/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140306.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 6, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 46 Headlines ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Brown" Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif. AMCOL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Illinois AMERICAN GREETINGS: Funds $12.5MM Settlement in Insurance Suits AMERICAN GREETINGS: Court Dismissed Wolfe Action II AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y. APPERIENCE CORP: Faces Suit in California Over IObit Software AVONDALE INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Work-Related Asbestos Exposure BARCLAYS PLC: Quinn Emanuel Seeks to Be Lead Counsel in Forex Case BARNES & NOBLE: Issued Misleading Statements, Shareholder Claims CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Claims CARMAX INC: Appeals "Fowler" Suit Ruling to Supreme Court CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Securities Lawsuit in Florida Dismissed CC-PALO ALTO: Funneled $190-Mil. to Parent, Vi Residents Claim CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Cross-Appeals Won't Delay Notice to Veterans CLARK COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Claims CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Dismissal of Medical Groups' Suit Upheld CONTRA COSTA, CA: Court Finds Hiring Diversification Up to Par DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Opt-in Notices Sent in "Alequin" Labor Suit DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Opt-in Notices Sent in "ChHab" Labor Suit EAT GOOD: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages EBAY INC: Class Counsel Deserves $27K in Fees, Costs, Court Ruled ELECTRONIC DATABASES: May 9 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set FREESCORE LLC: 9th Circuit Reversed Dismissal of "Stout" Suit GALILEE MEMORIAL: Faces New Suit Over Mishandling of Corpses GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages GOOGLE INC: Challenges Gmail Privacy Class Action Status HALLIBURTON CO: SC Ruling May Alter Securities Fraud Class Actions HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Defective Garden Hoses HSBC BANK: Court Dismissed "de Sausa" OT Suit With Prejudice INNERWORKINGS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Ill. INTELIQUENT INC: Plaintiff in Ill. Securities Suit Abandons Case JUST FABULOUS: Sued for Deceiving People Into Paying $39.95/Month LIFT VAPOR: Accused of Defrauding Customers Over Monthly Charges LCA-VISION: Being Sold to Photomedex for Too Little, Class Says LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Extreme Fine for Expired Parking Meter MCNEIL-PPC INC: Faces 120 Cases Over Tylenol Health Risks MONSANTO COMPANY: Supreme Court Appeal Taken in "Allen" Accord NATIONAL TENANT: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Background Check NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Trampled on Homeowners, Nevada Class Claims NEWO CORP: Falsely Sells Wi-Fi "Range Extenders," Suit Claims NJOY INC: Misleads Consumers That E-cigs Are Harmless, Suit Says ONTARIO: Class Action v. MOL Over Negligent Inspection Can Proceed PEPSICO INC: Pepsi One Product Contains Carcinogen, Suit Claims PFIZER INC: Faces "Cawlfield" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor RALPHS GROCERY: Decaf Classic Coffee Has Caffeine, Suit Claims RITE AID: Pursues Bid to Decertify N.Y. Labor Suit RITE AID: Continues to Face Labor Lawsuits in Calif. State Courts SCHELL & KAMPETER: Obtains Initial Approval of Marciano Suit Deal SEMINOLE, FL: Judge Blocks Bid to Appeal in "Davis" Suit SONY GAMING: Court Dismissed Claims in PlayStation Users' Suit ST. CHARLES SD: Suit Over School Reorganization Dismissed STARWOOD HOTELS: Makes Employees Work Off the Clock, Suit Says TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "NECA-IBEW" Suit Over Aggrenox Drug TEXAS GRILL: Fails to Pay Spread of Hours Premium, Suit Claims TGI FRIDAY'S: Sued by Waitresses and Waiters in Massachusetts TOSHIBA CORP: Misrepresents LCD TVs as LED TVs, Suit Claims TOTAL WASTE: Faces Suit in Texas Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Allows Fraud Class Action to Proceed UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sued Over Recording of Customer Calls VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over High Speed DSL Package Charges WAL-MART STORES: Gets Favorable Ruling in "Hayes" Class Action WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages YELP INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Reviewers' Class Action ********* ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Brown" Suit Transferred to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers transferred venue of the case ALEXANDER BROWN and ARIK SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. AND ABERCROMBIE & FITCH STORES, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13-CV- 05205 YGR, (N.D. Cal.) to the Central District of California. Abercrombie allegedly operates at least four brands of retail clothing store in California: Abercrombie & Fitch, Hollister, Abercrombie Kids, and Gilly Hicks. The Plaintiffs hope to represent a class of employees at all these stores. The Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive relief for Abercrombie's alleged failure (i) to provide rest periods, (ii) to indemnify business expenses, (iii) to furnish accurate wage statements, (iv) to pay timely wages due upon termination of employment, and for its alleged compelled patronization of Abercrombie-owned stores. Abercrombie filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404. The Court granted the motion saying while a plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given great deference, here Plaintiffs seek to represent a class, do not reside in the Northern District, and the majority of the actions giving rise to this case occurred in the Central District. "Thus, Plaintiffs' choice of this forum is given considerably less deference. In light of this reduced deference, transfer is justified for the convenience of the witnesses, most of whom may be expected to reside in the Central District," concluded Judge Rogers. A copy of the District Court's February 14, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/PdNsppfrom Leagle.com. AMCOL INTERNATIONAL: Faces Merger-Related Class Suit in Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- Directors are selling AMCOL International to Imerys Minerals too cheaply through an unfair process, for $41 per share or $1.6 billion, a class action claims in Cook County Chancery Court in Illinois, according to Courthouse News Service. AMERICAN GREETINGS: Funds $12.5MM Settlement in Insurance Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- American Greetings Corporation has fully deposited the $12.5 million that would settle lawsuits filed against it over corporate-owned life insurance policies, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 29, 2013. American Greetings Corporation is a defendant in two putative class action lawsuits involving corporate-owned life insurance policies (the "Insurance Policies"): one filed in the Northern District of Ohio on January 11, 2012 by Theresa Baker as the personal representative of the estate of Richard Charles Wolfe (the "Baker Litigation"); and the other filed in the Northern District of Oklahoma on October 1, 2010 by Keith Collier as the personal representative of the estate of Ruthie Collier (the "Collier Litigation"). In the Baker Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American Greetings Corporation (1) misappropriated its employees' names and identities to benefit itself; (2) breached its fiduciary duty by using its employees' identities and personal information to benefit itself; (3) unjustly enriched itself through the receipt of corporate-owned life insurance policy benefits, interest and investment returns; and (4) improperly received insurance policy benefits for the insurable interest in Mr. Wolfe's life. The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of all pecuniary benefits associated with the subject Insurance Policies, including investment returns, interest and life insurance policy benefits that American Greetings Corporation received from the deaths of the former employees whose estates form the putative class. In the Collier Litigation, the plaintiff claims that American Greetings Corporation did not have an insurable interest when it obtained the subject Insurance Policies and wrongfully received the benefits from those policies. The plaintiff seeks damages in the amount of policy benefits received by American Greetings Corporation from the subject Insurance Policies, as well as attorney's fees, costs and interest. On April 2, 2012, the plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint, adding misappropriation of employee information and breach of fiduciary duty claims as well as seeking punitive damages. On April 20, 2012, American Greetings Corporation moved to transfer the Collier Litigation to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation is pending. On July 6, 2012, the Court granted American Greetings Corporation's Motion to Transfer and transferred the case to the Northern District of Ohio, where the Baker Litigation is pending. On May 22, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved a full and final settlement of all the claims of the Wolfe and Collier estates, as well as the classes they seek to represent. As a result of the preliminary approval, the Court consolidated the two cases and certified a single class that consists of the heirs or estates of the estates and heirs of all former American Greetings Corporation employees (i) who are deceased; (ii) who were not officers or directors of American Greetings Corporation; (iii) who were insured under one of the following corporate-owned life insurance plans: Provident Life & Accident 61153, Provident Life & Accident 61159, Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company 111, Connecticut General ENX219, and Hartford Life Insurance Company 361; and (iv) for whom American Greetings Corporation has received a death benefit on or before the date on which the Court enters the Order of Preliminary Approval. Required notices to potential class members and to state attorney generals as required under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 were mailed on May 30, 2013. On September 20, 2013, the Court entered a final order approving the settlement in the amount of $12.5 million. This amount was accrued prior to the first quarter of 2014. One half of the settlement amount was deposited by American Greetings Corporation into a settlement fund account on September 27, 2013, and the remaining half of the settlement amount was deposited by American Greetings Corporation into the same settlement fund account on November 12, 2013. The settlement fund will be distributed in its entirety to those members of the class who present valid claims, their counsel, and a settlement administration vendor. AMERICAN GREETINGS: Court Dismissed Wolfe Action II --------------------------------------------------- A U.S. federal court entered a dismissal order in Wolfe Action II in view of the entry of a Final Approval of the settlement of In re American Greetings Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 12 792421, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 29, 2013. On September 26, 2012, the company announced that its Board of Directors received a non-binding proposal from Zev Weiss, the Corporation's Chief Executive Officer, and Jeffrey Weiss, the Corporation's President and Chief Operating Officer, on behalf of themselves and certain other members of the Weiss family and related parties to acquire all of the outstanding Class A common shares and Class B common shares of the Corporation not currently owned by them (the "Going Private Proposal"). On September 27, 2012, Dolores Carter, a purported shareholder, filed a putative shareholder derivative and class action lawsuit (the "Carter Action") in the Court of Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio (the "Cuyahoga County Court"), against American Greetings Corporation and all of the members of the Board of Directors. The Carter Action alleges, among other things, that the directors of the Corporation breached their fiduciary duties owed to shareholders in evaluating and pursuing the proposal. The Carter Action further alleges claims for aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty. Among other things, the Carter Action seeks declaratory relief. Subsequently, six more lawsuits were filed in the Cuyahoga County Court purporting to advance substantially similar claims on behalf of American Greetings Corporation against the members of the Board of Directors and, in certain cases, additional direct claims against American Greetings Corporation. One lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. The other lawsuits were consolidated by Judge Richard J. McMonagle on December 6, 2012 (amended order dated December 18, 2012) as In re American Greetings Corp. Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case No. CV 12 792421 (the "State Court Action"). Lead plaintiffs and lead plaintiffs' counsel also were appointed. On April 30, 2013, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Complaint brings a single class claim against the members of the Corporation's Board of Directors for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting. The plaintiffs allege that the preliminary proxy statement on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on April 17, 2013 omits information necessary to permit the Corporation's shareholders to determine if the Merger is in their best interest, that the controlling shareholders have abused their control of the Corporation, that the special committee appointed to oversee the transaction is not independent, and that the other members of the Board of Directors are also not independent. On June 13, 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint based on plaintiffs' failure to properly plead their claims as derivative actions, to exercise their statutory appraisal rights as the sole remedy for dissatisfaction with the proposed share price, and to overcome the business judgment rule with respect to their breach of fiduciary duty claims. The motions remain pending. On July 16, 2013, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") agreeing in principle to settle the State Court Action on behalf of themselves and the putative settlement class, which includes all persons who owned any interest in the common stock of American Greetings Corporation (either of record or beneficially) at any time between and including September 26, 2012 and the effective date of the Merger. A Stipulation of Settlement subsequently was filed with the Cuyahoga County Court on August 8, 2013, and the Cuyahoga County Court preliminarily approved the settlement on August 15, 2013 (amended order dated September 4, 2013). The settlement provides for dismissal with prejudice of the State Court Action and a release of claims against defendants and released parties. As consideration to class members, the Corporation agreed to and did disclose additional information via a Form 8-K relating to the Merger, which was filed with the SEC on July 18, 2013. In addition, defendants acknowledge that the State Court Action contributed to the Weiss family shareholders' decision to increase the Merger consideration from $18.20 per share to $19.00 per share. The settlement also contemplates the payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses to class counsel, which the Corporation expects will be fully paid by the Corporation's insurer. The settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, final certification of the settlement class and final approval of the proposed settlement by the Cuyahoga County Court. On December 12, 2013, the Cuyahoga County Court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement. On November 6, 2012, R. David Wolfe, a purported shareholder, filed a putative class action (the "Wolfe Action") in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Federal Court") against certain members of the Weiss Family and the Irving I. Stone Oversight Trust, the Irving Stone Limited Liability Company, the Irving I. Stone Support Foundation, and the Irving I. Stone Foundation ("Stone Entities") alleging breach of fiduciary duties in proposing and pursuing the proposal, as well as against American Greetings, seeking, among other things, declaratory relief. Shortly thereafter, on November 9, 2012, the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System also filed a purported class action in the Federal Court (the "LMPERS Action") asserting substantially similar claims against the same defendants and seeking substantially similar relief. On November 30, 2012, plaintiffs in the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions filed motions (1) to consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions, (2) for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, (3) for appointment of co- lead counsel, and, in the Wolfe Action only, (4) for partial summary judgment. On December 14, 2012, the Corporation filed its oppositions to the motions (a) to consolidate the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions, (b) for appointment as co-lead plaintiffs, and (c) for appointment of co-lead counsel. On the same day, the Corporation also moved to dismiss both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions. The Corporation answered both complaints on January 8, 2013, and on January 11, 2013, it filed its opposition to the motion for partial summary judgment. On February 14, 2013, the Federal Court dismissed both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On March 15, 2013, plaintiffs in both the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions filed notices of appeal with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 18, 2013, plaintiff Wolfe moved to dismiss his appeal, which motion was granted on April 19, 2013. On May 8, 2013, plaintiff LMPERS's moved to dismiss its appeal as well, which motion was granted. Plaintiffs in the Wolfe and LMPERS Actions alleged, in part, that Article Seventh of the Corporation's articles of incorporation prohibited the special committee from, among other things, evaluating the Merger. The Corporation considered these allegations and concluded that the Article is co-extensive with Ohio law and thus allows the Corporation to engage in any activity authorized by Ohio law. The Corporation also has consistently construed Article Seventh as permitting directors to approve a transaction so long as they are both disinterested and independent. On April 17, 2013, R. David Wolfe filed a new derivative and putative class action ("Wolfe Action II") in the Federal Court against the Corporation's directors, certain members of the Weiss Family, and the Stone Entities, as well as the Corporation as a nominal defendant, challenging the Merger as financially and procedurally unfair to the Corporation and its minority shareholders. Mr. Wolfe subsequently filed an Amended Complaint on April 29, 2013. The Wolfe Action II sought a declaratory judgment that Article Seventh precludes the Board of Directors and special committee from approving the Merger. In addition, the Wolfe Action II included a derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Corporation's directors for allegedly violating Article Seventh. Finally, the Wolfe Action II included both a derivative and class action claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Weiss Family defendants and the Stone Entities for allegedly seeking to acquire the minority shareholders' interests at an unfair price. Defendants filed their Motions to Dismiss the Wolfe Action II amended Complaint on July 8, 2013. On August 1, 2013, the Federal Court granted the parties' joint motion to defer briefings on defendants' motions to dismiss and to stay the action pending resolution of the settlement of the State Court Action. Given the entry of Final Approval of the settlement of the State Court Action, the parties filed a Stipulation and Dismissal of the Wolfe Action II on December 23, 2013. The Federal Court entered the Dismissal of the Wolfe Action II on the same date. AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in N.Y. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-736 is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of AmTrust between February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased AmTrust securities during the Class Period, you have until April 7, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. AmTrust, through its subsidiaries, underwrites and provides property and casualty insurance in the United States and internationally. The company operates in four segments: Small Commercial Business, Specialty Risk and Extended Warranty, Specialty Program, and Personal Lines Reinsurance. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that the Company: 1) manipulated its loan loss reserves in order to inflate reported earnings; 2) manipulated its deferred tax liabilities; 3) underestimated the discount rates for its life settlement contracts in an effort to inflate the Company's reported assets and total stockholder's equity; 4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and 5) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On December 12, 2013, a report by analyst firm Geoinvesting exposed certain alleged accounting improprieties at AmTrust. Such improprieties included: 1) manipulation of the Company's loan loss reserves; 2) manipulation of the Company's deferred tax liabilities; and 3) underestimating the Company's discount rates for its life settlement contracts. On this news, shares of AmTrust fell $4.63 per share, more than 12%, on intraday trading, to a price of $33.67 on December 12, 2013. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. APPERIENCE CORP: Faces Suit in California Over IObit Software ------------------------------------------------------------- Apperience and Bluesprig, both dba IObit, claim their software can identify and fix errors, but it says that every time, a class action claims in California Federal Court, according to Courthouse News Service. AVONDALE INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Work-Related Asbestos Exposure ------------------------------------------------------------- Galia Binder, writing for The Louisiana Record, reports that a Belle Chasse man is suing multiple corporations for their alleged failure to protect him from work-related asbestos exposure he claims resulted in his contraction of lung cancer. Frank G. DeSalvo filed suit against Huntington Ingalls Inc. also known as Avondale Industries, Inc. (f/k/a Avondale Shipyards, inc), Avondale executive officers Albert Bossier, Jr., J. Melton Garrett, Onebeacon America Insurance Company (as successor to Commercial Union Insurance Company), American Employers Insurance Company, American Motorists Insurance Company, Bayer Cropscience, inc. (As successor of liability to Rhone Poulenc AG company), Amchem Products Inc., Benjamin Foster Company, Eagle Inc. (formerly Eagle Asbetos & Packing Company, Inc.), Foster-Wheeler, LLC (formerly Foster-Wheeler Corporation), General Electric Company, Hopeman Brothers Inc., The McCarty Corporation (successor to McCarty Branton Inc. and predecessor and successor to McCarty Insulation sales, inc.), Reilly-Benton Company Inc., Riley Power Inc. (Babcock Borsig Power Inc., DB Riely Inc., Riley Stoker Corporation), Taylor-Seidenbach Inc., CBS Corporation (Westinghouse Electric Corporation), Maryland Casualty Company, Shell Oil Company, Shell Chemical LP, Entergy Louisiana LLC, Chevron Oronite Company LLC, Wyeth Holdings Corporation (American Cynamid Company), Lou-Con Inc. and its executive officer Bernard Lyons and Union Carbide Corporation in the Orleans Parish Civil District Court. Mr. DeSalvo, a welder employed by Avondale from 1962-1966, alleges during this four year period with the company he was exposed to dangerous levels of toxic substances containing asbestos. He claims that he contracted asbestos-related lung cancer first diagnosed around Dec. 30, 2012. Avondale and the other defendants are accused of failing to reveal and knowingly concealing inherent dangers in the use of asbestos, including the ability to expose family members through clothing. Additionally, Avondale is accused of reckless storage, handling and transport of asbestos, and failing to provide safe equipment, proper ventilation and medical monitoring. Mr. DeSalvo is seeking unspecified damages for past, present, and future hospital, medical, pharmaceutical and nursing expenses due to his lung-cancer and other asbestos-related conditions he could likely incur, such as mesothelioma. Cook is seeking unspecified damages for the above counts plus compensatory damages. Mr. DeSalvo seeks compensation for his loss of earning capacity and permanent partial disability which will progress to full disability. Mr. DeSalvo is represented by Baron & Budd PC of Baton Rouge. The case has been assigned to Division J Judge Paula A. Brown. Case no. 2013-10729. BARCLAYS PLC: Quinn Emanuel Seeks to Be Lead Counsel in Forex Case ------------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Hatzakis, writing for Forex Magnates, reports the battle of the trial lawyers has begun in the world's largest case seeking class-action status against major forex dealers. A law firm with over 650 attorneys representing Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP seeks to become the lead counsel in the case, according to a court filing last week. The case will likely take a long time to move ahead, as regulators such as the UK's FCA said that their related investigation into the Forex probe was unlikely to be finished during 2014 due to the wide scope of the probe and that it's at an early stage of the investigation. Indeed, the potentially massive forex litigation may unfold with plaintiffs looking to best position themselves for the battle that might soon begin. Earlier in February, Forex Magnates reported when the law firm Scott+Scott LLP was chosen by U.S. federal judge, Lorna Schofield of Manhattan, to be the lead interim counsel in the case which is seeking class-action status against 7 of major forex dealers (across 10 entities) over alleged rate manipulation, and represent a number of complaints that are being joined into the class- action. Discovery Process Could Reveal Evidence to Help Build Case While the case overall appears to be based on nothing more than the disclosures that each named plaintiff has revealed with regards to being under investigation, in their respective periodic filings, as well as the attention drawn into the ongoing investigation by various regulatory authorities around the world, this process could help to discover further evidence that could help the case go one way or another. However, the potentially affected defendants did collectively have respective exposure to foreign exchange related investments, apparently, hence the seeking of potential damages against potentially responsible parties. Earlier last week, Forex Magnates had just reported when Bank of America Corporation, in its latest filing for its annual report for 2013, revealed that it was under review or investigation from various regulatory authorities in the growing forex probe of major dealers, and said it was cooperating. Antitrust Hurdle However, the overall case, in terms of the class, would still need to find its grounding on the basis of Antitrust law, under the Sherman Act, which unless a back-up plan is in mind (in case that basis isn't found), this could serve as a hurdle for the class to have grounds to litigate the case. In other words, the method of fixing foreign exchange rates (as described in this specific case -and not generally speaking), must be first deemed a competitive process, so that an antitrust allegation can be based upon such a process. Last time Forex Magnates reported about the case's development, Daniel Brockett of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, had been quoted with respect to the antitrust part of the case, "It's going to be a much more difficult argument for the banks to make that there is no antitrust standing here, because you had actual buying and selling in the market that went on to arrive at this fixed number." In addition, 3rd parties had been hired to investigate foreign exchange rates and research the details surrounding the allegations, to help build the case by the defendants. City of Philadelphia Challenges Court to Reconsider Lead Counsel in Class The City of Philadelphia, the latest to join the class-action, was not happy with the court's previous decision to appoint Scott+Scott LLP as sole interim lead class counsel on the basis that since the City of Philadelphia had the largest financial interest in the case (representative of the amounts its members had invested) the court should appoint their counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, as the lead counsel for the entire class, alongside Scott+Scott LLP who could serve as co- lead. An analysis described in the filing said that the City of Philadelphia, through its fund managers, engaged in $33 billion in foreign exchange transactions, with nearly $768 million tied to the 4:00 p.m. close (fixing time). The challenge was filed as a motion for reconsideration of the court's February 19th order, in case 1:13-cv-07789- LGS Document 110 filed on February 26, 2014, and included the argument that the court had overlooked the City of Philadelphia's interest in the case (as the plaintiff with the greatest economic interest), and the facts in the record showing that Quinn Emanuel would best represent the class, as described in the official court document. Potential Scope for Foreign Exchange Case The basis of the legal request was compared to a LIBOR antitrust litigation case cited from 2011 in the motion, an excerpt of which read, "greatest economic interest" to be a "highly relevant" factor in selecting interim lead class counsel. In addition, the ambitious efforts sought in the case were described in the filing which stated the following allegations, "This case involves the collusive manipulation of one of the world's largest financial markets by the world's largest financial institutions, with wrongdoing on multiple continents and possibly hundreds of the defendants' employees implicated. The damages resulting from this conspiracy may be billions of dollars, and the City alone may have millions of dollars in injuries." There has been a stream of firings and suspensions of senior FX traders across various major Forex dealers, that paralleled the developments. Considering that Quinn Emanuel has achieved no less than nine 10-figure (+$billion) settlements, this indicates that it could indeed be a serious challenger to the bank's respective lawyers if this case moves forward. Although seen below, the named defendants in the case are also well represented. Defendants Barclays, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, Royal Bank of Scotland Group and UBS AG are represented by Sullivan and Cromwell LLP,Covington & Burling LLP, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Davis Polk & Wardwell and Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, respectively. BARNES & NOBLE: Issued Misleading Statements, Shareholder Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Maitland-Lewis, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Michael P. Huseby, William J. Lynch, Jr., and Allen W. Lindstrom, Case No. 1:14-cv-00406-KMW (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2014) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who purchased Barnes & Noble securities between June 27, 2012, and November 5, 2013, inclusive. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, the Plaintiff alleges. Barnes & Noble is one of the nation's largest booksellers, providing customers easy and convenient access to books, magazines, newspapers and other content across its multi channel distribution platform. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com lfpornoy@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com CADENCE PHARMACEUTICALS: Being Sold for Too Little, Class Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Cadence Pharmaceuticals too cheaply through an unfair process to Mallinckrodt, for $14 per share or $1.3 billion, a class action claims in Delaware Chancery Court. CARMAX INC: Appeals "Fowler" Suit Ruling to Supreme Court --------------------------------------------------------- CarMax Inc. companies filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court of a decision by an appeals court reversing an order to compel arbitration in a labor suit, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013. On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles. Subsequently, two other lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case. The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime; (4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; and (5) unfair competition/California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. The putative class consisted of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to the present. On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class. On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement provisions. The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay overtime to the sales consultant putative class. The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling regarding the sales consultant overtime claim. On May 20, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the court's ruling in favor of CarMax. The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Review with the California Supreme Court, which was denied. As a result, the plaintiffs' overtime claims are no longer part of the case. The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest breaks; and (3) unfair competition/California's Labor Code Private Attorney General Act. On June 16, 2009, the court entered a stay of these claims pending the outcome of a California Supreme Court case involving unrelated third parties but related legal issues. Subsequently, CarMax moved to lift the stay and compel the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individualized basis, which the court granted on November 21, 2011. Plaintiffs filed an appeal with the California Court of Appeal. On March 26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order granting CarMax's motion to compel arbitration. On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court. The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages, interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees. The company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in these matters. CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Securities Lawsuit in Florida Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. (Catalyst) (Nasdaq: CPRX), a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing safe and effective, approved medicines targeting orphan neuromuscular and neurological diseases, announced on its Jan. 8, 2014 Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that on January 3 the previously reported stockholder class action lawsuit that had been filed against Catalyst and certain of its officers and directors was dismissed without prejudice. In the Court's order, the plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint within 20 days. Catalyst has no information as to whether any such amended complaint is planned by the plaintiffs. If an amended complaint is filed in the case, Catalyst intends to vigorously defend the amended lawsuit. In October and November 2013, three securities class action lawsuits were filed against Catalyst and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The complaints, which were substantially identical, purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased Catalyst's common stock between October 31, 2012 and October 18, 2013. Two of the lawsuits were voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs, and the last remaining case was the case dismissed on Friday. CC-PALO ALTO: Funneled $190-Mil. to Parent, Vi Residents Claim -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that a retirement community that charged new residents refundable entrance fees funneled $190 million to its corporate parent, putting the senior citizens' savings at risk, six residents claim in a federal class action. Lead plaintiff Burton Richter, speaking for residents of the Vi at Palo Alto, claims that CC-Palo Alto Inc., which operates the 388- apartment independent living facility, failed to obtain assurances from Chicago-based CC-Development Group Inc. that the "upstreamed" money would be paid back. "Defendants have taken hundreds of millions of dollars from a group of vulnerable senior citizens, deprived them of their security, and placed much of their lifetime savings at risk," the 38-page lawsuit states. Also sued is Classic Residence Management Limited