/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140722.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 22, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 144 Headlines 5-HOUR ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Advertising ADIR INT'L: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA ADVOCATE HEALTH: Court Tosses Class Action Over Data Breach ALLIED INTERSTATE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ARAMARK CAMPUS: Moved "Baker" Suit to So. Carolina Federal Court AT&T MOBILITY: Moved "Ly" Suit to Southern District of California AUTOLIV INC: Has MOU to Settle SEC Lawsuit for $22.5 Million BARNES & NOBLE: Arbitration Appeal Argued & Submitted in May BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss Amended PIN Pad Lawsuits Pending BARNES & NOBLE: No Trial Date Yet for Class Certification Motion BARNES & NOBLE: Hearing on Judgment Bid in "Trimmer" Case Held BARNES & NOBLE: Defendant in Two Securities Class Actions BOYD GAMING: Faces "Bennett" Suit in Southern District of Alabama BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: "Maiava" Suit Removed to C.D. California BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Removed "Maiava" Suit to C.D. California CALLINS LAW: Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Bonus and Vacation Hours CLEAR CHANNEL: Former Intern Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages CONCH CONSTRUCTION: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims DEUTSCHE BANK: 2nd Cir. Dismisses Plaintiffs' Class Action Appeal DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces "Ateshkadi" Discrimination Suit in Ill. EMERITUS CORP: Has MoU to Settle 3 Brookdale Merger-Related Suits ETHICON INC: Judge Approves $7.76-Mil. Award in Pelvic Mesh Case FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Disputes Claims Over Stolen Patient Records GENERAL MOTORS: "Andrews" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Arnold" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Bedford" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Childre" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Gebremariam" Suit Joined in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Johnson" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Smith" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: Lawmakers Want Chief Lawyer Fired Over Recall GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Supreme Court Reverses Class-Action Status GENERAL MOTORS: Fund Gets Chance to Settle Ignition Switch Claims GIANT EAGLE: Violates Americans With Disabilities Act, Suit Says HBN MEDIA: "Hejazi" Lawsuit Alleges TCPA Violations HMI INDUSTRIES: To Pay Penalty Over Defective Floor Cleaners INTEL CORP: Settles Pentium 4 Purchasers' Class Action INTERNATIONAL CULINARY: Two Law Firms File Class Action in N.Y. JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act JF VEHICLE: "Rodriguez" Suit Removed to M.D. Florida Court LAMAR CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Mass Layoffs LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in D.C. LINNCO LLC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action MAXFIELD: Recalls Buckyball Magnetic Toys Over Injuries MIDLAND FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act NATIONAL FOOTBALL: DEA Probes Players' Prescription Drug Use NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims NISSAN NORTH: Removed "Chiarelli" Class Suit to E.D. New York PAYTIME INC: Faces Class Action in Pennsylvania Over Data Breach SME INC: Faces "Manheim" Suit Over Junk Fax Ads UNITED CREDIT: Violated Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims VIBRAM USA: September 24 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set VIEGA LLC: August 25 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set VISALUS INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged $240-Mil. Fraud WALLICK PROPERTIES: Sued for Violating Age Discrimination Act WP REALTY: Accused of Violating Americans With Disabilities Act ********* 5-HOUR ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Deceptive Advertising ---------------------------------------------------- Steven Dubois, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two attorneys general from the Northwest have sued the companies responsible for the popular 5-Hour Energy drink, alleging they engaged in deceptive advertising. The Oregon lawsuit filed on July 17 in Portland contends 5-Hour Energy falsely claims customers get extra energy and focus from a unique blend of ingredients, when the boost actually comes from a concentrated dose of caffeine. The suit also targets claims that users don't experience a crash when the effects subside and that the product is OK for adolescents. Oregon has been part of a group leading a 33-state investigation into the accuracy of the product's claims. Washington state's attorney general filed a similar lawsuit on July 17 in King County Superior Court in Seattle. Other states are expected to file suit as well, said Kristina Edmunson, a spokeswoman for the Oregon Department of Justice. The lawsuits name Living Essentials LLC and Innovation Ventures LLC as defendants. 5-Hour Energy spokeswoman Melissa Skabich said the company will defend itself against what Ms. Skabich called civil intimidation. "When companies are being bullied by someone in a position of power, these companies roll over, pay the ransom, and move on," Ms. Skabich said in a statement. "We're not doing that." Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum said 5-Hour Energy violated the state's Unlawful Trade Practices Act. The lawsuit seeks monetary penalties as well as refunds to all Oregon buyers of the decaffeinated version of the product, which, according to the lawsuit, provides no extra energy or alertness. "Plainly and simply, in Oregon you cannot promote a product as being effective if you don't have sufficient evidence to back up your advertising claims," Ms. Rosenblum said. She and 5-Hour Energy have been in a tug-of-war over that evidence for more than a year, with her department seeking unredacted information showing how the formula for 5-Hour Energy provides its asserted benefits. The heavily advertised energy drink was introduced a decade ago, and the lawsuit estimates it is sold at more than 100,000 retail locations in the United States. The state officials investigating 5-Hour Energy say they are concerned about safety. The Food and Drug Administration said in November 2012 that it had received more than 90 reports over four years about illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths after the consumption of 5-Hour Energy. The FDA said, however, that the reports did not prove that the energy drink caused the problems. ADIR INT'L: Faces "Martinez" Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- Mima Martinez, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Adir International, LLC dba Curacao, Case No. 2:14-cv- 05505 (C.D. Cal., July 15, 2014) alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fishcer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ml@kazlg.com ADVOCATE HEALTH: Court Tosses Class Action Over Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Allison Grande, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois state court on July 10 tossed a putative class action over a data breach at Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp., ruling that the plaintiffs needed to prove that their data had actually been misused in order to sustain their claims. In granting Advocate's motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, Circuit Court Judge James R. Murphy rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the hospital's failure to adequately secure unencrypted patient data stored on four laptops that were stolen from its facilities resulted in an increased risk of harm that was sufficient to confer standing. To support their position, the plaintiffs cited the West Virginia Supreme Court's May 28 decision in Tabata v. Charleston Area Medical Center, which held that, even though the plaintiffs couldn't prove that the patient data accidentally posted by the medical center on the Internet had been misused, the breach of their legal interest in keeping their medical information confidential was enough to confer standing. But while Judge Murphy acknowledged that the West Virginia case "may be an example of how a court could confer standing to plaintiffs or a class of litigants who have suffered no actual damages but are found to have suffered loss to a legally protected interest, i.e., their interest in keeping their private information private," he believed that the long line of Illinois and federal court cases that support the notion that actual injury is required to establish standing "more persuasively analyze whether litigants have a real interest to be adjudicated." "The facts herein are similar to those in the [other] cases, in that there has been no injury in fact and no change in the status quo," the judge ruled. "Yes, there is an increased risk of harm because it is unknown if, and when, the theft of the computers would transmute or ripen into identity theft. [But] there is no actual or impending certainty of identity theft." Because the plaintiffs had not alleged nor would they be able to prove that the information contained on the stolen computers had been accessed or disseminated by unknown third parties or that they have been actual victims of identity theft, they lack standing to bring claims against Advocate for negligence, invasion of privacy and violations of the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, the ruling concluded. Judge Murphy also agreed with Advocate's contention that there are no allegations of present injury sufficient to sustain the negligence and ICFA claims, and that there are insufficient allegations of intentional conduct to state a cause of action for invasion of privacy. The negligence and ICFA claims must be nixed because the laws are intended to remedy present harm and not the increased risk of possible, future identity theft alleged by the plaintiffs, while an invasion of privacy claim cannot be maintained where a plaintiff has voluntarily given defendant the data at issue or where there is no evidence that the information has been publicized, according to the ruling. "Based on the facts alleged, there is no claim for invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, due to the lack of intentional conduct," the ruling said. "At most, defendant was negligent in not encrypting the personal information on the computers." The plaintiffs brought their proposed class action to Illinois' Sixteenth Judicial Circuit after Advocate in August revealed the theft of four unencrypted laptops that contained protected health information and Social Security numbers belonging to more than 4 million patients. The plaintiffs asserted that the hospital had the duty under Illinois' Personal Information Protection Act, the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, and other statutes to securely maintain patients' personal information, and that its failure to do so had created an injury sufficient to establish standing, an argument rejected by Judge Murphy on July 10. The ruling marks the second time in just over a month that an Illinois state court has shut down a putative data breach class action filed against Advocate. At the end of May, a judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit dismissed with prejudice a similar class action seeking to hold Advocate liable for the data theft, concluding that without connecting the data on the laptops to misuse of their information, the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring suit. The plaintiffs in the suit dismissed on July 10 are represented by Robert M. Foote -- rmf@fmcolaw.com -- Matthew J. Herman -- mjh@fmcolaw.com -- and Kathleen C. Chavez -- kcc@fmcolaw.com -- of Foote Mielke Chavez & O'Neil LLC. Advocate is represented by Ted Kobus -- tkobus@bakerlaw.com -- Dan Warren -- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- and George Tzanetopoulos -- gtzanetopoulos@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler. The case is Matias Maglio et al. v. Advocate Health and Hospitals Corp. et al., case number 13-L-538, in the Circuit Court for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Kane County, Illinois. ALLIED INTERSTATE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Chana Biller, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Allied Interstate, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 04333-CBA-VMS (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com ARAMARK CAMPUS: Moved "Baker" Suit to So. Carolina Federal Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant Aramark Campus, LLC, incorrectly named as Aramark Corporation, removed the class action lawsuit entitled Baker, et al. v. Aramark Corporation, et al., Case No. 2014-CP-02-01279, from the Court of Common Pleas for Aiken County, South Carolina, Second Judicial Circuit, to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-02857-JMC to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiffs' class at the rate of one-and-a-half times their normal rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Aramark Campus, LLC was formed in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The Company's ultimate parent, Aramark (formerly ARAMARK Corporation) is incorporated in Delaware and also has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glenn Walters, Esq. Post Office Box 1346 1910 Russell Street (29115) Orangeburg, SC 29116 Telephone: (803) 531-8844 Facsimile: (803) 531-3628 E-mail: glennwalterspa@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Reginald W. Belcher, Esq. TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A. Post Office Box 1473 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 227-4314 E-mail: rbelcher@turnerpadget.com - and - James P. Walsh, Jr., Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 502 Carnegie Center Princeton, NJ 08540-6289 Telephone: (609) 909-6647 Facsimile: (609) 919-6701 E-mail: jwalsh@morganlewis.com - and - Anne Marie Estevez, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 200 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 5300 Miami, FL 33131-2339 Telephone: (305) 415-3330 Facsimile: (305) 415-3001 E-mail: aestevez@morganlewis.com - and - Rita Srivastava, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 324-1000 Facsimile: (312) 324-1001 E-mail: rsrivastava@morganlewis.com AT&T MOBILITY: Moved "Ly" Suit to Southern District of California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Ly v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00013654-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-01686-L-RBB to the proceeding. The case arises from labor-related issues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Diane Elizabeth Richard, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: drichard@robbinsarroyo.com The Defendants are represented by: Rishi Puri, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-1553 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: rpuri@seyfarth.com AUTOLIV INC: Has MOU to Settle SEC Lawsuit for $22.