/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140225.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 25, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 39 Headlines 23ANDME INC: Health Kit Not Scientifically Tested, Suit Claims ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Declaratory Judgment Suit May Proceed as Class ANGEL DEL TORRO: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Tosses Remaining Appeals to Medical Pact BRAVE BUILDERS: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages BSH HOME: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act CATHAY PACIFIC: Settles Freight Shipping Price-Fixing Class Action DEX MEDIA: Accord in Shareholder Suit v. Officers Approved DEX MEDIA: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in Retirees Suit DEX MEDIA: 5th Cir. Won't Revisit Dismissal of ERISA Suit DEX MEDIA: Faces Class Suit Over FLSA Violations in Dallas DEX MEDIA: Own Class Suit to Amend Retiree Benefits Still Pending ETHAN ALLEN: Client Services Specialist Seeks to Recover Overtime EXPRESS CATERING: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages FERRELL ELECTRIC: Refuses to Pay Straight Time and OT, Suit Claims FITBIT INC: Recalls Fitness-Tracking Bracelet Due to Allergies FOODFEST INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bittersweet Chocolate FTD COMPANIES: Motion to Junk Kelm, Miller Suits Pending FTD COMPANIES: "Frank" Plaintiff Seeks to Consolidate Lawsuit GEICO INDEMNITY: Suit Seeks Payment of Vehicle's Value Diminution GENERAL CASUALTY: Faces "Cowart" Class Suit Over Insurance Claims GEO CARE: Fails to Pay Required Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says GORAJSKI ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says GULFSTREAM PARK: Sued by Poker Dealer Over FLSA Violations HCC-HIGH CAPACITY: Coil Tubing Operators Seek to Recover Wages HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Sued by Nurses for Failing to Pay Overtime HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 1,760 Motorcycles Due to Crash Risk INFANTINO LLC: Recalls Teething Toys Due to Choking Hazard JACK RABBIT: Reduced Wages Through Unlawful Deductions, Suit Says KERYX BIOPHARMA: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Perifosine Drug KIRKENDOLL MGMT: Misclassified Dancers as Contractors, Suit Says KROGER CO: POS Devices Not Fully Accessible by Blind, Suit Claims LA TANS: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime Compensation, Suit Says MAGID BROTHERS: Recalls Club Supreme Snack Foods MICHAELS INT'L: Sued by Dancer Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime MICHAELS STORES: Faces "Moyer" Data Breach Class Action in Ill. NEW WORLD: Recalls Master Kong Noodles Due to Undeclared Egg NEIMAN MARCUS: Files Motion to Dismiss Malware Class Action OH GREEN: Recalls Almond Powder Due to Undeclared Milk OH GREEN: Recalls Ferme Sunshine Drink Mix Due to Undeclared Milk OH GREEN: Recalls Black Cereal Beverage Powder OH GREEN: Recalls Almond Powder Due to Undeclared Milk PAA NATURAL: Faces Suits Over Merger With Plains All American PFIZER INC: Faces "Delseno" Class Suit in Ohio Over Lipitor Drug PFIZER INC: Faces "Saddler" Suit Over Design and Label of Lipitor POLARIS: Recalls UTV's Due to Damaged Throttle Cable Routing QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Attorney Bound by Terms of $14MM Settlement RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 8MM Lbs. of Processed Diseased Animals RAWSON-NEAL: Judge Dismisses "Patient Dumping" Class Action REGIONS FINANCIAL: Suits Over Municipal Bonds in Early Stages REGIONS FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suit by Select Fund Investors REGIONS FINANCIAL: Alabama Stock Suit Stayed Pending Review SAMSUNG C&T: Recalls Girl's Jacket Due to Strangulation Hazard SANTA MARIA FOODS: Recalls 8,895 Lbs. of Various Meat Products SEARS ROEBUCK: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Over Merger Settled, Dismissed STERLING ROPE: Recalls Sewn Cords Due to Fall Hazard SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $11.8M SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Overdraft Fees Suit in Discovery Phase SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Court Jurisdiction at Issue in "Griner" Suit TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Dismissal of "Wilder" Action Sought UNITED STATES: Bruce Fein Debunks Class Action Plagiarism Issue VONAGE HOLDINGS: "Merkin et al" Suit Sent to Negotiating Table WHIRLPOOL CORP: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling XTREME DRILLING: Tubing Operator Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages ZILLOW INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Wash. Securities Lawsuit ********* 23ANDME INC: Health Kit Not Scientifically Tested, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Vernon Stanton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 23andMe, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00294-LHK (N.D. Cal., January 20, 2014) is a consumer class action brought on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States, who have purchased 23's Personal Genome Service to find out about their genetics- related health problems. 23andMe, Inc. is a privately held Delaware Corporation with its headquarters and principal place of business in Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California. 23 sells the Health Kit through its Web site, http://www.23andme.com/and third party vendors, such as Amazon.com. When one of 23's customers purchase any PGS, including the Health Kit, 23 sends the customer a DNA Collection Kit, which includes a saliva swab. The customer uses the swab to collect a saliva sample, places the swab back in the DNA Kit, and mails the Kit to 23. 23 then purportedly runs a series of scientific analyses on the DNA contained in the saliva sample. 23 asserts that this analysis can provide its customers with accurate information about their genetic predisposition to a range of health factors such as coronary artery disease and arthritis. Though 23's claims are designed to sound scientific, they are not in fact based on any scientific testing, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff asserts that the Company provides no clinical data to establish that its Health Kit is accurate, reliable, or safe for its advertised use. The Plaintiff adds that 23 failed to obtain the necessary authorization from the Food and Drug Administration to market, promote, and advertise the Health Kit. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael McShane, Esq. Jonas P. Mann, Esq. Dana M. Isaac, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 221 Main Street, Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com jmann@audetlaw.com disaac@audetlaw.com - and - Shane Rowley, Esq. Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Matthew Rand, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: srowley@zlk.com nkulesa@zlk.com mrand@zlk.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Declaratory Judgment Suit May Proceed as Class ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that an Eleventh Circuit panel on Feb. 14 ruled that the federal Class Action Fairness Act's $5 million amount-in-controversy requirement could be satisfied even if plaintiffs only seek declaratory judgment, granting federal jurisdiction to a putative class action claiming Allstate Insurance Co. underpaid a Florida health center. Circuit Judge Ed Carnes, writing for a unanimous panel, reversed a district court's decision and held that South Florida Wellness Center Inc.'s request for declaratory judgment was enough because if granted, the judgment could allow members of the proposed class to recover far more than $5 million. Wellness argued that even if its suit succeeded, and a court ruled that Allstate underpaid millions of bills, patients would still have several steps to take before they could recover money and that Allstate's damages estimate was too speculative. But the panel ruled that if there was money to be gained, patients would likely seek claims against Allstate. "Wellness' speculation argument is itself too speculative," the opinion said. "Although the putative class members might have to take an extra step or two after obtaining declaratory relief to get money from Allstate, that does not mean that determining that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million is too speculative of a task." Wellness' suit asked for a ruling that Allstate's personal injury protection plans did not clearly indicate Allstate was opting out of a Florida requirement that insurance companies pay 80 percent of reasonable medical expenses. Wellness, which sought recovery after treating a car crash victim insured by Allstate, claims the insurance company only agreed to pay 80 percent of some expenses because its personal injury protection plans paid based on a statutory fee schedule. Allstate removed the suit to federal court after claiming that it would have paid an additional $70 million, had it not limited its plans, and that the proposed class would be eligible to recover those benefits if they received declaratory judgment. Wellness countered that the calculation was speculative because it assumed the members would seek recovery of the benefits and that their claims would not be rejected. But the panel ruled that Wellness' assumption that the class members would turn down the chance to recover benefits was "contrary to human nature and the issue of lawyers." The court also found that given the large sum of money at stake, even if many of Wellness' contingency theories were realized, it was likely that there would still be more than $5 million at stake. An attorney for Wellness told Law360 the opinion was "completely wrong" and that a potential declaratory judgment would only create the possibility that Allstate would be sued. "Allstate could still take the position that the amounts paid were reasonable and that determination would have to be made in every individual case," Lawrence M. Kopelman of Kopelman & Blankman PA said. "If a declaratory judgment would establish an insufficiency of payment, this action would certainly have included a claim for classwide damages." Circuit Judges Ed Carnes, Stanley Marcus and William H. Pryor Jr. sat on the panel that reached Friday's decision. Wellness is represented by Lawrence M. Kopelman of Kopelman & Blankman PA and Harvey D. Ginsberg. Allstate is represented by Douglas G. Brehm -- dbrehm@shutts.com -- and Suzanne Youmans Labrit -- slabrit@shutts.com -- of Shutts & Bowen LLP and Peter J. Valeta -- peter.valeta@mbtlaw.com -- of Meckler Bulger Tilson Marick & Pearson LLP. The case is South Florida Wellness Center Inc. v. Allstate Insurance Co., case number 14-10001, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. ANGEL DEL TORRO: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Ariel Linares Rodriguez, and others similarly- situated v. Angel Del Torro, individually, and Elena Del Torro individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-20227-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2014) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of the United States and the state of Florida. Angel and Elena Del Torro are residents of Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher F. Zacarias, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A. 2921 S.W. 27th Avenue Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Telephone: (786) 518-3930 Facsimile: (305) 459-3964 E-Mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Accused of Violating Truth in Lending Act ---------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Russo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corp., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00382 (N.D. Ill., January 20, 2014) alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Michael Barbakoff, Esq. Gregory Wood Jones, Esq. Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 470-6588 E-mail: gbarbakoff@siprut.com gjones@siprut.com jsiprut@siprut.com BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Tosses Remaining Appeals to Medical Pact ----------------------------------------------------------------- Garretson Resolution Group, the Claims Administrator of the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement, on Feb. 14 disclosed that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit entered an order granting the unopposed motion to dismiss the last remaining appeals to the settlement. The Fifth Circuit's order clears the way for the Deepwater Horizon Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement to go effective and allows the qualifying class members to begin to receive the valuable benefits provided by the Medical Benefits Settlement. "We will work diligently, accurately and fairly for the parties, class members and the Court involved in this settlement process," said GRG Founder and CEO Matt Garretson. GRG will now be able to immediately begin the process of notifying class members of the status of their claims, to begin processing payments to class members with complete and qualifying claims for compensation, and to begin scheduling appointments for class members with qualifying claims for participation in a periodic medical consultation program. Importantly, class members have one year from the effective Date -- or until February 12, 2015 -- to submit a claim. A copy of the proof of claim form is available on the Medical Benefits Settlement at http://www.deepwaterhorizonmedicalsettlement.com The Medical Benefits Settlement is a settlement between BP Exploration & Production Inc. and BP America Production Company and Class Counsel in the action captioned In Re: "Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010," Case Number 2:10-md-2179, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and settles numerous lawsuits arising out of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Medical Benefits Settlement provides benefits to qualifying individuals who were clean-up workers or who resided in specific geographic areas in coastal and wetland areas along the Gulf Coast during specific periods in 2010. The Medical Benefits Settlement is separate and distinct from the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages Settlement, which is designed to provide compensation to individuals who suffered economic loss or property damage as a result of the spill and is administered by a different entity. As the Claims Administrator, it is GRG's responsibility to implement and administer the Medical Benefits Settlement Agreement, including: (1) payments to qualifying class members for certain acute (short-term) and chronic (ongoing) medical conditions from exposure to the oil or chemical dispersants; (2) provision of periodic medical consultations to qualifying class members; and (3) a Gulf Region Health Outreach Program, consisting of projects to strengthen the healthcare system in certain Gulf Coast areas. For more information about GRG, please visit http://www.garretsongroup.com BRAVE BUILDERS: Class Seeks Payment of Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Alfredo Cambar Espinal, Alvaro Javier Sanchez Consuegra, Roberto Santiago Reymundo, Pedro Garcia Jacinto, Williams Ulises Gonzalez Picado a/k/a Nestor Herrera, German Cambar Espinal and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Brave Builders Corp., Siltek Group Inc., Victor Lavastida and Sandra Del Carmen Morales, Case No. 1:14-cv-20229-CMA (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2014) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated overtime and minimum wage provisions of the FLSA. Brave Builders Corp. is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County, in Florida. Siltek Group Inc. is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Broward County, in Florida. Victor Lavastida runs the day-to-day operations of Brave Builders during the relevant time period and controlled the Plaintiffs' work and schedule. Sandra Del Carmen Morales is a corporate officer, owner or manager of Brave Builders and was responsible for paying the Plaintiff's wages for the relevant time period. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM BSH HOME: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling ------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan D. Selbin, chair of the defective products practice group at the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced Feb. 24 that the U.S. Supreme Court Monday morning denied a petition for writ of certiorari against BSH Home Appliances Corporation, the manufacturer of Bosch washing machines in Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp. In this case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the trial court's grant of certification to four statewide consumer classes in California, Illinois, Maryland, and New York. The Bosch consumers allege that their machines are defective causing mold, mildew, and horrible smells. Learn more about the defective front-load washer litigation at http://is.gd/zOCa0k About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP -- http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a 60-plus attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville. We are among the largest law firms in the United States that represent only plaintiffs. We are committed to achieving justice for consumers, employees, patients, investors, and business owners; promoting safer products and fair competition; protecting our environment; assisting individuals blow the whistle on fraud; safeguarding the rights of patent and copyright holders; and remedying violations of the civil rights of citizens worldwide. The firm may be reached through: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Tel: 212-355-9500 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com BUILD-A-BEAR WORKSHOP: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00083- LPL (W.D. Pa., January 20, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The Plaintiff, a blind individual, accuses the Defendant of failing to design, construct, own or operate Point of Sale Devices that are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people. Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc. is headquartered at St. Louis, Missouri. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq. Carlos Diaz, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com cdiaz@carlsonlynch.com The Defendant is represented by: David W. Gearhart, Esq. Philip J. Mackey, Esq. LEWIS, RICE & FINGERSH, L.C. 600 Washington Avenue, Suite 2500 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 444-1394 Facsimile: (314) 612-1394 E-mail: dgearhart@lewisrice.com pmackey@lewisrice.com CATHAY PACIFIC: Settles Freight Shipping Price-Fixing Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------------ Megan Morley, Esq., at McDermott Will & Emery, reports that on February 12, 2014, Cathay Pacific Airlines Ltd. settled a freight shipping price-fixing multidistrict class action litigation in the Eastern District of New York. In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation, case number 1:06-md-01775. The Hong Kong-based airline agreed to pay consumers of air-freight shipping services $65 million in the settlement. After the U.S. Department of Justice and European Commission initiated investigations of the air freight industry, purchasers of shipping services brought price-fixing actions against air cargo companies from two dozen countries in 2006. The Department of Justice claimed that these air cargo companies conspired to set the rate at which they charged for certain routes. These airlines then held subsequent meetings to ensure that these rates were enforced. To date, 20 defendant groups have paid $758 million in settlements with eight defendant groups still remaining in the class action. Cathay Pacific previously paid $1.44 million to the Canadian Competition Bureau and $60 million to the Department of Justice for pleading guilty to violations of Canadian and United States competition and antitrust laws, respectively. DEX MEDIA: Accord in Shareholder Suit v. Officers Approved ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, preliminarily approved a settlement reached in a shareholder suit filed against the officers of Dex Media, Inc., according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On April 30, 2009, May 21, 2009, and June 5, 2009, three separate putative class action securities lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against certain officers of SuperMedia Inc., formerly Idearc Inc. (but not against the Company or its subsidiaries). The suits were filed by Jan Buettgen, John Heffner, and Alan Goldberg as three separate named plaintiffs on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock between August 10, 2007 and March 31, 2009, inclusive. On May 22, 2009, a putative class action securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas against two of the Company's current officers (but not against the Company or its subsidiaries). The suit was filed by Wade L. Jones on behalf of purchasers of the Company's bonds between March 27, 2008 and March 30, 2009, inclusive. On August 18, 2009, the Wade Jones case from Arkansas federal district court was transferred to be consolidated with the cases filed in Texas. The complaints are virtually identical and generally allege that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial performance and condition. Specifically, the complaints allege violations by the defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and Section 20 of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs were seeking unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation expenses. Since the filing of the complaints, all four cases have been consolidated into one court in the Northern District of Texas and a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiffs' attorney have been selected ("Buettgen" case). On April 12, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire Buettgen complaint. On August 11, 2010, in a one line order without an opinion, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. On May 19, 2011, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion certifying a class. Subsequently, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal of the class certification order. On September 24, 2012, the Company defendants filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a complete dismissal which was denied on February 20, 2013. The parties entered into a tentative settlement of the matter on April 1, 2013. The Court has preliminarily approved the settlement and set a fairness hearing for November 12, 2013. The Company's insurance carriers have fully funded the settlement pursuant to the Court's order preliminarily approving the settlement. DEX MEDIA: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in Retirees Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, granted the defendants' summary judgments, and denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment in a suit filed by former Bell retirees, according to Dex Media, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On November 25, 2009, three former Bell retirees brought a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against both the employee benefits committee and pension plans of Verizon Communications and the employee benefits committee ("EBC") and pension plans of SuperMedia Inc., formerly Idearc Inc. All three named plaintiffs are receiving the single life monthly annuity pension benefits. All complain that Verizon transferred them against their will from the Verizon pension plans to the Company pension plans at or near the Company's spin-off from Verizon. The complaint alleges that both the Verizon and Company defendants failed to provide requested plan documents, which would entitle the plaintiffs to statutory penalties under the Employee Retirement Income Securities Act ("ERISA"); that both the Verizon and Company defendants breached their fiduciary duty for refusal to disclose pension plan information; and other class action counts aimed solely at the Verizon defendants. The plaintiffs seek class action status, statutory penalties, damages and a reversal of the employee transfers. The Company defendants filed their motion to dismiss the entire complaint on March 10, 2010. On October 18, 2010, the court ruled on the pending motion dismissing all the claims against the Company pension plans and all of the claims against the Company's EBC relating to the production of documents and statutory penalties for failure to produce same. The only claims that remained against the Company were procedural ERISA claims against the Company's EBC. On November 1, 2010, the Company's EBC filed its answer to the complaint. On November 4, 2010, the Company's EBC filed a motion to dismiss one of the two remaining procedural ERISA claims against the EBC. Pursuant to an agreed order, the plaintiffs have obtained class certification against the Verizon defendants and discovery has commenced. After obtaining permission from the court, the plaintiffs filed another amendment to the complaint, alleging a new count against the Company's EBC. The Company's EBC filed another motion to dismiss the amended complaint and have filed a summary judgment motion before the deadline set by the scheduling order. On March 26, 2012, the court denied the Company's EBC's motion to dismiss. On September 16, 2013, the court granted the defendants' summary judgments, denied the plaintiffs' summary judgment, and entered a take nothing judgment in favor of the Company EBC. The time for plaintiffs to file an appeal has not yet run. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf. DEX MEDIA: 5th Cir. Won't Revisit Dismissal of ERISA Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied a rehearing, en banc, of a trial court dismissal of a suit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by former employees of Dex Media, Inc. On December 10, 2009, a former employee with a history of litigation against SuperMedia Inc., formerly Idearc Inc. filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, against certain of the Company's current and former officers, directors and members of the Company's EBC. The complaint attempts to recover alleged losses to the various savings plans that were allegedly caused by the breach of fiduciary duties in violation of ERISA by the defendants in administrating the plans from November 17, 2006 to March 31, 2009. The complaint alleges that: (i) the defendants wrongfully allowed all the plans to invest in Idearc common stock, (ii) the defendants made material misrepresentations regarding the Company's financial performance and condition, (iii) the defendants had divided loyalties, (iv) the defendants mismanaged the plan assets, and (v) certain defendants breached their duty to monitor and inform the EBC of required disclosures. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement for litigation expenses. At this time, a class has not been certified. The plaintiffs have filed a consolidated complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the entire complaint on June 22, 2010. On March 16, 2011, the court granted the Company defendants' motion to dismiss the entire complaint; however, the plaintiffs have repleaded their complaint. The Company defendants have filed another motion to dismiss the new complaint. On March 15, 2012, the court granted the Company defendants' second motion dismissing the case with prejudice. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal and briefing in the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has been completed. On July 9, 2013, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision affirming the dismissal of the trial court. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Petition to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc which has been denied. The Company said the time for filing further appeals has not yet run. The Company plans to honor its indemnification obligations and vigorously defend the lawsuit on the defendants' behalf. DEX MEDIA: Faces Class Suit Over FLSA Violations in Dallas ---------------------------------------------------------- Dex Media, Inc. faces a certified class action filed by former employees alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On July 1, 2011, several former employees filed a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action against SuperMedia Inc., formerly Idearc Inc., all its subsidiaries, the current chief executive officer and the former chief executive officer in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The complaint alleges that the Company improperly calculated the rate of pay when it paid overtime to its hourly sales employees. On July 29, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege that the individual defendants had "off-the-clock" claims for unpaid overtime. Subsequently, the Company amended its motion to dismiss in light of the new allegations. On October 25, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a collective action and to issue notice. On March 29, 2012, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the class. The Company's motion seeking permission to file an interlocutory appeal of the order was denied and a notice has been sent to the Company's former and current employees. The time for opting into the class has expired. The plaintiffs that failed to file their opt-ins on time have filed a companion case with the same allegations. DEX MEDIA: Own Class Suit to Amend Retiree Benefits Still Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dex Media, Inc. was preparing a scheduling order to be filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in a lawsuit over amendments to the company's retiree health and welfare benefit plans, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On June 26, 2012, SuperMedia filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, where the Company seeks a declaratory judgment concerning the Company's right to enact several amendments that were recently made to its retiree health and welfare benefit plans, and more generally the Company's right to modify, amend or terminate these plans. Several of the defendants have filed motions to dismiss as well as a counterclaim. The Company has filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim. On August 8, 2013, the court granted several of the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the defendants' counterclaim. The Company and the remaining defendants were preparing a scheduling order to file with the court. ETHAN ALLEN: Client Services Specialist Seeks to Recover Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Simone Miller v. Ethan Allen Retail, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, and Deborah Griffith, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv- 80079-DMM (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff, employed by the Defendants as Client Services Specialist, seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fee and costs from the Defendants. Ethan Allen is a Connecticut corporation. Deborah Griffith owns or operates Ethan Allen, where the Plaintiff is employed. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Militzok, Esq. MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A. The Yankee Clipper Law Center 3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 727-8570 Facsimile: (954) 241-6857 E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com EXPRESS CATERING: Accused of Failing to Pay Proper Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kwame A. Agyei, Etchien Kouaho, Ladjebe R. Lare and Henry Sumah, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Express Catering, Inc. and Frank Fumich, Case No. 3:14-cv-00024- GCM (W.D.N.C., January 20, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay their non-exempt, hourly employees overtime compensation, at a rate not less than one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Express Catering, Inc., is a domestic for-profit corporation organized in Virginia, and is registered as a foreign corporation in North Carolina. The Company operates in interstate commerce by, among other things, delivering and serving food and beverages to aircraft at several different airports. Frank Fumich is the president, owner and shareholder of the Company and is personally involved in the daily operation and management of all of the Express Catering locations. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David J. Ventura, Esq. CRUMLEY ROBERTS 1051 E. Morehead St., Suite 100 Charlotte, NC 28204 Telephone: (704) 567-4529 Facsimile: (336) 333-9894 E-mail: djventura@crumleyroberts.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com FERRELL ELECTRIC: Refuses to Pay Straight Time and OT, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ Johnny Brantley, Gary Edward Fletcher, Robert M. Pou, and Brannon Stuart, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Ferrell Electric, Inc., James N. Ferrell, and Christie C. Ferrell, Case No. 1:14-cv-00022-JRH-BKE (S.D. Ga., January 20, 2014) alleges that the Defendants willfully failed and refused to pay straight time and overtime compensation to the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, who were, or are, employed by the Defendants, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ferrell Electric, Inc. is a Georgia corporation that maintains an office in Columbia County, Georgia, from which it regularly conducts business. The Individual Defendants are officers and owners of the Company. The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Batson, Esq. P.O. Box 3248 Augusta, GA 30904-4459 Telephone: (706) 737-4040 Facsimile: (706) 736-3391 E-mail: jpbatson@aol.com FITBIT INC: Recalls Fitness-Tracking Bracelet Due to Allergies -------------------------------------------------------------- Katherine Rosman of Wall Street Journal reported that Fitbit said it is halting sales of its newest fitness-tracking bracelet and recalling the product after months of complaints from consumers who say the band has caused rashes on their wrists. The voluntary recall of the Fitbit Force is a serious setback for a startup that markets its products as a way to "help people lead healthier, more active lives." It is also a public relations headache, coming days before Fitbit shows off its products in Barcelona at next week's Mobile World Congress, an annual confab for the mobile industry with tens of thousands of attendees. The San Francisco company said in a statement that it was conducting the recall of its newest bracelet "out of an abundance of caution" and repeated an offer to refund consumers who purchased the $129 Force. Fitbit Chief Executive James Park wrote in a blog post -- http://is.gd/j4ytdL-- that only 1.7% of Force users had reported an irritation. In the company statement, Fitbit said "affected users are likely experiencing an allergic reaction" to materials in the bracelet. Mr. Park wrote that "some users may be reacting to the nickel," a component of the stainless steel used in the device. Others, he wrote, "are likely experiencing an allergic reaction to the materials used in the strap or the adhesives used to assemble the product." Mr. Park repeated a statement he made in January that an independent lab had ruled out problems with the battery or electrical system. A Fitibit spokeswoman said the company is working with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission regarding the recall. The Force is Fitbit's newest product, designed to track people's activity, such as steps taken, distance traveled and calories burned. At night, it tracks users' sleep patterns. Data can be seen on the wristband's display or on a smartphone or computer. Soon after its release in October, wearers began complaining about blisters, rashes and itchy dry patches on their wrists. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that some of the skin problems required medical attention and prescription medication. At least one person said that she had been offered a financial settlement from Fitbit. Since that report, the Journal has received emails from others who say they developed similar rashes from Fitbit's earlier products. Vera Shanley, a 59-year-old medical doctor and health coach, says she developed a rash from the Fitbit One, a clip-on device that tracks fitness, sleep and nutritional patterns. Ms. Shanley bought the device when it launched in August 2012. She clipped it inside her waistband and within about a week noticed an itchy red rash developing on her right hip. She moved the One to her left side where she also developed a rash. Now, she clips the device to her bra so that the product doesn't touch her skin. "I've had no problem with it since, whatsoever," she says. Yvonne Beckley, 72, began wearing the Fitbit Flex bracelet in 2012. Late last year, she ordered from Fitbit different colored bands that can be used with the Flex device. When she wore the black version of the Flex band, she said she developed a rash. Ms. Beckley saw a doctor who told her to treat the rash with an over-the-counter cortisone cream. The rash got worse, she said. Ms. Beckley returned to the doctor who then prescribed Triamcinalone, a topical steroid. The rash subsided and Ms. Beckley turned to a blue band for her Flex, which she has worn since without reaction. A Fitbit spokeswoman said users may experience skin sensitivity with any type of wearable product, and that any issues consumers have reported with the Flex and One are unrelated to the reasons associated with the Force recall. "We take all of our consumer complaints seriously, and if any user experiences skin irritation while wearing a Fitbit device, he or she should either discontinue wearing the device or wear it attached to an article of clothing," she wrote in an email. Fitbit is scheduled to be an exhibitor at Mobile World Congress. The conference has promoted on its website a contest called the Fitbit Challenge, in which attendees can buy a discounted Fitbit Flex from the Fitbit booth and win prizes based on the wearer's activity. One of the prizes was supposed to be a Force, but the company is replacing that with Flex products. Fitbit was founded in 2007 and is backed by a number of venture- capital firms, including Foundry Group and True Ventures, which last year invested $43 million. The venture-capital firms didn't respond to requests for comment. FOODFEST INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Bittersweet Chocolate ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 20, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Foodfest International 2000 Inc. Distribution: Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8653 Affected products: 85 g. Elite Bittersweet Chocolate with UPC 0 77245 10721 4 Foodfest International 2000 Inc. is recalling Elite brand Bittersweet Chocolate from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. The product has been distributed in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) test results. 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 product from the marketplace. FTD COMPANIES: Motion to Junk Kelm, Miller Suits Pending -------------------------------------------------------- The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, and no trial date has been set in In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., where the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action have been consolidated, according to FTD Companies, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In March 2012, Hope Kelm, Barbara Timmcke, Regina Warfel, Brett Reilly, Juan M. Restrepo, and Jennie H. Pham filed a purported class action complaint (the "Kelm Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: (i) Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Citigroup, Inc., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Company Defendants"); (ii) 1- 800-Flowers.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Days Inns Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corporation, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., IAC/InterActiveCorp, and Shoebuy.com, Inc. (collectively, the "E- Merchant Defendants"); and (iii) Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. ("Trilegiant"), Affinion Group, LLC ("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (3) violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA") by Trilegiant, Affinion and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E-Merchant Defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Company Defendants; (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602 by Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, and the E- Merchant Defendants; and (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. In March 2012, Debra Miller and William Thompson filed a purported class action complaint (the "Miller Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: (i) Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo, Vertrue, Inc., Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Adaptive Marketing, LLC (collectively, the "Membership Companies"); (ii) 1-800- Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Peoplefinderspro, Inc., Rakuten USA, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., United Online, Inc., Wells Fargo & Company, and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Marketing Companies"); and (iii) Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., and Citibank, N.A. (collectively, the "Credit Card Companies"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (2) aiding and abetting violations of federal mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud statutes by the Credit Card Companies; (3) violations of the ECPA by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (4) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Credit Card Companies; (5) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602 by the Membership Companies and the Marketing Companies; and (6) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from the plaintiffs, damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. In April 2012, the Kelm Class Action and the Miller Class Action were consolidated with a related case under the case caption In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. In September 2012, the plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint and named five additional defendants. The defendants have responded to the consolidated amended complaint by joining in motions to dismiss filed by other defendants on December 7, 2012. Those motions were argued before the district court on September 25, 2013, and taken under submission. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, and no trial date has been set. FTD COMPANIES: "Frank" Plaintiff Seeks to Consolidate Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court, District of Connecticut has not yet ruled on the request of David Frank that the suit he filed against FTD Group, Inc. be consolidated with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action, according to FTD Companies, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In addition, in December 2012, David Frank filed a purported class action complaint (the "Frank Class Action") in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against the following defendants: Trilegiant, Affinion, Apollo (collectively, the "Frank Membership Companies"); 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Classmates International, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., FTD Group, Inc., Hotwire, Inc., IAC/Interactivecorp, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Orbitz Worldwide, LLC, PeopleFindersPro, Inc., Priceline.com, Inc., Shoebuy.com, Inc., TigerDirect, Inc., United Online, Inc., and Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (collectively, the "Frank Marketing Companies"); Bank of America, N.A., Capital One Financial Corporation, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Chase Paymentech Solutions, LLC, Citibank, N.A., Citigroup, Inc., and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (collectively, the "Frank Credit Card Companies"). The complaint alleges (1) violations of RICO by all defendants; (2) aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (3) aiding and abetting commissions of mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (4) violation of the ECPA by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (5) violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies, and aiding and abetting violations of such act by the Frank Credit Card Companies; (6) violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17602 by the Frank Membership Companies and the Frank Marketing Companies; and (7) unjust enrichment by all defendants. The plaintiff seeks class certification, restitution and disgorgement of all amounts wrongfully charged to and received from plaintiff, damages, treble damages, punitive damages, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded. On January 23, 2013, the plaintiff moved to consolidate the Frank Class Action with the In re Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. action. In response, the court ordered the plaintiff to show cause as to why, among other things, the plaintiff should be afforded named plaintiff status. The plaintiff filed his response to the order to show cause on February 15, 2013. The court has not yet ruled upon the request for consolidation or the order to show cause. GEICO INDEMNITY: Suit Seeks Payment of Vehicle's Value Diminution ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara E. Jenkins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GEICO Indemnity Company, Case No. 1:14-cv-00164-WBH (N.D. Ga., January 20, 2014) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others, who submitted a first-party insurance claim to GEICO for vehicle property damage, but who were not offered payment or paid for the diminution in value resulting from that damage. Diminution of value is a specified covered loss under GEICO's automobile insurance contract. GEICO Indemnity Company is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Chevy Chase, Maryland. GEICO is licensed to do business in Georgia, where it sells automobile insurance. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Coomes, Esq. MCCONNELL & SNEED, LLC 990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 220-9994 Facsimile: (404) 665-3090 E-mail: ajc@mcconnellsneed.com - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP Building C-101 6618 Sitio Del Rio Blvd. Austin, TX 78730 Telephone: (512) 372-8100 E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com - and - John Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS KIRBY 3201 Glenwood Ave., Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 780-5400 E-mail: jre@edwardskirby.com - and - David Eichholz, Esq. THE EICHHOLZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 530 Stephenson Ave., Suite 200 Savannah, GA 31405 Telephone: (912) 232-2791 E-mail: David@thejusticelawyer.com The Defendant is represented by: Michael Hilliard Schroder, Esq. SWIFT CURRIE MCGHEE & HIERS 1355 Peachtree Street, N.E. The Peachtree, Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30309-3238 Telephone: (404) 888-6126 Facsimile: (404) 888-6299 E-mail: mike.schroder@swiftcurrie.com GENERAL CASUALTY: Faces "Cowart" Class Suit Over Insurance Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley J. Cowart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. General Casualty Company of Wisconsin, Case No. 1:14- cv-00165-WBH (N.D. Ga., January 20, 2014) asserts insurance- related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Joseph Coomes, Esq. MCCONNELL & SNEED, LLC 990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 220-9994 Facsimile: (404) 665-3476 E-mail: ajc@mcconnellsneed.com - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP Building C-101 6618 Sitio Del Rio Blvd. Austin, TX 78730 Telephone: (512) 372-8100 - and - David S. Eichholz, Esq. THE EICHHOLZ LAW FIRM, P.C. 530 Stephenson Avenue, Suite 200 Savannah, GA 31405 Telephone: (912) 232-2791 E-mail: david@thejusticelawyer.com - and - John Edwards, Esq. EDWARDS KIRBY, LLP 3201 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 100 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 780-5400 The Defendant is represented by: Thomas Joshua Archer, Esq. BALCH & BINGHAM LLP-ATL 30 Ivan Allen Jr. Boulevard, NW, Suite 700 Atlanta, GA 30308 Telephone: (404) 261-6020 E-mail: jarcher@balch.com GEO CARE: Fails to Pay Required Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Ronald P. Small, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v. Geo Care, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-14023-JEM (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2014) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff the mandatory wages as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is a Florida corporation doing business in Boca Raton, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cathleen Scott, Esq. CATHLEEN SCOTT & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Jupiter Gardens 250 South Central Boulevard, Suite 104-A Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 653-0008 Facsimile: (561) 653-0020 E-mail: CScott@floridalaborlawyer.com GORAJSKI ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------ Monica Jasso, Individually, and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Gorajski Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a El Molino Panaderia Mexicana a/k/a Molino Baking Company a/k/a Molino Bakery, Marco Gorajski, individually and Johnathan Gorajski, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-00372 (N.D. Ill., January 20, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with the Defendants' alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff and the putative collective members for time worked off the clock and overtime compensation at a rate of time and a half of their regular rates of pay for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Gorajski Enterprises, Inc. is an Illinois business corporation running and operating a bakery that is open to the general public. El Molino Panaderia Mexicana a/k/a Molino Baking Company a/k/a Molino Bakery is a fictional business name associated with Gorajski, which is commonly used and applied to their location in Blue Island, Illinois. Jonathan Gorajski and Marco Gorajski, are the owners and the operator of Gorajski and Molino Bakery. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Billhorn, Esq. Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 120 S. State Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 445-9137 Facsimile: (312) 853-1459 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com GULFSTREAM PARK: Sued by Poker Dealer Over FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Rosenbrier v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. d/b/a Gulfstream Park Racing and Casino, a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-60139-WJZ (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated poker dealers at the Defendant's casino. During the employment of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated, the Defendant illegally claimed a 'tip-credit' for them, and paid those employees below the statutorily required minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Ms. Rosenbrier contends. She asserts that the Defendant, however, failed to comply with the 'tip-credit' requirements pursuant to the FLSA by, inter alia, floor supervisors and cashiers as 'tipped' employees that received portions of the tips of those employees. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq. WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, FL Telephone: (954) 463-2001 Facsimile: (954) 463-0410 E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com - and - Chad E. Levy, Esq. LEVY & LEVY, P.A. 300 Southeast Thirteenth Street 33316 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763-5722 Facsimile: (954) 763-5723 E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com HCC-HIGH CAPACITY: Coil Tubing Operators Seek to Recover Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Ernest Thomas, Juan Ramon, and Jose Quintanilla, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HCC-High Capacity Coil, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00017 (S.D. Tex., January 20, 2014) is brought on behalf of all current and former employees HCC-High to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiffs and the Potential Class Members are current and former non-exempt employees of HCC-High, who worked as coil tubing operators within the last three years. HCC-High Capacity Coil is a Delaware limited liability company based in Shreveport, Louisiana. The Company provides coil tubing, nitrogen services and equipment to the oil and gas and pipeline industries in Louisiana and Texas. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig M. Sico, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH L.L.P. 802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 653-3300 Facsimile: (361) 653-3333 E-mail: csico@swhhb.com calexander@swhhb.com HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: Sued by Nurses for Failing to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Karen Roebuck, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Healthsource Global Staffing, and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 3:14-cv-00295-RS (N.D. Cal., January 20, 2014) is brought on behalf of all HealthSource nursing employees, who worked in the United States, who (a) were not fully compensated for all time worked, or (b) were not fully compensated for time worked over 40 hours per week at the proper overtime rates. Healthsource is a California corporation with its principal places of business located in Fremont, California. The Plaintiff does not presently know the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P. C. 21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Telephone: (818) 883-4900 Facsimile: (818) 883-4902 E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com - and - Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq. Jeffrey D. Holmes, Esq. THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC 3311 East Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90023 Telephone: (213) 599-8255 Facsimile: (213) 402-3949 E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com HI-CRUSH PARTNERS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The suit In re: Hi-Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Civ-8557 (CM) continues in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. Following the Partnership's November 2012 announcement that Hi- Crush Operating LLC had formally terminated its supply agreement with Baker Hughes in response to the repudiation of the agreement by Baker Hughes, the Partnership, the General Partner, certain of its officers and directors and its underwriters were named as defendants in purported securities class action lawsuits brought by the Partnership's unitholders in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 11, 2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one lawsuit, styled In re: Hi- Crush Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 12-Civ-8557 (CM). A consolidated amended complaint was filed on February 15, 2013. That complaint asserts claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the Partnership's Registration Statement and a subsequent presentation. Among other things, the consolidated amended complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose to the market certain alleged information relating to Baker Hughes' repudiation of the supply agreement. HONDA MOTOR: Recalls 1,760 Motorcycles Due to Crash Risk -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 13, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Engine Units affected: 1760 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014044 TC ID number: 2014044 On certain motorcycles, the rocker arm shaft retaining bolt could loosen, causing an oil leak. If the bolt was to separate completely, the engine could stall or lose power. This could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will replace the rocker arm shaft retaining bolt. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- HONDA CBR500RA 2013 HONDA CBR500R 2013 HONDA CB500FA 2013 HONDA CB500XA 2013 INFANTINO LLC: Recalls Teething Toys Due to Choking Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Infantino LLC, of San Diego, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 191,000 Go Gaga Squeeze & Teethe Coco the Monkey. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The tail of the monkey can pose a choking hazard to young children. The firm has received seven reports of infants choking or gagging on the monkey's tail. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves the Go Gaga Squeeze & Teethe Coco the Monkey teething toys. This squeaking toy is made of soft orange rubber and is shaped like a monkey. The toy measures 4.5 inches tall by 5 inches long and is intended for ages newborn and up. "Infantino" is marked on the back toward the rear and model number 206-647 is marked on the inside of the rear left leg Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/MVJdvT The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Target stores nationwide and online from December 2012 through January 2014 for about $13. Consumers should immediately take the recalled products away from infants and contact Infantino to receive a free replacement toy. JACK RABBIT: Reduced Wages Through Unlawful Deductions, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Ross, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jack Rabbit Services, LLC, a Kentucky limited liability company; Jack Rabbit USA, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; jointly and severally, Case No. 3:14-cv-00044- TBR (W.D. Ky., January 20, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated roadside assistance technicians currently or formerly employed by the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants intentionally misclassify him and the putative Class as independent contractors. He adds that the Defendants willfully refuse to pay a minimum wage; willfully refuse to pay overtime; and reduce employee wages through unlawful deductions. Jack Rabbit Services, LLC, is a Kentucky limited liability company headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky. Jack Rabbit USA, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company headquartered in Pensacola, Florida. The Defendants provide roadside assistance to customers, including tire changing, jump starts, fuel delivery, and lockout services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence L. Jones II, Esq. Alex C. Davis, Esq. JONES WARD, PLC Marion E. Taylor Building 312 South Fourth St., Sixth Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 E-mail: larry@jonesward.com alex@jonesward.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com kstoops@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Timothy J. Becker, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com KERYX BIOPHARMA: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Perifosine Drug --------------------------------------------------------------- David McAfee, writing for Law360, reports that a New York federal judge on Feb. 14 threw out a putative class action brought against Keryx Biopharmaceuticals Inc. and the company's CEO by investors who said they were misled about the efficacy of perifosine, a potential cancer treatment. Two groups of plaintiff investors filed similar lawsuits against Keryx and CEO Ronald Bentsur last February, alleging Mr. Bentsur knew or recklessly disregarded that adverse facts about the drug were not disclosed to, or were being concealed from, the investing public. The plaintiffs in the now-consolidated action said Mr. Bentsur and Keryx omitted serious flaws in the phase two trial of perifosine, which the company reported to show a significant positive result, and that the misstatements came to light after a third trial failed. U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest dismissed the suit on Feb. 14, saying the plaintiffs didn't adequately allege specifics about the false statements and the malice behind them. The judge cited a similar suit launched against Keryx's co-developer, Aeterna Zentaris Inc., which was dismissed by Judge P. Kevin Castel in the same district last year. The plaintiffs asserted in that suit that the defendants "were misleading about the prospects for the Phase 3 trial success, since they knew or should have known of the inherent flaws in Phase 2," Judge Forrest wrote in the 31-page order. "Judge Castel disagreed, finding that plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead falsity or scienter. The allegations in the instant complaint are similarly deficient." The Feb. 14 order grants the defendants' bid to toss the consolidated complaint, the most recent action in the clash over the allegedly misleading statements that led up to the ultimate failure of the cancer drug. Lead plaintiff and Keryx shareholder David A. Wilkinson filed suit in February 2013 on behalf of all purchasers of Keryx common stock between June 1, 2009 and April 1, 2012. A related case containing substantially similar allegations was filed later that month, after which the court consolidated the actions, according to court documents. Judge Forrest granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs failed to state with particularity when and where the false statements were made and why they were fraudulent. The plaintiffs further failed to definitively show the mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud, according to the order. Judge Forrest also ruled that the plaintiffs could submit a memorandum to cure their complaint's deficiencies within 14 days of the order. The lead plaintiff is represented by Curtis V. Trinko -- ctrinko@trinko.com -- Jennifer E. Traytsman -- jtraystman@trinko.com -- and C. William Margrabe -- wmargrabe@trinko.com -- of The Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP and Michael K. Yarnoff -- myarnoff@ktmc.com -- Joshua E. D'Ancona -- jdancona@ktmc.com -- and Meredith L. Lambert -- mlambert@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP. Keryx is represented by John A. Jordak Jr. -- john.jordak@alston.com -- and Joseph G. Tully -- joe.tully@alston.com -- of Alston & Bird LLP. The case is In re: Keryx Biopharmaceuticals Inc. Securities Litigation, case number 1:13-cv-00755, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. KIRKENDOLL MGMT: Misclassified Dancers as Contractors, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yvonne Vera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kirkendoll Management, LLC d/b/a The Penthouse Club, Case No. 2:14-cv-00147-MLCF-SS (E.D. La., January 20, 2014) is brought as a collective action seeking to recover for the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Vera alleges that the Defendant improperly classified her and other exotic entertainers as "independent contractors." As a result of this improper classification, she contends, the Defendant avoided paying them the applicable minimum wage and overtime premium. Kirkendoll Management, LLC, doing business as The Penthouse Club, is a Colorado Limited Liability Company with a principal business in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Defendant employed Ms. Vera as a Dancer. Kirkendoll owns and operates The Penthouse Club, which offers adult entertainment services, including adult exotic dancing in the nature of live performances in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra E. Mora, Esq. Walter Wolf, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA MORA 322 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 566 0233 Facsimile: (504) 566 8997 E-mail: amora@alexmora.com wwolf@alexmora.