Partnership, of Illinois. The Vi at Palo Alto charges incoming residents entrance fees ranging from $745,500 to $4.6 million, depending on the number of rooms in the apartment, in addition to monthly fees of $4,320 to $9,320. The entrance fees allegedly are loans that residents are promised will be paid back at 75 to 90 percent when they move out, or will be returned to their loved ones when they die. Over time, the refundable percentage of the fee decreases. According to the complaint, entrance fees are part of residency contracts that are provided "on a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis that does not permit negotiation. This adhesive quality coupled with the emphasis on the extensive waiting list for the Vi at Palo Alto, the limited-time availability of apartments, and the risk that the elderly prospective resident may unexpectedly become disqualified by illness, all create substantial pressure on prospective residents to sign the Residency Contract quickly or lose the opportunity." Since opening in 2005, the Vi at Palo Alto has collected more than $450 million in entrance fees, the complaint states. California law requires continuing care retirement communities such as the Vi to maintain reserves as security for the entrance fees. But CC- Palo Alto transferred more than $190 million to CC-Chicago, as of December 2012, according to the complaint. Residents, who typically join the community in their 80s, were not told that their entrance fees would be upstreamed to CC-Chicago, and now CC-Palo Alto has a deficit of more than $300 million and owes the residents $450 million, the class claims. "As a result of this illegal upstreaming, CC-Palo Alto is financially incapable of honoring its debts to the plaintiffs and the class when the loans become due," the residents say in the lawsuit. CC-Chicago claims that it bears no responsibility to repay the refundable portion of the entrance fees, which is solely up to CC- Palo Alto, according to the complaint. The lawsuit claims that the approximately 500 residents at the Vi at Palo Alto must continue to pay ever-increasing monthly fees that have been inflated through increased tax assessments, earthquake insurance charges and marketing costs. In the event of an earthquake, residents would be responsible for the deductibles, even though the residency contract makes residents responsible only for insurance premiums and deductibles related to furniture, fixtures and equipment, according to the complaint. Residents have also been charged fees for marketing the Vi at Palo Alto, though that money actually helps fund CC-Chicago's national marketing program, according to the complaint. Of the current 500 residents at the Vi at Palo Alto, 460 have demanded mediation under the terms of their residency contracts. The residents and CC-Palo Alto participated in a mediation session, but no agreement was reached, according to the complaint. The residents seek compensatory and punitive damages for concealment, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, financial abuse of elders, and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California Business and Professions Code. CC-Palo Alto did not immediately return a request for comment. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Niall P. McCarthy, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP San Francisco Airport Office Ctr. 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE: Cross-Appeals Won't Delay Notice to Veterans ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cross-appeals will not sideline the Army's duty to warn veterans subjected to Cold War-era drug experiments about potential health concerns, the 9th Circuit ruled, according to Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service. The February 20, 2014 ruling comes in Vietnam Veterans of America et al. v Central Intelligence Agency et al., a 2009 class action that claimed at least 7,800 soldiers had been used as guinea pigs in Project Paperclip. Soldiers were administered at least 250 and perhaps as many as 400 types of drugs, among them Sarin, one of the most deadly drugs known, amphetamines, barbiturates, mustard gas, phosgene gas and LSD. Using tactics it often attributed to the Soviet enemy, Uncle Sam sought drugs to control human behavior, cause confusion, promote weakness or temporary loss of hearing and vision, induce hypnosis, and enhance a person's ability to withstand torture, according to the complaint. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken certified the class in 2012, which could make thousands of veterans eligible for relief. Though the defendants succeeded in tossing claims against Attorney General Eric Holder and the CIA, the Department of Defense and Department of the Army are still on the hook. In November 2103, Judge Wilken gave both sides some relief, granting the Defense Department, Army and CIA summary judgment on certain claims, and giving the plaintiffs summary judgment only on one claim against the Army. "The court concludes that defendants' duty to warn test subjects of possible health effects is not limited to the time that these individuals provide consent to participate in the experiments," Wilken wrote then. "Instead, defendants have an ongoing duty to warn about newly acquired information that may affect the well-being of test subjects after they completed their participation in research." In an injunction accompanying the summary judgment order, Wilken directed the Army to provide such test subjects with newly acquired information that may affect their well-being that it has learned since its original notification, now and in the future as it becomes available." The Army complained that it would cost $8.8 million over five years to provide possible test subjects with the kind of notice the court ordered, but Wilken found the defendants did not show that those costs will cause them irreparable harm -- an element needed to stay the injunction. Though the 9th Circuit briefly stayed the injunction pending cross-appeals, it lifted the stay February 20, 2014. "Here the only irreparable injury claimed is the expenditure of money and the time and energy of Army personnel," the unsigned order states. "Even this showing is vague and general, but putting those problems aside, it has long been 'well established that such monetary injury is not normally considered irreparable.'" The Army has 14 days from the date of the order to produce a court-ordered report. The appellate case is Vietnam Veterans of America; et al. (Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-appellees) v. Central Intelligence Agency; et al. (Defendants-Appellees-Cross-appellants), Case Nos. 13-17430 and 14-15108, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The original case is Vietnam Veterans of America; et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency; et al., Case No. 4:09-cv-00037-CW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland. CLARK COMPANIES: Fails to Pay Overtime Premium, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Angelina Olender, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. The Clark Companies, N.A., and C. & J. Clark Retail, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00085-AVC (D. Conn., January 23, 2014) accuses the Defendants of failing to pay the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees overtime pay for hours above 40 in a workweek in violation of state and federal laws. The Clarks Companies, N.A., and C. & J. Clark Retail, Inc. are Massachusetts corporations headquartered in Newton Upper Falls, Massachusetts. The Defendants operate over 200 retail stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard E. Hayber, Esq. Erick Ignacio Diaz-Vazquez, Esq. Margaret B. Ferron, Esq., Esq. HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com ediaz@hayberlawfirm.com mferron@hayberlawfirm.com - and - Anthony J. Pantuso, III, Esq. QUINN LAW FIRM, LLC 204 S. Broad St. Milford, CT 06460 Telephone: (203) 877-5400 Facsimile: (203) 877-5416 E-mail: apantuso@quinn-lawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: David R. Golder, Esq. David C. Salazar-Austin, Esq. William Joseph Anthony, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS - P.C. HARTFORD, CT 90 State House Sq., 8th Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3708 Telephone: (860) 522-0404 Facsimile: (860) 274-1330 E-mail: golderd@jacksonlewis.com salazard@jacksonlewis.com anthonyw@jacksonlewis.com CONNECTICUT GENERAL: Dismissal of Medical Groups' Suit Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court ruling dismissing the complaint captioned THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, MEDICAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA, TENNESSEE MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, FLORIDA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, NORTH CAROLINA MEDICAL SOCIETY, MEDICAL SOCIETY OF NEW JERSEY, MEDICAL SOCIETY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY, TEXAS MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON STATE MEDICAL SOCIETY, EL PASO COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY, DR. CARMEN KAVALI, M.D., BRIAN MULLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, CIGNA CORPORATION, CIGNA HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendants- Appellees, NO. 13-10916, NON-ARGUMENT CALENDAR. "It was within the district court's discretion to dismiss a complaint filed in violation of a sister court's injunction and order," ruled the Eleventh Circuit. A copy of the Appeals Court's February 20, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/S29WQPfrom Leagle.com. CONTRA COSTA, CA: Court Finds Hiring Diversification Up to Par -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, has reported that that Contra Costa, Calif., no longer faces a 1975 court mandate to hire more women and minorities after a federal judge found that the county has sufficiently diversified its workforce over the years. The 1973 class action that brought about the consent decree had alleged a pattern of employment discrimination against women and racial and ethnic minorities. "Females and person of racial and ethnic minorities are concentrated in lowing paying dead end jobs from which there are few if any opportunities for advancement," it stated. The plaintiffs in the case claimed that the "systematic denial to females and persons of racial and ethnic minorities of equal employment opportunity in county employment is due directly and proximately to the defendants' use of unlawful, discriminatory, and non-ability related hiring and promotion practices." In settling the dispute, Contra Costa agreed to ensure that the percentage of minorities and women employed in each job classification and department for the county would reflect the supply of qualified women and members of minorities in the county's work force. The decree noted that it would be imbalanced for the number of women or minorities employed to stand at "less than 80 percent of the number of representative of the percentage available in the work force of Contra Costa County for a given job classification." Contra Costa would not have to make hiring decisions solely based on race or gender, however, nor did it have to create unnecessary positions to hire more females and minorities. Instead, the decree called for the correction of any imbalances through changes to the county's hiring, recruitment and separation practices. The county was to look at the minimum qualifications for certain job classifications and determine whether certain factors that were not job related led to the disproportionate rejection of females and minorities. The county, through an affirmative action officer, also had to work at ensuring that women and minorities applied for county employment. After nearly 38 years of enforcement of the consent decree, the county asked the Northern District of California this past July to vacate it, arguing that the purpose of the decree had been fulfilled as the county's workforce is substantially more diverse today than it was in 1975. Between 1975 and 2012, the percentage of women in the workforce jumped from 57 percent to 66 percent, and the number of minorities from 14 percent to 51 percent. The percentage of women employed by the fire districts increased from 3 percent to 15 percent, and the number of minorities increased from 3.4 percent to 28 percent. Contra Costa also submitted evidence that the county's total labor force is 47 percent women, 51 percent Caucasian, 9 percent black, 22 percent Hispanic and 16 percent Asian. "Defendants further contend that women and minorities are not only employed in low level jobs with few opportunities for advancement, but rather are employed in all occupational categories," the ruling states. "They note that three of the five members of the board of supervisors are female, and another member is an African American male." Opponents argued that the county used overbroad data and failed to consider whether women and minorities were concentrated in the low-paying job classifications with fewer opportunities for advancement. They claim that 86 percent of the county's job classifications are not in balance. U.S. District Judge Joseph Spero determined on January 22, 2014, that the consent decree did not require the county to attain the 80 percent numerical balance for each job classification and for each minority group and gender. "Rather, the 80 percent 'balance' measurement is a tool for achieving a county workforce that 'reflects the available qualified population," he wrote. The 86 percent figure cited in objections is faulty in that it ignores the minority groups whose numbers are in balance within each job category, and instead looks only at if there are any minority groups whose representation in the job is not in balance. "While the county's diversity statistics may not be sufficient to show that it employs minorities and women at or above the 80 percent rate in all categories under the consent decree, they are certainly relevant to show that women and minorities are employed at substantially higher rates than they were in 1975," Spero wrote. The court also found that, in addition to having made great strides in diversity, the county also developed and implemented policies and laws that promote diversity and prevent discrimination in a broader range than encompassed by the decree. Contra Costa passed a Merit System Ordinance broadly prohibiting discrimination in county employment, hired an affirmative action officer, developed an affirmative action plan and established a hiring outreach oversight committee that reviews the statistical data of female and minority hiring and then makes recommendations regarding recruitment. "Under all of these circumstances, the court finds that the county has substantially complied with the consent decree, and that the ongoing day to day supervision of county activities under the consent decree is no longer necessary," Spero wrote. "The task of preventing and remedying discrimination is not yet finished. It may never be. Today, however, 38 years after the court imposed the consent decree, the county has taken substantial steps on the path to equal employment opportunity." DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Opt-in Notices Sent in "Alequin" Labor Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Approximately 1,600 additional opt-in notices were distributed in a collective action Alequin v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., which alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 24, 2013. In September 2012, a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Alequin v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., in which named plaintiffs claim that the Company required or allowed certain employees at Olive Garden, Red Lobster, LongHorn Steakhouse, Bahama Breeze and Seasons 52 to work off the clock and required them to perform tasks unrelated to their tipped duties while taking a tip credit against their hourly rate of pay. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of alleged back wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees. In July 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida conditionally certified a nationwide class of servers and bartenders who worked in the aforementioned restaurants at any point from September 6, 2009 through September 6, 2012. Unlike a class action, a collective action requires potential class members to "opt in" rather than "opt out" following the issuance of a notice. As of December 17, 2013, out of the approximately 215,000 original opt-in notices distributed, approximately 20,000 have been returned. On November 22, 2013, approximately 1,600 additional opt-in notices were distributed, for which the opt-in period ends February 20, 2014. The Company will have an opportunity to seek to have the class de-certified and/or seek to have the case dismissed on its merits. The company believes that the company's wage and hour policies comply with the law and that the company has meritorious defenses to the substantive claims and strong defenses supporting de- certification. An estimate of the possible loss, if any, or the range of loss cannot be made at this stage of the proceeding. DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Opt-in Notices Sent in "ChHab" Labor Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Opt-in notices were distributed in ChHab v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to the company's Jan. 9, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 24, 2013. In November, 2011, a lawsuit entitled ChHab v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act and a class action under the applicable New York state wage and hour statutes. The named plaintiffs claim that the Company required or allowed certain employees at The Capital Grille to work off the clock, share tips with individuals who polished silverware to assist the plaintiffs, and required the plaintiffs to perform tasks unrelated to their tipped duties while taking a tip credit against their hourly rate of pay. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of alleged back wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees. In September 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York conditionally certified a nationwide class for the Fair Labor Standards Act claims only of tipped employees who worked in the aforementioned restaurants at any point from November 17, 2008 through September 19, 2013. Potential class members are required to "opt in" rather than "opt out" following the issuance of a notice. As of December 16, 2013, out of the approximately 3,100 original opt-in notices distributed, approximately 500 have been returned. On December 3, 2013, an additional 65 opt-in notices were distributed, for which the opt-in period ends February 3, 2014. As with the Alequin matter, the Company will have an opportunity to seek to have the class de-certified and/or seek to have the case dismissed on its merits. The company believes that the company's wage and hour policies comply with the law and that the company has meritorious defenses to the substantive claims in this matter. An estimate of the possible loss, if any, or the range of loss cannot be made at this stage of the proceeding. EAT GOOD: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Javier Sanchez, Ramiro Tobon, and Jesus Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Eat Good Feel Good Inc. d/b/a City Sandwich, Anna Maria Guerriere, and Michael Guerriere, Case No. 1:14-cv-00418-LAK-MHD (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants (1) unpaid minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime compensation; (3) liquidated damages; (4) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (5) attorneys' fees and costs. City Sandwich, is a domestic business corporation with a principal place of business in New York. Anna Maria Guerriere and Michael Guerriere are joint owners, officers, shareholders, directors, managing agents, and proprietors of City Sandwich. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com EBAY INC: Class Counsel Deserves $27K in Fees, Costs, Court Ruled ----------------------------------------------------------------- After reaching a small settlement with users of its mobile app who faced unwelcome charges, eBay owes the class counsel about $23,000, reports Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Tasha Kiersey had sued the online auction site in March 2012, bringing claims for breach of contract, bad faith and unjust enrichment after she was allegedly charged improper fees while trying to sell items using eBay's mobile application. Over a year later, U.S. District judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco approved a final settlement of $95,000, to be distributed via eBay credit instead of cash. "In this case, given the small amount that any individual class member would be likely to receive weighed against the cost of mailing individual checks, the court concludes that an account credit is an appropriate way to distribute the settlement," Tigar wrote at the time. Class counsel, Keith Verges of Figari & Davenport, said the amount of the settlement was small and that it was important for both sides not to prolong the lawsuit. "We will seek $30,000 in our fee application, but have actually spent about four times that," Verges said Oct. 28. "We are upside-down in this, but that's our duty as counsel for the class." Tigar denied the request for $30,000, however, and instead granted $23,750 in fees. "Sometimes the recovery turns out to be lower than expected, or even non-existent; sometimes the recovery turns out to be substantial or even enormous," he wrote. "Just as the court would not deprive class counsel of all their potential profit in cases in the latter category, it cannot insulate class counsel from the risk of pursuing an unprofitable case." Though counsel for the class showed "skill and expertise," it was not "to a degree deserving of unusual consideration," the ruling states. Sticking with a case when you know you are going to lose money is part of the job, Tigar added. "Continuing to represent a client and advance her interests is a basic responsibility of counsel, not a special circumstance deserving of enhanced compensation," he wrote. "A class counsel award in the amount of $23,750 is reasonable." Tigar also awarded Figari & Davenport more than $3,000 in expenses, and Kiersey will take home a $500 incentive compensation award. The Plaintiff is represented by: Parker D. Young, Esq. FIGARI & DAVENPORT, L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 3400 Dallas, TX 75202-3796 Telephone: (214) 939-2000 Facsimile: (214) 939-2090 E-mail: parker.young@figdav.com The case is Tasha Keirsey v. Ebay, Inc., Case No. 12-cv-01200-JST, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. ELECTRONIC DATABASES: May 9 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation To: Freelance authors of English language literary works This is a summary notice of a revised class action settlement. Please read this notice. It may affect your legal rights. What is this proposed settlement about? A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging that commercial electronic databases and newspapers and magazines infringed the copyrights of freelance authors. The lawsuit alleges that newspapers and magazines, after publishing the works with the authors' permission, then sold them to the electronic databases without the authors' permission. The current settlement is a revision of a previous proposed settlement that was reached in 2005. The settlement applies to English language literary works that were reproduced on a commercial electronic database without the authors' permission. Works may still be eligible even if not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, and even if they were originally published outside the U.S. Excluded are works for hire and works for which the author granted electronic rights to the original publisher. Freelance authors were notified of the previous settlement, and the deadline for submitting compensation claims under that settlement was September 30, 2005. Additional details about eligible works and your options are contained in the full Notice of Revised Class Action Settlement, available at www.copyrightclassaction.com What do I need to do? Class members have three options: (i) do nothing; (ii) exclude yourself from the settlement; (iii) object to the settlement. To remain a class member, you do not need to do anything. To be eligible for a settlement payment, you must have already submitted a timely, valid claim under the previous settlement in 2005. If you did so, then you need to do nothing further to participate in the settlement. (You will eventually hear from the Claims Administrator about the validity of your claim.) You may still exclude yourself from the settlement. You must (1) mail a written request for exclusion, postmarked by May 9, 2014, Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation, EXCLUSION REQUEST, c/o GCG, PO Box 10033, Dublin, OH 43017-6633, or (2) submit an exclusion request online at www.copyrightclassaction.com by that date. To object to the settlement, you must file a written objection by May 9, 2014. Further information on each option is available at www.copyrightclassaction.com Final Fairness Hearing A hearing on the proposed settlement will be held June 10, 2014 at 10:00 a.m. by U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels, U.S. District Court, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine whether the settlement should be approved. Class members or their counsel may appear in Court. I have new contact information, whom should I contact? If you have changed your mailing or e-mail address since the original settlement in 2005, you should notify the Claims Administrator, whose contact information is in the full Notice of Revised Class Action Settlement. If the Claims Administrator does not have your correct contact information, you may not receive your settlement payment (assuming you already submitted a valid claim in 2005) or notice of important developments in this class action. Please do not contact the Court. Dated: January 22, 2014 By Order of the Court The Honorable George B. Daniels FREESCORE LLC: 9th Circuit Reversed Dismissal of "Stout" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hull at Courthouse News Service reports that the 9th Circuit resurrected class action claims against FreeScore.com, finding February 21, 2014, that the Web site is a "credit repair organization" as defined by federal law. California resident Kevin Stout sued FreeScore in 2010, alleging that the company, whose ads feature actor and political commentator Ben Stein, violated the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) with its television and online marketing. FreeScore moved to dismiss the potential class action on the basis that it was not a credit repair organization and that it had "only made representations that it could provide information regarding a consumer's credit, and not that it could 'improve' a consumer's credit." Finding that the company had indeed made no promises to improve credit and thus was not liable under the CROA, U.S. District Judge Manuel Real tossed Stout's claims out of court in Los Angeles. A three-judge appellate panel reversed on February 21, 2014, with a contrary conclusion. "FreeScore falls squarely within the CROA's definition of a 'credit repair organization,'" U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan wrote for the panel, sitting by designation from Brooklyn. "From the plain language of the statute, it is clear that under the CROA, a person need not actually provide credit repair services to fall within the statutory definition of a credit repair organization," Cogan added. "Instead, the person need only represent that it can or will sell, provide, or perform a service for the purpose of providing advice or assistance to a consumer with regard to improving a consumer's credit record, credit history, or credit rating." Remanding the case for the lower court to determine if FreeScore actually violated the act, Cogan noted that "yhe fact that FreeScore has a self-serving disclaimer that it is not a credit repair organization does not cure the representations it made that it offers services that could improve a consumer's credit." The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. WEISBERG & MEYERS LLC 10400 Griffin Road, Suite 302 Cooper City, FL 33328 E-mail: aweisberg@AttorneysForConsumers.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 369 S. Doheny Dr., #415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com The Defendant-Appellee is represented by: Darrel J. Hieber, Esq. Jason D. Russell, Esq. Jennifer E. LaGrange, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 687-5000 Facsimile: (213) 687-5600 E-mail: darrel.hieber@skadden.com jason.russell@skadden.com The case is Kevin Stout v. Freescore, LLC, dba FreeScore.com, Case No. 10-56887, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The original case is Kevin Stout v. Freescore, LLC, dba FreeScore.com, Case No. 2:10-cv-04395-R-OP, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. GALILEE MEMORIAL: Faces New Suit Over Mishandling of Corpses ------------------------------------------------------------ WMC-TV reports that a new multimillion dollar, class-action lawsuit has been filed regarding the mishandling of corpses at Galilee Memorial Gardens Cemetery. The largest Tennessee-based personal injury firm -- Nahon, Saharovich and Trotz -- filed the $225 million lawsuit in Shelby County Circuit Court. The complaint alleges that bodies of potentially hundreds of decedents had been desecrated, stacked in mass graves, crushed, misplaced, and abused. A separate class action lawsuit was filed against the cemetery in early February for $100 million. Owner Jemar Lambert faces two criminal charges in connection with Galilee. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Class Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Maria Rina Clemente, an individual, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Goodwill Industries of Southern California, Inc. a California Corporation; Goodwill Retail Services, a California corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC536738 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., February 18, 2014) alleges that the Defendants had a consistent policy or practice of failing to pay employees for all hours worked. The Plaintiff adds that the Defendants have consistently failed to provide their employees with paid rest breaks of not less than 10 minutes per four hours of work or major fraction thereof; nor did the Defendants pay the Employees premium pay for each day on which requisite rest breaks were not provided or were deficiently provided. The Corporate Defendants are doing business in the state of California, County of Los Angeles, operating thrift stores and selling a variety of consumer products and clothing. The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Yeremian, Esq. Hugo Gamez, Esq. Garen Nadir, Esq. DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705 Giendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 230-8380 Facsimile: (818) 230-0308 E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com hugo@yeremianlaw.com garen@yeremianlaw.com GOOGLE INC: Challenges Gmail Privacy Class Action Status -------------------------------------------------------- Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that Google Inc., which is fighting claims that it illegally scanned private e-mail messages, argued it shouldn't have to face a single lawsuit that lumps together hundreds of millions of Internet users. The company contends that a nationwide grouping of people who sent or received messages through its Gmail service over five years would "amalgamate an unprecedented collection of individuals," according to a filing in federal court in San Jose. If, as the plaintiffs argue, each person is eligible for damages accruing at $100 a day for violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the amount at stake could reach into the trillions of dollars. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who heard arguments on Feb. 27 over whether to certify the case as a class action, is also handling e-mail privacy complaints that were filed last year against Yahoo Inc. and LinkedIn Corp., which also have hundreds of millions of users. Similarly cases have been brought against Facebook Inc. and Hulu as Web users challenge the ways that companies use their data for online advertising that generated more than $40 billion in the U.S. last year. Google faces another privacy case in San Francisco federal court brought on behalf of everyone whose wireless Internet connections were intercepted by vehicles gathering information for the Street View mapping service. The lawyers suing Google over e-mail scanning face "a very steep hurdle" to proceed with a group case, and the judge will need to do a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether it's appropriate, Stanford Law School Professor Deborah Hensler said, adding that only 10 to 20 percent of all cases filed as class-actions are allowed to go forward. Google called it "a herculean task beyond the resources of the court and parties," according to a court filing. The case was brought in 2013 by users of Gmail and other e-mail services claiming that Google intercepted, read and mined the content of e-mail messages to create tailored advertising and to build user profiles. Judge Koh turned down Google's bid to dismiss the case in September, rejecting Google's argument that when Gmail users accepted the service terms and privacy policies, they agreed to let their messages be scanned. The plaintiffs say the case is "perfectly suited for class treatment" because everyone affected by the e-mail scanning has so much in common, from the "uniform nature" of Google's extraction of data in e-mails to the company's "uniform disclosures" about its privacy practices. Google contends that if the e-mail case gets group status, it would "indiscriminately amass together virtually everyone in the United States with a non-Gmail e-mail account, along with large groups of the over 400 million people who use Gmail and Google Apps," the filing said. The common ground needed for class-action status is missing because the "many billions" of e-mails at issue raise "an immense array of individualized evidence" over whether the senders and recipients were aware of the automatic scanning, Google said. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected class certification for a lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 1.5 million female workers alleging discrimination in pay and promotions at Walmart stores. The court told the women they didn't have enough in common to sue the company as a monolithic class. Google's 31-page argument to Judge Koh in the e-mail case cited the high court's Walmart ruling three times. If the Google case is given class status, it will be the largest ever, said Rick Wiebe, a San Francisco lawyer who does privacy and class-action cases. Media Outlets' Bid to Access Sealed Info A challenge to sealed filings in the massive class action over Gmail privacy will get priority treatment of sorts, reported William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling dated February 21, 2014. News outlets -- including Courthouse News, Gannett, McClatchy and the New York Times -- lobbied U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh earlier to deny Google's requests to file under seal, citing public interest in the case involving millions of Gmail users. The sprawling class action dubbed In re Google Inc. - Gmail Litigation claims that the tech giant's new privacy policies violate federal computer fraud, eavesdropping and wiretap laws. But while the media organizations had asked Koh to hear their motion to intervene on Feb. 27 -- the next scheduled hearing in the case -- Google said in a reply filed February 20, 2014, that there is "no pressing urgency" to resolve the sealing issue so quickly. "There is no basis for the media intervenors to force their issues at such a late date without any prior notice," Google's reply states. "Had they contacted Google's counsel, they would have learned that the parties have been actively meeting and conferring on how best to allow the Feb. 27 hearing to proceed with no sealing formality. As the parties have agreed, the hearing will be entirely public -- even if plaintiffs' counsel need to refer to the contents of confidential material during argument -- with the only agreed restriction being the general guideline that plaintiffs will not publish to the gallery materials that were previously sealed or designated as confidential under the court's protective order. This agreement was reached specifically to avoid having to deal with sealing matters during the hearing itself, thereby allowing the court and counsel to have a fully public airing of the arguments unburdened by concerns about sealing and confidentiality. "Media intervenors should not be allowed to jump the line and present argument at the Feb. 27 hearing," the company added, suggesting that a June 19 hearing would satisfy the interests of the public. But Koh answered back quickly, finding that the news outlets' request could be decided without having a hearing at all. "The court recognizes the importance of putative intervenors' concerns regarding public access to judicial proceedings," Koh wrote. "The court therefore expedites briefing on the motion to intervene. The parties shall file any response to the motion by March 3, 2014, and putative intervenors shall file any reply by March 7, 2014. Once briefing is complete, the motion will be deemed submitted without oral argument." The case is In Re: Google Inc. Gmail Litigation, Case No.: 5:13- MD-2430-LHK, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. HALLIBURTON CO: SC Ruling May Alter Securities Fraud Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------------ Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that in each term of the U.S. Supreme Court, there are a few cases that have the potential to bring sweeping change to the established legal landscape. One of the marquee cases of the current term -- at least for those interested in securities litigation -- is Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund Inc., which has the potential to alter the lucrative world of securities fraud class actions in major ways. The case, also known as Halliburton II (the first Halliburton case from 2011 involved loss causation in class actions) and slated for oral arguments March 5, may endanger the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in the 1988 Basic v. Levinson, which legitimized the "fraud on the market" presumption. This rule states that an efficient market reflects all of the information shareholders need about a publicly traded company in order to make decisions -- meaning that plaintiffs do not have to prove their reliance on misstatements by the company to bring the class action. The Basic decision allowed plaintiffs in securities fraud cases to establish classwide reliance far more easily than in the past. "Halliburton II is part of a continuing stream of cases that reflect the court's interest in class action issues, both within securities and outside," Nicholas Even, a partner at Haynes and Boone and the chair of the firm's Securities and Shareholder Litigation Practice and coauthor of the firm's annual review of securities litigation, told CorpCounsel.com. The rise of the fraud on the market presumption has certainly spurred a high number of securities fraud class actions. An amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court on Halliburton II by a group of law professors and former Securities and Exchange Commission officials -- one of more than 20 amicus briefs offered in relation to the case -- noted that between 1997 and 2012 more than 3,050 private class action securities fraud lawsuits were filed in the United States. The settlements yielded from that cohort added up to more than $73.1 billion, and included six of the 10 largest settlements in class action history. With both companies and shareholders aware of what's at stake, Halliburton II is attracting a lot of attention. The case itself is more than a decade old, and pits the energy company against the Erica P. John Fund, which provides financial support to the Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee. The John Fund claims to have been defrauded by Halliburton when the company misrepresented its finances to inflate its stock price. Mr. Even said that the high court completely gutting the fraud on the market theory would be "one of the most extreme outcomes imaginable" and is unlikely. However, he explained that there's a chance the court will issue a significant ruling on a related question: When in the litigation process should defendants be given the chance to refute the allegations against them based on the fraud on the market presumption? For defendants, it's a case of the earlier the better, said Mr. Even, explaining that defendants often lose leverage to settle cases for a lower sum total after the class certification stage is over. If the market presumption goes down in flames, though, Mr. Even doesn't think it's smart for in-house counsel to let their guard down, simply because "the securities plaintiffs bar is nothing if not creative." "I would not advise in-house counsel and public companies to get overly optimistic that even a reversal or an abolishment of the fraud on market presumption would end potential securities class action risk," he said. There are still avenues that plaintiffs attorneys can take to push their securities fraud claims through the courts without the fraud on the market presumption, according to Mr. Even. For example, he pointed out, there is the "Affiliated Ute presumption," named after a 1972 Supreme Court case, which allows plaintiffs to bypass normal rules for proving reliance, if the suit involves allegations that the defendant fraudulently withheld information from shareholders. "The presumption of reliance in the case of omissions doesn't rely on the fraud on the market theory," Mr. Even said. A ruling from the Supreme Court on Halliburton II is expected before the end of June 2014. HOME DEPOT: Faces Class Action Over Defective Garden Hoses ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that a New York consumer on Feb. 25 launched a class action in New Jersey federal court accusing Home Depot USA Inc. and an infomercial marketing firm of hawking a line of defective expandable garden hoses that tend to rupture soon after purchase. The "Pocket Hose" and "Mini Max Hose" products -- sold at Home Depot stores and marketed by Telebrands Corp. -- aren't durable, nor are they made of "heavy-duty fire hose construction," as the companies advertise, plaintiff Michael Klemballa alleged in his complaint. "In fact, the design of the Pocket Hose product is fundamentally defective and thus not suitable to be used as a garden hose as advertised," Mr. Klemballa said. "When used as instructed, the Pocket Hose will leak and/or burst, rendering the product useless." Mr. Klemballa claims that the Pocket Hose he purchased in June ruptured after he used it just a few times, and that thousands of similar complaints are scattered across product review websites and message boards. Fairfield, N.J.-based Telebrands -- which markets an array of products through infomercials, and also in retail stores using its "As Seen On TV" logo -- launched a nationwide campaign for Pocket Hose in August 2012, lauding the product as a "revolutionary lightweight mini-hose" that expands to a full-size garden hose under water pressure, according to the complaint. In its infomercials and online advertisements, Telebrands falsely touts the Pocket Hose as "strong enough for any tough job," backing the claim with a purported demonstration of the hose pulling a 5,000-pound sport utility vehicle, Mr. Klemballa alleges. In reality, however, the hose -- which sells for between $12.99 and $42.99, depending on length -- is not even strong enough to withstand normal residential use, according to the complaint. For its part, Home Depot adopted many of Telebrands' false and misleading claims about the product for in-store displays and ads on its website, and reviewed and approved advertising materials that included the retailer's own logos and trademarks, the suit said. "Defendants' false and misleading claims are in willful and wanton disregard of the interests of the consuming public, and constitute a knowing attempt by defendants to deceive consumers," the complaint said. Mr. Klemballa seeks to represent a class of all consumers who have purchased the Pocket Hose in the U.S., along with a subclass of New York purchasers. He alleges various breach of warranty claims against the defendants, along with claims for unjust enrichment and violations of New York General Business Law. The suit seeks unspecified compensatory, treble and punitive damages, as well as restitution and injunctive relief. The plaintiff is represented by James E. Cecchi and Lindsey H. Taylor of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC and by Antonio Vozzolo -- avozzolo@faruqilaw.com -- and Courtney E. Maccarone -- cmaccarone@faruqilaw.com -- of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP. The case is Klemballa v. Telebrands Corp. et al., case number 2:14-cv-01245, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. HSBC BANK: Court Dismissed "de Sausa" OT Suit With Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------ Successful mediation led a would-be class to withdraw its claims that HSBC did not pay overtime to certain managers or provide them with accurate wage statements, according to Courthouse News Service. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tomas E. Margain, Esq. JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP 84 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 790 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 317-1100 Facsimile: (408) 351-0105 E-mail: margainlaw@hotmail.com - and - Richard C. J. Wahng , Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD WAHNG 152 Anza Street, Suite 201 Fremont, CA 94539 Telephone: (510) 490-4447 Facsimile: (510) 344-5755 E-mail: rwahng@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Enzo Der Boghossian, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2049 Century Park East, 32nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 284-4592 Facsimile: (310) 557-2193 E-mail: ederboghossian@proskauer.com The case is de Sausa, et al. v. HSBC Bank U.S.A., N.A., et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-05081-TEH, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. INNERWORKINGS INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Ill. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 27 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against InnerWorkings, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, and docketed under 1:14-cv- 01416, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired InnerWorkings securities between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2013, both dates inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. If you are a shareholder who purchased InnerWorkings securities during the Class Period, you have until April 28, 2014 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at http://www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888-4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. InnerWorkings provides print procurement solutions to corporate clients in the United States. The Company utilizes its proprietary software applications and database to create solutions that store, analyze, and track the production capabilities of supplier networks, as well as quote and price data for bids and print jobs. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company inflated its revenues in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (2) the Company artificially inflated its cash flows and adjusted EBITDA; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On April 16, 2013, after the market closed, the Company revised its full year 2013 guidance due to a reduction of work orders by a large retail client. On this news, InnerWorkings securities declined $3.55 per share or more than 25%, to close at $10.48 per share on April 17, 2013. On April 30, 2013, Prescience Point Research Group published an analyst report with a "Strong Sell" recommendation, alleging among other things, that the Company was inflating its revenues by misapplying gross revenue and net accounting. On this news, InnerWorkings securities declined an additional $0.33 per share or more than 3%, to close at $10.07 per share on April 30, 2013. On November 6, 2013, the Company announced lower than expected earnings per share, primarily due to issues with its Production Graphics division. On this news, the Company's shares fell $3.85 per share to $5.64, or over 40%, on November 6, 2013. On February 18, 2014, the Company announced that it would need to restate its financial statements for all periods extending to the fourth quarter of 2011 through the third quarter of 2013. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. INTELIQUENT INC: Plaintiff in Ill. Securities Suit Abandons Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiff in a securities lawsuit filed against Inteliquent, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois voluntarily dismissed the case, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2014, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2013. On August 9, 2013, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Tanara Holding Ltd., individually and on behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Inteliquent, Inc., f/k/a Neutral Tandem Inc., G. Edward Evans, Robert Junkroski, and David Zwick, 13-CV-5701). The plaintiff alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On January 6, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. JUST FABULOUS: Sued for Deceiving People Into Paying $39.95/Month ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Just Fabulous deceptively enrolls people in a $39.95 per month "membership program" after advertising "free memberships" to its Web site, justfab.com, a class action claims in California Superior Court. LIFT VAPOR: Accused of Defrauding Customers Over Monthly Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- Loren Ronzheimer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lift Vapor LLC, a Connecticut limited liability company, Case No. 0:14-cv-00200-SRN-LIB (D. Minn., January 21, 2014) asserts claims based on the Company's alleged deceptive marketing and sale of its electronic cigarette products. Dionne Cordell-Whitney at Courthouse News Service reports the lawsuit claims Hartford, Conn.-based Lift Vapor defrauds people by swiping $99 to $149 per month from their credit cards after a "free" offer. It's not the first such lawsuit. Vapor Corp. and Global Vapor Partners, of South Florida, were accused of a similar scam in a November class action in Chicago. In both cases, the defendants are accused of offering "starter kits" for free or cheap, plus shipping and handling. The shipping and handling, billed through a credit or debit card, gives the scammers access to suckers' bank accounts, from which they proceed to take money every month, without proper notice, according to the lawsuits. Ronzheimer claims he was promised hundreds of dollars worth of e- cigarette accessories for "no cost" -- except shipping and handling. He claims he authorized Lift Vapor to charge his debit card $7.90 for shipping and handling, in October 2013. In December, he found he had been charged an additional $99.16. "Lift Vapor fails to clearly and conspicuously disclose to consumers -- who are eager to receive their free trial of e- cigarettes -- that 10 days following the transaction it will charge consumers' credit and debit cards between $99 and $149," the complaint states. Ronzheimer claims Lift Vapor enrolled him into a monthly program that tacks on recurring charges for refill cartridges, without his authorization. "Lift Vapor is careful to bury mention of the initial trial charge or the monthly charges in the Terms and Conditions, which never appear on the same page as the free trial offer," the complaint states. "Lift Vapor also obscures mention of these fees through the use of flashy graphics and misleading statements that tell consumers that they only pay shipping and handling and that the 'Total' price for the starter kit is "'$0.00.'" He seeks compensatory and statutory damages for unjust enrichment, breach of contract, consumer fraud and violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com LCA-VISION: Being Sold to Photomedex for Too Little, Class Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LCA-Vision, a Lasik surgery chain, is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Photomedex and Gatorade Acquisition Corp., for $5.37 a share, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court. LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Extreme Fine for Expired Parking Meter ----------------------------------------------------------------- A $63 fine Los Angeles imposes for an expired parking meter, and its doubling if not paid in two weeks -- not to mention the $28 "delinquent" fee and the $21 "collection fee" -- are so excessive they are unconstitutional, a federal class action claims, reports Robert Kahn at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Jesus Pimentel claims that the $175 he had to pay was an unconstitutional "excessive fine," and that the DMV's threat to withhold registration of his car and/or boot or seize it if he didn't pay the $175 -- accompanied by the threat of civil litigation, reporting him to a credit bureau and garnishing of his state tax refund -- violated the Due Process clause. He got the ticket at 3:10 p.m. on May 29, 2013, on Eighth Street downtown. He says he had fed the meter enough money to cover the time he expected to park there. But apparently not. He paid the entire $175 on July 30, because he wanted to register his car. The 19-page lawsuit compares the parking fines and additional penalties assessed by Pasadena and Glendale, which are not as bad, ($73.90 for the violation and late fee in Pasadena and $88 for the expired meter and late fee in Glendale.) Hauling out his calculator, Pimentel's learned counsel Donald G. Norris, with Norris & Galanter, points out that Pimentel's ultimate fine was nearly 175 percent the daily median per capita income of an Angeleno (using 2009 figures from City-Data.com). The median per capita income in L.A. that year as $26,096; given 160 work days a year, the daily wage comes to $100.37. Pimentel's $175 fine, then, constitutes 174.4 percent of an Angeleno's median daily wage. And with the median per capita income for Latino Angelenos in 2009 $13,542 -- or $52.08 a day for 260 work days -- Pimentel's fines come to 336 percent of the daily median income for a Latino Angeleno. With the minimum hourly wage in California set at $8, a $63 parking ticket for an expired meter consumes an entire day's wages, and then some, once taxes are deducted. Pimentel, in other words, would have to put in three 8-hour days at minimum wage just to pay the lousy parking ticket and late fees. The lawsuit does not state how long Pimentel overparked, or where he was going, or how much he fed the meter in the first place. Pimentel seeks class certification, declaratory relief, an injunction, and damages, with interest, for violations of the 8th and 14th