization that began in 1978 as a way to allow schools boards to pool their money and share in the risk, according to the KSBIT website. It allowed school boards to cut down the cost of having to find a private insurance provider. However, due to a large number of claims, and KSBIT paying out more than it was taking in, it accrued a large amount of debt. When KSBIT began to become unstable, the KDOI requested the loan be made to KSBIT. "That did not work, and the (DOI) has taken (KSBIT) over," Flemingsburg Mayor Marty Voiers said. Fleming County School District Superintendent Tom Price said during several meetings last year that the district would be one that had to pay back money on the debt left by KSBIT. Mr. Voiers said, during a recent meeting, that many districts have not been paying back the money for the debt, which led to the KLCIS asking to be repaid the money loaned in 2010. According to Mr. Voiers, the KDOI officials have said they do not consider the money to be a loan and will not repay the $8 million. LCD PANEL COS: Siskinds, Fanshawe College Settle Price-Fixing Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Jane Sims, writing for The London Free Press, reports that London, Ontario law firm Siskinds and Fanshawe College are leading the charge to correct long suspected price fixing in a class- action lawsuit against international manufacturers -- and so far have settlements totaling $37.6 million from five companies. It's the first Canadian lawsuit of its kind and could provide compensation to millions of consumers who bought LCD panels and products like flat screen TVs and computer monitors between 1998 and 2006. London tech expert Carmi Levy said not to expect a windfall from the settlements. "To the average consumer it seems like a lot of money. But in the overall scheme of things and relative to the size of the flatscreen market and the broader technology market, it's a relatively small sum." The Canadian lawsuit was launched almost seven years ago in London, after Siskinds' class-action team approached Fanshawe about being a representative participant in the action. Lawyer Linda Visser said there had already been actions in the United States, Europe and Asia involving allegations that companies conspired on a global scale to raise and fix the prices of LCD panels and LCD products of 25.4 centimeters (10 inches) and bigger. Fanshawe was game, having bought millions of dollars worth of screens for classrooms and to sell to students in their retail store. What's unclear is how much prices were jacked up. Ms. Visser said the overcharges were likely less than 20%, but how much lower is still under debate. Class actions were launched in Ontario, B.C. and Quebec. The settlements have been approved in Ontario and B.C., and were up for approval in Quebec last week. It will be up to the courts to set the protocol for claims. Siskinds asks people who bought products to register on their website. A proof of purchase isn't necessary, but would be helpful. LIME ENERGY: May 13 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The following is being released by the law firm of Pomerantz LLP in Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co., No. 1:12-cv-05704 (N.D. Ill). SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Lime Energy Co. securities during the period from May 14, 2008 through December 27, 2012, both dates inclusive. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all current and former directors and officers of Lime during the Class Period, members of their families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, that a settlement of the above-captioned class action has been proposed. A hearing will be held on May 13, 2014, at 12:30 p.m., before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Everett McKinley Dirksen United States Courthouse, Courtroom 1719, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604, for the purpose of determining, among other things: (1) whether a Settlement Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement and whether Class Plaintiffs and their counsel have adequately represented the Class Members; (2) whether the proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the Defendants for $2,500,000.00 should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (4) whether the Court should permanently enjoin the assertion of any claims that arise from or relate to the subject matter of the Action; (5) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed with the Court; (6) whether the application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (7) whether the Lead Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses should be granted. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Lime Securities between May 14, 2008, and December 27, 2012, both dates inclusive, your rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof. If you have not received the detailed Notice Of Proposed Settlement Of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees And Expenses, And Final Approval Hearing and Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by contacting the Claims Administrator, by mail at: Satterfield v. Lime Energy Co., c/o Rust Consulting, Inc., P. O. Box 8095, Faribault, MN 55021- 9495; by telephone at: 1-877-872-3809; or by visiting the Settlement website www.LimeEnergySettlement.com If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than June 12, 2014 establishing that you are entitled to recovery. As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice by no later than April 29, 2014. Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed and served in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice no later than April 29, 2014. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead Counsel for the Class: Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Ste. 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 E-mail: lsmollar@pomlaw.com INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL DATED: January 28, 2014 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS MADISON SQUARE: Service Employees' Class Action Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Pierson, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a class action lawsuit accusing Madison Square Garden of illegally withholding gratuities from service employees can go forward, a unanimous Appellate Division, First Department, panel ruled on Feb. 11. Justice Dianne Renwick wrote the opinion, joined by Justices David Friedman, Rolando Acosta, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels and Judith Gische. It affirmed an August 2011 order by Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Milton Tingling denying MSG's motion to dismiss. The employees, who worked at MSG during the last decade, allege that the sports and entertainment center charged customers a 20 percent gratuity for food and beverage service, but did not distribute all of that gratuity to the service employees, as required by New York's Labor Law Sec. 196-d. MSG moved to dismiss on several grounds, but Justice Tingling and the First Department rejected them all. The panel ruled that the suit was not precluded by MSG's collective bargaining agreement with the employees' union, Unite Here Local 100, because it contained "no clear, unmistakable waiver." It said that the suit was not preempted by the federal Labor Management Relations Act, which governs disputes between unions and management, because the employees' complaint arises under state law, not the bargaining agreement. Similarly, the panel ruled that an arbitration clause in the agreement does not apply because the dispute does not arise from it either. The plaintiffs are represented by Arthur Schwartz and Tracey Kiernan of Advocates for Justice Chartered Attorneys. Madison Square Garden is represented by Kenneth Margolis -- margolis@kmm.com -- of Kauff McGuire & Margolis. The case is Tamburino v. Madison Square Garden, 111432/10. MARIN COUNTY, CA: April 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set --------------------------------------------------------- This Notice contains important information that may pertain to you. Under the Settlement Agreement in Shemaria v. County of Marin, No. CV 082718, County of Marin has agreed to spend $15 million, with a minimum allocation of one million dollars annually, to improve programmatic access for persons with mobility disabilities, at all County facilities. In exchange, class members who are all members with mobility disabilities will release the County of Marin from all claims for injunctive or declaratory relief that they may have against the County for its alleged failure to make County owned or maintained facilities accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. On June 3, 2008, Plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief against the County of Marin claiming its