/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140804.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 153 Headlines ACTIVE SPORTS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ADVANCED CALL: "Decker" Suit Moved From E.D. to W.D. Michigan ALLIED INTERSTATE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims AMERICAN HEALTH: Recalls Ibuprofen Tablets, USP, 600 mg APPLE INC: Accused of Spying via iPhone's "Location Service" Tool BANNER HEALTH: Sued Over Disclosure of Medicare ID/SS Numbers BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 4 Lots of IV Solution Due to Plastic BLUE CROSS: Accused of Illegally Keeping $667-Mil. Excess Profits BOUNCEBACK INC: Accused of "Renting" County Prosecutor's Seals BRIDGEVIEW BANK: "Wooley" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois BRISTOL-MYERS: Recalls COUMADIN(R) Due to Particulate Matter CACOCO INC: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella CARGILL INC: Recalls NatureWise Meatbird Feed Due to Excess Sodium CARMEL FOOD: Recalls Rising Moon Organics Butternut Squash Ravioli CEVA LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Hourly and Overtime Wages, Suit Says COINABUL LLC: Faces "Hussein" Class Suit for Failing to Ship Gold CONSUMERS ENERGY: Terminated Worker Due to Race, Suit Claims CONVATEC: FDA Classifies Recall of Flexi-Seal FMS as Class I DANCING STAR: Recalls Various Snacks Containing Carob Powder DELTA AIR: Oct. 14 Final Hearing on $1.4MM Workers Suit Accord DIGNITY HEALTH: Pension Plans Not Exempted From ERISA Requisites DYNIA & ASSOCIATES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act EARTH CIRCLE: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella GENERAL MOTORS: "Corbett" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Sauer" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Ignition Switch Suit in Mercer County GENERAL MOTORS: Musicians Sue Over In-Vehicle CD-Copying Devices GEO GROUP: Forces Guards to Work Off the Clock, Class Suit Says GMAIL INC: News Outlets Still Await Ruling on Sealed Filings GOMACRO: Recalls MACROBARS Brand Almond Butter + Carob GOOGLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Users Data Granted in Part GOOGLE INC: Asks Court Not to Unseal Docs in Gmail Privacy Suit GREAT AMERICAN: Updates Recall on Ready-To-Eat Products HART-HANKS SHOPPERS: Violates Minimum Wage and OT Laws, Suit Says HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Removed "King" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Lactated Ringers and 5% Dextrose Injection IDAHO, USA: AG Urged Ninth Circuit to Reverse Abortion Ban INFRASTRUCTURE CORP: Did Not Properly Record Overtime, Suit Says INTEL CORP: Accused of Firing Sexually Harassed Design Engineer INTERNATIONAL GAME: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim JOHNS HOPKINS: $190-Mil. Deal in Suit Over Spying Ob-Gyn Approved LEVY RESTAURANTS: Accused of Racial and Disability Discrimination LX JEWELRY: Sued for Terminating Worker Solely Due to Pregnancy MAJOR LEAGUE: Sued by Disgruntled Minor League Ballplayers MASSAGE ENVY: Got Prelim. OK of $0.5-Mil. Deal in Insurance Suit MICROS SYSTEMS: Being Sold for Too Little to Oracle, Suit Claims MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Claims MTA METRO-NORTH: Faces "Chu" Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Amends $60-Mil. Deal to Streamline Process NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces Class Suit in Southern District of Texas NEW YORK, USA: Teacher Tenure Violates Constitution, Parents Say PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Delivery Sales Tax Denied PROTECTIVE LIFE: Being Sold for Too Little to Dai-Ichi, Suit Says QUALITY FOODS: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Chicago Drivers Demand Refunds of $100-Tickets SUTTER HEALTH: $4-Bil. Class Action Over Stolen Records Halted TAISHAN GYPSUM: Chinese Commission Among Drywall Suit Defendants TENNESSEE, USA: Faces Class Suit for Denying Health Coverage TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective 2AZ-FE Engines TRUMP INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit in Nevada Over Unpaid Overtime URS CORP: Being Sold to AECOM for Too Little, Shareholders Claim VILLAGE OF WOODRIDGE: 7th Cir. Unable to Agree on $30 Fee Issue WEIGHT WATCHERS: Court Approved Settlement in "Connolly" Suit WORLD WRESTLING: Issued Misleading Statements, Shareholders Claim YUM BRANDS: Food Safety Scandal in China Hits KFC, Pizza Hut Sales ********* ACTIVE SPORTS: Accused of Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Cassidy and Alex Johnson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Active Sports, Inc. d/b/a The House, Case No. 0:14-cv-03022-MJD-SER (D. Minn., July 28, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiffs are 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 ADVANCED CALL: "Decker" Suit Moved From E.D. to W.D. Michigan ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Decker v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-12597, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The Michigan District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-00795-GJQ to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brought the action for damages and injunctive relief based upon the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and The Regulation of Collection Practices Act. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC is a Georgia corporation and debt collector with an office located in Bingham Farms State of Michigan. GE Capital Retail Bank, now known as Synchrony Bank, a wholly owned subsidiary of GE Capital Retail Finance Corporation, is a foreign corporation and debt collector. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian P. Parker, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN P. PARKER, PC 2000 Town Center, Suite 1900 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 642-6268 Facsimile: (248) 659-1733 E-mail: brianparker@collectionstopper.com Defendant Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC, is represented by: Alan J. Taylor, Esq. SEGAL MCCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY LTD (MI) Novi Office Center, Suite 203 39475 Thirteen Mile Rd. Novi, MI 48377 Telephone: (248) 994-0063 E-mail: ataylor@smsm.com ALLIED INTERSTATE: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Meryl Katz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Allied Interstate, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-04518 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com AMERICAN HEALTH: Recalls Ibuprofen Tablets, USP, 600 mg ------------------------------------------------------- American Health Packaging (Columbus, OH) has voluntarily recalled Lot #142588, Expiration Date, 01/2016 of Ibuprofen Tablets, USP, 600 mg, in a hospital unit dose presentation that may contain individual blistered doses labeled as Oxcarbazepine Tablets, 300 mg, lot #142544. In addition, American Health Packaging (AHP) has voluntarily recalled Oxcarbazepine Tablets, 300 mg, lot #142544, Expiration Date, 02/2016. The voluntary recall is the result of mislabeled inner unit dose blister packaging which could result in patients receiving ibuprofen and missing their scheduled dose of oxcarbazepine. Ibuprofen 600 mg tablets are indicated for the relief of mild to moderate pain; for relief of the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis; and treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. Inadvertent consumption of ibuprofen may cause adverse reactions in a number of patients in which use of ibuprofen is contraindicated. Oxcarbazepine is used for treating certain types of seizures in patients with epilepsy. Failure to receive the proper dose of oxcarbazepine could increase the chances of having a seizure. Affected products as follows: Cartons of 100 count (10x10) Hospital Unit Dose blisters of AHP Ibuprofen Tablets, USP, 600 mg, with outer carton NDC#: 68084-703- 01 and individual dose NDC#: 68084-703-11, Lot #142588, Expiration Date, 01/2016. The drug product can be identified by physical description: white, oval-shaped, film-coated tablets, with "IP 465" printed on one side. Cartons of 100 count (10x10) Hospital Unit Dose blisters of AHP Oxcarbazepine Tablets, 300 mg, with outer carton NDC#: 62584-143-0 and individual dose NDC#: 62584-143-11, Lot #142544, Expiration Date, 02/2016. The drug product can be identified by physical description: yellow color, capsule shaped, film-coated tablets scored and debossed with '184' on one side and scored on other side. To date, AHP has received 1 customer complaint which resulted in the investigation and recall of these drug products. AHP has not received any adverse event reports attributable to the mislabeled drug. American Health Packaging initiated a voluntary product recall on July 1, 2014 as a safety precaution, and will continue to closely monitor for reports of adverse drug reactions and product complaints. Notification of the recall has been sent to distributors who received the affected product with instructions on how to notify their customers. These hospital unit dose products were distributed nationwide beginning June 20, 2014. No other products or lots were affected by this incident. Consumers who have received the recalled product should immediately discontinue use and contact GENCO Pharmaceutical Services at 855-419-4608 from 7am to 5pm CST for instructions on returning the recalled product. For medical information questions or product complaints related to Oxcarbazepine Tablets, 300 mg or Ibuprofen Tablets, USP, 600 mg please contact American Health Packaging customer service at 1-800-707-4621 from 8am to 4pm EST. Any adverse events that may be related to the use of these products should be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Program by fax at 1-800-FDA-0178 or by mail at MedWatch, HF-2, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852-9787 or on the MedWatch website. The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. APPLE INC: Accused of Spying via iPhone's "Location Service" Tool ----------------------------------------------------------------- Apple uses the "location service" function on iPhones to spy on customers and give their private information to third parties, including the federal government, a class action claims in Federal Court, reports Rebekah Kearn at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Chen Ma sued Apple on behalf of roughly 100 million iPhone users, claiming Apple violated their privacy. "In or around September 2012, Apple released iPhone 4 which contains an iOS operating system software that enables iPhone 4 to track its users' whereabouts down to every minute, record the duration that users stay at any given geographical point, and periodically transmit these data stored on the users' devices to Apple's database for future references," according to the July 24 complaint. The iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPhone 5C and iPhone 5S also come pre- installed with the tracking software, the complaint states. Ma, who has an iPhone 5S, claims that Apple did not inform its customers about the software, so it could track them without their knowledge or permission. There is no way for iPhone users to turn the tracking service off "without substantially compromising significant number[s] of functionalities of iPhones," according to the lawsuit. Ma says she found out about the software when China's Central Television (CCTV) launched an investigation into the location service feature. When CCTV asked Apple about the feature, "Apple only stressed that it will not disclose to any third party the data concerning iPhone consumers' detailed daily whereabouts, but did not deny that these iPhones are indeed transmitting such highly sensitive and private consumers' data to its database to be stored for future reference," the complaint states. But Ma claims that Apple has released consumers' information to third parties, including the U.S. government, which "has made more than 1,000 information requests to Apple." Though she acknowledges that she does not know how Apple has responded to these requests for information, Ma claims that the release of customers' private information "has not been for a legitimate public concern." She seeks class certification and an injunction preventing Apple from collecting and storing customers' private information without giving them prior notice, and from sending their data to a third party without their permission. She also seeks compensatory and punitive damages for invasion of privacy. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Wang, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ADAM WANG 12 S. First Street, Suite 708 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 421-3403 Facsimile: (408) 416-0248 E-mail: adamqwang@gmail.com BANNER HEALTH: Sued Over Disclosure of Medicare ID/SS Numbers ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Banner Health Network mailed its magazine to more than 50,000 members, with their Medicare ID/Social Security numbers on the mailing labels, a class action claims in Maricopa County Court. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 4 Lots of IV Solution Due to Plastic ------------------------------------------------------------------ Baxter International Inc. announced it is voluntarily recalling four lots of intravenous (IV) solutions to the hospital/user level. These products have been found to contain particulate matter identified as cellulosic fibers and/or plastics. Baxter received four complaints over a period of six months from customers whose visual inspection identified the appearance of visible particulate matter prior to administration to a patient. If infused, adverse health consequences of particulate matter could vary depending on the amount of particulate matter injected into the patient, the size of the particles, the patient's underlying medical condition and the presence of a right-to-left cardiac shunt. The presence of particulate foreign matter may elicit inflammatory and allergic responses, both chronic and acute, and may be life threatening. There have been no reported adverse events associated with this issue to date, and an investigation is underway to determine root cause. Sodium Chloride Injection, USP is an intravenously administered injectable indicated as a source of water and electrolytes, for use as a priming solution in hemodialysis procedures, and may be used as a diluent for reconstitution of a powdered drug product. Potassium Chloride Injection is an intravenously administered injectable indicated as a potassium replacement to support nerve conduction, muscle contraction and prevention of cardiac arrhythmias. The lots being recalled were distributed worldwide to customers and distributors between February 2013 and June 2014. Baxter has notified customers, who are being directed not to use products from the recalled lots. Recalled products should be returned to Baxter for credit by contacting Baxter Healthcare Center for Service at 1-888-229-0001, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time. Unaffected lots of product are available for replacement. Consumers with questions regarding this recall can call Baxter at 1-800-422-9837, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to using these drug products. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of these products may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. BLUE CROSS: Accused of Illegally Keeping $667-Mil. Excess Profits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, a supposed nonprofit, illegally kept excess profits of $667 million rather than returning it to policyholders, a class action claims in Maricopa County Court. BOUNCEBACK INC: Accused of "Renting" County Prosecutor's Seals -------------------------------------------------------------- A collections company "rented" county prosecutor's seals to threaten consumers with jail time unless they paid alleged debts, and gave the prosecutors a share of the collection fees, three women claim in a federal class action, reports June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiffs Wodena Cavnar, Rosaline Terrill and Linda Parks sued Bounceback, its parent company Stone Fence Holdings and director Gail Krieg on July 18, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Consumer Protection Act. Cavnar claims Bounceback uses the seal and letterhead of county prosecutors to coerce consumers into paying for allegedly bounced checks plus substantial collection fees. The plaintiffs say they received seemingly official letters containing a "warning of criminal charges," and "criminal prosecution" if they did not pay the amount of the check and more than $180 in fees. Bounceback failed to disclose the letter was from a collection agency and not a law enforcement office, the complaint states. The demand letters contain a toll-free number supposedly to the local prosecuting attorney's office, but actually for Bounceback, according to the complaint. "What plaintiffs did not realize was the letters were actually sent by defendant Bounceback Inc., a for-profit debt collection company based in Missouri," the lawsuit states. "Bounceback's operations are much like those of any other high-volume debt collector: It solicits its business from large national retailers and other merchants, receives electronic information about unpaid checks directly from those merchants, and sends out standardized collection notices to consumers. "There is one crucial difference, however: Under Bounceback's so- called 'Check Enforcement Program,' county prosecutors rent out the prosecutor's seal and letterhead to Bounceback in exchange for a cut of the collection fees, thereby cloaking ordinary civil debt collection under a sham 'criminal diversion' program. Consumers who receive Bounceback's letters are led to believe they are from the prosecutor, not from a private collection agency." The plaintiffs claim prosecutors have "no meaningful control" over Bouncebacks's collection activities and have not investigated whether the unpaid check was written with criminal intent or was "simply an innocent mistake." "Bounceback enters into contracts with prosecutors purportedly permitting it to operate in the prosecutor's name, and it pays the prosecutor a fee for each successfully collected check. Prior to Bounceback initiating its collection activities, the local prosecutor neither conducts any investigation of a particular check writer, nor makes any individualized determination regarding either probable cause or the likelihood of prosecuting a check writer who does not pay the Bounceback fees and participate in the 'Diversion Class,'" according to the complaint. Bounceback made numerous misrepresentations, in violation of state and federal laws, the complaint says. Privatized check enforcement programs are legal in Washington and allow companies to contract with county prosecutors in exchange for a fee or percentage of collection charges. Oregon recently banned public agencies or officials from allowing debt collection entities to use official seals or letterheads. The plaintiffs seek class certification, return of all unlawful collection fees, and statutory, treble and exemplary damages for violations of the Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Erika L. Nusser, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE, PLLC 936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 350-3528 E-mail: enusser@tmdwlaw.com BRIDGEVIEW BANK: "Wooley" Class Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Wooley, et al. v. Bridgeview Bank Mortgage Company, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02234, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05757 to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages, including straight time and overtime compensation and related penalties and damages. Bridgeview Bank Mortgage Company LLC is a mortgage lending and banking company formed under the laws of the state of Delaware. The Company is headquartered in Lombard, Illinois. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew E. Osman, Esq. Mikah K. Thompson, Esq. Kathryn S. Rickley, Esq. OSMAN & SMAY LLP 8500 West 110th Street, Suite 330 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 667-9243 Facsimile: (866) 470-9243 E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com mthompson@workerwagerights.com krickley@workerwagerights.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian P. Baggott, Esq. Gregory Thomas Wolf, Esq. Wade P. K. Carr, Esq. DENTONS US, LLP 4520 Main Street, Suite 1100 Kansas City, MO 64111-7700 Telephone: (816) 460-2400 Facsimile: (816) 531-7545 E-mail: brian.baggott@dentons.com gregory.wolf@dentons.com wade.carr@dentons.com BRISTOL-MYERS: Recalls COUMADIN(R) Due to Particulate Matter ------------------------------------------------------------ Bristol-Myers Squibb Companydisclaimer icon (NYSE:BMY) is voluntarily recalling six lots of COUMADIN(R) FOR INJECTION, 5 mg single-use vials in the U.S. The recall is a precautionary measure based on the company's investigation of visible particulate matter found in a small number of COUMADIN FOR INJECTION unreleased samples. Bristol-Myers Squibb believes the safety risk to patients is low, and is further mitigated by the product's prescribing information advising that intravenous drug products be inspected visually prior to administration. Injected particulate metallic and non-metallic cellulose material can cause serious and potentially fatal adverse reactions such as embolization. Allergic reactions to the foreign material could also occur. To date, there have been no product complaints or adverse events reported to Bristol-Myers Squibb related to this issue. COUMADIN FOR INJECTION was discontinued in early April 2014. The oral formulation, Coumadin tablets, is not impacted by the recall. COUMADIN FOR INJECTION is a prescription medicine used to treat blood clots and to lower the chance of blood clots forming in the body. COUMADIN FOR INJECTION is typically administered in a hospital setting by health care professionals to patients not able to receive the oral formulation. COUMADIN FOR INJECTION 5 mg single-use vials is packaged in cartons of six vials. The affected COUMADIN FOR INJECTION includes the following six lots distributed to hospitals and pharmacies from November 2011 through January 2014: Lot Number NDC Expiration ---------- --- ---------- 00201125 0590-0324-35 Sep-2014 00201126 0590-0324-35 Nov-2014 00201127 0590-0324-35 Dec-2014 00201228 0590-0324-35 Jun-2015 00201229 0590-0324-35 Jul-2015 00201230 0590-0324-35 Sep-2015 Bristol-Myers Squibb has issued recall communications to health care professionals and other customers involved and is arranging for return of all recalled products. Anyone that has COUMADIN FOR INJECTION which is being recalled should stop use and distribution and contact Bristol-Myers Squibb's recall vendor, GENCO, at 1-855-838-5784 to arrange for return of remaining stock. Health care professionals and patients may call the following number for assistance if they have further questions about the recall: The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. CACOCO INC: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------- CaCoCo, Inc. has been notified by its supplier of a recall of Organic Carob Powder due to possible health risks related to Salmonella contamination. Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail, or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis, and arthritis. CaCoCo, Inc. has taken immediate action to recall its products, CaCoCo "Original" and "Global Warrior" containing said Organic Carob Powder in order to ensure the safety of its consumers. CaCoCo, Inc. is working closely with the FDA on this matter. CaCoCo, Inc. is dedicated to providing the highest quality organic and raw products and the safety of our customers is our number one priority. Products were sold to California distributors, retail outlets, and farmers markets in 8.14 oz. and 2 lbs. bags. The products in this recall include: Product Name: Original and Global Warrior Lot # UPC Code Exp. Date ----- -------- --------- OG99 091131352113 10/19/2014 OG100 091131352113 11/28/2014 OG101 091131352113 06/18/2015 GW99 091131352076 10/19/2014 GW100 091131352076 11/28/2014 GW101 091131352076 06/18/2015 No other CaCoCo, Inc. products are affected by this recall and no illnesses have been reported to date. This recall is initiated as a precautionary measure due to a possibility of contamination as notified by its suppliers. Consumers that have purchased these products with the above stated lot numbers or expiration dates are asked not to consume the product and discard it according to your state/local regulation guidelines or return the product to the original point of purchase for exchange. Consumers with questions may contact CaCoCo, Inc. at (530) 362- 8632, Monday - Friday from 9:00 am - 5:00 pm PST. CARGILL INC: Recalls NatureWise Meatbird Feed Due to Excess Sodium ------------------------------------------------------------------ Cargill's animal nutrition business announced a voluntary recall of its Nutrena NatureWise meatbird feed due to excess levels of sodium. Sodium is an essential nutrient for poultry. However, excess levels of sodium in diets for meatbirds may result in pulmonary hypertension, increased mortality, reduced growth rate, increased water consumption, wet droppings, and wet litter. Consumption of the affected feeds may have contributed to poultry illness and death. Customers should call their veterinarian if their animals have experienced adverse health effects while consuming the affected product. The affected products were manufactured at Cargill's West Branch, Iowa, facility on April 28, 2014, and were distributed in Iowa, Illinois, and possibly Missouri. Products were sold in 40-lb. bags under the name NatureWise Meatbird 22% Crumble with the product code 91585-40 and lot code 5941181016. The product and lot codes can be found on the bottom left corner of the tag that is attached to the bag. Cargill is taking appropriate steps to retrieve all affected products, and is continuing to investigate how the excess levels of sodium in the feed occurred. Consumers should return remaining product to their local dealer or retailer for a replacement or full refund. CARMEL FOOD: Recalls Rising Moon Organics Butternut Squash Ravioli ------------------------------------------------------------------ Hayward, CA-based Carmel Food Group issued a voluntary recall of Rising Moon Organics Butternut Squash Ravioli, a frozen product, because of mixed product in the packages with SELL BY APR 09 2015 (ONLY). This mislabeling incident has resulted in product which may contain undeclared allergens, milk, egg, and soy. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, egg, and soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. Product: Rising Moon Organics Butternut Squash Ravioli, 8 oz, UPC# 7-85030-55557-6. One Code Date is affected: Pkg. SELL BY April 9, 2015, case sell by 040915 (Only this Sell By date is being recalled). The product involved was distributed through retail stores nationwide. The recall was initiated when it was discovered that some packages labeled Butternut Squash that contain ravioli pieces with a different filling that may include milk, egg, and soy ingredients. No illnesses have been reported to date in association with this product. Consumers can return the product to their place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions can contact the company at 510-429-0356. Monday - Friday 8am to 5pm, Pacific Time. CEVA LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Hourly and Overtime Wages, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Ceva Logistics U.S. Inc. fails to pay hourly and overtime wages, or to provide meal and rest breaks, a class claims. The case is Sergio Aquino v. Ceva Logistics U.S. Inc.; Ceva Freight Management International Inc., in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside. COINABUL LLC: Faces "Hussein" Class Suit for Failing to Ship Gold ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Web site Coinabul.com made millions of dollars by offering to sell gold for bitcoins, but failing to ship the gold, according to a federal class action, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Yazan Hussein sued Coinabul and its CEO Jason Shore on July 25. "Defendants run an online marketplace called 'Coinabul' where consumers may exchange 'bitcoins' -- a new form of digital currency -- for physical denominations of silver or gold. Unfortunately, rather then delivering the metals promised to their customers, defendants chose to capitalize on the lack of effective regulatory oversight in this burgeoning industry, and instead defrauded their customers out of millions of dollars worth of bitcoins," the lawsuit states. Bitcoin is a digital currency, not issued or regulated by any government, that can be traded or used to purchase goods or services anonymously. Coinabul claimed to be the "World's first Bitcoin-to-Gold resource available to the Bitcoin marketplace." It is a Wyoming LLC, allegedly based in Cheyenne, but actually is operated from California, without being registered to do business there, according to the lawsuit. Shore lives in California. "Unfortunately, while defendants continued to readily accept Bitcoin from consumers, defendants stopped shipping the promised gold or silver in return. As a result, defendants unlawfully misappropriated millions of dollars worth of their customers' bitcoins," according to the complaint. Unlike credit card transactions, bitcoin transactions are anonymous. They are final, and cannot be reversed. Coinabul stopped honoring its sales in June 2013, but continued accepting Bitcoins, even when it had no metal in its inventory, until April 2014, the complaint states. Hussein claims he transferred 1,644.54 bitcoins to Coinabul last year, but did not receive the gold he ordered, even after he provided the company with his personal information, including his Social Security number, which Coinabul claimed it needed to comply with money laundering laws. Two major Bitcoin exchanges collapsed in February this year, leading some commentators to speculate that the currency would not survive. The price of the crypto-currency is highly volatile, and topped $1,000 in November 2013. It's now at about $590. Hussein seeks class certification, restitution, rescission, and damages for fraud unjust enrichment and breach of contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: bthomassen@edelson.com CONSUMERS ENERGY: Terminated Worker Due to Race, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Delilah Escalante v. Consumers Energy Company, Case No. 2:14-cv- 12928-RHC-PJK (E.D. Mich., July 28, 2014) alleges that the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff's employment due to her national origin, race and disability. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant treated her differently than other similarly situated employees in the terms and conditions of her employment because of her national origin, race and disability. Ms. Escalante is an Hispanic female of Mexican descent. She is a disabled individual because she suffers from hypertension. Consumers Energy Company is a Michigan corporation conducting business throughout the state of Michigan with its registered office in Jackson, Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Hardesty, Esq. Caitlin E. Malhiot, Esq. Armin Halilovic, Esq. GOLD STAR LAW, P.C. 2701 Troy Center Dr., Suite 400 Troy, MI 48084 Telephone: (248) 275-5200 Facsimile: (248) 817-2765 E-mail: dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com cmalhiot@goldstarlaw.com ahalilovic@goldstarlaw.com CONVATEC: FDA Classifies Recall of Flexi-Seal FMS as Class I ------------------------------------------------------------ ConvaTec has announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified the company's recently initiated voluntary global recall of Flexi-Seal(TM) CONTROL Fecal Management System (FMS) as a Class I recall. The FDA defines a Class I recall as a situation in which there is a reasonable probability that use of, or exposure to, a violative product will cause serious adverse health consequences or death. ConvaTec began notifying customers in late April that all lots of Flexi-Seal CONTROL FMS (Model Number: ICC 411107, SAP codes: 1704335 for U.S. Products) were being urgently recalled. The notification requested that all lots be quarantined immediately and returned to the company as soon as possible. ConvaTec also notified regulatory agencies in all countries where product was distributed. Flexi-Seal CONTROL FMS is a temporary containment device used for the management of acute fecal incontinence in patients who are often immobilized and critically ill and have little or no bowel control and liquid or semi-liquid stool. In the U.S., the decision to voluntarily recall was made following the determination that Flexi-Seal CONTROL FMS should have a 510(k) clearance, rather than the use of the current Note to File that was based on existing 510(k) clearance for other Flexi-Seal products. The company received reports from U.S. healthcare facilities of 13 adverse events, including twelve serious injuries and one death for the period Feb. 2013 through March 2014. A causal link has not been established for all reported events. The company also conducted an analysis following reports that the Auto-Valve feature that is unique to Flexi-Seal CONTROL FMS had not been consistently performing relative to the inflation and deflation of the device's retention balloon. Inconsistent performance of the Auto-Valve feature may result in the following failure modes of the device: Auto-Valve fails to limit inflation to 45mL Balloon is unable to be inflated fully Balloon is unable to be deflated fully Auto-Valve leaks at Inflation Port These failure modes may result in the following health hazards: Rectal damage (necrosis/ perforation/ulceration or bleeding) Expulsion of the device and/or leakage Fecal soiling of bed linen/incontinence pads leading to skin deterioration around the anus, peeling skin, and raw, irritated lesions due to skin contact with fecal matter In addition to the mentioned adverse health consequences, death may also occur. For these reasons and to address any potential risk of harm, ConvaTec voluntarily initiated a global recall of all Flexi-Seal CONTROL FMS kits. The recall does not affect any of the other Flexi-Seal products or Flexi-Seal Privacy Collection Bags, which are sold separately. Customers with questions regarding the recall should contact the ConvaTec customer service center at 1-800-422-8811 (Monday-Friday, 8:30am - 7:00pm EST). Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. DANCING STAR: Recalls Various Snacks Containing Carob Powder ------------------------------------------------------------ Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infection (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Products impacted by the recall include: Dancing Star LLC brand: Carob Supergreens Chunks of Energy (10# UPC 7-69270-20005--2), production lots (0844-1, 0844-2, 0844-3, 0954-1, 0954-2, 0954-3, 0954-4, 0994-1, 0994-2, 1014, 1094-1, 1094-2, 1094-3, 1154-1, 1154-2, 1154-3, 1154-4, 1574, 1634-1,1634-2, 1634-3, 1644, 1684, 1744-1, 1744-2, 1744-3, 1824-1, 1824-2, 1924-1, 1924-2, 1994). Carob Supergreens Chunks of Energy (7 oz UPC 7-69270-70008-8), production lot 1014. Date Flax with Turmeric Chunks of Energy (10# UPC 7-69270-20004- 5), production lots (0794-1, 0794-2, 0794-3, 0954, 1004, 1084, 1124, 1134-1, 1134-2, 1134-3, 1134-4, 1134-5, 1624-3, 1784-1, 1914, 1974). Date Flax Turmeric Chunks of Energy (7 oz UPC 7-69270-70006-4), production lot 1004. Rave Bites Brand: Rave Bites Carob Supergreens (7oz UPC 7-69270-70008-8), Sell By Date 6/06/15. Rave Bites Date Flax with Turmeric (7oz UPC 7-69270-70006-4), Sell By Dates 4/10/15 and 4/25/15. Bulk Carob Powder: Bulk organic Carob powder (10# UPC 7-69270-80001-6) Julian dates (0154, 0914, 0974, 0994, 1044, 1054, 1114, 1154, 1194, 1534, 1684, 1704, 1824, 1894). There are no other flavors of Dancing Star Chunks of Energy or Rave Bites being recalled The recalled items are distributed nationwide and sold to retail stores, some of them in bulk for the sales of smaller quantities to their customers. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Consumers who have purchased this item are urged to not eat the product, and to dispose of it or return it to the store where it was originally purchased for credit. This precautionary action was taken because the products contain Carob Powder that was part of Ciranda Inc.'s Organic Carob powder recall. The company is working closely with FDA on this issue. "Ensuring that Dancing Star LLC maintains the highest standards possible," said Michael Garfield-Wright (owner Dancing Star LLC, Buckland, MA 01338). "We stand behind the safety and integrity of our products and strive to insure the highest quality possible". Customers with questions or who would like product replacements or refunds may contact 413 625-8300 between 8:00-4:30 EST, Monday through Friday, or email recall@chunksofenergy.com. DELTA AIR: Oct. 14 Final Hearing on $1.4MM Workers Suit Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has preliminarily approved a $1.4 million settlement reached between Delta Airlines Inc. and workers who say they were cheated out of wages. Andrew Bell worked for Delta from March 2012 to August 2012 as a part-time Ready Reserve Cargo Customer Agent at San Francisco International Airport, according to a class action complaint he filed in California's Northern District in April 2013. He alleges Delta has a policy of paying Ready Reserve employees two weeks after the work is done, not allowing them to take meal and rest breaks, making them work "off the clock," failing to pay them overtime and not providing accurate wage statements. He claims violation of several of California's provisions under the California Labor Code, the Private Attorney General Act and the California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order. The class includes all Ready Reserve Employees who worked for Delta in California beginning March 18, 2009, through March 17, 2014. "The court grants preliminary approval of the class settlement Agreement," said U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in an order issued on July 22, 2014. "The court finds that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable to the class." If the settlement is finalized, Delta will pay $1,415,444 to the class, which now seeks $353,861 in attorneys' fees. A final approval hearing is set for October 14, 2014 at 2 p.m. in San Francisco. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Monique Olivier, Esq. DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP 100 Bush Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 433-0333 Facsimile: (415) 449-6556 E-mail: monique@dplolaw.com - and - Deborah C. England, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH C. ENGLAND 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 434-9800 E-mail: dcengland@earthlink.net The case is Andrew Bell v. Delta Airlines Inc., et al., Case No. 13-CV-01199-YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. DIGNITY HEALTH: Pension Plans Not Exempted From ERISA Requisites ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Marshall, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that finding that a health care conglomerate's pension plans are not a "church plan," a federal judge refused to exempt them from ERISA requirements. The dispute stems from a class action filed by former Dignity Health billing coordinator Starla Rollins in April 2013, claiming that Dignity Health's pension benefits plan was underfunded in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Dignity countered that its plan need not conform to ERISA standards because it is a church plan. Enacted in 1974, ERISA establishes minimum funding standards and disclosure obligations for employee benefit plans, among other requirements, to ensure that employees receive the benefits they are promised. ERISA specifically exempts "church plans" from its requirements. The term "church plan" means "a plan established and maintained by its employees by a church or a convention or association of churches." In advancing the action this past December, U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson found that Dignity does not have statutory authority to establish its own plan and must follow ERISA regulations. After the court refused to let Dignity appeal that finding, Rollins sought a declaration that the plan was not exempt from ERISA regulations and that Dignity must bring it into compliance with ERISA. Dignity claimed that it needed to retain an expert and engage in more discovery, leading the court to narrow the scope of Rollins' motion to the question of whether the plan is exempt from ERISA. Rollins argued that there is no material dispute of fact that the plan is not exempt from ERISA since Catholic Healthcare West, Dignity's predecessor, which is not a church, established it. Dignity, in turn, said that various religious women's orders controlled CHW when the plan was established in 1989, and that those orders would be considered churches for the purposes of ERISA. It also argued that the statute of limitations bars Rollins' claim, and the sought-after relief would not be "equitable" since the Internal Revenue Service has consistently considered the plan exempt. Finding otherwise would be "inconsistent" and "grossly unfair" since it previously relied on IRS rulings that it was exempt, Dignity said. In granting Rollins partial summary judgment on July 22, 2014, Henderson said Dignity "appears to confuse the meaning of the term equitable insofar as it distinguishes remedies available at law from remedies available in equity, and the meaning of the term as it relates to fairness to Dignity." "Declaratory relief is a form of equitable relief," he added. "Nothing in the ERISA statute creates an exemption from such relief where the result would be, in one parties' view, 'inequitable' or 'unfair,' and the court declines to create such an exception for Dignity here." The court also differentiated the case at hand from the precedent Dignity had cited. "Furthermore, if adhered to, Dignity's argument would lead to the perverse result where one erroneous IRS determination would have to be infinitely perpetuated for the sake of avoiding so-called 'gross[] unfair[ness]," Henderson wrote. "An erroneous IRS ruling, however, should not be permitted to trump a court's interpretation of a statute, and certainly should not be permitted to persist indefinitely simply by virtue of having come first." Internal CHW documents also demonstrate and in some cases state that CHW established the plan, not the women's religious groups, according to the ruling. Whether the religious orders controlled CHW is "immaterial because CHW was a separate corporation at the time it established the plan," Henderson added. Even if the groups exhibited some control over CHW, "that alone is insufficient to set aside CHW's separate identity," the decision states. Board members from the religious orders also had final approval over some matters but did not have approval rights over the establishment of the plan, the court said. Dignity also failed to show that the plan resulted from a 1990 merger, Henderson said, noting that Dignity's own supporting evidence "show[s] only that some sponsoring congregations decided to merge their plans to the already-established CHW Plan; they do not raise genuine dispute as to the actual establishment of the Plan." "To the extent Dignity attempts to re-litigate the court's interpretation of the ERISA statute by arguing that under its preferred interpretation of the statute, a plan established by CHW would be exempt, and alleging that the court's interpretation results in excessive government entanglement with religion -- the law of the case is controlling," the decision continues. Neither side replied immediately to a request for comment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce Rinaldi, Esq. COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: brinaldi@cohenmilstein.com Dignity Health is represented by: Barry S. Landsberg, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 W Olympic Blvd #20 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 312-4259 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 E-mail: blandsberg@manatt.com The case is Starla Rollins v. Dignity Health, et al., Case No. 13- cv-01450-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. DYNIA & ASSOCIATES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Miriam Brecher, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Dynia & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 04516 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com EARTH CIRCLE: Recalls Organic Carob Powder Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------------ Earth Circle Organics, (River Canyon Retreat, Inc., dba) has been notified by its supplier of a recall of Organic Carob Powder due to possible health risks related to Salmonella contamination. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometime fatal infections in young children, frail, or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis, and arthritis. Earth Circle Organics has taken immediate action to recall Organic Carob Powder in order to ensure the safety of its consumers. Earth Circle Organics is working closely with the FDA on this matter. Earth Circle Organics is dedicated to providing the highest quality organic and raw products and the safety of its customers is our number one priority. Products were sold to distributors and retail outlets in North America. No other Earth Circle Organics products are affected by this recall and no illnesses have been reported to date. The recall is initiated as a precautionary measure due to a possibility of contamination as notified by our suppliers. Consumers that have purchased these products with the above stated lot numbers and expiration dates are asked not to consume the product and discard it or return the product to the original point of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact Earth Circle Organics at 530- 273-3663 ext 216, Monday - Friday from 9 am-5 pm PST. GENERAL MOTORS: "Corbett" Suit Included in Ignition Switch MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Corbett, et al. v. General Motors, LLC, Case No. 7:14-cv-00139, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05754-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jean S. Martin, Esq. Joel R. Rhine, Esq. RHINE MARTIN LAW FIRM, P.C. 1612 Military Cutoff, Suite 300 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 772-9960 Facsimile: (910) 772-9062 E-mail: jsm@rhinelawfirm.com jrr@rhinelawfirm.com - and - Gary Peller, Esq. 600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20781 Telephone: (202) 662-9122 Facsimile: (202) 662-9680 E-mail: peller@law.georgetown.edu GENERAL MOTORS: "Sauer" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Sauer v. General Motors LLC, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-04080, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05752-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The litigation arises from alleged deadly defect in the design of GM vehicles. The alleged defect is in the cars' ignition switch system, which is susceptible to failure during normal driving conditions. When the ignition switch system fails, the switch turns from the "run" or "on" position to either the "off" or "accessory" position, which results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the car's airbags. GM subsequently recalled the affected vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: John McNeill Broaddus, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 755-1115 E-mail: jbroaddus@weitzlux.com - and - Justin Silver Brooks, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER, PA (DE) 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 E-mail: jbrooks@gelaw.com GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Ignition Switch Suit in Mercer County ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a West Virginia man has filed a lawsuit against General Motors Corp., claiming a defective ignition switch in a Chevrolet Cobalt caused a 2006 accident that killed his pregnant wife. The Charleston Daily Mail reported Jason Vest of Princeton filed the lawsuit in Mercer County Circuit Court. It also names a parts manufacturer and a Princeton car dealership. The lawsuit says 26-year-old Keisha Vest's car failed to stop at an intersection and collided with a tractor-trailer in Mount Airy, North Carolina. The vehicle's airbags didn't deploy. Earlier this year, GM began recalling older small cars such as the Cobalt and Saturn Ion to fix faulty ignition switches. GM says the switches have caused more than 13 deaths, although lawmakers say the death toll is closer to 100. GENERAL MOTORS: Musicians Sue Over In-Vehicle CD-Copying Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors, Ford and others owe the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies a lot of money for importing "in-vehicle CD- copying devices" that violate copyright law, the Alliance claims in a federal class action. Lead plaintiff AARC sued General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Denso International America, and Clarion Corp. of America, on July 25 in Federal Court. The AARC is based in Alexandria, Va. It seeks actual damages, statutory damages of $2,500 for each illegal device manufactured, imported or distributed for the previous three years, plus another 50 percent of actual damages, to be paid to the Register of Copyrights. The AARC sued under the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, 17 U.S.C. Sections 1001 et seq., a section of U.S. copyright law. The AARC was established after the Act was passed, to defend the rights of artists, as home copying of music became possible and popular. "Congress enacted the AHRA to ensure both that consumers would have access to digital audio copying technology and that artists and other copyright owners would be fairly compensated for the copying of their works," AARC says in the lawsuit. It continues: "Defendants are multibillion-dollar companies that manufacture, import, and/or distribute hundreds of thousands of products in the United States every year. Defendants are also beneficiaries of the AHRA, which shields them from liability for copyright infringement for manufacturing, importing, and/or distributing certain recording devices as long as they (a) incorporate certain copying control technology and (b) pay a modest royalty per device that is then distributed to musical artists and music copyright owners. Nonetheless, defendants have refused to comply with the AHRA and refused to pay the royalties that Congress has determined they owe for the recording devices they manufacture, import, and/or distribute -- notwithstanding intensive efforts by the AARC going back at least two years to persuade defendants to live up to their statutory obligations. Defendants' intransigence has left the AARC with no choice but to file this lawsuit." The AARC claims the defendants violate copyright law by manufacturing or importing and distributing digital audio recording devices without complying with the AHRA. "Defendants distribute these devices either pre-installed in vehicles or intended for use in vehicles. Defendants designed these devices for the express purpose of copying music CDs and other digital musical recordings to a hard drive on the devices, and they market these devices emphasizing that copying function. By doing so, defendants violate the AHRA because defendants (a) have not registered these devices with the U.S. Copyright Office; (b) have not paid royalties for these devices; and (c) have not incorporated the Serial Copy Management System or its functional equivalent in these devices, all of which are required by the AHRA." The AARC claims that other manufacturers of in-vehicle CD-copying devices comply with the law, and pay the required royalties through the Copyright Office. Denso is a Delaware corporation based in Southfield, Michigan. Clarion Corp. in a California corporation based in Cypress, California. Under the Audio Home Recording Act, digital audio recording devices (DARD) are not supposed to be able to copy a copy of a CD. The DARD therefore must be able to distinguish an original from a copy, and "must never allow a user to copy a 'copy,'" according to the complaint. The device that performs these functions is the Serial Copy Management System. The AARC claims that General Motors offers what it calls a "Hard Drive Device" in a slew of models, including Cadillacs, which allow illegal copying. Denso supplies it with the devices, according to the complaint. Ford does the same thing, in its Ford and Lincoln brands, and gets the devices from Clarion, the AARC says. Ford calls it a "Jukebox." The AARC seeks declaratory judgment, an injunction, damages and costs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dustin Cho, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004-2401 Telephone: (202) 662-5458 Facsimile: (202) 778-545 E-mail: dcho@cov.com GEO GROUP: Forces Guards to Work Off the Clock, Class Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- The GEO Group, a large private prison company, forces its guards to work off the clock, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court. GMAIL INC: News Outlets Still Await Ruling on Sealed Filings ------------------------------------------------------------ Although a massive class action over Gmail privacy has been settled, news outlets reminded a federal judge on July 18, 2014, that they're still waiting for a ruling on sealed filings in the case, according to William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service. News agencies -- including Courthouse News, Gannett, McClatchy and the New York Times -- lobbied U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh earlier this year to deny requests by Google and the lead plaintiffs to file under seal, citing public interest in the case involving millions of Gmail users. The sprawling class action dubbed In re Google Inc. -- Gmail Litigation claimed that the tech giant's new privacy policies violate federal computer fraud, eavesdropping and wiretap laws. The parties settled in late May, after the 9th Circuit refused to certify the class. The agreement became final in July when the last minor litigant in the case turned 18. But the intervening news outlets said in a filing on July 18, 2014, that Koh still needs to rule on requests from both sides to file under seal despite the settlement. "Because the court has not yet ruled on the sealing motions, thousands of pages of attachments remain either heavily redacted or entirely sealed," attorney Thomas Burke, of the firm Davis Wright Tremaine, wrote for the news services. "The public continues to have a strong interest in seeing the entire factual basis for the court's class certification ruling in a case that affects the privacy of millions of Americans. Indeed, the fact that a settlement has been reached should not be an obstacle to ruling on the motion or allowing access to documents." A final case management conference was set for July 30 in Koh's courtroom. The Media Intervenors are represented by: Thomas R. Burke, Esq. Jonathan L. Segal, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 276-6500 Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 E-mail: thomasburke@dwt.com jonathansegal@dwt.com The case is In Re Google Gmail Litigation, Case No. 5:13-md-02430- LHK, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. GOMACRO: Recalls MACROBARS Brand Almond Butter + Carob ------------------------------------------------------ GoMacro, of Viola, Wis., is recalling MACROBARS brand almond butter + carob lots 1634 and 1645 and sunflower butter + chocolate lot 1646, because they have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. GoMacro was notified on July 23 by its supplier of carob powder, an ingredient in the company's almond butter + carob bars, that one of their customers received a positive test for Salmonella. In the interest of abundant caution, GoMacro is voluntarily recalling lot 1646 of sunflower butter + chocolate because it was produced on the same line after lots 1634 and 1645. These MacroBars were distributed across the country and internationally via retail stores, mail order and direct delivery. Affected MacroBars will be clearly marked as either almond butter + carob with lot numbers 1634 (expiration 10 Mar 15) or 1645 (expiration 18 Mar 15) or sunflower butter + chocolate lot 1646 (expiration 18 Mar 15) and in a foil wrapper. No illnesses have been reported to date. The carob powder supplier has ceased the production and distribution of this product. Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. "Even though there is no indication of contamination in our product, GoMacro puts the consumer at the forefront of every decision we make. We offer this voluntary recall in the interest of protecting the health of the consumer," GoMacro President Jola Sonkin said. If you have any questions our Operations Manager, Tony Saarem, is available by phone, Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM (CST) at (608)-627-2310. GOOGLE INC: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Users Data Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- Google users barely managed to survive a third dismissal in their class action over the search giant's commingling of user data across Google products and disclosure of such data to third parties, according to Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Robert Demars and others filed the original complaint after Google updated its privacy policy on March 1, 2012, to permit the commingling of user data across different Google products such as Gmail and YouTube. The new policy allowed Google to combine a user's information from one service with the user's information from other services. The users claimed that the policy violates their privacy rights by allowing Google to take information from their Gmail accounts to be used in a different context, such as to personalize search engine results or advertisements. They also said that Google disclosed their data to application developers and advertisers. U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal twice before dismissed the users' claims against Google, finding that the first complaint lacked standing because the users could not show how they were economically harmed and that the second complaint contained insufficient facts to support the users' claims. He warned that any further dismissals would likely be with prejudice. The users' latest complaint included the addition of allegations concerning Google's plan, "Emerald Sea," which was unveiled as early as May 2010 with the apparent objective to reinvent Google as a social media advertising company. "The plan's execution involves creating cross-platform dossiers of user data that would allow third-parties to better tailor advertisements to specific consumers. Plaintiffs allege that despite this objective, Google left in place the prior policies in order to avoid tipping-off customers. They cast Emerald Sea as evidence of Google's intent to deceive consumers by disregarding existing privacy policies in pursuit of ad revenue," Grewal wrote in his dismissal ruling. The new allegations effectively allege the same harm as before. An Android Device Switch Subclass further alleges that its class members had to replace their Android devices in order to avoid Google's invasive policy, costing them money. An Android Application Disclosure Subclass claims that Google's disclosures to third parties increased their phones' battery and bandwidth consumption, causing them to incur additional costs, and invaded their statutory and common law privacy rights. The users asserted their claims as violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Federal Wiretap Act, Stored Electronic Communications Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, in addition to common law theories of breach of contract and intrusion upon seclusion. Google urged the court to dismiss the users' case once and for all. "Like Rocky rising from Apollo's uppercut in the 14th round, plaintiffs' complaint has sustained much damage but just manages to stand," Grewal stated in a 28-page ruling that dismissed all but two of the users' claims. "After running each claim (and subclaim) of each class (and subclass) through the gauntlet of constitutional and procedural hurdles, two claims remain: the App Disclosure Subclass' breach of contract claim, and the fraudulent prong of the App Disclosure Subclass' UCL claim. Plaintiffs may proceed on these two causes of action alone," Grewal wrote. Because the users did not amend their claims following the court's dismissal of their Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act and breach of contract claim on behalf of the entire class, those claims must be dismissed with prejudice. The users' Consumers Legal Remedies Act claims fail because they do not claim that any of the members of the Device Switch Subclass read, heard or were otherwise aware of Google's operative privacy policy before creating their account, so they could not have relied on any representation it contained in making their decision to purchase Android phones. However, the App Disclosure Subclass can continue with its breach of contract claim alleging that its members entered into a contract with Google when they registered for an Android Market/Google Play account and Google breached the contract's terms by disclosing user data to third parties following every download or purchase of an app. They cite damages in the form of resource consumption. As the court already ruled, allegations of resource depletion, including battery power, give rise to standing. Additionally, despite Google's arguments to the contrary, the subclass points to explicit terms in the contracts that Google allegedly breached. The subclass' claim under the fraudulent prong of the UCL also carries weight. The users "allege that Google left a privacy policy in place which led consumers to believe that access to their data would be limited to certain groups. These allegations fill 10 pages with extensive detail about the plan and its concealment, such that they clear the bar of Rule 9(b). Plaintiffs also successfully plead that they relied on these policies in making the decision to use Google Play and download Android applications. Finally, plaintiffs plead that they have suffered the loss of battery power and other system resources as a result of Google's fraudulent and surreptitious conduct. Once again, whatever the ultimate merits of this claim, the App Disclosure Subclass has stated a claim for relief that may go forward," Grewal wrote. The case is In Re Google, Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation, Case No. 5:12-cv-01382-PSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. GOOGLE INC: Asks Court Not to Unseal Docs