/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/140811.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 11, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 158 Headlines A&E STORES: Removed "Marville" Class Suit to S.D. New York ACCOKEEK FENCE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ABILITY RECOVERY: Accused of Violating CARD Act in Pennsylvania AMERICAN INT'L: Has Agreed to Pay $960MM to End Shareholder Suit AUTOZONE INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Pennsylvania Suit Says BANKERS LIFE: Sued for Contacting "Do Not Call Registry" Numbers BOB EVANS: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Violations of Disabilities Act CBE GROUP: Accused of Violating Telecommunications Act in Iowa CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CONTINENTAL USA: Fails to Pay Proper OT Under FLSA, Suit Says COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Removed "Palkovic" Suit to N.D. West Virginia CR BARD: Judge Narrows Strict Liability Claims in Mesh Suit DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued Over Defective Pinnacle Hip Replacement DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act DOOR LINE: Sued on Behalf of Repair Workers Over FLSA Violations ELIMELECH MEISELS: Sued in Chicago for Sexually Assaulting Girls EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Collapse of Bar Exam Software FORD MOTOR: Judge Upholds Admissibility of Two Defense Experts GENERAL MOTORS: Providence Mulls Suit Over Ignition Switch Defects GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Eye Key Roles in Ignition-Switch Suit GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers to Consider Compensation Plan GIBSON BRANDS: Accused of Violating Equal Pay Act in New York GOLD'S GYM: Faces "Tate" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ERISA GREAT AMERICAN MARKETING: Recalls 475 Lbs of Ready-to-Eat Items HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE: Removed "Cavazos" Suit to C.D. California HEWLETT-PACKARD: Printer Class Action Settlement Challenged HITACHI LTD: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Electronic Capacitors HUESTON MCNULTY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims KODIAK OIL: Being Sold to Whiting for Too Little, Suit Claims LINK SNACKS: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Class Claims MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces "Winsouth" Class Suit in M.D. Tennessee MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Patent Claims Prompt Derivative Suits MCCALLA RAYMER: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Demand Letter MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Weaver" Suit to Tennessee District Court MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Harris" Infuse Suit to W.D. Tennessee MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act NEBRASKA: Health Department Sued Over Untimely Food Stamps NEW ENGLAND GREENS: Recalls Green Vibrance and Rainbow Vibrance NORTH CHEROKEE: Sued for Not Having Accurate Record of Work Hours OASIS BRANDS: Recalls Quesito Casero 12oz Due to Health Risk OBERTO'S BRANDS: Recalls 57,578 lbs Chicken Strip Products ONEWEST BANK: "Meyer" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California ORTHO MOLECULAR: Recalls Lifecore Choco & Lifecore Complete Choco PEP BOYS-MANNY: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa. PFIZER INC: Oregon to Get $1.2 Mil. in Rapamune Drug Settlement PFIZER INC: South Dakota to Get $419,000 in Rapamune Settlement PROGRESO LLC: Accused of Not Paying Proper OT Wages Under FLSA PROGRESSIVE PAINTING: Fails to Pay Painters' Overtime, Suit Says PURITAN FOODS: Misbranding Prompts Boneless Turkey Breast Recall REGENECA WORLDWIDE: Recalls RegeneSlim Appetite Control Capsules ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim SEOUL SHIK POOM: Recalls Choripdong Choco Almond Richmond Ice Bar SCOUT W.H. CHICAGO: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Claims SILVERADO SENIOR: Removed "Pichardo" Suit to C.D. California STAPLES INC: Accused of Violating Americans with Disabilities Act SUNBURST SUPERFOODS: Recalls Organic Raw Carob Powder TARGET CORP: Removed "Rojas" Employment Suit to C.D. California TOTAL SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Law Violations TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Removed "Chau" Class Suit to C.D. California UNITED STATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Labor Suit Over Shutdown USABLE MUTUAL: Removed "Wroten" Insurance Suit to E.D. Arkansas YORK COUNTY, SC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Ex-Detention Officer Says ZEMCO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Sausages Due to Misbranding & Allergen * Advocacy Group Says Some Recalled Products Still in Homes ********* A&E STORES: Removed "Marville" Class Suit to S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Marville v. A&E Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 152719/2014, was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-05962-RA to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brought the class action as a representative of a class of Black, Hispanic and non-White customers who, identified as persons of color by their physical appearance, as a result of alleged racial and national origin profiling, have been or will be unlawfully stopped, detained, interrogated or searched by A&E Stores, Inc., doing business as Pay Half Stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeanne Christensen, Esq. IMBESI CHRISTENSEN 450 Seventh Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 736-5588 Facsimile: (212) 658-9177 E-mail: jchristensen@lawicm.com The Defendants are represented by: Joseph B. Fiorenzo, Esq. Matthew Jason Cowan, Esq. SOKOL, BEHOT & FIORENZO One Grand Central Place 60 East 42nd Street, Suite #2527 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 661-2523 Facsimile: (201) 488-2460 E-mail: jbfiorenzo@sbflawfirm.com mjcowan@sbflawfirm.com ACCOKEEK FENCE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jean Paul Quiroz, Eliab Crisostumo, Juan Francisco Diaz and Juan Carlos Sorto Barahona, 836 Bonifant Street, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Accokeek Fence Company, Inc., 5410 Vine Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22310, Case No. 1:14-cv-00979-TSE-JFA (E.D. Va., July 31, 2014) seeks to recover damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act relating to alleged unpaid overtime wages. Accokeek Fence Company, Inc., is a Virginia corporation with its principal business in Alexandria, Virginia. Accokeek has been in fence building services and related construction in the Commonwealth of Virginia, District of Columbia, and state of Maryland. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 836 Bonifant Street Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com ABILITY RECOVERY: Accused of Violating CARD Act in Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Yinger, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ability Recovery Services, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv- 01514-WWC (M.D. Pa., August 1, 2014) alleges violations of the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility & Disclosure Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cynthia Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC. 1150 First Avenue, Suite 501 King of Prussia, PA 19046 Telephone: (888) 529-9111 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com AMERICAN INT'L: Has Agreed to Pay $960MM to End Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- American International Group has reportedly agreed to pay $960 million to resolve a shareholder lawsuit stemming from the collapse of the company's value in the wake of its bailout by the federal government in 2008, according to Courthouse News Service. The settlement was disclosed during a conference call with reporters in which AIG officials disclosed the company's earnings for the second quarter of 2014. The deal to end the class action filed in 2008 was first reported by the Financial Times of London. The plaintiff shareholders, led by the state of Michigan claimed they'd invested in the company based on false and misleading statements made by various executives, company directors, underwriters and an outside auditor concerning the AIG's financial health and business operations. After the onset of the global financial crisis in September 2008, was collateral calls from a number of lenders, including Goldman Sachs, led to the AIG's seeking a $180 billion bailout from the U.S. Treasury. The plaintiffs in the case been demanding upwards of $100 billion in compensation, the FT said. In a statement released after the conference call, AIG said, "We are pleased to resolve this longstanding dispute. The resolution of this and other legacy financial crisis related matters better enables us to focus on AIG's future." The settlement is just the latest in a series of moves AIG has been making in advance of Peter Hancock succeeding Bob Benmosche as company CEO in September. In mid-July the company announced that he had reached a resolution of its residential mortgage related disputes with Bank of America. The resolution includes its claims pending in New York and California federal courts related to the creation, offering, and sale of RMBS from which AIG and its subsidiaries suffered losses either directly on their own account or in connection with their participation in AIG's securities lending program. The resolution also covers AIG's objections to the $8.5 billion settlement of Countrywide's mortgage repurchase obligations to various investors, as well as disputes concerning the issuance of mortgage guaranty insurance by AIG's United Guaranty subsidiaries to Bank of America and Countrywide. AUTOZONE INC: Violates Disabilities Act, Pennsylvania Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Autozone, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01032-DSC (W.D. Pa., August 1, 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 BANKERS LIFE: Sued for Contacting "Do Not Call Registry" Numbers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arthur Biringer, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated v. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, Case No. 4:14-cv- 00407-WS-CAS (N.D. Fla., August 4, 2014) accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by: (a) initiating telephone solicitations to persons and entities whose telephone numbers were listed on the Do Not Call Registry, or (b) by the fact that others made those calls on its behalf. Bankers Life and Casualty Company, is a company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, that offers a variety of insurance products and financial services. Bankers Life has more than 250 offices in the country and over 4,800 agents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tim Howard, J.D., Ph.D., Esq. HOWARD & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125 Tallahassee, FL 32309 Telephone: (850) 298-4455 Facsimile: (850) 216-2537 E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com - and - Edward A. Broderick, Esq. Anthony Paronich, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 125 Summer St., Suite 1030 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 738-7080 E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com anthony@broderick-law.com - and - Matthew P. McCue, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Suite 3 Natick, MA 01760 Telephone: (508) 655-1415 Facsimile: (508) 319-3077 E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net BOB EVANS: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Violations of Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv- 01036-AJS (W.D. Pa., August 4, 2014) alleges violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com CBE GROUP: Accused of Violating Telecommunications Act in Iowa -------------------------------------------------------------- David Mack, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, and Israel Garcia, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CBE Group, Inc., Case No. 6:14-cv-02048-LRR (N.D. Iowa, July 31, 2014) alleges violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Plaintiffs are represented by: J. D. Haas, Esq. JD HAAS & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 10564 France Avenue S Bloomington, MN 55431 Telephone: (952) 345-1025 E-mail: jdhaas@jdhaas.com - and - James Lee Davidson, Esq. GREENWALD DAVIDSON, PLLC 5550 Glades Road, Suite 500 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 826-5477 E-mail: jdavidson@mgjdlaw.com CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Berkovitz, individually and all other similarly situated consumers v. Client Services Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-04579-ERK-VMS (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Palace, Esq. 383 Kingston Avenue, #113 Brooklyn, NY 11213 Telephone: (347) 651-1077 Facsimile: (347) 464-0012 E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com CONTINENTAL USA: Fails to Pay Proper OT Under FLSA, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Mario Tagre, On behalf of himself and all other similarly-situated v. Continental USA Kitchens & Baths, Inc., Continental Surfaces, LLC, and Peter Komorowski, Case No. 8:14-cv-02467-DKC (D. Md., August 4, 2014) alleges that from August 2013, the Defendants consistently failed to pay the Plaintiff at the overtime rate required by the Fair Labor Standards Act for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Continental USA Kitchens and Baths, Inc. is a foreign corporation formed under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia with a principal place of business in Landover, Maryland. Continental Surfaces, LLC is a Maryland limited liability company with its principal office in Landover, Maryland. The Corporate Defendants and connected and inter-related entities operated continuously in the state of Maryland and surrounding states performing residential construction, installation, and remodeling services. Peter Komorowski is the registered agent and owner of the Corporate Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward Gonzalez, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD GONZALEZ, PC 24051 Street, NW, Suite I.A Washington, D.C. 20037 Telephone: (202)822-4970 Facsimile: (202) 822-4972 E-mail: eg@money.law.com - and - Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq. THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM 509 N Jefferson St. Arlington, VA 22205 Telephone: (703)665-9529 Facsimile: (888) 958-1366 E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Removed "Palkovic" Suit to N.D. West Virginia --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Palkovic, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-C-184, was removed from the Ohio County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (Wheeling). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-00102-JPB to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James G. Bordas, Jr., Esq. Jason E. Causey, Esq. BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC 1358 National Rd. Wheeling, WV 26003 Telephone: (304) 242-8410 Facsimile: (304) 242-3936 E-mail: jbordas@bordaslaw.com jason@bordaslaw.com - and - Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-6555 Facsimile: (304) 342-1110 E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com The Defendants are represented by: James F. Neale, Esq. Meghan Mitchell Cloud, Esq. McGuire Woods LLP - Charlottesville PO Box 1288 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 977-2582 Facsimile: (434) 980-2263 E-mail: jneale@mcguirewoods.com mcloud@mcguirewoods.com - and - Nicholas P. Mooney, II, Esq. SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE PLLC 300 Kanawha Blvd. E P. O. Box 273 Charleston, WV 25321-0273 Telephone: (304) 340-3860 Facsimile: (304) 340-3801 E-mail: nmooney@spilmanlaw.com CR BARD: Judge Narrows Strict Liability Claims in Mesh Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that Pennsylvania's bar on strict liability claims for prescription drugs shaved two claims from a woman's case against a mesh manufacturer in federal court. U.S. District Judge Joel Slomsky of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania looked to both state and federal courts' treatment of that standard -- which have not always ruled in concert -- in deciding that it would extend to Gayle Terrell's claims for strict liability based on an alleged manufacturing