facilities were not accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. The Superior Court has now granted preliminary approval of the proposed class settlement in this case. The general terms of the proposed settlement are laid out in the Notice which can be accessed at http://is.gd/ATCUgTor via request at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94104, tel. (415) 421-7100, fax. (415) 421-7105, attention Sam Marks, or the Office of the County Counsel, 3501 Civic Center Drive, Suite 275, San Rafael, CA 94903, tel. (415) 473-6117, fax. (415) 473-3796. The Court has ordered a Fairness Hearing for April 9, 2014 at 8:30 a.m. All class members who wish to object to the settlement must do so by April 3, 2014. MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces Securities Class Suit in N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Fernando Rossy, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Merge Healthcare, Incorporated, Michael W. Ferro, Jr., Jeffery A. Surges, Justin Dearborn and Steven M. Oreskovich, Case No. 1:14-cv-00318 (N.D. Ill., January 16, 2014) is a securities class action brought on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Merge Healthcare between August 1, 2012, and January 7, 2014, inclusive. Merge Healthcare is a Chicago, Illinois-based company that offers health stations, clinical trial software and other health data and analytics services designed to engage consumers in their personal health. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marvin A. Miller, Esq. MILLER LAW LLC 115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 332-3400 Facsimile: (312) 676-2676 E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 200 Ashford Center North, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30338 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com MONTICELLO, MN: Schiff Hardin & Oppenheimer File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Schiff Hardin LLP and Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP on Feb. 12 filed the class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of William Dean, and all similarly-situated persons and entities who purchased Telecommunications Revenue Bonds Series 2008 issued by the Defendant City of Monticello between June 19, 2008 and May 31, 2012, inclusive (Civ. Act. No. 14-cv-00376, filed on Feb. 12, 2014). The action alleges that the City committed violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Minnesota Securities Act of 2002. The City is a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota. The Bonds were issued by the City to provide funds to finance the development, acquisition, construction and installation of a "fiber to the premises" broadband communications network (the "FTTP Project"), which provides cable television services, internet access and telephone services. The FTTP Project is owned, developed and constructed by the City. The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the City made fraudulent material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the economic feasibility of the FTTP Project. The sole source of revenue to pay debt service on the Bonds is net operating revenues from the FTTP Project. The net revenues generated by the FTTP Project for the first several years of operations were highly dependent upon the time frame in which the network was completed, as the underlying technology and direct competition in the retail telecommunications market is constantly evolving. Among other things, the complaint alleges that the City failed to disclose the following material facts: (i) on May 21, 2008, less than one month before the issuance of the Bonds, a Summons and Complaint was served upon the City by Bridgewater Telephone Company, Inc.; (ii) the City was aware that, as a result of this ongoing Litigation, construction for the FTTP Project would be significantly delayed; (iii) the delay in construction for the FTTP Project would negatively impact projected net revenues, the sole source of cash flow to pay debt service on the Bonds; (iv) the projected net revenues set forth in the offering documents were no longer accurate; (v) bondholders could not rely on the forecasted financial statement set forth in the offering documents to determine when the FTTP Project would begin to generate net revenues. Due to delays in construction as a result of the Litigation, as well as competition in the market, the FTTP Project has struggled to gain subscribers. In fact, the City has lost money providing the services contemplated by the FTTP Project. Furthermore, until July of 2011, debt service on the Bonds was paid solely from Bond proceeds and not from net revenues of the FTTP Project. The City also used a loan from another department to pay debt service on the Bonds from June 2011 until June 2012. On May 31, 2012, the City publicly announced that it would no longer pay debt service due on the Bonds. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of the Bonds during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Schiff Hardin LLP and Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, which have expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. A proposed settlement has been reached with the City in relation to this matter. The proposed Settlement agreement provides for a total recovery of $7,750,000. The Settlement fund includes two parts: (1) a cash payment of $5,750,000 from the City, and (2) a distribution of $2,000,000 in trust funds currently held under an indenture. The Settlement will resolve all claims related to the offering and sale of the Bonds issued by the City. If approved, the Settlement will conclude the class action. If you purchased or acquired the Bonds during the Class Period, and you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from today (no later than April 13, 2014). 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 a member of the proposed class. If you desire to be represented by your own lawyer, you may hire one at your own expense and you may enter an appearance with the Court. NEW WORLD: Recalls Master Kong Noodles Due to Undeclared Egg ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 13, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Egg Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: New World Imports Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8619 New World Imports Ltd. is recalling Master Kong brand noodle products from the marketplace because they contain egg which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled products described below. These products have been sold in BC. If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported allergic reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by a complaint. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. Affected products: Master Kong Roasted Beef Noodle - Instant Noodles and Hot Beef Noodle - Instant Noodles NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: "Conrad" Suit Transferred to Maryland ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Conrad v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-03780, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern of District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Baltimore). The Maryland District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00126-JFM to the proceeding. NUTRIOM LLC: Recalls 226,710 Lbs. of Processed Egg Products ----------------------------------------------------------- Nutriom LLC, a Lacey, Wash., establishment, is recalling approximately 226,710 pounds of processed egg products that may be contaminated with Salmonella, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. These products were shipped to co-packers for incorporation into consumer-size packages: -- 1,383-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag Egg Mix, Butter Flavor" with the lot code "C0513-A"; -- 2,540-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the lot code "B1913-A"; -- 2,409-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the lot code "B1913-B"; -- 4,712-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the lot code "E0713-A,B"; -- 1,265-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag, Heat and Serve" with the lot code "F1813-A"; -- 4,155-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the lot code "I1113-A"; -- 6,132-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg, Cage Free" with the lot code "J2913-A"; -- 9,345-lb. super sack of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg, Cage Free" with the lot code "A1414-A" These products were packaged in consumer-sized packages: -- 3.06-lb. bags of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag Egg Mix, Butter Flavor" with the Julian dates "3074" and "3075"; -- 2.34-lb. bags of "OvaEasy Boil-in-Bag, Reduced Cholesterol" with the Julian dates "3122," "3123," "3124," "3127," "3128" and "3129"; -- 4.5-oz. cans of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian date "2903," "1343" and "2893"; -- 4-oz. bags of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian dates "0853" and "0863"; -- 4.5-oz. bags of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian dates "0853, " "0863" and "0873"; -- 1.75-lb. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian dates "0813," "1083," "1093," "1433," "1443," "1573," "1723," "2063," "2163," "2173," "2183" "2243," "2253," "2183," "2533," "2543," "2553," "2563," "2673," "2683," "2693" and "2703"; -- 3.2-oz. bags of "Wise Company, Wise Blend" with the Julian dates "0953" and "0993"; -- 2-oz. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian dates "2073," "2063," "2163," "2603," "2613" "2903," "2913," "2953," "2963," "3173" and "3183"; -- 3.2-oz. packs of "Wise Company, Wise Blend" with the Julian dates "1133," "1143," "1153," "1163" and "1353"; -- 1.17-lb. bags of "OvaEasy UGRA Boil-in-Bag, Reduced "Cholesterol" with the Julian dates "3129," "3130" and "3137"; -- 1.75-lb. packs of "OvaEasy" with the Julian dates "2163," "2173," "2183" and "2243"; -- 4.5-oz. packs of "OvaEasy Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian dates "2563," "2623" and "2633"; -- 1.1-lb. packs of "OvaEasy UGR H&S" with the Julian dates "3173," "3174," "3175," "3177," "3178," "3179," "3180," "3181," "3182," "3183," "3194," "3195," "3196," "3197," "3198" and "3199"; -- 1.1-lb. packs of "G0213-A UGR H&S" with the Julian dates "3186," "3187," "3189," "3190" and "3191"; -- 128-gram packs of "Egg Crystal, Sea Salt and Pepper" with the Julian date "3033"; -- 128-gram packs of "Egg Crystal, Sausage and Herb" with the Julian date "3043"; -- 1.17-lb. packs of "OvaEasy UGR-A Reduced Cholesterol" with the Julian dates "3141," "3142," "3148," "3149" and "3150" -- 3-oz. packs of "eFoods Plain Whole Egg" with the Julian dates of "3173" and "3183" The dried egg products were produced between Feb. 28, 2013, and Feb. 8, 2014, and bear the establishment number "INSPECTED EGG PRODUCTS PLANT 21493G" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection. These products were shipped nationwide and to U.S. military installations in the United States and abroad, as well as to Canada. The problem was discovered by Washington State Laboratories in response to a billing inquiry by Nutriom LLC. The laboratory then notified FSIS personnel of the discrepancies in laboratory results. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses due to consumption of these products. Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after eating the contaminated product. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health care provider. FSIS inspects egg products under the Egg Products Inspection Act. FDA typically takes jurisdiction of egg products after they leave the egg facility if they are incorporated into FDA-regulated products. In this case, USDA is leading the recall rather than FDA because the products are in consumer packages with an identifiable USDA Mark of Inspection, and FSIS had jurisdiction over the product when the contamination occurred. FSIS and FDA are continuing to work together to ensure food safety, and the management of this recall is such an example. 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. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare and consume egg products that have been cooked to a temperature of 160 Fahrenheit. The only way to confirm that egg products are cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Leonardo Etcheto, Chief Operating Officer, at (360) 413-7269, ext. 106. Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Julie Cuffee, Customer Service Representative, at (360) 413-7269, ext. 101. 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 ON ASSIGNMENT INC: Accused of FLSA Violations in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Abbott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. On Assignment, Inc., and PPG Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00068-DSC (W.D. Pa., January 16, 2014) The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD. 36 N. Jefferson Street P.O. Box 7635 New Castle, PA 16107 Telephone: (724) 656-1555 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com PFIZER INC: Sued for Damages Resulting From Use of Lipitor ---------------------------------------------------------- Patricia DiCenzi and Wayne DiCenzi, 9101 Kephart Drive, Mentor, Ohio 44060 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No. 1:14-cv-00102-JG (N.D. Ohio, January 16, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a proximate result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of Lipitor (also known chemically as Atorvastatin Calcium). Lipitor is prescribed to reduce the amount of cholesterol and other fatty substances in the blood. Lipitor is an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor and a member of the drug class known as statins. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kenneth J. Knabe, Esq. BROWN & SZALLER 14222 Madison Avenue Cleveland, OH 44107 Telephone: (216) 228-7200 E-mail: knabe@lawandhelp.com - and - Robert K. Jenner, Esq. Lindsey M. Craig, Esq. JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (410) 653-3200 Facsimile: (410) 653-9030 E-mail: RJenner@myadvocates.com LCraig@myadvocates.com RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 8MM Lbs. of Unwholesome Meat Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Rancho Feeding Corporation, a Petaluma, Calif. establishment, is recalling approximately 8,742,700 pounds, because it processed diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection. Thus, the products are adulterated, because they are unsound, unwholesome or otherwise are unfit for human food and must be removed from commerce, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. These Rancho Feeding Corporation products are subject to recall: -- "Beef Carcasses" (wholesale and custom sales only); -- 2 per box "Beef (Market) Heads" (retail only); -- 4-gallons per box "Beef Blood" (wholesale only); -- 20-lb. boxes of "Beef Oxtail"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Cheeks"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Lips"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Omasum"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Beef Tripas"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Mountain Oysters"; -- 30-lb. boxes of "Sweet Breads"; -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Liver"; -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Tripe"; -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Beef Tongue"; -- 30- and 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Cuts"; -- 40-lb. boxes of "Veal Bones"; -- 50-lb. boxes of "Beef Feet"; -- 50-lb. boxes of "Beef Hearts"; -- 60-lb. boxes of "Veal Trim" Beef carcasses and boxes bear the establishment number "EST. 527" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Each box bears the case code number ending in "3" or "4." The products were produced Jan. 1, 2013 through Jan. 7, 2014, and shipped to distribution centers and retail establishments in California, Florida, Illinois, Oregon, Texas and Washington. FSIS has received no reports of illness due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness 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 recalled product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Recalls Consumers and members of the media who have questions about the recall can contact the plant's Quality Control manager, Scott Parks, at (707) 762-6651. 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. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem RONA INC: Recalls UBERHAUS Wall-Mounted Convection Heater --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 14, 2014 Posting date: February 14, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-38009 Affected products: UBERHAUS wall-mounted convection heater, model ECH104-2000 with product number 681205103 RONA Inc. is issuing a voluntary recall on UBERHAUS 2000 W wall- mounted convection heaters with model number ECH104-2000 or product number 681205103. The product may be affected by a manufacturing defect causing overheating, which could result in injury or property damage. Health Canada and RONA have received two reports of overheating of the product. No injuries have been reported. Approximately 19,000 recalled convection heaters were sold at Reno-Depot stores in Quebec and at RONA stores in Quebec and Ontario. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold between February 2011 and January 2014. Companies: Distributor Rona Inc. Boucherville Quebec Canada Customers who have this product in their possession should immediately stop using it and return it to a RONA or Reno-Depot store. It is important to follow the manufacturer's instructions when disconnecting and removing the product. For more information, customers may also contact customer service toll-free at 1-866-283-2239. RR2 INC: Sued for Violating FLSA by Failing to Pay Overtime Wage ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gregorio Argueta v. RR2, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-00044-LO-TRJ (E.D. Va., January 16, 2014) accuses the Company of failing to pay overtime compensation to the Plaintiff, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. RR2, INC., doing business as RedRocks Pizza Napoletana, operates an enterprise with four locations (two in Washington DC and two in Virginia). The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas F. Hennessy, Esq. VIRGINIA FAMILY AND EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER 405 Chain Bridge Road, Suite G Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 865-5839 Facsimile: (703) 734-5849 E-mail: th@virginiafamilylawcenter.com SADER POWER: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Trade Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a New Orleans brother and sister are the lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against a group of solar panel installation companies. Twyla Torregano, Clement Torregano Jr., and all others similarly situated, filed suit against Sader Power LLC, Sader Power Enterprises LLC and Griswold Power LLC in the U.S. District COurt of the Eastern District of Louisiana on Feb. 7. Siblings Twyla Torregano and Clement Torregano Jr., who both had solar panels installed on their homes, are the lead plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit filed against Sader Power, Sader Power Enterprises and Griswold Power who are alleged to have oversold the potential for power savings customers would experience by having solar panels installed on their property. The estimated size of the class action is 2,500. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants engaged in unfair trade practices by advertising in print and television media that their customers would see a savings in their power from the time the solar panels were installed and may eventually no longer get an electric bill. The class asserts that the defendants had a scheme in which they would show a customer's electric bill before the solar panel equipment was installed and a bill after installation that was one quarter of the cost while the actual cost savings was really much less than advertised. The defendants are also alleged to have receive a tax credit of up to 80 percent of the purchase price of the solar panels and then entered into lease agreements with customers for $45 to $50 per month for six years before requiring them to buy the equipment without the benefit of the tax credit at the end of the lease term for $10,000. The plaintiffs claim if they did not purchase the equipment it was removed at the end of the lease period. The defendant is accused of breaching the Consumer Leasing Act, Unfair Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment. Damages in the estimate of $5 million are sought for compensation, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgment of profits, cost of suit, treble damages and attorney's fees. The class is represented by Lawrence J. Centola II of New Orleans- based Martzell & Bickford and co-counsel Joshua Rubenstein of New Orleans-based Scheuermann & Jones. The case has been assigned to U.S. Federal Judge Mary Ann Vial Lemmon. Case no. 2:14-cv-00293. SAMIRA ENTERPRISE: Never Paid Extra Halftime OT Rate, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Transito Oswaldo Tun-Gonzalez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Samira Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Avanti Restaurant at Fountain Place d/b/a Avanti Ristorante Amin Malekafzali, Case No. 3:14-cv-00161-L (N.D. Tex., January 16, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff worked an average of 55 hours per week, but was never paid the extra halftime overtime rate for hours worked above 40. Samira Enterprise, Inc. d/b/a Avanti Restaurant at Fountain Place d/b/a Avanti Ristorante, is a company that regularly transacts business within Dallas County. Amin Malekafzali, is a corporate officer, owner or manager of the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL PC 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net SANDALWOOD BAR: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum & Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Atvinder Pal, Ratna Regmi, Indra Thapaliya, Surendra Pathak, Rakesh Shrestha, Kamal Koirala, Som Narayan Chowdhury, Jaya Sharma, Arina Romenskaya, Kristina Romenskaya, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated v. Sandalwood Bar N Grill Inc. d/b/a The Mint Restaurant & Lounge and Bhupinder Singh Sikka, Case No. 1:14-cv-00301-TPG (S.D.N.Y., January 16, 2014) accuses the Defendants of willfully failing and refusing to pay the Plaintiffs at the legally required minimum wage for all hours worked and one and one half times this rate for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Sandalwood Bar N Grill Inc. is a New York Corporation whose principal place of business is located in Manhattan. Sandalwood Bar N Grill Inc. operates Mint Restaurant & Lounge located in New York. Bhupinder Singh Sikka is the owner and Chief Executive Officer of Sandalwood Bar N Grill Inc. The Plaintiffs are represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Josef Nussbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10279 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com jnussbaum@jhllp.com SANTA FE NATURAL: Removed "Coles" Class Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit titled John Coles v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-02013-00692391, was removed from the Superior Court of California, Orange County, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-00076-AG-AN to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aarin A. Zeif, Esq. Michael A. Gould, Esq. GOULD AND ASSOCIATES 17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106 Tustin, CA 92780 Telephone: (714) 669-2850 Facsimile: (714) 544-0800 E-mail: aarin@wageandhourlaw.com michael@wageandhourlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Cindi Lynn Ritchey, Esq. Liat Yamini, Esq. JONES DAY 555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300 Telephone: (213) 489-3939 Facsimile: (213) 243-2539 E-mail: critchey@jonesday.com lyamini@jonesday.com SEWERAGE & WATER: "Crutchfield" Suit to Proceed to Discovery ------------------------------------------------------------ In RONDA CRUTCHFIELD, ET AL. v. SEWERAGE & WATER BOARD OF NEW ORLEANS, ET AL., SECTION "C" (5), CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-4801, (E.D. La.), the plaintiffs filed a motion to continue the submission date for their motion to certify class. In addition to continuing the submission date, the plaintiffs also asked that the Court grant discovery and allow an evidentiary hearing to occur in this matter before certification is submitted for resolution. District Judge Helen G. Berrigan granted the plaintiffs' motion in all respects, including as to discovery and the evidentiary hearing. Judge Berrigan said the Court is not inclined to make a determination "on the pleadings" where better evidence is seemingly readily available. Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to contact Magistrate Judge Alma Chasez by February 14, 2014 to setup a scheduling conference for pre-certification discovery. A copy of the District Court's January 30, 2014 Order and Reasons is available at http://is.gd/mOj7AJfrom Leagle.com. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: "Dick" Suit Settlement Gets Final Court OK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Senior District Judge Thomas B. Russell granted final approval of a class-action settlement in MARY PATRICIA DICK and GARY L. EKERS, for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P. and QWEST COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-00443-TBR, (W.D. Ky.). The Settlement Agreement commits the Defendants to pay up to $1,457,000 in cash compensation, $565,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses, and approximately $337,000 toward an allocated share of administrative costs. The Settlement Agreement also provides that a qualified claimant who has owned the property adjoining the rights of way throughout the entire compensation period will receive the entire amount of benefits attributable to the right of way. If prior owners are also entitled to benefits, such benefits will be allocated pro rata based on the prior and current owners' respective periods of ownership. The Settling Defendants have also agreed to pay $1,300.00 in incentive compensation each to Mary Patricia Dick and Gary L. Ekers, the Class Representatives. Judge Russell said the nature of the Settlement Agreement, including the monetary compensation, provides a reasonable tradeoff in exchange for the elimination of the legal risk associated with several of Plaintiffs' asserted claims. A copy of the District Court's January 30, 2014 Memorandum Opinion is available at http://is.gd/oFwGTofrom Leagle.com. STARPAC MEAT: Recalls Various Meat Products Due to Undeclared Soy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 13, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Soy Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Starpac Meat Processors Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8614 Starpac Meat Processors Inc. is recalling various meat products from the marketplace because they contain mustard and/or soy which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard or soy should not consume the recalled products described below. These products have been sold in Alberta. If you have an allergy to mustard or soy, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported allergic reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products from the marketplace. Affected products: Brand Name Common Name Size ---------- ----------- ---- Aunt Edna's Boneless Dry Garlic Ribs 5 lb V.I.P. Food Services Boneless Dry Garlic Ribs 5 lb V.I.P. Food Services Honey Garlic Chicken Wings 6 lb V.I.P. Food Services Salt & Pepper Wings 6 lb V.I.P. Food Services Chicken Cordon Bleu 12 pieces V.I.P. Food Services Chicken Kiev 12 pieces V.I.P. Food Services Hot & Spicy Chicken Wings 6 lb V.I.P. Food Services Chicken Marco Polo 12 pieces TARGET CORP: Faces "McLarry" Suit in California Over Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark McLarry and Abraham Gale, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv- 00121-JLS-RBB (S.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) is brought in connection with the data security breach at Target. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James R. Patterson, Esq. Allison H. Goddard, Esq. PATTERSON LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6990 Facsimile: (619) 756-6991 E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com ali@pattersonlawgroup.com - and - Bruce Steckler, Esq. Mazin Sbaiti, Esq. THE STECKLER LAW FIRM 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 E-mail: Bruce@stecklerlaw.com Mazin@stecklerlaw.com TARGET CORP: Faces "Pietanza" Suit in New York Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Martino Pietanza, Bobbi Hodge, and Steven Hodge, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation and John Does 1-100, Case No. 1:14-cv-00338-BMC (E.D.N.Y., January 16, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to secure and to monitor Target's computer systems to protect its customers and the information its customers provided, which failure resulted to the data security breach in late 2013. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hunter Jay Shkolnik, Esq. Brian Howard Brick, Esq. NAPOLI BERN RIPKA SHKOLNIK, LLP 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7413 New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 267-3700 Facsimile: (212) 587-0031 E-mail: hunter@napolibern.com bbrick@napolibern.com TARGET CORP: Faces "Sutton" Suit in Washington Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Aimee Sutton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00079-RAJ (W.D. Wash., January 16, 2014) arises from the November 27-December 15, 2013 breach of Target's computer system. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com kswope@kellerrohrback.com TOKYO ELECTRIC: American Veterans File Class Action Over Radiation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Harvey Wasserman, writing for Huffington Post, reports that, citing a wide range of ailments from leukemia to blindness to birth defects, 79 American veterans of the 2011 earthquake/tsunami relief Operation Tomadachi ("Friendship") have filed a new $1 billion class action lawsuit against Tokyo Electric Power. The victims include an infant born with a genetic condition, a sailor who served on the USS Ronald Reagan as radiation poured over it during the Fukushima melt-downs, and an American teenager living near the stricken site. The suit said it may include "up to 70,000 U.S. citizens [who were] potentially affected by the radiation and will be able to join the class action suit." Now docked in San Diego, the USS Reagan's on-going safety has become a political hot potato. The $4.3 billion carrier is at the core of the U.S. Naval presence in the Pacific. Critics say it's too radioactive to operate or to scrap, and that it should be sunk, as were a number of U.S. ships contaminated by atmospheric Bomb tests in the South Pacific. The re-filing comes as Tepco admits that it has underestimated certain radiation readings by a factor of five. And as eight more thyroid cancers have surfaced among children in the downwind region. Two new earthquakes have also struck near the Fukushima site. The amended action was filed in federal court in San Diego on Feb. 6, which would have been Reagan's 103rd birthday. It says Tepco failed to disclose that the $4.3 billion nuclear-powered aircraft carrier was being heavily dosed from three melt-downs and four explosions at the Fukushima site. The Reagan was as close as a mile offshore as the stricken reactors poured deadly clouds of radiation into the air and ocean beginning the day after the earthquake and tsunami. It also sailed through nuclear plumes for more than five hours while about 100 miles offshore. The USS Reagan (CVN-76) is 1,092 feet long and was commissioned on July 12, 2003. The flight deck covers 4.5 acres, carries 5,500 sailors and more than 80 aircraft. Reagan crew members reported that in the middle of a snowstorm, a cloud of warm air enveloped them with a "metallic taste." The reports parallel those from airmen who dropped the Bomb on Hiroshima, and from central Pennsylvanians downwind from Three Mile Island. Crew members drank and bathed in desalinated sea water that was heavily irradiated from Fukushima's fallout. As a group, the sailors comprise an especially young, healthy cross-section of people. Some also served on the amphibious assault ship Essex, missile cruiser Cowpens and several others. The plaintiffs' ailments parallel those of downwinders irradiated at Hiroshima/Nagasaki (1945), during atmospheric Bomb tests (1946- 1963), and from the radiation releases at Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986). Among them are reproductive problems and "illnesses such as Leukemia, ulcers, gall bladder removals, brain cancer, testicular cancer, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, thyroid illnesses, stomach ailments and a host of other complaints unusual in such young adults." The suit asks for at least $1 billion to "advance and pay all costs and expenses for each of the Plaintiffs for medical examination, medical monitoring and treatment by physicians," as well as for more general damages. Both Tepco and the Navy say not enough radiation was released from Fukushima to harm the sailors or their offspring. But neither can say exactly how much radiation that might have been or where it went. The Navy has discontinued a program that might have tracked the sailors' health in the wake of their irradiation. After its four days offshore from Fukushima the governments of Japan, South Korea and Guam refused the Reagan port entry because of its high radiation levels. The Navy has since exposed numerous sailors in a major decontamination effort whose results are unclear. Filed on Dec. 12, 2012, the initial suit involved just eight plaintiffs. It was amended to bring the total to 51. That action was thrown out at the end of 2013 by federal Judge Janis S. Sammartino on jurisdictional grounds. A January deadline for re-filing this second amended complaint was delayed as additional plaintiffs kept coming forward. Attorneys Paul Garner and Charles Bonner say still more are being processed. The suit charges that Tepco lied to the public -- including Japan's then Prime Minister Naoto Kan -- about the accident's radioactive impacts. Kan says Unit One melted within five hours of the earthquake, before U.S. fleet arrived. Such news is unwelcome to an industry with scores more reactors in earthquake zones worldwide. The Plaintiffs say Tepco negligently leveled a natural seawall to cut water pumping expenses. The ensuing tsunami then poured over the site's unprotected power supply, forcing desperate workers to scavenge car batteries from a nearby parking lot to fire up critical gauges. Tepco belatedly dispatched 11 power supply trucks that were immediately stuck in traffic. Similar reports of fatal cost-cutting, mismanagement and the use and abuse of untrained personnel run throughout the 65-page complaint. TROPHY FOODS: Recalls Archer Farms Hickory Smoked Almonds --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 12, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Allergy Alert Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Peanut Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Trophy Foods Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8611 Affected products: 300 g. Archer Farms Hickory Smoked Almonds with 6 28919 00754 7 UPC UNILEVER PLC: Settles Class Action Over Suave Product for $10.2MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, reports that Unilever PLC will pay $10.2 million to settle a class action accusing it of misleading consumers about a Suave brand hair treatment that allegedly causes unwanted, significant hair loss, according to a proposal filed on Feb. 7 in Illinois federal court. The plaintiffs brought the suit in August 2012, seeking redress for consumers who purchased or used the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, which was marketed in the U.S. for approximately five months, until its recall in early May 2012, according to a joint memorandum in support of the proposed settlement. Unilever will actually escape three proposed class actions with the settlement, according to the proposed agreement; the action in Illinois, one in Kentucky and one in California. All the lawsuits allege Unilever made false representations about the smoothing kit, that it included a dangerous ingredient or ingredients that caused the plaintiffs bodily injury, and that the company failed properly to warn and instruct consumers about how to use and not to use the product, creating undisclosed risks and hazards. The complaints assert claims for breach of warranty, violation of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices statutes, negligence and/or gross negligence, strict liability and unjust enrichment. Under the agreement, Unilever will provide more than $10 million for the establishment of two separate settlement funds, consisting of a reimbursement fund of $250,000 and an injury fund of $10 million. Payments from those funds will provide four kinds of relief to members of the settlement class, the memorandum said. The reimbursement fund will be available to any member of the settlement class who purchased a smoothing kit, allowing a one- time refund of up to $10 for the past purchase of a kit. The injury fund will provide relief to class members who suffered scalp injuries as a result of using the product. People who incurred expenses for hair treatment but no longer have receipts for their expenditures are eligible to receive up to $40, and people who incurred such expenses but do have receipts, such as hairdresser or medical bills, are eligible to receive up to $800 per claimant for their expenses. Those who suffered significant bodily injury to their hair or scalp will be eligible for awards of up to $25,000. The memorandum said between 225,000 and 260,000 smoothing kits were sold, and that there are thousands of geographically dispersed class members. The plaintiffs are represented by Marvin A. Miller -- mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- Lori A. Fanning -- lfanning@millerlawllc.com -- and Andrew Szot -- aszot@millerlawllc.com -- of Miller Law LLC, Peter Safirstein -- psafirstein@forthepeople.com -- Christopher S. Polaszek -- cpolaszek@forthepeople.com -- and Elizabeth S. Metcalf -- emetcalf@forthepeople.com -- of Morgan & Morgan PC and Jana Eisinger of Law Office of Jana Eisinger PLLC. Unilever is represented by Paula J. Morency and Sondra A. Hemeryck of Schiff Hardin LLP. The case is Sidney Reid et al. v. Unilever United States Inc. et al., number 1:12-cv-06058 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. UNITED STATES: Senator Rand Paul Files Class Action v. NSA ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Scurria, writing for Law360, reports that as expected, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., launched the latest broadside at the National Security Agency's warrantless hoarding of phone call metadata, filing a proposed class action in federal court on Feb. 12 claiming the program violates the Fourth Amendment. By limiting the suit to a lone constitutional challenge, Mr. Paul hopes to advance the debate over the NSA's bulk collection of domestic phone call records to the U.S. Supreme Court as quickly as possible, the outspoken NSA critic and his attorney Ken Cuccinelli said at a press conference on the Washington, D.C., federal courthouse steps. The suit is the latest legal action stemming from a series of leaks by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden that cast a critical light on previously undisclosed intelligence-gathering procedures, including the metadata collection program that is carried out under the auspices of an opaque surveillance tribunal. Despite recent moves by the Obama administration to end the collection methods under Section 215 of the Patriot Act as they currently exist, Mr. Paul and his allied conservative group and co-plaintiff FreedomWorks Inc. maintain that the collection program constitutes a continuing violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches. A group of experts appointed by President Barack Obama recommended a set of sweeping changes in December, but has since made clear that the program should not be eliminated. In his remarks, Mr. Paul noted that he found no evidence that any terrorist has been "caught or detained or prevented uniquely on this information" and that he did not object on principle to secretive phone record collection, only to doing so without individualized warrants backed by probable cause. He also implied that the suit could become a vehicle for obtaining broader guidance from the Supreme Court on how constitutional protections apply to new technology and when warrants are required, an issue the justices have largely tackled piecemeal through fact-specific cases thus far. "Because of the advance of technology, because so much of our personal lives are now digitalized and online, we need to have a discussion in the open at the Supreme Court about whether or not the Fourth Amendment does protect any of our records," Mr. Paul said. Mr. Cuccinelli, a former Virginia attorney general and onetime gubernatorial candidate, clarified that the suit sought purely injunctive relief compelling the government to shut down the program and purge any phone logs it has collected over the past five years. Asked how the suit differed from parallel efforts mounted by a former U.S. Department of Justice prosecutor Larry Klayman in the same court and by the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, Mr. Cuccinelli responded that it would be the first to reach the class certification stage. He also stressed that the suit does not address any Internet content surveillance activities by the government, nor does it attack Sections 215 or 702 of the Patriot Act. The plaintiffs have not asked for a preliminary injunction halting the program, in order to "get to the merits as soon as possible," he said. The government will have more than two months to answer, and it was not immediately clear if the case would land before U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, who is also overseeing Mr. Klayman's case and ruled in December that the metadata program was likely unconstitutional. Judge Leon's injunction, which forbid the NSA from collecting metadata associated with the accounts of Mr. Klayman and a co-plaintiff, was stayed pending the D.C. Circuit's decision on appeal. In a procedural maneuver, Mr. Klayman in late January dropped his class certification bid and filed a new, related complaint that will house any eventual class action claims in the hopes of streamlining the litigation and moving more quickly into pretrial discovery. And recently he filed a writ petition that, if granted, would allow the appeal of Judge Leon's injunction to bypass the D.C. Circuit and land directly before the Supreme Court. The government, meanwhile, has a motion to dismiss pending against the plaintiffs' statutory claims and in a related suit challenging the constitutionality of surveillance programs targeting email and other Internet communications. The plaintiffs are represented by Earl "Trey" Mayfield -- tmayfield@lewis-firm.com -- and Michael P. Lewis of The Lewis Firm PLLC and by Kenneth T. Cuccinelli of Cuccinelli & Associates LLC. The case is Rand Paul et al. v. Barack H. Obama et al., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case number was not immediately available. * * * Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reported that Mr. Paul appeared on Feb. 12 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to announce the class action. "We will ask the question in court, whether a single warrant can apply to the records of every American phone user, all of the time, without limits, without individualization," said Mr. Paul, who will serve as a lead plaintiff. Mr. Paul was joined on Feb. 12 by his