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com KROGER CO: POS Devices Not Fully Accessible by Blind, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Jahoda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Kroger Co. d/b/a Littman Jewelers, Case No. 2:14- cv-00080-LPL (W.D. Pa., January 20, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. Mr. Jahoda alleges that the Defendant does not provide any auxiliary aids or services calculated to make its Point of Sale Devices fully accessible to, and independently usable by, blind people like him. The Kroger Co., doing business as Littman Jewelers, is headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq. Carlos Diaz, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com cdiaz@carlsonlynch.com LA TANS: Fails to Pay Wages and Overtime Compensation, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elsa Hutchinson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LA Tans, Spa & Medical Aesthetics Inc, a Florida corporation, and Andrea G. Spader, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-20221-JAL (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2014) is brought for violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fee and costs from the Defendants. LA Tans is a Florida corporation. Andrea G. Spader is a resident of Florida, who owned or operated LA Tans, where the Plaintiff was employed. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Jay Militzok, Esq. MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A. 3230 Stirling Road, Suite 1 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 727-8570 Facsimile: (954) 241-6857 E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com MAGID BROTHERS: Recalls Club Supreme Snack Foods ------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 19, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Magid Brothers Distribution Inc. Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8633 Magid Brothers Distribution Inc. is recalling Club Supreme brand snack foods from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products described below. The following products have been sold nationally. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by a consumer 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: -- 140 g. Club Supreme Corn Puffs where all codes where milk is not declared on the label and with 0 63517 53809 1 UPC; -- 130 g. Club Supreme Sour Cream and Onion Rings where all codes where milk is not declared on the label and with 0 63517 53815 2 UPC MICHAELS INT'L: Sued by Dancer Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Yvonne Vera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Michael's International, Inc. d/b/a Michael's Men's Club, Case No. 6:14-cv-00087-RFD-CMH (W.D. La., January 20, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and the class members should have been paid fair wages, given overtime compensation, and allowed to retain all tips/gratuities provided by customers. Ms. Vera was employed by the Company as a Dancer. To avoid complying with federal law designed to protect employees from employer abuse, the Defendant improperly classified her and other exotic entertainers as "independent contractors," she contends. Michael's International, Inc., is a Louisiana corporation with a principal business in New Iberia, Louisiana. Michael's International owns and operates Michael's Men's Club, which offers adult entertainment services, including adult exotic dancing in the nature of live performances in Broussard, Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandra E. Mora, Esq. Walter Wolf, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALEXANDRA MORA 322 Lafayette Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 566 0233 Facsimile: (504) 566 8997 E-mail: amora@alexmora.com wwolf@alexmora.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com MICHAELS STORES: Faces "Moyer" Data Breach Class Action in Ill. --------------------------------------------------------------- BigClassAction.com reports that Michaels Arts and Crafts suppliers are facing a federal data breach class action lawsuit following the release of its statement announcing customers' personal information may have been stolen. Filed by customer and plaintiff Christina Moyer, the lawsuit, entitled Moyer v. Michaels Stores Inc., Case No. 1:140cv-00561, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleges the Texas-based retailer was negligent in protecting customer information. Specifically, Ms. Moyer, who shopped at Michaels recently, alleges she is now paying for credit monitoring and identity theft protection because of the possible compromise, and that Michaels breached an implied contract with her and others by failing to adequately protect their private information. Further, the lawsuit claims Michaels "did not adequately monitor their information technology system for the presence of intruders in a manner that would enable them to detect this intrusion, so that they breach of security and diversion of customer information was able to continue unnoticed for a period of time." Ms. Moyer is seeking a declaratory judgment that Michaels pay for credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and be ordered to indemnify Moyer and the class for future harm. Mark Lavery of Hyslip & Taylor in Chicago filed the suit on behalf of Moyer and a proposed class. NEW WORLD: Recalls Master Kong Noodles Due to Undeclared Egg ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 19, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Sesame Seeds 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: Consumer CFIA reference number: 8632 The food recall warning issued on Feb. 13, 2014 has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. New World Imports Ltd. is recalling Master Kong brand noodle products from the marketplace because they contain egg and/or sesame which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg or sesame should not consume the recalled products. If you have an allergy to egg or sesame, 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. This 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: -- 100 g x 5 Master Kong Roasted Beef Noodle - Instant Noodles -- 101 g x 5 Master Kong Hot Beef Noodle - Instant Noodles NEIMAN MARCUS: Files Motion to Dismiss Malware Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Adam Greenberg, writing for SC Magazine, reports that on Feb. 12, Neiman Marcus -- one of several major retailers that recently announced having customer payment cards, among other information, stolen in a malware attack against its point-of-sale systems -- filed a motion to dismiss a class-action complaint filed in January by an impacted customer. The January complaint -- filed in the Eastern District of New York -- seeks equitable relief for all impacted individuals. Melissa Frank is named as lead plaintiff; she alleges that fraudulent charges made on her debit card are the result of the Neiman Marcus breach. "The complaint nowhere alleges either that the data incursion at Neiman Marcus caused the fraudulent charges on her debit card or that those charges resulted in any financial or other concrete injury to her," according to the motion for dismissal. "Because the complaint describes no specific harm she has suffered, monetary or otherwise, there is no way that a judgment in her favor would make her whole," according to the motion, which adds Ms. Frank's payment card has zero fraud liability and she will not be held accountable for fraudulent charges. "Rather, she is whole already." The motion also rejects any claims that Ms. Frank may suffer future consequences, such as identity theft. "In sum, plaintiff fails to allege what damage, what concrete and compensable harm she is suffering in the here and now," according to the motion. "She alleges no unpaid bill to pay, no demand from her bank that it be reimbursed for charges incurred on her account, and no other presently realized (or certainly impending) harm." OH GREEN: Recalls Almond Powder Due to Undeclared Milk ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 19, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Oh Green Biotech Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8636 The food recall warning issued on Feb. 18, 2014 has been updated to include additional lot codes. The additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) Food Safety Investigation. Oh Green Biotech Ltd. is recalling Ferme Sunshine brand Almond Powder from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. The product has been distributed in British Columbia. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's test results. 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. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's test results. 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. OH GREEN: Recalls Ferme Sunshine Drink Mix Due to Undeclared Milk ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 20, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Oh Green Biotech Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8639 The food recall warning issued on Feb. 19, 2014 has been updated to include additional products. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) Food Safety Investigation. Oh Green Biotech Ltd. is recalling Ferme Sunshine brand drink mix powders from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products described below. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by CFIA test results. 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 of Ferme Sunshine: -- 500 g. The Black Treasure - Black Bean & Black Sesame Powder with 4 710415 050335 UPC; -- 500 g. Golden Buckwheat Powder with 4 710415 050618 UPC; -- 500 g Fresh Yam Powder with 4 710415 050069 UPC; -- 500 g. Gingko Powder with 4 710415 050311 UPC; -- 500 g. Cashew Nut & Walnut Powder with 4 710415 050632 UPC; -- 500 g. Black Fungus Powder with 4 710415 050670 UPC; -- 500 g. Red Rice Yeast & Natto Powder with 4 710415 050304 UPC; and -- 500 g. Pumpkin Seed Powder with 4 710415 050625 UPC OH GREEN: Recalls Black Cereal Beverage Powder ---------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 21, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Oh Green Biotech Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia, Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Retail The food recall warning issued on February 20, 2014 has been updated to include an additional product. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Oh Green Biotech Ltd. is recalling Oh Green brand Black Cereal beverage powder from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by CFIA test results. 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: 600 g Oh Green Black Cereal with 4 715409 892021 UPC OH GREEN: Recalls Almond Powder Due to Undeclared Milk ------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 18, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Oh Green Biotech Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 8630 Oh Green Biotech Ltd. is recalling Ferme Sunshine brand Almond Powder from the marketplace because it contains milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled product described below. The following product has been distributed in British Columbia. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's test results. 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: 500 g. Ferme Sunshine Almond Powder with 4 710415 050373 UPC PAA NATURAL: Faces Suits Over Merger With Plains All American ------------------------------------------------------------- PAA Natural Gas Storage, L.P. faces lawsuits over its proposed merger with Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., according to PAA Natural's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On September 13, 2013, Robert and Teresa Vicars, purported unitholders of PAA Natural Gas Storage, L.P. (the Partnership), filed a class action petition on behalf of the Partnership's unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of the Partnership against Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. (PAA), the General Partner and the directors of the General Partner in the 152nd Judicial District of Harris County, Texas ("Vicars"). A similar class action complaint was filed against the same defendants, together with the Partnership, PAA GP LLC, Plains All American GP LLC and Plains AAP, L.P., on September 17, 2013, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by purported unitholder Stephen Ellman ("Ellman"). A third class action complaint for breach of fiduciary duties was filed against the same defendants as in the Ellman Suit, together with Merger Co., on October 2, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas -- Houston Division by purported unitholder The Duckpond CRT UTD 2/14/03, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated ("Duckpond"). The Vicars and Ellman complaints allege, among other things, that the consideration offered by PAA is unfair and inadequate and that, by pursuing a transaction that is the result of an allegedly conflicted and unfair process, the defendants have breached their duties under the Partnership's partnership agreement as well as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and are engaging in self-dealing. These two lawsuits generally allege that: (i) the defendants are engaging in self-dealing, are not acting in good faith toward the Partnership, and have breached and are breaching their duties owed to the Partnership; (ii) the defendants are failing to properly value the Partnership and its various assets and operations and are ignoring or are not protecting against the numerous conflicts of interest arising out of the proposed transaction; and (iii) PAA, the General Partner, the Partnership and other PAA affiliates have aided and abetted the defendant directors the purpose of advancing their own interests and/or assisting such directors in connection with their breaches of their respective duties. In addition, Ellman further includes (i) purported derivative claims on behalf of the Partnership based on the alleged breaches of duties by the defendants and (ii) a claim that the defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process. In Duckpond, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the implied price per unit materially undervalues the Partnership and is unfair to its unitholders. The Duckpond plaintiff further alleges that the defendants who are directors and officers of the General Partner have breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and care and the other defendants have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches. Based on these allegations, the plaintiffs generally seek to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or consummating the merger. To the extent that the merger is implemented before relief is granted, plaintiffs seek to have the merger rescinded. The plaintiffs also seek money damages and attorneys' fees. In Duckpond, that plaintiff also seeks a constructive trust in favor of the purported class of PNG unitholders upon any benefits improperly received by the defendants. PFIZER INC: Faces "Delseno" Class Suit in Ohio Over Lipitor Drug ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judith Delseno, 3937 Grove Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45212 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No. 1:14-cv-00063-TSB (S.D. Ohio, January 20, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff 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. Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. Pfizer produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes, supplies, and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical practitioners. The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny Unkraut Hendy, Esq. SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON P.S.C. 909 Wright Summit Parkway, Suite 210 Ft. Wright, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 578-4444 Facsimile: (859) 578-4440 E-mail: phendy@pschachter.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 PFIZER INC: Faces "Saddler" Suit Over Design and Label of Lipitor ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Saddler, G3100 Miller Road, Apt. 348, Flint, Michigan 48507 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No. 1:14-cv-00066-TSB (S.D. Ohio, January 20, 2014) is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff 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. Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. Pfizer produces, manufactures, distributes, advertises, promotes, supplies, and sells Lipitor to distributors and retailers for resale to physicians, hospitals, pharmacies, and medical practitioners. The Plaintiff is represented by: Penny Unkraut Hendy, Esq. SCHACHTER, HENDY & JOHNSON P.S.C. 909 Wright Summit Parkway, Suite 210 Ft. Wright, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 578-4444 Facsimile: (859) 578-4440 E-mail: phendy@pschachter.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 POLARIS: Recalls UTV's Due to Damaged Throttle Cable Routing ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: February 12, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: A.T.V. Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Powertrain Units affected: 879 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014040 TC ID number: 2014040 On certain side-by-side UTV's, the throttle cable could come into contact with the exhaust pipe, melting the cable's plastic lining. This could cause the throttle cable to stick once it has cooled, potentially affecting throttle control and increasing the risk of injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will inspect the throttle cable routing and replace the cable if necessary. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- POLARIS RANGER 500 EFI 2013 POLARIS RANGER CREW 500 2013 POLARIS RANGER CREW 500 EFI 2013 QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Attorney Bound by Terms of $14MM Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled on Feb. 14 that a lawyer representing landowners in class action suit over telecommunication companies' installation of fiber-optic cable on the landowners' property was bound by the terms of a $14 million settlement even though he didn't sign a final written agreement. The appeals court found no factual or legal error in an Illinois federal judge's decision that Arthur Susman's failure to promptly object to the deal implied his consent and that his eventual refusal to sign was a case of "buyer's remorse" -- not an objection to the deal's enforcement terms. Under the terms of the Illinois settlement -- which resolved the landowners' class action against Sprint Communications Co. LP, Qwest Communications Co. LLC, Level 3 Communications LLC and others -- attorneys were to be awarded $3.54 million in fees and expenses, and there was to be an enforcement mechanism preventing additional litigation. Mr. Susman said on appeal that he objected to the August 2011's settlement's hold-harmless clause, as well as provisions empowering mediators to arbitrate future disputes and "forfeit" the fees of attorneys who don't cooperate in implementing the agreement in related state-by-state settlements. But the appeals court affirmed the decision, saying it was reasonable for other lawyers to expect Mr. Susman to quickly raise his objections to the written agreement after the dispute was settled. The Illinois class action, which alleged malfeasance over 4,500 parcels of land in the state, was just one chapter in an epic battle in which property owners accused telecommunications companies of installing fiber-optic cable and other facilities on railroad rights-of-way after getting permission from the railroads but not the landowners. Following a lengthy dispute, plaintiffs' lawyers agreed that 87 percent of the fees awarded in the nationwide class action settlements would go to a coalition of 48 law firms -- with Mr. Susman and his former collaborator William Gotfryd receiving the remaining 4.5 percent and 8.5 percent, respectively, court papers said. A draft written agreement was circulated, and after Mr. Susman suggested minor clarifications that were made, he didn't raise any additional suggestions or concerns, according to court filings. All the lawyers signed the deal save Mr. Susman, who contended that Mr. Gotfryd shouldn't get a larger slice of the pie and that obligations in the written agreement weren't part of the original mediators' proposal. District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer ruled that Mr. Susman was bound to the deal because he had approved a meditated fee- allocation proposal and hadn't voiced significant objections to the drafts. The Seventh Circuit said Feb. 14 that, if Mr. Susman's real complaint was over his size of the share, "his reliance on a tardy objection to the arbitration and hold-harmless provisions in the written agreement is hard to explain as anything other than a sham." Aside from the Illinois class action, fees have been distributed in accordance with the agreement in other settlements while Mr. Susman's appeal has been pending, court filings said. Kathleen C. Kauffman of Ackerson Kauffman Fex PC, which represented the plaintiffs on the fee issue, told Law360 on Feb. 8 that it is unfortunate that the courts ever had to deal with the fee dispute. An attorney for Sprint declined to comment Saturday. Attorneys for Qwest, Level 3 and Wiltel didn't immediately respond to requests for comment Friday. Circuit Judges William Joseph Bauer, Richard Posner and Diane S. Sykes sat on the panel for the Seventh Circuit. Plaintiffs Brent Bauer, James Becherer, Judy Boren, Wayne Smith, Tri-County Feed Mill Inc. and Wilaredt Acres Inc. are represented by Kathleen C. Kauffman of Ackerson Kauffman Fex PC. Susman Group is represented by Arthur T. Susman -- asusman@shhllp.com -- of the Law Offices of Arthur Susman. Qwest is represented by Kevin B. Duff of Rachlis Durham Duff Adler & Peel LLC, and Christopher J. Koenigs and Michael B. Carroll of Sherman & Howard LLC. Level 3 and Wiltel Communications LLC are represented by Joseph E. Jones of Fraser Stryker PC LLO. Sprint Communications Company LP is represented by Richard M. Waris -- rwaris@pretzel-stouffer.com -- of Pretzel & Stouffer and J. Emmett Logan -- emmett.logan@stinsonleonard.com -- of Stinson Leonard Street LLP. Brent Bauer et al. v. Qwest Communications Co. LLC et al., case 12-3036, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. RANCHO FEEDING: Recalls 8MM Lbs. of Processed Diseased Animals -------------------------------------------------------------- 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 nationwide. 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 RAWSON-NEAL: Judge Dismisses "Patient Dumping" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Reese and Cynthia Hubert, writing for Sacramento Bee, report that a federal judge on Feb. 13 dismissed a civil lawsuit brought on behalf of a patient who was bused to Sacramento from a Nevada state psychiatric hospital in Las Vegas. Rawson-Neal Psychiatric Hospital discharged James Flavy Coy Brown via Greyhound bus last February to Sacramento, where he had no connections and no arrangements for treatment or housing waiting for him. Rawson-Neal lost its accreditation and its treatment protocols have been the focus of ongoing reviews by state and federal agencies. The hospital, Nevada's primary facility for mentally ill people, remains in danger of losing its federal Medicare funding, pending demands for improvements. Sacramento attorney Mark Merin, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, filed a class-action lawsuit against Nevada on behalf of Mr. Brown and hundreds of other patients bused out of state by the hospital, contending the practice was a form of "patient dumping" and violated their civil rights. Mr. Merin said his research had turned up dozens of former patients with similar stories. In dismissing the lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge James C. Mahan, whose district spans the state of Nevada, ruled that state officials didn't compel Mr. Brown to get on a bus to Sacramento. Instead, he wrote, Nevada merely gave him the means to leave: a bus ticket. "The coercive power of the state was not imposed on (Brown)," Judge Mahan wrote in an 11-page decision. "There was no direct command from an individual bearing state coercive authority, nor threat of punishment if (Brown) did not travel to Sacramento." Nevada has a right to institute a busing policy that "best allocate(s) scarce financial resources," Judge Mahan added. Judge Mahan's decision largely affirmed the arguments made by Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto asking that the lawsuit be dismissed. Mr. Brown, who suffers from schizophrenia, had been living homeless in Las Vegas for years when he ended up at Rawson-Neal with symptoms of psychosis last February. He spent 72 hours in the observation unit, he later told The Bee, before a doctor told him he might enjoy "sunny California" and discharged him to the Las Vegas Greyhound station. His discharge orders noted he should be given a three-day supply of Thorazine, Klonopin and Cymbalta to treat his schizophrenia, anxiety disorder and depression, plus "Ensure and snacks for a 15-hour bus ride." Following a bus trip that spanned multiple stops over three days, Mr. Brown arrived in Sacramento carrying his bus schedule and discharge papers from Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services, the hospital's umbrella agency. Mr. Brown said hospital staffers had told him to dial 911 when he arrived. Instead, he wound up at the Loaves & Fishes homeless services complex on North C Street, confused and talking of suicide, according to staffers there. With their help, he made it to UC Davis Medical Center, where he spent two nights in the emergency room, while hospital staff searched for more permanent psychiatric treatment and housing. He spent time at two boarding homes in the Sacramento area before his daughter, alerted to his plight when In the lawsuit, Mr. Merin contends that discharging Mr. Brown to a bus violated the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution outlawing "cruel and unusual punishment," saying the hospital was indifferent to Brown's unstable psychological state. Judge Mahan, who was appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, unequivocally rejected that argument. "This view stretches the Eighth Amendment beyond its previously recognized limits," he wrote, "and would effectively require hospitals to indefinitely provide free care to all patients to avoid 'punishing' them by forcing them out into the harsh existence of the real world." Mr. Merin also hoped to convince Judge Mahan that Mr. Brown's treatment violated the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, often called the "anti-dumping" law. Under the act, a hospital emergency room must screen a patient for an emergency medical condition and, if one exists, stabilize the patient before discharge. A patient who suffers "personal harm" due to a violation of the law can sue. But, Judge Mahan wrote, Mr. Brown "fails to articulate that he suffered any personal harm as a direct result of (Rawson-Neal's) failure to comply with this section. Indeed, (Brown's) account indicates that (Rawson-Neal) gave him enough medication to last the entire trip to Sacramento, and that shortly after he arrived, he was treated at the University of California at Davis Medical Center." In an interview on Feb. 13, Mr. Merin took issue with Judge Mahan's reasoning, saying Mr. Brown was confused and heavily medicated and in no condition to take responsibility for his care or ignore doctors' orders that he head to Sacramento. He said he and Mr. Brown are considering their options, including an appeal or filing a new lawsuit in state court. REGIONS FINANCIAL: Suits Over Municipal Bonds in Early Stages ------------------------------------------------------------- Lawsuits alleging securities law violations by Morgan Keegan, including one brought as a class action on behalf of retail purchasers of certain municipal bonds, are in the early stages, according to Regions Financial Corporation's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. The SEC and states of Missouri and Texas are investigating alleged securities law violations by Morgan Keegan in the underwriting and sale of certain municipal bonds. An enforcement action was brought by the Missouri Secretary of State on April 4, 2013, seeking monetary penalties and other relief. A civil action was brought by institutional investors of the bonds on March 19, 2012, seeking a return of their investment and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. A class action was brought on behalf of retail purchasers of the bonds on September 4, 2012, seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. Several claims by individual investors and investor groups are also pending. These actions are in the early stages. These matters are also subject to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James. REGIONS FINANCIAL: Still Faces Suit by Select Fund Investors ------------------------------------------------------------ Cases brought on behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds are in various stages and no classes have been certified, according to Regions Financial Corporation's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. Beginning in December 2007, Regions and certain of its affiliates have been named in class-action lawsuits filed in federal and state courts on behalf of investors who purchased shares of certain Regions Morgan Keegan Select Funds (the "Funds") and stockholders of Regions. These cases have been consolidated into class-actions and stockholder derivative actions for the open-end and closed-end Funds. The Funds were formerly managed by Regions Investment Management, Inc. ("Regions Investment Management"). Regions Investment Management no longer manages these Funds, which were transferred to Hyperion Brookfield Asset Management ("Hyperion") in 2008. Certain of the Funds have since been terminated by Hyperion. The complaints contain various allegations, including claims that the Funds and the defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts relating to the activities of the Funds. Plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages. These cases are in various stages and no classes have been certified. Settlement discussions are ongoing in certain cases, and the Court has granted final approval of a settlement in the closed-end Funds class-action and shareholder derivative case. Certain of the shareholders in these Funds and other interested parties have entered into arbitration proceedings and individual civil claims, in lieu of participating in the class actions. These lawsuits and proceedings are subject to the indemnification agreement with Raymond James. REGIONS FINANCIAL: Alabama Stock Suit Stayed Pending Review ----------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit filed by stockholders of Regions Financial Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama is now stayed pending a review of a trial court's grant of class- action certification, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In October 2010, a purported class-action lawsuit was filed by Regions' stockholders in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama against Regions and certain former officers of Regions ("the 2010 Claim"). The 2010 Claim alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including allegations that statements that were materially false and misleading were included in filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). The plaintiffs have requested equitable relief and unspecified monetary damages. On June 7, 2011, the trial court denied Regions' motion to dismiss the 2010 Claim. On June 14, 2012, the trial court granted class certification. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is reviewing the trial court's grant of class-action certification. The case is now stayed pending that review. SAMSUNG C&T: Recalls Girl's Jacket Due to Strangulation Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Samsung C&T America, Inc., New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of 1,400 U.S. Polo Assn. girl's jackets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The jackets have a band of material at the neck that can pose a strangulation hazard to young children. In February 1996, CPSC issued guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. In 1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts. There were no incidents that were reported. Thw recall involves U.S. Polo Assn. girl's jackets. The jackets have the name U.S. Polo Assn. with the year 1890 and crossed polo mallets on the jacket's upper right exterior and a silhouette of two polo players and the initials USPA on the jacket's upper left exterior. The jackets come in the colors fuchsia, green and cream in girl's sizes 4-16. The name Q4 Designs LLC and style numbers can be found on the white tracking label tag sewn into the inside of the jacket near the waist band. Recalled style numbers include: U274-200 for sizes 4-6 and U274-300 for sizes 7-16. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/bBGPkY The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Burlington Coat Factory, Kids Stop and Cookie's Department Stores from August 2013 to October 2013 for about $15. Consumers should remove or cut the band to eliminate the hazard, or contact Q4 Designs to obtain a full refund. SANTA MARIA FOODS: Recalls 8,895 Lbs. of Various Meat Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Santa Maria Foods Corporation, a Rexdale, Ontario, Canada establishment, is recalling approximately 8,895 pounds of various meat products, because they were imported without the benefit of full USDA inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without full inspection, a remote possibility of adverse health consequences exists. These Santa Maria Foods Corporation products are subject to recall: -- 11.1-oz. "Sopressata Salami" bearing package code "2014AL30" -- 5.1-lbs. "MASTRO Milano Salami" bearing package code "2014JN17" -- 5.3-lbs. "MASTRO Calabrese Salami Hot" bearing package code "2014JL08" or "2014JN17" -- 8.4-lbs. "MASTRO Sopressata Round" bearing package code "2014JL22" -- 2.6-lbs. "MASTRO Sopressata Salami" bearing package code "2014JL09" -- 13.3-lbs. "MASTRO Mortadella with Pistachios" bearing package code "2014AL09" -- 15.0-lbs. "MASTRO Jambon de Paris Cooked Ham Jambon Cuit" bearing package code "2014AL05," "2014AL10," "2014AL10," "2014AL10" or "2014AL22" -- 16.8-lbs. "MASTRO Mortadella" bearing package code "2014MR20" Packages will bear the Canadian establishment number "340" or "224." The products were distributed into commerce in Arizona, California and Florida. The products were also exported by the US distributor to Australia, Tahiti, New Zealand, Fiji and Thailand. The problem was discovered when FSIS import staff reviewed records and discovered that the product was not presented by the independent third party carrier for USDA inspection at the U.S. - Canadian border. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illness due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Santa Maria Foods at 1-888-886-4428. Media with questions about the recall should contact Ron Hyson at (416) 459-9478 or at rhyson@sofinafoods.com. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. SEARS ROEBUCK: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan D. Selbin, chair of the defective products practice group at the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced Feb. 24 that the U.S. Supreme Court Monday morning declined to hear an appeal by Sears Roebuck & Company (SHLD), made by consumers who purchased Kenmore-branded washers from Sears identical to the washers in the Whirlpool Corp. litigation. In the Sears litigation, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with consumers that they should be permitted to move forward with their lawsuit in federal court in Illinois. Consumers' claims in the Sears case -- that the Whirlpool- manufactured Kenmore washers are defective -- are similar to the claims in the Whirlpool case. "One-hundred percent of people who purchased these defective Whirlpool and Kenmore machines, as alleged in our lawsuit, have gotten something less than they paid for," Selbin said. "According to Whirlpool's own records, just a few years after the Whirlpool front loading washers were introduced in America, between 35% and 50% of consumers had already experienced foul odors," Selbin said. "Whirlpool should stand up and be accountable for the harm they have caused to hard-working American families." Learn more about the defective front-load washer litigation at http://is.gd/zOCa0k About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP -- http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a 60-plus attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville. We are among the largest law firms in the United States that represent only plaintiffs. We are committed to achieving justice for consumers, employees, patients, investors, and business owners; promoting safer products and fair competition; protecting our environment; assisting individuals blow the whistle on fraud; safeguarding the rights of patent and copyright holders; and remedying violations of the civil rights of citizens worldwide. SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Over Merger Settled, Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- The Delaware Court of Chancery approved a settlement, entered final judgment, and dismissed the cases over a merger between Allos Therapeutics, Inc. and Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., according to Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s Dec. 6, 2013, Form 10-K/A filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2012. On April 9, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Radmore, et al. v. Allos Therapeutics, Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv- 00948-PAB, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, or the Radmore Complaint. The Radmore Complaint named as defendants Allos Therapeutics, the members of the Allos board of directors, as well as Spectrum. The plaintiffs alleged that Allos directors breached their fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the proposed merger between Allos and Spectrum, and were aided and abetted by Allos and Spectrum. The Radmore Complaint alleged that the merger involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, unreasonable deal protection devices, and that the defendants entered into the transaction to benefit themselves personally. The Radmore Complaint sought injunctive relief, including to enjoin the merger, attorneys' and other fees and costs, and other relief. On April 12, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Keucher v. Berns, et al., C.A. No. 7419, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, alleging similar violations. On April 20, 2012, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in the matter captioned Keucher v. Berns, et al., C.A. No. 7419-VCN, adding allegations that the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9, or the Schedule 14D-9, filed by the company with the SEC on April 13, 2012, contains inadequate, incomplete and/or misleading disclosures. On May 7, 2012, the parties to all three actions executed a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, containing the terms for an agreement-in-principle to resolve all litigation. The MOU provided that the defendants would agree to make certain supplemental disclosures in an amended Schedule 14D-9 and that the parties would use their best efforts to agree upon, enter, and present to the Delaware Chancery court a formal stipulation of settlement. The MOU provides for an award to plaintiffs' counsel of $850,000 for their fees and expenses but did not include any payment to stockholders. The parties completed confirmatory discovery on July 18, 2012 and filed a stipulation and agreement of compromise and settlement in the Delaware court on November 8, 2012. On February 11, 2013, the Delaware court approved the settlement, including the payment of $850,000 to counsel for the stockholders, entered final judgment and dismissed the cases. STERLING ROPE: Recalls Sewn Cords Due to Fall Hazard ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: February 20, 2014 Posting date: February 20, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-38011 Affected products: Sewn cord edge restraints, sewn eyes and sewn loops The recall involves three models of Sterling Rope's sewn cords which include the 8 mm Aztek (AZ) Sewn Bound Loop Prusik, Aztek (AZ) Elite 8 mm Edge Restraint and the 8 mm Accessory Cord Sewn Eye. Sewn cords break at a lower weight than published weight values, posing a fall hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Sterling Rope Company has received any reports of incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. Approximately 480 of these recalled products were sold in Canada and approximately 9,200 in the United States at authorized Sterling Rope dealers. The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and sold from January 2013 through January 2014 in Canada and the United States. Companies: Distributor Sterling Rope Company Biddeford Maine United States Consumers should discontinue use of the product and contact Sterling Rope for a free replacement. The item may also be returned to an authorized Sterling Rope dealer that will coordinate the free replacement for you. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Agrees to Settle Securities Suit for $11.8M -------------------------------------------------------------- Synovus Financial Corp. reached a settlement-in-principle to settle a securities lawsuit filed against it in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia for $11.8 million, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On July 7, 2009, the City of Pompano Beach General Employees' Retirement System filed suit against Synovus, and certain of Synovus' current and former officers, in the United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia (Civil Action File No. 1:09-CV-1811) (the "Securities Class Action"); and on June 11, 2010, Lead Plaintiffs, the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada and the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund, filed an amended complaint alleging that Synovus and the named individual defendants misrepresented or failed to disclose material facts that artificially inflated Synovus' stock price in violation of the federal securities laws. Lead Plaintiffs' allegations are based on purported exposure to Synovus' lending relationship with the Sea Island Company and the impact of such alleged exposure on Synovus' financial condition. Lead Plaintiffs in the Securities Class Action seek damages in an unspecified amount. On May 19, 2011, the Court ruled that the amended complaint failed to satisfy the mandatory pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. The Court also ruled that Lead Plaintiffs would be allowed the opportunity to submit a further amended complaint. Lead Plaintiffs served their second amended complaint on June 27, 2011. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss that complaint on July 27, 2011. On March 22, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part that Motion to Dismiss. On April 19, 2012, the Defendants filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its March 22, 2012 order. On September 26, 2012, the Court issued a written order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Defendants filed their answer to the second amended complaint on May 21, 2012. On March 7, 2013, the Court granted Lead Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On May 23, 2013, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals granted Defendants permission to appeal the District Court's certification of the class. On October 4, 2013, the Lead Plaintiffs and the Defendants reached a settlement-in-principle to settle the Securities Class Action. Under the settlement-in-principle, the Defendants shall cause to be paid $11.8 million (the "Settlement Payment") in exchange for broad releases, dismissal with prejudice of the Securities Class Action and other material and customary terms and conditions. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Overdraft Fees Suit in Discovery Phase --------------------------------------------------------- The case In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036 into which Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al. was consolidated, is currently in discovery, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On September 21, 2010, Synovus, Synovus Bank and CB&T were named as defendants in a putative multi-state class action relating to the manner in which Synovus Bank charges overdraft fees to customers. The case, Childs et al. v. Columbus Bank and Trust et al., was filed in the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, and asserts claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion and unjust enrichment for alleged injuries suffered by plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards allegedly resulting from the sequence used to post payments to the plaintiffs' accounts. On October 25, 2010, the Childs case was transferred to a multi-district proceeding in the Southern District of Florida. In Re: Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, MDL No. 2036. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 21, 2011. The Synovus entities filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on November 22, 2011. On July 26, 2012, the court denied the motion as to Synovus and Synovus Bank, but granted the motion as to CB&T. Synovus and Synovus Bank filed their answer to the amended complaint on September 24, 2012. The case is currently in discovery. SYNOVUS FINANCIAL: Court Jurisdiction at Issue in "Griner" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Court jurisdiction continues to be an issue in the suit Griner et al. v. Synovus Bank, et al., according to Synovus Financial Corp.