/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140417.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 17, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 76 Headlines ADOBE SYSTEMS: Portion of Plaintiffs Expert's Testimony Barred ADT LLC: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, "Saegh" Suit Claims ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Removed "Simpson" Suit to N.D. Illinois BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: 6th Cir. Affirms Class Action Dismissal BUTTERFLY LABS: Faces Suit Over Sales & Advertising Practices CAMBREX CORPORATION: Mylan Submits Surety Bond in Suit Over APIs CERTIFIED CREDIT: Sued for Using False Practices to Collect Debts CNINSURE INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay COTY INC: Faces Securities Suit Over 2013 Initial Public Offering CUSPC LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages CVS CAREMARK: "Lauriello" Lawsuit Over 1999 Settlement Stayed CVS CAREMARK: Suit Over Retail Pharmacy Networks Consolidated CVS CAREMARK: NH Court Tosses New Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit DART CHEROKEE: High Court to Hear Appeal to Transfer Class Action DENSO CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Windshield Washers DFC GLOBAL: Being Sold to Little to Lone Star, Suit Claims DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in "Steinfeld" Case DRESSMAN BENZINGER: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ECOLAB INC: Removed "Schneider" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois EPICOR SOFTWARE: $18MM Fund Earmarked to Settle Suit Over Sale EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Judge Okays $2.9MM OT Class Action Settlement FIRST NATIONAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Chemical Spill GALLUP INC: "Fox" Suit Transferred From California to Florida GENERAL MOTORS: Sutts Strosberg Files Power Steering Class Action HANGTIME INC: Removed "Goodman" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois HAWAII: 9th Cir. Vacates Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Korab" Class Action HUNTSMAN CORP: Md. Court Okays Accord in TiO2 Antitrust Suit HUNTSMAN CORP: Buyers of TiO2-Made Products Sue in Calif. HURONIA REGIONAL: Former Residents to Receive Compensation LEAR CORP: Can't Pursue Interlocutory Appeal in Antitrust Suit LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Privacy Invasion LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES: Invades Privacy of Class Members, Suit Says MANPOWER INC: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in "Willner" MARIAH RESOURCES: Accused of Pervasive Sexual Harassment in Cal. MOTT'S LLP: "Rahman" 2nd Amended Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid MT GOX: Two Australians Join Class Action Over Bitcoin Losses NEW ORLEANS: Judge Certifies Police Officers' OT Class Action NORTHWEST BANCORP: Facilities Don't Cater to Disable, Suit Claims PALISADES COLLECTIONS: Accused of Violating TCPA in California PEPSICO INC: Pepsi One and Diet Pepsi Have Carcinogen, Suit Says PG&E CORP: Pays Out $520MM to Claimants in San Bruno Accident PG&E CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit by Customers in California SAFEWAY INC: Loses Bid to Nix "Club Card" Holders' Class Action SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: MWD Specialists Seek to Recover Overtime SINGLE TOUCH: Plaintiff in "Ibey" Consumer Suit Dismisses Case SOLARCITY CORP: Faces Securities Class Action SANDUSKY WELLNESS: Court Denies TCPA Class Certification Motion SUTTER HEALTH: UEBT Files Class Action Over Illegal Overcharges TARGET CORP: Faces "Schafer" Suit in Wisconsin Over Data Breach TARGET CORP: Credit Unions, Bank Sue Over 2013 Data Breach UMPQUA BANK: Settles Claims on Using Software to Maximize Fees VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Heard * Jamaica's FSC Revises Guidelines to Combat Ponzi Schemes ********* ADOBE SYSTEMS: Portion of Plaintiffs Expert's Testimony Barred -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the high-stakes wage dispute hanging over Apple and other tech giants will feature much of the proffered expert testimony, though a federal judge scolded workers for attempting to "sandbag" the defense with new analysis. Five software engineers lead the consolidated class action alleging that a poaching ban maintained stable internal salary structures at Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm and Disney Pixar from 2005 to 2009. Workers say the companies reached the "gentleman's agreements" via CEO-to-CEO emails, which included the late Steve Jobs and other leading Silicon Valley CEOs. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh had refused last year to strike expert reports from both parties, which included testimony for the class by economist and statistician Dr. Edward Leamer, who said the alleged agreements had a widespread, adverse effect on pay. The plaintiffs said that the Justice Department, which concluded that the agreements "disrupted the normal price-setting mechanisms" and thereby suppressed compensation, has corroborated Leamer's analysis. Koh also previously preserved a report by defense expert Dr. Kevin Murphy, whom the plaintiffs accused of relying on information from "handpicked declarants." In doing so the judge had mentioned her "concerns that plaintiffs' examples, though compelling, may not be sufficient to show that all or nearly all class members were affected by the anti-solicitation agreements without additional documentary support or empirical analysis." The plaintiffs claimed the attack on Leamer, whom the defendants deemed "unreliable," relied "on factually incorrect and unscientific assumptions" put forth by Murphy. Koh agreed April 4, 2014, however, to strike part Leamer's testimony under a 1993 Supreme Court decision. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. requires trial courts to perform a "gatekeeping" function to determine the admissibility of expert witness testimony. In her 48-page ruling, Koh slams the plaintiffs for touting a new theory by Leamer, months after his opening report, in violation of a Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 26(a)(2)(B) requirement that an expert witness's opening report contain "a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis and reasons for them" together with "the facts or data considered by the witness in forming them." Leamer argued for the first time in December 2013 that so-called "null hypothesis testing" should be used to assess the reliability of his regression model, Koh found. "Plaintiffs will not be allowed to 'sandbag' defendants with new analysis that should have been included at the very least in Dr. Leamer's opening merits report," she wrote. Koh nevertheless rejected an argument by the defendants "that plaintiffs should not be able to rely on Dr. Leamer's model as evidence that each class member was injured -- i.e., that Dr. Leamer's regression is irrelevant to the issue of classwide impact." "This court already concluded, when ruling on plaintiffs' first class certification motion, that Dr. Leamer's conduct regression was a reasonable methodology capable of showing that the anti- solicitation agreements caused 'generalized harm to the class,'" Koh wrote. Having rejected part of the motion to exclude, Koh also denied the defendants summary judgment. "Defendants' sole argument in support of their joint motion for summary judgment is that '[w]ithout Dr. Leamer's expert report and testimony, plaintiffs have no evidence of classwide impact or damages and cannot prove the essential elements of their antitrust claim,'" Koh wrote. ADT LLC: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, "Saegh" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Amar Saegh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ADT, LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00216-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) accuses the Company of negligently contacting the Plaintiff and the class on their cellular telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading their privacy. ADT, LLC, is a corporation whose state of incorporation and principal place of business is in the state of Florida. The Company is a home and business security services provider across the nation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D 1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com gouya@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3609 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, 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 nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric L. Zalud, Esq. BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN AND ARONOFF LLP 200 Public Square, Suite 2300 Cleveland, OH 44114-2378 Telephone: (216) 363-4178 Facsimile: (216) 363-4588 E-mail: ezalud@beneschlaw.com - and - Rassa Lea Ahmadi, Esq. ARCHER NORRIS 4695 MacArthur Court Suite 350 Newport Beach, CA 92660-8816 Telephone: (949) 975-8200 Facsimile: (949) 975-8210 E-mail: rahmadi@archernorris.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Removed "Simpson" Suit to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- Allstate Insurance Co. removed the class action lawsuit captioned Simpson, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 2006L-9945, from the Circuit Court of Cook County to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv- 01040 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Joshua Piell, Esq. 1431 McHenry Road, #213 Buffalo Grove, IL 60089 Telephone: (847) 955-1276 E-mail: david@consumerprotectionlaw.org The Defendants are represented by: Mark L. Hanover, Esq. Tiffany L. Amlot, Esq. DENTONS US LLP 233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 7800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 876-8000 Facsimile: (312) 876-7934 E-mail: mark.hanover@dentons.com tiffany.amlot@snrdenton.com - and - Bryan Thomas Butcher, Esq. Cornelius Edward McKnight, Esq. Nathan Pear Karlsgodt, Esq. MCKNIGHT, KITZINGER & PRAVDIC, LLC 117 N. Jefferson Street, Suite 301 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 463-9400 Facsimile: (312) 589-5586 E-mail: bryan@butcherlawoffices.com nmcknight@mkmplaw.com nathan.karlsgodt@gmail.com - and - Jeffrey J. Halldin, Esq. HARRISON & HELD, LLP 333 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 332-1111 Facsimile: (312) 332-1150 E-mail: jhalldin@harrisonheld.com BIOMIMETIC THERAPEUTICS: 6th Cir. Affirms Class Action Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael M. Rosensaft, Esq. -- michael.rosensaft@kattenlaw.com -- at Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, reports that on March 28, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a shareholder class action against BioMimetic Therapeutics Inc., finding that plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently allege that the orthopedics company had lied about the progress of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of Augment, a bone injury treatment. Shareholders alleged that throughout the class period, the company was aware of numerous deficiencies in Augment's clinical trials, but nevertheless spoke optimistically to investors about the device's prospects for FDA approval. Plaintiffs also argued that defendants modified the patient population used to analyze its clinical trial results in a way that allowed the company to report more favorable results than if the original population was used. The District Court granted BioMimetic's motion to dismiss, finding that under the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), plaintiffs failed to adequately support their claims that BioMimetic had conducted inferior clinical trials and had deceived investors about their progress and results. A plaintiff only clears the high hurdle imposed by the PSLRA if a reasonable person would deem the inference of scienter at least as strong as any opposing inference. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the company could have legitimately believed that the statistical results it achieved in clinical trials would be sufficient to obtain approval by the FDA. It noted that several factors indicated that BioMimetric rightfully expressed optimism about the device's prospects and found that the complaint failed to set forth facts that would prove otherwise. Kuyat et al. v. BioMimetic Therapeutics Inc. et al., No. 13-5602 (6th Cir. 2014). BUTTERFLY LABS: Faces Suit Over Sales & Advertising Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Noah Wood, Esq. -- noah@woodlaw.com -- at The Wood Law Firm LLC on April 7 disclosed that customers from across the country have joined together and filed a class-action lawsuit challenging the sales and advertising practices of Butterfly Labs. The lawsuit against BF Labs, Inc., which does business as Butterfly Labs seeks compensation for customers who pre-paid Butterfly Labs for Bitcoin mining equipment and who did not receive the equipment they paid for, or received the equipment far after Butterfly Labs represented the equipment would ship. Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer payment system and digital currency. Bitcoins are created by "mining", a process where miners receive transaction fees and newly minted bitcoins in return for verifying and recording payments into a public ledger. By design, mining is a computationally intensive process which today requires purpose-built computer chips to be cost effective. The complaint, filed in the United State District Court for the District of Kansas located in Kansas City, seeks to recover the pre-payments made to Butterfly Labs and the losses customers sustained due to Butterfly Labs' conduct. The lawsuit alleges Butterfly Labs required customers to pre-pay for orders of ASIC based Bitcoin mining hardware, and used portions of customer pre-payments to make loans to shareholders and purchase a house and automobile for a shareholder. Because the computational difficulty of Bitcoin mining increases over time, by the time some consumers finally received their equipment, the equipment had become worthless because mining with the equipment was no longer cost effective. "Bitcoin is an exciting and promising new technology. Unfortunately this also makes it an attractive area for people running scams and frauds," stated attorney Noah Wood one of the lawyers for the customers. "Stopping the bad actors and staying vigilant against consumer fraud is absolutely necessary for the successful development of the Bitcoin ecosystem." According to the complaint, Butterfly Labs may have collected over $25 million in customer pre-payments. The lawsuit also alleges Butterfly Labs, despite telling customers that Butterfly Labs did not mine bitcoins itself, used equipment customers had already paid for to earn mining income for itself under the guise of "testing" such hardware. The complaint states this "testing" served "to enrich Defendant at the detriment of its customers by both denying the customers' use and benefit of the equipment they have already paid for, as well as increasing the overall mining difficulty required to generate future bitcoins." The case is Alexander et al. v. BF Labs, Inc., Case Number 2:14- CV-02159 (D. Kansas). The customers are represented by Noah Wood and Ari Rodopoulos. A copy of the lawsuit and further information is available from the Wood Law Firm, LLC at http://is.gd/MUheZl CAMBREX CORPORATION: Mylan Submits Surety Bond in Suit Over APIs ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mylan Laboratories, Inc. has submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party insurance company in the amount of $66,632,000 suits arising from exclusive license agreements between the Cambrex Corp and Mylan covering two active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In 1998, the Company and a subsidiary were named as defendants along with Mylan Laboratories, Inc. ("Mylan") and Gyma Laboratories, Inc. ("Gyma") in a proceeding instituted by the Federal Trade Commission in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court"). Suits were also commenced by several State Attorneys General and class action complaints by private plaintiffs in various state courts. The suits alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act arising from exclusive license agreements between the Company and Mylan covering two APIs (Lorazepam and Clorazepate). All cases have been resolved except for one brought by four health care insurers. In the remaining case, the District Court entered judgment after trial in 2008 against Mylan, Gyma and Cambrex in the total amount of $19,200,000 payable jointly and severally, and also a punitive damage award against each defendant in the amount of $16,709,000. In addition, at the time, the District Court ruled that the defendants were subject to a total of approximately $7,500,000 in prejudgment interest. The case is currently pending before the District Court following a January 2011 remand by the Court of Appeals where briefing related to whether the court has jurisdiction over certain self- funded customer plaintiffs has been completed and the parties are currently waiting for a ruling by the court. In 2003, Cambrex paid $12,415,000 to Mylan in exchange for a release and full indemnity against future costs or liabilities in related litigation brought by the purchasers of Lorazepam and Clorazepate, as well as potential future claims related to the ongoing matter. Mylan has submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party insurance company in the amount of $66,632,000. In the event of a final settlement or final judgment, Cambrex expects any payment required by the Company to be made by Mylan under the indemnity described. CERTIFIED CREDIT: Sued for Using False Practices to Collect Debts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yisroel Kupferstein, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, a New Jersey Corporation; Joanne M. Possumato, Individually and In Her Official Capacity; and John and Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 25, Case No. 3:14-cv-00947-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., February 13, 2014) accuses the Defendants of using false, deceptive, and misleading practices in connection with their attempts to collect alleged debts from the Plaintiff and others. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau is a New Jersey for-profit corporation headquartered in Borough of Somerville, Somerset County, New Jersey. Certified Credit collects, and attempts to collect, debts incurred, or alleged to have been incurred, for personal, family, or household purposes on behalf of creditors using the U.S. Mail, telephone, and Internet. Joanne M. Possumato is a principal owner, officer, director, shareholder, compliance officer, or managing partner of Certified Credit. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. THOMASSON LAW, LLC 101 Hudson Street, 21st Floor Jersey City, NJ 07302-3929 Telephone: (201) 479-9969 Facsimile: (855) 479-9969 E-Mail: andrew@thomassonllc.com The Defendant is represented by: Peter Cipparulo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PETER CIPPARULO, III, ESQ. 349 Route 206, Suite K Hillsborough, NJ 08844 Telephone: (908) 275-8777 E-mail: petercipparulo@cipplaw.com CNINSURE INC: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Okay ----------------------------------------------------------------- CNinsure Inc., an independent insurance intermediary company operating in China, on April 8 disclosed that the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has preliminarily approved the proposed agreement to settle a class action lawsuit against the Company that was initially filed on October 17, 2011 and later consolidated on August 13, 2012. The claim against several officers of the Company was previously dismissed on June 24, 2013. Under the terms of the proposed agreement, which is subject to final approval by the Court and class notice administration, the Company has agreed to pay $6.625 million to the settlement fund to resolve all claims asserted on behalf of purchasers of its American depository shares during the period from March 2, 2010 through and including November 21, 2011. The payments will be covered by the Company's director and officer liability and company reimbursement insurance. The proposed settlement agreement contains no admission of liability, fault or wrongdoing by the Company. The Company denies any and all of the allegations made against it by the class in the litigation and has agreed to settle this matter solely to eliminate the uncertainties, risks, costs and burdens of further protracted proceedings. The settlement agreement should not be construed as an admission by the Company or any of its directors or officers with respect to any claim of fault, liability, wrongdoing or damage. "We believe the settlement is in the best interest of the Company and our shareholders as it avoids unnecessary expenses and distractions from a time-consuming litigation process," said Mr. Chunlin Wang, CNinsure's chief executive officer. "We are pleased to put this matter behind us so that we can focus on the development of our business going forward." COTY INC: Faces Securities Suit Over 2013 Initial Public Offering ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eugene Stricker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Coty Inc., Michele Scannavini, Sergio Pedreiro, James E. Shiah, Lambertus J.H. Becht, Bradley M. Bloom, Joachim Faber, Olivier Goudet, Peter Harf, M. Steven Langman, Erhard Schoewel, Robert Singer, Jack Stahl, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Incorporated, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Lazard Capital Markets LLC, Piper Jaffray Companies, RBC Capital Markets, LLC, BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Credit Agricole Securities (USA) Inc., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., ING Financial Markets LLC, Moelis & Company LLC, RBS Securities Inc., Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. LLC, Santander Investment Securities Inc., Ramirez & Co., Inc., Telsey Advisory Group LLC, The Williams Capital Group, L.P., Case No. 1:14-cv-00919-RJS (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2014) arises under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 relating to Coty's June 13, 2013 initial public offering of common stock. Coty Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Coty. The other Defendants were underwriters for Coty's IPO. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Philip Campisi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: jcampisi@kaplanfox.com CUSPC LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rhama Neisler, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. CUSPC, LLC, d/b/a Coyote Ugly, Case No. 8:14-cv-00379-RAL-TGW (M.D. Fla., February 13, 2014) is brought for unpaid overtime compensation, minimum wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. CUSPC, LLC, is a Florida limited liability company that operates Coyote Ugly locations in Tampa, Panama City and Destin, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N Orange Ave., Suite 1600 PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com CVS CAREMARK: "Lauriello" Lawsuit Over 1999 Settlement Stayed ------------------------------------------------------------- The proceedings in a suit filed on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against CVS Caremark Corporation are stayed by statute pending a decision on the appeal and cross-appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10- K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action. Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedures 23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order appointed class representatives and class counsel. The defendants' appeal and plaintiffs' cross-appeal are pending before the Alabama Supreme Court. The proceedings in the trial court are stayed by statute pending a decision on the appeal and cross-appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court. CVS CAREMARK: Suit Over Retail Pharmacy Networks Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------- The consolidated action against CVS Caremark Corp. over allegations it violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. The North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities named as defendants was transferred to Illinois federal court, and the case against a separate Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case. In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel, including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the decision which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration of the Bellevue case. Following remand, plaintiffs in the Bellevue case sought dismissal of their complaint to permit an immediate appeal of the reinstated order compelling arbitration and pursued an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012, the Third Circuit Court reversed the district court ruling and directed the parties to proceed in federal court. Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain additional class discovery and briefing. The consolidated action is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation. CVS CAREMARK: NH Court Tosses New Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied a renewed motion of CVS Caremark Corporation to dismiss a lawsuit filed against it, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the lawsuit to allege a class period beginning October 30, 2008. The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM business and allegations of insider trading. In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the same court against the directors and certain officers of the Company. This lawsuit, which was stayed pending developments in the related securities class action, includes allegations of, among other things, securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program. In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In June 2012, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the securities class action. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. In May 2013, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the prior ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. In December 2013, the district court denied the Company's renewed motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The derivative lawsuit will remain stayed until the Company answers the securities class action complaint. DART CHEROKEE: High Court to Hear Appeal to Transfer Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court will consider the requirements for transferring class-action lawsuits from state courts to federal courts. The justices on April 7 agreed to hear an appeal from a Michigan energy company that asserts it should be allowed to move a class- action case from Kansas state court to federal court. Federal law allows such transfers in cases involving more than $5 million. A group of royalty owners sued the Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. alleging they were underpaid royalties on oil and gas wells. The plaintiffs did not seek a specific damage amount, but the company claimed it would far exceed $5 million. A federal judge rejected the transfer request because the company did not offer any evidentiary support. The company says the law does not require detailed evidence. DENSO CORP: Faces Antitrust Class Suit Over Windshield Washers -------------------------------------------------------------- Tiffin Motor Homes, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Denso Corporation, Asmo Co., Ltd., Denso International America, Inc., Asmo North America, LLC, Asmo Manufacturing, Inc., Mitsuba Corporation, and American Mitsuba Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-10673-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich., February 13, 2014) is brought on behalf of a proposed class of direct purchasers of Windshield Washers for damages under the antitrust laws of the United States. The term "Windshield Washers" include components like the pump, hoses, nozzle and tank necessary to deliver washer fluid to vehicle windows. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants conspired to rig bids, and to fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices of Windshield Washers sold in the United States from at least January 1, 2000, through the present. The Defendants are manufacturers of Windshield Washer Systems and components thereof for installation in motor vehicles manufactured or sold in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Fink, Esq. Darryl Bressack, Esq. FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW 100 West Long Lake Road, Suite 111 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 Telephone: (248) 971-2500 Facsimile: (248) 971-2600 E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com - and - Eugene A. Spector, Esq. William G. Caldes, Esq. Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq. SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C. 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-0300 E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com bcaldes@srkw-law.com jjagher@srkw-law.com jspector@srkw-law.com - and - Steven A. Kanner, Esq. William H. London, Esq. Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq. Michael L. Silverman, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4510 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com wlondon@fklmlaw.com mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com msilverman@fklmlaw.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq. KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C. One South Broad Street, Suite 2100 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com whoese@kohnswift.com dabrahams@kohnswift.com - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Randall B. Weill, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP One City Center, P.O. Box 9546 Telephone: (207) 791-3000 E-mail: ghansel@preti.com rweill@preti.com msmith@preti.com - and - Lee Albert, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com Defendants Mitsuba Corporation and American Mitsuba Corporation are represented by: George A. Nicoud, III, Esq. Joel S. Sanders, Esq. Leslie A. Wulff, Esq. Stuart McPhail, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 Facsimile: (415) 374-8473 E-mail: TNicoud@gibsondunn.com jsanders@gibsondunn.com lwulff@gibsondunn.com smcphail@gibsondunn.com - and - Philip D.W. Miller, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alton, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 849-5300 E-mail: PMiller@gibsondunn.com DFC GLOBAL: Being Sold to Little to Lone Star, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that DFC Global is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Lone Star Funds, for $9.50 or $367, shareholders claim in Chancery Court in Wilmington, Del. DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in "Steinfeld" Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW STEINFELD and WALTER BRADLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DISCOVER FINANCIAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants, NO. C 12-01118 JSW, (N.D. Cal.), is before the Court on motions for for final approval of a class action settlement and for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of costs, and service awards filed by Plaintiffs, Andrew Steinfeld and Walter Bradley. In separate rulings dated March 31, 2014, copies of which are available at http://is.gd/9HkuS6and http://is.gd/xJ4JYGfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Jeffrey S. White: * granted the motion for final approval, concluding that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Settlement Agreement provides for "Prospective Practice Changes," by which Settlement Class Members can submit a revocation request to end all unwanted automated or auto-dialed telephone calls from Defendants. The Settlement Agreement also provides for monetary relief in the form of an $8.7 million fund, which includes funds to pay Settlement Class Members who submit claims, a possible cy pres distribution, and "Settlement Costs." * overruled the objections it received to the requested fee award and granted the motion for attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $2,175,000, and the incentive awards in the amount of $2,000 for each named Plaintiff. The Court dismissed the action, with prejudice. Andrew Steinfeld, Plaintiff, represented by David P. Meyer, David P. Meyer & Associates Co., LPA, Jonathan David Selbin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Kristen Law Sagafi, LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LL, Matthew Ryan Wilson, Meyer Wilson Co., LPA, Beth E. Terrell, Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC, Daniel M. Hutchinson, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Ankcorn Law Firm & Nicole Diane Sugnet, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP. Discover Financial Services, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Jason S Yoo, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Shannon E. Ponek, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. DFS Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Jason S Yoo, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Shannon E. Ponek, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. Discover Bank, Defendant, represented by Julia B. Strickland, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Jason S Yoo, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Lisa Marie Simonetti, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Shannon E. Ponek, Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP. DRESSMAN BENZINGER: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Green, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Dressman Benzinger Lavelle PSC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00142-SJD (S.D. Ohio, February 13, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com - and - Ronald Scott Weiss, Esq. 7035 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 600 West Bloomfield, MI 48322 Telephone: (248) 737-8000 Facsimile: (248) 737-8003 E-mail: rweiss@ohiolemonauto.com ECOLAB INC: Removed "Schneider" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Schneider v. Ecolab Inc., Case No. 2014-CH-00193, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01044 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts claims, on behalf of himself and a putative class, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class are alleged to be Route Sales Managers employed by the Defendant but not paid appropriate overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Scott Lubin, Esq. Andrew Charles Murphy, Esq. John Auchter, Esq. John Robert McInerney, Esq. Patrick Doyle Austermuehle, Esq. Vincent Louis DiTommaso, Esq. DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C. 17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 Telephone: (630) 333-0000 Facsimile: (630) 333-0333 E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com amurphy@ditommasolaw.com jauchter@ditommasolaw.com jrm@ditommasolaw.com paustermuehle@ditommasolaw.com vdt@ditommasolaw.com - and - Terrence Buehler, Esq. TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP 55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 372-2209 Facsimile: (312) 456-3838 E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com The Defendant is represented by: John Anthony Ybarra, Esq. Catherine Sarah Lindemann, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 321 N. Clark Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 372-5520 E-mail: jybarra@littler.com clindemann@littler.com EPICOR SOFTWARE: $18MM Fund Earmarked to Settle Suit Over Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- Epicor Software Corp. has reached an agreement in a suit related to the proposed acquisition of Legacy Epicor by funds advised by Apax Partners, L.P. that if approved by the Court, would create a fund of $18 million, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013. In connection with the announcement of the proposed acquisition of Legacy Epicor by funds advised by Apax in April 2011, four putative stockholder class action suits were filed in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, and two such suits were filed in Delaware Chancery Court. The actions filed in California were entitled Kline v. Epicor Software Corp. et al., (filed Apr. 6, 2011); Tola v. Epicor Software Corp. et al., (filed Apr. 8, 2011); Watt v. Epicor Software Corp. et al., (filed Apr. 11, 2011), and Frazer v. Epicor Software et al., (filed Apr. 15, 2011). The actions filed in Delaware were entitled Field Family Trust Co. v. Epicor Software Corp. et al., (filed Apr. 12, 2011) and Hull v. Klaus et al., (filed Apr. 22, 2011). Amended complaints were filed in the Tola and Field Family Trust actions on April 13, 2011 and April 14, 2011, respectively. Plaintiff Kline dismissed his lawsuit on April 18, 2011 and shortly thereafter filed an action in federal district court. Kline then dismissed his federal lawsuit on July 22, 2011. The state court suits alleged that the Legacy Epicor directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due care, among others, by seeking to complete the sale of Legacy Epicor to funds advised by Apax through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and by omitting material information from the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 that Legacy Epicor filed on April 11, 2011 with the SEC. The complaints also alleged that Legacy Epicor, Apax Partners, L.P. and Element Merger Sub, Inc. aided and abetted the directors in the alleged breach of fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought certification as a class and relief that included, among other things, an order enjoining the tender offer and merger, rescission of the merger, and payment of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs. On April 25, 2011, plaintiff Hull filed a motion in Delaware Chancery Court for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the parties from taking any action to consummate the transaction. On April 28, 2011, plaintiff Hull withdrew this motion. On December 30, 2011, Hull dismissed his Delaware suit. On May 2, 2011, after engaging in discovery, plaintiffs advised that they did not intend to seek injunctive relief in connection with the merger, but would instead file an amended complaint seeking damages in California Superior Court following the consummation of the tender offer. On May 11, 2011, the Superior Court for the County of Orange entered an Order consolidating the Tola, Watt, and Frazer cases pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on September 1, 2011, which made essentially the same claims as the original complaints. Plaintiffs Kline and Field Family Trust have both joined in the amended complaint. The company filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to this amended complaint on September 29, 2011. The demurrers were heard on December 12, 2011, and the Court overruled them. The Defendants answered the Complaint on December 22, 2011. On June 22, 2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissed Mr. Hackworth as a defendant. After the parties had completed fact discovery and begun expert discovery, plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint to add two new defendants, the Company's former chief financial officer and the Company's former financial advisor, Moelis & Company. On February 22, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs leave, and plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint was filed. On April 5, 2013, pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Court dismissed Legacy Epicor from this action with prejudice. On April 29, 2013, the Court overruled demurrers by the new defendants to the Third Amended Complaint. In light of the amendment of the complaint and the addition of the two new parties, the prior case schedule and trial date have been amended. Pursuant to a stipulation from the parties, the Court has continued the trial date to April 28, 2014. Although the company believes this lawsuit is without merit and are prepared to vigorously defend against the claims, the parties engaged in a mediation on October 21, 2013. Following the mediation, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the action, subject to the approval of the Court. If approved by the Court, a settlement fund of $18 million will be created by the various defendants. As of December 31, 2013, the company recorded a $7.8 million liability which is included in the company's unaudited consolidated balance sheet within accrued expenses and other current liabilities, which represents its portion of the settlement. EQUINOX HOLDINGS: Judge Okays $2.9MM OT Class Action Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Ben James, writing for Law360, reports that a California judge approved a $2.9 million class action settlement on April 4 in a lawsuit brought against Equinox Holdings Inc. on behalf of hundreds of workers who claimed the health club operator denied them proper overtime pay and meal breaks, an attorney for the plaintiffs said. Judge Richard Rico conferred final approval on the pact at a hearing on April 4, said Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe LLP's David Lowe, who added that there were 276 people in the class and that the company had reclassified membership sales advisers -- who the suit said had been miscategorized as exempt from overtime pay requirements -- in 2012. "We're happy when we point out a violation and the company takes the necessary steps to correct it so that employees are properly compensated going forward," Mr. Lowe said on April 7. Named plaintiffs Shirlene Leigh and Joanna Sheen filed their complaint in June 2011, seeking to represent a class of membership sales advisers who worked for the defendants -- Equinox Holding and several subsidiaries -- going back four years. Member of the would-be class were misclassified as exempt from California's overtime pay requirements, and thus not paid for all the overtime hours they worked, the complaint said. In addition, the defendants didn't provide meal breaks or keep adequate work or payroll records as required by law, Leigh and Sheen claimed. Membership sales advisers had consistently spent most of their time on "nonexempt tasks" such as selling health club memberships and services such as spa treatments, locker space and training sessions, the complaint said. The plaintiffs and those similarly situated routinely worked long hours, the complaint said, adding that there are roughly 100 putative class members. Equinox operates about 12 health clubs in California, all of which are fully owned subsidiaries of Equinox Holdings and employ about four membership sales advisers, according to the complaint. Both named plaintiffs formerly worked for the defendants in their Palos Verdes and South Bay locations, and Leigh also worked for the defendants in Century