/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140619.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, June 19, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 121 Headlines 374 FOOD: Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Wages Pursuant to FLSA AIRGAS INC: Faces Suit Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations AMERICAN VALET: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages AMR CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Pilot Seniority BAE SYSTEMS: Sex-Discrimination Suit Can Proceed as Class Action BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unfair Overdraft Assessment Procedure BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Alleged Manipulating Gold Prices BEBE STORES: Inks MoU to Settle Lawsuit by Former Employee BEBE STORES: Sued in Calif. Court Over Alleged TCPA Violations BIG LOTS: Recalls Ottomans Due to Fall Hazard BOB'S RED: Falsely Advertised Products as All Natural, Suit Says CAFEPRESS INC: Faces Lawsuits in Cal. by Share Purchasers in IPO CATERPILLAR INC: Settles Product Liability Suit with Bender CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Aug. 14 Hearing for Stock Suit Settlement CHENIERE ENERGY: Stockholders File Class Action Over Stock Awards CITIZENS OF HUMANITY: Sued for Mislabeling "Made in USA" Apparel CONAIR CORPORATION: Sued for Not Disclosing Styling Iron Dangers CORIZON HEALTH: Did Not Pay Nurses Proper Overtime, Suit Claims COST PLUS: Recalls Glass Bubble Knobs Due to Laceration Hazard CRED-X DEBT: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation DYNCORP: Court Remands Claims in "Arias" Anti-Drug Herbicide Suit E-TELEQUOTE INSURANCE: Removed "Nicholson" Suit to N.D. Illinois EADIE'S CONSTRUCTION: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Teitelbaum" Class Suit in New York EXPRESS SERVICES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation FIRST BAPTIST: Judge Approves $2.45MM Bug Class Action Settlement FOUR OAKS: Motions to Dismiss Suits v. Bank Unit Pending GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Childre" Suit Over Switch Defects GENERAL MOTORS: To Use Bankruptcy as Shield for Crash Claims GENERAL MOTORS: Issues Four More Vehicle Recalls GENERAL MOTORS: Fires 15 Employees Amid Recall Crisis GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: West Virginia Gets $22MM in Drug Settlement GROWLIFE INC: Faces "Romero" Shareholder Lawsuit in Calif. Court HITACHI KOKI: Recalls Pneumatic Nailers Due to Injury Hazards HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: "El-Hallani" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice HYUNDAI MOTOR: Consumer Advocates Want Court to Reject MPG Accord INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Fenyes Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT JAG INDUSTRIAL: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Westbrook" Suit Claims JAG SPECIALTY: Accused of False Claims on All Natural Breadsticks JAMES LATHAM PETERS: Judge Inks $13.75MM Hepatitis C Settlement JEFFERSON BANCSHARES: Seeks to Dismiss Tenn. Suit Over Merger JCG INDUSTRIES: 7th Cir. Won't Rehear Workers' Class Action KAISER PERMANENTE: "Kelly" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in "Benton" KEFI LLC: Sept. 12 Fairness Hearing on Lizondro-Garcia Suit Deal LATEEF INC: Jafari Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls Bunk Beds with Bookcases MANAGED FUTURES: Bid to Appeal "Ge Dandong" Cert. Denied MATHEWS ARCHERY: Recalls Crossbows Due to Injury Hazard MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Vega" Suit for Failing to Pay OT Hours MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act MIRKA ABRASIVES: Recalls Orbital Sanders Due to Fire Hazard MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Stock Suit NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Noe" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says NEW CENTURY TRANS: Fails to Provide WARN Act Notices, Suit Says NTS INC: Has MoU to Settle Merger Suit in Nevada Court NTS INC: Awaits Court Approval for Accord in Suit v. 012 Telecom OAKLAND RAIDERS: Two More Cheerleaders File Class Action OVASCIENCE INC: Faces "Ratner" Suit Over Securities Law Violation PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Consumer Suit Over Product Charge Now Closed PHIL&TEDS: Recalls Infant Car Seat Adaptors Due to Fall Hazard POKERTEK INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in N.C. Over Merger Deal PONGAL INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages REGIONS BANK: 11th Cir. Affirms Lower Ruling in "Pereira" Suit S & R DELI: Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages SAKUMA BROTHERS: Settles Workers' Suit for $500,000 SCOTT USA: Recalls Speedster Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard SKYLIGHT DINER: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Court Approves $2.2MM Securities Suit Settlement SNOWSHOE MOUNTAIN: Court Ruling in "Anania" Suit Affirmed SPENDSMART PAYMENTS: SMS Masterminds Faces TCPA Suit in N.Y. STATE FARM: Bridgeview Health Obtains Partial Summary Judgment SUMMIT FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over RCAP Merger TELEXFREE LLC: Faces $5BB Class Suit Over Alleged Pyramid Scheme TENDER TOUCH: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Mollinedo" Suit Says TRAVEL CENTERS: Sued for Denying Proper Minimum Wage Compensation UNION SAVINGS: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT VAN RU CREDIT: Makes Unsolicited Phone Calls, "Hill" Suit Claims VARGAS & RODRIGUEZ: Sued for Failing to Pay OT & Minimum Wages VENOCO INC: Expects 2015 Trial in Suit Over "Marquez Proposal" WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls Boilers Due to Risk of Fire, Explosion WILHELMINA INT'L: Judge Tells N.Y. AG of Shanklin Lawsuit ********* 374 FOOD: Suit Seeks to Reclaim Unpaid Wages Pursuant to FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Cosme-Duran, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. 374 Food, Inc., d/b/a Tribeca Bagels; and Tiran Tsadok; jointly and severally, Case No. 1:14-cv- 04118 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, misused tips, and other relief under Fair Labor Standards Act. 374 Food, Inc., is a restaurant doing business as Tribeca Bagels and located at 374 Canal Street, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon David Sherr, Esq. Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER 277 Broadway, Suite 408, New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com Jazeller@zellerlegal.com AIRGAS INC: Faces Suit Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Neil C. Scott, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Airgas, Inc., a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Pennsylvania, Case No. 3:14-cv-00929-KI (D. Or., June 9, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Baxter, Esq. BAXTER & BAXTER, LLP 8835 S.W. Canyon Lane, Suite 130 Portland, OR 97225-3429 Telephone: (503) 297-9031 Facsimile: (503) 291-9172 E-mail: justin@baxterlaw.com AMERICAN VALET: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Agustin Echavarria, David Diaz Mendoza, Yeinson Torres, Luis Rivera, Carlos Higueras, Isabel Villamil, Reynaldo Ramirez, William Lopez, Alexandria Garcia, and Manuel Pimentel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. American Valet Parking Management, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Florida Valet Parking Services, Statewide Valet Parking Services, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Florida Valet Parking Services, National Parking Management, Inc., d/b/a Florida Valet Parking Services, Diamond Valet Parking, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Florida Valet Parking, Valet One Parking, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Florida Valet Parking, Valet Parking Professionals, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Florida Valet Parking, Park U.S. Management, Inc., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Florida Valet Parking, and John Bellinato, Jr., individually, Case No. 9:14-cv-80770-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs seek to recover from the Defendants unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as for declaratory and injunctive relief, under the provisions of the FLSA. The Corporate Defendants are Florida corporations, doing business in Florida under the fictitious names "Florida Valet Parking" or "Florida Valet Parking Services." The Corporate Defendants shared services of employees, and interchanged employees, acted in the direct interests of each other towards a collective interest, and exercised common control over their employees. John Bellinato, Jr., owned, managed or operated the Corporate Defendants. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. BENNARDO LEVINE LLP 1860 NW Boca Raton Blvd. Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 392-8074 Facsimile: (561) 368-6478 E-mail: drlevine@bennardolevine.com AMR CORP: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Pilot Seniority -------------------------------------------------------- Maria Chutchian, writing for Law360, reports that the judge who oversaw AMR Corp.'s bankruptcy threw out a class action on June 3 accusing the airline and the Allied Pilots Association of discriminating against former Trans World Airlines Inc. pilots by refusing to consider reinstating seniority they lost 13 years ago. The lawsuit stems from American Airlines Inc.'s acquisition of TWA in 2001, which caused the TWA pilots to lose their seniority as they were integrated into the combined workforce. Those pilots were compensated with "special job opportunities" at American's St. Louis hub, but that location was later shut down during AMR's bankruptcy. An arbitrator was appointed to handle the matter, but the APA and American agreed that relief would not incorporate the ex-TWA pilots' seniority that was lost in 2001. The pilots sued, arguing that by barring any remedy related to their loss of seniority, the union violated its duty of fair representation. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane said in a written opinion that the pilots failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and failed to proffer any facts supporting their contentions that the airline and APA took actions that harmed the plaintiffs. "Aside from the plaintiffs' conclusory statements about the APA's acts being discriminatory, therefore, the complaint lacks factual allegations sufficient to state a claim as to why the APA's position was unrelated to legitimate union objectives or so far outside the range of reasonableness as to be irrational," the judge said in his decision. The named plaintiffs who brought the action -- John Krakowski, Kevin Horner and M. Alicia Sikes -- argued that the only reasonable relief would be to amend their seniority within the American ranks. But the judge disagreed, noting that reopening the seniority list would affect all American pilots whose interests the APA must also represent. He also concluded that the APA and American's actions in removing the seniority matter from arbitration is not the same as taking away the ex-TWA pilots' seniority -- that was lost back in 2001. "The plaintiffs have not alleged anything that would allow the court to infer that the APA intended to unlawfully discriminate against the legacy TWA pilots or that the APA made this decision without some legitimate union objective," he said. The airline and APA have moved to dismiss a separate adversary proceeding brought by the same named plaintiffs in bankruptcy court, which was set to be considered by Judge Lane at a hearing in his Manhattan courtroom on June 5. The APA argues in that case that the claims must be dismissed because the airline is operating in conjunction with the provisions regarding pilot seniority that were negotiated in a collective bargaining agreement and that the named plaintiffs cannot prove that they have suffered any harm from the alleged activity. American's merger with US Airways Group Inc. became effective in December, though the airline said at the time that it will take 18 to 24 months to fully integrate operations. Through the merger, AMR shareholders received 72 percent of the new entity's equity and US Airways' shareholders received 28 percent. Existing AMR shareholders received 3.5 percent ownership stake in the new company. The merger garnered the support of AMR's creditors, senior secured lenders and labor unions. The APA is represented by Edgar N. James -- ejames@jamhoff.com -- Steven K. Hoffman -- skhoffman@jamhoff.com -- and Darin M. Dalma -- dmdalmat@jamhoff.com -- of James & Hoffman PC and Filiberto Agusti -- fagusti@steptoe.com -- and Joshua R. Taylor -- jrtaylor@steptoe.com -- of Steptoe & Johnson LLP. American is represented by Harvey R. Miller -- harvey.miller@weil.com -- Stephen Karotkin -- stephen.karotkin@weil.com -- Alfredo R. Perez -- alfredo.perez@weil.com -- and Lawrence Baer -- lawrence.baer@weil.com -- of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP and Neal D. Mollen -- nealmollen@paulhastings.com -- Todd C. Duffield and Jennifer S. Baldocchi -- jenniferbaldocchi@paulhastings.com -- of Paul Hastings LLP. The named plaintiffs are represented by Allen P. Press and Bradley P. Schneider of Green Jacobson PC. The adversary proceeding is Krakowski et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al., case number 13-01283, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The bankruptcy case is In re: AMR Corp., case number 1:11-bk-15463 in the same court. BAE SYSTEMS: Sex-Discrimination Suit Can Proceed as Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert McCabe, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reports that a federal judge ruled that a sex-discrimination lawsuit filed last year against BAE Systems Norfolk Ship Repair Inc. can move forward as a class-action suit. An order signed by U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen, filed on June 10, denied a motion by BAE that disputed the plaintiffs' ability to bring the suit forward on a class basis, potentially including more than 100 women who are or were employees at BAE's Norfolk yard. The liability period is still in dispute. The judge also denied a partial motion to dismiss that argued that some of the incidents discussed in the suit had been "resolved or were not brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a timely manner." "We believe that the decision demonstrates that the Civil Rights Act is not a dead letter and that class actions are still needed to enforce it," said Jennifer Reisch, the plaintiffs' co-counsel. BAE Systems, in an email, said that as a matter of policy, it does not comment on active litigation. "However, we value our employees and are committed to treating each and every one fairly and with respect and the company is dedicated to ensuring an inclusive and diverse workplace." The case began with the July 29, 2013, filing of a complaint in Norfolk federal court by nine women, eight of them still employed at BAE's Norfolk shipyard. An amended lawsuit was filed on Dec. 17 by four of the original nine plaintiffs, "to clarify the nature of the class claims and class definition," among other things. The suit alleges that the company sexually discriminated against them by denying them equal pay and allowing a hostile work environment. BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Unfair Overdraft Assessment Procedure ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sherry L. Bodnar, on Behalf of herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Bank of America, N.A., Case No. 5:14-cv-03224 (E.D. Pa., June 6, 2014), arises from the alleged unfair and unconscionable assessment of overdraft fees or insufficient funds fees on transactions for which there are sufficient available funds in customers' accounts at the time the transactions are authorized and approved by the Bank. Though customers' accounts have sufficient available funds to cover the transactions, the Bank assesses overdraft fees through the implementation of a policy and procedure by which an overdraft fee determination is made not only at the time the transaction is authorized and approved, but also when the transaction "settles" and posts to customers' accounts. Bank of America is a national bank with its headquarters and principal place of business located in Charlotte, NC. The Plaintiff is represented by: James C. Shah, Esq. SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLC 35 East State St., Media, PA 19063 Telephone: (610) 891-9880 E-mail: jshah@sfmslaw.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Alleged Manipulating Gold Prices --------------------------------------------------------------- Nando, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, Barclays Bank Plc, Deutsche Bank AG, HSBC Holdings Plc, and Societe Generale, Case No. 1:14-cv-04095 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act by combining, conspiring, or agreeing with one another to restrain trade through collusively manipulating prices of gold. Bank of Nova Scotia, doing business as Scotiabank, is a Canadian public company with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It is licensed by the New York Department of Financial Services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Anne T. Regan, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South, 8th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com anne.regan@zimmreed.com BEBE STORES: Inks MoU to Settle Lawsuit by Former Employee ---------------------------------------------------------- The parties in a suit filed by a former employee of bebe Stores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the case, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 5, 2014. A former employee sued the Company in a complaint filed July 27, 2006 in the Superior Court of California, San Mateo County (Case No. CIV 456550) alleging a failure to pay all wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide meal periods, violation of Labor Code Section450, violation of Labor Code Section2802 and California Code of Regulations Section11040(9)(A), statutory wage violations (late payment of wages), unlawful business practices under Business and Professions Code Section16720 and Section17200, conversion of wages and violation of Civil Code Section52.1. The plaintiff purports to bring the action also on behalf of current and former California bebe employees who are similarly situated. The company reported on this case in previous quarterly and yearly reports. On or about March 16, 2014, the parties entered a memorandum of understanding ("MOU") wherein a proposed settlement of the case was reached, which is consistent with the amount previously accrued. The parties are now pursuing the various required steps associated with effectuating a class action settlement/resolution, which will include court approval among other things. BEBE STORES: Sued in Calif. Court Over Alleged TCPA Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Bebe Stores Inc. is facing customer lawsuits alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended April 5, 2014. A customer named the Company in a complaint filed January 16, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Civil Action No. C14-267 DMR) alleging negligent violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sections et seq.), knowing and/or willful violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sections 227 et seq.) and violations of California's unfair competition law (California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200, et seq.) for failure to obtain consent prior to sending text messages. The plaintiff purports to bring the action also on behalf of all others similarly situated. The lawsuit seeks statutory and injunctive relief. The Company was served with the lawsuit on January 31, 2014. The Company is investigating the allegations and preparing a response. On April 29, 2014, another customer filed a complaint against the Company alleging similar claims to the previously mentioned case, also purportedly on behalf of all others similarly situation. The Company has yet to be served this second complaint. BIG LOTS: Recalls Ottomans Due to Fall Hazard --------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Big Lots, of Columbus, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about 14,000 Wilson and Fisher brand Cayman Resin Wicker Ottoman. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The center of the ottoman can collapse during normal use, posing a fall hazard to consumers. Big Lots has received 19 reports of consumers falling through the centers of ottomans. Six reported minor injuries such as back strain, scratches, bruises or contusions. The Wilson and Fisher brand ottomans are dark brown resin wicker with cream colored cushions. They are part of a six-piece Cayman Resin Wicker seating set consisting of two ottomans, two chairs, a sofa and a table. The recalled sets will have item number DA13- 015-6S-2CO and SKU 810140754, which can be found in the instructions that accompany the sets. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/mHm7cp The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold exclusively at Big Lots stores nationwide from February 2014 through March 2014 for about $320 per set. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ottomans and return them to any Big Lots store for a $50 refund each. Customers will be allowed to keep the remaining pieces in the sets. BOB'S RED: Falsely Advertised Products as All Natural, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Troy M. Sturdivant, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc., an Oregon corporation, Case No. 9:14-cv-80765-WJZ (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2014) alleges that the Company has unlawfully, fraudulently, negligently, unfairly, misleadingly, and deceptively represented that at least six varieties of its Bob's Red Mill Mixes food products advertised as being "All Natural," despite containing unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and genetically modified ingredients. Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, Inc., is an Oregon corporation headquartered in Portland, Oregon. The Company manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells the Products as being "All Natural" on the front packaging of the Products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 1920 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 1 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 634-4355 Facsimile: (954) 634-4342 E-mail: JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com - and - Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. 1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (800) 436-6437 Facsimile: (415) 692-6607 E-mail: howardr@pdq.net CAFEPRESS INC: Faces Lawsuits in Cal. by Share Purchasers in IPO ---------------------------------------------------------------- CafePress Inc. is facing lawsuits filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of shares issued in the company's initial public offering, CafePress disclosed on its May 15, 2014, Form 10- Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On July 10, 2013, a complaint captioned Desmarais v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-522744 was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo naming as defendants the Company, certain of the company's directors, the company's chief executive officer, the company's former chief financial officer and certain underwriters of the company's IPO. The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that the registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or misleading statements. The complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On July 14, 2013 a similar compliant making substantially identical allegations and captioned Jinnah v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV- 522976 was filed in the same court against the same defendants. CATERPILLAR INC: Settles Product Liability Suit with Bender ----------------------------------------------------------- Marinelog reports that Mobile, AL, headquartered law firm Cunningham Bounds, LLC says that, a week before the start of a scheduled three week jury trial, the law firm of obtained a $46,000,000 settlement for its clients, Bender Shipbuilding and Repair Company, Inc. and an international ship operator, in a product liability lawsuit filed against Caterpillar, Inc. relating to an explosion and fire onboard a vessel that was under construction at the time. Though a press release from the law firm refers to this vessel as the M/V Sherman, readers with a longish memory will recall that it was actually the Seacor Sherman, one of a series of six anchor handling towing supply vessels ordered from Bender by Seacor Marine LLC in October 2005. The law firm says that the contract price for the vessel was almost $27 million. Bender Shipbuilding is the former owner of what is now Signal International's Mobile shipyard. On May 14, 2008, while the vessel was still under construction, says the law firm, one of its 3516B Caterpillar marine engines threw a rod during routine testing, causing a massive fire that burned the ship to its hull. Everyone who was on the ship at the time of the explosion was safely evacuated. In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs alleged that the Caterpillar engine installed on the M/V Sherman was defective at the time of its original manufacture and delivery. The engine that failed weighed 17,000 pounds, had thousands of parts, was the size of a commercial truck, and was severely damaged in the fuel fed fire that burned for almost 24 hours. Discovery in the lawsuit revealed that the engine failure was caused by a missing oil plug. The missing plug was the size of a nickel, and had been left out of the crankshaft in the innermost part of the engine when it was manufactured. The missing oil plug starved part of the engine of oil, which led to the engine's catastrophic failure. "This was a hard fought case with highly regarded and very capable defense firms from New Orleans, Mobile, and Birmingham. The litigation took place in four courts, involved 40 depositions, required the testimony of over a dozen retained experts, and lasted for almost four years. It is a credit to the hard work, persistence and professionalism of our entire team that we were able to find the missing proverbial needle in the haystack, and crack this case wide open," said Skip Finkbohner of Cunningham Bounds. The law firm says that "a resolution of this magnitude would not have been possible without the early efforts of Cunningham Bounds attorneys Steve Olen and Steve Nicholas, who handled the initial proceedings in the federal district and bankruptcy courts. Specifically, they fought and won critical battles over the appropriate forum for the litigation and which laws should apply. George W. "Skip" Finkbohner -- gwf@cunninghambounds.com -- of Cunningham Bounds, LLC, along with his law partner, Lucy E. Tufts -- let@cunninghambounds.com -- served as co-lead counsel for the Plaintiffs. Also representing the Plaintiffs were Victor T. Hudson -- tom@alabamatrial.com -- and William W. Watts -- bill@alabamatrial.com -- of Pipes Hudson & Watts, LLP. CHANTICLEER HOLDINGS: Aug. 14 Hearing for Stock Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The final hearing for a settlement reached in a securities suit filed against Chanticleer Holdings, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida is set for August 14, 2014, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On October 12, 2012, Francis Howard ("Howard"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit against the Company, Michael D. Pruitt, Eric S. Lederer, Michael Carroll, Paul I. Moskowitz, Keith Johnson (the "Individual Defendants"), Merriman Capital, Inc., Dawson James Securities, Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants"), and Creason & Associates P.L.L.C. ("Creason"), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The class action lawsuit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against all Defendants, violations of Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against only the Underwriter Defendants, and violations of Section 15 against the Individual Defendants. Howard seeks unspecified damages, reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this action, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. On October 31, 2012, the Company and the Individual Defendants retained Stanley Wakshlag at Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. to represent them in this litigation. On December 12, 2012, Howard filed a Motion to Appoint himself lead Plaintiff and to approve his selection of The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as his counsel. An Order appointing Francis Howard and the Rosen Law Firm as lead Plaintiff and lead Plaintiff's counsel was entered on January 4, 2013. On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging similar claims to those previously asserted. On May 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice of Defendants Dawson James Securities, Inc. and Merriman Capital, Inc. On September 17, 2013, Judge Cohn denied the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and ordered that Defendants file Answers to Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint by October 8, 2013, and that the trial be set for the two-week period commencing May 12, 2014. The Company and Individual Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint on October 7, 2013. A Scheduling Order was entered on October 8, 2013 after a Scheduling Conference was held, whereby a timeframe was set for Disclosures, Mediation, Joinder of Parties and Amendment of Pleadings, Discovery, and Pre- Trial Motions. The parties have made initial disclosures, and document requests and interrogatories have been served. On December 18, 2013, the parties filed a Joint Status Report Relating to Mediation, whereby the parties disclosed details of a class-wide settlement of this action. The parties have agreed on a total settlement amount of $850,000, with $837,500 to be paid by the Company's insurance carrier and $12,500 to be paid by Creason, subject to court approval. All parties have executed a definitive settlement agreement consistent with terms previously disclosed, which was filed with the court on March 31, 2014, along with a request seeking preliminary approval of the settlement. Preliminary approval was received from the court on April 23, 2014. The final hearing is set for August 14, 2014. The amount of $837,500 was paid by the Company's insurance carrier into an escrow account. CHENIERE ENERGY: Stockholders File Class Action Over Stock Awards ----------------------------------------------------------------- Olivia Pulsinelli, writing for Houston Business Journal, reports that stockholders of Cheniere Energy Inc. filed a class action complaint against the Houston-based company and many of its top executives over certain stock awards, according to a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint alleges that a Feb. 1, 2013, stockholder vote to nearly triple the 2011 incentive plan was improperly counted. The complaint claims there were about 77.01 million votes for increasing the plan, 57.9 million against and 36.25 million abstentions. It alleges that abstentions were not counted as part of the overall vote, and if they had been, the increase would not have passed. It claims abstentions should have been counted as "no" votes per Cheniere's bylaws and the laws of Delaware, where Cheniere is incorporated. Cheniere declined to comment to the Houston Business Journal regarding the complaint. Although Cheniere Chairman, CEO and President Charif Souki recently made national headlines as the highest-paid executive in the U.S., the vast majority of his total compensation came from stock awards -- $132.93 million of $141.95 million in 2013. The complaint seeks to "recover 25 million shares of Cheniere stock that were improperly awarded to Cheniere's employees, consultants and directors." "While these awards were excessive when made, this Complaint does not allege that they were wasteful simply because they were extraordinary and, in large part, unprecedented," the suit states. "Instead, this Complaint alleges that most of these awards should never have been granted because the majority of Cheniere's stockholders did not approve the increases to the 2011 Plan share reserve that supposedly support them." In light of the complaint, Cheniere has postponed its annual meeting of stockholders from June 12 to Sept. 11, according to a June 2 SEC filing. The complaint had requested to expedite proceedings before the June 12 meeting, Cheniere said in the filing. Cheniere was the first company to obtain all federal approvals to export LNG to non-free trade agreement countries. CITIZENS OF HUMANITY: Sued for Mislabeling "Made in USA" Apparel ---------------------------------------------------------------- Louise Clark, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Citizens of Humanity, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Macy's, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-01404-JLS-WVG (S.D. Cal., June 9, 2014) is brought on behalf of all purchasers of "Made in the U.S.A." labeled apparel products manufactured, distributed, marketed and sold by the Defendants in California. The Defendants sold the unlawfully labeled COH apparel products with the false designation and representation that the COH apparel was "Made in the U.S.A.," the Plaintiff alleges. Citizens of Humanity, LLC, is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and a leading designer and manufacturer of denim jean products. Macy's, Inc., is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Macy's is a high-end fashion retailer that offers apparel, shoes, cosmetics and accessories for women, men and children in the United States of America. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown. The Plaintiff is represented by: John H. Donboli, Esq. JL Sean Slattery, Esq. DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP 12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 793-6244 Facsimile: (858) 793-6005 E-mail: jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com sslattery@delmarlawgroup.com CONAIR CORPORATION: Sued for Not Disclosing Styling Iron Dangers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Delia Wilson, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Conair Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-04380 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant to obtain redress of and to require defendant to properly inform consumers of the potential dangers associated with using Styling Irons. Conair Corporation manufactures, distributes, and markets Conair Curling Irons, Conair Straightening Irons, and Conair Curling Brushes -- "Styling Irons" -- which are hand-held, hair styling tools that use high-heat thermal conduction to create waves, curls, or straighten hair. The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. ODENBREIT LAW APC 16835 Algonquin Street Suite 221, Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (888) 490-3510 E-mail: kodenbreit@kjolaw.com - and - Leslie Hurst, Esq. Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq. Timothy G. Blood, Esq. BLOOD HURST AND O'REARDON LLP 701 B Street Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: lhurst@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com tblood@bholaw.com CORIZON HEALTH: Did Not Pay Nurses Proper Overtime, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Mangus, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Corizon Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation, f/k/a Correctional Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a Correctional Medical Services, Case No. 8:14-cv-01358-EAK-EAJ (M.D. Fla., June 9, 2014) alleges that during the course of their employment with the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Class members regularly worked over 40 hours in each workweek but were not compensated at one and one half time their regular rates of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Ms. Mangus worked for the Defendant as an hourly paid, non-exempt licensed practical nurse from March 2012 to October 2012. Corizon Health, Inc., formerly known as Correctional Medical Services, Inc., and doing business as Correctional Medical Services, is a Delaware corporation that provides healthcare services at over 400 correctional facilities nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Susan H. Stern, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA 1515 S Federal Hwy., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com sstern@shavitzlaw.com COST PLUS: Recalls Glass Bubble Knobs Due to Laceration Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Cost Plus Management Services Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 251,400 Glass Bubble Knobs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The knobs can break and expose sharp pieces of glass, posing a risk of laceration to the consumer. The firm has received five reports of broken knobs resulting in five reports of hand and/or finger lacerations. The recall involves glass bubble knobs used on cabinet doors and drawers. The knobs were sold in two sizes and six colors including: blue, amethyst, pink, green, smoke and clear. The larger knobs are about 1.25 inches in diameter. The smaller knobs are about .75 inches in diameter. The glass knobs are attached to bronze-colored hardware. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/SiTgWt The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold exclusively at Cost Plus World Market and World Market stores nationwide from October 2010 to April 2014 for between $2 and $4. Consumers should immediately stop using the glass knobs and return them to any Cost Plus World Market or World Market store for a full refund. CRED-X DEBT: Faces Suit Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Heeley, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Cred-X Debt Recovery, LLC, and National Credit Adjusters, LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-01065-JAR (E.D. Mo., June 9, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: James W. Eason, Esq. EASON LAW FIRM 124 Gay Ave., Suite 200 Clayton, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 932-1066 Facsimile: (314) 667-3161 E-mail: james.w.eason@gmail.com DYNCORP: Court Remands Claims in "Arias" Anti-Drug Herbicide Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In VENANCIO AGUASANTA ARIAS, HUSBAND, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF, AS GUARDIAN OF HIS FOUR MINOR CHILDREN, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, ET AL., Appellants, v. DYNCORP, ET AL., Appellees, NO. 13-7044, CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. 13-7045, Appellants are a group of Ecuadorian provinces and individual farmers who alleged that they were injured by an anti-drug herbicide spraying operation in Colombia, conducted by an American company. In a series of rulings, the district judge dismissed all claims. Some of those are appealed. The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, on May 30, 2014, issued an opinion remanding for consideration the individual plaintiffs' claims for battery, nuisance, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In all other respects, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. The Appeals Court held that the Plaintiffs' claims for battery, nuisance, and intentional infliction of emotional distress stand on different footing; none of those claims requires proof of physical harm, and it sees no reason why expert testimony should be necessary to prove these claims. Accordingly, the Appeals Court concluded that the district court erred in dismissing these claims -- at least on the basis of a failure to produce expert testimony. A copy of the Appeals Court's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/eJb0tXfrom Leagle.com. Christian Levesque -- clevesque@conradscherer.com -- argued the cause for appellants. With her on the briefs were Terrence Collingsworth -- tc@conradscherer.com -- and Eric Hager -- ehager@conradscherer.com Eric G. Lasker -- elasker@hollingsworthllp.com -- argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Joe G. Hollingsworth -- jhollingsworth@hollingsworthllp.com -- and Rosemary Stewart -- rstewart@hollingsworthllp.com E-TELEQUOTE INSURANCE: Removed "Nicholson" Suit to N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Nicholson, et al. v. e-TeleQuote Insurance, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CH-07617, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04269 to the proceeding. The Defendants are represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. David Mitchell Poell, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 70 W. Madison Street, 48th floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 499-6300 Facsimile: (312) 499-6301 E-mail: dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com DPoell@sheppardmullin.com EADIE'S CONSTRUCTION: Accused of Not Paying Proper Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin L. Allard, On Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Eadie's Construction Company Inc., Eadie's Industrial Inc., and Keith Eadie, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-02236-DCN (D.S.C., June 9, 2014) alleges that despite working over 40 hours per workweek, the Plaintiff regularly did not receive overtime compensation in the amount of at least one and a half times his regular hourly rate. Eadie Industrial Inc. and Eadie Construction Company Inc. are South Carolina for-profit corporations. Keith Eadie is the owner and manager of the Corporate Defendants. The Defendants specialize in industrial and municipal drain & vacuum work. They offer vacuum services, hydro blasting, ditch renovations, hydro- excavation, water blasting, installation of underground utilities, and video inspection along with other site work. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW, LLC 321 Wingo Way Suite 201 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (800) 385-8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Teitelbaum" Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------ Joel Teitelbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-03626 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. EXPRESS SERVICES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Flores, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Express Services, Inc. d/b/a Express Personnel Services, Case No. 2:14-cv-03298 (E.D. Pa., June 9, 2014) alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Searles, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. Land Title Building, 19th Floor 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com FIRST BAPTIST: Judge Approves $2.45MM Bug Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Pratt, writing for Des Moines Register, reports that a Polk County District Court judge on June 4 approved a $2.45 million class-action settlement against the operators of two downtown Des Moines apartment towers whose low-income and disabled residents endured an infestation of bedbugs. The settlement's approval marked the final chapter of a legal battle for about 225 people who live or once lived at Elsie Mason Manor and Ligutti Tower. Sue Rogers, who was bitten by the bugs, said many people in the class action took pride in knowing they helped change the living conditions for other residents. "We were never in it for the money," Ms. Rogers said. "We just wanted (the bedbugs) out." Polk County District Judge Robert Blink on June 4 approved the settlement between the class-action group and First Baptist Elderly Housing Foundation, First Baptist Housing Foundation and American Baptist Homes of the Midwest. Residents, former residents and some family members of deceased former residents are expected to receive payments within seven to 10 days, said Jeff Lipman, one of the attorneys handling the group's claim. The amounts will range from about $200 to $11,000. Payouts will be determined by a matrix based on the amount of time people lived in the buildings between October 2007 and August 2013. Problems with bedbugs began in 2007. As part of the settlement, the former owners made no admissions related to negligent conduct, but the class maintained its position that they were negligent. With the aid of a team of lawyers, residents used a 2009 state law called the "Private Right of Action" to make their case. The law allows consumers to sue businesses that engage in deceptive practices, unfair practices or misrepresentation, or that fail to disclose material facts. Iowa was the last state in the U.S. to enact such a law. The residents' legal fight has been through a gauntlet of proceedings since 2010. The lawsuit ended up at the Iowa Supreme Court, which had been asked to decertify the class-action status. The court deadlocked, which meant a lower court's ruling allowing the class-action status stood. The case was settled before it went to trial. A group of about 10 residents, including Dusty Donaldson and Sue Rogers, shook hands and expressed relief outside the third-floor courtroom after the hearing. "I think that we accomplished something that we were committed to," said Donaldson, who expects to receive about $7,000. "It's going to help out; I'm only on Social Security." Mr. Donaldson still has scars from the bites he received, he said. David Zwickey, CEO and president of American Baptist Homes of the Midwest and John Bloem, chairman of the First Baptist Elderly Housing Foundation, testified during the hearing that the settlement was fair, reasonable and adequate. They were not asked to discuss how or why the infestation occurred. They primarily talked about the finances of their organizations. After the hearing, Mr. Bloem said that he was pleased that the legal case was done. "We maintained that we were doing right from the start what was recommended," he said. The bedbugs were probably brought to the facilities when tenants moved in, Mr. Bloem said. Developer Frank Levy assumed control of the properties last year and has implemented a strict system for monitoring the pests. The buildings are being renovated. Mr. Lipman, the attorney, said it's likely the settlement will make other landlords act quickly at the first sight of bedbugs. "The message is that if you do not take this problem seriously, then the landlord is going to be held accountable," he said after the hearing. Some of the $2.45 million will be put into a fund to assist legal groups who aid the indigent. Judge Blink also approved $800,000 for attorney fees. FOUR OAKS: Motions to Dismiss Suits v. Bank Unit Pending -------------------------------------------------------- The motions to dismiss three cases over alleged "payday lending" practices by the Four Oaks Bank & Trust Company are awaiting decision, according to Four Oaks Fincorp, Inc.'s May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In October 2013, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in United States district courts across the country against a number of different banks based on the banks' alleged role in "payday lending". Four of these lawsuits, pending in the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of North Carolina, the District of Maryland, and the Southern District of Florida, name the Bank as one of the defendants. The lawsuits allege that, by processing Automated Clearing House transactions indirectly on behalf of "payday lenders," the Bank is illegally participating in an enterprise to collect unlawful debts and is therefore liable to plaintiffs for damages under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The lawsuits also allege a variety of state law claims. The Bank moved to dismiss each of these lawsuits. The Middle District of North Carolina granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The motions to dismiss in the three other cases are awaiting decision. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces "Childre" Suit Over Switch Defects -------------------------------------------------------- Brittany Childre, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Motors, LLC, General Motors Holding, LLC, Delphi Automotive PLC, and Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-01320 (E.D. La., June 6, 2014), egregious and unprecedented failure to disclose and to affirmatively conceal a known defect in General Motors vehicles. General Motors has sold millions of vehicles throughout the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which the vehicle's ignition switch can inadvertently move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position during ordinary driving conditions, resulting in a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy. General Motors, LLC, is a Delaware corporation that designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold Pontiac, Saturn, Chevrolet and other brand automobiles in Louisiana and multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Dugan, II, Esq. DUGAN LAW FIRM One Canal Place 365 Canal St., Suite 1000, New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 648-0180 Facsimile: (504) 648-0181 E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com GENERAL MOTORS: To Use Bankruptcy as Shield for Crash Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that lawyers for a Georgia family that is trying to reopen a wrongful death lawsuit against General Motors say the company is trying to move the case to federal court so it can use bankruptcy as a shield from the claim. The lawyers, Lance Cooper and Jere Beasley, said on June 11 in a statement that GM's court filings run counter to a promise made by GM CEO Mary Barra to fairly compensate families of people killed or those injured in crashes caused by defective ignition switches. GM spokesman Greg Martin called the company's filings procedural. A federal bankruptcy judge in New York ruled in 2009 that the new GM is shielded from claims stemming from cars made before the company emerged from bankruptcy protection. Instead, the claims go against the old GM, which has limited assets. The judge now is being asked to decide if he will allow claims against the new company. Messrs. Cooper and Beasley say moving the case to federal court would allow the company to use the bankruptcy to send claims to the old GM. Ken and Beth Melton sued GM three years ago in Cobb County, Georgia, in the death of their daughter, Brooke Melton, in 2010. The 29-year-old nurse died when her 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt skidded on a county road, hit another car and ended up in a creek. The lawsuit alleged that Brooke Melton, a pediatric nurse, was killed after the Cobalt lost power due to a faulty ignition switch, causing her to lose control of the car. The Meltons settled the case last September, but Messrs. Cooper and Beasley filed a lawsuit in May seeking to set aside the settlement and reopen the case, alleging that GM fraudulently concealed evidence. Research by Mr. Cooper's firm and depositions in the original lawsuit exposed a GM engineer's move to fix the defective switches and conceal his actions. GM ended up recalling 2.6 million older small cars starting in February to fix the switches, which the company says have caused 54 crashes and at least 13 deaths. GM acknowledged that it waited more than 10 years to recall the cars. A report from an outside attorney hired by GM blamed the delay on a dysfunctional corporate structure and misconduct or poor decisions by some employees. The attorney's report also indicates that the Meltons' case was settled for $5 million. The case has brought investigations from Congress and the Justice Department. Also, GM has agreed to pay a $35 million fine to the government's road safety agency. The automaker has hired attorney Kenneth Feinberg to come up with a method of compensating victims. Mr. Feinberg said last week that a compensation plan is weeks away. So far, GM has announced or taken charges of $1.7 billion to cover the cost of the ignition switch and dozens of other recalls. GENERAL MOTORS: Issues Four More Vehicle Recalls ------------------------------------------------ CNN reports that the list of General Motors recalls keeps getting longer. The automaker issued four more recalls on June 6, adding 105,688 vehicles to the more than 15.8 million cars and trucks it has recalled worldwide this year. The new recall affects about 36,000 vehicles including the 2012 Buick Verano, Chevrolet Camaro, Cruze and Sonic, which have a problem that can prevent the airbag from deploying in a crash. The flaw has been linked to one crash where someone suffered an injury. A separate issue that could prevent the passenger airbag from deploying properly affects 87 Chevrolet Sparks from model years 2012 and 2014, as well as Buick Encores from model year 2013. Another airbag issue affects 37 Chevrolet Corvettes from model year 2014. Neither of those problems have been linked to a crash, the company said. The largest, but less serious recall issued on June 6 affects 70,000 vehicles including some Chevrolet Silverado LD and HD models, as well as GMC Sierra LDs, Tahoes, Suburbans and Yukons from model years 2014 and 2015. They have a problem that could disable the audible chime that warns drivers and passengers that a front seat belt is not buckled or that the driver's door is opened while the key is in the ignition. GM is not aware of any crashes or injuries related to the issue. It affects GM will send letters to customers letting them know when they can bring their vehicles into a dealership to be repaired. The new recalls come one day after the company released an internal report examining why it took more than a decade to recall 2.6 million cars for a faulty ignition switch. That problem has been linked to at least 13 deaths. GM CEO Mary Barra announced that 15 employees have been dismissed and five more have been disciplined over the matter. GENERAL MOTORS: Fires 15 Employees Amid Recall Crisis ----------------------------------------------------- Detroit Free Press reports that General Motors CEO Mary Barra says she fired 15 employees "who we determined to have acted inappropriately" and also disciplined five employees for their failure to act in the recall crisis. One of the employees fired is believed to suspended engineer Ray DeGiorgio, following an internal investigation documenting how it failed to respond to an ignition-switch defect that engineers identified more than a decade ago, according to a source familiar with the report. Nearly five months into her tenure, the moment offers GM CEO Mary Barra a chance to convey the automaker's fresh commitment to transparency, safety and quality amid accusations that a heartless bureaucracy allowed a deadly defect to fester. But the investigation -- conducted by Chicago attorney Anton Valukas -- poses significant risks if the lawyer who also probed the collapse of financial giant Lehman Brothers doesn't deliver concrete answers or didn't receive the cooperation GM promised. The report is expected to identify executives who erred, engineers who embraced cost savings over safety improvements and communication failures that turned out to be deadly. "The obvious questions are who in the world approved all of this? How high up did it go? Obviously he's supposed to be looking into that," said Clarence Ditlow, executive director of the Center for Auto Safety. "If he doesn't have answers, then it's not a good report." Ms. Barra will discuss the Valukas report with employees and media at the GM Tech Center in Warren starting at 9:00 a.m. The company will also conduct a conference call for analysts in the afternoon. A GM spokesman declined to provide a preview of the report. Cost concerns Ms. Barra has called for Mr. Valukas to deliver an "unvarnished" report on the ignition-switch defect, which has triggered recalls for more than 2.6 million small cars, mostly from the 2003 through 2007 model years. The defect is tied to at least 42 crashes and 13 known fatalities. The ignition switch could be jostled, either by a driver's knee or by the weight of multiple attachments on a key chain, causing it to slip into accessory mode, cutting off electricity to power steering, air bags and other features. GM engineers discovered the problem no later than 2004, but decided not to order a recall because of the cost. "Timeline will be critical, and who knew what when?" said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond product liability law professor. "How high up in the company was the information available -- especially did Barra have any knowledge? At what time did it become clear to her?" The report is not expected to blame Ms. Barra for the problem or accuse her of hiding it. She has maintained she was notified about the issue in late January when GM safety officials recommended a recall -- and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration investigators found no records to dispute her claim. But other high-level GM executives knew about the problem. For example, former engineering executive Lori Queen was told about the problem in 2005, and former engineering executive Jim Federico became aware of the issue in 2012, according to internal GM documents. Mr. DeGiorgio quietly authorized a fix to the Delphi-manufactured switch in 2006, but testified in a 2013 deposition that he did not remember doing so. Ms. Barra has blamed GM's "cost culture" for deciding the issue wasn't a problem, while others have pointed to the automaker's bureaucracy for preventing officials from communicating effectively about the problem. The role of GM lawyers is also expected to be part of the report. Georgia lawyer Lance Cooper, who discovered evidence of the defect, sued GM, said he's still waiting for answers on the role attorneys played. "What they knew, when they knew it and who they were reporting to, there's really a veil over that," Mr. Cooper said. A flurry of investigations Among the central questions: Is GM simply such a behemoth bureaucracy that engineers, lawyers, safety officials and executives never shared enough information with each other to solve the issue? "Is it conceivable that they were so isolated that this information couldn't get across the various departments -- which I think this is difficult to understand, but I don't know," Mr. Tobias said. GM finally issued a recall in February, but the situation has spawned investigations by the U.S. Justice Department, NHTSA, congressional subcommittees and the Securities and Exchange Commission. GM has turned over more than a million pages of documents to U.S. House investigators alone. "Many unanswered questions remain about why these vehicles were left on the road for years, even though GM knew something was wrong with them," Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada, the ranking Republican on the Senate consumer protection subcommittee, said in a statement. "I am hopeful that this report will fill in the holes about the timeline and explain GM's decision-making processes both in 2005 and in 2008." Mr. Heller added: "I would also like to better understand what discussions were had with NHTSA. Once the report is released, Congress should hold more hearings with representatives from GM, NHTSA and possibly even Delphi in order to make sure that all questions are answered and that this situation never happens again." NHTSA levied its maximum $35-million fine on GM last month for failing to report the defective ignition switches in a timely manner. GM has also hired 9/11 compensation fund head Kenneth Feinberg to consider potential settlements with crash victims and their families. Mr. Feinberg said on June 10 that he's "weeks away" from offering recommendations. GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: West Virginia Gets $22MM in Drug Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that GlaxoSmithKline LLC has agreed to pay West Virginia $22 million to settle a lawsuit alleging it illegally marketed three diabetic drugs. The drug maker didn't admit any liability in the settlement. West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced the settlement on June 12. He says it's one of the largest pharmaceutical settlements in the state's history. The Attorney General's Office filed the lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court. The court must approve the settlement. Mr. Morrisey says $10.6 million from the settlement will go to the West Virginia Public Employees Agency. The state's Medicaid program will receive $3.7 million. About $3 million will go to the attorney general's Consumer Protection Fund. The remaining $4.6 million will be used to pay attorneys' fees and expenses. GROWLIFE INC: Faces "Romero" Shareholder Lawsuit in Calif. Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- GrowLife, Inc. faces a securities lawsuit in the United States District Court or the Central District of California, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On April 18, 2014, a class action lawsuit (the "Complaint") was filed against the Company in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Randy Romero v. Growlife, Inc. et al; Case No.: CV14-03015). The Complaint alleges two claims: (1) Violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act") against the Company and the individual executive officers and board of directors (collectively, the "Board"); and (2) Violation of Section 20(a) of the Act against the members of the Board. On May 2, 2014, the Company was served with the Complaint. The Complaint alleges (among other things) that the Company and the Board published certain documents and filings that were inaccurate and/or inadequate, causing Company securities to be traded at an inflated price. The Complaint further alleges that the Company's and Board's actions caused the members in the class action to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial. The Complaint also claims that members of the Board are in violation of Section 20(a) of the Act due to their position and relationship with the Company and their alleged involvement with the Company's violation of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Act. HITACHI KOKI: Recalls Pneumatic Nailers Due to Injury Hazards ------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Hitachi Koki U.S.A. Ltd., of Norcross, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 25,000 units in the United States and 300 in Canada Hitachi Koki Pneumatic Nailer. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The pneumatic nailers can jam and override the safety switch that permits only one nail to fire at a time, posing an injury risk. Canon has received one report of itching and two reports of eye redness and pain. The recall involves two models of Hitachi Koki 3 1/4 inch strip pneumatic nailers with depth adjustment. Affected model numbers are NR83A2(Y) and NR83A3. Model numbers are located on a label attached to the side of the nailers and on the outside of the box containing the product. The manufacturing date can be identified by the serial number engraved at the end of the handle on the nailer. Model number NR83A2(Y) has serial numbers which start with QD2, QN2 QO2, Q13, Q23, Q33, Q43, Q52, Q53, Q62, Q72, Q82 and Q92. Model number NR83A3 has serial numbers which start with QD3, QN3, QO3, Q14, Q24, Q34, Q63, Q73, Q83 and Q93. Units with a letter "R" decal next to the model number and an engraved "R" near the serial number are not included in this product recall. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/3itP4m The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at independent home improvement and building supply stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com, HomeDepot.com, Lowes.com, Walmart.com and Grainger.com from May 2012 through May 2014 for about $300. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled nailers and contact Hitachi Koki U.S.A. for instructions on how to return the product for a free repair. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL: "El-Hallani" Suit Dismissed With Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Gerald E. Rosen dismissed with prejudice a second amended complaint in the case captioned ALI EL-HALLANI, et al, Plaintiffs, v. HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK, Defendant, NO. 13-CV- 12983, (E.D. Mich.). Undeterred by the Court's prior identification of all of the reasons why their First Amended Complaint failed to meet Rule 8(a)'s pleading standard, the Plaintiffs in the case filed a Second Amended Complaint supported only by one new allegation. That one allegation, the results of a last minute survey conducted by Plaintiffs' process server of six individuals departing two of Defendant's branches in metro-Detroit, purports to identify four similarly situated individuals whom Defendant treated differently. Not surprisingly, the Defendant again moved to dismiss. It has also moved for sanctions. Judge Rosen concluded that the Plaintiffs' sole additional evidence does not come close to "nudg[ing] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible." A copy of the May 29, 2014 opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/mRTJR1from Leagle.com. Ali El-Hallani, Plaintiff, represented by: Kassem M. Dakhlallah, Esq. AT LAW GROUP, PLLC 1 Parklane Blvd, Ste 100 Dearborn, MI 48126 Telephone: (313) 406-7606 - and - Nabih H. Ayad, Esq. NABIH H. AYAD & ASSOCIATES 2200 Canton Center Road, Suite 220 Canton, MI 48187 Telephone: (734)983-0500 Mark Manuaeel, Plaintiff, represented by Kassem M. Dakhlallah, At Law Group, PLLC & Nabih H. Ayad, Nabih H. Ayad Assoc.. Huntington National Bank, Defendant, represented by: David E. Plunkett, Esq. Ernest J. Essad, Jr., Esq. May A. Saad, Esq. WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS, RATTNER & PLUNKETT, P.C. 380 North Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 300 Birmingham, MI 48009 Telephone: (248) 642-0333 Facsimile: (248) 642-0856 HYUNDAI MOTOR: Consumer Advocates Want Court to Reject MPG Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- According to Corporate Crime Reporter, a class action settlement negotiated by Hyundai and Kia following the companies' 2012 admission that they low-balled fuel economy numbers for over a dozen 2011-2013 vehicles is structured to prevent consumers from collecting the money they are owed and should be rejected, a group of consumer advocates told a federal court. A 23-page brief identifying problems with the settlement was filed in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on behalf of 13 class members from across the U.S. by their attorneys at Consumer Watchdog and three private law firms -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, Dreyer Babich Buccola Wood & Campora and Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy. The settlement would require eligible customers to follow "illegible" instructions on a postcard in order to obtain a complicated and poorly worded claim form that "will indisputably discourage many Class Members from pursuing their rights under the Proposed Settlement," the filing states. The lawyers supporting the deal "offer no evidence that a claim form is required under the present circumstances" where the companies "have accurate data at their disposal" to automatically issue payments to consumers, the advocates argued in their brief. The advocates state that court approval of the settlement "would erode public confidence in a crucial device for redressing corporate wrongdoing, the class action process." A nearly illegible postcard is the sole manner in which class members will receive direct notice of their rights under the proposed settlement -- virtually guaranteeing that most class members will never exercise their rights, even as they will be held to have released their claims, Consumer Watchdog said. They also argued that the settlement puts forth an "unnecessary and onerous claims process." Class members must comply with a completely unnecessary, confusing and onerous mail and online claims process that will indisputably discourage many class members from pursuing their rights under the proposed settlement, they argued. And they said that under the settlement, Hyundai and Kia are responsible for processing class members' claims against them -- a straightforward conflict of interest that incentivizes errors and improper denials of claims by the very same companies that engaged in the misrepresentations to begin with. And then there is the reversionary settlement -- Hyundai and Kia -- the wrongdoers -- get to keep all the money that consumers do not claim or use. Judge George H. Wu will hold a hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement on June 26, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in federal court in Los Angeles. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Fenyes Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Sandor Fenyes, Jay Roberts and Michael Hopper; Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Innovative Industrial Constructors, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00060 (D.N.D., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Innovative Industrial Constructors, Inc., is a Washington Corporation located at 1501 N. 12th Street, Suite 1, Bismarck, North Dakota 58501-2713. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Lawrence Mintz, Esq. ANDREW L. MINTZ, PLLC One Riverway, Suite 2300, Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 961-8026 E-mail: andrew@almintzlawfirm.com - and - Joseph Y. Ahmad AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS, ANAIPAKOS, ALAVI & MENSING P.C. 1221 McKinney St., Suite 3460, Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 655-1101 E-mail: joeahmad@azalaw.com JAG INDUSTRIAL: Does Not Pay Overtime, "Westbrook" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Lawrence Westbrook, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Jag Industrial Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Douglas Huff, and Tim Jagielski, Case No. 3:14-cv-02080 (N.D. Tex., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs. Jag Industrial Services, Inc., provides skilled labor and quality assurance for marine repair, shipbuilding and a wide range of industrial manufacturing projects. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Leonard Scalise, Esq. ROSS LAW GROUP 1104 San Antonio Street, Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-7677 Facsimile: (512) 474-5306 E-mail: charles@rosslawpc.com JAG SPECIALTY: Accused of False Claims on All Natural Breadsticks ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lukasz Monka as an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jag Specialty Foods, LLC, a New York limited liability company, Case No. 9:14-cv-80764-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 9, 2014) alleges that Jag has unlawfully, fraudulently, negligently, unfairly, misleadingly, and deceptively represented that certain flavor varieties of its breadsticks that come in different sizes are "All Natural," while they include soybean oil and corn syrup, which are unnatural, synthetic, and artificial ingredients. Jag Specialty Foods, LLC, is a New York corporation headquartered in College Point, New York. The Company manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells the Products as being "All Natural" on the front packaging of the Products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. THE EGGNATZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: JEggnatz@EggnatzLaw.com - and - Howard W. Rubinstein, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD W. RUBINSTEIN, P.A. 1615 Forum Place, Suite 4C West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (800) 436-6437 Facsimile: (415) 692-6607 E-mail: howardr@pdq.net JAMES LATHAM PETERS: Judge Inks $13.75MM Hepatitis C Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Russell, writing for The Age, reports that the class action against James Latham Peters is a step closer to settlement. A Supreme Court judge has signed off on the $13.75 million settlement for the women involved in a class action against drug- addicted anaesthetist James Latham Peters for infecting them with hepatitis C. Justice David Beach formally approved the deal on June 5, describing it as "conspicuously fair". The case had been due to go to trial on April 28 before the 62 women agreed to the settlement offer. Final approval was delayed while advertisements were taken out alerting any other victims of their possible right to a share of the settlement money. Justice Beach said the payouts to each woman would vary according to various factors including whether or not a woman had been diagnosed with hepatitis C and what treatment she had received. There are some strains of hepatitis C that do not respond to treatment. The judge said the settlement was complicated, with one woman expecting to receive between $32,000 to $42,000 while another woman would get between $299,000 and $326,000. A small number of women had expressed concerns about the different payouts but the judge considered on balance that they were fair. The court was told only one known victim had yet to join the class action and she had until June 19 to register for a share of the settlement. The women had sued Peters, Croydon Day Surgery, Dr. Mark Schulberg (who hired Peters as an anaesthetist at the clinic and who operated the clinic at the time) and the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) for damages for pain and suffering, economic loss and medical expenses. AHPRA replaced the former Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria, which has responsibility for registering doctors in Victoria. The claim against Peters was eventually dropped when it was revealed he had no assets. The class action covered women who had been infected with hepatitis C during pregnancy terminations at the Croydon Day Surgery between June 2008 and December 2009 when Peters was the anaesthetist. Mr. Peters, 64, was jailed last year for 14 years with a non- parole period of 10 years, after pleading guilty to 55 counts of negligently causing serious injury to the patients by injecting himself with prefilled syringes of fentanyl -- an opioid used in general anaesthesia -- in theatre at Croydon Day Surgery. He then administered the remaining drug to the patients as they underwent pregnancy terminations. Mr. Peters had a history of drug abuse as well as convictions for possessing a drug of dependence and falsifying prescriptions when he infected the women with the potentially deadly blood disease between June 2008 and November 2009. Many of his victims have told of broken relationships, ruined careers and their ever- present fears of passing on the disease to their partners, children and others. They have developed crippling depression, anxiety and stress since learning they had been exposed to the disease and finding out they had been infected. Several have been placed in psychiatric care and many contemplated suicide as a direct result of Peters' actions. JEFFERSON BANCSHARES: Seeks to Dismiss Tenn. Suit Over Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Jefferson Bancshares, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by William P. Cooper III in the Chancery Court of Hamblen County, Tennessee, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On January 31, 2014, a class action complaint, captioned William P. Cooper III v. Jefferson Bancshares, Inc., et al., was filed under Case No. 2014-cv-35 in the Chancery Court of Hamblen County, Tennessee, against the Company, its directors, the Bank, HomeTrust Bancshares, Inc. ("HomeTrust") and HomeTrust Bank challenging the merger of the Company with and into HomeTrust. On April 1, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by agreeing to the proposed merger at an unfair price pursuant to a flawed sales process, by agreeing to terms with HomeTrust that discourages other bidders and by filing an initial Form S-4 registration statement which included a preliminary proxy statement/prospectus that purportedly omits material information. The plaintiff further alleges that the Company's directors and officers were not independent or disinterested with respect to the merger. The plaintiff also alleges that HomeTrust and HomeTrust Bank aided and abetted the Company directors' breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, as well as attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other damages. The Company, its directors, and HomeTrust believe this action is without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. On April 24, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in the Chancery Court of Hamblen County, Tennessee. JCG INDUSTRIES: 7th Cir. Won't Rehear Workers' Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has denied a petition for a rehearing en banc by the plaintiffs in a class action against JCG Industries and Koch Foods alleging they should have been compensated for time spent changing during lunch breaks. Rochelle Mitchell and Audrey Veasley were employed by JCG and Koch as poultry processors in Chicago and were required to clock-in to work 15 minutes prior to the start of their shifts to don the required protective work clothing, according to the May 28 opinion. The plaintiffs were also required to remove the protective clothing before going to lunch, which was 30 minutes and unpaid. They claimed it took 10 to 15 minutes to don and doff their protective clothing, which cut into their meal time. Judges Richard A. Posner, Joel M. Flaum, Frank H. Easterbrook, Michael S. Kanne, Diane S. Sykes and John Daniel Tinder formed the majority. Judges Ann Claire Williams, Diane P. Wood, Ilana Diamond Rovner and David F. Hamilton dissented. "This is an important case with far-reaching implications for, among others, workers who are being paid minimum wage or close to it," the dissenting opinion written by Williams states. "(T)his case should have been heard en banc because the majority opinion calls into question the application of the 'continuous workday' doctrine of the Fair Labor Standards Act, erroneously applies de minimis analysis to the FLSA in contravention of Supreme Court precedent, and improperly applies the summary judgment standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56." "Applying reasoning that I believe contravenes the plain language of both the FLSA and the Department of Labor's definition, the majority finds that the employees of the chicken processing plant work not one eight-hour day, but two four-hour workdays broken up by a thirty-minute lunch break." Under the majority's approach, any time spent doffing clothes during the start of the lunch break is actually at the end of the first four-hour workday, and any time donning clothes at the end of the lunch break is actually at the beginning of the employees' second four-hour workday, and so the donning and doffing during the mid-day lunch break is subject to the collective bargaining agreement, according to the dissenting opinion. "The day can be broken up that way, the majority states, because the employees have an unpaid lunch break and that non-compensable period must act as a break between the first workday and the second workday," the dissenting opinion states. The lawsuit was first filed in Cook Circuit Court on Sept. 27, 2010, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois-Eastern Division on Oct. 25, 2010. The plaintiffs, who worked 8.5-hour shifts that included a 30- minute unpaid meal break, claimed they worked from the time a bell sounded and the production line started until it stopped at the end of the scheduled shift. Instead of requiring employees to swipe in and out for meal breaks, the defendants automatically deducted 30 minutes for meal breaks. The plaintiffs claimed they regularly worked more than 40 hours per week without proper overtime compensation by working before the start of their shifts, through unpaid meal breaks, and after their scheduled shifts. "The Department of Labor's 'general' definition of a continuous workday does not apply here, the majority continues, because this case presents a 'compelling reason to recognize an exception' to the continuous workday doctrine, namely that there are actually two four-hour workdays," the dissenting opinion states. Going forward, district courts, employers and employees are likely to be confused as to when a day is continuous and when it is not, according to the dissenting opinion. "When is a seemingly eight-hour workday actually two four-hour workdays, or four two-hour workdays, or eight one-hour workdays? What makes this case the 'exception' to the 'general' definition, but another case not the 'exception'? This 'exception' is likely to create confusion in both the administration of law . . . and the collective bargaining process." By explicitly rejecting the appellant's affidavit and accepting the employer's time estimation, the majority ignored the evidence in the light most favorable to the employees and therefore did not conduct the proper Rule 56 analysis, according to the dissenting opinion. "In the light most favorable to Appellant, how long it took to don and doff was an issue of fact that should have been decided by a jury." In an opinion that concurred with denial of rehearing, Posner wrote that published opinions dissenting from denials of rehearings en banc are rare, but that published opinions concurring in denials of rehearing en banc like his own are virtually unheard of. "But, this case merits such an opinion in view of assertions and omissions in the opinion dissenting from the denial of re-hearing en banc that relate both to the appropriateness of the case for rehearing by the full court and to the grounds of the panel's decision," he wrote. The panel assigned to this case ruled that the changing time did not have to be compensated, according to Judge Posner, and, the full court has declined by a split vote to hear the case en banc, precipitating the dissenting opinion that is the focus of Judge Posner's discussion. "It should go without saying that mere disagreement with a decision by a panel of the court is not a sufficient ground for re-hearing en banc," Judge Posner's opinion states. "Otherwise every case in which the panel was divided could provoke a petition for re-hearing en banc and a call by the dissenting judge for a vote on whether to re-hear the case en banc." The petition for rehearing is sloppy, according to Judge Posner. "Apart from numerous mistakes . . . the main arguments in the petition were made neither in the district court, nor in this court when the case was briefed and argued to the panel," Judge Posner wrote. "So there is an ambush element. "I am puzzled, finally, by the dissent's remark that 'how long it took to don and doff was an issue of fact that should have been decided by a jury.' My puzzle is: how is such a fact to be determined by a jury? Suppose one worker testifies . . . that it takes 10 to 15 minutes to don and doff, and another . . . testifies it takes 2 minutes. How is a jury to decide between them?" Judge Posner states that the most accurate way to resolve the dispute would be, on the model of the criticized experiment by court staff, to videotape workers doffing and donning. "The problem is that the workers aligned with the plaintiffs would dawdle, and the workers aligned with management would practice doffing and donning until they broke the speed record," he states. "What would the jury do? This is somewhat to the side of the issue of the case, but illustrates the important point that determining facts in a litigation can be devilishly difficult if one thinks accuracy important." U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit case number: 13-2115 KAISER PERMANENTE: "Kelly" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in "Benton" ----------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA KELLEY and WILLIAM PEARSE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KAISER PERMANENTE, an assumed business name of KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF THE NORTHWEST, an Oregon corporation; KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., a California corporation; KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, a California corporation; NORTHWEST PERMANENTE, P.C., an Oregon professional corporation; and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 3:13-CV-02120-BR, (D. Ore.) is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Stay or in the Alternative to Dismiss the First Claim for Relief. The Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint on November 27, 2013, in which they alleged when Defendants tested Plaintiffs for HIV without prior notice, they (1) committed an unfair trade practice in violation of Oregon Revised Statute Section 746.240, (2) violated Oregon Revised Statute Section 433.045, and (3) invaded Plaintiffs' privacy. On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint to amend factual allegations made in Plaintiff's Complaint and to add further allegations to support their claims. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint in which they alleged when Defendants tested Plaintiffs for HIV without prior notice, they (1) violated Oregon Revised Statute Section 433.045 and (2) invaded Plaintiffs' privacy. On March 14, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay or in the Alternative to Dismiss the First Claim for Relief. The Defendants have sought a stay or dismissal of this matter on the ground of the "first-to-file" rule. Specifically, Defendants asserted they are subject to a class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (the Benton action) that was filed before this action and that encompasses members of the class in this action. The Benton Action was filed on October 25, 2013, by three Washington residents against the same Defendants in the matter before the Court alleging the defendants subjected the plaintiffs to HIV testing without their knowledge and consent. In an opinion and order dated May 29, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Cj5JPV from Leagle.com, District Judge Anna J. Brown concluded that the Defendants' Motion to Stay is granted and stayed this matter until Benton v. Kaiser Permanente, No. 13-CV-5998-BHS (W.D. Wash.)(the Benton action) has progressed sufficiently to determine whether this action will have a basis to proceed that does not duplicate the Benton action. The Court denied as moot the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Alternative Motion to Dismiss the First Claim for Relief with leave to renew those Motions if the Benton plaintiffs do not amend their complaint to exclude the proposed class in this matter or if they obtain certification of a class that includes members of the proposed class in this matter. BRADLEY J. MOORE -- brad@stritmatter.com -- R. TRAVIS JAMESON -- travis@stritmatter.com -- Stritmatter Kessler Whelan Coluccio, Seattle, WA, MARK E. GRIFFIN -- mark@markgriffin.com -- Griffin & McCandlish, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. TROY S. BUNDY -- tsb@hartwagner.com -- MATTHEW J. KALMANSON -- mjk@hartwagner.com -- Hart Wagner, LLP, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants. KEFI LLC: Sept. 12 Fairness Hearing on Lizondro-Garcia Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman issued an opinion and order on May 29, 2014, granting preliminary approval of a settlement agreement in the captioned MANUEL LIZONDRO-GARCIA, LUIS CRUZ, JORGE GARCIA, JERALDO GONZALEZ, ALEKSANDER VELIC, JAVIER TOLEDO, OSCAR RAMIREZ, MOISES JIMENEZ, MARCO REAL, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KEFI LLC, doing business as KEFI RESTAURANT and KOSTANTINOS DAMANIOS, Defendants, NO. 12 CIV. 1906 (HBP), (S.D.N.Y.). A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/NIwmirfrom Leagle.com. The Settlement Agreement provides, among other things, that the defendants, without conceding the validity of the plaintiffs' claims and without admitting liability, agree to create a common fund of $315,000 to be paid in two equal installments of $157,500. From the fund, the nine named plaintiffs will each receive $1,000 service awards, a claims administrator will receive an estimated $15,239.11 to set up and distribute monies from the fund and counsel for plaintiffs will receive attorney's fees and costs, subject to the Court's approval, and not to exceed $105,000. The proposed New York Labor Law (NYLL) class is conditionally certified pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Manuel Lizondro-Garcia, Luis Cruz, Jorge Garcia, Jeraldo Gonzalez, Aleksander Velic, Javier Toledo, Oscar Ramirez, Moises Jimenez and Marco Real are appointed class representatives and Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP is appointed class counsel. The Court will hold a fairness hearing on September 12, 2014, at 2:00 p.m., at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 18A, in New York, New York, 10007. Manuel Lizondro-Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum -- maimon@jhllp.com -- Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum -- jnussbaum@jhllp.com -- Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Luis Cruz, on behalf of himseld and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Jorge Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Jeraldo Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Aleksander Velic, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Javier Toledo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Oscar Ramirez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Moises Jimenez, on behalf of himseld and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Marco Real, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Jorge R Becerra, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph -- charles@jhllp.com -- Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Kevin Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Jenna Lee Barron, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Ashley Bostick, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Jose Cabrera, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Victor Paguay, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Marco Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Pablo Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Carlos Ramirez, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Efrain Duenas, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Edward Joseph, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Victor Galindo, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Claudio Serrano, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Paulina Grzechnik, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Dipika Pati, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Elena Pauta, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Victorino Torres, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Joseph, Herzfeld, Hester, & Kirschenbaum & Yosef Nussbaum, Joseph and Kirschenbaum. Kefi LLC, Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman -- EkelmanF@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP & Jason A Zoldessy -- ZoldessJ@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP. Kostantinos Damanios, Defendant, represented by Felice B. Ekelman, Jackson Lewis LLP & Jason A Zoldessy, Jackson Lewis LLP. LATEEF INC: Jafari Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT & Penalties -------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Jafari, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Lateef, Inc., KCFOA Association, ASAD, Inc., Faisal, Inc., Neelam, Inc., Three Star Company, Inc., Qaiser A. Lateef, Kalid Asad, Faisal Asad, Case No. 2:14-cv-02270 (D. Kan., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid straight time and overtime compensation, and related penalties and damages. Lateef, Inc. is a Kansas delinquent corporation located at 8700 W. 95th St, Overland Park, Kansas, 66212. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Hyland, Esq. HYLAND LAW FIRM LLC 7300 W. 110th St., Suite #930, Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 498-1911 Facsimile: (913) 498-1950 E-mail: charlie@hylandkc.com LEA INDUSTRIES: Recalls Bunk Beds with Bookcases ------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Lea Industries, of High Point, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 500 Lea Covington and Hannah Collection Bunk Beds. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The bunk bed can be assembled incorrectly, creating a space that exceeds the 1.88 inches allowed by the industry standard, posing an entrapment hazard to young children. There were no incidents that were reported. The recall involves Lea Covington and Hannah Collections style bunk beds with bookcases. The beds were sold in twin over twin and full over full sizes with accessories including a bookcase. The Covington Collection has a cherry finish and the Hannah Collection, a white finish. The Lea name and model information is printed on a label attached to the backside of the headboard on the bottom bunk and on the back of the bookcase. The Covington Collection The Hannah Collection ------------------------ --------------------- 145-976 twin over twin 147-976 twin over twin 145-986 full over full 147-986 full over full 145-900 bookcase 147-900 bookcase Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/79MWUm The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at Furnitureland South and other furniture stores nationwide and online at Hayneedle.com from September 2011 until March 2014 for about $1,700. Consumers should immediately check to see if they have the recalled bunk beds and then contact Lea Industries to determine if the bed is misassembled. A professional installer can be dispatched to raise the position of the bottom bunk bed and install new brackets on the bookcase. Lea Industries is contacting known customers directly. MANAGED FUTURES: Bid to Appeal "Ge Dandong" Cert. Denied -------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the petition by defendants in Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. to seek permission to appeal the court's decision granting class certification to the case, according to Managed Futures Premier Warrington L.P.'s May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On October 25, 2010, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC (MS&Co.), certain affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose vehicle, were named as defendants in a purported class action related to securities issued by the special purpose vehicle in Singapore, commonly referred to as Pinnacle Notes. The case is styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("SDNY"). An amended complaint was filed on October 22, 2012. The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 22, 2013 and granted class certification on October 17, 2013. On October 30, 2013, defendants filed a petition for permission to appeal the court's decision granting class certification. On January 31, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently from the securities' failure. In addition, the second amended complaint alleges that the securities' offering materials contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the securities' underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of interest between the defendants and the investors. The second amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. On March 25, 2014, the court denied defendants' petition seeking permission to appeal the court's decision granting class certification. Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $138.7 million, rescission, punitive damages, and interest. MATHEWS ARCHERY: Recalls Crossbows Due to Injury Hazard ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Mathews Archery Inc., dba Mission Archery, of Sparta, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of about 9,500 MXB crossbows. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The crossbow can fire an arrow unexpectedly without the trigger being pulled, posing an injury hazard to the user and to bystanders. Mission Archery has received three reports of the crossbow firing unexpectedly. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves Mission Archery crossbows that have the automatic safety located behind the trigger at rear of scope mount, models MXB 320, MXB Dagger, MXB 400 and MXB 360; and serial numbers ranging from XB04879 to XB16555. The crossbows were sold in black, lost camo AT (a three-color camouflage pattern with light brown, dark brown, dark green), white camo and pink camo pattern. The crossbows measure between 29 and 35 inches long and were available individually or as part of a package that included a black scope, quiver, three bolts and a rope cocking aid. Mission by Mathews is engraved on the left rear side of the crossbow's rail. The serial number is located on the underside of the rail directly behind the safety. Mission and the model name are printed on each limb. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/RtQ7hN The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at archery and hunting sporting goods stores nationwide including from May 2013 through April 2014 for between $600 and $1,300. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled crossbows and return them to a Mission Archery authorized dealer for a free repair, or contact Mission Archery for instructions on shipping the product directly to them for a free repair, including shipping. MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Vega" Suit for Failing to Pay OT Hours --------------------------------------------------------------- Leticia Vega, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Maxim Healthcare Services, INC., a Maryland corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv- 04372 (C.D. Cal., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and attorney's fees and costs. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., is a Maryland corporation which, provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by medical assistants, nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Caleb L. H. Marker, Esq. RIDOUT LYON AND OTTOSON LLP 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500, Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 216-7380 Facsimile: (562) 216-7385 E-mail: c.marker@rlollp.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Leon Crews, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03613 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq. FAGENSON & PUGLISI 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3302 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 268-2128 Facsimile: (212) 268-2127 E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com MIRKA ABRASIVES: Recalls Orbital Sanders Due to Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Mirka Abrasives Inc., of Twinsburg, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of about 440 in U.S. and 85 in Canada Random orbital sanders. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The sander can short circuit, posing a fire hazard. Mirka Abrasives has received three reports of electrical shorting incidents which included the sanders sparking and smoking. No injuries or property damage have been reported. The recall involves 5-inch and 6-inch Mirka CEROS compact electric random orbital sanders. The sanders are yellow and black with the Mirka logo on the front. A speed control lever is on the top of the sanders and a vacuum hose connector on the rear. The recalled sanders came with a carrying case, a 12-foot power cord, a DC transformer, a wrench, a multi-hole backup pad and assorted abrasives. The 5-inch sander is model CEROS 550. The 6-inch sander is model CEROS 650. Model names are on a white sticker on the back of the sander housing beneath the hand grip. Serial numbers are engraved on the side of the sander housing just above the dust shroud. Sanders with serial numbers in the following ranges are being recalled: Model Serial Number Range ----- ------------------- CEROS 550 347228672001 to 347228672048 CEROS 550 349428672001 to 349428672048 CEROS 550 403228672001 to 403228672048 CEROS 550 404328672001 to 404328672048 CEROS 650 344228673001 to 344228673048 CEROS 650 344328673001 to 344328673048 CEROS 650 346128673001 to 346128673048 CEROS 650 347128673001 to 347128673048 CEROS 650 403328673001 to 403328673048 CEROS 650 404228673001 to 404228673048 CEROS 650 404328673001 to 404328673048 Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/VttIki The recalled products were manufactured in Finland and sold at various distributors and independent retailers nationwide and at Amazon.com, Beavertools.com and other online retailers from November 2013 to April 2014 for about $500. Customers should immediately stop using the recalled sanders, unplug them and contact Mirka Abrasives for a free replacement. MUNICIPAL MORTGAGE: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Stock Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed a lower court's ruling dismissing a shareholder lawsuit against Municipal Mortgage & Equity, LLC, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit and two derivative suits originally filed in 2008. The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim to represent a class of investors in the Company's shares who allegedly were injured by misstatements in press releases and SEC filings between May 3, 2004, and January 28, 2008. The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages for themselves and the shareholders of the class they purport to represent. In the derivative suits, the plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the Company was injured because its directors and certain named officers did not fulfill duties regarding the accuracy of its financial disclosures. Both the class action and the derivative cases are pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the class action and in June 2012, the Court issued a ruling dismissing all of the counts alleging any knowing or intentional wrongdoing by the Company or its affiliates, directors and officers. The plaintiffs appealed the Court's ruling and on March 7, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower Court's ruling. As a result of these rulings, the only counts remaining in the case relate to the Company's dividend reinvestment plan. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Noe" Suit Alleging Violations of FDCPA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Samuel Noe, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers, and Chana Noe, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03627 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com NCO FINANCIAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nava Feller a/k/a Nava Kreisler, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03625 (E.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com NEW CENTURY TRANS: Fails to Provide WARN Act Notices, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Kearney, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. New Century Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 03691-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., June 9, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated former employees, who worked for the Defendant and who were terminated without cause or as the result of plant closings and who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of their terminations as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the New Jersey Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act. New Century Transportation, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business located in Westampton, New Jersey. The Defendant maintained and operated its corporate headquarters located at the Westampton Facility, and operated additional facilities throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gail C. Lin, Esq. Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: gl@outtengolden.com jar@outtengolden.com RSR@outtengolden.com NTS INC: Has MoU to Settle Merger Suit in Nevada Court ------------------------------------------------------ NTS, Inc. entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle a lawsuit filed in Nevada state court over its planned merger, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. Between October 23, 2013 and November 20, 2013, six complaints styled as class actions and relating to the Merger were filed in Nevada state court (Eighth Judicial District, Clark County) against the Company, its officers and directors, Tower Three, T3 North Intermediate Holdings, LLC ("Holdings"), a Nevada limited liability company and North Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), a Nevada corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Holdings. On December 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Amended Complaint") alleging that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties of care, good faith, fair dealing, loyalty and full and candid disclosure in connection with the process surrounding the Merger and that Tower Three, Holdings and Merger Sub aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Merger. On February 19, 2014, the parties to the litigation entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting an agreement in principle to resolve the claims asserted in the litigation (the "Settled Claims"). The MOU provides, among other things, that plaintiffs will withdraw their motion for preliminary injunction and will not seek to enjoin consummation of the Merger or any transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement and that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval. If the settlement is finally approved, the Settled Claims will be dismissed with prejudice. As part of the settlement, the defendants in the litigation deny all allegations of wrongdoing and deny that the disclosures in the Proxy Statement were inadequate, but NTS has agreed to provide certain supplemental disclosures. The settlement will not affect the timing of the Special Meeting of NTS stockholders or the Merger, or the amount of consideration to be paid in the Merger. NTS INC: Awaits Court Approval for Accord in Suit v. 012 Telecom ---------------------------------------------------------------- Approval by the Israeli Court is being sought for a settlement reached in the suit Eliezer Tzur et al. vs. 012 Telecom Ltd. et al., according to NTS Inc.'s May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On January 19, 2010, Eliezer Tzur et al. (the "Petitioners") filed a request to approve a claim as a class action (the "Class Action Request") against Xfone 018 Ltd. ("Xfone 018"), NTS' former 69% Israel-based subsidiary, and four other Israeli telecom companies, all of which are entities unrelated to NTS (collectively with Xfone 018, the "Defendants"), in the Central District Court, Israel (the "Israeli Court"). The Petitioners' claim alleges that the Defendants have not fully fulfilled their alleged legal requirement to bear the cost of telephone calls by customers to the Defendants' respective technical support centers. One of the Petitioners, Mr. Eli Sharvit ("Mr. Sharvit"), seeks damages from Xfone 018 for the cost such telephone calls allegedly made by him during the 5.5-year period preceding the filing of the Class Action Request, which he assessed at NIS 54.45 (approximately $15). The Class Action Request, to the extent it pertains to Xfone 018, states total damages of NIS 7,500,000 (approximately $2,099,076) which reflects the Petitioners' estimation of damages caused to all customers that (pursuant to the Class Action Request) allegedly called Xfone 018's technical support number during a certain period defined in the Class Action Request. On February 22, 2011, Xfone 018 and Mr. Sharvit entered into a settlement agreement, which following the instructions of the Israeli Court was supplemented on May 3, 2011 and amended on July 18, 2011 and on March 21, 2012 (the "Settlement Agreement"). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Xfone 018 agreed to compensate its current and past registered customers of international calling services who called its telephone service center from July 4, 2004 until February 21, 2010, due to a problem with the international calling services, and were charged for such calls. The compensation includes a right for a single, up to ten minutes, free of charge, international call to one landline destination around the world, and shall be valid for a period of six months. In addition, Xfone 018 agreed to pay Mr. Sharvit a one-time special reward in the amount of NIS 10,000 (approximately $2,827) (the "Reward"). Xfone 018 further agreed to pay Mr. Sharvit attorneys' fee for professional services in the amount of NIS 40,000 (approximately $11,309) plus VAT (the "Attorneys Fee"). In return, Mr. Sharvit and the members of the Represented Group (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) agreed to waive any and all claims in connection with the Class Action Request. As required by Israeli law in such cases, the Settlement Agreement is subject to the approval of the Israeli Court. On April 30, 2012, the Israeli Court appointed a CPA as an examiner to review and assess the Settlement Agreement (the "Examiner"). The Examiner was instructed to advise the Israeli Court whether in his opinion the Settlement Agreement is reasonable. On October 18, 2012 the Examiner submitted his assessment to the Israeli Court. According to the Examiner's assessment, there are a number of impediments that will deter the Represented Group from making use of the right to a free call described including the low value of the call and its limited utility. According to the Examiner, the appropriate solution would have been to compensate the specific affected customers for the damage caused. However, since the Examiner recognizes that, pursuant to Xfone 018's claims, the foregoing solution is impractical, the Examiner proposes to consider revising the manner in which the alleged damage, which he estimates at NIS 98,000 (approximately $27,707), will be paid for by Xfone 018. Following the Examiner's assessment, Xfone 018 and Mr. Sharvit have agreed to amend the Settlement Agreement, by giving the Israeli Court the discretion to decide whether Xfone 018 shall grant the free call benefit described or donate a sum of NIS 49,000 (approximately $13,854) to Ezer Mizion, a non-profit organization ("Ezer Mizion") (the "Amended Settlement Agreement"). The Amended Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Israeli Court, which ruled that a notice to the general public concerning the Amended Settlement Agreement shall be published in two daily papers. The said notices have been published and the period for submitting objections to the Amended Settlement Agreement has expired. On July 2, 2013, the Israeli Court requested that the Attorney General submit its position with respect to the Amended Settlement Agreement, after which it is expected that the Israeli Court will issue its final decision. In the response submitted by the Attorney General to the Court, the Attorney General stated that he leaves to the Court's discretion to decide whether or not to approve the Amended Settlement Agreement. The Attorney General further noted that: (i) the first alternative for compensation (free call benefit) is dissatisfactory; (ii) per the second alternative for compensation (a donation of NIS 49,000), there is a significant gap between the damages assessed by the Examiner (NIS 98,000) and the sum of the donation; the Attorney General noted that the sum of the compensation should be reviewed based on the fact that, according to the Attorney General, the Petitioners have a good cause for their claim; (iii) in the event that the court will approve a compensation by way of donation (the second alternative), Xfone 018 should not be entitled to a claim for any tax credits in connection with the sum of the donation; and (iv) the Attorneys Fee is disproportionate to the sum of the donation (NIS 49,000). On May 14, 2010, the Company entered into an agreement (including any amendment and supplement thereto, the "Marathon Agreement") with Marathon Telecom Ltd. for the sale of the company's majority (69%) holdings in Xfone 018. Pursuant to Section 10 of the Marathon Agreement, the Company is fully and exclusively liable for any and all amounts, payments or expenses incurred by Xfone 018 as a result of the Class Action Request. Section 10 of the Marathon Agreement provides that the Company shall bear any and all expenses or financial costs which are entailed by conducting the defense on behalf of Xfone 018 and/or the financial results thereof, including pursuant to a judgment or settlement (it was agreed that in the event that Xfone 018 will be obligated to provide services at a reduced price, the Company shall bear only the cost of such services). Section 10 of the Marathon Agreement further provides that the defense by Xfone 018 shall be performed in full cooperation with the Company and with mutual assistance. It is agreed between the Company and Xfone 018 that subject to and upon the approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Israeli Court, the Company shall bear and/or pay: (i) the costs of the free call benefit or donation; (ii) the Reward; (iii) the Attorneys Fee; (iv) Xfone 018 attorneys' fees for professional services in connection with the Class Action Request, estimated at approximately NIS 75,000 (approximately $21,204); and (v) any other related costs (such as publication expenses and the Examiner's fees). In the event the Amended Settlement Agreement is not approved by the Israeli Court, Xfone 018 intends to vigorously defend the Class Action Request. OAKLAND RAIDERS: Two More Cheerleaders File Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Fernandez, writing for NBC Bay Area, reports that two more Oakland Raiderette cheerleaders filed a class action lawsuit on June 4, claiming that they are not paid according to state law and work in "deplorable" conditions, and sometimes have to change in public bathrooms with no privacy. Aside from wages, though, this suit alleges humiliating behavior, such as being chastised when the cheerleaders didn't look right. Raiderettes who were deemed "too tan" were called "oompa loompas," the orange creatures from "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory," according to the suit. Raiderettes who were not tan enough, the suit alleges, were ordered to go to tanning salons. This second suit, filed in Alameda County by plaintiffs Caitlin Y. and Jenny C., is separate from two suits filed by two other Raiderettes back in December and January making similar allegations. It also follows on the heels of other suits by Bengals, Bills, Jets and Buccaneers cheerleaders. Among other complaints, Caitlin Y. alleges that she was specifically targeted because her breasts were "too large," according to the suit. But the main difference in the June 4 lawsuit, filed by the San Francisco firm, Bradshaw & Associates, is that these cheerleaders are taking on not only the Oakland football team, but the National Football League, too. With the suit's 15 causes of action, the cheerleaders accuse the defendants of breach of labor code and contract, as well as of failing to provide changing facilities, wage statements and meal breaks. The suit asks for back wages and injunctive relief to make the behavior stop. "Football in America is our most favorite sport," attorney Drexel Bradshaw said in an interview. "These performers are treated unfairly and illegally in violation of the California Labor Code. And this is an NFL problem nationwide." The Raiders' attorneys, David Reis and Adam Kretz, and the NFL spokesman did not return requests for comment on June 4. In March, the Raiders filed a motion on a separate class action case -- filed on behalf of Lacy T. and Sarah G. -- arguing the cheerleaders had to arbitrate their case to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell, rather than a judge. That decision is currently on hold. Also on hold is the question of when the Raiderettes will be practicing. The squad did not hold its annual April tryouts, and to date, there is no practice schedule posted. Practice traditionally has started in June. The lawyers who filed the latest case on behalf of the two Raiderettes told NBC Bay Area they did not consult or collaborate with the Oakland lawyers, Leslie Levy and Sharon Vinick, who brought the country's first cheerleading lawsuit against the Raiders about six months ago. "I'm surprised," said Darci Burrell -- darci@levyvinick.com -- an attorney at Levy Vinick Burrell and Hyams. She added she's not sure if the judge will seek to consolidate the two cases. Many of the claims in the June 4 lawsuit reiterate the allegations the first two Raiderettes made in December and January when they sued the team: That they are paid about $125 a game, but end up making about $5 or so an hour with all the required extra promotional activities they are required to attend. The June 4 lawsuit pointed out the disparity in revenue and pay between the league and the cheerleaders: "Even though the Oakland Raiders' yearly revenue is as much as $229 million and NFL yearly revenue is about $10 billion, Raiderettes made, at most, less than $6.50 per hour on job duties," the suit alleges. In addition to wages, Caitlin Y. and Jenny C. also describe some of their working conditions as "deplorable." Some of those conditions include: Being told their weight can't fluctuate more than five pounds each week. "Every aspect of Raiderettes' bodies were inspected by defendants and their agents for any imperfection, no matter how slight. Raiderettes who did not meet arbitrary weight and fitness were 'benched' for the next game." Attend a "two piece" practice each week, wearing nothing but sports bra and short shorts. Being forced to change in crowded public restrooms with little to no privacy after tailgating party known as "Raiderville." During some of these events, the women were allegedly groped by inebriated men and exposed to derogatory comments with no security provided by the NFL or the Oakland Raiders. At a golf tournament, Raiderettes forced to mingle with "harassing photographer" who "constantly cajoled" the Raiderettes to "pose in sexually suggestive poses that were inappropriate for a public (or private) working environment." At the end of each season during the four years covered by the suit, every Raiderette was terminated and required to re-audition for a position on the squad. "I loved being a Raiderette and being able to cheerlead for my favorite NFL team, the Oakland Raiders," Caitlin Y. said in a statement. "But the conditions I had to endure were not fair, nor were they legal. Standing up to the NFL takes guts and I hope that female NFL athletes across the nation will join me in demanding what's only right: Decent conditions and pay, and proper respect." OVASCIENCE INC: Faces "Ratner" Suit Over Securities Law Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meriam Ratner, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly stuated v. OvaScience, Inc., Michelle Dipp, and Christopher A. Bleck, Case No. 1:14-cv-12412 (D. Mass., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act. OvaScience, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of novel treatments for infertility, with the primary goal of creating "healthy live births." The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward F. Haber, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP 53 State Street, 37th Floor, Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Consumer Suit Over Product Charge Now Closed -------------------------------------------------------------- Pacific Webworks, Inc. considers closed a settled lawsuit that alleged it violated consumer protection laws, committed fraud and used deceptive trade practices in relation to the manner in which it charged for purchases of its products, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company was involved in five class action law suits. All plaintiffs in these cases were represented by the same legal firm and each complaint sought class action certification. The complaints alleged that Pacific WebWorks violated consumer protection laws, committed fraud and used deceptive trade practices in relation to the manner in which Pacific WebWorks charged for purchases of its products. Each action sought compensatory and punitive damages, plus reasonable costs and attorney fees. The actions are as follows: On November 9, 2009, Barbara Ford filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division. A second action was filed on November 12, 2009, by Deanna Pelletier in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Solano. A third action was filed by Lisa Rasmussen on November 20, 2009, in the Superior Court of Washington, Snohomish County. On December 18, 2009, the Barbara Ford matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On December 18, 2009, the Deanna Pelletier matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On December 23, 2009, the Lisa Rasmussen matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On July 10, 2010, Thomas Aikens filed an action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, which matter was removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. This matter was brought by the same law firm as the above cases. On September 19, 2011, Lynette Booth filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division alleging violations of consumer protection laws by Pacific WebWorks. This case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on December 1, 2011. Damages are unspecified in this action. Pacific WebWorks answered the complaint and denied liability, intent to defend against all such claims. In response to these actions, Pacific WebWorks retained legal counsel to vigorously defend the Company in these lawsuits. Discovery began on the class certification phase in the Illinois, Washington and California lawsuits. The company's legal counsel opposed class certification and filed motions to dismiss all claims in the Illinois and Washington actions, which motions were granted in part and denied in part. Pacific WebWorks renewed its motion to dismiss in the Illinois action, which motion has not yet been ruled upon. In addition, Pacific Webworks brought motions to dismiss the Pelletier, Guffey and Aikens actions, which motions have not yet been ruled upon. On May 24, 2012, the Company entered into a Stipulation of Class Action Settlement relating to its outstanding class action lawsuits. The settlement agreement required the Company to contribute a maximum of $400,000 to the settlement fund, class counsel and claims administration fees. The Company's entry into the settlement agreement was intended to reduce its overall litigation expense by putting an end to the significant legal fees continually incurred to defend against the actions. As of December 31, 2011 and 2012, the Company had recorded a liability of $400,000 in contemplation of reaching settlement on its outstanding class action lawsuits. As a part of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed to establish an escrow account and deposit the amount of their maximum contribution into the escrow account to be held there during the settlement approval process. The escrow account was established and fully funded by the Company with the appropriate $400,000 maximum contribution on July 2, 2012. On November 28, 2012, the Class Action Settlement received final approval in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. On January 10, 2013, the $400,000 held in escrow was contributed to the settlement fund, class counsel and claims administration fees. The Company considers this matter to be closed. PHIL&TEDS: Recalls Infant Car Seat Adaptors Due to Fall Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with phil&teds, of Fort Collins, Colo., announced a voluntary recall of about about 265 in the U.S. and 122 in Canada phil&teds Travel System 26 infant car seat adaptors for strollers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The plastic adaptors used to connect an infant car seat to a stroller can crack, become unstable and break during use, posing a fall hazard to infants. phil&teds has received two reports of the adaptors cracking and breaking when stored in freezing weather conditions. The recall involves phil&teds Travel System 26 (TS26) adaptors used to attach infant car seats to the following phil&teds stroller models, the Classic, Dot, Explorer, Hammerhead, Navigator, S3 and S4. Compatible car seats include the Maxi Cosi Cabriofix, Maxi Cosi Mico, Maxi Cosi Pebble and Cybex Anton. The adaptors are two pieces of black plastic, one for the left side and one for the right side, that connect the stroller to the car seat. "TS26," "philandteds," "L" for left, "R" for right and UPC "9 420015 7 4004" are printed on the adaptors. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/zPfrfW The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at baby product and specialty stores nationwide, and online at Amazon.com, Babiesrus.com, Diapers.com and phil&teds.com from April 2013 through March 2014 for about $40. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled adaptor and contact phil&teds for free replacement adaptors. POKERTEK INC: Faces Shareholder Suit in N.C. Over Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- PokerTek, Inc. faces a shareholder lawsuit in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in and for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina over its merger agreement with Multimedia Games, Inc., and 23Acquisition Co., according to PokerTek's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. A purported class action on behalf of the Company's shareholders was filed on May 9, 2014 in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division in and for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, Case No: 14CVS8300, captioned Robert Simmer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as Plaintiff, v. PokerTek, Inc., Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., Multimedia Games, Inc., 23Acquisition Co., James Crawford, Joe Lahti, Lyle Berman, Lou White and Arthur L. Lomax, Defendants (the "Action"). The Company has not received service of process in the Action. The Action relates to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), dated as of April 29, 2014, by and among PokerTek, Inc. (the "Company"), Multimedia Games, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Parent"), and 23Acquisition Co., a North Carolina corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Merger Sub shall be merged with and into the Company, and the separate corporate existence of Merger Sub shall thereupon cease, and the Company shall continue as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Proposed Merger Transaction"). The Action alleges that the Directors of the Company (the "Directors") breached their fiduciary duties owed to the shareholders of the Company. It further alleges that Multimedia Games Holding Company, Inc., Parent and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Directors in their breach of their fiduciary duties to the shareholders of the Company. The Action seeks relief: (i) declaring the Action to be a class action and certifying Plaintiff as the Class representative and his counsel as Class counsel; (ii) declaring and decreeing that the Proposed Merger Transaction was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the individual Defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable, and rescinding and invalidating any Merger Agreement or other agreements that Defendants entered into in connection with, or in furtherance of, the Proposed Merger Transaction; (iii) enjoining, preliminarily and permanently, Defendants, their agents, counsel, employees and all persons acting in concert with them from consummating the Proposed Merger Transaction; (iv) directing the individual Defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best interests of the Company's shareholders; (v) imposing a constructive trust, in favor of Plaintiff and the Class, upon any benefits improperly received by Defendants as a result of their wrongful conduct; (vi) awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements of the Action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees; and (vii) granting such other and further equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper. PONGAL INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rene Agustin, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective Plaintiffs v. Pongal, Inc. and Vandana Sheth, Case No. 1:14-cv-04143 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) alleges that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid minimum wages, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs. Pongal, Inc., is a New York domestic business corporation with a principal place of business located in New York City. Vandana Sheth, is the chief executive officer Pongal, Inc. On October 1, 2011, Mr. Agustin, was hired by the Defendants to work as a dishwasher and delivery person for their restaurant located at 110 Lexington Avenue, in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com anne@leelitigation.com REGIONS BANK: 11th Cir. Affirms Lower Ruling in "Pereira" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Pereira and Camila De Freitas brought a class action lawsuit on August 7, 2012, raising four counts. Counts I and II alleged that Regions Bank settled a check presented by Pereira and De Freitas, respectively, at less than par, in violation of Florida Statute Section 655.85. Counts III and IV claimed that Regions was unjustly enriched when it settled their check at less than par. The complaint sought compensatory damages, or, in the alternative, an order disgorging the money alleged to be wrongfully withheld from the plaintiffs. Regions moved to dismiss the complaint. With respect to Counts I and II, Regions argued that Section 655.85 does not apply to in- person check-cashing transactions, is preempted by federal law, would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause if applied against Regions, and does not provide a private right of action. As to Counts III and IV, Regions claimed that Pereira and De Freitas failed to state a claim for relief. The District Court dismissed the complaint, concluding that federal law preempts Section 655.85 and, because the unjust enrichment claims were premised on the same facts, also preempted those claims. Pereira and De Freitas appealed. In an Opinion dated May 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/nEYtySfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit held that "[b]ecause federal law preempts Florida Statute Section 655.85 with respect to national banks, by operation of 12 U.S.C. Section 1831a(j)(1), so too does it preempt Section 655.85 with respect to Regions. And because Pereira and De Freitas have premised their unjust enrichment claims on the same facts as they lay out in Counts I and II, Counts III and IV are similarly preempted. Accordingly, the District Court is affirmed." The case is DEREK PEREIRA, CAMILA DE FREITAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. REGIONS BANK, an Alabama Banking Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-10458. S & R DELI: Suit Seeks Damages for Unpaid OT and Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Rosario, on behalf of himself and all others similarly- situated v. S & R Deli Grocery Corp., and Joaquin Daniel Tetaia, in his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv- 04151 (S.D.N.Y., June 9, 2014) is a civil action for damages and equitable relief based upon the Defendants' alleged flagrant and willful violations of the Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Acts. S & R Deli Grocery Corp. is a New York domestic business corporation headquartered in Bronx, New York. Joaquin Daniel Tetaia is the owner and operator of Deli. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. Anthony P. Malecki, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C 655 Third Avenue, Suite 1821 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 679-5000 Facsimile: (212) 679-5005 E-mail: mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com apm@employmentlawyernewyork.com atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com SAKUMA BROTHERS: Settles Workers' Suit for $500,000 --------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that one of Washington state's largest berry growers has agreed to pay $500,000 to workers who say they were underpaid and denied rest breaks. Sakuma Brothers Farms in the Skagit Valley did not admit liability in the settlement, filed on June 11 in U.S. District Court. It still needs the approval of a federal judge. Under the terms, Sakuma would pay the money to more than 1,200 migrant and seasonal workers who labored for the company from October 2010 to December 2013. In addition, Sakuma would pay $344,000 to the lawyers who sued on their behalf. Sakuma also said it would change business practices, agreeing to track and record all hours worked, to clock workers in within five minutes of their arrival, and to provide them 10 minute breaks for every four hours worked. SCOTT USA: Recalls Speedster Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard -------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Scott USA Inc. of Ketchum, Idaho, announced a voluntary recall of about about 2,000 in the United States 2014 SCOTT Speedster 30 and 40, and Contessa Speedster 25 and 35 road bicycles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The steerer tube in the front fork can break, posing a fall hazard. Scott USA has received one report of a fork breaking. No injuries have been reported. The recall involves model year 2014 SCOTT men's and women's road bicycles, models Speedster 30, Speedster 40, Contessa Speedster 25 and Contessa Speedster 35. The bikes have the brand name "SCOTT" and the model name "Speedster" on the frame. They were sold in black and white with blue, green, purple or teal accents. The following serial number ranges are included in the recall: AS30500001-AS30504930, AS30700001-AS30704651, AS30900001- AS30903278, AS31100001-AS31103744 and AS40101604-AS40105463. The serial number is printed on a white sticker and embossed on the underside of the bicycle frame near the pedals. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/n1iF87 The recalled products were manufactured in Cambodia and sold at authorized SCOTT dealers nationwide at retail and online from about August 2013 through May 2014 for between $1,000 and $1,300. Consumers should immediately stop riding the bicycle and take it to an authorized SCOTT dealer. Consumers with a recalled bicycle will receive a free replacement fork and have it installed at no cost. SKYLIGHT DINER: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Carlos Flores, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Skylight Diner Inc. d/b/a Skylight Diner and James Papaioannou, Case No. 1:14-cv-04108 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover from the Defendants, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Skylight Diner Inc., is a New York corporation located at 402 West 34th Street, New York, NY 10001. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 SKYPEOPLE FRUIT: Court Approves $2.2MM Securities Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- A $2,200,000 settlement reached in a consolidated securities suit against Skypeople Fruit Juice, Inc. received court approval, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On April 20, 2011, plaintiff Paul Kubala (on behalf of his minor child N.K.) filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its individual officers and/or directors, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, the underwriter of the Company's follow-on public offering consummated in August 2010, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On June 20, 2011, plaintiff Benjamin Padnos filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York against the Company, certain of its current and former officers and/or directors, the Company's former independent auditors Child Van Wagner & Bradshaw, PLLC and BDO Limited, and Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, the underwriter of the Company's follow-on public offering consummated in August 2010, alleging violations of Sections10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On August 30, 2011, the Court consolidated the foregoing two actions and appointed Zachary Lewy as lead plaintiff. On September 30, 2011, pursuant to the Court's order, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint, which names the Company, Rodman & Renshaw, LLC, BDO Limited, Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw PLLC and certain of the Company's current and former directors and/or officers and majority shareholders as defendants, and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and the rules promulgated thereunder. The Consolidated Complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the action. On December 21, 2011, the Company and certain of the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On May 3, 2012, Lead Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims against BDO Limited and Child Van Wagoner & Bradshaw PLLC. On September 10, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint. On January 11, 2013, defendant Rodman & Renshaw LLC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and, on January 18, 2013 the court imposed an automatic stay on Plaintiffs claims against Rodman pursuant to Section 326(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The parties settled this matter by the Company agreeing to contribute $2,200,000 into a settlement fund to pay class members (the "Settlement"). On January 27, 2014, the Court entered an order approving the Settlement, certifying the class for settlement purposes and dismissing the suit with prejudice. SNOWSHOE MOUNTAIN: Court Ruling in "Anania" Suit Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner Charles L. Anania, by counsel Joshua I. Barrett -- jbarrett@dbdlaw1.com -- and Robert M. Bastress III, appealed the order of the Circuit Court of Pocahontas County, entered March 25, 2013, granting summary judgment in favor of Respondent Snowshoe Mountain, Inc. Respondent appears by counsel John Philip Melick -- pmelick@jacksonkelly.com -- Ellen S. Cappellanti -- ecappellanti@jacksonkelly.com -- and Ryan J. Aaron -- rjaaron@jacksonkelly.com The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that it found no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court's order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, it said. A copy of the Supreme Court of Appeals' May 30, 2014 memorandum decision is available at http://is.gd/wThYV4from Leagle.com. Petitioner is the representative property owner in this class action challenging the method in which respondent, a resort area, calculates annual assessments for safety provisions and the upkeep of common areas in its domain. The case is Charles L. Anania, Plaintiff Below, Petitioner, v. Snowshoe Mountain, Inc., doing business as Snowshoe Mountain Resort, Defendant Below, Respondent, NO. 13-0406. * * * Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Charles L. Anania sued Snowshoe Mountain after he claimed it wrongfully calculated its annual assessments and breached its contract with him and other property owners, according to the May 30 opinion. Justices Robin Jean Davis, Allen Loughry and Margaret Workman made up the majority. Justices Brent Benjamin and Menis Ketchum dissented, with Justice Ketchum filing a brief dissenting opinion. Mr. Anania put forth four assignments of error on appeal. First, Mr. Anania argued the circuit court "changed" contractual language by omitting Paragraph D of Snowshoe's assessment document from its reading of the applicable declaration. "In that vein, he argues in his fourth assignment of error that the circuit court erred when it made the unsupported factual determination that the inclusion of Paragraph D in respondent's predecessor's draft of the declaration was the result of mistake," the majority opinion states. "It is worth noting that petitioner purchased property in the resort area in 2003, and respondent purchased Snowshoe Mountain in 1995." Neither participated in the drafting of the declaration in 1974, and the parties conceded that there is no evidence of the drafter's intent, the opinion says. "However, Paragraph C unequivocally grants respondent 'absolute and sole discretion' to annually calculate assessments up to 1.5% of the assessed taxable value of the lot," the majority opinion states. "We find no plain language restriction in that paragraph suggesting that a 'base' is established in the year after construction is completed. Furthermore, petitioner's proposed construction is unreasonable." Mr. Anania, who filed his lawsuit in 2006 in Pocahontas Circuit Court, is a property owner in a class action challenging the method in which Snowshoe calculates annual assessments for safety provisions and the upkeep of common areas in its domain. Mr. Anania asserted, among other grievances, that Snowshoe breached the parties' contract by using an improper formula to calculate annual assessments. After a lengthy period of discovery, the parties each filed a motion for summary judgment, and the circuit court granted Snowshoe's motion by order entered March 25, 2013. In doing so, the circuit court explained that Paragraphs C and D of Snowshoe's assessment document are "inherently inconsistent" and that Paragraph D is a boilerplate escalator clause mistakenly included by the drafter. "Based on this determination, the circuit court concluded that Paragraph C alone guided the calculation of the assessments for all years following the year in which construction commenced, and respondent had appropriately computed the obligations," the opinion says. Mr. Anania appealed the Pocahontas Circuit Court's ruling. "As the circuit court explained, petitioner's interpretation potentially commits respondent indefinitely to an assessment base before property value is realized, and leaves that base susceptible to manipulation by a property owner who may choose to delay improvements," according to the majority opinion. The state Supreme Court stated that, in considering another of Mr. Anania's assignment of error, he argued that the circuit court failed to apply rules of construction favoring him. "As the circuit court aptly explained, the instrument must be construed against the grantor only if the language is ambiguous after consideration of the context and circumstances surrounding the contract formation," the majority opinion states. "Upon the circuit court's acknowledgement that Paragraph D was clearly included by mistake, the terms of the declarations had but one meaning." The majority concluded that "although the contract at issue in the present case is poorly drafted, its meaning can still be discerned." In Justice Ketchum's dissenting opinion, he wrote that he believes the circuit court attempted to clarify an ambiguous contract as if the contract were affected by a "simple scrivener's error." "In reality, we are faced with a substantive dispute that requires greater attention than such treatment allows," the dissenting opinion states. "While I acknowledge the difficulty . . . facing a fact-finder in this case, I believe the result reached by the circuit court unfairly affords a presumption to the drafting party." Justice Ketchum's dissenting opinion states that he does not find it unreasonable that early purchasers may have wished to establish some degree of control over their assessments and that calling the characterization of the attempt as a mistake is perplexing. "The terms are substantively confusing and capable of multiple interpretations, and therefore would be more appropriately untangled by a jury," his opinion states. Mr. Anania was represented by Joshua I. Barrett and Robert M. Bastress III of DiTrapano Barrett DiPiero McGinley & Simmons. Snowshoe was represented by John Philip Melick -- pmelick@jacksonkelly.com -- Ellen S. Cappellanti -- ecappellanti@jacksonkelly.com -- and Ryan J. Aaron -- rjaaron@jacksonkelly.com -- of Jackson Kelly. West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals case number: 13-0406 SPENDSMART PAYMENTS: SMS Masterminds Faces TCPA Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------ SMS Masterminds is one of the defendants named in a potential class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, according to The Spendsmart Payments Company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On January 1, 2014, SMS Masterminds was named in a potential class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The plaintiff's lawsuit has sought the certification of a class, though as of the date of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q such class certification has not been approved by the court. Specifically, the complaint alleges that SMS Masterminds sent unsolicited text messages to the plaintiff and other recipients without the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients and such plaintiff is now seeking unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees. STATE FARM: Bridgeview Health Obtains