in Gmail Privacy Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Attorneys for Google urged a federal judge to ignore demands made by news outlets to deny requests to seal documents in a massive -- and settled -- class action over Gmail privacy. News agencies -- including Courthouse News, Gannett, McClatchy and the New York Times -- lobbied U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh earlier this year to deny requests by Google and the lead plaintiffs to file under seal, citing public interest in the case involving millions of Gmail users. The sprawling class action dubbed In re Google Inc. - Gmail Litigation claimed that the tech giant's new privacy policies violate federal computer fraud, eavesdropping and wiretap laws. The parties settled in late May, after the 9th Circuit refused to certify the class. The agreement became final last week when the last minor litigant in the case turned 18. But after the news outlets reminded Koh that they were still waiting for rulings on the requests to file under seal, attorneys for Google urged the judge not to bother in light of the settlement. "The self-styled media intervenors' perceived need for public access to the information sought to be sealed is significantly diminished by the court's denial of class certification with prejudice," Google attorney Whitty Somvichian, of the firm Cooley LLP, wrote in an answer filed on July 24, 2014. "The media intervenors opposed the motions to seal on the basis that 'the public interest cannot be overstated,' in part, because 'this case has the potential to affect the rights of the millions of class members.' Now that the court has denied class certification with prejudice and each of the representative plaintiffs' cases has been dismissed, the need for the 'millions of class members' to have access to Google's confidential information is necessarily diminished. Moreover, the court -- on its own initiative -- redacted its order on class certification, strongly implying that the underlying documents on which that order relied contain sensitive confidential information that should be sealed." Google Inc. is represented by: Michael G. Rhodes, Esq. Whitty Somvichian, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. COOLEY LLP 101 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-5800 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: rhodesmg@cooley.com wsomvichian@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com The case is In re Google Inc. Gmail Litigation, Case No. 5:13-md- 02430 LHK (PSG), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division. GREAT AMERICAN: Updates Recall on Ready-To-Eat Products ------------------------------------------------------- Great American Marketing, a Houston, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 475 pounds of FSIS and FDA-regulated, ready-to-eat products due to possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The sandwich and wrap products were produced on July 15, 2014, and then shipped to retail locations in Texas. Case labels or packaging may bear the sell by date of 07/26/14. Products regulated by FSIS bear the establishment number "EST 31680" or "P-31680" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The following FSIS-regulated products are subject to recall: -- 7.4 ounce plastic-covered tray packages containing Chicken Caesar Wraps. -- 8.1 ounce plastic-covered tray packages containing Club Wraps. FDA-regulated products being recalled (are listed at http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls) and include: -- 10.5 ounce plastic-covered tray packages containing Ham and Cheddar Premium sandwiches. -- 10.5 ounce plastic-covered tray packages containing Turkey & Swiss Premium sandwiches. The problem was discovered when FSIS collected a sample of a separate product on July 15, 2014, that was confirmed positive for L. monocytogenes on July 21. The sampled product was held. However, the plant produced the additional FSIS and FDA regulated products listed in this recall without conducting a complete clean-up of the production equipment. Those products have entered commerce and are subject to recall. FSIS and the company have received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of these products. Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk groups are affected. Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck, confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics. Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating the contaminated food. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers' freezers. FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until steaming hot. Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Bill Welch at (713) 682-6471. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem HART-HANKS SHOPPERS: Violates Minimum Wage and OT Laws, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hart-Hanks Shoppers and Pennysaver violate minimum wage and overtime laws by paying sales reps on a straight commission basis, a class action claims in Orange County Court. HOMEWARD RESIDENTIAL: Removed "King" Class Suit to E.D. Arkansas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled King, et al. v. Homeward Residential Inc., et al., Case No. CV14-274, was removed from the Craighead County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Jonesboro). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-00183-BSM to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts insurance-related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Corey Darnell McGaha, Esq. Scott E. Poynter, Esq. William Thomas Crowder, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP The Rozelle-Murphy House 1301 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 E-mail: cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com scott@emersonpoynter.com wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com - and - John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com - and - Daniel Odell Turner, Esq. Todd Martin Turner, Esq. ARNOLD, BATSON, TURNER & TURNER, P.A. Post Office Box 480 Arkadelphia, AR 71923 Telephone: (870) 246-9844 E-mail: dan@arnoldbatsonturner.com todd@abtt.us - and - Joel G. Hargis, Esq. CRAWLEY & DELOACHE, PLLC 533 West Washington Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 972-1127 Facsimile: (501) 915-0410 E-mail: joel@crawleydeloache.com - and - Kathy A. Cruz, Esq. CRUZ LAW FIRM, PLC 1325 Central Avenue Hot Springs, AR 71901 Telephone: (501) 624-3600 E-mail: kathycruzlaw@gmail.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian V. Otero, Esq. Ryan A. Becker, Esq. Stephen R. Blacklocks, Esq. HUNTON & WILLIAMS 200 Park Avenue, Suite 5200 New York, NY 10166 Telephone: (212) 309-1020 Facsimile: (212) 309-1100 E-mail: botero@hunton.com rbecker@hunton.com sblacklocks@hunton.com - and - Jamie Marie Huffman Jones, Esq. Kevin A. Crass, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP Regions Center, Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201-3522 Telephone: (501) 370-1430 E-mail: jjones@fridayfirm.com crass@fridayfirm.com HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Lactated Ringers and 5% Dextrose Injection --------------------------------------------------------------- Hospira, Inc. announced it is initiating a voluntary nationwide user-level recall of one lot of Lactated Ringers and 5% Dextrose Injection, USP, 1000 mL, Flexible Container, NDC 0409-7929-09, Lot 35-118-JT, Expiry 1NOV2015 . This action is due to one confirmed customer report where particulate was identified within the solution of the primary container. The particulate was identified as a filamentous-like structured particulate indicative of mold. Analysis of the primary container and overwrap indicated a puncture in the same physical location, causing the primary container to leak. Intravenous administration of a non-sterile product can result in infections that may be life-threatening, and may result in prolonged hospitalization or organ failure. Hospira has not received reports of any adverse events associated with this issue for this lot to date, and has not identified any quality issues with retention samples for this lot. Hospira has investigated and determined the root cause of the event and has implemented corrective actions to address this issue. In general, a defect in a container leading to a leak may create a breach in sterility since an open pathway exists for contamination of fluid. If the leak is not detected, and the solution becomes contaminated and it is not identified prior to administration, there is potential that contaminated solution could be administered to the patient. The product is indicated for parenteral replacement of extracellular losses of fluid and electrolytes, with or without minimal carbohydrate calories, as required by the clinical condition of the patient. The product is packaged in 1000mL flexible containers, 1 container per overwrap, and 12 overwrapped containers in each case. The lot number is located in the upper left hand side of the primary container. This lot was distributed nationwide from Dec. 2013 through Feb. 2014 and was distributed to hospitals, clinics, wholesalers and distributors. This recall is being conducted as a precautionary measure. Anyone with an existing inventory should stop use and distribution, quarantine the product immediately, and call Stericycle at 1-888-912-8457 between the hours of 8am to 5pm EST, Monday through Friday, to arrange for the return of the product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. IDAHO, USA: AG Urged Ninth Circuit to Reverse Abortion Ban ---------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the Idaho attorney general on July 18, 2014, urged the 9th Circuit to reverse a ruling that Idaho's ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy is unconstitutional, arguing that a woman and physician do not have standing to pursue their claims. The lower court judgment was handed down after Bannock County resident Jennie Linn McCormack filed a federal class action alleging she was charged in 2010 with having an "unlawful abortion" in her second trimester. According to court records, McCormack, a single mother with three children, was living on $200 to $250 a month when she discovered that she was pregnant. With no abortion clinics in the eight southeastern Idaho counties, including Bannock, she faced a trek to the nearest abortion clinics in Salt Lake City. Even if McCormack did make it to Salt Lake City, she would have had to spend hundreds of dollars for the procedure. McCormack decided to take a cheaper option, taking five abortion pills her sister had ordered off the Internet, it was alleged. McCormack later was questioned by Pocatello police officers, who had received a tip that a woman was keeping a fetus in a box on her back porch, according to court records. On May 17, 2011 Bannock County prosecutor Mark Hiedeman charged McCormack with the felony of an unlawful abortion, under Idaho's abortion law. Just over three months later, a magistrate judge dismissed the case at a preliminary hearing. Later that year, McCormack and her attorney-physician Richard Hearn asked a federal judge to enjoin Hiedeman from pressing charges under the regulations. Hearn, an attorney at Pocatello firm Racine, Olson, Nye, Budge & Bailey, intervened after McCormack filed suit. Two statutes under Chapter 6 of the Idaho Code placed restrictions on pregnant women during the first and second trimester, while a third under Chapter 5 of the code, Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, effectively bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Under the regulations, a woman convicted of an "unlawful abortion" faces a $5,000 fine or up to 5 years in state prison. Idaho physicians may be criminally charged for prescribing FDA-approved abortion medications to women through the second trimester of pregnancy, the plaintiffs said. In March 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill found that under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the regulations are unconstitutional. Finding that the "purpose of the . . . [law's] . . . categorical ban is to protect the fetus -- not the mother," Winmill ruled that that the statute "embodies a legislative judgment equating viability with twenty weeks' gestational age, which the Supreme Court expressly forbids." But Idaho Deputy Attorney General Clay Smith on July 18 morning urged the court to reverse. Arguing for Stephen Herzog, Hiedeman's successor as Bannock County prosecuting attorney, Smith said McCormack's undue burden challenge was "plainly" moot in light of the magistrate judge's dismissal of her case. Smith challenged Winmill's finding that the regulations are unconstitutionally vague, arguing in his brief that they protect women and ensure that that physicians performing abortions "adhere to the reasonable standard of professional care." Ninth Circuit Judge Kim Wardlaw was not convinced that McCormack's claims were moot. Though Smith had argued that Hiedeman had granted immunity to the plaintiff, she noted that Herzog "could change his mind at any time," and to reinstate the charges, within the 5-year statute of limitations. Smith tried to shift the focus to Hearn. As the Idaho court's order noted, Hearn is a practicing attorney who has not practiced as a medical doctor since 1997, and did not perform abortions when he practiced. Smith told the panel: "That issue is whether Ms. McCormack's attorney who is also a licensed but nonpracticing physician, may offer medication abortions which would allow his patients to complete the abortion in their own home, in a manner that the appellant believes is inconsistent with the relevant FDA drug labels, and with protocols promulgated by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the National Abortion Federation." In his brief, Smith argued that there is "undisputed evidence" that second-trimester abortions should be performed in hospitals because of the risk of death or injury to women because of the "increased fetus size." "Under these circumstances, Hearn does not adequately represent the interests of his putative Bannock County patients for third party standing purposes," Smith wrote. When Richard Hearn stepped forward to argue his case, he was almost immediately challenged by Senior U.S. District Judge Donald Walter, who appeared via video link-up from Louisiana. Walter asked Hearn why it's an "undue burden" for a woman to go to hospital for an abortion during the second trimester. Taken off guard, Hearn replied: "The burden is that a woman would need to be admitted to the hospital to have an abortion that she could safely have outside the hospital." Walter's tinny voice echoed through speakers: "Is there any reason to believe she couldn't get to a hospital?" Hearn said that for McCormack, and other low-income women, getting to a hospital is "prohibitive." Some don't have insurance, Hearn said, and Medicaid does not cover abortions in the state. Walter was not satisfied. "Tell me what the burden is," the judge pressed. Hearn countered that that are no physicians in Bannock County who provide medical abortions. That caused the judge to take pause. "Is that in the record?" Walter asked. "Yes," Hearn said, letting the silence hang. "There are no doctors providing medical abortions in Bannock County. One doctor, myself, has asked to," the attorney continued. "No doctors are providing -- that is in the record -- second trimester or first trimester abortions in Bannock County or southeast Idaho. Ms. McCormack had to go to Salt Lake City in order to have an out-patient abortion in Utah," the attorney said. "If asked" Smith and the Idaho attorney general would "concede that not one of these statutes that we're talking about is constitutional," Hearn added. "But unconstitutional statutes, just