City, Calif., the plaintiffs said. The deal calls for class counsel to get up to 33.3 percent, or $975,000, from the gross settlement amount to cover fees. The two class representatives are in line for enhancement payments of up to $15,000 in light of the time and energy they spent on the case, court papers said. The class covers membership advisers who worked for the defendants in California between June 16, 2007, and June 30, 2012. Equinox is represented by Frank M. Liberatore -- LiberatF@jacksonlewis.com -- Chad D. Bernard -- BernardC@jacksonlewis.com -- and Shagha Balali -- BalaliS@jacksonlewis.com -- of Jackson Lewis LLP The plaintiffs are represented by David A. Lowe and John T. Mullan of Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe LLP. The case is Shirlene Leigh and Joanna Sheen v. Equinox Holdings Inc., case number BC463577, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. FIRST NATIONAL: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Damian M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. First National Bank of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:14-cv-00210-CRE (W.D. Pa., February 13, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with accessibility barriers at various properties owned and managed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has a mobility disability and is limited in the major life activity of walking. Defendant First National Bank of Pennsylvania is headquartered at One F.N.B. Boulevard, Hermitage, PA 16148. Defendant is a public accommodation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section12181(7)(F). The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Stephanie Goldin, Esq. Carlos R. Diaz, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com cdiaz@carlsonlynch.com The Defendant is represented by: David B. White, Esq. Lyle D. Washowich, Esq. BURNS WHITE LLC 106 Isabella Street Four Northshore Center Pittsburgh, PA 15212-3001 Telephone: (412) 995-3210 Facsimile: (412) 995-3305 E-mail: dbwhite@burnswhite.com ldwashowich@burnswhite.com FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Chemical Spill ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Dickerson, writing for The West Virginia Record, reports that another potential class action has been filed in the wake of January's chemical spill that contaminated the drinking water of more than 300,000 West Virginians. Summer and Robert Johnson of Charleston are listed as the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit filed March 25 in Charleston. Freedom Industries, West Virginia American Water, American Water Works and Eastman Chemical are named as defendants. WVAWC's intake facility along the Elk River is just more than a mile downstream from the Freedom Industries site where an estimated 10,000 gallons of crude MCHM leaked Jan. 9. More than 300,000 residents in parts of nine counties were without tap water for days, and many still are wary of using the water. Now, more than 50 complaints have been filed in various state and federal courts related to the chemical spill. Freedom Industries filed for bankruptcy Jan. 17. In the Johnson complaint, filed by Charleston attorneys Stuart Calwell, D. Christopher Hedges and Alex McLaughlin of The Calwell Practice LC, the plaintiffs accuse Freedom Industries of negligence for failing to maintain proper storage facilities for the crude MCHM and for failing to make itself or information readily available after the leak. They also accuse WVAWC of negligence for failing to understand the potential threats to the water supply, for failing to maintain adequate water reserves, for failing to maintain proper filtration reserves, for failing to take appropriate actions after learning of the chemical leak and for failing to properly flush its water treatment facility and water supply system. They also accuse Eastman -- which produces the crude MCHM -- of negligence for not having a product data sheet for the crude MCHM. They also say Eastman should have known that crude MCHM, as a waste byproduct of its chemical processes and not a standalone product, was not being properly stored by Freedom. They also claim Eastman could have disposed of the crude MCHM as a solid waste product. "Eastman knew or should have known that the only business that would pay even a small sum for the receipt of Crude MCHM as a 'product' to be distributed was the kind of business that Freedom Industries and the Etowah River Terminal have been demonstrated to have been: cut-rate businesses operating with short-term profit horizons, on the margins of legality, and with little regard for chemical industry standards and public safety," the complaint states. "Eastman knew or should have known that there was a real and substantial danger that the Crude MCHM it was 'selling' as a 'product' would be stored improperly or otherwise mishandled and end up involved in an environmentally catastrophic release and contamination like the one that occurred. "A reasonably prudent person or company, knowing what Eastman knew or should have known about the retail market for its waste- like Crude MCHM and knowing what Eastman knew or should have known about operations at the Etowah River Terminal, would have disposed of its crude byproduct as a waste . . . and thereby avoided the unnecessary risk of an environmentally catastrophic release like the one that occurred. "Eastman's negligence was a proximate cause of the chemical spill, as a result of which plaintiffs and all similarly situated residential customers of American Water were instructed not to use their tap water for any purpose other than toilet flushing and fire fighting for five to eight days. The water continued to be impure, with an unpleasant odor and irritating quality, for weeks or even months thereafter." As potential class representatives, the plaintiffs seek class status and seek compensatory and punitive damages. That includes damages for loss of use of residential tap water, loss of the use and enjoyment of their property, annoyance and inconvenience, lost earnings, incidental expenses, court costs, attorney fees and other relief. West Virginia Southern District case number 2:14-cv-13164 GALLUP INC: "Fox" Suit Transferred From California to Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The purported class action lawsuit styled Ann Fox v. Gallup Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00163, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-20538-RSR to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 Facsimile: (561) 961-5684 E-mail: aradbil@mgjdlaw.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 411 Camino del Rio South, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92108-3609 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Matthew M. Loker, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ml@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC 369 South Doheny Drive, Suite 415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com The Defendant is represented by: Dora Faye Kaufman, Esq. LIEBLER, GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO, P.A. 44 West Flagler Street, 25th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 379-0400 Facsimile: (305) 379-9626 E-mail: dfk@lgplaw.com - and - Felicia Y. Yu, Esq. Raagini Shah, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 457-8000 E-mail: fyu@reedsmith.com rshah@reedsmith.com GENERAL MOTORS: Sutts Strosberg Files Power Steering Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Sutts, Strosberg LLP and McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP have launched a national class action in the Superior Court of Justice against General Motors Company ("GM") and General Motors of Canada Ltd. ("GMC"). The lawsuit seeks damages arising from a recall of more than 145,700 vehicles in Canada that may experience a sudden loss of electric power steering that may occur at any time while driving. On March 31, 2014, GMC announced that it informed Transport Canada that if the power steering is lost, the subject vehicles will revert to a manual steering mode, but would require greater driver effort at low vehicle speeds, which could result in an increased risk of a crash. Harvey T. Strosberg, Q.C., one of the lead counsels in this action said: "Some of these motor vehicles are twice damned because of the electrical power steering defect, and because of the ignition switch defect. Sadly, each of these cars has lost value. GM and GMC must pay the lost value and other damages to the class." The national class action was commenced on April 3, 2014 on behalf of all people who owned one of the following vehicles as of March 31, 2014: MAKE MODEL MODEL YEARS: INCLUSIVE Chevrolet Malibu 2004 to 2009 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx 2004 to 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt 2010 Chevrolet HHR 2009 to 2010 Pontiac G6 2005 to 2009 Saturn Ion 2004 to 2007 Saturn Aura 2008 to 2009 Harvey Strosberg, Q.C., has been recognized as one of the foremost class action litigators in Canada. Sutts, Strosberg LLP is a leading class action law firm that has recovered over $1.5 billion for its clients. Anyone who owns one of the above GM vehicles is encouraged to contact one of the following lawyers: Sutts, Strosberg LLP Harvey Strosberg, QC 519-561-6228 harvey@strosbergco.com Sutts, Strosberg LLP Jacqueline Horvat 519-561-6245 jhorvat@strosbergco.com Sutts, Strosberg LLP Alex Constantin 519-561-6231 aconstantin@strosbergco.com HANGTIME INC: Removed "Goodman" Class Suit to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Goodman v. Hangtime, Inc., Case No. 14-CH-00957, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01022 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Ari Jonathan Scharg, Esq. John C. Ochoa, Esq. Mark Stephen Eisen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com ascharg@edelson.com jochoa@edelson.com meisen@edelson.com The Defendant is represented by: Hong-an Vu, Esq. Patrick S. Thompson, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 733-6000 E-mail: hvu@goodwinprocter.com pthompson@goodwinprocter.com - and - Louis David Bernstein, Esq. Michael Patrick McBride, Esq. THE BERNSTEIN LAW FIRM, LLC 350 N. Clark Street, Suite 400 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 645-6091 Facsimile: (866) 929-7392 E-mail: lbernstein@law-ldb.com mmcbride@law-ldb.com HAWAII: 9th Cir. Vacates Dist. Ct. Ruling in "Korab" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit entered an opinion in the case styled TONY KORAB; TOJIO CLANTON; KEBEN ENOCH, each individually and on behalf of those persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellees, v. KENNETH FINK, in his official capacity as State of Hawai'i, Department of Human Services, Med- QUEST Division Administrator and PATRICIA MCMANAMAN, in her official capacity as Director of the State of Hawai'i, Department of Human Services, Defendants-Appellants, NO. 11-15132, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/FjVHZNfrom Leagle.com In this case, the district court ruled that the Hawai'i Department of Human Services is constitutionally required to set up a state-only funded program that completely 'fills the void' created by the Federal Welfare Reform Act's discrimination against aliens. In its April 1, 2014 ruling, the Ninth Ciruit vacated the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction preventing Hawai'i from reducing state-paid health benefits for Compact of Free Association Residents because Hawai'i is not obligated to backfill the loss of federal funds with state funds and its decision not to do so is subject to rational-basis review. Lee Ann N.M. Brewer (argued) and John F. Molay, Deputy Attorneys General, Honolulu, Hawai'i for Defendant-Appellant. Paul D. Alston -- palston@ahfi.com -- (argued), Zachary A. McNish -- zmcnish@ahfi.com -- and J. Blaine Rogers -- BRogers@ahfi.com - - Alston, Hunt, Floyd, & Ing, Honolulu, Hawai'i; Catherine Leilani Aubuchon -- caubuchon@bhhawaii.net -- and Margery S. Bronster -- mbronster@bhawaii.net -- Bronster Hoshibata, Honolulu, Hawai'i; M. Victor Geminiani -- victor@lejhawaii.org -- Lawyers for Equal Justice, Honolulu, Hawai'i, for Plaintiffs- Appellees. Susan K. Serrano, Honolulu, Hawai'i for Amici Curiae Japanese American Citizens League-Honolulu Chapter, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People-Honolulu Branch, and Kokua Kalihi Valley Comprehensive Family Services. HUNTSMAN CORP: Md. Court Okays Accord in TiO2 Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland approved a settlement an antitrust suit filed against Huntsman Corporation by U.S. customers who purchased titanium dioxide, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. The company was named as a defendant in consolidated class action civil antitrust suits filed on February 9 and 12, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging that the company and its co-defendants and other asserted co- conspirators conspired to fix prices of titanium dioxide sold in the U.S. between at least March 1, 2002 and the present. The other defendants named in this matter are DuPont, Kronos and Cristal (formerly Millennium). On August 28, 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all U.S. customers who purchased titanium dioxide directly from defendants (the "Direct Purchasers") since February 1, 2003. The company and all other defendants settled the Direct Purchasers litigation and the court approved the settlement on December 13, 2013. The company paid the settlement in an amount immaterial to the company's combined financial statements. HUNTSMAN CORP: Buyers of TiO2-Made Products Sue in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------- Huntsman Corporation faces antitrust suit filed in California by purchasers of products made from titanium dioxide, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. The company was named as a defendant in a class action civil antitrust suit filed on March 15, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by purchasers of products made from titanium dioxide (the "Indirect Purchasers") making essentially the same allegations as the Direct Purchasers. The Opt-Out Litigation and Indirect Purchasers plaintiffs seek to recover injunctive relief, treble damages or the maximum damages allowed by state law, costs of suit and attorneys' fees. The company is not aware of any illegal conduct by the company or