attorney, former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, and co-plaintiff Matt Kibbe, president and chief executive officer of conservative advocacy group FreedomWorks. Mr. Paul said more than 300,000 people had already expressed interest in being part of the class. The senator had been soliciting potential class members through the website of his political action committee RAND PAC. The proposed class includes Americans who used a cell or landline phone in the United States since 2006, according to the complaint. The plaintiffs want a judge to declare the mass collection of phone data unconstitutional and to order the government to stop collecting phone records and purge data that's already been stored. Mr. Paul's lawsuit follows two similar cases in Washington and New York already moving through the federal appeals courts. Mr. Cuccinelli said he expected Paul's case to be the first one certified as a class action. Late last year, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon of the Washington federal trial court found the federal government's bulk collection of phone data "almost certainly" violated privacy rights. Judge Leon was the first judge to tackle the issue since former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden last year leaked documents to reporters detailing the extent of the government's surveillance efforts. "I cannot imagine a more 'indiscriminate' and 'arbitrary invasion' than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval," Judge Leon said in his Dec. 16 decision. The U.S. Department of Justice appealed Leon's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In New York, U.S. District Judge William Pauley III in late December upheld the constitutionality of the bulk collection of phone records. WELLS FARGO: Court Narrows Claims in "Cannon" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss a third amended complaint in STANLEY D. CANNON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK. N.A., et al., Defendants, NO. C-12-1376 EMC, (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Stanley D. Cannon, Patricia R. Cannon, and Cheryl Bullock filed a third amended class-action complaint against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), Wells Fargo Insurance, Inc. (WFI), and American Security Insurance Company (ASIC). The Plaintiffs allege that kickbacks from ASIC to Wells Fargo and WFI, and "tracking charges" were improperly included in "force-placed" insurance premiums that Plaintiffs paid. Wells Fargo and WFI filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ASIC also filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1) for lack of standing. Judge Chen dismissed with prejudice the Plaintiffs' claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, with respect to all Defendants, to the extent the claims pertain to force-placed insurance premiums that were charged outside the statute of limitations. The Court denied Defendants' motions to dismiss on all other grounds. A copy of the District Court's January 29, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/AYE1Isfrom Leagle.com. VECTOR MARKETING: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- William Woods (CA), Dominic Seale (FL), Wesley Varughese (IL), Eric Essler (MI), Kristina Wills (MN), Casey McCaleb (MO), Samuel Barone-Crowell (NY), Lowell Harvard Jr. (NY), Altwell Winfield (NY), Tiffany Reinhart (OH), individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Vector Marketing Corporation and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv- 00264-JCS (N.D. Cal., January 16, 2014) is brought as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid minimum wages and related damages on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated individuals nationwide, who also attended the Company's initial 3-5 day training session. Vector Marketing Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation based in New York. Vector employs individuals as Sales Representatives to sell its CUTCO(TM) cutlery. The Plaintiffs do not know the true names or capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. Christina Humphrey, Esq. Leslie H. Joyner, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Daniel H. Chang, Esq. Larry W. Lee, Esq. DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 550 S. Hope St., Suite 2655 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 488-6555 Facsimile: (213) 488-6554 E-mail: dchang@diversitylaw.com lwlee@diversitylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Karen Joyce Kubin, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 580 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 765-9521 Facsimile: (415) 765-9501 E-mail: kkubin@mofo.com VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Upholds $9.2MM Attorneys Fee Award ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Knaub, Nathan Hale and Matt Fair, writing for Law360, report that the Third Circuit on Feb. 12 upheld a $9.2 million attorneys' fee award included in a settlement in a consolidated class action against Volkswagen of America Inc. over leaky sunroofs, saying the federal judge who calculated the award using the percentage-of- recovery method instead of lodestar had a right to do so. John J. Pentz, an attorney for class members David and Jennifer Murray, argued in December to the appeals court that a New Jersey judge had improperly relied on federal law to sign off on the fee award -- which, according to court records, was calculated by doubling the $4.6 million lodestar in the case -- despite the fact that state law generally limits the amount that lodestar amounts can be multiplied. The three-judge panel, however, disagreed, saying that courts are allowed under both federal law and New Jersey law to apply the percentage-of-recovery method in class actions when attorneys' fees are derived from a common fund shared by plaintiffs. "Because the magistrate judge was justified in performing a percentage-of-recovery analysis in calculating attorneys' fees under both federal and New Jersey law, she did not abuse her discretion in doing so," the appeals court said. The fee award came as part of a $69.2 million settlement approved in the case in December 2012. As part of the settlement, Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC and Schoengold & Sporn PC were named co-lead class counsel. But the Murrays argued in court filings that the fees awarded to class counsel in the case were unreasonably large considering the settlement did not represent what they described as a "rare or extraordinary result." The two suits were launched in 2007 against Volkswagen and several of its divisions over alleged design flaws in the pollen filter gaskets and sunroof drains on a variety of the company's cars between 1997 and 2007. The Murrays are class members in the John M. Dewey et al. v. Volkswagen of America Inc. et al. case, which was consolidated with Delguercio v. Volkswagen of America Inc. et al., filed a week later. A settlement was first reached in the case in 2010, but nonparty class members and Volkswagen appealed a magistrate judge's preliminary approval of the deal to the Third Circuit, which then remanded the case over problems with the class structure. A revised settlement resolved qualms over the class structure, but certain factions of attorneys for plaintiffs in the case remained dissatisfied with a ruling on how fees in the case were calculated. According to a brief filed on behalf of the Murrays, U.S. Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz said she would allow a 2.0 lodestar multiplier in determining fees in the case because it was within the limit approved by the Third Circuit. But the couple argued that New Jersey state law limits the lodestar multiplier to 1.35 "in all but the the most rare and exceptional circumstances." The appeals court also rejected the class members' argument that -- even if the common fund fee analysis under state law were permitted -- the district court erred by using the 2010 valuation of the settlement, which was based on an expert's projections, instead of actual claims data available in 2012, saying the magistrate judge did not abuse her discretion in her decision not to reduce the fee award. "The decision is important in the sense that it really explains in very clear and very simple terms how attorneys' fees are calculated in a common fund case, both in the Third Circuit and in New Jersey, and it's important for attorneys handling class actions to be able to have this kind of clear guidance to rely on going forward," Adam Slater, who argued for co-class counsel Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC, told Law360 on Feb. 12. Another class member -- of the Delguercio case -- Peter Braverman, had appealed the magistrate judge's refusal to allow him to intervene in the proceedings on remand and also challenged the attorneys' fee award, but the