like unloaded guns, can still threaten people that they're pointed toward. At least until it's known that the statute is unconstitutional, the doctors and women in Idaho will have these statutes pointed toward them by prosecutors," Hearn said. Further, he said, the attorney general's office, including Smith, had warned the Idaho Legislature that the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act was unconstitutional. As he made his case, Hearn grew quite animated, waving his hands, his voice straining. "Why don't you calm down a little bit, you're liable to have a heart attack," Judge Harry Pregerson quipped. "At my age that's certainly true, your honor," Hearn replied. INFRASTRUCTURE CORP: Did Not Properly Record Overtime, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Najera v. Infrastructure Corporation of America, Case No. 4:14-cv-01322 (E.D. Mo., July 28, 2014) alleges that the Defendant did not record and properly classify hours worked by the Plaintiff, in excess of 40 hours per week, as overtime hours under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Infrastructure of America is a Missouri limited partnership with its principal place of business located in Brentwood, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: James G. Nowogrocki, Esq. Richard D. Worth, Esq. WEISS ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.C. 1015 Locust, Suite 400 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 588-9500 Facsimile: (314) 588-9595 E-mail: jnowogrocki@weisslawstl.com rworth@weisslawstl.com INTEL CORP: Accused of Firing Sexually Harassed Design Engineer --------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Corporation wrongly fired a design engineer who alleges he was sexually harassed by a supervisor and needed to take medical leave to overcome the stress of the situation, according to a state court claim, reports Courthouse News Service. The case is Mark Ehrensberger v. Intel Corporation; Does, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento. INTERNATIONAL GAME: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that International Game Technology is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to GTech Corp., in a cash and stock swap valued at $6.4 billion, shareholders claim in Clark County Court, Nevada. JOHNS HOPKINS: $190-Mil. Deal in Suit Over Spying Ob-Gyn Approved ----------------------------------------------------------------- Women whose Johns Hopkins Hospital gynecologist secretly filmed their pelvic exams have persuaded a Baltimore judge to approve a $190 million settlement, their lawyers said, according to Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service. Baltimore County Police found Nikita Levy, 54, dead in his home on Feb. 18, 2013, after losing his job at Johns Hopkins following reports that he used a pen camera and other devices to record his patients. Three anonymous women filed suit the next month, alleging that the 25-year ob-gyn was also "guilty of boundary violations," and stating that the hospital reported the doctor's conduct to the Baltimore City Police. "It is alleged that a subsequent investigation by the Baltimore City Police Department and a search of Dr. Levy's home in Towson, Maryland, revealed an 'extraordinary amount' of evidence, including, but not limited to, multiple servers for storage of electronic and digital data," the lawsuit said. The Baltimore City Circuit Court certified the case as a class action in October, and the lawyers for the women announced a settlement on July 21, 2014. Attorneys Jonathan Schochor and Howard Janet said that their clients were "extremely distraught" to learn of Levy's actions. "They felt a great breach of faith and trust," the attorneys said in a statement. "They felt betrayed. Now, with this proposed settlement, we can begin the process of healing our community." Two more of Levy's alleged victims filed separate suits against Johns Hopkins in December, represented by Ryan Burke. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Schochor, Esq. SCHOCHOR, FEDERICO AND STATON, P.A. 1211 St. Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 Telephone: (410) 234-1000 Facsimile: (410) 234-1010 - and - Howard Janet, Esq. JANET, JENNER & SUGGS LLC Commerce Centre East 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165 Baltimore, MD 21208 Telephone: (410) 653-3200 Facsimile: (410) 653-9030 LEVY RESTAURANTS: Accused of Racial and Disability Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barnett Valerie, Erik Silverman, Ramses Graham, Anthony Peterkin, and Sydney Silvera v. Levy Restaurants, Inc.; Levy Premium Foodservice Limited Partnership, Brooklyn Events Center, LLC dba Barclays Center; and Aaron La Greca, Alphonse Lanza and Lisa Brefere in their Individual Capacity, Case No. 1:14-cv-04499-KAM- SMG (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiffs have suffered from systemic maltreatment and egregious abuse on the basis of race or disability. The Plaintiffs work at the kitchens of Levy Premium, which provides food and catering services for Barclays Center in Brooklyn, Kings County, New York. Levy Premium is owned, operated and managed by Levy Restaurants, Inc. Barclays owns the Barclays Center arena and oversees its operations, including the Food and Beverage department, run by Levy Premium. Defendants Aaron La Greca and Alphonse Lanza are the managers of the Plaintiffs. Lisa Brefere is a consultant for Barclays and directs the operations of Levy Premium. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Walker G. Harman, Jr., Esq. Ronnie L. Silverberg, Esq. THE HARMAN FIRM, PC 1776 Broadway, Suite 2030 New York, NY 10019 Facsimile: (212) 202-3926 Telephone: (212) 425-2600 E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com rsilverberg@theharmanfirm.com LX JEWELRY: Sued for Terminating Worker Solely Due to Pregnancy --------------------------------------------------------------- Paola Remigio v. LX Jewelry, Inc., LX NYC Jewelry, Inc., and Jain Hai Liu, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-05759 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014), seeks damages to redress the alleged injuries the Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being discriminated against and terminated by her employer solely due to her pregnancy and gender. LX Jewelry, Inc. and LX NYC Jewelry, Inc. are New York domestic business corporations with their principal place of business located in New York City. Jain Hai Liu is the owner or officer of LX. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Umansky, Esq. PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 620 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212)248-7431 E-mail: aumansky@tpglaws.com MAJOR LEAGUE: Sued by Disgruntled Minor League Ballplayers ---------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that most minor league baseball players earn only $3,000 to $7,500 a year for work weeks of up to 70 hours, while Major League Baseball enjoys billions of dollars in revenue, minor leaguers claim in a federal class action against Major League Baseball, its 30 teams, and Commissioner Bud Selig. Yadel Marti, who played for the Oakland Athletics from 2010 through 2012, and five other former minor leaguers filed the labor complaint on July 21, 2014. They seek damages for violations of state and federal labor laws, unfair competition and antitrust violations. "Since minor leaguers do not belong to a union, nothing has prevented the defendants from artificially and illegally depressing minor league wages," the lawsuit states. "Given that MLB carefully controls the entryway into the highest levels of baseball, and given the young minor leaguer's strong desire to enter the industry, MLB and the defendants have exploited minor leaguers by paying salaries below minimum wage, by not paying overtime wages, and by often paying no wages at all." The average value of MLB's 30 franchises is estimated at $744 million. Major League Baseball pulled in revenue of more than $7.5 billion in 2012 and expects $9 billion this year, according to the complaint. "The baseball players employed by the defendants account for much of this rise in revenue, as they comprise the chief product offered by MLB and its teams. Without baseball players, MLB and its teams would not exist. Yet MLB and its franchises pay most players -- the minor leaguers -- wages that fall well below minimum wage," the players say. While major leaguers' salaries have increased by more than 2,000 percent since 1976, minor leaguers' salaries have increased by an average of only 75 percent. Inflation has risen by more than 400 percent in that time, according to the complaint. Unlike major leaguers, minor leaguers do not have a union or collective bargaining agreement, and "efforts to unionize minor leaguers have been unsuccessful because minor leaguers fear retaliation by the defendants. Minor leaguers are afraid to challenge the MLB-imposed wage system, for fear it would jeopardize their careers," the complaint states. Because minor leaguers are powerless against MLB, the league is able to collude on many aspects of the minor leaguers' working conditions, such as wages, contract terms and discipline, according to the complaint. "Most minor leaguers earn between around $3,000 and $7,500 for the entire year, despite routinely working between 50 and 70 hours per week during the roughly five-month championship season," the players say. Although salary guidelines are not publicly available, the players believe that MLB imposes the following salaries per month during championship season: $1,100 for Rookie and Short-Season A; $1,250 for Class-A; $1,500 for Class-AA; and $2,150 for Class-AAA. In comparison, the minimum yearly salary for a major league player in 2014 is $500,000 and the average salary in 2013 was $3.3 million, according to mlb.com. During the championship season, the minor league players have a day off only about once every two to three weeks. Before their three-hour games, the players are required to participate in mandatory activities such as batting and fielding practice, throwing, stretching and conditioning, resulting in seven-day workweeks that are well over 40 hours, according to the complaint. MLB also requires minor leaguers to participate in spring training, which falls outside of the paid five-month championship season, leaving the players to work without pay. Spring training can last a month or longer, the lawsuit states. Additionally, around 30 to 45 players per franchise are selected to participate in an instructional league for one month after the championship season, to hone their skills, during which they also go unpaid, the complaint states. "In order to monopolize players and depress their salaries, the MLB cartel inserted a provision (known as the reserve clause) into players' contracts that allows teams to retain the contractual rights to players and restricts their ability to negotiate with other teams for their baseball services and the compensation they receive, which reserve clause preserves MLB's minor league system of artificially low salaries and nonexistent contractual mobility," the players say. Under the contract, which usually grants an MLB team the exclusive rights to a minor leaguer for seven championship seasons, the player cannot voluntarily leave one team to play for another baseball team, even outside of MLB or outside of the country. They must also get the commissioner's approval to retire from baseball during that seven-year term, the complaint states. "By the expiration of the contract, much of the value of the minor leaguer as a young prospect has expired because the player has aged," the complaint states. The players seek class certification, a protective injunction and damages for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and state labor and wage laws of California, Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Oregon. MLB did not immediately return a request for comment. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Samuel Kornhauser, Esq. 155 Jackson St., #1807 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 981-6281 MASSAGE ENVY: Got Prelim. OK of $0.5-Mil. Deal in Insurance Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Massage Envy Franchising can pay $504,000 to settle a class action alleging that it forced therapists to pay for liability insurance, reports Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. The case is Yvette R. Balderas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly-situated v. Massage Envy Franchising, LLC, Case No. 12-cv-06327 NC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. MICROS SYSTEMS: Being Sold for Too Little to Oracle, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Micros Systems is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Oracle, for $68 a share or $5.3 billion, shareholders claim in a class action in Howard County Court, according to Courthouse News Service. MIDLAND CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Kaff and Gitty Kaff, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04517 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MTA METRO-NORTH: Faces "Chu" Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Chu v. MTA Metro-North Railroad, Case No. 1:14-cv-05770-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff has been subjected to a hostile work environment and adverse employment actions, as well as an atmosphere of adverse employment actions, including termination based on his age, race, and in retaliation for his opposition to discriminatory practices. Mr. Chu is a Chinese male, born on December 7, 1956. MTA Metro-North Railroad is an agency authorized to do business in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Ian Marks, Esq. WHITE, RICOTTA & MARKS, P.C. 86-12 37th Avenue, Second Floor Jackson Heights, NY 11372 Telephone: (347) 464-8694 E-mail: mmarks@wrmattorney.com NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Amends $60-Mil. Deal to Streamline Process --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Sam Keller, Electronic Arts and the National Collegiate Athletic Association on July 23, 2014, amended their $60 million settlement to streamline the class notice and claims process. The filing is submitted jointly by the Right of Publicity Plaintiffs, the Antitrust Plaintiffs, Ryan Hart, Electronic Arts Inc., and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, pursuant to the request of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The ROP Plaintiffs are Samuel Michael Keller, Bryan Cummings, LaMarr Watkins, Bryon Bishop, Shawne Alston, and Ryan Hart. The Antitrust Plaintiffs are Edward C. O'Bannon Jr., Oscar Robertson, William Russell, Harry Flournoy, Alex Gilbert, Sam Jacobson, Thad Jaracz, David Lattin, Patrick Maynor, Tyrone Prothro, Damien Rhodes, Eric Riley, Bob Tallent, Danny Wimprine, Ray Ellis, Tate George, Jake Fischer, Jake Smith, Darius Robinson, Moses Alipate and Chase Garnham. The trial involved claims that the NCAA used student-athlete likenesses without permission or payment. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert B. Carey, Esq. Leonard W. Aragon, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com leonard@hbsslaw.