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Autoliv, Inc., on June 27, 2014, announced that it entered into a memorandum of understanding reflecting an agreement in principle to settle for $22.5 million the lawsuit and claims alleging that the Company misrepresented or failed to disclose that its antitrust violations artificially inflated the Company's earnings and stock price in violation of the federal securities laws, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated June 27, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2014. Autoliv, Inc. ("Autoliv"), two of its officers and an employee are defendants in a purported class action securities lawsuit filed by the Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis ("Plaintiff") on April 17, 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action File No. 13-CIV-2546) (the "Lawsuit"). Plaintiff purports to bring the Lawsuit on behalf of a class of purchasers who bought Autoliv common stock between October 26, 2010, and July 21, 2011. Plaintiff alleges that Autoliv misrepresented or failed to disclose that antitrust violations by Autoliv artificially inflated Autoliv's earnings and stock price in violation of the federal securities laws. Plaintiff seeks to recover an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of the alleged class of purchasers. On June 27, 2014, Autoliv announced that it entered into a memorandum of understanding with Plaintiff reflecting an agreement in principle to settle the Lawsuit and the claims of the alleged class for a payment of $22.5 million. Autoliv expects to record a net expense of approximately $4.5 million in its second quarter results. The balance of the settlement amount will be paid by Autoliv's insurance carrier. The proposed agreement is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by Autoliv or any of the individuals named in the complaint. The defendants are settling to eliminate the uncertainties, risk, distraction and expense associated with protracted litigation. The proposed agreement is subject to negotiation and execution of a final settlement agreement among the parties and final approval by the court following notice to the settlement class and a fairness hearing. Autoliv, Inc. is a holding company. Autoliv is the supplier of automotive safety systems, with a range of product offerings, including modules and components for passenger and driver-side airbags, side-impact airbag protection systems, seatbelts, steering wheels, safety electronics, whiplash protection systems and child seats, as well as night vision systems, radar and other active safety systems. Autoliv has two main operating segments: airbags/seatbelt (including restraint electronics) products and active safety electronics products. BARNES & NOBLE: Arbitration Appeal Argued & Submitted in May ------------------------------------------------------------ Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s appeal from the court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration in connection with a nationwide class action alleging claims for unfair business practices and false advertising was argued and submitted on May 16, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on June 27, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 3, 2014. Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for the State of California against the Company. The complaint is styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's website in August 2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and false advertising under both New York and California state law, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law, and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does not specify an amount. The Company submitted its initial response to the complaint on May 18, 2012, and moved to compel plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012. The Company has also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to transfer the action to New York. The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration, and the Company appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court granted the Company's motion to stay on November 26, 2012, and the action has been stayed pending resolution of the Company's appeal from the court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration. The Company filed its opening brief on the appeal on February 11, 2013. The answering brief was filed on April 13, 2013, and the Company's reply brief was filed on May 23, 2013. The appeal was argued and submitted on May 16, 2014. Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a content, commerce and technology company that provides customers access to books, magazines, newspapers and other content across its multi-channel distribution platform. As of April 27, 2013, it operated 1,361 bookstores in 50 states, 686 bookstores on college campuses, and operates one of the Web eCommerce sites, and develops digital content products and software. Barnes & Noble operates in three segments: B&N Retail, B&N College and NOOK. The Company's principal business is the sale of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles), mass market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science fiction and other popular fiction), children's books, eBooks and other digital content, NOOK and related accessories, bargain books, magazines, gifts, cafe products and services, educational toys & games, music and movies direct to customers through its bookstores or on barnesandnoble.com. BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss Amended PIN Pad Lawsuits Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------ Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended consolidated putative class actions alleging, among other things, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, is pending, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on June 27, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 3, 2014. The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four putative class action complaints (three in federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second motion to dismiss. That motion is pending. The Company also has received inquiries related to this matter from the Federal Trade Commission and eight state attorneys general, all of which have either been closed or have not had any recent activity. The Company intends to cooperate with them if further activity arises. In addition, payment card companies and associations may impose fines by reason of the tampering and federal or state enforcement authorities may impose penalties or other remedies against the Company. Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a content, commerce and technology company that provides customers access to books, magazines, newspapers and other content across its multi-channel distribution platform. As of April 27, 2013, it operated 1,361 bookstores in 50 states, 686 bookstores on college campuses, and operates one of the Web eCommerce sites, and develops digital content products and software. Barnes & Noble operates in three segments: B&N Retail, B&N College and NOOK. The Company's principal business is the sale of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles), mass market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science fiction and other popular fiction), children's books, eBooks and other digital content, NOOK and related accessories, bargain books, magazines, gifts, cafe products and services, educational toys & games, music and movies direct to customers through its bookstores or on barnesandnoble.com. BARNES & NOBLE: No Trial Date Yet for Class Certification Motion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc. has filed an opposition and the plaintiff has filed a response in connection with a motion for class certification but no trial date has been set, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on June 27, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 3, 2014. On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the State of California making the following allegations against defendants with respect to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in the State of California from the period of August 5, 2007 to present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class. The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. The parties have completed pre-certification discovery. Plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed November 11, 2013, Barnes & Noble's opposition was filed February 28, 2014, and plaintiff's reply was filed April 11, 2014. The hearing date for the certification motion is scheduled for July 1, 2014. No trial date has been set. Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a content, commerce and technology company that provides customers access to books, magazines, newspapers and other content across its multi-channel distribution platform. As of April 27, 2013, it operated 1,361 bookstores in 50 states, 686 bookstores on college campuses, and operates one of the Web eCommerce sites, and develops digital content products and software. Barnes & Noble operates in three segments: B&N Retail, B&N College and NOOK. The Company's principal business is the sale of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles), mass market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science fiction and other popular fiction), children's books, eBooks and other digital content, NOOK and related accessories, bargain books, magazines, gifts, cafe products and services, educational toys & games, music and movies direct to customers through its bookstores or on barnesandnoble.com. BARNES & NOBLE: Hearing on Judgment Bid in "Trimmer" Case Held -------------------------------------------------------------- Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in connection with the Steven Trimmer's complaint is fully briefed and the hearing date is scheduled for July 7, 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on June 27, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 3, 2014. On January 25, 2013, Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former Assistant Store Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Specifically, Trimmer alleges that he and other similarly situated ASMs were improperly classified as exempt from overtime and denied overtime wages prior to July 1, 2010, when the Company reclassified them as non-exempt. The complaint seeks to certify a collective action under the FLSA comprised of ASMs throughout the country employed from January 25, 2010 until July 1, 2010, and a class action under the NYLL comprised of ASMs employed in New York from January 25, 2007 until July 1, 2010. The parties have completed the first phase of discovery with respect to the individual claims asserted by Trimmer and one opt-in plaintiff only. The Court has stayed all class-wide discovery at this point. The Company filed a summary judgment motion on November 25, 2013. That motion is fully briefed. The hearing date for the summary judgment motion is scheduled for July 7, 2014. Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a content, commerce and technology company that provides customers access to books, magazines, newspapers and other content across its multi-channel distribution platform. As of April 27, 2013, it operated 1,361 bookstores in 50 states, 686 bookstores on college campuses, and operates one of the Web eCommerce sites, and develops digital content products and software. Barnes & Noble operates in three segments: B&N Retail, B&N College and NOOK. The Company's principal business is the sale of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles), mass market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science fiction and other popular fiction), children's books, eBooks and other digital content, NOOK and related accessories, bargain books, magazines, gifts, cafe products and services, educational toys & games, music and movies direct to customers through its bookstores or on barnesandnoble.com. BARNES & NOBLE: Defendant in Two Securities Class Actions --------------------------------------------------------- Two class action complaints were filed against Barnes & Noble, Inc., alleging violations of the federal securities law, according to the Company's Form 10-K filed on June 27, 2014, with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended May 3, 2014. Anthony Taylor (Taylor) and Stephen Maitland-Lewis (Maitland- Lewis) filed class action complaints for violations of the federal securities law on January 8, 2014, and January 23, 2014, respectively. Both of these actions, which are substantially similar, were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Leonard Riggio, William Lynch, Jr., and Michael Huseby are named as defendants in the Taylor action. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Michael Huseby, William Lynch, Jr. and Allen Lindstrom are named as defendants in the Maitland-Lewis action. The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (making false statements or otherwise engaging in a scheme to defraud, or omitting to state material facts causing inflation of company stock), and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (liability for controlling persons). Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the defendants made, or caused the Company to make, false statements or omitted, or caused the Company to omit, material information with respect to the Company's failure to implement adequate internal controls over financial reporting. Barnes & Noble, Inc. is a content, commerce and technology company that provides customers access to books, magazines, newspapers and other content across its multi-channel distribution platform. As of April 27, 2013, it operated 1,361 bookstores in 50 states, 686 bookstores on college campuses, and operates one of the Web eCommerce sites, and develops digital content products and software. Barnes & Noble operates in three segments: B&N Retail, B&N College and NOOK. The Company's principal business is the sale of trade books (generally hardcover and paperback consumer titles), mass market paperbacks (such as mystery, romance, science fiction and other popular fiction), children's books, eBooks and other digital content, NOOK and related accessories, bargain books, magazines, gifts, cafe products and services, educational toys & games, music and movies direct to customers through its bookstores or on barnesandnoble.com. BOYD GAMING: Faces "Bennett" Suit in Southern District of Alabama ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Bennett, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Boyd Gaming Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00330 (S.D. Ala., July 16, 2014) is brought under Chapter 5 (Wire or Radio Communication) of the Title 47 of the United States Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq. 21 South Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 990-5558 Facsimile: (251) 990-0626 E-mail: epunderwood@gmail.com BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: "Maiava" Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Maiava v. Brinderson Constructors, Inc., et al., Case No. BC531880, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14- cv-01099 to the proceeding. The case arises from labor-related issues. The Defendants are represented by: Michael S. Kun, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506 Telephone: (310) 556-8861 Facsimile: (310) 553-2165 E-mail: mkun@ebglaw.com BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Removed "Maiava" Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Francisco P. Maiava v. Brinderson Constructors, Inc., et al., Case No. BC531880, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-05514-BRO-AJW to the proceeding. The case arises from labor-related issues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal J. Fialkow, Esq. James S. Cahill, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NEAL J. FIALKOW INC. 215 North Marengo Avenue, Third Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (626) 584-6060 Facsimile: (626) 584-2950 E-mail: nfialkow@pacbell.net j.cahill@rossbacherlaw.com - and - Sahag Majarian, Esq. SAHAG MAJARIAN II LAW OFFICES 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com The Defendants are represented by: Aaron F. Olsen, Esq. Michael S. Kun, Esq. EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN PC 1925 Century Park East, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2506 Telephone: (310) 556-8861 Facsimile: (310) 553-2165 E-mail: cemail@ebglaw.com mkun@ebglaw.com CALLINS LAW: Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Bonus and Vacation Hours --------------------------------------------------------------- Antonia N. Okonkwo v. The Callins Law Firm, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 02263-CAP (N.D. Ga., July 16, 2014) is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and others similarly situated, seeks payment for overtime, bonus, vacation hours, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Okonkwo was employed full-time with Callins Law Firm from December 2008 until she involuntarily terminated her employment on June 2014. She worked an Associate Attorney practicing real estate default law with particular emphasis on creditor's rights. The Callins Law Firm, LLC is a Georgia Limited Liability Company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. Callins Law Firm is a firm engaged in the practice of law. The Plaintiff represented herself in the lawsuit: Antonia N. Okonkwo, Esq. OKONKWO, LLC (THE RESILIENT LAW SOLUTION) 11555 Medlock Bridge Road, Suite 100 Johns Creek, GA 30097 Telephone: (404) 980-2277 Facsimile: (678) 274-0057 E-mail: anokonkwo@okonkwolaw.com CLEAR CHANNEL: Former Intern Files Class Action Over Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- All Access reports that Clear Channel has been hit with a class action suit alleging that the company wrongfully withheld wages from interns at its stations. The suit, filed by attorneys Virgina & Ambinder, LLP and Leeds Brown Law, P.C. with Liane Arias as named plaintiff, is one of several suits against companies which offer unpaid internships in the wake of a court ruling that interns are covered by New York labor law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Arias was an unpaid intern in August-December 2011 in Clear Channel's promotions and marketing department, with her duties described as "searching out current events and assembling reports; creating newspaper articles; going to promotional events and "giveaways" to promote Defendants' radio stations," and other necessary tasks. Interestingly, in one paragraph, the plaintiff is incorrectly referred to as "Tierney;" Melissa Tierney was a SiriusXM intern who filed a class action suit against the satellite operator in April. CONCH CONSTRUCTION: Refused to Pay Overtime Wages, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Rodriguez v. Conch Construction & Roofing, Inc., and Michael Garcia, Case No. 4:14-cv-10052-JLK (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were unlawfully denied overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Conch Construction & Roofing, Inc., had employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce, or had employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials that were moved in or produced for commerce by a person. Michael Garcia had operational control over the Company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd W. Shulby, Esq. TODD W. SHULBY, P.A. 2800 Weston Road, Suite 101 Weston, FL 33331 Telephone: (954) 530-2236 Facsimile: (954) 530-6628 E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com DEUTSCHE BANK: 2nd Cir. Dismisses Plaintiffs' Class Action Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has dismissed an appeal against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company by plaintiffs who claimed it and its trusts did not own their loans and mortgages. Circuit judges Amalya Lyle Kearse, Dennis G. Jacobs and Barrington D. Parker Jr. voted in the majority, with Kearse authoring the opinion. "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the facts alleged by plaintiffs do not give them standing to pursue the claims they asserted, and we affirm the judgment of dismissal," the June 30 opinion states. David Rajamin, Edith Gonzalez Larios, Jesus Valdez, Maurice Nunez, Elias Estrada, Irma Estrada, Theresa Doty, Robert Basel and Larry Myron Kegel mortgaged their homes in 2005 or 2006 and borrowed sums ranging from $24,000 to $1,008,000, totaling $3,776,000, according to the opinion. The complaint challenged the defendants' ownership of the plaintiffs' loans and mortgages; their right to collect and receive payment on the loans; and the right to commence or authorize commencement of foreclosure proceedings where payments have not been made or received. The plaintiffs claimed the assignments were defective because their mortgage loans were not specifically listed in mortgage loan schedules or other attachments to the assignment agreements. "The complaint also alleged that assignments by First Franklin to Deutsche Bank of four of plaintiffs' deeds of trust were executed and publicly recorded in 2009 or 2010, after First Franklin had ceased operations and years after the securitization transactions took place," the opinion states. "Plaintiffs argue that the execution and recordation of these mortgage assignments after the securitization transactions that created the defendant trusts indicate that these mortgages were not included in the mortgage loan pools that were sold to those trusts." On appeal, the plaintiffs claim the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, arguing that they have a "concrete interest in putting to the test defendants' claims to own [plaintiffs'] mortgages and mortgage documents." "We conclude that plaintiffs failed to allege injuries sufficient to show constitutional standing to pursue their claims," the opinion states. The recorded assignments do not support plaintiffs' contention that their loans and mortgages were not owned by defendants, according to the opinion. "Moreover, plaintiffs have not alleged that the promissory notes were not conveyed to the Trustee in a timely manner," the opinion states. "Section 2.01(b) of the PSAs states that documentation, including each 'original Mortgage Note' and each 'original recorded Mortgage' 'has [been] delivered . . . to the Custodian.'" The fact that the plaintiffs mount no viable challenge to the timeliness of the assignment of the promissory notes scuttles their contention that the mortgages were not timely assigned, according to the opinion. "The apparent 'custody' of plaintiffs' notes by custodians, which the assignment agreements explicitly allow the trustee to use, does not imply that those agreements failed to convey ownership of plaintiffs' obligations to defendants," the opinion states. "We have considered all of plaintiffs' arguments on this appeal and have found them to be without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed." U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case number: 13-1614 DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Faces "Ateshkadi" Discrimination Suit in Ill. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Azita Ateshkadi v. Discover Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05488 (N.D. Ill., July 17, 2014) alleges that the Company discriminated against the Plaintiff, a qualified individual with a handicap, because of her disability (Ovarian Cancer and Rheumatoid Arthritis) and her disability requiring time off of work. Discover Financial Services, Inc., is a Delaware corporation doing business in the state of Illinois and other surrounding states. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael T. Smith, Esq. MICHAEL T. SMITH & ASSOCIATES 440 W. Irving Park Road Roselle, IL 60172 Telephone: (847) 895-0626 E-mail: msmith39950@aol.com EMERITUS CORP: Has MoU to Settle 3 Brookdale Merger-Related Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Emeritus Corp., on June 26, 2014, entered into a memorandum of understanding with respect to a proposed settlement of three consolidated purported class action lawsuits relating to the Merger Agreement filed against the Company and Brookdale Senior Living Inc., a Delaware corporation, pursuant to which Brookdale and Emeritus will make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed merger, according to Emeritus' Form 8-K dated June 27, 2014, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2014. Accordingly, Emeritus filed a Current Report on Form 8-K to update the joint proxy statement/prospectus included in the Registration Statement on Form S-4, file No. 333-196201, filed by Brookdale with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and declared effective by the SEC on June 5, 2014, and the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed by Emeritus Corporation, a Washington corporation ("Emeritus") with the SEC on June 5, 2014, in each case concerning the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of February 20, 2014 (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among Brookdale, Emeritus, and Broadway Merger Sub Corporation, a Delaware corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Brookdale ("Merger Sub"). The joint proxy statement/prospectus was first mailed to the respective shareholders of Brookdale and Emeritus on or about June 9, 2014. As disclosed in the joint proxy statement/prospectus, following the announcement of the execution the Merger Agreement, three purported class action lawsuits relating to the Merger Agreement were filed on behalf of Emeritus shareholders in the Superior Court of King County, Washington against Emeritus, members of the Emeritus board of directors, Brookdale and Merger Sub (the "Defendants"), which lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single action captioned In re Emeritus Corp. Shareholder Litigation, No. 14-2-06385-7 SEA (the "Washington Action"). A copy of the Company's regulatory filing is available at: http://is.gd/qlqZAo The settlement will not affect the timing of the respective special meetings of Emeritus and Brookdale, which were each scheduled to be held on July 10, 2014, or the amount of the consideration to be paid to Emeritus shareholders in connection with the proposed merger. The settlement is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing or liability by any of the Defendants. The Defendants believe that no further disclosure is required to supplement the joint proxy statement/prospectus under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk that the Washington Action may delay or otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the proposed merger and to minimize the expense of defending such action, the Defendants have agreed, pursuant to the terms of the proposed settlement, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed merger, all of which are set forth below. Nothing in this Current Report or any settlement shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the disclosures set forth herein. The parties have agreed to use their collective best efforts to obtain final approval of the settlement and the dismissal of the Washington Action with prejudice. Subject to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs, the Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including court approval following notice to Emeritus' shareholders. As explained in the Memorandum of Understanding, if the settlement is finally approved by the Washington court, the parties anticipate that it will resolve and release all claims in all actions pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to Emeritus shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel in the Washington Action will file a petition in the Washington court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Emeritus or its successor. Emeritus or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys' fees and expenses awarded by the Washington court. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Washington court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated. Emeritus Corporation owns and operates a portfolio of communities providing services to its residents, including independent living, assisted living, specialized memory care, and, to a lesser extent, skilled nursing care. The Company provides a variety of supportive living services in a professionally staffed environment that enables seniors to live with dignity and independence. ETHICON INC: Judge Approves $7.76-Mil. Award in Pelvic Mesh Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary has lost a bid to upend an $11.1 million verdict in the first bellwether trial over allegedly harmful pelvic mesh implants. Atlantic County Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee on July 15 denied motions by Ethicon for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict that would have struck a jury award of $3.35 million in compensatory damages and $7.76 million in punitive damages from early last year. At trial, "there was strong evidence presented and multiple sources of evidence that in fact there were many problems with this product," Judge Higbee said in court, according to a preliminary transcript. The decision "only marks the start of the appeals process," Ethicon spokesman Matthew Johnson said in a statement. "We will be filing an appeal in this case as we believe the jury's verdict and damage awards were not supported by the evidence presented at trial." The litigation, In re Pelvic Mesh/Gynecare Litigation, No. 291, encompasses thousands of suits claiming injuries from the Gynecare Prolift pelvic mesh product, created by Somerville, N.J.-based Ethicon to treat organ prolapse and urinary incontinence, and marketed beginning in 2002. It was designed for minimally invasive implantation through the vagina, and J&J has maintained that the products are safe. But the plaintiffs claim they have a high failure rate, cause serious complications and necessitate corrective surgeries, despite their billing as safer than other surgical methods. The products allegedly erode into organs and vaginal walls, causing chronic pain, pain during sexual intercourse, scar tissue and other injuries. Suits were first filed in 2008, shortly before the federal Food and Drug Administration first announced that complications were being reported. Linda Gross of Watertown, S.D., sued in November 2008, claiming she underwent 18 surgeries to correct injuries caused by a Gynecare Prolift mesh implant. After five days of deliberation, the jury found in a 7-2 vote that Ethicon failed to warn Ms. Gross' doctor about possible side effects and made fraudulent misrepresentations to Ms. Gross. The jury unanimously found no cause of action on Ms. Gross' defective-design claim and voted 7-2 that there was no cause of action on a fraudulent misrepresentation claim as to Ms. Gross' doctor. The jury's compensatory damages award was made up of $1.1 million for pain and suffering, $1 million for future medical expenses, $500,000 for future lost wages, $385,000 for past medical expenses, $180,000 for past lost wages, and $185,000 for a per quod claim. Days later, in the ensuing punitive damages trial, the panel delivered a 7-2 verdict awarding an additional $7.76 million. Judge Higbee began a two-month temporary assignment to the Appellate Division on April 14 but has since returned to Atlantic County. On July 15, she ruled from the bench, denying Ethicon's motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, dispensing with Ethicon's claims that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. The evidence "not only was sufficient, but it was extremely strong in support of the plaintiff's position," Judge Higbee said, according to the preliminary transcript. She cited evidence that Ethicon was aware of the medical complications associated with Prolift. That testimony "could have been believed, and apparently was believed by the jury . . . that the defendant knew about this problem, that they were told about this problem, that their own doctors were warning them about this problem, that their own studies were showing this problem . . . and therefore, that the defendant had a duty to warn about the problem," Judge Higbee was quoted as saying in the transcript. Judge Higbee also relied heavily on testimony of the physician who performed the implanting procedure for Ms. Gross. He testified that he was not fully aware of the risks and probably wouldn't have recommended the product to Ms. Gross, a young patient at age 41, had he been informed, according to Judge Higbee. The doctor was not named in the transcript. Judge Higbee also brushed aside Ethicon's claims that she made evidentiary errors and didn't properly charge the jury. "The idea that I could have gone through the trial and not made one evidential mistake is not likely, but I don't see any myself at this point in time," Judge Higbee said according to the transcript. "The Appellate Division is going to have to see it." She noted that punitive damages claims are typically barred in pharmaceutical cases, but Ms. Gross' injuries occurred before any FDA approval was obtained. Judge Higbee also declined to reduce the punitive damages total, noting that it "could have been a $15 million award and still fit under the parameters." Adam Slater of Mazie Slater Katz & Freeman in Roseland, N.J., Ms. Gross' counsel, said more evidence has cropped up since Ms. Gross' trial, through depositions and medical literature. "We look forward to more trials as we move forward," Mr. Slater said. "We feel like the evidence is much, much stronger than it even was then." Ethicon's Johnson, in his statement, said the company "acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the Prolift pelvic organ prolapse repair kit." "We empathize with all women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse (POP), which can be a serious and debilitating condition, and we are always concerned when a patient experiences adverse medical events," Johnson added. "We have always made patient safety a top priority and will continue to do so." Ethicon's lead defense counsel, Kelly Crawford of Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti in Morristown, N.J., didn't respond to an email on July 16. Ms. Gross' suit was one of 5,957 New Jersey suits against Ethicon filed as of July 14, according to judiciary data. The multicounty litigation also encompasses 1,472 suits against C.R. Bard of Murray Hill, N.J., over similar mesh products. Another 59,061 suits over these and other pelvic mesh products have been lodged in federal court -- referred to multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of West Virginia -- against J&J/Ethicon, C.R. Bard and other companies, according to federal judiciary data. FLOWERS HOSPITAL: Disputes Claims Over Stolen Patient Records ------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that an Alabama hospital denies it was negligent in protecting the sensitive personal information of two former patients who have brought a proposed class action alleging identity thieves stole their records that were left unattended and unsecured. In a July 7 motion to dismiss, counsel for Flowers Hospital disputed the allegations of two former patients that the Dothan, Ala., facility was liable because a former employee stole records containing their medical and financial information from a room left unattended and unsecured in the facility. In Smith and McGee v. Triad of Alabama, in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, plaintiffs Bradley Smith and Julie McGee claim they learned since the theft -- which occurred sometime between June 2013 and February -- that they have been victims of IRS tax refund fraud, which they imply was a consequence of the records theft. They allege that the stolen documents contained their Social Security numbers, medical diagnoses, physician identification and insurance information -- all of which leave them vulnerable to a new and growing fraud involving false medical claims. But the hospital argues that the plaintiffs do not have standing because they cannot show any actual economic or other harm from the security breach. Citing recent federal court decisions on security breach liability, the hospital argues that claims of an increased likelihood of harm do not meet that test. And, the hospital contends, the plaintiffs cannot show a direct link between the disappearance of their records and the alleged tax return fraud. "Plaintiffs do not allege that they have lost the ability to receive a tax refund otherwise owed, nor are there allegations that Plaintiffs have been subjected to some unreimbursed fees or expenses as a result of the third-party filing fraudulent tax returns in their names," the hospital's motion argues. The plaintiffs allege Flowers has violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, and engaged in negligence and invasion of privacy by public disclosure of private facts. They seek injunctive relief and a variety of damages. The complaint states former Flowers employee Kamarian Deshaun Millender was arrested and charged with trafficking in stolen identities. An unknown accomplice remains at large. Counsel for the hospital are Richard Smith, Jonathan Macklem and J. Paul Zimmerman, of Christian & Small LLP. Plaintiffs are represented by M. Adam Jones and Jordan Davis, of M. Adam Jones & Associates, LLC; and James Terrell, of McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C. GENERAL MOTORS: "Andrews" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Anna Andrews v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-01239, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05351-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Frank Calcagnie, Esq. Scot D. Wilson, Esq. Mark P Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: kcalcagnie@rcrlaw.net swilson@rcrlaw.net mrobinson@rcrsd.com - and - Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue Suite 203 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Arnold" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Arnold, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02882, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05325-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert A. Clifford, Esq. Kristofer S. Riddle, Esq. Shannon Marie McNulty, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, P.C 120 N Lasalle Street, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 Facsimile: (312) 251-1160 E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com ksr@cliffordlaw.com smm@cliffordlaw.com - and - G. Patrick Murphy, Esq. Patricia S. Murphy, Esq. MURPHY & MURPHY LLC 3415 Office Park Drive, Suite D Marion, IL 62959 Telephone: (618) 248-3236 E-mail: gpatrick@murphymurphyllc.com trisha@murphymurphyllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Richard Cartier Godfrey, Esq. Andrew Baker Bloomer, Esq. Leonid Feller, Esq. Robert Burkart Ellis, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP (IL) 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 861-2391 Facsimile: (312) 861-2200 E-mail: rgodfrey@kirkland.com andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com leonid.feller@kirkland.com rellis@kirkland.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Bedford" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Bedford Auto Wholesale, Inc. v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-11544, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05356-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Goodman, Esq. 280 N. Old Woodward Avenue, Suite 407 Birmingham, MI 48009-5394 Telephone: (248) 647-9300 Facsimile: (248) 647-8481 E-mail: pjgoodman1@aol.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Childre" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Childre v. General Motors, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01320, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05332-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. 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 GENERAL MOTORS: "Gebremariam" Suit Joined in Ignition Switch MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Mesafint Gebremariam v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 8:14-cv-00627, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05340-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. Fiore, Esq. Mary E. Alexander, Esq. MARY ALEXANDER AND ASSOCIATES PC 44 Montgomery Street Suite 1303 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-4440 Facsimile: (415) 433-5440 E-mail: jfiore@maryalexanderlaw.com elise_alexander@hotmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey S. Sinek, Esq. KIRKLAND AND ELLIS LLP 333 South Hope Street, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: jeff.sinek@kirkland.