Amendments; 42 U.S.C. Section1983; Article I Section 17 of the California Constitution, which prohibits excessive fines; Article I Section 7(a) of the California Constitution -- its Due Process Clause; costs of lawsuit, attorney's fees, and "such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper." The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald G. Norris, Esq. NORRIS & GALANTER LLP 523 West 6th Street, Suite 716 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 232-0855 Facsimile: (213) 286-9499 E-mail: dnorris@norgallaw.com MCNEIL-PPC INC: Faces 120 Cases Over Tylenol Health Risks --------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Dribben, writing for The Philadelphia Inquirer, reports that this April, the first of two dozen pending cases involving plaintiffs who fell seriously ill or died from the same medication will be heard in a New Jersey court. And 120 more cases are headed for federal court in Philadelphia. They claim that McNeil-PPC Inc., the company that makes Tylenol, and others repeatedly concealed the serious health risks of the painkiller, also known as acetaminophen. On April 24, 1995, Marcus Trunk, a 23-year-old construction worker from Upper Dublin, Pa., died from treating a sprained wrist with Tylenol, a drug he thought was completely safe. Tylenol is the best-known brand name for acetaminophen, but the drug is an ingredient in more than 600 products such as Sudafed, Robitussin, NyQuil, Cepacol and Coricidin. It is so ubiquitous that consumers can -- and regularly do -- unwittingly take much more than they should. It's those multiple doses that can be lethal. For decades, experts urged the Food and Drug Administration to take a few simple steps to protect the public from acetaminophen poisoning. And for decades, they watched in frustration as other countries took those steps, while little progress was made here. Acetaminophen is the No. 1 cause of acute liver failure in the United States. Overdoses send more than 78,000 people to the emergency room and result in about 33,000 hospitalizations a year. Studies suggest that several hundred people die from accidental acetaminophen toxicity each year, like Marcus Trunk. "In some ways, it's not a huge number," said William Lee, a liver disease expert at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. "But most of them are young, healthy people. . . . These are preventable deaths." The pain reliever, developed by McNeil at its Fort Washington, Pa., headquarters in the 1950s, is safe and effective when taken correctly. But it has a narrow margin of safety and can quickly become toxic when taken in doses not much greater than the recommended limits, or when combined with alcohol. Because acetaminophen is in so many drugs, people often have no idea how much they have taken. (The FDA has ruled only recently that narcotic combination painkillers such as Percocet and Vicodin no longer list the cryptic abbreviation "APAP," and instead spell out "acetaminophen" on the label.) Even hospitals lose track, giving patients more than the maximum. While the FDA has gradually required stronger health warnings on labels, critics say that the agency has acted too slowly and meekly. For 19 years, one of the most compelling voices among them has been Kate Trunk's. After graduating from Upper Dublin High School, Marcus, the older of her two sons, went to work for his uncles, restoring brick buildings in Philadelphia, she said. When he hurt himself on the job, his doctor prescribed Tylenol 3, a painkiller containing codeine and 300 milligrams of acetaminophen in each pill. Still in pain, but eager to get back to work, Trunk also took some regular Tylenol, which had been marketed for decades as the analgesic that "hospitals recommend most." Each of those pills contained 325 milligrams of acetaminophen. Soon, he grew achy and feverish. Thinking he had a cold, he treated himself with Thera-flu, which also contains acetaminophen -- 650 milligrams in each dose. His symptoms grew worse, Kate Trunk said, until he ended up in Abington Memorial Hospital, where the doctors suspected he had hepatitis. "They gave him more Tylenol," she said. His parents, Carmen, a helicopter pilot, and Kate, a preschool teacher, had just moved to Florida. On Easter Sunday, they got a call from the hospital. Kate flew to Philadelphia immediately. As she stood by his bedside, she remembers him telling her, "Oh, Ma, I think I'm going to die." "I would never let that happen," she said, certain that he was overreacting. He was young and strong and, until a few days before, in perfect health. The next day he was transferred to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. "He was hooked up to every machine possible," she said. She called her husband and told him, "You need to be here." A week later, Marcus was removed from life support. "When the autopsy report came back, we said, 'acetaminophen toxicity? What's that?' . . . Is it incredibly rare? It turned out it wasn't incredibly rare." That summer, Kate and Carmen Trunk began fighting for more explicit warnings on the labels of all medications containing acetaminophen, warnings that they believe might have saved their son's life. "I would have loved for it to happen bam, bam, bam," she said. "But that's not how it works." Since the late 1960s, evidence had been mounting that the drug can be lethal in doses exceeding 4,000 milligrams a day, and less when combined with alcohol. Anyone who has been fasting or eating very little, as those who are ill tend to do, is also at greater risk for liver damage from the drug. In 1977, after four years of study, an advisory committee appointed by the FDA asked the agency to set a "standard dose" of no more than 325 milligrams of acetaminophen in any one pill. The group also said a warning about liver damage should be "obligatory" on labels. But it was not until 2001, when another FDA panel reached the same conclusions, that the agency began to take action. Kate Trunk testified at one of those hearings. "All the other experts had charts and PowerPoints," she recalled. "I held up posters with pictures of Marcus . . . I asked for specific warnings and larger font sizes on the boxes to let the public know what can happen." By 2003, labels had improved, experts said, but not enough to adequately protect the public. "While we acknowledge that there has been some delay," said Andrea Fischer, an FDA spokeswoman, "the FDA has strengthened warnings on the acetaminophen label . . . as science has evolved." It is important to note, health experts warn, that the primary over-the-counter alternatives to acetaminophen -- aspirin and other non-steroidal anti-inflammatories -- have their own dangerous side effects. They can cause ulcers and gastric bleeding. (Unlike non-steroidal anti-inflammatories and aspirin, Tylenol does not reduce inflammation. Rather, it reduces fever and mitigates pain.) And in children, aspirin can cause Reye's syndrome, a potentially fatal condition. Acetaminophen dosing for children is even more confusing than for adults. Currently, labels do not offer any recommended dose for children under 2 years old. Instead, parents and caretakers are told to ask a doctor. Three years ago, the FDA asked manufacturers of prescription drugs with acetaminophen to voluntarily limit the amount to 325 milligrams in each pill by Jan. 14, 2014. As of the deadline, about half the manufacturers had complied, the FDA reported. "We hepatologists have been asking for a long time that the FDA follow the lead of the United Kingdom, which limited amounts years ago," said Santiago Munoz, director of the Center for Liver Disease at Capital Health Medical Center in Pennington, N.J. The United Kingdom also requires drugs with acetaminophen to be packaged in blister packs, forcing the consumer to be more deliberate. The 325-milligram limit for prescription tablets "is a first step," Mr. Munoz said. Similar limits do not yet exist for over-the-counter drugs. In 2013, McNeil Consumer Health, the Johnson & Johnson subsidiary that makes Tylenol, added red-letter warnings on bottle caps saying "Contains acetaminophen always read the label." "We have led the way in educating patients and consumers about the benefits and risks of acetaminophen," said Jodie Wertheim, a McNeil spokeswoman. Most companies now highlight acetaminophen in yellow on labels, but calculating the maximum dose can be confusing, said Daniel Hussar, professor of pharmacy at the University of the Sciences. In the Tylenol brand alone, he notes, extra-strength tablets contain 500 milligrams with a recommended limit of six a day. The eight-hour arthritis tablets contain 650 milligrams with a recommended limit of six a day. And regular tablets contain 325 milligrams with a recommended limit of 10 a day. "I don't fault consumers for this," Mr. Hussar said. "I don't expect most will have the patience or understanding to sort out a tongue-twisting name like acetaminophen" and figure out the math. Even doctors, who have long known about the danger, lose track of how much they are giving their patients. A study, in the January edition of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, found that over a two- year period, 1,100 patients at Jefferson received more than the 4- gram daily maximum. The study's co-author, Jesse Civan, director of the liver tumor program at Jefferson, said the problem is that so many drugs contain acetaminophen. Acetaminophen does not directly damage the liver. But in the chain of chemical changes as it is processed, a toxic compound is produced. Normally, the liver clears that compound quickly before any harm is done. Large doses and alcohol, however, increase the amount of the compound and the length of time it lingers. Some lawyers, scientists, and families of people who were sickened or died from overdoses blame McNeil, accusing the company of deliberate obstruction. Others blame the FDA, saying that even understanding bureaucratic delays and the need to give all parties a say, three decades was too long to wait. "It doesn't make any sense," said Sidney Wolfe, senior adviser of the Public Citizen's Health Research Group, who served on an FDA drug safety group that urged for stronger warnings and lower doses. "Why bother having advisory committees who spend hundreds of hours researching these issues and then not do one of the most important things we recommend?" Ninfa Redmond, a toxicologist who served on the FDA advisory panel in the 1970s, said "we were fully aware of our capacity as advisors. We were not there to make laws. But we felt so strongly about the liver damage from acetaminophen that we said the warning should be obligatory." It was the only time in the massive report reviewing scores of drugs, she said, that the group used such strong language. "In a democracy, when we present a report, it will take several months. The FDA has to send the 220-plus pages to companies, get replies, answer the comments and the comments of the comments. But that doesn't explain 32 years," she said. "I think the industry must have put up a big fight." Ten years ago, the FDA did launch a public education campaign about how to use the medicine safely. In its own assessment, however, the agency said, "by most standards, the campaign would be considered small, due to budgetary constraints." Kate Trunk was heartened to learn about the FDA's new limits on prescription drugs. And she is pleased to see clearer health warnings. Twelve years after their son died, the lawsuit she and her husband filed against McNeil was ready for trial. The objective, she said, was not to win money, but to hold the company accountable. "I'm still ticked off that we settled -- but Carmen was tired," she said. "I was up for the fight." As part of the terms, she was forbidden to discuss details of the agreement. She noted, however, that the payment was a small fraction of the $8.5 million a federal jury awarded Anthony Benedi in 1994. Mr. Benedi, a former special assistant to President George H.W. Bush, needed a liver transplant after taking Tylenol Extra Strength to treat the flu. He sued McNeil for not warning about the dangers of mixing alcohol and acetaminophen. Mr. Benedi regularly drank two or three glasses of wine with dinner. He had no way of knowing, he said, that alcohol hampers the liver's ability to process the toxic enzymes produced when acetaminophen is broken down. It took another five years before alcohol warnings were added. And the fight continues. In April 2013, a raft of Tylenol cases filed through federal courts were sent to be heard in Philadelphia, where pretrial proceedings are underway. "What we're trying to accomplish is to get justice for our clients who have been severely injured as a result of a product that has been marketed for 40 years as the 'safest, most recommended' drug," said Michael Weinkowitz, one of the attorneys. Attorneys for McNeil referred questions to the company's spokeswoman, Jodie Wertheim. Kate Trunk, whose husband died in October, said she sympathizes with the families involved in the lawsuits. But she warned that they should be prepared. No matter how fat the compensation checks or sweet the psychological victories, nothing can compensate for the loss of a son. "Time," she said, "does not heal all wounds. It kind of gives you a little bit of scar tissue, but the pain never leaves you." MONSANTO COMPANY: Supreme Court Appeal Taken in "Allen" Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- The objector to the settlement of the lawsuit Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al. moved for a stay pending a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, according to the company's Jan. 8, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013. On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto, Pharmacia and seven other defendants. Monsanto is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo Nobel). Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination and punitive damages. Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group, but on May 27, 2011, the judge dismissed both Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case. The class action certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007. On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) case as a class action for property damage and for medical monitoring. On Nov. 2, 2011, the court, in response to defense motions, entered an order decertifying the property class. After the trial for the Bibb medical monitoring class action began on Jan. 3, 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle as to both the medical monitoring and the property class claims. The proposed settlement provides for a 30 year medical monitoring program consisting of a primary fund of up to $21 million and an additional fund of up to $63 million over the life of the program, and a three year property remediation plan with funding up to $9 million. On Feb. 24, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement. A fairness hearing was held June 18, 2012, resulting in the trial court's final approval of the settlement. Certain plaintiffs objected to the approval of the settlement and appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. On Nov. 22, 2013, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and upheld the fairness of the class action settlements. On Dec. 20, 2013, the objector moved for a stay, pending his petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. NATIONAL TENANT: Court Refused to Junk Suit Over Background Check ----------------------------------------------------------------- A company that provides background checks must face claims from a man whom it allegedly incorrectly described as a sex offender, costing him work, Megan Gallegos at Courthouse News Service reported, citing a federal court ruling in January. Harold Charles Meyer claims that National Tenant Network sent an inaccurate consumer report to Meyer's prospective employer and landlord, Shorewood RV Park, claiming he had "three criminal sex offense record, which were listed as 'violent sex offender, fail to register,' 'sexual battery' and 'aggravated oral sexual battery.'" Both Harold and Phyllis Meyer, who had applied with him for the assistant resident manager position, were then denied employment and residence at Shorewood. The couple contacted the National Tenant Network for copies of Harold's file but the defendant allegedly never responded to their requests. They blamed the inaccurate sex-offender designation on National Tenant Network having mistakenly relied on a consumer report for Charles Otis Meyer and several other individuals with similar names. The Meyers filed suit in San Francisco, hoping to represent a class, but National Tenant moved to dismiss their three claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley largely favored the plaintiffs on January 17. One surviving count alleges that National Tenant improperly bars those whom it provides with consumer reports, like Shorewood, from disclosing the contents of those reports to the subjects, like the Meyers. Another surviving count alleges that National Tenant willfully fails to provide the subjects of consumer reports with all the information in their files. For these causes of action, Corley also refused to dismiss the class-action element. She did find problems, however, the claim alleging that National Tenant "negligently and willfully failing to provide Mr. Meyer with notice at the time that it was selling adverse public records about him, and the source of such information and by failing to maintain strict procedures to insure that adverse public records information it reports is complete and up to date." The Meyers failed to allege that "NTN either knew or should have known that the report it furnished to Shorewood was for employment purposes," according to the ruling. "Plaintiffs assert that they adequately allege that the report defendant sold to Shorewood was for employment purposes, citing Paragraphs 11 and 26 through 30," Corley wrote. "However, those paragraphs include no allegations regarding defendant's knowledge that the report would be used to evaluate plaintiffs' employment application in addition to their tenancy application; rather, those paragraphs simply allege that Shorewood used plaintiffs' reports for employment purposes." NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Trampled on Homeowners, Nevada Class Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Writing for Courthouse News Service, Megan Gallegos reported that Nationstar Mortgage trampled on homeowners after buying from Bank of America servicing rights to 1.3 