defect and for breach of implied warranty of merchantability of the Marlex mesh that was surgically implanted to treat a hernia and had to be removed almost 20 years later after years of medical complications. Referring to the applicable section of the Restatement (Second) of Torts and the 1996 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case -- Hahn v. Richter -- that established the bar on strict liability claims for prescription drugs, Judge Slomsky said, "In this case, to overcome the Section 402A bar on strict liability claims for prescription medical devices, plaintiff contends that Hahn does not prevent strict liability claims based on manufacturing defects. This court does not agree. Although federal courts are currently split on this issue of whether Section 402A applies to medical devices, and some allow strict liability claims to proceed when a manufacturing defect is alleged, the decisions of these courts predate Lance." That case, Lance v. Wyeth, was decided by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in January and made clear that the court wouldn't allow strict liability claims based on a defective prescription drug, Judge Slomsky said. While the state's high court hasn't ruled specifically on whether the bar to strict liability for prescription drugs applies equally to medical devices, the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled in its 2006 opinion in Creazzo v. Medtronic that it does. "In accordance with Pennsylvania law, federal district courts have held that in the case of prescription drugs and devices, strict liability claims based on all three defective conditions, including manufacturing defects, are barred in Pennsylvania," Judge Slomsky said. He cited to half-a-dozen opinions from various district courts in a footnote. The judge leaned especially on a 2004 opinion from the Western District of Pennsylvania, which referred to the comment included in the restatement that addresses the inherent danger in some products, particularly prescription drugs. That opinion, in a case called Parkinson v. Guidant, said, "While comment K precludes strict liability, it does contain the following two caveats for unavoidably unsafe products: 'Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous.' However, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that Section 402A strict liability is precluded entirely for prescription drugs, and, presumably by extension, prescription medical devices. Instead, the caveats in comment K are to be evaluated under negligence not strict liability principles." Looking again to the state Supreme Court's Lance opinion from January, Judge Slomsky said the court "reiterated the principle that a strict liability claim based on a defective prescription drug is barred." "In explaining this principle, the court did not exempt from this bar a claim based on a manufacturing defect. Based on the above, this court predicts that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania would come to the same conclusion with respect to defective medical devices," the judge said. Judge Slomsky's treatment of the breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim took a similar route. "This court recognizes that just as federal district courts are split regarding strict liability claims based on defects in the manufacture of prescription drugs, there is also a split in authority on the applicability of breach of implied warranty of merchantability claims based on defects in the manufacture of medical devices," he said. "Needless to say, plaintiff would have this court hold that the breach of an implied warranty of merchantability claim is a viable cause of action under Pennsylvania law, 'to the extent [that it is] based on a manufacturing defect,'" Judge Slomsky said. "Once again, this court does not agree with plaintiff's position." He cited the Pennsylvania Superior Court's 1987 opinion in Makripodis v. Merrell-Dow, which ruled that claims for breach of implied warranty regarding prescription drugs should be handled the same way as claims for strict liability. "Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has yet to rule on the viability of a breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim for prescription drugs or medical devices, many federal courts have followed the approach in Makripodis and dismissed breach of implied warranty of merchantability claims for much the same reason that strict liability claims are precluded," Judge Slomsky said. The judge remarked on the uncertain status of products liability law in Pennsylvania in a footnote, explaining that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has several times predicted that the state Supreme Court would adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts, although that court has yet to do so. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Sued Over Defective Pinnacle Hip Replacement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Annie Harris v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc., Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., and Johnson and Johnson, Case No. 3:14-cv-02779-K (N.D. Tex., August 4, 2014) alleges that the Defendants failed to disclose material facts regarding the alleged design defects and failures of Pinnacle Hip Replacement System and the Pinnacle Cup. In August 2012, the Plaintiff had a total right hip replacement and she received a DePuy Summit femoral head, a Pinnacle Gription shell, with a Pinnacle Altrx polyethylene acetabular liner and other DePuy products. The Defendants design, manufacture, market and sell medical devices, including reconstructive hip implants. The hip joint is a ball-and-socket joint where the femur connects to the pelvis. The ball portion (the femoral head) of the hip joint fits into the socket (acetabulum) of the pelvis. DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc., is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana. DePuy operates as a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson. Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., operate as a subsidiary of Johnson and Johnson. Johnson and Johnson is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Ms. Harris indicates the case is related to MDL Case No. 2244, In re: DePuy Orthopedics, Inc., Pinnacle Hip Implant Products Liability Litigation, also pending before Judge Ed Kinkeade. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Keane, Esq. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, P.C. 800 Market Street, Suite 1700 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-2929 Facsimile: (314) 241-2029 E-mail: rkeane@simonlawpc.com - and - Drew Parker, Esq. PARKER & PARKER 411 Hamilton Blvd, Suite 1900 Peoria, IL 61602 Telephone: (309) 673-0069 Facsimile: (309) 673-8791 E-mail: parkerparker@mtco.com DOLLAR GENERAL: Faces Suit Alleging Violation of Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dollar General Corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-01028-AJS (W.D. Pa., July 31, 2014) is brought pursuant to alleged violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in connection with accessibility barriers at various properties owned and managed by the Defendant. Ms. Heinzl has a mobility disability and is dependent upon a wheelchair for mobility. Dollar General Corporation is a Tennessee corporation with headquarters located in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Stephanie Goldin, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com DOOR LINE: Sued on Behalf of Repair Workers Over FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrade Aalam v. Door Line Services, Inc., and Jack Manookian, individually, Case No. 2:14-cv-04788-FSH-MAH (D.N.J., July 31, 2014) is brought on behalf of the Defendants' similarly situated non-exempt residential garage door installation/repair workers, who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Door Line Services, Inc., is headquartered in Union, New Jersey. Jack Manookian has been an owner, partner, officer and manager of Door Line. The Defendants install residential home doors throughout the state of New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Lawrence Office Park 168 Franklin Corner Road Bldg. 2, Suite 220 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: AGlenn@JaffeGlenn.com JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com ELIMELECH MEISELS: Sued in Chicago for Sexually Assaulting Girls ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a rabbi in charge of four Orthodox seminaries in Israel sexually assaulted girls in his charge, and threatened to ruin their marriage prospects if they reported him, the girls' parents claim in a federal class action. Gary Miller and six other named plaintiffs sued Elimelech Meisels, Rachel Slanger, Peninim of America, Yaakov Yarmish, Tzvi Gartner and four subsidiary Jewish seminaries in Jerusalem, on August 4, 2014, in Chicago Federal Court. "From approximately 2004 until the present date, defendant Elimelech Meisels engaged in a fraudulent and unlawful scheme to induce Orthodox Jewish parents from across the United States to send their daughters to various seminaries in Israel that he controlled under the guise of educational and spiritual development," the complaint states. "In truth, defendant Meisels' true aim was to fraudulently and unlawfully take thousands of dollars from each of these parents and to induce these girls, by telephone, mail, wire and other means, to travel thousands of miles outside the United States and away from their parents for the purpose of sexually assaulting these vulnerable young girls." Orthodox Jewish children are traditionally sent to study the Torah for one year after high school in Israel. For girls, their attendance at a seminary "profoundly shapes and influences their marriage prospects within a quasi arranged marriage system known as the Shidduch (translated literally as Introduction) system," the complaint states. "This influence is so important that it causes Orthodox Jewish parents to save money for years in hopes of being able to afford the annual tuition that regularly exceeds twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)." The defendant seminaries, part of the Bais Yaakov class of seminaries, are classified as Ultra-Orthodox, and girls are expected not even to physically touch a man outside of marriage. But the parents say Meisel was not the devout rabbi he held himself out to be. "Defendant Meisels, like many other sexual predators, preyed on the vulnerable. He did this by developing mentor-mentee relationships with girls and exploiting these relationships to lure the girls into late night coffee meetings and other private settings and then sexually assaulted them," the lawsuit states. "Once the sexual assaults were complete, upon information and belief, defendant Meisels would intimidate his victims by telling them that no one would believe that a rabbi and author with his reputation would have done such a thing. "Moreover, upon information