appeals court rejected his arguments as well, saying he was unable to show that the magistrate judge had erred in any way. The case was argued for the Murrays by John J. Pentz. Adam Slater -- aslater@mskf.net -- argued for class co-counsel Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman. The Dewey class action plaintiffs are represented by Schoengold & Sporn PC and Angelo Genova -- agenova@genovaburns.com -- and Dina Mastellone -- dmastellone@genovaburns.com -- of Genova Burns Giantomasi Webster. The Delguercio class action plaintiffs are represented by Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman LLC. The cases are John M. Dewey et al. v. Volkswagen of America Inc. et al., case number 13-1123, and Delguercio v. Volkswagen of America Inc. et al., case number 13-1124, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. * * * David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a long-stalled $69 million settlement in a class-action suit over leaky sunroofs in Volkswagen and Audi vehicles was approved by a federal appeals panel on Feb. 12. The deal, affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, includes $9.2 million in fees and $677,000 in costs for the plaintiff firms: Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in Roseland, N.J., and Schoengold & Sporn in New York. The settlement in Dewey v. Volkswagen, originally struck in 2010, was remanded because it divided class members and gave owners of certain models priority access to an $8 million settlement fund. After that, only a handful of objectors remained, and the appeals court waved off their claims that the legal fee award is too generous. The plaintiffs claimed certain Volkswagens and Audis of model years 1997 to 2009 had defective sunroof drainage systems that clogged and allowed water seepage, damaging electrical components and interiors. Two suits, filed in May 2007 and consolidated later that year, alleged violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and other causes of action. The settlement split owners and lessees into two groups: the reimbursement group, who would get first crack at repair reimbursements, and the residual group, who would be entitled to any remaining funds through "goodwill" claims. Attorneys set the dividing line based on claim rates connected to each model year. In August 2010, U.S. Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz certified the class and gave final approval, despite objectors' claims of intraclass conflict. The $69 million settlement includes the $8 million fund, $46.7 million for service work already performed, $1.4 million in direct reimbursements by Volkswagen and $13.1 million in future damage prevented by new maintenance materials. * Line of Baby Walkers, Children's Coats Among Recalled Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reported that a line of baby walkers and children's coats and jackets that fail to meet federal safety standards are among recently recalled consumer products. Here's a more detailed look: BABY WALKERS DETAILS: BebeLove walkers that were sold for babies age 6 months or older. The walkers contain a plastic- covered foam padded seat with a plastic base and toy tray. Model 358 walkers have a green, pink or orange musical tray with a white toy bar and solid color seats. Model 368 walkers have green, pink or white musical tray with a yellow toy bar and printed patterned seats. Both models have white stoppers on the bottom of the base of the walker and model numbers printed on a label on the rear bottom inside of the base. "BEBELOVE" is printed on a label on the seat back and on the base of the walkers. They were sold in small retail stores in Arizona, California and Utah and online at Amazon.com and Overstock.com from November 2011 through July 2013. WHY: The walkers failed to meet federal safety standards. Specifically, style number 358 can fit through a standard doorway and is not designed to stop at the edge of a step as required by the federal safety standard. Style number 368 contains leg openings that allow the child to slip down until the child's head can become entrapped at the neck. Babies using these walkers can be seriously injured or killed. INCIDENTS: None reported. HOW MANY: About 3,600. FOR MORE: Call BebeLove at 888-464-1218 or visit www.bebeloveusa.com and click on "Recall Contact" for more information. HOODED JACKETS DETAILS: Three styles of Sugarfly-branded hooded, woven cotton and woven polyester jackets for girls with a drawstring through the hood. Style number KMCBJ255 is olive and has a zipper closure and four front pockets with buttons, plus two zipper pockets. Style number KMCBJ410 is a belted, double-breasted, French coat style white garment with faux fur around the neck. Style KMCBJ421 is fuchsia or purple and has a button closure, plus snap button pockets on each side. The style number can be found on the back of the sewn-in neck label. They were sold at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide and online at Burlingtoncoatfactory.com from September 2011 through September 2013. WHY: The jackets have drawstrings in the hood around the neck area that pose a strangulation risk for young children. INCIDENTS: None reported. HOW MANY: About 820. FOR MORE: Contact Runway Global online at www.sugarfly.us and click on "Sugarfly Girls" on the top bar and then click on "Recall Info" at the bottom of the page, or send email to willa@runwayglobal.com for more information. COATS DETAILS: Lion Force boys' black hooded puffer coats with dark gray drawstrings around the hood. "Lion Force" is printed on the upper left side of the front of the coat and on the sewn on tag at the back of the neck. This recall involves boys' coat sizes 4 through 12. They were sold at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide November 2010 through September 2013. WHY: The jackets have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a strangulation risk for a child. INCIDENTS: None reported. HOW MANY: About 2,400. FOR MORE: More information can be found through the Consumer Product Safety Commission at http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Recalls/2014/Lion-Force-Recalls-Boys- Puffer-Coats/ or by calling their consumer hotline at 800-638- 2772. BICYCLES DETAILS: The recall includes 2012 and 2013 Cervelo P5 bicycles equipped with 3T Aduro aero handlebars. "P5" is on the seat tube, "Cervelo" is on the top tube and a large "e'' is on the down tube in white lettering. The handlebars consist of four major components: a base bar, which attaches to the bike; a forward extension mount, which attaches to the base bar; forearm rests and forward extension bars, which attach to the forward extension mount. The base bar is black with red and white stripes and has "3T" on the top and rear. The handlebars come with both a high and a low forward extension mount, one of which will be installed based on customer fit. Consumers can purchase an ultra-low forward extension mount separately. The words "Ultimate Performance" are on the forward extensions. The handlebars were made between January 2012 and July 2012. Serial numbers for the handlebars are on a label inside the base bar under the stem cap on the rear wall. The serial number is the seven-digit number following "FM78-Basebar-." The manufacture date code is the first four digits of the serial number in the MMYY format. Date codes for the defective handlebars range from 1201 to 1207. P5 bicycles which have already been inspected and passed at retailers are distinguished by a green sticker with an "e'' on the underside of the Aduro base bar. They were sold at Cervelo retailers nationwide from May 2012 to August 2013. WHY: The forward extension mounts can detach from the base bar while riding causing the rider to lose control, posing a risk of injury. INCIDENTS: 28 reports of incidents, including one report of a broken collar bone and four reports of abrasions. HOW MANY: About 1,300 in the U.S. and about 225 in Canada. FOR MORE: Call Aduro Recall Hotline at 855-225-7226 or visit www.3tcycling.com and click on Aduro Recall for more information. LIGHTS DETAILS: 100-bulb musical Christmas multi-colored lights. The light sets twinkle as eight Christmas carols play. Model number 31411 is printed on the back of the package on the bottom right side of the UPC label. "100 Musical Lights" is printed on the front of the white cardboard packaging. The model number, voltage and "Made in China" are printed on a label affixed to the light string. They were sold in Pepe Ganga and Compra De To stores in Puerto Rico from December 2011 to October 2012. WHY: The light string can overheat and catch fire. INCIDENTS: None reported. HOW MANY: About 500. FOR MORE: Call Pepe Ganga Corp. at 855-751-4532 or send email to mail@pepegangapr.com. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. 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 * * *