Partial Summary Judgment -------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the Supreme Court of Illinois has awarded partial summary judgment in favor of Bridgeview Health Care Center Ltd. in a class action lawsuit. The court on May 22 ruled an Indiana federal court's prediction under Erie v. Tompkins cannot, by itself, establish a conflict between state laws. State Farm, the defendant in the case, maintained that the circuit court erred in granting Bridgeview's summary judgment motion because Indiana law applied. However, no Indiana state court has addressed the question of whether the sending of unsolicited faxes falls within a comprehensive liability policy's provisions, either as an advertising injury or as property damage, according to the opinion. Justices Anne M. Burke delivered the judgment of the court and Justices Rita B. Garman, Charles E. Freeman, Robert R. Thomas, Thomas, Thomas L. Kilbride, Lloyd A. Karmeier and Mary Jane Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion. "As the United States Supreme Court has observed, 'there can be no injury' in applying the local forum's law if that law is not in actual conflict with the law of another jurisdiction," the opinion states. "There is always a 'potential' for differences to arise on state- law questions, even on matters that have previously been addressed. A 'potential' conflict standard would appear to create substantial uncertainty in deciding what law to apply. We adhere to settled law: a choice-of-law determination is required only when the moving party has established an actual conflict between state laws." Bridgeview filed the three-count class action complaint in the federal district court of Northern Illinois against Jerry Clark, who is doing business as Affordable Digital Hearing. Mr. Clark is an Illinois resident who operates Affordable Digital Hearing, a sole proprietorship dealing in the sale and repair of hearing aids, out of Terre Haute, Ind. Bridgeview's complaint alleged that Mr. Clark sent Bridgeview and others across the United States unsolicited faxes in June of 2006. Bridgeview sought recovery under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and alleged that Mr. Clark was liable for common law conversion of Bridgeview's fax machine paper and toner. It also alleged that Mr. Clark violated the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Mr. Clark was insured under a comprehensive general liability policy issued by State Farm. The policy was purchased through an agent in Indiana and issued to Clark at his business address in Indiana. The policy provided certain business liability coverage under both a "property damage" provision and an "advertising injury" provision. Mr. Clark tendered defense of Bridgeview's suit to State Farm, which accepted the defense under a reservation of rights. In June 2010, Bridgeview filed a declaratory judgment action against State Farm and Mr. Clark in Cook County, seeking a declaration that State Farm had a duty to defend and indemnify Mr. Clark because the unwanted faxes fell within both the advertising injury and property damage provisions of the insurance policy. State Farm, in turn, filed a counterclaim against Bridgeview and Mr. Clark, seeking a declaration it had no duty to defend or indemnify Clark. Both Bridgeview and State Farm moved for partial summary judgment on the question of whether State Farm had a duty to defend. In its motion, State Farm acknowledged that, under Illinois law, coverage was provided under both relevant provisions of the insurance policy. Bridgeview argued there was no conflict between Indiana and Illinois law. Bridgeview also maintained that, even assuming Illinois and Indiana law were in conflict, Illinois had the most significant contacts and Illinois law should apply. On May 17, 2012, the Cook County Circuit Court granted Bridgeview's motion for partial summary judgment and denied State Farm's motion. However, an appellate court held that the federal decisions cited by State Farm were sufficient to raise the possibility of a conflict between Illinois and Indiana law and "that the potential for conflict between Indiana law and Illinois law requires the trial court to engage in a choice-of-law analysis for the case." Apart from the Erie predictions made in the Indiana federal district court decisions, State Farm does not argue that Indiana law is in conflict with Illinois law, according to the opinion. "Indeed, State Farm asserts that 'what the law of Indiana actually is has no bearing on the dispositive question presented in this appeal -- whether a federal district court's Erie prediction can be the source of an outcome determinative conflict so as to trigger the most significant contacts test,'" the opinion states. Because State Farm identifies no Indiana law on point, the Illinois Supreme Court concluded that State Farm has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating an actual conflict exists between Illinois and Indiana law. Supreme Court of Illinois case number: 2014 IL 116389 SUMMIT FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over RCAP Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Summit Financial Services Group, Inc. faces a consolidated lawsuit by alleged shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger with RCAP, according to Summit's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. The Company, its board of directors, RCAP and Dolphin Acquisition, LLC ("Merger Sub"), a newly formed, wholly-owned subsidiary of RCS, are named as defendants in two purported class action lawsuits (now consolidated) brought by alleged Company shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger with RCAP. These shareholder lawsuits, Michael S. Hill v. Sanford B. Cohen, et al., filed on November 27, 2013, and Wohrle v. Summit Financial Services Group, Inc., et al., filed on December 12, 2013, were both filed in Palm Beach County, Florida, and generally allege, among other things, that: (i) each member of the Company's board of directors breached his fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders in authorizing the merger between the Company and RCAP; (ii) the merger does not maximize value to the Company's shareholders; and (iii) RCAP, Merger Sub and the Company aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of the Company's board of directors. On May 9, 2014, the plaintiff shareholders moved for leave to file an amended complaint under seal. The amended complaint asserts claims similar to those in the original complaint, adds allegations relating to the amended merger agreement, and also challenges the adequacy of the disclosures in the registration statement concerning the merger, the background of the proposed transaction, the opinion issued by Cassel Salpeter to the special committee and the Company's financial projections. The consolidated lawsuits seek class-action certification, equitable relief, including an injunction against consummation of the merger on the agreed-upon terms, and damages. TELEXFREE LLC: Faces $5BB Class Suit Over Alleged Pyramid Scheme ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wicked Local Marlborough reports that a North Carolina lawyer has filed a $5 billion class-action lawsuit against accused pyramid scheme business TelexFREE, the third such national suit to be filed against the embattled company and the first in U.S. District Court. Ihuoma Igboanugo, a Raleigh-based attorney, submitted the suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina on June 2 on behalf of plaintiff Maduako Ferguson St., a North Carolina resident and self-proclaimed victim of TelexFREE, according to court records. The lawsuit is similar to another filed a month ago in U.S. bankruptcy court in Nevada by Massachusetts residents Waldemara Martin and Leandro Valentim that also sought $5 billion. Both suits name as defendants various banking organizations allegedly used by TelexFREE in addition to the company itself and its managers and top promoters. Another class action suit seeking $300 million was filed in Massachusetts bankruptcy court in mid-May by Somerville residents Anthony Cellucci, Jamilly Lake, and Gerivaldo Pacheo. Framingham-based lawyer Evans J. Carter filed a class-action lawsuit for Massachusetts residents only in Middlesex Superior Court in late April. TelexFREE, which ran its U.S. operations out of an office building in Marlborough, has also been charged with securities fraud by both the Securities and Exchange Commission and Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin. Those agencies claim the company amassed hundreds of millions of dollars over the past two years through an international investing scheme that enticed people to buy advertising accounts with the business. In addition, one of the company's two co-owners, James Merrill of Ashland, was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud a month ago. He is being held in federal custody, but on June 3 his lawyer submitted a petition for his release, arguing the government's case was exaggerated and that Merrill would not follow the lead of fellow TelexFREE co-owner Carlos Wanzeler of Northborough, who authorities say fled to Brazil. "It is incomprehensible to those who know Jim best that he would avoid his responsibilities to the Court, or ever leave his wife, children, extended family, friends of community," Merrill's attorney, Robert Goldstein, wrote. "Indeed, unlike his co- defendant in this case, Mr. Merrill did not attempt to flee or avoid this prosecution, despite clear notice and knowledge of the government's ongoing criminal investigation." Mr. Merrill is asking the court to allow home detention at his house in Ashland, GPS monitoring, surrender of his and his wife's passports, and payment of a $900,000 personal recognizance bond, among other conditions. In response on June 3, prosecutors for U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz's office said it is too risky to release one of the most visible leaders of the "cult-like" TelexFREE, whose zealous supporters could assist him if were to leave the country. "This was a scheme that depended on TelexFREE constantly recruiting new promoters, and the defendant played a very large role in that deception," wrote assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Lelling. "Someone willing to maintain that deception for months and years is someone who would consider finding ways to avoid this Court's reach." TENDER TOUCH: Fails to Pay for OT Work, "Mollinedo" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Odalys Reyes Mollinedo, Humberto A. Suarez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Tender Touch Home Health, LLC, Maria A. Delgado, Guillermo Delgado, Case No. 1:14- cv-22098 (S.D. Fla., June 6, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Tender Touch Home Health, LLC, is a limited liability company that regularly transacts business within Dade County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A 300 71st Street, Suite 605, Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com TRAVEL CENTERS: Sued for Denying Proper Minimum Wage Compensation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kellie R. King and others similarly situated v. Travel Centers Of America LLC and TA Operating LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01273 (M.D. Tenn., June 9, 2014) is brought on behalf of the Defendants' employees, who were denied proper minimum wage compensation because the Defendants allegedly paid them using a tip credit when the employees spent a substantial amount of time (well in excess of 20% of the workweek) performing related duties for which a tip credit could not lawfully be taken. Ms. King previously worked as a server for the Defendants at their Denmark and Kingston Springs locations in Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clinton H. Scott, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC 101 North Highland Jackson, TN 38301 Telephone: (731) 664-1340 Facsimile: (731) 664-1540 E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com - and - Michael L. Russell, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT, PLC 5409 Maryland Way, Suite 150 Brentwood, TN 37027 Telephone: (615) 467-6372 Facsimile: (731) 664-1540 E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com UNION SAVINGS: Faces "Hale" Suit Over Unpaid Minimum Wages & OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Jon L. Hale, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Union Savings Bank, Case No. 1:14-cv-00935 (S.D. Ind., June 6, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and statutory penalties. Union Savings Bank, is a bank that offers full-service mortgage loan products in Ohio, Indiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Gibbons , Jr., Esq. Robert J. Hunt, Esq. GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280, Indianapolis, IN 46280 Telephone: (317) 706-1100 Facsimile: (317) 623-8503 E-mail: phil@gibbonslegalgroup.com rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com VAN RU CREDIT: Makes Unsolicited Phone Calls, "Hill" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Drew Hill, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Van Ru Credit Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01384 (S.D. Cal., June 6, 2014), seeks redress under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for the Defendant's practice of making unauthorized phone calls to cellular telephones. Van Ru Credit Corporation is a debt collection company located at 1350 East Touhy Avenue, Suite 300E, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patric Alexander Lester, Esq. PATRIC LESTER AND ASSOCIATES 5694 Mission Center Road, Suite 358, San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 665-3888 Facsimile: (314) 241-5777 E-mail: pl@lesterlaw.com VARGAS & RODRIGUEZ: Sued for Failing to Pay OT & Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Rosario, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Vargas & Rodriguez Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a Fine Fare Supermarket and Luis Rodriguez, Case No. 1:14-cv-04110 (S.D.N.Y., June 6, 2014), seeks to recover from Defendants, unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Vargas & Rodriguez Supermarket, Inc. d/b/a fine fare Supermarket is a New York domestic business corporation located at 3131 Grand Concourse, Bronx, NY 10468. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert L. Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403, New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 VENOCO INC: Expects 2015 Trial in Suit Over "Marquez Proposal" -------------------------------------------------------------- Trial in a consolidated suit against Venoco, Inc. in the Delaware Court of Chancery over the share acquisition proposal of a former executive of the company, is expected to occur in 2015, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. In August 2011, Timothy Marquez, the then- Chairman and CEO of Venoco, submitted a nonbinding proposal to the board of directors of Venoco to acquire all of the shares of Venoco he did not beneficially own for $12.50 per share in cash (the "Marquez Proposal"). As a result of that proposal, three lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery in September 2011 against Venoco and each of its directors by shareholders alleging that Venoco and its directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in connection with the Marquez Proposal. On January 16, 2012, Venoco entered into a Merger Agreement with Mr. Marquez and certain of his affiliates pursuant to which Venoco, Mr. Marquez and his affiliates would effect the going private transaction. Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, five additional suits were filed in Delaware (three in January and two in February) and three suits were filed in federal court in Colorado (two in January and one in February) naming as defendants Venoco and each of its directors. In March 2013 the plaintiffs in Delaware filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in which they requested that the court determine among other things that (i) the merger consideration is inadequate and the Merger Agreement was entered into in breach of the fiduciary duties of the defendants and is therefore unlawful and unenforceable and (ii) the merger should be rescinded or in the alternative, the class should be awarded damages to compensate them for the loss as a result of the breach of fiduciary duties by the defendants. The Colorado actions have been administratively closed pending resolution of the Delaware case. Venoco has reviewed the allegations contained in the amended complaint and believes they are without merit. Trial in this matter is expected to occur in 2015. WEIL-MCLAIN: Recalls Boilers Due to Risk of Fire, Explosion ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Weil-McLain, of Michigan City, Ind., announced a voluntary recall of about 7,900 in the United States and 540 in Canada Weil-McLain Ultra models 80, 105, 155 and 230 MBH Ultra Series Boilers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. A cap on the boiler's manifold can crack and release gas into the home, posing a risk of fire and explosion. The firm has received 11 reports of manifold caps cracking. No fires or injuries have been reported. The recall involves Weil-McLain Ultra models 80, 105, 155 and 230 MBH gas-fired boilers used for space heating. The boilers have a serial number range between CP 6557046 and CP 6955985. Model and serial numbers are located on a bar-coded label affixed to the lower right side of the boiler, behind the removable front panel. The boilers have a Weil-McLain logo plate affixed to the front, a pewter/flat black cover and are either freestanding or wall- mounted. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/cZ9BKn The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at plumbing and heating wholesale distributors, plumbers and contactors nationwide from June 2012 through March 2014 for about $4,200 to $6,200. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled boilers, turn off the gas supply to the boilers and contact Weil-McLain to schedule a free inspection and repair. WILHELMINA INT'L: Judge Tells N.Y. AG of Shanklin Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------- The judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation against subsidiaries of Wilhelmina International, Inc., wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, according to the company's May 15, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended March 31, 2014. On October 10, 2012, an individual named Louisa Raske ("Raske") commenced a purported class action lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) against the Company's subsidiaries Wilhelmina International and Wilhelmina Models, Inc. (the "Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties"), and others, as defendants (the "Raske Litigation"). The Complaint asserted claims by Raske, individually, and on behalf of the purported class, for, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and conversion, arising out of the defendants' allegedly unauthorized use of models' images and the handling and reporting of funds received in connection therewith. Other defendants in the Raske Litigation included other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. By Decision and Order dated September 6, 2013, amended September 12, 2013, the court granted the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties' and the other defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint, and dismissed the Complaint, with prejudice, except as to the plaintiff's claims for alleged unjust enrichment, which were dismissed without prejudice. On October 24, 2013, a second purported class action lawsuit naming the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties was initiated in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in the Raske Litigation (the "Shanklin Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation include breach of contract and unjust enrichment and are alleged to arise out of matters relating to those matters involved in the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms and certain advertisers. The Company believes the new claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself and its subsidiaries. On January 6, 2014, the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties moved to dismiss the complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants have also filed motions to dismiss. The court has stayed all discovery in the case pending resolution of these motions. On March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest". The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation. ********* 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 * * *