and belief, defendant Meisels would threaten his victims that if they shared their story with anyone, he would draw on his vast contacts within the Shidduch system to ruin their reputations and ensure that no viable candidate would want to take their hand in marriage. "It was widely known within the administrative staff of the seminaries that defendant Meisels was regularly taking students to late night private meetings -- a fact itself that is forbidden and known as 'yichud' according to the Orthodox Jewish law and tradition. However, certain still unknown co-conspirators within the seminaries were also aware that defendant Meisels was sexually assaulting the girls and assisted defendant Meisels by actively and passively concealing the assaults." In July this year, a Jewish religious court, the Chicago Bais Din, heard testimony from several of Meisels' alleged victims, and issued a ruling stating that it believed students at the defendant seminaries were "at risk of harm," according to the complaint. "News of this decision sent shockwaves to the prospective parent bodies of the Seminaries," the complaint states. It continues: "Defendant Meisels agreed with defendant Yarmish that they would conduct a sham 'sale' of The Seminaries where defendant Yarmish would claim that he now owned the Seminaries and would claim to the class plaintiffs that these institutions were safe for their daughters. The conspirators hoped that this scheme would force class plaintiffs into leaving their daughters in The Seminaries even though that they were not safe because the conspirators would withhold their tuition deposits." For the last two weeks in July, according to the complaint, Yarnish, Slanger, Gartner "and other still unidentified coconspirators then engaged in a flurry of written correspondence and telephone calls with the class plaintiffs to try to convince them that the Seminaries were under new ownership and were now safe. The sought to draw on defendant Gartner's status as a rabbi in Israel and the status of two other unnamed co-conspirators to perpetuate their fraud and assure the class plaintiffs that the Seminaries are safe. . . . "On July 24, 25, and 29, 2014, upon information and belief, defendant Gartner and unnamed co-conspirators had meetings in Israel about how to best cover up the fraudulent and unlawful scheme alleged herein and continue to deprive the class plaintiffs of their money by perpetuating the illusion that defendant Meisels is no longer affiliated with the seminaries," the parents say. They seek class certification and punitive damages for racketeering, fraud, breach of contract, emotional distress, conspiracy and conversion. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Shneur Nathan, Esq. HALE LAW LLC 53 W Jackson Blvd., Suite 330 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 870-6927 E-mail: snathan@ahalelaw.com EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Faces Suit Over Collapse of Bar Exam Software ----------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Litchfield, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc., a Florida corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-05971 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2014) arises from the total collapse of the ExamSoft upload system (including its upload servers, Web site, and phone system) stemming from its alleged wholly insufficient infrastructure that was unable to process the thousands of bar exam results in real time. ExamSoft provides bar exam software for nearly 90% of states nationwide. For fees upwards of $100, ExamSoft claims that its SofTest program helps "[t]ake some of the stress and fatigue out of exam day." Mr. Litchfield alleges that on the first day of the bar exam on July 19, 2014, when applicants completed their written portion of the exam and tried to upload their responses to the exam (as instructed through ExamSoft's system), they were met with error messages, contradicting confirmation/failure emails, and a complete inability to verify whether their exams were submitted before state mandated deadlines. ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business located in Boca Raton, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Christopher L. Dore, Esq. Eve-Lynn Rapp, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com cdore@edelson.com erapp@edelson.com FORD MOTOR: Judge Upholds Admissibility of Two Defense Experts -------------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for Law.com, reports that an Ohio federal judge has upheld the admissibility of two defense experts and one plaintiffs expert in multidistrict litigation over Ford Motor Co. sparkplugs and engine products. U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson of the Northern District of Ohio ruled that the testimony of Paul Taylor, a mechanical engineer, and Christine Wood, a human factors expert, could be admitted in favor of the defense. The judge also ruled that the plaintiffs' only expert, R. Scott King, may be admitted, too. Mr. King is an automotive and mechanical engineer. Judge Pearson found admissible Mr. Taylor's proposed testimony regarding vehicle maintenance and repair and his evaluation of the plaintiffs' experiences with their Ford vehicles in comparison to "peer vehicles." Ford wants to offer Mr. Taylor in support of its theory that the cost of sparkplugs would not be material to consumers. If they avoided Ford vehicles because of the sparkplug issue, they otherwise would risk buying or leasing