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Arthur N. Bailey, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery St., 34th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com abailey@hausfeldllp.com Defendant National Collegiate Athletic Association is represented by: Gregory L. Curtner, Esq. Robert J. Wierenga, Esq. Kimberly K. Kefalas, Esq. SCHIFF HARDIN LLP 350 South Main St., Suite 210 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 222-1500 Facsimile: (734) 222-1501 E-mail: gcurtnery@schiffhardin.com rwierenga@schiffhardin.com kkefalas@schiffhardin.com Defendant Electronic Arts Inc. is represented by: Robert A. Van Nest, Esq. R. James Slaughter, Esq. KEKER & VAN NEST LLP 633 Battery Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 391-5400 Facsimile: (415) 397-7188 E-mail: rvannest@kvn.com rslaughter@kvn.com The two lawsuits are (i) Samuel Michael Keller, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Electronic Arts, Inc.; National Collegiate Athletics Association; and Collegiate Licensing Company, Case No. 4:09-cv-1967 CW; and (ii) Edward O'Bannon, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association; Collegiate Licensing Company; and Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 09-cv-3329 CW, both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division. NATIONAL OILWELL: Faces Class Suit in Southern District of Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert E. Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Oilwell Varco, Case No. 4:14-cv- 02156 (S.D. Tex., July 28, 2014) alleges claims for employment discrimination. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Todd Slobin, Esq. SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 621-2277 E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net NEW YORK, USA: Teacher Tenure Violates Constitution, Parents Say ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenure provisions in New York education law violate the state constitution's guarantee of a "sound, basic education" for all children, seven parents claim in court, according to Marlene Kennedy at Courthouse News Service. The lawsuit filed on July 28, 2014, in Albany County Supreme Court challenges 10 sections of education law that the parents say "make it nearly impossible to dismiss and discipline teachers with a proven track record of ineffectiveness or misconduct." Lead plaintiff John Keoni Wright sued New York State; the Regents of the University of the State of New York, an executive-level department that sets education policy; Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch; and state Education Commissioner John King. Five of the seven parents are from the New York City area and two are from Rochester. They sued on behalf of themselves and their children. Wright claims the importance of good teachers is illustrated by his twin daughters, Kaylah and Kyler, who attend a public school in Brooklyn. While they share nearly everything in common, one twin is struggling to catch up to the other academically after spending a year with an ineffective teacher, Wright says. "The gulf between Kaylah's and Kyler's learning illustrates what is a matter of common sense. An ineffective teacher can leave a student ill-equipped to advance, or even to stay apace of those alike in all respects except the quality of their teacher," Wright says. The complaint divides the 10 challenged sections of education law into three groups: "permanent employment statutes," "disciplinary statutes" and "LIFO statutes," an acronym for "last in, first out," in reference to the law's seniority provisions. Either together or by themselves, the statutes "confer permanent employment, prevent the removal of ineffective teachers, and result in layoffs of effective teachers in favor of less- effective, more senior teachers," the parents claim. The complaint classes as "permanent employment statutes" the procedures for granting tenure, which new teachers typically receive after a three-year probationary period. Few teachers are denied tenure, the parents say, even though a so- called annual professional performance review was added in 2012 to aid in teacher evaluations. The APPRs, as they are called, use results on state tests, classroom observation and other measures to assign teachers numerical scores that equate to "highly effective," "effective," "developing" and "ineffective." But "teachers are not rated ineffective even when their students consistently fail state exams," the parents say, citing statistics that show that while 91.5 percent of teachers outside New York City were rated "highly effective" or "effective" in 2012, just 31 percent of students taking state standardized tests in English and math that year met proficiency standards. "These discrepancies indicate that the APPR ratings operate as a rubber stamp for tenure and are not a meaningful check within the tenure process," according to the complaint. The parents say the "disciplinary statutes" keep low-rated teachers in schools by making it "prohibitively expensive, time- consuming and effectively impossible to dismiss an ineffective teacher who has already received tenure." Education law lists specific circumstances under which tenure can be revoked -- conduct unbecoming, incompetency, physical or mental disability, neglect of duty -- but a disciplinary proceeding must be held first and such hearings "are rarely initiated," according to the parents. "Principals and administrators would be more likely to use the 3020-a process to discipline or dismiss a teacher if it was less time-consuming and more effective," the parents say. The 3020-a process is a section of the education code dealing with disciplinary hearings. They say the "LIFO statutes" require that the last teachers hired be the first fired when a school district must reduce its instructor ranks. "New York is one of only 10 states to conduct layoffs on the basis of seniority alone, irrespective of a teacher's performance, effectiveness or quality," the parents say. They contend that without LIFO, "school administrators conducting layoffs would consider teacher performance, a higher number of effective teachers would be retained, and fewer children would suffer the loss of an effective teacher." The parents ask the court to find that the 10 provisions of education law violate the state constitution, and to block enforcement through preliminary and permanent injunctions. The plaintiffs, who also seek court costs and attorneys' fees, are represented by Jay Lefkowitz of Kirkland & Ellis in Manhattan. The New York Daily News reported that former CNN journalist Campbell Brown and a reform group she founded, Partnership for Educational Justice, are behind the complaint. New York State United Teachers, a federation of more than 1,200 local unions representing educators, called the lawsuit "a politically motivated attack against every dedicated teacher in New York State." NYSUT, headquartered near Albany, expressed confidence the court would find the complaint lacked merit. "We welcome the opportunity to expose the many lies and misrepresentations about tenure laws and establish, once and for all, the plain truth: Tenure is an absolutely necessary safeguard for teachers, for students and for quality public schools," NYSUT President Karen Magee said in a statement. It's the second lawsuit in July in New York challenging teacher tenure. In early July, a class action was filed in Richmond County Supreme Court, Staten Island, claiming teacher tenure discriminates against poor and minority children. The lawsuits follow a June ruling in Los Angeles Superior Court that found teacher tenure violates the equal protection provision of the California Constitution. PAPA JOHN'S: Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Delivery Sales Tax Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- A lawsuit alleging sales tax on Papa John's delivery fees is illegal will move forward, reports Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. A Florida district court denied Papa John's motion to dismiss or stay a class action alleging that the pizza chain added sales tax to delivery fees in violation of state law. Papa John's claimed that, even if it wrongfully collected sales tax on deliveries, the allegations have no merit under Florida law because it paid taxes to the state's Department of Revenue. One Florida statute says the only damages that could be paid in a case like this is "the difference between what the retailer, dealer, or vendor collected as a tax, fee, or surcharge and what the retailer, dealer or vendor paid to the taxing authority," according to the ruling. Papa John's also said that the three plaintiffs who filed the class action -- Bruce Schojan, Sean Timmons and Christopher Tollerton -- knew about the fees and therefore have no claim under Florida's voluntary pay doctrine. But Judge Virginia Hernandez Covington said neither of the pizza- maker's arguments warrant dismissal of the case at the preliminary juncture. "Whether or not the plaintiffs paid the sales tax with full knowledge of the situation is a question of fact that the court cannot reconcile on a motion to dismiss," she wrote in the 16-page opinion. Judge Hernandez Covington agreed with the plaintiffs that Florida revenue rules go against taxing something like pizza delivery fees. "The Florida Administrative Code provides that the charge for transportation services is not subject to tax when the charge is separately stated on an invoice or bill of sale and the charge can be avoided by a decision or action on the part of the purchaser," she wrote. "Therefore, the court declines to stay this action and the motion to dismiss is denied." Papa John's had until July 30 to respond to the complaint, according to the ruling. The case is Bruce Schojan, et al. v. Papa John's International Inc. and Papa John's USA, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-1218-T-33MAP, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. PROTECTIVE LIFE: Being Sold for Too Little to Dai-Ichi, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Directors are selling Protective Life Insurance Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to Dai-Ichi Life Insurance, for $5.7 billion, or $70 a share, shareholders claim in the Delaware Chancery Court. QUALITY FOODS: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Alleging Violations of ADA ------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quality Foods Corporation d/b/a Kuhn's Market, Case No. 2:14-cv-01010-JFC (W.D. Pa., July 28, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Chicago Drivers Demand Refunds of $100-Tickets --------------------------------------------------------------- In a federal class action, Chicago drivers demand partial refunds of their $100 red-light tickets, claiming that a whistleblower revealed the red-light camera operator bribed city officials to win the contract, reports Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Matthew Falkner sued Redflex Traffic Systems on July 17, 2014. "In approximately 2010, a whistleblower -- a Redflex executive -- reported that an improper relationship between Redflex consultants and City of Chicago officials wherein Redflex officials bribed City of Chicago officials to secure the lucrative City of Chicago Red Light Camera contract," the complaint states. The red light traffic camera system, installed in 2003, is a network of 384 robotic cameras across the city that captures red- light violators on video, and automatically sends them a $100 red- light ticket. "The City of Chicago contract was Redflex's largest contract in North America, and provided Redflex in excess of $100 million in revenue since 2003, out of the approximate $500 million in ticket revenue realized by the City of Chicago between 2003 and 2012. This represented approximately 13 percent of Redflex's worldwide revenue," Falkner claims. He adds: "The primary object of the bribery was a provision setting the amount from each red light ticket paid by a class member that would be paid to defendants. As a direct result of the bribery scheme, defendants were able to contractually retain approximately 20 to 25 percent of all 'ticket revenue' generated by tickets paid by class members." Falkner seeks class certification and refunds of the portion of red light tickets that went to Redflex because the contract was achieved through bribery. He is represented by Thomas Connick with Dubyak, Connick, Sammon, Thompson and Bloom in Cleveland, with assistance from local counsel Thomas Cronin in Chicago. Counsel may be reached at: Thomas Connick, Esq. DUBYAK, CONNICK, SAMMON, THOMPSON AND BLOOM 3401 Enterprise Parkway Suite 205 Cleveland, Ohio 44122 Tel: (216) 364-0500 Toll Free (888) 902-1499 Fax: (216) 364-0505 E-mail: tconnick@dcsblaw.com The Chicago Tribune reported in July that thousands of drivers have been wrongly ticketed for red-light violations in Chicago during sudden spikes of camera activity that neither the city nor Redflex can explain. "Cameras that for years generated just a few tickets daily suddenly caught dozens of drivers a day," the Tribune reported on July 18, 2014. "One North Side camera generated only a dozen tickets for rolling rights out of 100 total tickets in the entire second half of 2011. Then, over a 12-day spike, it spewed 563 tickets -- 560 of them for rolling rights." The Tribune said it found these spikes in an analysis of more than 4 million tickets issued since 2007. "The experts all said the available evidence leads them to only two possible explanations -- that ticket procedures were quietly broadened to catch more violators, or that malfunctions led the system to wrongly tag lawful drivers," the Tribune reported. Chicago transportation officials told the Tribune they had no knowledge of the unusual camera activity, although Redflex's contract requires it to report any anomaly in ticketing patterns. Experts who reviewed the Tribune's findings suggested that drivers are entitled to refunds. SUTTER HEALTH: $4-Bil. Class Action Over Stolen Records Halted -------------------------------------------------------------- William Dotinga at Courthouse News Service reports that a state appeals court on July 21, 2014, halted a $4 billion class action against Sutter Health over stolen patient records, holding that no one can prove the data has ever been used. Dozens of Sutter Health patients sued the healthcare provider after thieves broke stole a computer containing over the medical records of over 4 million patients in 2011. The office had no security alarm or cameras, and the files on the computer were password-protected but unencrypted. Under California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, patients can sue for nominal damages award of $1,000 each for the negligent release of medical information -- a potential $4 billion windfall for the Sutter Health patients affected by the stolen computer. Sutter Health objected to the suit and moved to strike the class allegations, requests that Sacramento County Superior Court Judge David De Alba denied. De Alba reasoned that the patients did not have an obligation to prove that an unauthorized person had viewed their medical data to in order to pursue claims that Sutter Health breached the Confidentiality Act. The hospital chain petitioned the Third Appellate District for review of De Alba's denial, and on July 21, 2014, the Sacramento panel of that court agreed that the mere possession of medical records by an unauthorized person is insufficient to show a breach of confidentiality. "The statute contains a lengthy list of circumstances under which the healthcare provider must or may disclose medical information, circumstances which do not violate the nondisclosure duty," Judge George Nicholson wrote for the panel. "Thus, disclosure under the law implies an affirmative communicative act. "Here, there is no dispute that the computer was stolen by, not given to, the unauthorized person," Nicholson continued. "Sutter Health did not intend to disclose the medical information to the thief, so there was no affirmative communicative act by Sutter Health to the thief. As a result, the law does not apply to the facts of this case." The appeals court noted that the California Supreme Court recently held that in order for a healthcare provider to violate the Confidentiality Act, it must make an "unauthorized, unexcused disclosure of privileged medical information." "No breach of confidentiality takes