/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140729.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, July 29, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 149 Headlines 3001 CASTOR: Court Certified Class of Strip Club Exotic Dancers 7-ELEVEN INC: Franchisee Group Files Race Bias, Privacy Suit ABC PIZZA: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ACTION AUTO: Removed "Smoluk" Suit to S.D. Florida AMERICAN GENERAL: Urged Businesses to Buy VEBA Plans, Suit Says AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Faces "Mack" Suit Alleging FCRA Violations APPLE INC: May Pay Up to $400-Mil. in Antitrust Suit Over E-Books BP PLC: May Be Liable for Not Divesting Stock From Retiree Plans CA TEACHERS' RETIREMENT: To Reduce Retirees' Benefits, Suit Says CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Retaliates Against Spine Surgeon, Suit Says CIGNA HEALTH: Removed "Hyde" Suit to C.D. California CLARIANT CORP: Sued by Drivers Union Over Unresolved Grievances DOLCE GROUP: Faces "Taylor" Suit in D. Md. Over Breach of FLSA ELTMAN ELTMAN: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act EXPEDIA INC: Sued for Lying About Luggage Fees for Airline Ticket FERRELLGAS LP: Reduced Propane in Tanks, "LJAX" Suit Claims FERRELLGAS LP: Reduced Propane in Tanks, Ace High Suit Claims FERRELLGAS LP: Conspired to Reduce Propane in Tanks, Suit Claims FERRELLGAS LP: Tuckerton Sues Over Illegal Reduction of Propane GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Nearly 20,000 Cadillac, Chevrolet Camaros GOOGLE INC: Denies Controlling Search Engines on Handheld Devices GUTHY-RENKER: Ignores Cancellation Requests, Proactiv User Claims HABANOS CUBAN: Faces "Callazo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HERTZ CORP: Court Approved $11-Mil. Deal on "PlatePass" Toll Fees HILLYARD INC: Court Refused to Approve Labor Class Settlement HITACHI HVB: "Howe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages HSBC CARD: Illegally Records Telephone Conversations, Action Says INT'L CULINARY: Sued for Promising Students of Becoming Chefs INTUITIVE SURGICAL: 9th Circuit Upholds Class Action Dismissal JOHNS HOPKINS: Levy's Patients Traumatized Over Secret Recording JIMMY JOHN'S: Does Not Pay workers Overtime, "Brunner" Suit Says M&M DENTISTRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Suit Claims M-I LLC: "Dewan" Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to E.D. California MACY'S INC: Fails to Pay Workers All Compensable Wages, Suit Says MANPOWER INC: "Ramirez" Suit Asserting Labor Claims Dismissed MOORE CAPITAL: Has Prelim. Approval of $57.75-MM Fraud Settlement NINE WEST: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act NUVE MIGUEL: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages PAIN RELIEF: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims PANASONIC CORP: Sued Over Distribution of Capacitors PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS: Tex. Sup. Court Overturns Discovery Sanction PLATINUM RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Servers Properly, Suit Says PROSENSA HOLDING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Statement SENSA PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over Weight Loss Miracle Product SCHOLARSHIP STORAGE: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA SHANGHAI HUSI: McDonald's Suspends Sales of Chicken Nuggets in HK SPORT CHALET: Shareholder Seeks to Enjoin Proposed Sale to Vestis TARGET COMMERCIAL: Removed "Parkin" Suit to Arizona Dist. Court THOROUGHBRED MOTORSPORTS: Court Affirms Tricycle Class Ruling TRADER JOE'S: $3.3-Mil. Deal Over "All Natural" Labels Approved U.S. BANK: Suppressed Public Presence in Home Auctions, Suit Says ********* 3001 CASTOR: Court Certified Class of Strip Club Exotic Dancers --------------------------------------------------------------- A Philadelphia strip club must face claims that it underpaid dancers and forced them to share their tips with other employees, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Former exotic dancer Priya Verma is the lead plaintiff in a class action against 3001 Castor Inc. dba The Penthouse Club @ Philly, ABDCE Pennsylvania Management LLC, and 10 others. Referring to the pornographic publication "Penthouse," the club's slogan is "Where the Magazine Comes to Life." Verma said the topless club improperly classifies its dancers as independent contractors instead of employees, depriving them of minimum wage as well as overtime compensation. The dancers also share a percentage of their tips with the club and reimburse it for ordinary business expenses, according to the complaint. In addition to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the class brought claims under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Wage Payment and Collection Law, and common law. In a motion to dismiss, the defendants relied on an affidavit by statistical consultant Joan Lenahan, who said that the club does not pay its dancers. Rather customers pay the dancers for stage performances and club-priced private dances, minus room rental fees of $10, $125 or $200 for four-minute, half-hour and one-hour private dances, respectively. While dancers decide for whom to dance, they receive no compensation if they do not perform any private dances or get paid for performing on stage, Lenahan said. Verma moved to strike Lenahan's affidavit and for conditional class certification this past April. Though U.S. District Judge Anita Brody refused to strike the affidavit on June 30, she also denied the club summary judgment, noting various conduct rules that the club imposes on dancers, regulating their choice of dress, hair and makeup, and number of songs to which they must dance. "Given that defendant markets itself on the basis of providing topless dancers, it cannot credibly argue that the services performed by dancers are not an integral part of its business," Brody wrote. "This factor weighs in favor of employee status." The club's control of dancers' profits also indicates employee status, the ruling states. "Dancers at the defendant's club risk the loss of the cost of their costume, the stage rental fee, and the mandatory tip-outs in exchange for the opportunity to earn several hundred dollars in a six hour shift," Brody wrote. "This is not the kind of capital investment and risk-reward profile typical of someone in business for herself. Dancers cannot leverage their investment in reoccurring stage fess and tip-outs to create an increasing return on their investment." The evidence supports a finding that Penthouse Club dancers are employees, not independent contractors, according to the ruling. "Defendant exerts significant control over its dancers' behavior and appearance; defendant dominates the key levers driving the dancers' opportunity for profit; the dancers have no specialized skills and a limited real investment; and the dancers are integral to the success of the defendant's club," Brody wrote. "Measured against these factors, the transient and non-exclusive nature of the dancers' employment carries limited weight." The judge conditionally certified the class under the FLSA and ordered the production of potential plaintiffs' contact information and the dissemination of notice. While the court refused to certify the class under state law, Verma may refile the motion at the close of discovery. The case is Priya Verma, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 3001 Castor, Inc., d/b/a The Penthouse Club and/or The Penthouse Club @ Philly, et al., Case No. 2:13-cv- 03034-AB, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 7-ELEVEN INC: Franchisee Group Files Race Bias, Privacy Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ After a Japanese corporation bought the 7-Eleven chain, it began illegal surveillance of franchisees, turned business owners into low-level employees, and pushed out hard-working South Asian immigrant store-owners, transforming "the American Dream into an American Nightmare," a class action claims in California Federal Court, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service. "Tragically, 7-Eleven has now become a cautionary tale of the dangers of corporate greed in the franchise context," the complaint states. "7-Eleven has become an unfortunate example of the tragic results that occur when a franchisor ceases to consider its franchisees as valuable, independent contractors and business owners and to see them merely as disposable assets to be exploited for short-term profits, then discarded once their value has been extracted." FOAGLA Inc., a franchise owners association, and five 7-Eleven operators filed the lawsuit against 7-Eleven Inc., alleging racial discrimination, invasion of privacy and illegal surveillance retaliation against franchisees, and misclassification of employment relationship with franchisees. "Throughout the 20th century, 7-Eleven pioneered and grew the 'convenience store' concept and helped make it a standard part of American life," the complaint states. "What fueled 7-Eleven's growth was its franchise arrangement with small business owners, many of them South Asian immigrants from such countries as India and Pakistan, who paid upfront franchise fees and operated the 7- Eleven franchised stores in exchange for a percentage of the store profits. "7-Eleven found that the South Indian cultural traits of hard work, family unity, respect for authority, and community- mindedness made South Asians ideal owner/operators for 7-Eleven stores." But things changed when Tokyo-based Seven and I Holdings Co., one of the largest retail conglomerations in the world, took over the 7-Eleven chain in 2005, the franchisees say. Staffing many of its top management positions with West Point graduates, the company took a "cold, predatory and militaristic approach to business." The new regime saw an opportunity to exploit the franchisees and transform the goodwill they had built in their local markets into corporate profit by expelling franchisees, paying them nothing, and selling their franchises for enormous profit, according to the complaint. "In fact, they realized that they could increase their profits exponentially by reselling valuable stores over and over -- an industry practice known as 'churning,'" the franchisees say. 7-Eleven diminished the role of the franchisee from independent contractor and small business owner to the role of a low-level employee with no say in the operation of their store, the complaint states. The franchise controls the day-to-day operations of its franchisees, exerting "a heightened and almost pathological level of control by 7-Eleven over franchisees," according to the complaint. For example, 7-Eleven controls the maintenance of the equipment in franchisees' stores, the volume on their televisions, and employees' payroll and paychecks, the lawsuit states. It also employs illegal surveillance to spy on franchisees and has hired unlicensed private investigators to follow franchisee activities outside of the store, the franchisees say. In addition to having unfettered access to franchisees' electronic surveillance DVR systems, 7-Eleven now seeks to impose a more intrusive surveillance system, purportedly to protect franchisees. The systems "are actually being used as a 'sword' to monitor and harass franchisees where they would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy," the complaint states. These combined actions have been particularly discriminatory toward franchisees of South Asian descent, as 7-Eleven has "implemented tactics designed to exploit South Indian cultural and societal traits -- such as respect for authority and fear of being shamed in their communities -- to its full advantage," the complaint states. 7-Eleven has "resorted to tactics against South Asian franchisees ranging from stalking, spying, bullying, and interrogation to coerce these franchisees into giving up their stores without compensation," according to the complaint. The company also threatens to make public any claims of franchisee impropriety, even when false, knowing that such claims carry with them "a great deal of shame to the family within the tightly knit South Asian community, thereby making it even easier to coerce these franchisees," according to the lawsuit. According to Professor Jaideep Singh, "7-Eleven is 'aware of and exploits the social vulnerability of South Asian American immigrants' in which 'everyone knows everyone else, and often the intimate details of their personal business' and where threats by 7-Eleven investigators of incarceration and public censure leads to 'community level shaming' which, in turn, will lead to 'social exclusion' and 'inflict a 'social death' upon shunned community members,'" the complaint states. 