different vehicles with cheaper sparkplugs that were less expensive to replace but that would actually cost more overall to maintain and repair, the car manufacturer says. According to the judge's opinion, Mr. Taylor has concluded the plaintiffs's overall maintenance and repair costs for their Ford vehicles were "substantially less than the projected maintenance and repair costs for other comparable vehicles." Judge Pearson found Ms. Wood's testimony admissible to address whether members of the putative class would have found disclosure of the sparkplug defect material to their auto-shopping decisions to the point they would have made different purchases. Ms. Wood believes that, even had Ford disclosed information about sparkplugs, it would not have been so material to the "purchase decisions of reasonable buyers such that it would override all of the other influences that shaped their purchase decisions." Ms. Wood has testified 75 to 80 times since November 2008 and mostly has been found qualified to testify, the judge noted. The judge also found admissible Mr. King's opinion that it is not routine for sparkplugs to break during removal; that Ford owners with vehicles with eight-cylinder, three-valve engines pay more for sparkplug replacement than if the defect did not exist; and that Ford had knowledge of the defect long before the vehicles were marketed to the public. Mr. King estimated that replacing eight sparkplugs could cost up to $265. Mr. King is qualified by knowledge, skill and experience and training to give reliable opinion testimony, and his opinion would be relevant to the dispute, the judge said. The plaintiffs argue that these particular multipiece spark plug cause carbon deposits to lock the plugs in place and they often get stuck. The defect impacts approximately two million vehicles, the plaintiffs say. GENERAL MOTORS: Providence Mulls Suit Over Ignition Switch Defects ------------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reported that the city of Providence plans to sue General Motors Co. for failing to disclose ignition-switch defects in its fleet of vehicles. The suit would be the first brought by a government entity against GM associated with the defect, which prompted recalls of millions of cars and trucks. Joseph Rice -- jrice@motleyrice.com -- founding member of Mount Pleasant, S.C.-based Motley Rice, revealed the city's plans in a July 28 filing seeking a lead role in more than 100 ignition- switch lawsuits coordinated before U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in the Southern District of New York. Mr. Rice wrote that he represents Providence in a planned lawsuit over "its fleet of defective, diminished-in-value vehicles." Jodi Flowers, a member of Motley Rice, said Providence intends to file a class action on behalf of other municipalities in Rhode Island stuck with fleets of defective GM cars that have lost resale value. She said that Providence has dozens of cars, some of which are among a "second wave" of vehicles that GM has recalled for ignition issues. "There are a significant number of defective cars with diminished resale vehicles," she said. "They've got a pretty large spread of all makes and models." On another litigation front, GM claimed in a motion filed in U.S. bankruptcy court on Aug. 1 that a provision of its 2009 reorganization bars lawsuits over accidents that occurred before that date. In a separate motion, GM asserted that its bankruptcy barred lawsuits filed for economic damages associated with recalls announced subsequent to the initial 2.6 million for its ignition- switch defect. GM has said that its subsequent recalls were unrelated to the defect, which can shut off engines, disabling airbags and power steering. GM previously moved to bar class actions seeking economic damages. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber has scheduled a hearing on the new motions for Aug. 18. GM spokesman Greg Martin wrote in an email that the motions, which were filed on the same day that attorney Kenneth Feinberg began accepting claims for a victim compensation fund, ask Gerber to "continue to enforce the terms of its approved sale of Old GM's assets." "As we have repeatedly said, we want to do the right thing for the families of the victims and those seriously injured because of the faulty ignition switch," he wrote. "This motion does not impact Mr. Feinberg's compensation program, nor does it prevent people from participating voluntarily in it. Also, the implementation of the Feinberg compensation program does not impact GM's protections under the bankruptcy court's ruling." Motley Rice represents Bedford Auto Wholesale Inc., a used car dealership in Bedford, Ohio, in a nationwide class action filed under Michigan consumer protection law. The dealership, holding 36 of the recalled cars, claims they are "highly dangerous vehicles whose value has greatly diminished" and that it has been forced to pay interest on loans to keep or buy cars that don't sell, according to a complaint filed on April 16. Motley Rice is working with an attorney who has filed an additional dealership suit against GM. Nettleton Auto Sales Inc. in Jonesboro, Ark., which owns three recalled cars, filed its class action on May 23. The case, brought under consumer laws in Michigan and Arkansas, seeks to represent all car dealerships that purchased recalled GM cars before Jan. 31. Randall Pulliam, a partner at Little Rock's Carney Bates & Pulliam, which filed the suit, did not respond to a request for comment. Motley