place until an unauthorized person views the medical information," Nicholson wrote. "It is the medical information, not the physical record (whether in electronic, paper, or other form), that is the focus of the Confidentiality Act. While there is certainly a connection between the information and its physical form, possession of the physical form without actually viewing the information does not offend the basic public policy advanced by the Confidentiality Act." So while Sutter Health negligently stored the patient records -- unencrypted, on a desktop computer, in a building with no security system -- there is no allegation that anyone ever viewed the stolen records, the appeals court found. "Interpreting the Confidentiality Act to provide $1,000 in damages to every person whose medical information came into the possession of an unauthorized person without that person viewing the information would lead to unintended results," Nicholson wrote. "For example, if a thief grabbed a computer containing medical information on four million patients, but the thief destroyed the electronic records to reformat and wipe clean the hard drive and sell the computer without ever viewing the information or even knowing it was on the hard drive, the healthcare provider would still be liable, at least potentially, for $4 billion. For all we know, that may have happened here. We cannot interpret a statute to require such an unintended result." The appeals court ordered De Alba to sustain Sutter Health's objection and dismiss the class action without leave to amend. A similar class action, filed earlier this year, is pending in an Alameda County court. The Petitioners are represented by: Robert H. Bunzel, Esq. William I. Edlund, Esq. Michael D. Abraham, Esq. BARTKO, ZANKEL, BUNZEL & MILLER One Embarcadero Center, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-1900 Facsimile: (415) 956-1152 E-mail: rbunzel@bzbm.com bedlund@bzbm.com mabraham@bzbm.com The case is Sutter Health et al., Petitioners v. The Superior Court of Sacramento County, Respondent; Dorothy Atkins, et al., Real Parties in Interest, Case No. C072591, in the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Third Appellate District. TAISHAN GYPSUM: Chinese Commission Among Drywall Suit Defendants ---------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Mcconnaughey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that lawyers for people who say defective Chinese drywall wrecked their homes are again suing the manufacturers. And the lawsuit adds a new defendant -- the Chinese commission that oversees 117 companies including in aerospace, nuclear power and electronics. Attorney Lenny Davis says the lawsuit is trying to get the Chinese officials' attention. The lawsuit filed on July 30 comes two weeks after U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon held Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd. and related defendants in contempt of court for ignoring court proceedings over harm done by the drywall. He ordered Taishan to pay $55,000 in fines and attorneys' fees, and to stop doing business in the U.S. The new lawsuit adds to the list of defendants China's State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission. TENNESSEE, USA: Faces Class Suit for Denying Health Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Tennessee is illegally denying health coverage to tens of thousands of people who are eligible for its federally funded Medicaid program, TennCare, a class action claims in Tennessee Federal Court. TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Suit Over Defective 2AZ-FE Engines ------------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that Toyotas with 2AZ-FE engines, in some model years from 2006 to 2011, burn excessive oil, which can lead to sudden engine failure, a class action claims in California Federal Court. TRUMP INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit in Nevada Over Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Trump International Hotel Las Vegas forces employees to work off the clock and stiffs them for overtime, a class action claims in Clark County Court in Nevada. URS CORP: Being Sold to AECOM for Too Little, Shareholders Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Directors are selling URS Corp. too cheaply through an unfair process to AECOM Technology Corp., in a cash and stock deal ($33 plus 0.734 shares per 1) valued at $6 billion, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court, Courthouse News Service reports. VILLAGE OF WOODRIDGE: 7th Cir. Unable to Agree on $30 Fee Issue --------------------------------------------------------------- After an en banc hearing, a splintered 7th Circuit was unable to reach a majority opinion on the constitutionality of an ordinance that imposed a $30 fee on everyone arrested in a Chicago suburb, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service. In 2011, Jerry Markadonatos was arrested and charged with shoplifting in the Village of Woodridge, and was told at the police station that he had to pay a $30 administrative fee as part of the booking process. He paid the fee, posted bond, and was released without being jailed. After his guilty plea, 12 months of court supervision, and paying $785 in fines, Markadonatos said he was able to get his shoplifting charge dismissed and received a "not guilty" adjudication. Markadonatos filed a class action against Woodridge, claiming that the fee, which has since been repealed, violated arrestees' substantive and procedural due process rights. Markadonatos sought damages based on the $30 he paid. A divided 7th Circuit panel this year upheld U.S. District Judge James F. Holderman's decision to dismiss the suit, but the circuit voted on June 3 to rehear the case. On July 21, 2014, the circuit released a fractured opinion in which five judges voted to affirm the decision to dismiss, four judges voted to reverse the decision, and one judge voted to remand with instructions to dismiss for want of standing to sue. The appellate judges who voted in favor of Woodbridge split on their reasoning. Judges Richard Posner, Joel Flaum and Michael Kanne found that the village's ordinance did not impose a fee simply for being arrested, but that it was payment for arranging for a bail bond that allowed the arrestee to stay out of jail. "The opening sentence of the ordinance states that it imposes 'fees for the following activities and purposes,' and the activity for which the booking fee is imposed is 'posting bail or bond on any legal process,' including the legal process that consists of a custodial arrest pursuant to a warrant," Posner wrote. The right to bail is a valuable right for which a person seeking it -- whether guilty or innocent -- must pay, and the $30 is a part of that cost, the three judges found. The judges likened the $30 fee to Woodridge's fees to release an impounded animal or pay for a towed vehicle. "(A) dog or cat may escape the owner's control, and later be impounded, without fault on the owner's part. The animal may have been stolen, or have escaped from its home because a careless workman had left a door or window ajar, or been lured from its litter box by a rogue Woodridge police officer with catnip. Even in such cases, impounding the animal confers a benefit on the owner for which he must pay despite his lack of fault," Posner wrote. "Or consider the Village's $250 'towing fee': the owner must pay to recover his car even if he believes with good reason that the car was towed in error from a legal parking spot. It is the same in the false-arrest case if the arrested person wants to be bailed out." Posner pointed out that the judges were not condoning the conduct of the Woodridge police if they charged the $30 fee to people they arrested who did not attempt to post bail or bond. "Being arrested is not a 'service' to the person arrested! But the plaintiff in this case did not want to risk time in jail. He posted bond and was released. He paid for and received a valuable service. No constitutional right of his was violated," Posner wrote. Judges Frank Easterbrook and John Tinder, who also voted to affirm the dismissal, pointed out that neither side asked the circuit to read the ordinance as applicable only to bail, but instead agree that the ordinance imposes a $30 fee on all arrests. Their reasoning for voting to dismiss was based on the argument that being arrested based on probable cause comes with substantial burdens that are justifiable under the Constitution, and the $30 fee is no exception. Easterbrook pointed out that probable cause can justify things such as being held for as long as 48 hours before seeing a magistrate, holding a defendant in custody pending trial, and seizing a suspect's assets pending forfeiture, making it impossible for the suspect to hire his preferred lawyer. "All of these losses vastly exceed a $30 fee. If probable case justifies months in jail and an inferior lawyer, what sense could it make to say that a $30 fee is constitutionally excessive? True, someone arrested on probable cause does not get the $30 back if he prevails at trial -- but neither does he get back the value of time spent in jail or the value of the difference between a top- notch lawyer and the average quality provided under the Criminal Justice Act," Easterbrook wrote. He argued that requiring an arrestee to pay a $30 booking fee does not constitute a deprivation of a fundamental right. Like Posner, Easterbrook rationalized the fee by comparing it to a fee imposed to recover a towed car. "These fees often are in the range of $100. No one wants his car towed any more than he wants to be arrested. And cars may be towed without good cause, just as people may be arrested without good cause. It seems more likely that a village would impose a steep towing fee as a means of generating revenue (which would increase the incentive to tow even properly parked cars) than that it would impose a modest arrest fee. Yet at oral argument, counsel for Markadonatos acknowledged that a towing fee is valid. What he could not explain is why the Constitution allows a $100 fee after a car is taken to the pound but no fee at all after a person is taken to the stationhouse." Dissenting Judge Diane Sykes argued that the circuit should not even be deciding whether the ordinance was constitutional because Markadonatos had no standing to pursue the case. She pointed out that Markadonatos conceded that there was probable cause for his arrest, as evidenced by his admittance of guilt in court, so he cannot press an argument that the $30 fee is irrational as applied to those who are innocent or wrongfully arrested. Markadonatos did not argue that the substantive component of the Due Process Clause prohibited Woodbridge from requiring lawfully arrested people to pay a booking fee, Sykes wrote. "As such, he has suffered no harm that is fairly traceable to the alleged deprivation of process about which he complains," she wrote. In a separate dissenting opinion, Judge David Hamilton, joined by Judges Diane Wood, Ilana Rovner and Ann Claire Williams, pointed out that Posner's opinion was based on a case that was not actually before the circuit, as the village never disputed that the fee was based simply on being arrested and was not part of a bail service. "(I)n the face of a plainly unconstitutional fee for the privilege or 'service' of being arrested, Judge Posner has chosen not to decide the case that has actually been presented to us. His opinion chooses instead to decide a different case, one shaped by rewriting the ordinance and overlooking the plaintiff's allegations," Hamilton wrote. The four dissenting judges contended that requiring someone to pay a non-refundable fee based solely on the say-so of one police officer deprived arrestees of their property without due process of law. The arrest fee "denies due process because it imposes a permanent deprivation of property based on the unreviewable decision of one police officer. We don't tolerate such arbitrary government deprivations even for parking tickets. The village's arrest fee provided neither process nor law in any recognizable form. This arrest fee is indistinguishable from a fee the police might charge merely for subjecting you to a traffic stop, a breathalyzer test, a Terry stop and frisk, or for executing a search warrant at your house," Hamilton wrote. He argued that even when an arrest is supported by probable cause, this is too low a bar to justify a permanent deprivation of property. Therefore, the moment Markadonatos was brought to jail and paid the $30 fee, that was an arbitrary deprivation of property without any process of law, which gave him a ripe due process claim, Hamilton said. Because none of the positions commanded a majority, the judgment of the district court to dismiss was affirmed. The "en banc court cannot agree on what questions the case raises, whether the plaintiff is the right person to raise them, whether they have been properly preserved, or what doctrinal framework applies. Our fractured nondecision suggests that this case was a poor vehicle for resolving the constitutionality of a jail booking fee," Sykes wrote. The appellate case is Jerry G. Markadonatos v. Village of Woodridge, Case No. 12-2619, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The original case is Jerry G. Markadonatos v. Village of Woodridge, Case No. 11-CV-7006, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. WEIGHT WATCHERS: Court Approved Settlement in "Connolly" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge has approved a second labor settlement with Weight Watchers, resolving overtime claims that accrued while policies challenged in an earlier class action remained in place, according to the Courthouse News Service. The case is Jeri Connolly, et al. v. Weight Watchers North America Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01983-TEH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. WORLD WRESTLING: Issued Misleading Statements, Shareholders Claim ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that World Wrestling Entertainment inflated its stock price with false and misleading statements, and the share price fell from $19.93 to $11.27 in a single day, May 16, when the truth came out, shareholders claim in a federal class action. YUM BRANDS: Food Safety Scandal in China Hits KFC, Pizza Hut Sales ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that the owner of the KFC and Pizza Hut restaurant chains said on July 31 a food safety scandal in China has hurt sales and might be severe enough to cut into the company's global profit. Yum Brands Inc., in a filing with the U.S. securities regulator, gave no financial details and said it was too early to know when sales might rebound. But it said if the "significant sales impact" continues, it might hurt this year's profit. The scandal erupted in July when a Shanghai TV station reported that Husi, owned by OSI Group Inc. of Aurora, Illinois, repackaged old beef and chicken and sold it to KFC and McDonald's Corp. restaurants in China. KFC and McDonald's stopped using product supplied by Shanghai Husi and Yum said its restaurants severed all ties with OSI in China, the United States and Australia. Chinese authorities have detained five Husi employees but have yet to confirm whether the company sold expired meat. "The result has been a significant, negative impact to same-store sales at both KFC and Pizza Hut in China over the past 10 days," Yum said in the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. "If the significant sales impact is sustained, it will have a material effect on full-year earnings per share," the filing said. Yum is China's biggest restaurant operator, with more than 4,600 KFC outlets and 1,200 Pizza Huts. ********* 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 * * *