any of the company's employees. Meanwhile, on November 22, 2013, the Company was named as a defendant in a civil antitrust suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota brought by a Direct Purchaser who opted out of the Direct Purchasers class litigation (the "Opt-Out Litigation"). It is possible that additional claims will be filed by other Direct Purchasers who opted out of the class litigation. HURONIA REGIONAL: Former Residents to Receive Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Settlements have been reached in class action lawsuits involving the Huronia Regional Centre, Rideau Regional Centre, and Southwestern Regional Centre which were residential facilities operated by the Province of Ontario that provided care and support to persons with developmental disabilities from 1876 to 2009. The lawsuits say that some residents of these Centres were harmed or hurt because the Province did not protect them. The Province denies these claims and the Court has not been asked to decide whether the Classes or the Province is right. Instead, both sides have agreed to Settlements. The Settlements do not mean that any law was broken or that the Province did anything wrong. The Court appointed the law firm of Koskie Minsky LLP from Toronto, Ontario to represent the Classes as "Class Counsel." In a statement, Class Counsel Kirk Baert said, "All former residents who suffered harm are encouraged to make confidential claims for compensation. We also hope that family members, friends, support workers or anyone else in the former resident's support network will spread the word and help the former residents make claims for compensation that will help better their lives today." The Settlements affect people as follows: Anyone who lived at Huronia at any time between 1945 and 2009, who was alive as of April 21, 2007; or The estates of former residents who lived at Huronia at any time between 1945 and 2009, but who passed away after April 21, 2007. Anyone who lived at Rideau between September 1, 1963 and March 31, 2009, who was alive as of September 24, 2008; and The estates of former residents who lived at Rideau between 1963 and 2009, but who died after September 24, 2008. Anyone who lived at Southwestern between September 1, 1963 and October 31, 2008, who was alive as of December 29, 2008; and The estates of former residents who lived at Southwestern between 1963 and 2008, but who died after December 29, 2008. The Settlements have been approved and are final, meaning that compensation is available to eligible Class Members from Settlement Funds totaling $67.719 million, which are being paid for by the Province. The compensation that Class Members who were harmed can receive will depend on the level of harm suffered. Class Members may receive up to $42,000. Class Members have to submit a Claim Form to receive compensation. Claim Forms are available by calling 1-866-879-4915 (TTY: 1-877-627-7027) and at the following websites: www.HuroniaClassAction.ca www.RideauClassAction.ca www.SouthwesternClassAction.ca Class Members who did not previously remove themselves from the class action will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and cannot sue the Province about the legal claims in this case. Being part of the Class will not impact the residence or services and support received by Class Members from community based agencies funded by the Province. Class Members do not have to pay any legal fees to file a claim. Some Class Members may have difficulty reading, so Class Counsel is asking for the help from family members, caregivers and friends of former residents in getting information to them. Please show any information you see to people who are impacted by these lawsuits or to their caregivers. More detailed information on these lawsuits are available at the websites listed above; by calling toll-free 1-866-879-4915 (TTY: 1-877-627-7027); or by writing to the email addresses or mailing address provided below: Huronia Settlement huronia@crawco.ca 3-505, 133 Weber Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3G9 Rideau Settlement rideau@crawco.ca 3-505, 133 Weber Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3G9 Southwestern Settlement southwestern@crawco.ca 3-505, 133 Weber Street North Waterloo, Ontario N2J 3G9 Class Members can also receive help filing out their Clam Forms by using the above contact information. LEAR CORP: Can't Pursue Interlocutory Appeal in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the motion of Lear Corporation to certify an order for interlocutory appeal against the denial to dismiss an antitrust suit filed against it, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On October 5, 2011, a plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against the Company and several other global suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and related laws. Since that time, a number of other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class action complaints against the Company and these and other suppliers and individuals in a number of different federal district courts, and it is possible that additional similar lawsuits may be filed in the future. Plaintiffs purport to be direct and indirect purchasers of automotive wire harnesses supplied by the Company and/or the other defendants during the relevant period. The complaints allege that the defendants conspired to fix prices at which automotive wire harnesses were sold and that this had an anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce in the United States. The complaints further allege that defendants fraudulently concealed their alleged conspiracy. The plaintiffs in these proceedings seek injunctive relief and recovery of an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs and expenses relating to the proceedings, including attorneys' fees. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered an order transferring and coordinating the various civil actions, for pretrial purposes, into one proceeding in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. On May 14, 2012, three purported classes of plaintiffs -- direct purchasers of automotive wire harnesses; automotive dealers that indirectly purchased automotive wire harnesses or vehicles containing such harnesses; and indirect purchasers that purchased or leased vehicles containing automotive wire harnesses (or purchased replacement automotive wire harnesses for their vehicles) -- filed consolidated amended complaints in the consolidated proceeding. With respect to the Company, the consolidated amended complaints are substantially similar to the individual complaints that had been filed in the various jurisdictions. On July 13, 2012, the Company filed a motion to have these actions dismissed. On June 6, 2013, the District Court entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss and, on September 6, 2013, denied the Company's motion to certify the June 6, 2013, order for interlocutory appeal. Beginning in early 2012, putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior Courts of Justice in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia against the Company and several other global suppliers of automotive wire harnesses alleging violations of Canadian laws related to competition. The allegations in the complaints are substantially similar to those complaints that have been filed in the United States. On November 17, 2011, the Company filed a motion with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York seeking entry of an order enforcing the Company's 2009 Plan of Reorganization and directing dismissal of the pending class action complaints. The bankruptcy court heard oral argument on the motion and, on February 10, 2012, ruled that claims against the Company alleging violation of antitrust law are enjoined to the extent that they arose prior to the Company's emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings on November 9, 2009. The bankruptcy court further held that the District Court was the appropriate forum to address antitrust claims arising after the Company's emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The Company appealed the bankruptcy court's decision on this issue, and in November 2012, the appellate court ruled in favor of the Company and remanded for consideration by the bankruptcy court the possible effects of certain alleged antitrust claims arising after November 9, 2009. This issue was stayed by the bankruptcy court until a decision was entered with respect to the Company's motion to dismiss the underlying class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Following the order entered by the District Court on June 6, 2013, denying the Company's motion to dismiss, the Company renewed its request that the bankruptcy court enjoin the antitrust class action plaintiffs, and any similarly situated potential plaintiffs, from seeking damages against the Company for the period prior to November 9, 2009. The bankruptcy court heard oral argument on this matter on September 10, 2013. LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Alleging Privacy Invasion --------------------------------------------------------------- Goli Ranekouhi; and, Terri Alves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Longwood Industries, Inc., dba Once Driven, Case No. 8:14-cv-00214-JVS-JPR (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) accuses the Company of negligently contacting the Plaintiffs on their cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby, invading their privacy. Longwood Industries, Inc., was incorporated in Virginia and is headquartered in Bedford, Virginia. The Company is a web-based company that assists consumers in the buying and selling of used vehicles nationwide. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D 1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com gouya@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3609 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, 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 nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com LONGWOOD INDUSTRIES: Invades Privacy of Class Members, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Goli Ranekouhi, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Longwood Industries, Inc., dba Once Driven, Case No. 8:14-cv-00215-DOC-RNB (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) is brought for damages and other remedies resulting from the Defendant's alleged illegal actions in recording telephone conversations of the Plaintiff and the class without their knowledge or consent in violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act. Longwood Industries, Inc., doing business as Once Driven, is a corporation whose primary corporate address is in Bedford, Virginia. The Company is a web-based company that assists consumers in the buying and selling of used vehicles nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D 1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com gouya@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3609 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, 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 nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com MANPOWER INC: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in "Willner" -------------------------------------------------------------- Three motions are pending in the putative class action for violations of California labor laws styled In VERA WILLNER, Plaintiff, v. MANPOWER INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-02846-JST, (N.D. Cal.): 1. Manpower moves for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment with respect to four of the five claims that Ms. Willner has asserted in the operative complaint. 2. Ms. Willner moves for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. 3. Ms. Willner moves for summary judgment on her claim for PAGA penalties in connection with Manpower's purported violations of California Labor Code section 226. Each of these motions is opposed. In his ruling dated March 29, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/20ZUCBfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted in part and denied in part Manpower's motion for judgment on the pleadings or summary judgment, and both of Ms. Willner's motions are granted. Ms. Willner's motion for leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint is granted, ruled Judge Tigar. Ms. Willner must file the proposed complaint she attached to her motion within five days of the date the order is filed. Manpower's motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part as follows: 1. Manpower is entitled to judgment with respect to Ms. Willner's claim for penalties under section 203 in connection with violations of section 201.3(b)(1). 2. Manpower's motion for summary judgment with respect to Ms. Willner's claim for damages under Section 226(e) for violations of Section 226(a) is denied. 3. Manpower's motion for summary judgment with respect to Ms. Willner's UCL claims is denied. 4. Manpower's motion for summary judgment with respect to Ms. Willner's PAGA claims is denied. Willner's motion for summary judgment on her PAGA claim for inaccurate wage statements in violation of Section 226(a) is granted. Vera Willner, Plaintiff, represented by James Kan -- jkan@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO, Jeffrey C. Jackson, Jackson Hanson, LLP, Kirk David Hanson, Jackson Hanson, LLP, Laura L. Ho -- LHO@GBDHLEGAL.COM -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho & Lin Yee Chan -- lchan@lchb.com -- Goldstein Demchak Baller Borgen & Dardarian. Manpower Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew C. Kane, McGuireWoods LLP, Brian Edward Spang -- bspang@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Sylvia Jihae Kim, McGuire Woods LLP. MARIAH RESOURCES: Accused of Pervasive Sexual Harassment in Cal. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laurie Kursar v. Mariah Resources Inc., a California Corporation; Cory Kasinger, as an individual, James Kasinger, as an individual, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-at-00198 (E.