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. Synovus Bank was named as a defendant in a putative state-wide class action in which the plaintiffs allege that overdraft fees charged to customers constitute interest and, as such, are usurious under Georgia law. The case, Griner et al. v. Synovus Bank, et al. was filed in Gwinnett County State Court (state of Georgia) on July 30, 2010, and asserts claims for usury, conversion and money had and received for alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of Synovus Bank's assessment of overdraft charges in connection with its POS/debit and automated-teller machine cards used to access customer accounts. Plaintiffs contend that such overdraft charges constitute interest and are therefore subject to Georgia usury laws. Synovus Bank contends that such overdraft charges constitute non-interest fees and charges under both federal and Georgia law and are otherwise exempt from Georgia usury limits. On September 1, 2010, Synovus Bank removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state court. On July 22, 2011, the federal court entered an order granting plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the Gwinnett County State Court. Synovus Bank subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. On February 22, 2012, the state court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss. On March 1, 2012, the state court signed and entered a certificate of immediate review thereby permitting Synovus Bank to petition the Georgia Court of Appeals for a discretionary appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss. On March 12, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its application for interlocutory appeal with the Georgia Court of Appeals. On April 3, 2012, the Georgia Court of Appeals granted Synovus Bank's application for interlocutory appeal of the state court's order denying Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss. On April 11, 2012, Synovus Bank filed its notice of appeal. Oral arguments were heard in the case on September 19, 2012. On March 28, 2013, the Georgia Court of Appeals entered an order affirming the denial of Synovus Bank's motion to dismiss and remanding the case back to the State Court of Gwinnett County for further proceedings. On April 8, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a motion requesting that the Court of Appeals reconsider its March 28, 2013 order. On April 11, 2013, the Court of Appeals entered an order denying Synovus Bank's motion for reconsideration. On April 19, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a notice of its intent to petition the Supreme Court of Georgia for a writ of certiorari. On May 1, 2013, Synovus Bank filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of Georgia. On October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court of Georgia accepted certiorari and vacated the March 28, 2013 order of the Georgia Court of Appeals instanter with direction that the Court of Appeals remand the case to the trial court for further consideration in light of the effect, if any, of the July 3, 2013 Declaratory Order issued by the Georgia Department of Banking and Finance, which declares that to provide parity with national banks, overdraft fees imposed by state- chartered banks in connection with deposit accounts are not subject to Georgia's usury laws. The trial court scheduled a November 21, 2013 hearing for consideration of this issue. TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: Dismissal of "Wilder" Action Sought --------------------------------------------------------- The defendants in the securities suit Wilder v. News Corp., et al. have filed motions to dismiss the complaint which are pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding the NoW Matter. The suit names as defendants the Company, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs. On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint shall be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things, added as defendants NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the complaint which are pending. UNITED STATES: Bruce Fein Debunks Class Action Plagiarism Issue --------------------------------------------------------------- Chuck Ross, writing for The Daily Caller News Foundation, reports that a lawyer critical of National Security Agency surveillance is denying reports that Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul lifted a class-action lawsuit from him, according to the senator's political action committee. "The Washington Post story is completely inaccurate; in fact, Bruce Fein has come out to dispute the story himself," Sergio Gor, spokesman for RANDPAC told The Daily Caller News Foundation. Mr. Gor provided TheDCNF with an email from Mr. Fein, a former Reagan administration official, which read: "Mattie Lolavar was not speaking for me. Her quotes were her own and did not represent my views. I was working on a legal team, and have been paid for my work." On Feb. 12, Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank published a story in which Mr. Fein's ex-wife Mattie, quoted using her married name, accused Mr. Paul and former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli of bilking her ex-husband out of money and proper attribution for his role in helping craft the class-action suit. "I am aghast and shocked by Ken Cuccinelli's behavior and his absolute knowledge that this entire complaint was the work product, intellectual property and legal genius of Bruce Fein," she said, claiming to be her ex-husband's spokeswoman. "Ken Cuccinelli stole the suit," she added, saying Mr. Paul "already has one plagiarism issue, now has a lawyer who just takes another lawyer's work product." Last year, Mr. Paul was accused of lifting passages for his books and opinion columns from others without citation. In his article, Ms. Milbank cited similarities between the language used by Mr. Fein and that of the final draft of the suit, which was filed on Feb. 12. "Except for some cuts and minor wording changes, they are clearly the same documents," Mr. Milbank wrote. Members of Mr. Paul's camp say Mr. Fein was a member of the legal team. The suit alleges that Obama and the NSA are violating U.S. citizens' rights by collecting phone users' metadata. Messrs. Paul and Cuccinelli, who recently ran an unsuccessful Virginia gubernatorial campaign, have teamed up in the past to criticize Obama and the NSA for the surveillance program. Late on Feb. 13, The Washington Post published an article by Dana Milbank showing the email exchanges between Mr. Fein, his ex-wife, Messrs. Cuccinelli and Paul's political team. The emails show that Mr. Fein was frustrated with the announcement of the NSA lawsuit, and that his ex-wife thought that the team had stolen Fein's intellectual property. "My name was not on the complaint despite the fact that it was predominantly my work product over several weeks and two hundred hours of research, meetings, and drafting," wrote Mr. Fein, in a complaint to Paul's chief political advisor on Feb. 12. But Mr. Fein indicated in the email that he had no plans to severe ties with the Paul-Cuccinelli dyad. He also never accused the lawsuit team of theft or plagiarism. "Going forward, I expect complete transparency and inclusion on all non-trivial decisions," Mr. Fein wrote, in an email obtained by Ms. Milbank. "My name will be on all future pleadings. Ken and I plan to meet shortly to discuss these matters." VONAGE HOLDINGS: "Merkin et al" Suit Sent to Negotiating Table -------------------------------------------------------------- The case filed by Arthur Merkin and James Smith against Vonage America, Inc. was assigned to a United States District Judge and a Magistrate Judge, with the parties directed to the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program, according to Vonage Holdings Corp.'s Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On October 16, 2013, further pleadings and discovery in the case were stayed pending an initial status conference scheduled for February 7, 2014. On October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 30, 2013 the case was assigned to a United States District Judge and a Magistrate Judge, with the parties directed to the Court's Alternative Dispute Resolution program. WHIRLPOOL CORP: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Cert. Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan D. Selbin, chair of the defective products practice group at the national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, announced Feb. 24 that the U.S. Supreme Court Monday morning rejected an effort by Whirlpool Corporation (WHR) to escape accountability for manufacturing millions of allegedly defective washers that it sold to American families. Whirlpool asked the Supreme Court to review the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit that allowed consumers to pursue claims in a class action against Whirlpool for selling the allegedly defective front-load washers from 2001 to 2008. The consumers allege that the foreign-manufactured washers are defective because they accumulate mold and require extraordinary and expensive actions by consumers to reduce the effects of that mold, such as running extra cleaning cycles, leaving the door open between use, and wiping down the washer after every use with bleach. They also allege that Whirlpool instructed them -- only after purchase -- that they needed to routinely buy another product sold by Whirlpool, Affresh(TM), to reduce the effects of the mold, at substantial cost to consumers and profit to Whirlpool. "Consumers brought this case to make this multi-billion-dollar corporation stand behind its product," Selbin said. "The federal court of appeals, applying long-standing, fundamental legal principles, twice unanimously sided with plaintiffs, holding that they can sue Whirlpool for breach of warranty to get what they paid for. We are pleased that the Supreme Court declined to intervene and rejected Whirlpool's baseless challenges to the rulings in the case. Whirlpool's latest attempt to escape accountability for its defective products has failed." Selbin explained that "Whirlpool knew when it sold the very first one of these washers that everything about their care and use was different than the top load washers consumers used without problem for decades -- in Whirlpool's own words, that these were 'not your mother's washing machine.'" "Instead of explaining that to consumers prior to purchase so they could make an informed decision," Selbin said, "Whirlpool chose to hide that critical information until after the sale, and then charged consumers for an entirely new and different product to the tune of a couple hundred dollars each over the life of the machine." Selbin also said that when consumers complained to Whirlpool, their warranty claims were denied: "Whirlpool refused to stand behind its washers. Whirlpool left these families no choice but to seek to hold Whirlpool accountable through the civil court system. Despite years of procedural maneuverings by Whirlpool to derail this case, the families will now finally get their day in court." The lawsuit, Glazer v. Whirlpool Corporation, was originally filed by a Cleveland, Ohio-area woman, Gina Glazer, who purchased a defective Whirlpool Duet Sport washer in 2006. Shortly after her purchase, Ms. Glazer's washer developed mold and foul odors, despite her extraordinary attempts to regularly clean her washer. Ms. Glazer contacted Whirlpool and they refused to provide any remedy. "We paid a lot of money for this machine and expected to get a quality product for our family," Glazer said. "Instead, we got a machine that stunk up our home and stunk up my families' clothes, including my young children's clothes. Whirlpool should stand behind their product and should be accountable when their product fails to function as promised." In 2010, the federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio permitted the case filed by Ms. Glazer, along with the claims filed by a Columbus, Ohio-area woman, Trina Allison, to go forward as a class action on behalf of all Ohio purchasers of defective Whirlpool front loading washers. Whirlpool appealed that decision to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio. That court has twice agreed with the district court that the case can proceed as a class action on behalf of all purchasers of the defective washers in Ohio. On Feb. 24, the Supreme Court declined to review that decision. The Supreme Court also on Feb. 24 declined to hear an appeal by Sears Roebuck & Company (SHLD), made by consumers who purchased Kenmore-branded washers from Sears identical to the washers in the Whirlpool litigation. In that litigation, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with consumers that they should be permitted to move forward with their lawsuit in federal court in Illinois. Consumers' claims in the Sears case -- that the Whirlpool-manufactured Kenmore washers are defective -- are similar to the claims in the Whirlpool case. "One-hundred percent of people who purchased these defective Whirlpool and Kenmore machines, as alleged in our lawsuit, have gotten something less than they paid for," Selbin said. "According to Whirlpool's own records, just a few years after the Whirlpool front loading washers were introduced in America, between 35% and 50% of consumers had already experienced foul odors," Selbin said. "Whirlpool should stand up and be accountable for the harm they have caused to hard-working American families." In addition to the Whirlpool and Sears FLW class action cases, the Supreme Court also denied a petition for writ of certiorari against BSH Home Appliances Corporation, the manufacturer of Bosch washing machines in Tait v. BSH Home Appliances Corp. In this case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to review the trial court's grant of certification to four statewide consumer classes in California, Illinois, Maryland, and New York. The Bosch consumers, like the Whirlpool and Sears consumers, allege that their machines are defective causing mold, mildew, and horrible smells. Learn more about the defective front-load washer litigation at http://is.gd/zOCa0k About Lieff Cabraser Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP -- http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a 60-plus attorney law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York, and Nashville. We are among the largest law firms in the United States that represent only plaintiffs. We are committed to achieving justice for consumers, employees, patients, investors, and business owners; promoting safer products and fair competition; protecting our environment; assisting individuals blow the whistle on fraud; safeguarding the rights of patent and copyright holders; and remedying violations of the civil rights of citizens worldwide. The firm may be reached through: Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Tel: 212-355-9500 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com XTREME DRILLING: Tubing Operator Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Boykin v. Xtreme Drilling & Coil Services, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00132 (S.D. Tex., January 20, 2014) alleges that Xtreme Drilling does not pay its coil tubing operators overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The collective action seeks unpaid wages and other damages owed to these workers. Xtreme Drilling & Coil Services, Inc., Case No. is a Texas company with its headquarters in Houston. The Company is "an onshore drilling and coiled tubing services contractor that works with exploration and production companies in the U.S., Canada and international markets." The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com ZILLOW INC: Files Motion to Dismiss Wash. Securities Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ A motion by Zillow, Inc. to dismiss a securities suit filed against it in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle is pending, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. In November 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against the company and certain of the company's executive officers seeking unspecified damages in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. The complaint purports to state claims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased the company's common stock between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in June 2013. In general, the complaint alleges, among other things, that during the period between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012, the company issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business practices and financial results. In August 2013, the company moved to dismiss the lawsuit. That motion to dismiss is pending. The company intends to deny the allegations of any wrongdoing and vigorously defend the claims in the lawsuit. The company has not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of September 30, 2013 or December 31, 2012 as the company does not believe a material loss is probable. It is a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred; however, the possible loss or range of loss is not estimable. ********* 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 * * *