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Johnson" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Johnson v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-00477, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05347-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Hazzard, Esq. HAZZARD LAW, LLC P. O. BOX 24382 Jackson, MS 39225 Telephone: (601) 977-5253 Facsimile: (601) 977-5236 E-mail: brenthazzard@yahoo.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Smith" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Smith v. General Motors, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00120, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05338-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Don Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A. P.O. Box 927 Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-9168 E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Paul V. Cassisa, Jr., Esq. BUTLER SNOW LLP P. O. Box 1138 1200 Jefferson Ave., Suite 205 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (601) 513-8000 E-mail: paul.cassisa@butlersnow.com GENERAL MOTORS: Lawmakers Want Chief Lawyer Fired Over Recall ------------------------------------------------------------- Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that lawmakers demanded General Motors fire its chief lawyer and do more to help crash victims as a Senate subcommittee delved deeper into GM's mishandling of the recall of small cars with defective ignition switches. The July 17 grilling was GM's fourth appearance before Congress, but senators aren't done with their investigation. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who chairs the subcommittee, said she will hold a hearing in the next few weeks to ask government safety regulators about their role in the recall. GM has admitted that it knew about the faulty switches for more than a decade before recalling the cars. The ignition switches can slip out of the "run" position, causing the engines to stall and shutting off power to the air bags. It took years for GM engineers to connect the switch problem to the failure of the air bags to deploy. GM recalled 2.6 million small cars beginning in February. That recall prompted an unprecedented safety review within the company, which has since issued 54 separate recalls for 29 million vehicles. Ms. McCaskill praised GM CEO Mary Barra, saying she has "confronted the problem head on and the corporate culture that caused it." But Ms. McCaskill also put Barra on the spot, telling the CEO she should have fired GM's corporate counsel, Michael Millikin, based on the conclusions of an internal report by outside attorney Anton Valukas. Ms. Barra, with Mr. Millikin sitting beside her, defended him as a man of "tremendously high integrity." Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said GM needs to be more transparent and assume more responsibility. He called for the public release of all of the documents given to Mr. Valukas and the unsealing of previous lawsuit settlements. He also asked if GM will waive the legal shield that protects it from lawsuits related to crashes that happened before its July 2009 bankruptcy. In each case, Mr. Millikin said no. Mr. Blumenthal asked whether a compensation plan for victims of small-car crashes should be expanded to other recalls. Specifically the 8.2 million older large cars -- such as the Chevrolet Impala and Malibu -- that GM recalled on June 30 for defective ignition keys. Three deaths were linked to that issue, but GM has yet identify the cause. Kenneth Feinberg, the compensation expert administering the plan, said he was only hired to deal with the initial recalls. Ms. Barra said the June 30 recall was due to different issues. The compensation plan will take claims between Aug. 1 and Dec. 31. Blumenthal suggested that victims should be allowed to delay their compensation payments until the Justice Department finishes its investigation into GM. That investigation will likely find evidence of "cover-up, concealment, deceit and even fraud," he said. But Ms. Barra said Mr. Feinberg's parameters won't change. Victims will likely be compensated within 90 to 180 days of a filing and will give up their right to sue the company if they accept the payments. The Valukas report found that GM's legal staff, which began getting reports of air bags failing to deploy in Chevrolet Cobalts and Saturn Ions in late 2005, acted without a sense of urgency. Ms. McCaskill said GM's legal staff was warned four times by outside lawyers that it faced millions in punitive damages due to the switches. The warnings began in October 2010 and ended in April 2013. Mr. Millikin said the GM board was not informed of the potential legal liabilities. Mr. Millikin also said the warnings weren't reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission until after the recalls began earlier this year. Ms. McCaskill, a former prosecutor, said she can't understand why Mr. Millikin and one of his top deputies still are with GM. "This is a either gross negligence or gross incompetence on the part of a lawyer," she said. "I think the failure of this legal department is stunning." Mr. Millikin said he only learned about the ignition switch problems in February and acted quickly once he did. Senators also focused on how GM failed to answer requests for information from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on fatal crashes. GM responded to the so-called "death inquiries" by asserting attorney-client privilege or saying it had not assessed the cause of a particular crash, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. "I consider it a cover-up when a manufacturer does not respond fully and accurately to NHTSA," Ms. Boxer told Mr. Millikin. Ms. Boxer asked Ms. Barra if the people who gave "non-answers" to safety regulators had been fired. Barra said she believed they had. Those regulators will soon have to give Congress answers of their own. Senators say the safety agency missed signs of Chevrolet Cobalt stalling problems and failed to hold GM accountable. Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said the agency ignored consumer complaints and written reports from its own contractors that linked the switches to air bag failures in two fatal crashes. "I think the whole story has to get out there," Markey said. GEORGIA-PACIFIC: Supreme Court Reverses Class-Action Status ----------------------------------------------------------- DeAnn Komanecky, writing for Savannahnow.com, reports that the Georgia Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, has reversed a decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals granting class-action status in a lawsuit against Georgia-Pacific's Savannah River Mill Plant. The suit was originally filed in 2010 by Kirbi and Aaron Ratner and David and Kathy McDonald, who live near the Fort Howard Road Plant. The lawsuit presented claims of nuisance, trespass and negligence, alleging that sludge dumped in disposal cells at the plant released hydrogen sulfide, a gas that causes egg-like smells and is corrosive to metal. The property owners claim the gas caused loss of property values and physical damage to homes. Much of the reported damage has been from corrosion to air- conditioning systems. Class action certification was granted by Effingham County Superior Court Chief Judge William E. Woodrum in July of 2012. The class-action certification allowed lawsuit members to include owners of 65 properties that neighbor the plant. The properties included an area west of Fort Howard Road, south of the railroad line and east of Rincon-Stillwell Road. Georgia-Pacific appealed that ruling to the Georgia Court of Appeals in 2013. That court upheld the class-action status. The issue was then appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court by Georgia-Pacific and arguments were heard early this year. The Supreme Court ruling states that the homeowners did not meet state requirements to qualify as a class, including the requirement of commonality. "We conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it certified the class, and we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals," Justice Keith Blackwell said, in writing for the majority. "What matters to class certification is not the raising of common questions -- even in droves -- but, rather the capacity of a classwide proceeding to generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation." The opinion also states there was no evidence in the record that might prove on a class-wide basis that the entire area defined as the class was contaminated with hydrogen sulfide gas from the sludge fields. "There is, for instance, no scientific evidence of the amounts of gas released from the sludge fields, no evidence of the rate of release, no evidence of the extent to which the amounts released and rates of release varied over time, and no evidence of exactly how the gas would be expected to move through the air upon its release," the court wrote. And while the record contains some anecdotal evidence of hydrogen sulfide gas in some areas around the Mill, "this anecdotal evidence is not enough to satisfy a rigorous analysis with respect to the commonality of the particular class that the trial court satisfied." In a dissent of the majority court decision, Justice Carol Hunstein wrote that while she disagreed that the class was not supported by the record, "I note that the majority's opinion expressly contemplates the possibility that the plaintiffs here could still, with additional evidence, establish the existence of a sustainable class." Ben Perkins, a Savannah attorney representing the plaintiffs, said presenting additional evidence to the trial court is one option to be explored for his clients in light of the July 11 ruling. "Second, we could file separate lawsuits on behalf of individual property owners whose property has been damaged by Georgia- Pacific's pollution," Mr. Perkins said. "Despite Georgia- Pacific's claim that it is taking steps to halt its pollution, a claim Georgia-Pacific has made for more than a decade, the property damage and resulting diminution in property value caused by Georgia-Pacific's pollution continues to occur." Mr. Perkins said he and the other attorneys involved in the suit would continue to work for their clients. "Those persons whose property rights have been trampled upon by Georgia-Pacific are entitled to compensation, and we will do everything in our power to help them obtain such relief." Carrie Thompson, a spokesperson for Georgia-Pacific, said that her company had just received the decision. "We are evaluating it and the impact that it will have," Ms. Thompson said. "This is one step in the overall legal process on this issue. We'll continue moving forward in that process, and we'll continue working hard to be a good neighbor." GENERAL MOTORS: Fund Gets Chance to Settle Ignition Switch Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that an unusual meeting recently took place in Atlanta between the lawyer charged with administering the GM victims' compensation fund and lawyers suing the automaker over faulty ignition switches blamed for car accident deaths. Afterward, the lawyer who set up the meeting, Jere Beasley of Beasley Allen in Montgomery, Ala., announced plans to give the fund a chance reach settlements with his clients. However, Marietta lawyer Lance Cooper said on July 10 the meeting will not change his effort to continue discovery in the lawsuit that Beasley said is the foundation of all the litigation against GM over the ignition switch defect. That's the case of Ken and Beth Melton, the parents of Brooke Melton, who was killed in a crash caused by an ignition switch that suddenly turned to the "off" position as her car was in motion. That case has led to recalls of millions of GM vehicles. The Meltons announced in May that they would return money GM paid them to settle their case confidentially. Instead, the Meltons want to pursue more claims that company executives knew of the defect for a decade and covered it up. The July 16 meeting with mediator Kenneth Feinberg, who has handled victims' funds in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the BP oil spill, won't affect the Melton case, Mr. Cooper said. "The Meltons are not interested at this point in settling with GM," Mr. Cooper said. He added that he had a motion to remand the Melton case to Cobb County State Court, fighting GM's effort to move the case to federal court in New York and combine it with others to be frozen under the company's bankruptcy. Although the amount of the Melton settlement last year was confidential, GM described in a report about its internal investigation that a case identical to the Meltons' ended in a $5 million settlement. So far, GM has refused to accept the Meltons' return of the money, according to Cooper. Under the terms of the GM victims compensation fund, the Meltons could keep the settlement and still seek additional compensation, Mr. Cooper said. Yet he maintained that his clients are not concerned with money but with finding the truth and making it known. "There are so many questions still to be answered, and they need to be answered," he said on July 10. Mr. Cooper said he has other cases that will likely be resolved through the victims' compensation fund. But he says GM has set too many restrictions on which cases can be settled through the fund. He estimated that about 1 million cases can be covered under the terms the company has set. But the total number of cars recalled because of the ignition switch defect is far greater. Beasley estimated it at 17.1 million. Mr. Cooper said he