7-Eleven has sued many South Asian franchisees through the country and "even resorted to police-like interrogation tactics to create a fear of criminal exposure and deportation to innocent, but frightened and impressionable minority franchisees," with the ultimate goal of disenfranchising them, according to the complaint. "As a result of 7-Eleven's illegal and discriminatory actions, numerous South East Asian franchisees have already been targeted and lost their business and this protected group, of which FOAGLA is substantially comprised, continues to be targeted and harassed to date." The franchisees seek declaratory judgment that 7-Eleven's actions violate federal and state laws, including civil rights law, "by purposely targeting, harassing and threatening FOAGLA members and all franchisees of South Asian descent," by invading their privacy, churning their stores to retaliate against "outspoken and minority franchisees," and court costs. A 7-Eleven spokeswoman told Courthouse News on July 9, 2014: "The allegations made in this complaint are false. 7-Eleven is proud of its very diverse, independent franchisee population. In fact, USA Today named 7-Eleven one of the Top 50 Franchises for Minorities in 2013, and has received recognition as one of the top franchisee opportunities by Professional Woman's Magazine, Hispanic Network Magazine and BLACK EOE Journal." She added: "Honest, hardworking, independent franchisees are the backbone of the 7-Eleven brand." The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric Schindler, Esq. SCHINDLER LAW GROUP 20321 SW Birch Street, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92260 Telephone: (949) 483-8700 Facsimile: (949) 464-9714 E-mail: eric@schindlerlaw.net ABC PIZZA: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Santo Vasquez, on his own behalf of those similarly situated v. ABC Pizza International, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01751 (M.D. Fla., July 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. ABC Pizza International, Inc. is a pizzeria that conducts business in Hillsborough County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly De Arcangelis Woods, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600 PO Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 420-5956 E-mail: kwoods@forthepeople.com ACTION AUTO: Removed "Smoluk" Suit to S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Smoluk, et al. v. Action Auto Body, LLC, et al., Case No. CACE 14-003573-03, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:14-cv- 61669-DPG to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Lindsay Marie Timari, Esq. Charles Merrill Eiss, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES EISS, P.L. 8211 W. Broward Blvd., Suite 360 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 990-6923 Facsimile: (855) 423-5298 E-mail: ltimari@icelawfirm.com ceiss@icelawfirm.com AMERICAN GENERAL: Urged Businesses to Buy VEBA Plans, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- American General Life Insurance urged dozens of small business owners to buy voluntary employee beneficiary association plans, or VEBA plans, that the Internal Revenue Service has ruled are "illegal tax avoidance schemes," businesses claim in a federal class action, reports Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Ulti-Mate Connectors sued American General Life Insurance (AIG) and nine other defendants on July 9, 2014, alleging RICO violations, fraud, unfair competition, false advertising, aiding and abetting and other counts. According to Ulti-Mate, for more than a decade AIG has offered unlawful VEBA plans, which it calls "specialized whole life insurance policies." A high-level AIG executive allegedly told the plaintiffs' financial planner that the plans allow small business owners to make tax-deductible payments, and that they could dip into the plans, tax-free. When the financial planner inquired about the legality of plans, the planner was assured the program was aboveboard, the complaint states. "The problem is that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has repeatedly ruled that VEBA plans like the ones defendants established, promoted and administered do not comply with federal tax law, determinations that have been consistently upheld by federal courts. At all relevant times, defendants were well aware of the non-compliant nature of their programs," the lawsuit states. As early as 2001, the IRS informed AIG that the programs were illegal, Ulti-Mate claims, but it and the other defendants continued to offer the program. Ulti-Mate claims that small business owners learned "unpleasant truths" after the U.S. Department of Justice took legal action last year to enjoin program administrator/defendant Sea Nine Associates and the firm's employee, defendant Kenneth Elliot, from marketing the VEBA program. California has since suspended Sea Nine's operations, the lawsuit states. In time, Ulti-Mate says, owners realized that the plans were the "same or substantially similar" to tax-avoidance schemes, that their life insurance premium payments were not tax-deductible, that the claim that they could withdraw money tax-free was "false," and that the plaintiffs were "victims ensnared in this long-running scheme." "With their high fees and low cash values, the policies have few advantages once stripped of their supposed tax advantages," the 48-page complaint states. Further, Ulti-Mate says, defendants concealed from the plaintiffs' financial planner a 2004 letter issued by tax attorneys that found the programs were unlawful. Without that crucial information, the business owners made $914,696.74 in contributions to the VEBA program, according to the complaint. After an IRS audit, they were forced to pay $362,904.91 in penalties, interest, and back taxes, the lawsuit states. "AIG had worked closely with the other defendants on these programs since 2001 or 2002, supplied some of the most critical marketing materials used to market these programs, and sold many policies," the complaint states. "At all relevant times, AIG knew that plaintiffs and members of the class were induced by defendants' conduct to believe that purchasing these policies through a VEBA program provided the significant tax advantages described elsewhere in this complaint," the lawsuit states. Named as defendants are AIG, Sea Nine, Innovative Private Strategies & Insurance Services, I.P.S. Private Advisors, Lalat Pattanaik, Laban Pattanaik, Elliot doing business as Kae, Kae Consulting, Vista Barranca, and Peter Mordin. The plaintiffs seek punitive damages, restitution, rescission and costs. AIG spokesman Jon Diat declined to comment. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Tyler Meade, Esq. MEADE & SCHRAG LLP 1816 Fifth Street Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 843-3670 Facsimile: (510) 843-3679 E-mail: michael@meadeschrag.com AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA: Faces "Mack" Suit Alleging FCRA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarai Mack, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., a foreign profit corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61676-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Bernard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 243-4295 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com APPLE INC: May Pay Up to $400-Mil. in Antitrust Suit Over E-Books ----------------------------------------------------------------- Consumers and state attorneys general revealed on July 16, 2014, that their deal over Apple's fixing of e-book prices could lead to $400 million in payments, reports Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service. "This outcome would represent a consumer recovery of more than 200 percent of the maximum estimated consumer damages, placing this case among the exceedingly rare cases that provide consumers nationwide with double the amount of their estimated damages," lawyers for the consumers wrote in a 24-page memorandum seeking a federal judge's approval. Apple had fought longest when faced with several antitrust class actions against it and publishers Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, Penguin, Hachette and HarperCollins. While the other publishers settled those claims for a total of $166 million, Apple went to a bench trial last year that ended with U.S. District Judge Denise Cote finding that it had played a central role in the price-fixing conspiracy. A damages trial was initially slated for this month, and the consumers' expert would have urged the jury to reach a $280 million figure. Antitrust law meanwhile supports tripling that figure. The 2nd Circuit made the future of that trial uncertain, however, when it advanced Apple's appeals of multiple Cote decisions. That court stopped class action notification and seemed primed to postpone the trial. Before those issues could be resolved, Apple reached an unspecified settlement with its opponents in June. The details of that agreement came to light with the filing of July 16's memo. If the appellate court orders a liability retrial, consumers will receive a smaller recovery of $50 million. The consumers will collect nothing if the circuit clears Apple of violating antitrust laws. New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman estimated that consumers in his state stand to recover "7 percent, or as much as $28 million" of the total payout. "This settlement proves that even the biggest, most powerful companies in the world must play by the same rules as everyone else," Schneiderman said in a statement. "In a major victory, our settlement has the potential to result in Apple paying hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers to compensate them for paying unlawfully inflated ebook prices." Lawyers for Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Plaintiff States are represented by: Greg Abbott, Esq. Daniel Hodge, Esq. John B. Scott, Esq. John T. Prud'Homme, Esq. Kim Van Winkle, Esq. Rebecca Fisher, Esq. TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 12548 Telephone: (512) 463-1265 E-mail: Rebecca.Fisher@texasattorneygeneral.gov - and - George Jepsen, Esq. Michael E. Cole, Esq. Gary M. Becker, Esq. CONNECTICUT ATTORNEY GENERAL 55 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 808-5040 E-mail: Gary.Becker@ct.gov - and - R. Michael Dewine, Esq. Doreen Johnson, Esq. Edward J. Olszewski, Esq. Matthew McKinley, Esq. OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL 150 E. Gay St., 23rd Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 466-4328 E-mail: Doreen.Johnson@ohioattorneygeneral.gov The Settlement Class is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com shanas@hbsslaw.com - and - Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com - and - Kit A. Pierson, Esq. Jeffrey Dubner, Esq. COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. South Tower, Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: KPierson@cohenmilstein.com jdubner@cohenmilstein.com BP PLC: May Be Liable for Not Divesting Stock From Retiree Plans ---------------------------------------------------------------- BP's failure to divest stock from its employee retirement plans as share prices dropped after the 2010 oil spill may leave the oil giant liable, reports Cameron Langford at Courthouse News Service, citing a 5th Circuit ruling. The April 20, 2010, explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig triggered the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history. As BP struggled for months to cap its well, the Macondo Prospect, its share price plummeted from $59.52 to a low of $27.02 on June 25, 2010. The United Kingdom company's U.S. subsidiary, BP North America Inc., maintains four employee investment and savings plans, commonly known as 401(k) plans, with one-third of each plan made up of BP shares. By June 14, 2010, the oil spill had wiped out an estimated $1.155 billion in the company stock holdings of BP's 401(k) participants, the newspaper Pensions & Investments reported. Plan participants filed a class action against BP, its directors and State Street Bank and Trust Co., the trustee of BP's 401(k) plans, the day before its share price bottomed out. They sought relief under the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA), arguing that as plan managers the defendants knew BP shares were not a good investment. Further, the 401(k) holders claimed the plan managers should have divested their BP shares "when maintaining such an investment became imprudent," the lawsuit said. BP and its co-defendants moved to dismiss, alleging that 5th Circuit precedent entitled the plan managers to a "presumption of prudence" in their decision to keep their employee savings plans heavily invested in BP stock. Siding with BP, U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison in Houston found that the employees' arguments could not overcome the presumption. Shortly after the parties made their cases before the appellate court in New Orleans, the U.S. Supreme Court touched on this very issue in the case Fifth Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. Throwing out the "presumption of prudence" in a unanimous June 15 opinion, the high court held that fiduciaries managing a plan invested in company stock "are subject to the same duty of prudence that applies to ERISA fiduciaries in general, except that they need not diversify the fund's assets." In light of this precedent, the 5th Circuit issued an unpublished opinion vacating Ellison's dismissal of the case and remanding it to him on July 14, 2014. BP vice president Geoff Morrell noted in a statement that the company "intends to renew its motion to dismiss in the District Court" because BP does not believe the plaintiffs satisfy the "new standards" set forth by the Supreme Court. The appellate case is Ralph Whitley, et al. v. BP, P.L.C., et al., Case No. 12-20670, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The District Court case is Ralph Whitley, et al. v. BP, P.L.C., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-4214, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. CA TEACHERS' RETIREMENT: To Reduce Retirees' Benefits, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the California State Teachers' Retirement System threatens to reduce retired teachers' benefits without a legally required hearing, a class action claims in California Superior Court. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Retaliates Against Spine Surgeon, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hooman Melamed, M.D., an individual v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, a corporation; William Brien, M.D an individual; Rick Delamarter, M.D. an individual; Michael Langberg, M.D. an individual; Neil Romanoff, M.D., an individual; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC551415 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 11, 2014) alleges that the Defendants took retaliatory and adverse actions against the Plaintiff, including summarily suspending his medical staff privileges to treat scoliosis and kyphosis, thereby, causing him to sustain damages. Hooman Melamed, M.D., is an orthopaedic spine surgeon, who was a health care worker and member of the medical staff at Cedars and who had certain privileges at Cedars and other health facilities. According to the complaint, Mr. Melamed identified, reported and disclosed certain suspected unsafe and substandard conditions and services at Cedars that were a threat to patient care and safety. He contends that because of his attempts to properly and accurately report, disclose, disallow, and eliminate the Subject Conditions, he was subjected to a continuous course of conduct by the Defendants, which was designed to harass, exclude, humiliate, intimidate, and retaliate against him, and cause damage to his reputation. Cedars Sinai Medical Center is a California corporation. The Defendants provide medical services and operate medical facilities. The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark T. Quigley, Esq. GREENE BROILLET & WHEELER, LLP 100 WIlshire Blvd., Suite 2100 Santa Monica, CA 90407 Telephone: (310) 576-1200 Facsimile: (310) 576-1220 CIGNA HEALTH: Removed "Hyde" Suit to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Hyde v. CIGNA Health and Life Insurance Company, Case No. LC101688, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-05718 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff through her claims for relief seeks benefits under an employee welfare benefit plan that is governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd J. Bloomfield, Esq. RICE & BLOOMFIELD, LLP 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1180 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 999-2220 Facsimile: (818) 999-2388 E-mail: tjb@rbtriallaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sean P. Nalty, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Steuart Tower, Suite 1300 One Market Plaza San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 442-4810 Facsimile: (415) 442-4870 E-mail: sean.nalty@ogletreedeakins.com CLARIANT CORP: Sued by Drivers Union Over Unresolved Grievances --------------------------------------------------------------- General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89 v. Clariant Corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-00524-CRS (W.D. Ky., July 23, 2014) arises under the Labor-Management Relations Act. The Plaintiff alleges that Clariant has refused to arbitrate two Union grievances in which the Union asserts that Clariant has improperly denied vacation benefits to its members. The Union files the complaint to ask the Court to compel Clariant to arbitrate those grievances. One of the grievances was filed on September 17, 2013, on behalf of Bruce Crosson, and another filed on September 18, 2013, on behalf of a class of similarly situated grievants. The Union is a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce. Clariant is a New York limited liability company authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. The Plaintiff is represented by: David O'Brien Suetholz, Esq. KIRCHER, SUETHOLZ, & GRAYSON, PSC 515 Park Avenue Louisville, KY 40208 Telephone: (502) 636-4333 Facsimile: (502) 636-4342 E-mail: dave@unionsidelawyers.com DOLCE GROUP: Faces "Taylor" Suit in D. Md. Over Breach of FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Zachery Taylor, Kimberly Plemons and Eric Driggers, Individually and on behalf of all similarly-situated individuals v. Dolce Group Concepts, LLC, Dolce Group Management, LLC, Dolce Group DC, LLC d/b/a Ketchup, Case No. 8:14-cv-02302 (D. Md., July 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid, and illegally withheld, straight-time compensation, overtime compensation, liquidated damages and interest, and attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as Ketchup that serve modern American cuisine, which is located at 152 Waterfront Street, National Harbor, Maryland 20745. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew David Freeman, Esq. Brooke E. Lierman, Esq. Kevin D. Docherty, Esq. BROWN GOLDSTEIN AND LEVY LLP 120 E Baltimore, St Ste 1700 Baltimore, MD 21202-6701 Telephone: (410) 962-1030 Facsimile: (410) 385-0869 E-mail: adf@browngold.com blierman@browngold.com kdocherty@browngold.com ELTMAN ELTMAN: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Sanket Kulkarni, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., Case No. 1:14-cv-05447 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2014), is brought for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C. is a law firm and is located at 140 Broadway, New York, NY 10005. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sameer Singh Birring, Esq. FISHMAN & MALLON, LLP 305 Broadway, Suite 900 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 897-5840 EXPEDIA INC: Sued for Lying About Luggage Fees for Airline Ticket ----------------------------------------------------------------- June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a class action accused Expedia of lowballing luggage fees for airline tickets, and of using a deceptive pop-up add to offer a bogus discount through an Expedia mobile app. Lead plaintiff Jeffrey D. Weidenhamer sued Expedia in King County Court, alleging consumer law violations, unjust enrichment and violation of the Washington Sellers of Travel Act. Weidenhamer claims he had to pay $650 in baggage fees because Expedia falsely promised one free checked bag with online airfare purchases, and claims it failed to give mobile application users the 5 percent discount it promised in its pop-up ad. "More specifically, this action concerns defendant's false statements concerning air fares, including those about applicable fees for airfare purchasers' first checked baggage -- namely, that statements during online airfare purchases that baggage fees were lower than they actually were," the lawsuit states. "In addition, it concerns defendant's misleading pop-up statements when it encounters difficulties with its United States website functionality: "'It looks like we have an issue with the site. We're working to fix this as soon as possible. Here are some ways to find your perfect trip in the meantime: Download the Award-Winning Expedia App: Our app may be available even if the site is not. With it, you can book flights and hotels or check all your Expedia itineraries from anywhere. The app won the People's Voice Webby Award and we think you'll like it too. To say thank you for your patience, we'll also give you 5% OFF YOUR APP PURCHASE with the code MOBILEGO.' "Although the pop-up statements indicate consumers can book flights using Expedia App while defendant had 'an issue with the site' and receive a 5% discount off their purchase, that statement is in fact false." Weidenhamer claims that says Expedia's website states that airlines "may" charge a fee for checked baggage, but when he clicked the hyperlink provided, it clearly said his carrier charged "no fee" for the first checked bag. Weidenhamer says he was at the airport when he learned that contrary to Expedia's representations, he was being charged an extra $650 for baggage. "Upon arrival with his family at the airport, plaintiff learned that, contrary to defendant's representation that there was no additional fee for first check baggage, in fact there were significant additional round trip charges totaling approximately $650 for the first checked baggage. These additional and previously undisclosed fees increased the total airfare by approximately 41% (from $1,593.20 to approximately $2,243.20)," according to the complaint. "Defendant's Internet airfare statements and omissions were likely to mislead and did mislead plaintiff and other reasonable consumers, because they made a significant difference in their online airfare purchase decisions." Weidenhamer says he never got his promised discount for buying tickets though an app on his iPad. "Thus, defendant's airfare advertising statements were false or misleading. Such statements were material to reasonable consumers (and therefore likely to mislead them) because (a) they would consider full fare advertising important to their airfare purchase decisions, and (b) they would consider the Expedia App and its 5% discount enticement important to their decisions on whether they would attempt to overcome difficulties with Expedia's U.S. website by downloading and using the app or, instead, migrate to another online travel competitor," according to the lawsuit. Weidenhamer says his complaints to Expedia "fell on deaf ears" and the company refused any sort of refund until the Ohio Attorney General's Office intervened. Expedia then gave Weidenhamer a "one time courtesy refund" of 5 percent but did not reimburse him for the baggage fees. "Expedia also stated that it disclosed during plaintiff's booking process that there may be baggage fees and that it 'provides baggage information . . . as listed by our airline partners' and 'generally the baggage fees that apply to the entire trip are based on the marketing carrier's first leg (not operating carrier).' Notably, Expedia did not address the fact that its 'additional fees' hyperlink opened the baggage fee web page clearly stating for the operating carrier that there would be 'No fee' for a first checked bag," the complaint states. The class includes customers who purchased Expedia online airfares on the Web or using a mobile app from July 2012 to the present and were charged higher baggage fees than represented and/or were denied the promised 5 percent discount. Weidenhamer seeks refunds, actual, incidental, consequential, exemplary and/or statutory damages, civil penalties and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff is represented by: Duncan Turner, Esq. BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200 Shoreline, WA 98155 Telephone: (206) 621-6566 Facsimile: (206) 621-9686 E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com FERRELLGAS LP: Reduced Propane in Tanks, "LJAX" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- LJAX Enterprises, Inc., individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas, L.P.; Ferrellgas Partners, L.P.; Amerigas Propane, Inc.; Amerigas Propane, L.P.; Amerigas Partners, L.P.; and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv- 04184 (W.D. Mo., July 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired to reduce the amount of propane they would put in their tanks and thereby raise the per-pound price of propane across the country. Ferrellgas, LP, Ferrellgas Partners, LP, AmeriGas Propane LP, AmeriGas Partners, LP, Amerigas Propane, Inc., and UGI Corporation are Delaware corporations that operate propane distribution business in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. Robert A. Horn. Esq. HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC 2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 421-0700 Facsimile: (816) 421-0899 E-mail: jkronawitter@hab-law.com rhorn@hab-law.com - and - Mindee J. Reuben, Esq. Jeremy S. Spiegel, Esq. WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 545-7200 Facsimile: (215) 545-6535 Email: reuben@wka-law.com spiegel@wka-law.com FERRELLGAS LP: Reduced Propane in Tanks, Ace High Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Ace High Auto Repair & Propane, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas, LP, Ferrellgas Partners, LP, AmeriGas Propane LP, AmeriGas Parners, LP, Amerigas Propane, Inc., and UGI Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv- 02354 (D. Kan., July 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired to reduce the amount of propane they would put in their tanks and thereby raise the per-pound price of propane across the country. Ferrellgas, LP, Ferrellgas Partners, LP, AmeriGas Propane LP, AmeriGas Partners, LP, Amerigas Propane, Inc., and UGI Corporation are Delaware corporations that operate propane distribution business in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Isaac L. Diel, Esq. SHARP MCQUEEN PA 6900 College Blvd., Suite #285 Overland Park, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 661-9931 Facsimile: (913) 661-9935 E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. Thomas C. Bright, Esq. GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 E-mail: scera@gbcslaw.com tbright@gbcslaw.com FERRELLGAS LP: Conspired to Reduce Propane in Tanks, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan-Larson LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as Blue Rhino; Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as Amerigas Cylinder Exchange; and UGI Corporation, a corporation, Case No. 4:14-cv-00635 (W.D. Mo., July 18, 2014), brings this action against Defendants based on their conspiracy to fix the prices of propane sold in exchangeable portable steel tanks. Ferrellgas, LP, Ferrellgas Partners, LP, AmeriGas Propane LP, AmeriGas Parners, LP, Amerigas Propane, Inc., and UGI Corporation are Delaware corporations that operate propane distribution business in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Michael Ponder, Esq. COOK BARKETT PONDER & WOLZ 1610 N. Kings Highway, Suite 201 Cape Girardeau, MO 63701 Telephone: (573) 335-6651 Facsimile: (573) 335-6182 E-mail: mponder@cbpw-law.com - and - Vineet Bhatia, Esq. Richard W. Hess, Esq. Alexander L. Kaplan, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002-5096 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 E-mail: vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com rhess@susmangodfrey.com akaplan@susmangodfrey.com - and - Stephen Morrissey, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101-3000 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 Facsimile: (206)516-3883 E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com - and - R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC 2114 Middle Street, Suite 208 Sullivan's Island, SC 29482 Telephone: (205) 238-6757 Facsimile: (662) 368-1506 E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com - and - Stuart H. McCluer, Esq. MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC 1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200 Oxford, Mississippi 38655 Telephone: (662) 550-4511 Facsimile: (662) 368-1506 E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com FERRELLGAS LP: Tuckerton Sues Over Illegal Reduction of Propane --------------------------------------------------------------- Tuckerton Lumber Company, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ferrellgas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership; Ferrellgas, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as Blue Rhino; Amerigas Partners, L.P., a limited partnership, also doing business as Amerigas Cylinder Exchange; and UGI Corporation, a corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02353 (D. Kan., July 18, 2014), brings this action against Defendants based on their conspiracy to fix the prices of propane sold in exchangeable portable steel tanks. Ferrellgas, LP, Ferrellgas Partners, LP, AmeriGas Propane LP, AmeriGas Parners, LP, Amerigas Propane, Inc., and UGI Corporation are Delaware corporations that operate propane distribution business in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Isaac L. Diel, Esq. SHARP MCQUEEN, PA 6900 College Blvd, Suite 285 Overland Park, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 661-9931 E-mail: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com - and - Joseph C. Kohn, Esq. William E. Hoese, Esq. Doughlas A. Abrahams, Esq. KOHN, sWIFT & GRAFT, PC One South Broad, Suite 2100 Philadephia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 238-1700 - and - Susan R. Gross, Esq. Warren Rubin, Esq. Deborah R. Gross, Esq. Tina Moukoulis, Esq. LAW OFFICES BERNANRD M. GROSS, PC 100 Penn Square East, Suite 450 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 561-3600 - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. Randall B. Weill, Esq. Michael S. Smith, Esq. PRETI FLAHERTY One Center, P.O Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112-9546 - and - Gregory M. Travalio, Esq. Mark H. Troutman, Esq. ISSAC, BRANT, LEDMAN & TEETOR, LLP 250 East Broad Street, Suite 900 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-2121 GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Nearly 20,000 Cadillac, Chevrolet Camaros ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that General Motors Co. and its main Chinese partner are recalling nearly 20,000 imported Cadillac SRX sport utility vehicles and Chevrolet Camaros to replace defective seat bolts. GM said the defect might allow seats to descend to their lowest position, possibly causing a safety hazard. The company did not say how many of each type of vehicle were being recalled. In total it is recalling 19,836 vehicles. This is GM's third recall in China in 14 months. In December, the company and its main Chinese partner recalled 1.5 million vehicles to replace a fuel pump bracket. In May 2013, they recalled imported SRX sport utility vehicles to adjust nuts on wheels. GOOGLE INC: Denies Controlling Search Engines on Handheld Devices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rejecting claims that it monopolizes the search engines on handheld wireless devices, Google told a federal judge that its contracts actually promote competition, reports Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service. Gary Feitelson and Daniel McKee filed the class action against Google in San Jose, Calif., this past May, taking aim at Google's alleged requirement that equipment manufacturers "preload" Android phones with Google suites. The complaint accuses Google of violating the Sherman and Clayton Acts as well as California's unfair competition law and the state's Cartwright Act. In a motion to dismiss filed on July 11, 2014, Google said the suit fails to "allege facts to support the necessary elements of claims under federal antitrust law for illegal restraint of trade or actual or attempted monopolization. Pointing out that it provides a service, and that the Clayton Act applies only to "tangible commodities," which Google does not offer, Google said the federal law is inapplicable here. Google also disputed that its licensing and distribution of "free mobile software applications" to equipment manufacturers like Apple somehow caused consumers "to overpay for their Android mobile devices that were preloaded with these free apps." "Google licenses its Android operating system at no charge to OEMs [original equipment manufacturers] as the backbone of the mobile devices they manufacture, and through separate mobile app license agreements -- called Mobile Application Distribution Agreements ('MADAs') -- Google allows OEMs to preload a suite of free Google apps onto these Android devices," the motion states. "Of course, both the Android operating system and the Google apps are entirely optional for OEMs to use on their devices." The 35-page motion describes the allegations as "self-defeating." "Google's conduct is not only fully consistent with but actually promotes lawful competition," Google wrote. Rather than claim that Google's contracts "prevent rival search engines from reaching consumers through the various distribution channels available to them," the plaintiffs have merely challenged Google's desire for "prominent placement" of its apps on Android devices, Google said. "The complaint does not allege facts sufficient to demonstrate that (a) any OEM was somehow coerced to preload Google Search on any device; (b) any OEM was prevented from preloading an app of its choice on a device; or (c) any consumer was prevented from obtaining the apps that he or she desired," the motion continues. "In light of these pleading deficiencies, it is facially implausible to assert that Google's rivals are unlawfully foreclosed from the ability to compete for access to consumers. As a result, plaintiffs fail to allege any actual foreclosure of a relevant antitrust market, which is a prerequisite to a cognizable antitrust claim." Manufacturers are free to load rival search engines and other apps, and users like McKee and Feitelson are free to download and use rival apps, including rival search engines that they can set as their default search engines, the company argued. Google is represented by: Brian C. Rocca, Esq. Sujal J. Shah, Esq. Susan J. Welch, Esq. BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 393-2000 Facsimile: (415) 393-2286 E-mail: brian.rocca@bingham.com sujal.shah@bingham.com susan.welch@bingham.com - and - Hill B. Wellford, Esq. Jon R. Roellke, Esq. Gregory F. Wells, Esq. BINGHAM MCCUTCHEN LLP 2020 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 373-6000 Facsimile: (202) 373-6001 E-mail: hill.wellford@bingham.com jon.roellke@bingham.com gregory.wells@bingham.com - and - John E. Schmidtlein, Esq. Jonathan B. Pitt, Esq. James H. Weingarten, Esq. Benjamin M. Stoll, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 725 12th St NW Washington DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com jpitt@wc.com jweingarten@wc.com bstoll@wc.com GUTHY-RENKER: Ignores Cancellation Requests, Proactiv User Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service reports that the firm behind the celebrity-endorsed acne treatment Proactiv ignores cancellation requests and illegally bills customers' banks and credit cards, a class action claims in California Federal Court. Named plaintiffs Nanci Quintana Gomez sued Guthy-Renker, alleging racketeering, unfair competition, and violation of California Automatic Renewal Law. Guthy-Renker sells 15 beauty and skincare products, including Proactiv, Meaningful Beauty, WEN Haircare and Sheer Cover, using direct marketing and celebrity endorsements from the likes of Cindy Crawford, Justin Bieber and Jessica Simpson. Quintana claims the company defrauds customers by enrolling them in memberships and making unauthorized withdrawals from their credit cards and bank accounts for products they've never received or ordered. Customers are charged even after they've canceled their accounts, Quintana says. "Defendant's scheme is deceptively simple. Defendant requires consumers to provide credit card or debit card information at the time they make any initial purchase of defendant's products," the July 11 lawsuit states. "Defendant then uses that credit card and debit card information to automatically enroll them in supposed 'continuity program' memberships, pursuant to which defendant automatically sends them its products on what is supposedly a 90 day periodic interval. "After consumers call to cancel, defendant continues to charge their credit and debit cards for its products, despite the fact that it does not have authorization to do so and it is prohibited from making such charges under the rules of the electronic payment networks through which it processes its credit and debit card transactions." Guthy-Renker makes other unauthorized charges, Quintana claims, such as offering customers 90-day supplies and pretending it will charge customers a monthly fee for the products. The reality, says Quintana, is that Guthy-Renker charges "charges consumers for its products on intervals of 28 days or less, and ships its '90 day supplies' of products on 84-day intervals." "By charging them at a greater frequency than they authorized, defendant squeezes a thirteenth 'monthly' charge to consumers' accounts each year, exceeding the 'per month' charges for which defendant obtained consumers' authorizations. These extra charges serve no purpose other than to make additional profits for defendant," the lawsuit states. In addition, the company charges for products that consumers did not order, Quintana says. After ordering an initial 30-day supply of Proactiv, Quintana says, she received products she did not order or want, incurring charges from November 2012 to May 2013. She says the company charged her 14 times for Proactiv products in one year, for a total of $284.18. Quintana says she was charged an additional $347.68 for Meaningful Beauty products she neither ordered nor received. Though she asked for her money back, Quintana says she received only a partial refund of $139.91. She seeks an injunction, damages and costs. Guthy-Renker did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Keller, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103 Telephone: (415) 659-9937 Facsimile: (415) 543-7861 E-mail: jfkeller@kellergrover.com HABANOS CUBAN: Faces "Callazo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alberto Irastorza Collazo and all others similarly situated under v. Habanos Cuban Cafe & Pizza Inc. and Raul Busquet, Case No. 1:14-cv-22695 (S.D. Fla., July 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act. Habanos Cuban Cafe & Pizza Inc. is a restaurant that transacts business within Dade County, Florida. Raul Busquet is a corporate officer and/or owner and/or manager of the Habanos Cuban Cafe & Pizza Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM HERTZ CORP: Court Approved $11-Mil. Deal on "PlatePass" Toll Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hertz can pay $11 million to settle claims that it charged customers unwarranted "PlatePass" electronic toll fees, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling, granting the deal final approval. Susan Doherty, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action, allegedly rented from Hertz in September 2009. After a car accident she noticed a transponder device on the windshield for PlatePass, which she used on nine days to pay highway tolls electronically instead of stopping to pay cash, according to the complaint. Although the device had a notice stating that Doherty's credit card would be charged for tolls, Doherty claimed that she returned the car on Oct. 6, 2009, and received a bill for $3.25 from PlatePass stating that she owed a fee for the cash price of tolls and a $2.50 per diem service fee. A week later, however, PlatePass allegedly deducted $77.75 directly from Doherty's account without any further notice or authorization. The Web site for PlatePass said she had been charged $57.75 for tolls at the cash price and $20 in administrative fees, and that the maximum fee she could be charged was $10 per month, not per week, as the paper invoice stated, according to the complaint. Doherty's original complaint in New Jersey named as defendants the Hertz Corp., PlatePass and its parent, American Traffic Solutions Inc. Her claims were eventually consolidated with those of Dwight Simonson, who alleged that American Traffic Solutions sent him a bill for a $10 service charge and a 75 cent toll for driving the Hertz car rented at the Orlando International Airport in June 2009 through a PlatePass toll lane. Hertz never told Simonson his rental car was pre-enrolled and activated with PlatePass, let alone that he would be charged fees for using the service, according to his complaint. With Doherty and Simonson purporting to represent a class of up to 1.8 million consumers, the court refused to award American Traffic Solutions and PlatePass summary judgment in April 2013. U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman granted an $11 million settlement between the parties final approval on June 25, noting the class's "overwhelmingly positive reaction," as only 51 members opted out, and of the two objections filed, one was withdrawn, and the other was "factually and legally insufficient." Indeed, the settlement meets all requirements for approval, according to the ruling. "There was extensive discovery with over 40,000 pages of documents and a large amount of electronic discovery being exchanged, including an entire transactional database provided by defendants," Hillman wrote. They will recover more than $3.1 million in attorneys' fees and litigation costs, according to the settlement, which also includes service awards of $5,000 each for Doherty and Simonson. "Named plaintiffs, Mr. Simonson and Ms. Doherty, had the ability and the incentive to represent the claims of the class vigorously, and did so adequately and appropriately through their personal involvement in the case and the burdens of litigation which they endured," Hillman wrote. "The court also find[s] that the named plaintiffs actively participated in the litigation by retaining adequate counsel and monitoring and assisting in the course of the litigation through discovery, the production of documents, and by participating in depositions. The court similarly find[s] that class counsel in this matter was experienced, qualified, and well able to conduct the litigation as amply demonstrated by their own history of litigation complex class litigation in state and federal court and their success in defeating motions to dismiss." Hertz reportedly reaped $10.8 billion in revenue in 2013. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. Michael Coren, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. 127 Maple Avenue Red Bank, NJ 07701 Telephone: (732) 747-9003 Facsimile: (732) 747-9004 E-mail: cplacitella@cprlaw.com mcoren@cprlaw.com - and - Steven R. Jaffe, Esq. Mark Fistos, Esq. FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 N. Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (800) 400-1098 (954) 524-2820 Facsimile: (954) 524-2822 - and - Stephen A. Dunn, Esq. EMANUEL & DUNN, PLLC 130 South Salisbury Street Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 792-3703 E-mail: sdunn@emanuelanddunn.com The Defendants are represented by: John F. Ward, Jr., Esq. JENNER & BLOCK 353 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-3456 Telephone: (312) 923-2650 Facsimile: (312) 840-7650 E-mail: jward@jenner.com The case is Susan Doherty and Dwight Simonson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-00359-NLH-KMW, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. HILLYARD INC: Court Refused to Approve Labor Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Rejecting a proposed settlement by cleaning-products retailer Hillyard, a federal judge found that the deal with product demonstrators does not give proper notice or provide a fair release of claims, reports William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service. Lawrence Christensen and George Currea are the lead plaintiffs in the labor class action that accuses Hillyard Inc., of failing to reimburse employees for travel expenses from demonstrations. Employees say Hillyard also requires demonstrators to purchase products, laptops, cellphones and uniforms out of pocket. After a full day of private mediation earlier this year, Hillyard agreed to pay $750,000 to settle the claims -- amounting to about $75 per class member for each week they worked from 2009 to the present. U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathaniel Cousins rejected the deal on July 10, 2014, however, after finding that it appeared to bind only for the named plaintiffs and Hillyard, and failed to include the terms for the general release of claims of other class members. While the $750,000 settlement seemed fair on its face, Cousins said the notice lacked the required advisory that putative class members could make an appearance through an attorney if they desired. "The court denies preliminary approval of the proposed settlement agreement, but grants leave to refile for preliminary approval should the parties reach a settlement agreement that cures the deficiencies identified in this order," Cousins wrote. "The court also denies adopting the proposed notice to the class as that notice fails to inform class members that they may enter an appearance through an attorney." HITACHI HVB: "Howe" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Oliver Howe v. Hitachi HVB, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-00158 (N.D. Ga., July 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, liquidated damages, actual damages, compensatory damages, for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Hitachi HVB, Inc. describes its business as a premier international supplier of electrical equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Brian Henson, Esq. Christopher D. Vaughn, Esq. THE VAUGHN LAW FIRM, LLC Suite 150, 246 Sycamore Street Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 378-1290 E-mail: bhenson@thevaughnlawfirm.com cvaughn@thevaughnlawfirm.com - and - Frank DeMelfi, Esq. DEMEL FI LAW GROUP, LLC 4651 Woodstock Rd., Suite 208-103 Roswell, GA 30075 Telephone: (678) 948-7808 Facsimile: (866) 874-7808 E-mail: fdemelfi@gmail.com HSBC CARD: Illegally Records Telephone Conversations, Action Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stefan O. Lindgren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HSBC Card & Retail Services, Inc. a/k/a HSBC Card Services Inc., by and through Its Successor in Interest Capital One Financial Corporation, HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc., and Capital One Financial Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-05615 (C.D. Cal., July 18, 2014), rises out of the Defendants' policy and practice during the period relevant herein of electronically recording telephone conversations of California credit card holders, including, but not limited to, confidential telephone conversations, without the consent of all parties. HSBC Card & Retail Services, Inc. is the credit card and retail services division of HSBC Finance, is the fifth largest provider of MasterCard and Visa credit cards and the third largest issuer of private label credit cards in the United States. HSBC Technology & Services (USA) Inc. is a provider of information technology and centralized operational and back-end support services to HSBC Finance and all of its subsidiaries. Capital One Financial Corporation took custody of Tech Services' telephony architecture systems for calling and recording telephone calls. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth J. Arleo, Esq. ARLEO LAW FIRM PLC 16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 674-6912 Facsimile: (760) 789-8081 E-mail: elizabeth@arleolaw.com INT'L CULINARY: Sued for Promising Students of Becoming Chefs ------------------------------------------------------------- The International Culinary Center, formerly known as the French Culinary Institute, conned students into forking over $45,000 with false promises that they'd become chefs and sidestep low-paying entry-level cooking slots in kitchens, a class action claims in New York Federal Court, reports Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiffs Larry Grabovan and Daniel Oglander claim they paid the tuition only to land jobs that paid between $9 and $12 an hour "that they could get without any experience or education whatsoever." Students such as Grabovan and Oglander pay the enormous tuition "because defendants lie to them," according to the lawsuit. "Defendants represent, and have represented, that paying more than $45,000 for a six month program (nine months for night and weekend courses) makes economic sense because, upon graduation, they could would be immediately eligible for and attain chef or other 'top culinary jobs' that pay $60,000 and upwards -- and that would otherwise take them years to reach, absent defendants' expertise, prestige and industry connections. "This is not hyperbole," the plaintiffs say. They say that they and other class members "paid tens of thousands of dollars in tuition to attend ICC because of defendants' false promises. They relied upon defendants' own website that promised prospective students that they could 'walk straight into a top culinary' job once they graduated." The lawsuit continues: "Being a chef is hard work, but becoming a chef is even harder. The recipe for success usually requires years of dedication and arduous work, at low pay, before kitchen staff employees are given the opportunity to rise up through the ranks. And, even with tons of discipline and all the right skills, there is usually no guarantee that no one will attain such a high-level position." The defendants promised plaintiffs that paying the tuition and attending the school would get them more than just a good schooling; it would also get them the prestige of a "French Culinary Institute"-type diploma "that would allow graduates to skip the years of peeling carrots and to attain chef positions or other 'top culinary jobs' immediately upon graduation," the lawsuit claims. Plaintiffs say defendants' use of words such as "chefs" and "top culinary jobs" lured them into signing up. "Put simply, defendants, promised that investing in an ICC education made economic sense, notwithstanding the high price tag," according to the complaint. The cooking school "aggressively marketed this vision" to target students, though the school had no reasonable ground to believe that such assertions were true, and provided "outright lies, all of which were designed to create, in the minds of plaintiffs, the strong impression they would be both professionally and financially better off if they attended" the cooking school, the lawsuit states. "Unfortunately, defendants' promises turned out to be half-baked," according to the complaint. Instead, the cooking school's students only got a "worthless' education, and now are saddled with student loans they cannot repay, the lawsuit states. Defendant Dorothy Hamilton founded the school in 1984 as the "French Culinary Institute." The cooking school rebranded itself in 2011 when the U.S. Department of Education indicated that that it would deem it "financially irresponsible," according to the 36- page lawsuit. Plaintiffs want their tuition back, plus damages for violation of state business laws. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell M. Yankwitt, Esq. YANKWITT LLP 140 Grand Street White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 368-7410 Facsimile: (914) 801-5930 INTUITIVE SURGICAL: 9th Circuit Upholds Class Action Dismissal -------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed a lower court finding that a pension fund failed to show that purchasers of stock in a robotic surgical devices maker were defrauded by executives' allegedly false statements. The plaintiffs alleged that public statements about the market prospects for the da Vinci Surgical Systems robotic devices made by Intuitive Surgical Inc., were false and misleading. But Judge M. Margaret McKeown, writing for the panel, found that the company's statements were "in large part, forward-looking statements or garden variety corporate optimism -- neither category is actionable under the securities laws." For example, corporate puffery and optimistic statements are not actionable because investors "'know how to devalue the optimism of corporate executives,'" the court said. The decision upholds a dismissal by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Police Retirement System of St. Louis' complaint. The plaintiffs alleged that although the company executives said Intuitive would continue to grow, "individual defendants knew or should have known that system placement was decreasing because of the economic downtown, market saturation," and sales trends. The complaint did not meet the heightened pleading requirements under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including that there was a strong inference of scienter, or fraudulent intent, by the defendants, the panel said. Scienter only can be shown by specific admissions by corporate executives who are involved in the minutia of firm operations, the court said. The court further noted that the Ninth Circuit has refused to require a rule of completeness for securities disclosures because it would be impossible to disclose all pertinent details. The plaintiffs said false and misleading statements about Intuitive's financial health caused the company's share price to artificially inflate from February 1, 2008, to January 7, 2009. JOHNS HOPKINS: Levy's Patients Traumatized Over Secret Recording ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that for Myra James, the process of going to the gynecologist is now too much to bear. Since she found out her practitioner of 20 years, Dr. Nikita Levy, had been using tiny cameras to secretly record his patients' genitals, she said, "I can't bring myself to go back." Dr. Levy, 54, had worked at the East Baltimore Medical Center, a Johns Hopkins community clinic, for 25 years before he was fired in February of 2013 after admitting to the misconduct and surrendering his devices to authorities. A search of his home revealed 1,200 videos, and hundreds of images, according to authorities. Dr. Levy committed suicide 10 days after his firing. On July 21, Johns Hopkins Hospital agreed to a $190 million settlement with about 8,000 former patients of Levy's who contacted lawyers after Dr. Levy's conduct was made public last year. Ms. James, like all 12,600 of Dr. Levy's former patients, does not know if she is among those who were recorded -- faces of patients are not visible in the images, lawyers said, rendering it impossible to identify their subjects -- but she said her faith and trust has been irreparably eroded by the possibility. "You're lying there, exposed. It's violating and it's horrible, and my trust is gone. Period," she said. The Associated Press normally does not identify possible victims of sex crimes, but Ms. James, 67, agreed to the use of her name. The settlement all but closes a case attorneys for both Johns Hopkins and Dr. Levy's former patients say traumatized thousands of women who, according to the women's lead attorney, Jonathan Schochor, are still -- a year and a half later -- "extraordinarily upset." "They are in fear, dismayed, angry, and anxious over a breach of faith, a breach of trust, a betrayal on the part of the medical system," Mr. Schochor said during a news conference on July 21. "Many of our clients still feel betrayed, and still feel the breach of trust they have experienced, and they have fallen out of the medical system." The preliminary settlement is one of the largest on record in the U.S. involving sexual misconduct by a physician. Hopkins said insurance will cover the settlement, which "properly balances the concerns of thousands of plaintiffs with obligations the Health System has to provide ongoing and superior care to the community." Hopkins' attorney Donald DeVreis on July 21 said the hospital was unaware of Levy's "horrible conduct," and that he had become a "rogue employee" when he began recording his patients. Levy graduated from the Weill Cornell Medical College in Manhattan, and completed his internship and residency at Kings County Hospital Center. He began working at Hopkins in 1988, and was working at Hopkins East Baltimore Medical Center at the end. He saw roughly 12,600 patients during his years at Hopkins. "He was cold, and I was kind of scared of him," Ms. James said. "His bedside manner -- he didn't have any. But all my doctors were at Hopkins. I've had two surgeries there, my primary doctor is there. I was used to going there for everything." Some women told of being inappropriately touched and verbally abused by Levy, according to Mr. Schochor. Some said they were regularly summoned to Dr. Levy's office for unnecessary pelvic exams. "Did he take pictures of me? There's no way of knowing," said another former patient whose two children were delivered by Dr. Levy. "I felt violated, because I don't know if for sure if he had pictures of me, or who has seen them." His suicide -- by wrapping his head in a plastic bag with a hose connected to a helium tank -- frustrated everyone who wanted to know his motives and see him face justice. Once alerted to Levy's conduct, hospital authorities quickly notified Baltimore police and escorted Levy off campus. Police and federal investigators later said they found no evidence he shared the material with others. Mr. Schochor said all the images will be destroyed by court order. "It is our hope that this settlement -- and findings by law enforcement that images were not shared -- helps those affected achieve a measure of closure," Mr. DeVreis said. The settlement involves eight law firms and is subject to final approval by Judge Sylvester B. Cox after a "fairness hearing" where the women can speak. Each plaintiff was interviewed by a forensic psychologist and a post-traumatic-stress specialist to determine how much trauma she suffered and how much money she will receive. Hopkins sent out letters to Dr. Levy's entire patient list last year, apologizing to the women and urging them to seek care with other Hopkins specialists. "Hopkins had no idea or inkling," Mr. DeVreis said. "This conduct, we agree, was not just inappropriate but outrageous, and it was a breach of trust. At this point we're doing our best to work with the former patients to achieve a measure of closure for the patients and the Hopkins community." But for some of Dr. Levy's patients, the settlement provides little solace. "It doesn't make me feel better," said the former patient. "I don't think any amount of money can replace feeling violated like that." JIMMY JOHN'S: Does Not Pay workers Overtime, "Brunner" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emily Brunner, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, as Class/Collective representative v. Jimmy John's Enterprises, Inc., and JS Fort Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05509 (N.D. Ill., July 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for intentionally misclassifying Plaintiff and other 2nd ASMs as exempt employees, therefore denying them of wages and overtime compensation, is in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Jimmy John's Enterprises, Inc. is a privately owned fast food restaurant giant, specializing in the sale of sub sandwiches. JS Fort Group, Inc., is a franchisee of Jimmy John's Enterprises, Inc., doing business in the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert M. Foote, Esq. Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. Matthew J. Herman, Esq. Peter L. Currie, Esq. FOOTE, MEILKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC 10 West State Street, Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 232-7450 Facsimile: (630) 232-7452 M&M DENTISTRY: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Borgstrom v. M&M Dentistry, Inc., an Arizona corporation; Lubomir Mihaylov and Maria Mihaylov, husband and wife, Case No. 2:14-cv-01658-JJT (D. Ariz., July 23, 2014) is brought against the Defendants for their alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. M&M Dentistry, Inc., was incorporated in Arizona and has its principal place of business in Mesa, Arizona. The Individual Defendants are the owners of M&M Dentistry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trey Dayes, Esq. Sean Davis, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES LAW GROUP PC 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 288-1610 Facsimile: (602) 288-1664 E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com M-I LLC: "Dewan" Suit Moved From S.D. Texas to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Dewan v. M-I, L.L.C., Case No. 4:12-cv-03638, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Fresno). The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01151-AWI-MJS to the proceeding. The Plaintiff seeks to collect unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES 440 Louisiana St., Suite 675 Houston, TX 77002-1637 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net - and - Melissa Moore, Esq. US DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PLAN BENEFITS SECURITY DIVISION, N-4611 200 Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20210 Telephone: (202) 693-5281 E-mail: moore.melissa@dol.gov The Defendant is represented by: Samuel Zurik, III, Esq. Robert P. Lombardi, Esq. KULLMAN FIRM 1100 Poydras St., Suite 1600 1600 Energy Centre New Orleans, LA 70163 Telephone: (504) 524-4162 Facsimile: (504) 596-4189 E-mail: sz@kullmanlaw.com rpl@kullmanlaw.com - and - Martin J. Regimbal, Esq. KULLMAN FIRM 200 6th St North, Suite 704 Columbus, MS 39701 Telephone: (662) 244-8824 Facsimile: (662) 244-8837 E-mail: mjr@kullmanlaw.com Intervenors Sarmad Syed and Ashley Balfour is represented by: Jennifer L. Conner, Esq. Ira R. Spiro, Esq. SPIRO LAW CORP. 11377 W. Olympic Boulevard, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 235-2350 E-mail: jennifer@spirolawcorp.com ira@spirolawcorp.com - and - Richard J. Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com MACY'S INC: Fails to Pay Workers All Compensable Wages, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Prado, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Macy's, Inc., an Ohio corporation, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC551578 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 15, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay employees all compensable wages for time worked. Mr. Prado is a resident of California. He was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee working out of its Fulfillment Center located in City of Industry, California. Macy's, Inc., is an Ohio corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio and is engaged in business in Los Angeles County and throughout California. The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher J. Hamner, Esq. HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC 555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 533-4160 Facsimile: (213) 533-4167 E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com - and - Christopher A. Olsen, Esq. OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC 1010 Second Ave., Suite 1835 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 550-9352 Facsimile: (619) 923-2747 E-mail: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com MANPOWER INC: "Ramirez" Suit Asserting Labor Claims Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion for summary judgment in the purported class action lawsuit captioned Patricia Ramirez, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated employees v. Manpower Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-02880-BLF. Judge Freeman also denied as moot the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In addition, Judge Freeman denied a motion to intervene as additional named plaintiffs filed by two individual members of the putative class. Plaintiff Patricia Ramirez was employed by a temporary services employment agency, Manpower Inc./California Peninsula, for three days in January 2013. She brought the putative class action against MI/CP and against three other entities, Manpower, Inc., Manpowergroup Public Sector Inc., and Manpowergroup US Inc. Ms. Ramirez's operative second amended complaint asserts various state labor code violations pertaining to the Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages for orientation, training, and assessment meetings. On May 13, 2014, the Defendants learned of the Plaintiff's bankruptcy during her deposition. On May 22, 2014, the Defendants filed the Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting that (1) the Plaintiff is judicially estopped from pursuing this lawsuit because she failed to disclose it in her bankruptcy case, and (2) the Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue this lawsuit because the lawsuit was the property of the bankruptcy estate and was not abandoned to the Plaintiff prior to discharge. MOORE CAPITAL: Has Prelim. Approval of $57.75-MM Fraud Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Moore Capital can pay $57.75 million to settle commodities-fraud claims that it manipulated the prices of platinum and palladium, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission had fined Moore Capital Management $25 million in 2010 for manipulating the prices of platinum and palladium futures contracts. Specifically, Moore engaged in a practice known as "banging the close," whereby a trader manipulates the day's closing price for a commodity by buying or selling a large number of futures contracts in order to benefit on a larger position in a separate transaction based on the futures settlement price of the day. Several individuals filed a commodities fraud class action one day later, and their claims were consolidated with similar claims that sought damages for the firm's market manipulation. U.S. District Judge William Pauley III on July 15, 2014, granted preliminary approval to settlement agreements under which Moore will pay $48.4 million for its alleged manipulation of the futures market, and $9.35 million for the effects of its conduct on class members who purchased platinum or palladium bullion. Joseph Welsh, a former commodities trader at now-bankrupt defendant MF Global, also agreed to an entry of judgment against him for negligence for $35 million, with the stipulation that the judgment can only be enforced against insurance policies. Pauley's order rejected an objection by MF Global's trustee, who sought a "clarification" that Welsh's admission is not binding on his former employer. "The trustee has not shown formal legal prejudice here and does not have standing to object," Pauley wrote. "Courts do not typically prognosticate about the rest judicata effect of current orders in some future circumstance." Class member Susan Levy meanwhile failed to support her objection that the settlement favored "short" investors, over investors who bet "long." "The plan of allocation treats longs and shorts equally. This objection is a misunderstanding of the allocation," Pauley said. The court will hold a fairness hearing in November, and class members will be permitted to submit their objections to the settlement via email. NINE WEST: Sued in Fla. for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Rumph, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nine West Holdings, Inc., a foreign profit corporation, Case No. 0:14-cv-61673-UU (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Bernard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230 Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (954) 243-4295 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com NUVE MIGUEL: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nuve Miguel Corp. d/b/a Associated Supermarket, Flavio Urgiles, Klever Urgiles, Luis Urgiles, Victor Urgiles and Segundo Urgiles, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-05451 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages owed to them pursuant to both the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Nuve Miguel Corp. is a supermarket with its principle place of business at 755 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York 10025. The Individual Defendants are the owners, operators and managers of the Corporate Defendant. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 PAIN RELIEF: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lynn Torregano, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Pain Relief & Diagnostic Center and Transworld Systems, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-02985-DWF-JJG (D. Minn., July 23, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com - and - Mark L. Vavreck, Esq. MARTINEAU, GONKO & VAVRECK, PLLC 401 N 3rd St Ste 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 659-9500 Facsimile: (612) 659-9220 E-mail: mvavreck@mgvlawfirm.com PANASONIC CORP: Sued Over Distribution of Capacitors ---------------------------------------------------- Chip-Tech, Ltd. and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation Of North America, Sanyo Electric Group, Ltd., Sanyo Electronic Device (U.S.A.) Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03264 (N.D. Cal., July 18, 2014), seeks damages and injunctive relief for the collusive and concerted restraint of trade in aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors orchestrated by the Defendants. Capacitors are one of the fundamental components found in electrical circuits. All electronic devices we use today -- from the cheapest household appliances to our personal computers to multi-million dollar machinery and vehicles -- employ various electrical circuits working in concert to perform the various tasks for which we use them. The Defendants are foreign companies that manufacture, sell and distribute aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors either directly or through its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Andrew M. Purdy , Esq. James G. Dallal , Esq. Ryan J. McEwan , Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 - and - Solomon B. Cera, Esq. C. Andrew Dirksen , Esq. GOLD BENNETT CERA & SIDENER LLP 595 Market Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-2230 Facsimile: (415) 777-5189 Email: scera@gbcslaw.com cdirksen@gbcslaw.com PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS: Tex. Sup. Court Overturns Discovery Sanction ----------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the Texas Supreme Court has dismissed a $1.2 million judgment against Petroleum Solutions Inc. over a diesel spill, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing spoliation sanctions against the company when there was no proof it intentionally lost or destroyed evidence. "We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by charging the jury with a spoliation instruction to the jury and striking Petroleum's statute-of-limitations defense because that sanction does not comply with the procedural or substantive standards set forth in Brookshire Brothers," the court said in a unanimous July 11 opinion. In the Brookshire Brothers case, the Texas Supreme Court adopted a two-part test for determining whether a particular sanction for discovery abuse is just, Justice Deborah Lehrmann wrote for the majority. In that case, the court also said that a trial court may deliver a spoliation instruction only if it finds the spoliating party has intentionally concealed discoverable evidence, or acted negligently and caused the nonspoliating party "to be irreparably deprived of any meaningful ability to present a claim or defense," Justice Lehrmann said. In this case, the trial court's sanctions were an abuse of discretion because no proof exists that Petroleum Solutions intentionally concealed evidence or irreparably deprived plaintiff Bill Head Enterprises of any meaningful ability to present its claim. The court reversed an intermediate state appeal court's ruling for Head and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. On another point, the court, with Justice Jeffrey Boyd dissenting, affirmed a finding that third-party defendant Titeflex Inc. was entitled to indemnity from Petroleum Solutions. In 1999, Petroleum Solutions manufactured and installed an underground diesel-fuel storage system and a gauging system for detecting any fuel releases at the Silver Spur Truck Stop in Pharr, Texas, owned by Bill Head. Following a large diesel leak, Head sued Petroleum Solutions. In the course of Petroleum Solution's investigation into the spill, it took possession of, and then lost through a third party, a "flex connector" -- component of the fuel system that the defendant claimed was faulty and the cause of the spill. PLATINUM RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Servers Properly, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Alan Forde, on behalf himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Platinum Restaurants, LLC, d/b/a Eddie Merlot's Prime Aged Beef and Seafood, Case No. 1:14-cv-05496 (N.D. Ill., July 18, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay their servers and other tipped employees a sub- minimum hourly wage under the tip-credit provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Platinum Restaurants, LLC, does business as Eddie Merlot's Prime Aged Beef and Seafood, which operates restaurants located in Warrenville, Burr Ridge, and Lincolnshire, Illinois and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen Ann Salas, Esq. Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq. Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com PROSENSA HOLDING: Sued Over Misleading Financial Statement ---------------------------------------------------------- Amar Singh, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hans G.C.P. Schikan, Berndt A.E. Modig, Giles V. Campion, Colleen A. Devries, Luc M.A. Dochez, Remi Droller, Daan Ellens, Peter Goodfellow, Martijn Kleijwegt, David Mott, Patrick Van Beneden, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Leerink Swann LLC (N/K/A Leerink Partners LLC), Wedbush Securities Inc., KBC Securities USA, Inc., Trout capital LLC, and Prosensa Holding N.V., Case No. 1:14-cv-05450 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and materially misleading statements in Prosensa's Registration Statement. Prosensa Holding N.V. is a biotechnology company based in Leiden, Netherlands, it is engaged in the discovery and development of ribonucleic acid-modulating (or "RNA"-modulating) therapeutics for the treatment of genetic disorders. The Individual Defendants are Members of the Board of Directors of Prosensa Holding N.V. The Underwriter Defendants serve as underwriter of the Company's Initial Public Offering. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Munty, Esq. Gregory Linkh, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 122 E 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 Email: glinkh@glancylaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310)201-9150 Facsimile: (310)201-9160 - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 110 West "A" Street, Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619)230-0063 Facsimile: (619)255-1856 -and- W. Scott Holleman, Esq. 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 802-1486 Facsimile: (212)602-1592 - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 SENSA PRODUCTS: Faces Class Suit Over Weight Loss Miracle Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Sensa Products unjustly enriched itself by selling stuff it claimed consumers could sprinkle on food, and lose weight from it "without dieting," a class action claims in California Federal Court. SCHOLARSHIP STORAGE: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Curtis and Benjamin Krauter, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Scholarship Storage Inc d/b/a Business as Usual, and Michael Williams, Case No. 2:14-cv-00303-NT (D. Me., July 23, 2014) is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq. Phillip E. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP 160 Capitol Street PO Box 79 Augusta, ME 04332 Telephone: (207) 623-5110 E-mail: jyoung@johnsonwebbert.com pjohnson@johnsonwebbert.com SHANGHAI HUSI: McDonald's Suspends Sales of Chicken Nuggets in HK ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anne Marie Roantree and Donny Kwok, writing for Reuters, report that McDonald's Corp has suspended sales of chicken nuggets and other items in Hong Kong after it said it had imported products from Shanghai Husi Food, the U.S.