million home loans, for $7.1 billion, a class action claims in Federal Court. In January, lead plaintiffs Brian and Lanilee Johnston sued Nationstar Mortgage LLC in Clark County Court, alleging breach of contract, breach of third party beneficiary contract, breach of faith and unjust enrichment. It all started, the Johnstons say, when Bank of America put together a program to help people affected by the mortgage foreclosure crisis. Bank of America is not a party to the lawsuit. "As a servicer of residential mortgage loans, Bank of American . . . entered into permanent loan modification agreements with distraught homeowners through the county whose residential mortgage loans it serviced prior to January 2013," the complaint states. "On January 6, 2013, BOA entered into a Mortgage Servicing Rights Purchase and Sale Agreement (hereinafter 'MSRP') with Nationstar. Pursuant to the MSRP, Nationstar 2 assumed the servicing rights to approximately 1.3 million residential mortgage loans, with a total unpaid principal balance of approximately $215 billion, and servicing-related advanced receivables of approximately $5.8 billion. The aggregate purchase price was approximately $7.1 billion. "Within the MSRP, Nationstar contractually obligated itself to honor all Modification Agreements that BOA previously entered with Homeowners. Despite its contractual obligation to do so, Nationstar has uniformly failed to honor the terms of the Modification Agreements to the detriment of Homeowners, thereby compelling the initiation of this action." The Johnstons claim that "Nationstar has refused to honor the terms of the Modification Agreements. Rather than fulfill its contractual obligation, Nationstar has made numerous homeowners reapply for loan modifications featuring lesser terms than those within their valid Modification Agreements with BOA, held payments in suspension, improperly assessed unwarranted fees, and in some circumstances, initiated foreclosure proceedings. "In those instances where homeowners refused to reapply for inferior loan modifications, or where Nationstar chose not to offer any loan modification whatsoever, Nationstar has deemed the original mortgage loans to be 'non-performing' or 'delinquent' and assessed unwarranted penalties and costs against homeowners." The Johnstons claim they worked with Bank of America to reduce their monthly mortgage payment to $1,527.60. But after sending their first payment to Nationstar, "Nationstar sent a notice to plaintiffs stating that their December mortgage payment of $1,527.60 was insufficient and would be held in a suspense account. Nationstar also indicated that plaintiffs' principal balance was $212,433.27 (approximately $4,000 more than the principal balance with BOA) with monthly payments totaling $1,709.11 at an interest rate of 5.875 percent. Nationstar further stated that a total of $10,779 was currently due, including an unexplained property inspection fee of $315.00," according to the complaint. The Johnstons say they asked Nationstar to honor their original loan modification agreement, but it refused. The family seeks class certification, actual and compensatory damages, specific performance and attorneys' fees. The Plaintiffs are represented by: George Haines, Esq. HAINES & KRIEGER Beltway Corporate Center 8985 S. Eastern Ave., Suite #130 Henderson, NV 89123 Telephone: (702) 880-5554 Facsimile: (702) 880-5554 NEWO CORP: Falsely Sells Wi-Fi "Range Extenders," Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Newo Corp. and Amped Wireless sell Wi-Fi "range extenders" with false promises, a class action claims in California Federal Court. NJOY INC: Misleads Consumers That E-cigs Are Harmless, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that an electronic cigarette maker uses deceptive advertising to persuade people that its products are harmless, though they include similar carcinogenic chemicals as traditional cigarettes, a Californian claims in a class action lawsuit. Eric McGovern claims that Njoy of Scottsdale, Arizona, avoids federal regulation of its cancer-causing products by stating on cartons that it is not a smoking cessation product. Yet it implies in its marketing that Njoy cigarettes help smokers quit, McGovern says in the lawsuit. Also named as a defendant is Sottera, a parent company that merged into Njoy in July in 2012, according to the complaint. E-cigarettes, sold in California as "Vapes" (for vapor) have become a popular alternative to tobacco cigarettes and are marketed as a less harmful alternative. The product looks and sometimes feels like a cigarette. Battery operated e-cigarettes release a nearly odorless vapor when exhaled and come in various flavors. Advertisements claim that Njoy cigarettes, which enjoy a 40 percent share of the U.S. market, have "everything you like about smoking without the things you don't." But the Food and Drug Administration has found that the cigarettes contain harmful ingredients. The agency testing revealed that one brand of cigarettes used a toxic chemical found in antifreeze. McGovern claims that Njoy cigarettes also contain the "same impurities and the same cancer-causing agents as traditional cigarettes." Njoy touts e-cigarettes as a safe alternative by implying that its product is as safe as vegetables and plants that contain nicotine, McGovern says. "In reality, a typical consumer would need to ingest, as an example, 244 grams of tomatoes to equal the amount of nicotine a passive smoker would absorb in about three hours in a room with a minimal amount of tobacco smoke," the 25-page lawsuit states. Two hundred and forth-four grams is about 8 1/2 ounces. Furthermore, McGovern claims, the Njoy website suggests the e-cigarette helps people quit smoking. But a look at the small print on the e-cigarette container states that Njoy cigarettes are not designed for that purpose, McGovern says. "Undoubtedly the reason defendants state elsewhere that it is not a smoking cessation product is to avoid regulation under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which has been found, in a lawsuit to which Njoy was a party, to grant the FDA the power to regulate smoking cessation devices," the complaint states. Estimating that tens of thousands of people have purchased Njoy cigarettes, McGovern's complaint seeks unspecified actual, compensatory, exemplary and punitive damages. McGovern alleges violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unfair competition or deceptive business practices, deceptive, false and misleading advertising, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion. Njoy did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Chase, Esq. BISNAR CHASE 1301 Dove St. #120, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 203-3814 E-mail: bchase@bisnar-chase.com ONTARIO: Class Action v. MOL Over Negligent Inspection Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------------ Adrian Miedema, Esq., at Dentons LLP, reports that in a case that will be closely watched, an Ontario judge has permitted a class action lawsuit against the Ministry of Labour for "negligent inspection" of a workplace. The case arises from the collapse of the roof-top parking deck at the Algo Centre Mall in Elliot Lake, Ontario, in which two people were killed and many more injured. The class action was brought by owners of one of the restaurants in the mall, which was one of the businesses affected by the collapse. The "class" of claimants included people in the mall at the time of the collapse, business tenants and employees working at the mall. The plaintiffs argued that Ministry of Labour inspectors had performed more than 130 inspections at the Mall over approximately 30 years, and had received numerous complaints about the condition of the mall and the dangers of water leakage problems. The plaintiffs claimed that Ministry of Labour inspectors should have followed up with reasonable investigations and in failing to do so, they were negligent. The court stated: "A government body such as the Ministry of Labour that exercises statutory power to conduct safety inspections owes a duty of care to all who may be injured as a result of a negligent inspection. Thus, for example, once the decision to inspect has been made, the court may review the scheme of inspection to ensure it is reasonable and has been reasonably carried out in light of all the circumstances, including the availability of funds, to determine whether the government agency has met the requisite standard of care." Although the Occupational Health and Safety Act provides limited liability-protection to Ministry of Labour employees, including inspectors, it expressly provides in section 65(2) that the Ministry of Labour itself may be held liable for acts of inspectors. The judge therefore decided that the class action for "negligent inspection" could proceed against the Ministry of Labour. It should be noted that the court has not yet found the Ministry of Labour liable, but simply said that the class action may proceed. There are numerous other defendants in the class action, a group described by the court as "everyone involved in the planning, construction, inspection, ownership and maintenance of the shopping centre over the years". That group includes the mall, the owners of the mall, the City of Elliot Lake, and a number of architects and engineers, Quinte v. Eastwood Mall, 2014 ONSC 249 PEPSICO INC: Pepsi One Product Contains Carcinogen, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Pepsico fails to disclose that Pepsi One contains 4-methylimidazole, which California considers a carcinogen, a class action claims in California Federal Court. PFIZER INC: Faces "Cawlfield" Suit in Louisiana Over Lipitor ------------------------------------------------------------ Deborah G. Cawlfield, 210 Hollywood Park Road, Montz, LA 70068 v. Pfizer Inc., 235 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017, Case No. 2:14-cv-00194-EEF-ALC (E.D. La., January 23, 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. Lipitor has been implicated in a national epidemic of type 2 diabetes in women taking Lipitor. Pfizer Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Herman, Esq. HERMAN HERMAN & KATZ LLC 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 Facsimile: (504) 561-6024 E-mail: Sherman@hhklawfirm.com - and - Brad Seidel, Esq. NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P. 3600 N. Capital of Texas Highway Building B, Suite 350 Austin, TX 78746 Telephone: (512) 328-5333 E-mail: bseidel@npraustin.com - and - Austin Tighe, Esq. Vic Feazell, Esq. Eleeza Johnson, Esq. FEAZELL & TIGHE, LLP Building C-101 6618 Sitio Del Rio Boulevard Austin, TX 78730 Telephone: (512) 372-8100 Facsimile: (512) 372-8140 E-mail: austin@feazell-tighe.com vic@feazell-tighe.com eleeza@feazell-tighe.com The Defendant is represented by: Quentin F. Urquhart, Jr., Esq. Jonathan D. Phelps, Esq. Kelly G. Juneau, Esq. IRWIN FRITCHIE URQUHART & MOORE, LLC (NEW ORLEANS) 400 Poydras St., Suite 2700 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 310-2107 Facsimile: (504) 310-2101 E-mail: qurquhart@irwinllc.com jphelps@irwinllc.com kjuneau@irwinllc.com RALPHS GROCERY: Decaf Classic Coffee Has Caffeine, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Ralphs Grocery's "decaf classic" coffee contains caffeine, according to a class action filed in January 2014 in Superior Court of California, Courthouse News Service reports. RITE AID: Pursues Bid to Decertify N.Y. Labor Suit -------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of an order denying its motion for decertification of a labor suit filed against it 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 Nov. 30, 2013. The Company has been named in a collective and class action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store managers working in the Company's stores at various locations around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for overtime pay. On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action. Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims. The Company has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's September 26, 2013 decision and briefing on that motion is complete and awaiting a ruling. Once approved by the Court, notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to liability only will be sent to approximately 1,750 current and former store managers in the state of New York. RITE AID: Continues to Face Labor Lawsuits in Calif. State Courts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation faces lawsuits in state courts in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, according to the company's Nov. 6, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2013. The Company is currently a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits filed in state courts in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed meals and rest periods and failure to provide employee seating. These suits purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. SCHELL & KAMPETER: Obtains Initial Approval of Marciano Suit Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein issued an order preliminarily approving a settlement in the case captioned BARBARA MARCIANO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SCHELL & KAMPETER, INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2: L2-CV-02708-SJF-AKT, (E.D.N.Y.). The Court certifies, for purposes of settlement only, three Sub-Classes defined as: (I) Individuals who: (i) purchased but never used a recalled pet product, never fed his/her pet or animal the recalled product, and the class member discarded or retained the product, did not return the product to the dealer or otherwise exchanged the product; or (ii) purchased and used a recalled pet product that caused economic damages detailed in Sub-Class H. (II) Individuals who, in addition to having purchased or used a recalled pet food product, sustained economic damages as a result of injury or death to animals from their consumption of a recalled product. (III) Individuals who purchased pet food products subject to the recalls and fully utilized the products with no resultant ill effects. The Court appoints the firm Gilardi & Co., LLC to supervise and administer the notice procedure as well as the processing of claims. Class Members who wish to participate in the Settlement must complete and submit the Proof of Claim and Release form in accordance with the instructions. Unless the Court orders otherwise, all Proofs of Claim and Release must be postmarked no later than July 11, 2014. A hearing will be held on September 15, 2014, at 11:15 a.m., at the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Courtroom 1010, 100 Federal Plaza, Central Islip, New York, to determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class and should be approved by the Court. A copy of the District Court's February 19, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/RfLpyefrom Leagle.com. SEMINOLE, FL: Judge Blocks Bid to Appeal in "Davis" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- In ANTHONY LEROY DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SEMINOLE, FLORIDA, GEORGE ZIMMERMAN, CECIL SMITH and JOHN AND JANE DOE, Defendants, CASE NO. 6:13-CV-1736-ORL-28TBS, (M.D. Fla.), pending before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed on Appeal In Forma Pauperis. The Plaintiff filed this suit on October 15, 2013, in the Tampa Division of this Court against Seminole County, Seminole County Police Chief Cecil Smith, and George Zimmerman, alleging that the Defendants violated the United States Constitution and federal civil rights laws by their actions in connection with the shooting of Trayvon Martin. Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith recommends that the motion be denied, saying the Court found that the Plaintiff's claims are frivolous and dismissed the case two months ago. The Court is therefore, unable to certify that those same frivolous arguments form an adequate basis for appeal. "Accordingly, I find that the appeal is not taken in good faith and respectfully recommend that the motion be denied," concluded Magistrate Judge Smith. A copy of the Magistrate Judge's February 4, 2014 Report and Recommendation is available at http://is.gd/LZrwmNfrom Leagle.com. SONY GAMING: Court Dismissed Claims in PlayStation Users' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reported that PlayStation users have limited berth to sue Sony over the 2011 data breach that exposed the personal information of nearly 70 million customers, a federal judge ruled in January. As part of the registration process for establishing accounts on PlayStation Network (PSN), Qriocity and Sony Online Entertainment, customers were required to provide their personal information, including their names, billing addresses, birth dates, and credit and debit card information. The users claim that hackers were able to access Sony's network on April 16 or 17 in 2011 and steal the personal information of millions of Sony's customers. Although Sony knew about the breach as early as April 17, it opted to take the systems down for a month, rather than notify the affected customers immediately, according to the putative class action. During this time, users were allegedly unable to access services that they had pre-purchased. "Sony did not inform the public of the breach until April 26, 2011, when Sony made a public statement that user Personal Information had been compromised, and encouraged those affected to 'remain vigilant, to review [their] account statements[,] and to monitor [their] credit reports,'" according to a summary of the claims on January 21, 2014, from U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia. Acknowledging that the system failure had a financial impact on its customers, Sony announced in May 2011 that it would compensate users by providing free identity-theft protection services, as well as free downloads and online services. The class action at hand -- which was consolidated from several civil actions filed across the country -- was originally filed in January 2012 and alleged that Sony knew its system was vulnerable to an attack but did nothing to beef up its safeguards and failed to timely disclose the breach. After a large chunk of the users' claims, including negligence, unjust enrichment, bailment and violations of California consumer protection statutes, unraveled in October 2012, the class filed an amended complaint in December 2012 naming plaintiffs from nine states and alleging 51 independent causes of action. Judge Battaglia dismissed most of the claims in January 21's 97- page ruling, which finds that the class did not have standing to bring its negligence, negligent misrepresentation and warranty claims under individual state laws. The users also did not allege a plausible claim for relief on their negligence claims, as no special relationship existed between the parties and the users' injuries were "not a foreseeable result of Sony's alleged negligence," according to the ruling. Battaglia chided the users as well for not alleging that any misrepresentations by Sony led them to suffer a pecuniary loss because their "personal information does not have independent monetary value, registration and use of Sony Online Services was provided to consumers free of charge, and none of the plaintiffs allege that they paid for premium PSN services." The PSN user agreement, which states that all services and content are provided "as is" and "as available," meanwhile expressly disclaims implied warranty claims, the court found. Users can continue, however, with their claims under California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law based on omissions regarding reasonable network security and industry- standard encryption. "Because plaintiffs have alleged that Sony omitted material information regarding the security of Sony Online Services, and that this information should have been disclosed to consumers at the time consumers purchased their Consoles, the Court finds plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a loss of money or property 'as a result' of Sony's alleged unfair business practices," Battaglia wrote. Although language in Sony's PSN Privacy Policy disclaimed any right to so-called "perfect security," the users have sufficiently pleaded that Sony misrepresented that it would take "reasonable security" measures, including using industry-standard encryption to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive financial information, according to the ruling. "Plaintiffs have raised an issue of fact as to whether Sony's representations, when viewed as a whole, were deceptive," Battaglia wrote. Battaglia also found that Sony owed its customers a legal duty to provide reasonable network security, which was separate from the PSN User Agreement, so they can pursue contract and tort remedies to the extent that they are not barred by the economic-loss doctrine. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Act, Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act and the California Data Breach Act are also available to the plaintiffs, the court found. ST. CHARLES SD: Suit Over School Reorganization Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie K. Baer, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports a lawsuit seeking monetary damages from St. Charles Community Unit School District 303 in the controversial reorganization of Richmond and Davis schools was dismissed last week after a county judge found the alleged grounds for damages failed to meet state requirements. The decision, however, could face an appeal. "We disagree with the judge's decision. We think it's wrong and we're going to appeal," plaintiffs' attorney Timothy Dwyer said last week. The court order, issued by Kane County Circuit Court Judge James Murphy on Feb. 26, says the state's school code does not allow the court to grant damages in this case because the "plaintiffs injury was not one the statute was designed to prevent." Last fall, two parents filed the lawsuit against District 303, seeking money for parents who moved their kids out of the district into private schools, moved out of the Davis school boundary to get around the merger, or did neither and were forced to have their kids attend Richmond instead of Davis, according to the complaint. "These statutes are designed to improve the school system as a whole by improving the education of students in lower performing schools," the order reads. "Plaintiffs in this case who absented their children from the affected schools by either sending their children to private school or moving from the district are not the ones who have a cognizable injury or the persons the statues are designed to protect." In 2011, 17 parents sued the district and demanded it undo the reorganization of the two schools, one of which had failed for three consecutive years to meet federal progress standards mandated by the federal No Child Left Behind law. A Kane County judge ultimately ruled in favor of parents last year but did not order the district to change the schools back to their original grade divisions. That ruling still faces an appeal. As of March 4, no appeal had been filed. Mr. Dwyer said in an email that he was considering a motion to reconsider before appealing to the appellate court. STARWOOD HOTELS: Makes Employees Work Off the Clock, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Starwood Hotels and Sheraton cheat workers of overtime and make them work off the clock, a class action claims in California Superior Court, according to Courthouse News Service. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "NECA-IBEW" Suit Over Aggrenox Drug --------------------------------------------------------------- NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited; Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Barr Laboratories Inc.; Duramed Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp.; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG.; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; and Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00329-MSG (E.D. Pa., January 23, 2014) alleges violations of the federal antitrust laws, the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act. The Defendants have conspired to prevent a less expensive generic equivalent of the drug Aggrenox from entering the market, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of a proposed Class of end-payors, who indirectly purchased, reimbursed, or otherwise paid for Aggrenox, other than for resale. Aggrenox is a drug containing aspirin and slow-release dipyridamole used to reduce the risk of stroke in people, who have had a transient ischemic attack, or "mini-stroke," or stroke due to a blood clot and are at high risk of having another stroke. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in North Wales, Pennsylvania. The Company manufactures and distributes generic drugs for sale throughout the United States at the direction, under the control, and for the direct benefit of its parent company. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited is an Israeli corporation headquartered in Petach Tikva, Israel. Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited is a global manufacturer of generic drugs, and is one of the largest sellers of generic drugs in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc S. Henzel, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL 431 Montgomery Avenue, Suite B Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 660-8000 Facsimile: (610) 660-8080 E-mail: mhenzel@henzellaw.com - and - David W. Mitchell, Esq. Brian O. O'Mara, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com bomara@rgrdlaw.com - and - Patrick O'Hara, Esq. CAVANAGH & O'HARA 407 East Adams Street Springfield, IL 62701 Telephone: (217) 544-1771 Facsimile: (217) 544-9894 TEXAS GRILL: Fails to Pay Spread of Hours Premium, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Marino Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Texas Grill Inc. d/b/a Hot & Crusty, Gus Pullows, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-00417-AJN (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2014) arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay non- exempt employees proper minimum wages, overtime compensation, and "spread of hours" premium. Hot & Crusty is a domestic business corporation headquartered in New York. Gus Pullows is the President of Hot & Crusty, and is an owner, officer, shareholder, director, supervisor, managing agent and proprietor of Hot & Crusty. The Doe Defendants are individual officers, directors and managing agents of Hot & Crusty, who may have personal liability for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for having acted directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer and whose true names and identities are unknown at this time. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com TGI FRIDAY'S: Sued by Waitresses and Waiters in Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that TGI Friday's makes waitresses and waiters work off the clock, according to a class action filed in Worcester County Court in January. TOSHIBA CORP: Misrepresents LCD TVs as LED TVs, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Toshiba defrauds customers by selling them "LED" (light-emitting diode) TVs though they are actually "LCD" (liquid crystal display) sets, a class action claims in California Federal Court, according to Courthouse News Service. TOTAL WASTE: Faces Suit in Texas Alleging Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reported that the Total Waste Management Alliance stiffs workers for overtime, according to a class action filed in Texas Federal Court. TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Allows Fraud Class Action to Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ Ken Lovett, writing for NYDailyNews.com, reports that a class action fraud lawsuit filed against Donald Trump and his real estate "university" was certified to move forward by a US district judge in California. But while the judge, Gonzalo Curiel, rejected Mr. Trump's push to dismiss the lawsuit, his ruling dated Feb. 21 did limit its scope to those in California, New York and Florida who took expensive seminars at Trump University, felt deceived, and did not get a full refund. Those bringing the case had hoped it would cover clients in all 50 states. Judge Curiel's decision also narrowed to five, down from 14, the allegations that can be pursued. The suit claims that Mr. Trump defrauded wannabe real estate investors through his "Trump University" by offering free seminars to help them get rich by teaching real estate-investing techniques used by the billionaire developer-turned-reality TV star. But, the suit says, the free seminars were often nothing more than sell jobs to get people to sign up for a $1,495, three-day seminar and eventually an "elite" program costing as much as $35,000 per person. The class action suit claims that Mr. Trump and his university defrauded its customers by claiming the institution was an accredited university and that Mr. Trump personally hand-picked the instructors. It also says Mr. Trump's operation lied in its promise of unlimited mentoring for an entire year. Trump lawyer Alan Garten called the ruling a victory. "The court's decision significantly narrows the scope of the plaintiff's case," Mr. Garten said. "It's a small fraction of the claimants they were seeking to represent and we're confident about the claims being pursued." The case, while similar, is separate from the $40 million fraud lawsuit brought last summer against Trump University by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. That case is also proceeding even after a judge threw portions out. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Sued Over Recording of Customer Calls --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that UnitedHealth recorded outgoing telephone communications with customers without notifying customers, a class claims. The case is Kerry O'Shea v. UnitedHealth Group Inc., in the California Superior Court for Orange County. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over High Speed DSL Package Charges ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Sacchi, an Individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Verizon Communications Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:14-cv-00423-RA (S.D.N.Y., January 23, 2014) alleges that the Defendants deliberately, knowingly and wrongfully charged the Plaintiff additional monthly charges for its "high" (1.5 MB-3.0 MB) speed package for DSL Internet access while knowingly failing to provide speed faster than that the Plaintiff obtained via the "low" speed package for DSL Internet access on his telephone line. Verizon Communications Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in New York. The Company provides telephone services throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen John Simoni, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN J. SIMONI 55 Ocean Avenue Monmouth Beach, NJ 07750 Telephone: (917) 621-5795 Facsimile: (999) 999-9999 E-mail: stephensimoni@yahoo.com WAL-MART STORES: Gets Favorable Ruling in "Hayes" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM HAYES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES INC. d/b/a SAM'S CLUB, Defendant, CIVIL NO. 10-460 (JBS/KMW), (D. N.J.) is before the Court upon a motion for summary judgment by Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The Plaintiff's action arose from the Defendant's sale of allegedly valueless extended warranty plans on certain clearance items marked "as-is." The principal issue presented is whether the Plaintiff has sustained harm sufficient for Article III of the Constitution standing to assert claims for a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Section 56:8-2, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, where the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff cannot show that the as-is item he purchased is excluded from the extended warranty plan. Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle grants the Defendant's motion for summary judgment saying the Plaintiff has failed to establish injury-in-fact as to his purchase of an extended warranty plan on the as-is power washer. A copy of the District Court's February 20, 2014 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/obg7gsfrom Leagle.com. Keven Hal Friedman, Esq. -- kfriedman@wilentz.com -- Victoria Hwang-Murphy, Esq., Daniel R. Lapinski, Esq. -- dlapinski@wilentz.com -- (Argued), WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, Woodbridge, NJ, and James C. Shah, Esq. -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP, Collingswood, NJ, Attorneys for Plaintiff William Hayes. Paul H. Zoubek, Esq. -- pzoubek@mmwr.com -- Charles B. Casper, Esq. -- ccasper@mmwr.com -- Stacy Alison Fols, Esq. -- sfols@mmwr.com -- John Papianou, Esq. (Argued) -- jpapianou@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, WALKER & RHOADS, LLP, Cherry Hill, NJ, Attorneys for Defendant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. WYNDHAM VACATION: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Herbert Schleimer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 6:14-cv-00108-JA-GJK (M.D. Fla., January 23, 2014) is brought for unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants conduct business in, among other locations, Orange County, Florida. The Defendants are in the business of providing vacation ownership properties to its customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly D. Woods, Esq. C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3383 E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com rmorgan@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Ajda Moreland Nguyen, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS, PC 390 N Orange Ave., Suite 1285 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 246-8408 Facsimile: (407) 841-0168 E-mail: nguyena@jacksonlewis.com YELP INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Reviewers' Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class action lawsuit against YELP Inc. by former reviewers has been dismissed from federal court. On Feb. 19, an order granting the defendant's motion to dismiss was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs, represented by counsel, have not opposed the motion, according to the order. Central District of California Local Rule 7-9 requires an opposing party to file an opposition to any motion at least 21 days prior to the date designated for hearing the motion. The hearing on the defendant's motion was noticed for March 10, meaning the plaintiffs' opposition was therefore due by Feb. 17. However, the plaintiffs did not file an opposition or any other filing that could be construed as a request for a continuance. The court deems the plaintiffs' failure to oppose as consent to granting the motion to dismiss, according to the order. The plaintiffs -- Dr. Allen Panzer, Amy Sayers, Lily Jeung and Darren Walchesky -- were Yelp reviewers who claimed they were unlawfully misclassified as non-wage-paid employees, according to a complaint filed Oct. 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs claimed they, and other class members, performed their duties relating to the creation and promotion of content on behalf of Yelp, including writing, researching, editing, lodging review, upgrading prior reviews and generally promoting the site. The plaintiffs were "an indispensable and integral part of the success of the defendant's business," the complaint stated. The plaintiffs claimed Yelp's business model is predicated entirely on the exploitation of the plaintiffs' work product in order for the company and its owners to earn approximately $220 million annually. The plaintiffs claimed Yelp's enormous growth and preeminence as a publisher are directly attributable to its low operating costs, made possibly by not paying wages to an entire class of workers, thereby also sidestepping payment of taxes and other societal contributions. Yelp has devised a system of cult-like rewards and disciplines to motivate its non-wage-paid writers to labor without wages or expense reimbursement, in violation of equitable principles and the Fair Labor Standards Act, by offering rewards such as trinkets, badges, titles, praise, social promotion, free liquor, free food and free promotional Yelp attire, according to the suit. The plaintiffs were seeking unpaid wages, reimbursement of expenditures, liquidated damages and statutory damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. They were being represented by Randy Rosenblatt of the Yelp Class Action Law Firm. Yelp Inc. was being represented by Angeli C. Aragon -- angeli.aragon@leclairryan.com -- and James C. Potepan -- james.potepan@leclairryan.com -- of LeClairRyan LLP; Mark Goldowitz of the California Anti-Slapp Project; and Aaron Schur of Yelp Inc. The case was assigned to District Judge Dean D. Pregerson. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number: 2:13-cv-07805 ********* 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 * * *