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome, severe, and pervasive sexual harassment and discrimination by the Defendants in violation of the state of California. Mariah Resources Inc. is a California Corporation and the owner and operator of an industry, business and facility doing business in the state of California. The Defendants operate a business that works on wind turbine power generators throughout the United States and other countries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galen T. Shimoda, Esq. Justin P. Rodriguez, Esq. Cassandra D. Shaft, Esq. SHIMODA LAW CORP. 9401 East Stockton Boulevard, Suite 200 Elk Grove, CA 95624 Telephone: (916) 525-0716 Facsimile: (916) 760-3733 E-mail: attorney@shimodalaw.com jrodriguez@shimodalaw.com cshaft@shimodalaw.com MOTT'S LLP: "Rahman" 2nd Amended Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan Illston denied the motion of Mott's LLP for dismissal of the second amended complaint filed in the case, MOHAMMED RAHMAN, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MOTT'S LLP, a Delaware limited liability partnership; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, No. CV 13-3482 SI (N.D. Cal.). Mott's Motion to Dismiss the second amended class action complaint was scheduled for hearing on April 18, 2014. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court said in an 11-page order dated April 8 that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and vacated the hearing. Mott's is the manufacturer of various food products containing the statement "No Sugar Added" on their labels and/or packaging. The Plaintiff alleges that the use of the statement "No Sugar Added" on Mott's 100% Apple Juice does not comply with the applicable Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regulations, specifically 21 C.F.R. Sec. 101.60(c)(2). The Plaintiff further alleges that defendant's failure to comply with the FDA regulations violates California's Sherman Law, California Health and Safety Code Sec. 109875 et seq. The Plaintiff alleges that he purchased Mott's Original 100% Apple Juice after reading and relying on the product's "No Sugar Added" labeling and after observing that a competitor's 100% apple juice did not contain a "No Sugar Added" claim. The Plaintiff alleges that he would not have purchased as much of the product as he did if it did not contain the "No Sugar Added" label. On June 13, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in San Francisco County Superior Court against defendants Mott's and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. On July 26, 2013, defendants removed the action to the N.D. Cal. Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b) based on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). On August 30, 2013, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Dr. Pepper. On August 30, 2013, defendant Mott's filed a motion to dismiss, and on September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, mooting the motion to dismiss. Mott's then moved to dismiss the FAC, and on January 29, 2014, the Court granted the motion in part, denied it in part, and granted leave to amend. On February 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a second amended class action complaint, alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; (2) violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17500 et seq.; (3) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Code Sec. 1750 et seq.; (4) negligent misrepresentation; and (5) breach of quasi-contract. By the present motion, Mott's moves to dismiss the entire action pursuant to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and moves to dismiss certain causes of action for failure to state a claim. As an initial matter, Mott's argues that the Court should dismiss the action under the primary jurisdiction doctrine because the SAC raises labeling claims that fall squarely within the scope of ongoing FDA rulemaking proceedings. The Plaintiff argues that the ongoing rulemaking proceedings referenced by defendant are unrelated to the claims in his complaint. According to the Court, at this time it is unclear whether the proposed rule will be finalized and whether future rulemaking would be necessary in light of the finalized rule. The Court declines to invoke the doctrine of primary jurisdiction based on speculation about what the FDA may do in the future. The Court also held that the Plaintiff's allegations: -- are sufficient to explain "how" the labeling at issue is misleading to a reasonable consumer; -- are sufficient to plead economic injury; and -- are adequate to plead justifiable reliance. MT GOX: Two Australians Join Class Action Over Bitcoin Losses ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Griffith, writing for The Australian, reports that Australians are among angry bitcoin users taking legal action to recover millions of dollars in cash and virtual currency lost when Japan's Mt Gox exchange crashed in February. The Australian can reveal that at least two Australians are part of a class action being prepared by London legal firm Selachii aimed at recovering lost money and bitcoin. Australians also are among those who have lost hundreds of bitcoins. Coffs Harbour-based Pantelis Roussakis said he had lost 222 bitcoins. They cost him about AU$50,000 to AU$60,000 to buy and in December, when he sought to convert them back to Australian dollars through Mt Gox, they were valued at more than AU$260,000. After the crash, the exchange's chief executive, Frenchman Mark Karpeles, announced in Tokyo that Mt Gox had filed for bankruptcy protection, having lost up to 750,000 customers' bitcoins. The exchange also lost 100,000 of its own bitcoins. In cash terms US$474 million (AU$510 million) was missing with a net liability of US$63.6m. That figure was revised last month when Mt Gox reportedly found 200,000 missing bitcoins in an offline digital wallet. Currently the Japan entity Mt Gox KK is protected from lawsuits under bankruptcy law and Mr. Karpeles is seeking similar immunity under US Chapter 15 bankruptcy law for himself, the US arm of Mt Gox and KK Tibanne, which operated the Mt Gox exchange. Mr. Karpeles has been ordered to appear in court in Dallas, Texas, on April 17 so he can be questioned on the bankruptcy immunity application. The appearance could offer a chance for those who lost currency from Mt Gox to serve Mr. Karpeles with legal papers. Mr. Karpeles is reported to have sought to be questioned in Taiwan instead. In the meantime, class actions to help those who lost bitcoins and hard currencies are being prepared by the Chicago-based Edelson law firm, in Canada and in Britain. In Seattle, a claim and counterclaim has been under way between Mt Gox and US venture company CoinLab, which is claiming breach of contract by the Japan-based exchange. Some potential litigants are loath to part with money for taking legal action until the bankruptcy immunity issue is finalized. Selachii confirmed that it was representing at least two Australians in legal actions it was taking with Japanese lawyers in Tokyo. Examiners in Japan are in the process of producing a report on whether Mt Gox should be permanently liquidated or restored. The report is due by May 9. The London-based legal firm said the action it would take would depend on that report. "We are opposing that Mt Gox should be granted bankruptcy," a Selachii spokesman said. However, the wide interest in Selachii's action has not been reflected in litigants coming aboard. Posters on bitcoin forums have expressed concern about shelling out money ahead of any legal action. The Selachii spokesman said there had been more than 16,000 inquiries worldwide about joining the class action, yet the firm was representing fewer than 50 at this time. Selachii is setting an initial fee of two bitcoins ($949) to "build a case, obtain evidence and undertake fact finding". A Selachii post warns that establishing liability by Mt Gox "may not necessary result in the recovery of damages" given that the defunct exchange had filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan. It said people should join the action only if they lost seven bitcoins or more. Recovering a smaller number would not be worth the cost. Young Australian entrepreneur Karl Kloppenborg, who lost AU$47,000 in the exchange crash, is among those waiting to see how initial legal proceedings pan out before joining any legal action against Mt Gox. "There's no doubt that I will have to take out legal proceedings at some time, which is why I am taking the time to investigate it further," he said. Joining the British class action is one option, but it was not the only option. "At the moment there's a whole lot of talk within the bitcoin community in Australia about developing a class action, however as it stands there's no law firm looking to back it at the moment," Mr. Kloppenborg said. Mr. Kloppenborg said he lost dollars rather than bitcoins. "This was actually raw cash, it wasn't even bitcoins, which is why I am angrier about it. "This is not a case of technical glitch. If you have a good hard look at the timeline of events that happened at Mt Gox, there are very clear ripples in the water that show there was another thing happening well and truly before this all happened." He said he had sought to get his money back over a three-month period from November last year to January. Mt Gox told him to queue with other people and claimed a backlog in processing requests for cash. "What Mt Gox promised me is fairy dust," he said. Bitcoin Association of Australia president Jason Williams said it was unfortunate how events had unfolded with regard to Mt Gox, and terrible that a once trusted member of the community had to exit in such a way. He said Mt Gox was one of many exchanges in the world, and was seen as "a bad actor exiting". "There are various reputable places in Australia from where you can purchase bitcoin, including Bit Trade Australia and CoinJar." NEW ORLEANS: Judge Certifies Police Officers' OT Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- WVUE reports that current and former New Orleans police officers who think they've been cheated out of overtime pay will soon be able to join a federal class-action lawsuit. A judge ruled on April 7 to certify the class, which means opt-in letters will be going out to hundreds -- and possibly thousands -- of officers next month. Former officer Chad Perez filed the suit in 2012 after working for the NOPD for 14 years. He said the department regularly shortchanged him and other officers out of overtime compensation. Judge Carl Barbier opened up the lawsuit to any current or former officer who believes they were denied overtime compensation dating back to Sept. 16, 2009. The city has 14 days to provide the names and addresses of all officers who have worked for the city since then. Those officers will be notified by May 19 about the class-action suit and will be given the opportunity to join the litigation. NORTHWEST BANCORP: Facilities Don't Cater to Disable, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Damian M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Northwest Bancorp, Inc. d/b/a Northwest Savings Bank, Case No. 2:14-cv-00209-CRE (W.D. Pa., February 13, 2014) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with accessibility barriers at various properties owned and managed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff has a mobility disability and is limited in the major life activity of walking. Northwest Bancorp, Inc., doing business as Northwest Savings Bank, is headquartered in Warren, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Stephanie Goldin, Esq. Carlos R. Diaz, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com cdiaz@carlsonlynch.com The Defendant is represented by: Bridget J. Daley, Esq. Christian Antkowiak, Esq. Brian H. Simmons, Esq. BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC One Oxford Centre 301 Grant Street, 20th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410 Telephone: (412) 562-8304 Facsimile: (412) 562-1041 E-mail: bridget.daley@bipc.com christian.antkowiak@bipc.com brian.simmons@bipc.com PALISADES COLLECTIONS: Accused of Violating TCPA in California -------------------------------------------------------------- Oneatha Moore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Palisades Collection, LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:14-cv-01113-DMG-SH (C.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) seeks damages and any other available remedies resulting from the illegal actions of Palisades in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey-based Palisades Collection, LLC is a Delaware limited liability corporation and a leader in consumer debt buying and recovery/collection. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. Arvin Ratanavongse, 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 nbontrager@attorneysforconsumers.com aratanavongse@toddflaw.com - and - Paul Mankin, IV, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL MANKIN, IV 11 369 S. Doheny Dr. #415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 776-6336 Facsimile: (323) 207-3885 E-mail: pmankin@paulmankin.com PEPSICO INC: Pepsi One and Diet Pepsi Have Carcinogen, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul R. Riva and Danielle Ardagna, On Behalf Of Themselves And All Others Similarly Situated v. Pepsico, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv- 00340-JM-JMA (S.D. Cal., February 13, 2014) alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendant's Pepsi One and Diet Pepsi contained 4-methylimidazole, a carcinogen found on the list of known carcinogens, in sufficient quantities so as to require disclosure by the Defendant. Pepsi, however, intentionally and knowingly failed to label its drinks to alert the Plaintiffs and California consumers or otherwise disclose the presence of this known carcinogen, the Plaintiffs contend. Pepsico Inc. is a North Carolina corporation headquartered in Purchase, New York. Pepsico manufacturers Diet Pepsi and Pepsi One for distribution throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs is represented by: Roy A. Katriel, Esq. THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM 4225 Executive Square, Suite 600 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 242-5642 Facsimile: (858) 430-3719 E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com - and - Ralph B. Kalfayan, Esq. KRAUSE, KALFAYAN, BENINK & SLAVENS, LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 530 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 232-0331 Facsimile: (619) 232-4019 E-mail: ralph@kkbs-law.com - and - Courtland W. Creekmore, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201 San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 798-2006 Facsimile: (408) 247-4553 E-mail: ccreekmore@scalaw.com - and - John J. Fitzgerald, IV, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC The Palm Canyon Building 2870 Fourth Avenue, Suite 205 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Facsimile: (619) 362-9555 E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - and - Matthew R. Bainer, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC 1970 Broadway, 9th Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Facsimile: (510) 891-7030 E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com scole@scalaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Christopher Chorba, Esq. GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7396 Facsimile: (213) 229-6396 E-mail: cchorba@gibsondunn.com PG&E CORP: Pays Out $520MM to Claimants in San Bruno Accident ------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Gas and Electric Company has made cumulative payments of $520 million to third-party claimants in the litigation related to the San Bruno Accident, according to PG&E's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. Following the San Bruno accident various lawsuits were filed in San Mateo County Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and the Utility to seek compensation for personal injury and property damage, and other relief, including punitive damages. In 2011 and 2012 , the Utility entered into settlement agreements to resolve many of the claims and In September 2013, the Utility agreed to settle the claims of substantially all of the remaining plaintiffs who sought compensation. At December 31, 2013, the Utility has recorded cumulative charges of $565 million as its best estimate of probable loss for third-party claims related to the San Bruno accident and has made cumulative payments of $520 million to third-party claimants. PG&E CORP: Still Faces Lawsuit by Customers in California --------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation continues to face a suit filed in the San Francisco Superior Court by individuals who seek certification of a class California customers, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. In addition, on August 23, 2012, a complaint was filed in the San Francisco Superior Court against PG&E Corporation and the Utility (and other unnamed defendants) by individuals who seek certification of a class consisting of all California residents who were customers of the Utility between 1997 and 2010, with certain exceptions. The plaintiffs allege that the Utility collected more than $100 million in customer rates from 1997 through 2010 for the purpose of various safety measures and operations projects but instead used the funds for general corporate purposes such as executive compensation and bonuses. PG&E Corporation and the Utility contest the allegations. SAFEWAY INC: Loses Bid to Nix "Club Card" Holders' Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Winegarner and Abigail Rubenstein, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge on April 7 refused to kill a putative class action claiming Safeway Inc. should have warned "Club Card" holders about product recalls, ruling the grocery chain couldn't carve an exception out of a state negligence law imposing a general duty of care. In an order denying defendant's motion for summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg held that Safeway didn't show a statutory or public policy exception justifying a post-sale, no-duty rule, and didn't show that no post-sale duty to warn exists under California negligence law. Safeway counsel claimed Safeway Inc. Club Card holders' motion for certification was plagued with defects -- including problems with standing, class definition, facts and merits issues -- that California has no failure-to-warn statute, and that the state's unfair competition law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act are "blunt instruments" that don't impose such a duty on Safeway. But the plaintiffs' counsel replied that the law is clear that when a company has consumer information and knows it has sold a harmful product, it can prevent harm by contacting consumers. The April 7 order agreed, saying, "Food recalls are imposed precisely because of the risks consumption poses to health and safety. Safeway does not point to any laws or mores indicating approval of a grocer refraining from contacting customers after a sale." The plaintiffs sued Safeway in February 2011, claiming the grocery chain should have used customer loyalty card information to contact and inform shoppers who purchased recalled foods. One plaintiff, Dee Hensley-Maclean of Montana, claims that she purchased peanut butter crackers and Nutter Butter sandwich cookies that were part of a nationwide recall of peanut butter products tainted with salmonella. And another plaintiff, Jennifer Rosen of San Francisco, bought recalled eggs, according to the initial complaint. Both women used their Safeway Club Cards when buying the recalled items, which meant that the store had access to their phone numbers, email and mailing addresses, yet the retailer did not contact either of them directly about the recalls, the complaint said. In June 2011, Judge Seeborg denied Safeway's motion that he either stay or dismiss the class action while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration makes rules under the Food Safety Modernization Act. Safeway had argued that primary jurisdiction doctrine meant the FDA should get a chance to regulate under the FSMA before the courts weigh in. Judge Seeborg ruled on April 7 that, under California's common law concept of strict liability, Safeway didn't have a duty to warn of defects that were unknown and unknowable at the time of sale. However, he shot down Safeway's negligence defense that no California statute, regulation or case had ever found a post-sale duty to warn, saying many state decisions have explicitly or implicitly recognized that a seller's duty under negligence may extend beyond the point of sale. The judge further ruled, regarding plaintiffs' Unfair Competition Law claim, that Safeway hadn't provided any evidence that plaintiffs' injuries were insubstantial or could have been reasonably avoided. Plaintiffs and the proposed class are represented by Stephen Gardner and Amanda Howell of the Center for Science in the Public Interest; Daniel T. LeBel of Consumer Law Practice of Daniel T. LeBel; Steven A. Skalet -- sskalet@findjustice.com -- and Craig L. Briskin -- cbriskin@findjustice.com -- of Mehri & Skalet PLLC; James C. Sturdevant of the Sturdevant Law Firm; and Whitney Stark -- wstark@tmdwlaw.com -- of Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC. Safeway is represented by Jesse F. Ruiz, Gabriel G. Gregg and Bonnie Margaret Ross of Robinson & Wood Inc. The case is Dee Hensley-Maclean et al. v. Safeway Inc., case number 3:11-cv-01230, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. * * * "They claim that, under various California consumer protection statutes and California common law, Safeway is legally obligated to notify its Club Card members of the Class I recalls," U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg explained April 7, according to Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service. Its motion came after it became clear that deciding the legal question of Safeway's duty to warn "could simplify, and potentially dispose of, the class certification issues," Seeborg wrote. "Safeway does not claim that after the Class I recalls are instituted, it lacks adequate knowledge of the dangerous nature of the recalled products to formulate a meaningful warning," the judge wrote. "Nor has Safeway shown it is unable to provide warnings to ultimate consumers or even that food manufacturers are categorically better positioned to do so." California also does not have a "no-duty" to inform rule, according to the ruling. "California negligence law imposes a general duty of ordinary care and Safeway has not shown either a statutory or public policy exception justifying a post-sale, no-duty rule," Seeborg wrote. "Moreover, numerous California decisions have explicitly or implicitly recognized that a seller's duty under negligence may extend beyond the point of sale." Because the action can proceed under the negligence theory, the judge saw no reason to grant the plaintiffs additional discovery to demonstrate that Safeway "may have had reason to know of the Class I Recalls prior to selling the recalled products." If Safeway was aware at the time of sale of facts that would render those representations misleading, any representations or omissions by the store may constitute a violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Seeborg added. The ruling also advances a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law to the extent it is based upon Safeway's established negligence. The parties will appear at a case management conference May 15. SCIENTIFIC DRILLING: MWD Specialists Seek to Recover Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Terrell Gentry & Romero Rias, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Scientific Drilling International, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00363 (S.D. Tex., February 13, 2014) seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages owed to Scientific Drilling's Measurement While Drilling Specialists under state and federal law. Scientific Drilling International, Inc., is a large oilfield services company that operates globally. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com The Defendant is represented by: Scott Robert McLaughlin, Esq. JACKSON WALKER LLP 1401 McKinney, Suite 1900 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 752-4200 Facsimile: (713) 752-4221 E-mail: smclaughlin@jw.com SINGLE TOUCH: Plaintiff in "Ibey" Consumer Suit Dismisses Case -------------------------------------------------------------- An Early Neutral Evaluation was held in Elizabeth Ibey v. Wal- Mart Stores Inc. and Single Touch Interactive Inc., resulting in the Plaintiff dismissing the case with prejudice, according to Single Touch Systems Inc.'s Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Dec. 31, 2013. On July 29, 2013, the company was served a first amended complaint for Elizabeth Ibey v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Single Touch Interactive Inc. The complaint is a class action pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of California and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff was seeking damages and injunctive relief. The company filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on September 19, 2013. In December 2013, Plaintiff requested and the parties agreed to a continuation of the scheduled hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. An Early Neutral Evaluation was held on January 14, 2014 resulting in the Plaintiff dismissing the case with prejudice which occurred on January 31, 2014. SOLARCITY CORP: Faces Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------- The Shareholders Foundation, Inc. on April 7 disclosed that a lawsuit was filed on behalf of certain purchasers of SolarCity Corp. common stock over alleged violations of Federal Securities Laws by SolarCity Corp. in connection with certain allegedly false and misleading statements. If you purchased a significant amount of shares of SolarCity Corp (SCTY) between March 6, 2013 and March 18, 2014, and/or if you purchased SCTY shares in March 2013 or earlier and currently hold any of those shares, you have certain options and for certain investors are short and strict deadlines running. SCTY investors should contact the Shareholders Foundation at mail@shareholdersfoundation.com or call +1(858) 779 - 1554. The plaintiff claims that that the defendants made allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that SolarCity Corp. lacked adequate controls over financial reporting, that SolarCity Corp. misclassified its reported expenses, that SolarCity Corp.'s prior financial statements required restatement, and that as a result of the above, SolarCity Corp's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 3, 2014, SolarCity Corp announced a delay in the filing of its Annual Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and the expected restatement of its 2012 consolidated financial statements. Then on March 18, 2014, SolarCity Corp provided more information regarding its restatement. That same day, SolarCity Corp informed investors that its prior financial statements for the annual periods ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 should no longer be relied upon. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of SolarCity Corp publicly traded securities between March 6, 2013 and March 18, 2014. SANDUSKY WELLNESS: Court Denies TCPA Class Certification Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard M. Haggarty, Esq. -- Richard.Haggerty@dbr.com -- at Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP reports that a district court in the Northern District of Ohio recently denied a plaintiff's motion for class certification in a TCPA blast fax case, finding that the proposed class failed to meet the commonality requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2). Specifically, the court noted that "the proposed class includes entities that requested the facsimiles and/or had prior business relations" with the defendants and that the faxes sent to those entities did not violate the TCPA. Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC v. Wagner Wellness, Inc., et al., No. 3:12 CV 2257, 2014 WL 1224418 (N.D. Ohio), alleged that Wagner Wellness, Inc., and its owner, Robert Wagner, had violated Section 227 of the TCPA by purchasing a list of fax numbers from a company called infoUSA and sending unsolicited advertisements via fax to market a wellness and weight loss program. See 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(C) (making it unlawful "to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send, to a telephone facsimile machine, an unsolicited advertisement" unless certain exceptions apply). During Robert Wagner's deposition, however, he testified that Wagner did not purchase all of the fax numbers from infoUSA. As the court pointed out, "Mr. Wagner's testimony establishes that his company had other sources for obtaining the facsimile numbers used, including obtaining contacts at medical conferences." Opinion at *5. Sandusky Wellness moved for class certification and defined the proposed class as follows: "All persons who (1) on or after September 5, 2008, (2) were sent telephone facsimile messages inviting attendance at a Physicians Wellness and Weight Loss Program, and (3) which did not display a proper opt-out notice." Id. at *2. In determining whether the proposed class met the requirements for certification, the court focused on the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2). As the Supreme Court held in Wal- Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, a plaintiff's "claims must depend upon a common contention -- . . . [which is] of such a nature that it is capable of classwide resolution -- which means that the determination of its truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." Id. at *4 (quoting Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2451, 2551 (2011)). The Supreme Court emphasized that district courts must employ a "rigorous analysis" of the plaintiff's claim and that the central inquiry is "the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation." Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2551. In considering Sandusky Wellness's proposed class, the court pointed out that the TCPA does not prohibit all faxing of advertisements. "Rather, it only prohibits the sending of an 'unsolicited advertisement' unless certain conditions apply, such as 'the unsolicited advertisement is from a sender with an established business relationship with the recipient." Opinion at 4 (quoting 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(1)(C)(i)). Because Mr. Wagner's testimony established that the proposed class included entities that either requested the faxes or had prior business relationships with Wagner, the proposed class did not meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2). The Sandusky Wellness opinion demonstrates the importance of the Supreme Court's recent jurisprudence on class certification with respect to putative TCPA class actions. If plaintiffs do not propose classes in which all members have claims that generate common answers under the TCPA, defendants will be able to argue that the commonality requirement is not met and that the proposed class should not be certified. SUTTER HEALTH: UEBT Files Class Action Over Illegal Overcharges --------------------------------------------------------------- UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust (UEBT) filed a class action lawsuit on April 7 against Sutter Health for violations of California's antitrust and unfair competition statutes. The suit, brought in the San Francisco County Superior Court (case #14-538451), alleges that illegal restrictions in Sutter Health's anticompetitive contracts resulted in substantial overcharges by its hospitals that would not be possible in a free, competitive market. "This lawsuit was filed to stop a healthcare conglomerate from improperly using its market power to insulate its hospitals from competition by high quality, lower-priced competitors. We expect to recover the resulting illegal overcharges that Sutter inflicted on California businesses and return the funds to the entities that paid them," said Richard Grossman -- rgrossman@pillsburylevinson.com -- UEBT's lead counsel from the San Francisco law firm of Pillsbury & Coleman LLP. UEBT is an employment benefits trust that pays most of the healthcare costs incurred by the members of the United Food and Commercial Workers union (UFCW) and their dependents in Northern California. UEBT is operated for the benefit of its 60,000 participants by representatives from UFCW and the unionized grocery and retail industry employers that fund the healthcare benefits provided to their employees. The suit alleges that Sutter imposes contract terms that make it impossible for health plans to substitute quality competing hospitals for Sutter's higher-cost hospitals in locations where substitution would benefit their healthcare provider networks. It accuses Sutter of imposing illegal contract terms that prohibit any effort to incentivize health plan participants to choose a more cost-effective competing hospital over a higher- priced Sutter hospital. It also alleges that Sutter deliberately hides its higher prices from the self-funded health plans that later will have to pay them. As a result, UEBT and other similarly situated entities have no alternative other than to pay Sutter's illegally inflated healthcare prices. Sutter is the largest healthcare provider in Northern California. It has a chain of at least 27 hospitals as well as physicians' organizations with more than 5,000 members; medical research facilities; home health, hospice, and occupational health networks; and long-term care centers. Pillsbury & Coleman LLP is lead counsel for UEBT and the proposed class of California employers and healthcare trusts that self- fund the healthcare employment benefits they provide to their workers. UEBT also is represented by Farella Braun & Martel LLP, Davis Cowell & Bowe LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC TARGET CORP: Faces "Schafer" Suit in Wisconsin Over Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Kas Schafer, an individual, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Integrity First Bank, on its own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, and Target.com, Case No. 3:14-cv-00105-wmc (W.D. Wis., February 13, 2014) arises from the data breach at Target stores in late 2013. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric J. Haag, Esq. ATTERBURY, KAMMER & HAAG, S.C. 8500 Greenway Blvd., Suite 103 Middleton, WI 53562 Telephone: (608) 821-4600 Facsimile: (608) 821-4610 E-mail: ehaag@wiscinjurylawyers.com - and - Michael J. Modl, Esq. AXLEY BRYNELSON, LLP 2 E. Mifflin Street, Suite 200 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 257-5661 Facsimile: (608) 257-5444 E-mail: mmodl@axley.com The Defendant is represented by: John C. Scheller, Esq. MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP P.O. Box 1806 Madison, WI 53701-1806 Telephone: (608) 283-2276 E-mail: jcscheller@michaelbest.com TARGET CORP: Credit Unions, Bank Sue Over 2013 Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Employees Credit Union, KC Police Credit Union, and American Bank of Commerce, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated payment card issuers v. Target Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00549-N (N.D. Tex., February 13, 2014) alleges violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiffs and proposed Class Members are financial institutions and other entities that issued over 40 million Visa and MasterCard branded credit cards and debit cards (including REDcards, Target's proprietary payment cards) that were compromised by an ongoing and continuous data breach within Target's point-of-sale system and internal network of systems, from November 27, 2013, through December 15, 2013. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard L. Coffman, Esq. THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM First City Building 505 Orleans St., Suite 505 Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 833-7700 Facsimile: (866) 835-8250 E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com - and - Mitchell A. Toups, Esq. WELLER, GREEN TOUPS & TERRELL, LLP 2615 Calder Ave., Suite 400 Beaumont, TX 77702 Telephone: (409) 838-0101 Facsimile: (409) 838-6780 E-mail: matoups@wgttlaw.com - and - G. Robert Blakey, Esq. PROFESSOR OF LAW EMERITUS NOTRE DAME LAW SCHOOL 7002 East San Miguel Ave. Paradise Valley, AZ 85253 Telephone: (574) 514-8220 E-mail: blakey.1@nd.edu The Defendant is represented by: Scott Edwards, Esq. Giovanna C. Tarantino Bingham, Esq. HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER & KERN LLP 6688 N Central Expwy., Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 369-2100 Facsimile: (214) 369-2118 E-mail: sedwards@hdbdlaw.com gtarantino@hdbdk.com UMPQUA BANK: Settles Claims on Using Software to Maximize Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that as their trial date approached, a class has settled claims that Umpqua Bank uses special software to maximize the amount of overdraft fees it charges. The parties have until May 19 to move for preliminary approval of the settlement, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar said in a April 4, 2014, order vacating the trial schedule. "The court is in receipt of the parties' joint request to vacate the case schedule in light of the parties' settlement of this action," he wrote. Lead plaintiff Amber Hawthorne filed the federal complaint in San Francisco in December 2011, alleging that Umpqua employs sophisticated software that "maximizes the number of overdrafts, and thus, the amount of overdraft fees charged per customer." She also called Umpqua's account agreement misleading and said the bank "provides inaccurate balance information to its customers through its electronic network," informing them "that they have a positive balance when, in reality, they have a negative balance, despite the bank's actual knowledge of outstanding debits and transactions." Tigar had pared down the claims for trial this past November, and the parties settled after Hawthorne filed a third amended complaint in January. "The court sets a case management conference on May 28, 2014, which will automatically be vacated if the stipulation of dismissal is timely filed," he wrote. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Heard --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts conducted a hearing on a motion by Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated to dismiss a securities suit filed against it by the City of Bristol Pension Fund, according to the company's Feb. 11, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended Dec. 31, 2013. On September 6, 2012, a purported securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the caption City of Bristol Pension Fund v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al., naming as defendants the company and certain of its current and former officers and directors. The lawsuit alleges that the company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the company's public disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through June 28, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. By order dated December 12, 2012, the court appointed the City of Bristol lead plaintiff and appointed the City of Bristol's attorneys lead counsel. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 11, 2013. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 12, 2013. On May 28, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to the company's motion to dismiss the complaint. On June 27, 2013, the company filed a reply in further support of the company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The court conducted a hearing on the company's motion to dismiss on November 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the company's common stock. * Jamaica's FSC Revises Guidelines to Combat Ponzi Schemes ---------------------------------------------------------- Avia Collinder, writing for The Jamaica Gleaner, reports that the Financial Services Commission (FSC) says it is formulating guidelines that will set a cap on investments made by members of investment clubs as one way of cracking down on fraudulent activity, typically referred to as Ponzi schemes. Laurence Crossley, manager of Securities at the FSC, also told a forum that the revised Securities Act allows pursuit of civil action in the Supreme Court to recover the monies of individuals who have been defrauded. "We can pursue a class action lawsuit with the object of repaying monies lost," said Mr. Crossley. "Once the money is paid into a court-ordered fund, all who can prove their claim can be compensated to the extent of their loss. The FSC can take on responsibility for payment or employ an outside payment agency." The assets of fraudsters, such as homes and cars, can also be annexed for repayment, and the FSC can, through the court, block the sale or disposal of such assets. Prior to the amended law, the FSC was "100 per cent reliant" on the Director of Public Prosecutions to take action against "bad actors", said presenters at the FSC forum, but now the financial watchdog is said to have a range of civil actions it can pursue. The FSC said that at the height of the operation of unregulated financial schemes, many of the operators claimed that they were investment clubs, and as such, clamored for special treatment under the law. With limited legal recourse, the FSC opted to publish the names of the unregistered entities and intermittently issued warnings to the public, most of whom were unsophisticated, small investors with limited knowledge of finance, that they participating in the schemes at their own risk. That loophole is now effectively closed, the regulator said. The law now bars clubs and club members from soliciting funds from the public at large, while pending regulations will place a maximum limit on annual contribution by members, according to Andrea Lewis-Jones, the FSC's senior analyst for investment management. Investment clubs which seek exemption under the Securities Act can have no more than 20 members who are all making equal contributions -- none more than the other -- at intervals. The club will be prevented from having salaried managers and must give to all members equal participation and voting rights. Those who travel on the investment club's business or engage in other activities which incur an expense, can recoup these costs, but may not be paid for their efforts. Mr. Crossley also said persons who participate in Ponzi schemes, as well as those who manage the schemes, are liable for fines and imprisonment. "Persons who knowingly or recklessly participate can be prosecuted. Persons who encourage others to participate commit an offence as well," he said, adding that fines for the offences range up to $10 million, and prison terms up to 10 years. ********* 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. Ma. Cristina Canson, 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 * * *