-owned company at the center of a food safety scare in China. McDonald's said in a statement late on July 24 that it had imported certain products from Shanghai Husi between July last year to June this year, although no food items from the Shanghai supplier remained in stock. The fast-food company said it had also stopped selling its McSpicy chicken filets, chicken and green salads, fresh corn cups and iced lemon tea. McDonald's said it had stopped using the following ingredients from another branch, Guangzhou Husi: lettuce, corn kernels, lemon slices, green salad, cucumber, onion and tomato. "We reiterate that until today, all the food sold at McDonald's restaurants conform to the food safety standard under Hong Kong legal regulations," McDonald's said. The announcement came after Hong Kong said it had suspended, with immediate effect, all imports from Shanghai Husi Food, which is owned by Illinois-based OSI Group. The food scandal broke after a TV report on July 20 showed staff at Shanghai Husi Food using long expired meat and picking up food from the floor to add back to the mix. Hong Kong's Centre for Food Safety said in a statement late on on July 24 that any food products from Husi already imported into the city would be marked, sealed and banned from sale, pending the results of investigations by Chinese authorities. China is McDonald's third-biggest market as measured by the number of restaurants. The latest food safety scare in China has also ensnared KFC parent Yum Brands Inc, which has required all of its KFC and Pizza Hut restaurants to seal up and stop using all meat materials supplied by the Husi factory. McDonald's said the company sourced about a fifth of its Chicken McNuggets in Japan from Shanghai Husi and had halted sales of the product on July 21. Food safety is one of the top issues for Chinese consumers after a scandal in 2008 where dairy products tainted with the industrial chemical melamine led to the deaths of six infants and made many thousands sick. SPORT CHALET: Shareholder Seeks to Enjoin Proposed Sale to Vestis ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barry Lieberman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sport Chalet, Inc., Craig L. Levra, John R. Attwood, Miki R. Beradelli, Rachel C. Glaser, Donald J. Howard, Randal G. Scoville. Kevin J. Ventrudo, Versa Capital Management, LLC, Vestis Retail Group, LLC and Everest Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. BC551232 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., July 9, 2014) seeks to enjoin the acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Sport Chalet common stock by Vestis Retail Group, LLC, which is owned by funds advised by Versa Capital and its wholly-owned subsidiary Everest Merger Sub. Sport Chalet is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices located in Flintridge, California. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Versa Capital is a private equity investment firm with more than $1.4 billion of assets under management focused on control investments in special situations involving middle market companies where value and performance growth can be achieved through enhanced operational and financial management. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Blvd. Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (310) 247-0160 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com - and - Brian C. Kerr, Esq. BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 501-9000 Facsimile: (212) 501-0300 E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com TARGET COMMERCIAL: Removed "Parkin" Suit to Arizona Dist. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Parkin v. Target Commercial Interiors Incorporated, Case No. CV2014-008707, was removed from the Superior Court of Arizona in and for the County of Maricopa to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 01659-SRB to the proceeding. The Complaint asserts one cause of action for failure to pay overtime for hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff purports to bring the claim on behalf of herself and "all other similarly situated employees who work(ed) for Target and who have not been appropriately paid the requisite overtime compensation." The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Enoch, Esq. Kaitlyn A. Redfield-Ortiz, Esq. LUBIN & ENOCH, P.C. 349 North Fourth Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85003-1505 Telephone: (602) 234-0008 Facsimile: (602) 626-3586 E-mail: nicholas.enoch@azbar.org kaitlyn@lubinandenoch.com The Defendant is represented by: R. Shawn Oller, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Camelback Esplanade 2425 East Camelback Road, Suite 900 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 474-3600 Facsimile: (602) 957-1801 E-mail: soller@littler.com - and - Joseph G. Schmitt, Esq. Jennifer L. Cornell, Esq. NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS PA 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 400 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 305-7500 Facsimile: (612) 305-7501 E-mail: jschmitt@nilanjohnson.com jcornell@nilanjohnson.com - and - Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq. Claire A. Hoffmann, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 55 Second Street, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com clairehoffmann@paulhastings.com THOROUGHBRED MOTORSPORTS: Court Affirms Tricycle Class Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal appeals court has affirmed a $95,000 judgment against Texas-based Thoroughbred Motorsports Inc. over a defective motorized tricycle, rejecting the company's challenges to the jury instructions on the Wisconsin Lemon Law and federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled July 10 in favor of the buyer of the Stallion motorized tricycle finding that the district court's instructions "explained accurately and clearly the issues relevant to Wisconsin Lemon Law." Writing for the panel, Judge David Hamilton said the lower court correctly instructed the jury how the law would apply when the manufacturer told the consumer to have repairs done by someone other than a "manufacturer's authorized motor vehicle dealer." He said the instructions also correctly "focused the jury on the central issue of the case: whether Amato Ford was acting on Thoroughbred's behalf when repairing Burzlaff's vehicle, or whether he went there at his own risk and without Thoroughbred's authorization." In 2009, plaintiff Ronald Burzlaff paid more than $35,000 for the Thoroughbred Motorsports Stallion, an unusual vehicle with a steering wheel, heat and air conditioning and other features uncommon in motorcycles, the opinion stated. The Stallion was purchased at the only Thoroughbred dealership in Wisconsin, which was 300 miles from the plaintiff's home. The panel said Mr. Burzlaff's vehicle had numerous problems immediately: It was delivered without a gas cap and would not start, the heating and air conditioning failed, the steering wheel was loose, and the transmission and cooling system leaked. After reporting the problems, the company told Mr. Burzlaff he could take his vehicle to a nearby Ford dealer for warranty repairs, although it did not specify a particular dealer, the opinion stated. But after the Stallion had been out of service for repairs for 71 days during the first year, Mr. Burzlaff demanded a new vehicle or a refund. Thoroughbred refused, and after a further effort to repair the Stallion failed, Mr. Burzlaff sued under federal and state laws. A jury found for Mr. Burzlaff on both his claims and on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Thoroughbred challenged the jury instructions on the Lemon Law claim, the sufficiency of the evidence on that claim, and the submission of the Magnuson-Moss claim to the jury. The panel rejected all of the defendant's challenges, including Thoroughbred argument that if the vehicle is not taken to one of the company's listed authorized dealerships for the actual repairs, the Lemon Law does not apply. "The Lemon Law thus protects consumers who go to a repair facility authorized by the manufacturer," the panel said. "That is true whether the facility is a 'manufacturer's authorized motor vehicle dealer' or not. With this understanding of the statute, the district court's instructions were right on target." Sitting on the panel were Hamilton, Chief Judge Diane Wood and U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall of the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation. TRADER JOE'S: $3.3-Mil. Deal Over "All Natural" Labels Approved --------------------------------------------------------------- Trader Joe's can pay $3.3 million to settle class-action claims that it sticks "All Natural" labels on products that contain synthetic ingredients, reports Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. U.S. Judge District William Orrick in San Francisco also approved an award of $950,000 in attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs' counsel. The amount, roughly 28 percent of the settlement fund, is "consistent with the lodestar and the success achieved, and in the acceptable range in the Ninth Circuit," Orrick said. In addition to providing equitable relief, Trader Joe's has agreed to stop using the disputed labels, according to the order. Tamar Davis Larsen and Aran Eisenstat are the lead plaintiffs in the case, which accuses the popular grocer of committing fraud in violation of state and federal law by willfully mislabeling several products as "All Natural" and "100% Natural," despite their allegedly use of one or more synthetic ingredients. In all, the plaintiffs filed three complaints, defeated a motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings, and began merits and class discovery. The parties attended three separate mediation sessions under the supervision of the retired Judge Peter Lichtman, but failed to agree on settlement terms. Lichtman then prepared his own proposed settlement, including settlement terms and attorneys' fees, which the parties accepted. The parties filed the stipulation of class settlement this past February. Each class member with proof of purchase is entitled under the settlement to a full reimbursement for each product bought during the class period. Each class member without a proof of purchase may receive reimbursement for the value of up to 10 products. Any amounts left in the fund will not revert to Trader Joe's, but will rather be distributed in the form of products to class members at Trader Joe's retail locations throughout the United States. As of June 29, 2014, there were a total of 59,830 claims made by class members representing a total claim value of about $1.9 million. Orrick is also presiding over an unrelated class action that accuses Trader Joe's of misbranding or mislabeling products to suggest they do not contain sugar. The case is Tamar Davis Larsen, et al. v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No. 11-cv-05188-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. U.S. BANK: Suppressed Public Presence in Home Auctions, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Hargraves at Courthouse News Service reports that U.S. Bank manipulated the market to suppress public participation, drive down the price of foreclosed real property at auction and defraud Hawaii homeowners, a class action claims in state court. The 30-page lawsuit is a virtual "how to" manual on unfair foreclosure sales. Lead plaintiff Nancy L. Manchester claims the defendants: * "chilled competitive bidding" by changing the location of advertised auctions without publishing a new notice; * changed auction dates with such frequency that most sale dates advertised were not the actual auction dates; * changed sale dates unilaterally and without publishing notices of the rescheduled actions' new dates and times; * advertised the auctions of properties by quitclaim deed when in fact all buyers other than defendants received limited warranty deeds; * included as a term of sale an unreasonable expectation that bidders were to close their sales within 30 days of their auctions; and * implied that a foreclosing mortgagee could render a sale illusory on a whim. These practices, according to the complaint in the First Circuit Court, reduced the competition between U.S. Bank and bidders at nonjudicial auction, "allowing defendant U.S. Bank to purchase foreclosure properties cheaply on credit bid, with no or minimal competition from prospective third-party bidders, for later resale at higher prices," in violation of state law that says a mortgagee exercising a power of sale must act as the "attorney of agent" of the mortgagor. Manchester sued U.S. Bank, acting as mortgagee exercising a power of sale; Routh Crabtree Olsen P.S., a professional service corporation that provides legal representation on foreclosing mortgagees; Crabtree's company RCO Hawaii LLLC; and Derek Wong, a Hawaii-licensed attorney. Manchester claims the defendants "breached duties to act in good faith to sell the properties to the owners' best advantage and to use reasonable diligence to secure the best possible price." The class consists of all persons who owned and mortgaged property in Maui County, Kauai County or the City and County of Honolulu who were subjected to a notice of foreclosure sale signed on behalf of U.S. Bank by Wong or another attorney employed by defendants, claiming for the bank the rights of a mortgagee with a power of sale, whose auctions' location was changed from the location published in the original notice of sale without any new noticed being published, and for which a deed was recorded on or after July 11, 2010 transferring title to the high auction bidder. Manchester seeks damages and declaratory relief stating that the publication of notices of foreclosure under power of sale with offers of quitclaim deeds, and the failure to publish notices of postponement violated defendants' legal duties and should be without legal effect. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Bickerton, Esq. BICKERTON LEE DANG SULLIVAN MEHEULA Topa Financial Center Fort Street Tower 745 Fort Street, Suite 801 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 599-3811 Facsimile: (808) 533-2467 E-mail: bickerton@bsds.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 * * *