thinks that number may be high, but certainly the series of recall announcements from GM add up to several million. Mr. Cooper said he believes GM is only including about half the cases that should be covered by the fund. He said Mr. Feinberg impressed him as "very forthright and very sincere." But he added, "We're disappointed that GM has tied his hands on a number of vehicles." Mr. Feinberg, of Feinberg Rosen in Washington and New York, couldn't be reached. Messrs. Cooper and Beasley said they would work together on the Melton case and others. The meeting in Atlanta on July 16 also included Cole Portis, who heads the Beasley Allen firm's products liability section. "We met in Atlanta because of Lance," said Mr. Beasley. He added that he made the plans after receiving a call from Mr. Feinberg. Mr. Beasley said he drove to Atlanta from Montgomery with his wife and checked into a corner suite at the Ritz-Carlton Buckhead. While his wife visited her sister in the suburbs, the four men -- Messrs. Beasley, Portis, Cooper and Feinberg -- gathered in the sitting room of Mr. Beasley's suite for "just over two hours." Before the meeting, the Beasley Allen public relations department had sent a string of news releases criticizing GM, saying the company couldn't be trusted. On July 10, Mr. Beasley announced he is "willing to give the plan a chance." Mr. Feinberg managed to persuade the plaintiffs lawyers that their "clients will be treated fairly," Mr. Beasley said. He added, "We will continue to file lawsuits." And he said victims who don't want to go through the fund still have the option of litigation. GIANT EAGLE: Violates Americans With Disabilities Act, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Giant Eagle, Inc. and Echo Realty, LP, Case No. 2:14-cv-00964-CRE (W.D. Pa., July 17, 2014) is brought pursuant to The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com HBN MEDIA: "Hejazi" Lawsuit Alleges TCPA Violations --------------------------------------------------- Ashkan Hejazi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HBN Media, Inc. dba Commissions, Inc., Case No. 8:14- cv-01105-JVS-RNB (C.D. Cal., July 16, 2014) alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3609 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gouya Askari Ranekouhi, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com gouya@kazlg.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com HMI INDUSTRIES: To Pay Penalty Over Defective Floor Cleaners ------------------------------------------------------------ Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that HMI Industries Inc., a Strongsville, Ohio-based maker of floor cleaners, has agreed to pay a $725,000 civil penalty for allegedly failing to report a problem with overheating in its floor cleaners, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission. The settlement was accepted by the commission 2-1. HMI also has agreed to implement a safety compliance program. Regulators alleged that the now-recalled Majestic 360 floor cleaner had problems with its wiring overheating and causing electrical arcing. A $325,000 portion of the penalty has been suspended in "reliance upon HMI's status as a small business, and its demonstration of and contractual representations regarding its inability to pay a greater penalty due to its financial condition," the CPSC said. The commission alleged the firm materially misrepresented the number of incidents with its floor cleaners. When it reported to regulators the issues with the floor cleaners in 2009, HMI allegedly said that it only knew of 40 consumer complaints, none of which involved injury. However, HMI had received 2,000 complaints about the floor cleaners causing electrical arcing, 120 reports of the floor cleaners overheating and causing property damage, and two reports of injury. Manufacturers are supposed to report within 24 hours any product defects that could create an unreasonable risk of serious injury or death, that could create a substantial product hazard or fail to comply with any other consumer product safety rule. The floor cleaner, which was sold for just under two years starting in 2004 through 2006 retailed for $1,800. The model, of which 44,000 were sold, was recalled in 2009. HMI did not admit any violations of the Consumer Product Safety Act as part of the settlement. INTEL CORP: Settles Pentium 4 Purchasers' Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that in a proposed settlement made public on July 15, Intel Corp. agreed to pay $15 each to potentially millions of consumers who bought computers equipped with Pentium 4 processors between 2000 and 2002. In exchange, plaintiffs attorneys Geoffrey Munroe -- gam@GirardGibbs.com -- of Girard Gibbs and Michael Danko of Danko Meredith will release Intel from claims it manipulated performance scores to make the processors appear better than they were. "It has taken more than 19,000 hours of attorney and paralegal time, and more than $2.4 million in out-of-pocket costs, but by building a robust record of Intel's benchmarking activities and employing novel legal theories, plaintiffs have achieved their primary objectives," the motion for settlement approval states. Attorneys on both sides of Skold v. Intel, 05-3923, had arrived in Santa Clara County Superior Court in late June ready to give opening statements in a bench trial before Judge Peter Kirwan. They set up their equipment and lugged stacks of paperwork up to the second-floor courtroom. But Judge Kirwan ordered one more last-minute round of mediation, and after a full day of tense negotiations, they reached a preliminary agreement that could finally lay the 10-year-old case to rest. The class is estimated at up to 4.7 million members. Mr. Danko said he hopes at least half make claims, which would put Intel on the hook for roughly $35 million. The settlement pool is not capped and claimants do not need receipts of purchase to participate, though they must attest under penalty of perjury that they made the purchase based on their best recollection. That low hurdle was a key concession sought by plaintiffs attorneys. "[M]ost class members replaced their Pentium 4 computers long ago and have no physical evidence of their thirteen-year-old computer purchase," the motion states. "While plaintiffs could have sought a monetary judgment for a greater sum if they prevailed at trial, they would still face the problem of getting the money into the hands" of class members. Intel also has agreed to donate computers worth $4 million to Teach for America and to pay up to $16.45 million in attorney fees. Munger Tolles & Olson partners Gregory Stone -- Gregory.Stone@mto.com -- and Daniel Levin -- Daniel.Levin@mto.com -- led Intel's team from Los Angeles, along with Miriam Kim in the firm's San Francisco office. Plaintiffs attorneys claim internal Intel emails, PowerPoint presentations and performance reviews paint a clear picture of how Intel executives designed new benchmark tests and tweaked existing third-party tests to boost the new chip's performance, hiding their involvement to make the tests seem unbiased. But plaintiffs attorneys had a hard time showing how the padded benchmarks translated to consumers paying more for Intel computers. They estimated the benchmarks led to an average price inflation of $65, but Intel argued the connection was too tenuous. "The reason we fought the litigation for as long as we did, is we don't think anybody was harmed or misled as a result of those benchmarks," Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said. "[The processors] operated as we said they would, and they operated as we advertised them to." Most consumers never saw the benchmark reviews, Intel attorneys argued, scoffing at plaintiffs' theory that industry experts and publications that relied on the reviews passed the information to consumers. In the settlement motion, plaintiffs attorneys admitted their theory of consumer price inflation is "unique," and already has been rejected by judges outside California. Judge Kirwan decided to let the sides fight it out at trial, denying a motion for summary judgment on the subject in April. But plaintiffs attorneys remained concerned about the challenge of finding and compensating class members, Mr. Danko said. Intel, which spent six months trying to locate and depose class members, identified only 15,000, some of whom were ultimately determined not to have a valid claim. Mr. Danko called the permissive claims process a huge win for plaintiffs. "It is a very easy procedure that we developed, so they can basically do it over the Internet," he said. What the proposed settlement does not provide for is a court order that would prevent Intel from using misleading benchmarks for future products. Girard Gibbs partner Munroe said in April that his team had uncovered evidence the practice extended beyond the Pentium 4. Under pressure, Intel agreed in 2010 to a disclaimer that its performance tests may have been optimized for Intel processors. Third-party company Business Applications Performance Corp. (BAPCo) also has added 26 new checkpoints to ensure benchmarks are uncorrupted. "The new processes address plaintiffs' allegations," according to the settlement document, "significantly diminishing the necessity of a risky and expensive trial to address any ongoing conduct." INTERNATIONAL CULINARY: Two Law Firms File Class Action in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- The law firms of Gallo LLP and Yankwitt LLP on July 14 announced their filing of a class action on July 10, 2014 on behalf of current and former students of the International Culinary Center ("ICC"), formerly known as the French Culinary Institute. The class action is brought on behalf of students who attended either of ICC's campuses, located in Manhattan, NY and Campbell, CA, and enrolled in any of the school's "Culinary Chef" or "Pastry Chef" programs. The case, filed in the federal court for the Southern District of New York, is titled Larry Grabovan et al. v. International Culinary Center et al., Case No. 14 CV 5147. Current or former ICC students who wish to learn more about the action, or about how to participate in the litigation, should visit the website maintained by plaintiffs' counsel at www.icclawsuit.com Background on the ICC Litigation The action charges that ICC misled students into paying $45,000 or more for 6 to 9 month non- degree-granting programs. The complaint alleges that students agreed to pay these fees based on ICC's advertising and on alleged statements by ICC's admissions personnel that ICC was worth the high price tag because, upon graduating, students would obtain jobs as Chefs, or other "top culinary jobs," that would pay good salaries and allow them to avoid years of working in entry-level "cook" positions. The phrase "Become a Chef in 6 months" allegedly appeared frequently in ICC advertisements and other materials. Based on these promises, the two named plaintiffs, combined, borrowed nearly $100,000 to pay for their ICC educations. Upon graduating, the plaintiffs allegedly learned that their degree enabled them to obtain only the sorts of low-paying entry-level positions that ICC had promised them they could avoid- positions that they could have obtained without paying for an ICC diploma (or any other schooling). Contrary to ICC's alleged misrepresentations, the plaintiffs discovered that an ICC education does not offer any shortcut to the "Chef" position, nor an accelerated career path, any more than other culinary schools with fewer celebrity endorsements. But it does cost a lot. The class action seeks to recover, among other damages, a return of all money students paid or borrowed to fund their ICC education, for which they received degrees of allegedly minimal to no economic value, as well as student loan fees and interest. The case is championed by lawyers who have had significant success litigating cases for culinary students. In the last few years, Gallo LLP has recovered more than $100,000,000 in cash and debt relief for former students. This includes a $40,000,000 class action settlement for former culinary students in Amador et al. v. California Culinary Academy et al., Case No. CGC-07-467710 (S.F. Superior Court). Gallo LLP also has represented approximately 1,400 former students alleging fraudulent sales and marketing practices in Vasquez et al. v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC393129. Most of those cases are ongoing in Los Angeles. About the Attorneys Gallo LLP -- http://www.gallo-law.com-- is a California-based commercial and consumer law firm with offices in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles. It has been litigating large-scale fraud cases against for-profit culinary and other vocational schools since 2007. Yankwitt LLP -- http://www.yankwitt.com-- is a sophisticated New York litigation firm specializing in complex, federal litigation. Located steps from the federal courthouse in Westchester, Yankwitt LLP has extensive experience litigating in the Southern District of New York. JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Russell, a/k/a Kimberly Moore, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-00331-CG-B (S.D. Ala., July 17, 2014) accuses violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Earl P. Underwood, Jr., Esq. 21 South Section Street Fairhope, AL 36532 Telephone: (251) 990-5558 Facsimile: (251) 990-0626 E-mail: epunderwood@gmail.com JF VEHICLE: "Rodriguez" Suit Removed to M.D. Florida Court ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Rodriguez v. JF Vehicle Transporters, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CA-6311, was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01734-MSS-TBM to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 N Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Kevin D. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN D. SMITH, PA 6099 Stirling Rd., Suite 101 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 797-9626 Facsimile: (954) 239-3956 E-mail: kevin@kdsmithlaw.com LAMAR CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Over Mass Layoffs -------------------------------------------------------- Diane E. Coston, writing for WHTC, reports that the first of what could be many lawsuits has been filed against a Hudsonville construction company that announced a complete shutdown on July 11th, putting some 280 people out of work. Mlive is reporting that a former Colorado employee, Kyle Chism, has filed a class action lawsuit because, he says, Lamar Construction violated federal law by failing to notify workers 60 days before mass layoffs. The shutdown came after Fifth Third Bank pulled Lamar's line of credit in the wake of "some unexpected losses." Lamar filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, meaning the company's value will be divided by the courts among its creditors. LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Wolf Haldenstein Files Class Action in D.C. --------------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on July 14 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Liquidity Services, Inc. between February 1, 2012 through May 7, 2014, inclusive, against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and directors, alleging securities fraud pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Washington, D.C. based company operates an online auction marketplace for wholesale, surplus and salvage assets for both the Federal government and private industry. The litigation is styled Howard v. Liquidity Services, Inc., Civ No.: 1:14-cv-01183. A copy of the Complaint filed in this action is available from the Court, or can be viewed on the Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP website at www.whafh.com Throughout the Class Period, Liquidity falsely represented the financial condition of the Company in issuing false and misleading statements concerning the Company's current and future profitability, its growth initiatives including the integration and performance of its acquisitions, the seriousness of the competition in the industry, and the adverse effects of its declining Department of Defense business and the offsetting gains in its commercial and local and state government segments. At all relevant times, Defendants wrongfully portrayed Liquidity as a profitable, growing company with substantial potential for further growth, and falsely reassured investors that any struggles by the Company were merely temporary side effects to its lucrative growth initiative. These material misrepresentations and omissions artificially inflated the Company's stock and allowed certain Company insiders to receive a windfall from selling the Company's stock at inflated prices. If you purchased Liquidity common stock during the Class Period, you may move to be appointed as lead plaintiff by September 12, 2014. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Wolf Haldenstein, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions, please contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com or visit our website at www.whafh.com All e-mail correspondence should make reference to "Liquidity Services Inc., litigation." Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP Patrick Donovan, Esq. or Gregory Stone Email: donovan@whafh.com gstone@whafh.com classmember@whafh.com Tel: (800) 575-0735 (212) 545-4774 LINNCO LLC: Judge Dismisses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------- LawFuel reports that on behalf of 16 underwriters of LinnCo, LLC's IPO on October 12, 2010, Skadden secured the dismissal of a putative securities class action claiming the defendants failed to disclose to LinnCo investors that Linn Energy, LLC was allegedly overstating the cash flow available for distribution to Linn Energy unit holders such as LinnCo. On July 8, Judge Colleen McMahon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a 50-page opinion holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any material misstatement or omission by the defendants and dismissing the complaint with prejudice. MAXFIELD: Recalls Buckyball Magnetic Toys Over Injuries ------------------------------------------------------- Ian Simpson, writing for Reuters, reports that magnetic toys called Buckyballs, which can be swallowed and have been blamed for numerous injuries, are being recalled at the end of a years-long legal fight, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission said on July 17. Millions of the loose, high-powered rare earth magnets were sold as toys and desktop accessories. When swallowed, their powerful attraction can pinch or trap intestines and require surgery to remove. Under a settlement accord, owners of Buckyballs and similar Buckycubes can obtain refunds through a trust overseen by the CPSC, the agency said in a statement. Craig Zucker, co-founder of the former distributor of Buckyballs, Maxfield and Oberton Holdings, will fund the trust. "This recall is intended to protect children and teenagers from the risk of injury that can occur when more than one magnet is ingested," it said. A refund can be requested through an online site, BuckyballsRecall.com. The deadline for submitting a refund request is Jan. 17. The magnets went on the market in 2009 and numerous incidents were reported involving children. In January 2011, a 4-year-old boy had his intestine perforated when he swallowed magnets he thought were candy, the CPSC has said. The CPSC filed an administrative complaint in July 2012 against Maxfield and Oberton seeking a recall. Zucker was added to the complaint last year after the company shut down. The CPSC in May approved a settlement agreement reached between Zucker and commission staff. More than 2 million Buckyball toys and at least 200,000 Buckycubes, a similar cube-shaped magnet, have been sold in the United States, the CPSC has said. They were made in China. "Buckyball" also is used to refer to a molecule known as Buckminsterfullerne, named for architect and geodesic dome proponent Buckminster Fuller. MIDLAND FUNDING: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Bryan Jallo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01666-BEN-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 15, 2014) The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: DEA Probes Players' Prescription Drug Use ------------------------------------------------------------ Tadd Haislop, writing for Sporting News, reports that if the NFL didn't take retirees' class-action lawsuit accusing the league of providing drugs without warning players of consequences seriously, it probably should now that the Drug Enforcement Administration is involved. The DEA has "quietly" launched an investigation into the abuse of such prescription drug use in NFL locker rooms, sources tell the New York Daily News. "They want to find out who provided and distributed the drugs to football players," according to a report. The investigation reportedly started just after May's federal lawsuit, in which players identified by name accuse teams of illegally dispensing powerful narcotics and other drugs to keep players on the field without regard for their long-term health. "The allegations in our lawsuit, that the NFL has violated state and federal drug laws, have been confirmed by over 1,300 former NFL players," attorney Steve Silverman told The News. "We are pleased to learn that the DEA and United States Department of Justice are also taking our clients' allegations seriously and are actively protecting the welfare of NFL players." Specifically, the DEA's New York division is trying to find out how team doctors get access to narcotics like Percodan and Vicodin and anti-inflammatories like Toradol, according to the report. NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bradley Good and Edward K. Soucek, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-04295-ER (E.D. Pa., July 16, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cary L. Flitter, Esq. FLITTER LORENZ, P.C. 450 N. Narberth Ave., Suite 101 Narberth, PA 19072 Telephone: (610) 822-0782 Facsimile: (610) 667-0552 E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com NISSAN NORTH: Removed "Chiarelli" Class Suit to E.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Chiarelli v. Nissan North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 503934/2014, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Kings, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-04327-NGG-VVP to the proceeding. Vincent Chiarelli alleges that his 2006 Nissan Frontier vehicle had a defective timing chain tensioning system that caused the timing chain system to fail and cause extensive damage to the vehicle and the ultimate destruction of the engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN 747 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Spring Valley, NY 10977 Telephone: (845) 356-2570 Facsimile: (845) 356-4335 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com - and - Howard T. Longman, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: tsvi@aol.com The Defendants are represented by: David M. Covey, Esq. Soo Yeon Kim, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP 2 World Financial Center 225 Liberty Street, 28th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 422-0202 Facsimile: (212) 422-0925 E-mail: david.covey@sdma.com soo.kim@sdma.com - and - E. Paul Cauley, Esq. Mahsa Soheil, Esq. S. Vance Wittie, Esq. SEDGWICK LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 5400 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (469) 227-8200 Facsimile: (469) 227-8004 E-mail: paul.cauley@sedgwicklaw.com mahsa.soheil@sedgwicklaw.com vance.wittie@sedgwicklaw.com PAYTIME INC: Faces Class Action in Pennsylvania Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to an article at insurancenewsnet.com, a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania is seeking class action status for litigation against Paytime Inc. in connection with a recent data breach. The suit lists three plaintiffs -- Holly P. White of Lancaster, Doris McMichael of New Cumberland and Daniel B. Storm of Lexington, Ky. -- but does not identify their current and past employers who use the payroll- processing services of Upper Allen Township-based Paytime. "Nationally, over 233,000 individuals have had their personal and financial information misappropriated as a result of the breach of Paytime's computer network," the complaint says. It alleges that Paytime "violated federal guidelines and failed to meet current data security industry standards by failing to ensure adequate security over Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class members' personal and financial information and by failing to retain Plaintiffs' and the proposed Class members' personal and financial information in a secure and safe manner." The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief including provision of credit monitoring, bank monitoring, credit restoration and identity theft insurance services for at least 25 years. Paytime said it discovered a compromise of user names and passwords related to its client service center on April 30 and began investigating immediately. So far, its crew, along with third-party IT forensic experts and law enforcement, have determined that the intruders -- "skilled hackers working from foreign IP addresses" -- first gained access to Paytime's systems April 7. The scope of the breach included the following, according to a letter Paytime sent clients: "Names, Social Security Numbers, direct deposit bank account information (if provided), dates of birth, hire dates, wage information, home and cell phone numbers, other payroll related information and home addresses were accessed by the intruders. There is also a possibility that information related to corporate bank accounts associated with your payroll was accessed." Paytime said it has since run multiple tests to confirm security and implemented new monitoring and intrusion detection systems. The company said it will give clients' employees access to one free year of credit monitoring, call center support and identity restoration services in the event any employee discovers fraudulent activity. Asked about the lawsuit, Paytime issued the following statement: "As Central Pennsylvania communities are aware, Paytime has been taking, and continues to take the matter of the data security incident very seriously. We are working with internal and third party investigators, the Secret Service, incident response vendors, our business partners, our staff, our clients, their employees and the community to address the concerns and issues that may exist. Now that a complaint has been filed, we must respect the judicial process. There is a formal process we must follow to address the allegations and accusations in the complaint. At this time we are not free to discuss this further. We are confident our good faith efforts to preserve the security and confidentiality of information in our control will prevail in this matter." SME INC: Faces "Manheim" Suit Over Junk Fax Ads ----------------------------------------------- Carol Manheim, d/b/a Plantation Plaza Therapy Center, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. SME Inc., USA, d/b/a Superior Medical Equipment, Case No. 2:14-cv-02856-DCN (D.S.C., July 16, 2014) challenges Superior Medical Equipment's practice of sending fax advertisements, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Carol Manheim owns and operates Plantation Plaza Therapy Center, a sole proprietorship, that provides rehabilitation, physical therapy, and clinical counseling. Plantation Plaza Therapy Center is located in Charleston, South Carolina. SME Inc., USA, doing business as Superior Medical Equipment, is a North Carolina corporation that sells physical therapy and rehab supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Clarke Newton, Esq. John S. Nichols, Esq. BLUESTEIN, NICHOLS, THOMPSON & DELGADO, LLC PO Box 7965 Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 779-7599 Facsimile: (803) 771-8097 E-mail: cnewton@bntdlaw.com jsnichols@bntdlaw.com - and - Marc B. Hershovitz, Esq. MARC B. HERSHOVITZ, PC One Alliance Center, 4th Floor 3500 Lenox Road Atlanta, GA 30326 Telephone: (404) 262-1425 Facsimile: (404) 262-1474 E-mail: marc@hershovitz.com UNITED CREDIT: Violated Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Lukas Levad, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. United Credit and Collections, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-01265-CDP (E.D. Mo., July 17, 2014) alleges violations of 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 VIBRAM USA: September 24 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set -------------------------------------------------------------- Vibram USA Inc. and Vibram FiveFingers LLC have reached a $3.75 million class action lawsuit settlement over claims they falsely advertised the benefits of wearing FiveFingers footwear, including that the shoes could improve posture, reduce the risk of injury and strengthen muscles. An infographic accompanying this release is available at http://media.globenewswire.com/cache/32010/file/27562.pdf If you purchased any one of 35 styles of FiveFingers footwear between March 21, 2008 and May 27, 2014, you may be eligible to claim between $20 and $50 per pair. This amount could increase to $94 per pair if fewer claims are filed. The deadline to file a claim is September 24, 2014. More information about how to file a claim for the Vibram FiveFingers class action settlement can be found at tpcl.as/vibraminfo Case Summary The Vibram FiveFingers settlement resolves multiple class action lawsuits accusing Vibram of violating certain state laws and consumer protection statutes in connection with the marketing and sale of FiveFingers footwear since March 21, 2008. Some of these allegedly false marketing statements include that the footwear can improve posture, reduce the risk of injury and strengthen muscles. The plaintiffs allege that the running shoes may actually be more risky than running barefoot and can increase runners' risk of injury because the shoes change the way they run. The defendants deny the allegations but agreed to pay $3.75 million to resolve the litigation. The cases being settled are: Valerie Bezdek v. Vibram USA Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-10513-DPW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; De Falco v. Vibram USA Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-10764-DPW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts; and Safavi v. Vibram USA Inc., et al., Case No. 12-5900-BRO-JCG, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Potential Award Consumers that purchased Vibram FiveFingers footwear between March 21, 2008 and May 27, 2014 can claim between $20 and $50 cash. No proof of purchase is required if you're claiming two or less pairs. Additional pairs claimed require proof of purchase. Deadline The deadline to file a claim is 9/24/2014. File a Claim Claim filing instructions can be found at tpcl.as/vibraminfo VIEGA LLC: August 25 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------- Viega LLC on July 11 disclosed that a settlement has been reached in a class action about certain plumbing fittings, components and sub-components ("Viega Brass Fittings" i.e., potable water plumbing system fittings or other components and sub-components used in potable water plumbing systems made from UNS C3600, UNS C37700, UNS C36500 brass, or similar copper alloys with 15+% zinc content manufactured and/or distributed by Viega or its affiliates). Plaintiffs and others allege the fittings may fail or have an impeded "useful life." Viega denies all claims made in the lawsuit and maintains that Viega Brass Fittings are not defective. The Court has not decided who is right. The parties agreed to the Settlement to end the litigation. This Settlement augments a prior proposed settlement and enhances benefits to eligible claimants. WHO IS INCLUDED? You are included in the Settlement as a Settlement Class Member if you: (1) are a Person that owns or owned a structure that contains or contained Viega Brass Fittings; (2) or are such Person's spouse, joint owner, heir, executor, administrator, mortgagee, tenant, creditor, lender, predecessor, successor, subsequent owner or occupant, lessee, trust and trustee, attorney, agent, assignee or have standing to make a claim for a Settlement Class Member. Settlement Class Members, and certain affiliated/related parties, who own or have owned buildings, homes, residences or any other structures located in Clark County, Nevada are also members of the "Clark County Subclass." Settlement Class Members who currently own a residential property located in AR, AZ, CA, DE, HI, KS, LA, NV, NH, OK, WV and WY, are also included in the "Useful Life Subclass." Insurance carriers are members of the Settlement Class or Clark County Subclass if their insureds fall within these categories and the carriers paid claims for a leak or occlusion before June 20, 2014. Persons who seek contribution or indemnity from Viega on past settlement of, or judgments on, claims with Settlement Class Members or other subclass members are members of the Settlement Class or respective subclass(es), if they paid those settlements or judgments before June 20, 2014. Subrogated insurance carriers or people seeking contribution or indemnity from Viega from the vesting of legal rights occurring after June 20, 2014, are not Settlement Class Members or members of any subclass, but only succeed to rights of the relevant Settlement Class Member or subclass member. The detailed notice sets forth the definition and certain exclusions. See www.verdejosettlement.com WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Viega will provide a "Limited Warranty" covering water leaks from a Viega Brass Fitting caused by dezincification or drops in water flow from fixtures due to zinc oxide build-up resulting from dezincification in a Viega Brass Fitting that cause the water flow rate to drop below International Plumbing Code minimum requirements. The Limited Warranty will be valid for 16 years from the Date of Installation of the Viega Brass Fittings (19 years from the Date of Installation of the Viega Brass Fittings for the Clark County Subclass). Viega will also pay Settlement Class Members for reasonable costs and expenses related to leaks and reduced water flow of Viega Brass Fittings occurring within the period of the Limited Warranty, that were not previously paid. For example (1) actual or anticipated costs associated with repairs; (2) material and labor costs to repair or replace damage to real property; (3) actual or anticipated costs to repair or replace damage to other property; and (4) actual or anticipated costs for temporary housing. Viega will also make cash payments to Useful Life Subclass Members who submit a valid claim by July 10, 2015. Each Useful Life Subclass Member may receive $250 for each residence they won containing Viega Brass Fittings. HOW DO YOU ASK FOR BENEFITS? You must complete and submit a Claim For to receive benefits, except for the Limited Warranty. For Settlement Class Members with claims accruing before July 10, 2014, Claim Forms are due on January 6, 2015. Claims accruing on or after July 10, 2014, must be submitted within one-hundred eighty (180) days of when the problem occurred. Useful Life Subclass Members must submit a Claim Form for a cash payment by July 10, 2015. Claim forms available at www.verdejosettlement.com or by sending a self-addressed stamped envelope to Verdejo v. Vanguard Piping Systems Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 43206, Providence, RI 02940-3206. If you previously submitted a claim in connection with the prior proposed settlement in this action, you do not need to resubmit the claim. Your prior claim will be reviewed per the terms of the current Settlement, but you may be eligible for additional benefits that would require submission of an additional Claim Firm. YOUR OTHER OPTIONS. You have a choice to stay in the Settlement Class or not. If you submit a Claim Form or do nothing, you are choosing to stay in the Settlement Class. This means you will be legally bound by all orders and judgments of the Court, and you will not be able to sue or continue to sue Viega about the legal claims released by the Settlement Agreement. If you stay in the Settlement Class you may object to the Settlement. You or your own lawyer may also ask to appear and speak at the hearing, at your own cost, but you don't have to. The deadline to submit objections and requests to appear is August 25, 2014. If you don't want to stay in the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion by August 25, 2014. If you excluded yourself in connection with the prior proposed settlement in this action, you must do so again to exclude yourself from the current settlement. If you exclude yourself, you cannot get the benefits from this Settlement, but you will keep any rights to sue Viega for the same claims in a different lawsuit. The detailed notice explains the requirements for all these things. It and other information is available at www.verdejosettlement.com THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING. The Los Angeles Superior Court will hold a hearing in this case, Verdejo v. Vanguard Piping Systems, Inc., Case No. BC448383, on September 17, 2014, at 11:00 a.m. to consider whether to approve the Settlement as fair, reasonable and adequate; attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses; and a payment of $5,000 per home to the Plaintiffs. These payments will not reduce the amount of benefits available to the Settlement Class. VISALUS INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged $240-Mil. Fraud ------------------------------------------------------------ Sommers Schwartz, P.C. on July 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit alleging a $240-million fraud was filed against Michigan- based weight-loss shake seller ViSalus, Inc., a bevy of its owners, and outside promoters. According to claims made in the complaint, brought on behalf of individuals who lost money after buying rights to distribute the company's products, the operation was a pyramid scheme in violation of both state and federal law including the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Plaintiffs Timothy Kerrigan, Lori Mikovich, and Ryan Valli assert that more than 100,000 people paid up to $999 to join ViSalus's "Individual Promoter Sales Force" and the right to sell the company's powdered weight management products marketed under the brand names Vi-Shape meal replacement shake, ViSalus Go Instant Energy, and Vi-Trim Clear Control Drink Mix. According to the lawsuit, however, the alleged true purpose of the company was to induce as many people as possible to sign up as independent promoters to fuel the profits of those at the top of the pyramid. Once enlisted, the lawsuit contends, the plaintiffs and other victims discovered that the only way to get back their money was to recruit other people into themselves becoming independent promoters -- a type of fraud that the federal RICO act is intended to prevent. The complaint alleges that ViSalus successfully recruited some 100,000 new distributors in two years before its sales plummeted, after which the company's principals then pulled out more than $80 million generated by the pyramid scheme. The named plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of the class, seek to recover their investment and statutory damages from the company, its promoters, and a group of professional marketers who participated in the massive recruiting effort. The lawsuit (Case No. 2:14-cv-12693-MFL-DRG) was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by Andrew Kochanowski of Sommers Schwartz P.C. in Southfield, Matthew Prebeg of Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott, PLLC in Houston, and Ed Wallace of Wexler Wallace LLP in Chicago. Sommers Schwartz and Prebeg, Faucett & Abbott are also currently engaged in litigation on behalf of victims of a Texas-based energy sales pyramid scheme. Sommers Schwartz, P.C., a law firm located in Southfield, Michigan, represents individuals in Michigan and across the country who have been harmed as a result of fraud, medical errors, defective products, employment disputes, and other forms of negligence or intentional injury, as well as businesses involved in complex litigation matters that jeopardize their existence. WALLICK PROPERTIES: Sued for Violating Age Discrimination Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Doran, 2212 and 1/2 Tremainsville Road, Toledo, Ohio 43613 v. Wallick Properties Midwest, LLC dba Oakleaf Village, 4220 Holland Sylvania Road, Toledo, Ohio 43623, Case No. 3:14-cv-01590 (N.D. Ohio, July 17, 2014) is an action for a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act for a termination from employment that was discriminatory on the basis of age. Plaintiff Sandra Doran, is a sixty-nine-year-old female citizen of the United States, and a resident of the City of Toledo, and the County of Lucas, state of Ohio. She was hired to work as a nurse by the Defendant at its nursing home located in Toledo, Ohio. Wallick Properties Midwest, LLC, doing business as Oakleaf Village, operates a nursing home in the City of Toledo, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis J. Landry, Esq. WASSERMAN, BRYAN, LANDRY & HONOLD, LLP 300 Inns of Court Building 405 N. Huron Street Toledo, OH 43604 Telephone: (419) 243-1239 Facsimile: (419) 243-2719 E-mail: FLandry308@aol.com WP REALTY: Accused of Violating Americans With Disabilities Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WP Realty, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00963-DSC (W.D. Pa., July 17, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. 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 * * *