Rice, which has an office in Providence, represented the state of Rhode Island in a massive public nuisance lawsuit against three lead-paint manufacturers. The firm obtained a verdict that held paint companies liable for $2.4 billion in cleanup costs, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court overturned the award in 2008. Motley Rice went on to represent 10 cities and counties in California in a $1.15 billion lead-paint decision this year. GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Eye Key Roles in Ignition-Switch Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that more than 60 lawyers have applied for lead roles in the litigation against General Motors Co. over ignition-switch defects. U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman is accepting applications for coveted appointments to the plaintiffs steering committee, which will guide strategy for more than 100 lawsuits filed against GM in the Southern District of New York. Many of the lawyers are expected to argue for the posts during an Aug. 11 hearing. Judge Furman gave the green light to create the panel, despite uncertainty over whether a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge will deem many of the cases barred under a provision of GM's 2009 bankruptcy. The plaintiffs steering committee will include a lead counsel committee comprising three attorneys who would oversee both the class actions seeking economic damages and the personal-injury and wrongful-death cases. A separate executive committee of 10 members will assist them. There are two liaison positions -- one to work with attorneys in the bankruptcy proceeding and another to communicate with lawyers with cases against GM in state courts across the country. Applications from attorneys at more than 50 firms in 18 states -- more than half of them based in California, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas -- flooded the court before the July 28 deadline. About a dozen of the hopefuls were women. The applicants included three attorneys already serving as interim lead counsel: Steve Berman, managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; Mark Robinson, managing partner of Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis in Newport Beach, Calif.; and Elizabeth Cabraser, partner at San Francisco's Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. Many attorneys aligned themselves with the interim lead counsel, who were to submit their own recommendations on July 25. Many of them worked together on the sudden-acceleration litigation against Toyota Motor Corp. Other applicants included Robert Hilliard, partner at Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, who filed a lawsuit on July 29 against GM on behalf of 658 people injured or killed in crashes attributed to the defect. In vying for lead counsel, Mr. Hilliard said he planned to file an additional 248 cases in federal court and 50 lawsuits in state courts nationwide. Attorneys at 13 other firms claiming to represent 135 plaintiffs in 33 states have coalesced behind Harley Tropin -- hst@kttlaw.com -- president of Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, and Peter Prieto -- pprieto@podhurst.com -- of Podhurst Orseck, both of Miami. Some lawyers suggested specialty posts -- representing only litigants who filed over accidents that occurred after GM's 2009 bankruptcy, for example, or just personal-injury or wrongful-death cases. Others noted their expertise in specific areas of law or their firm's location, like Detroit or Washington. In submitting for lead counsel, one lawyer -- Lance Cooper of The Cooper Firm in Marietta, Ga., who represents the parents of Brooke Melton, the case that first sparked the ignition-switch issue -- put it more simply: "Our law firm uncovered the GM ignition key system defects in the first place." GENERAL MOTORS: Plaintiffs Lawyers to Consider Compensation Plan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that plaintiffs' lawyers were quick to criticize General Motors Co.'s compensation fund for victims of its ignition-switch defect. So why are so many of the critics gearing up to file claims? "It's a free preview," said Kenneth Feinberg, hired by GM to pay out claims. "Why not submit a claim? See what happens?" The fund won't cover millions of recalled vehicles, but the alternative -- going to court -- won't be easy, said James Rogers of the Law Offices of James S. Rogers in Seattle, who represents the families of two people who died in separate accidents. "When you take these cases, you're committed to a fight," he said. "You're trying to overcome the obstacles of a major, large corporation." The fund began accepting claims on Aug. 1. GM had announced that it would set aside $400 million, and possibly $200 million more, to pay claims for those who were injured or died in one of the 2.6 million cars and trucks the company recalled for the defects. Claimants won't abandon their right to sue if they seek compensation from GM -- only if they accept what Mr. Feinberg offers. "We're going to give the plan a chance," said Jere Beasley, founding shareholder of Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, who has criticized aspects of the GM compensation program. "If we have a bad experience with the fund, we'll most likely go into the courts full bore." The hurdles to litigation are not insignificant. Parties who settled lawsuits against GM before disclosure of the defect will find it difficult, although not necessarily impossible, to persuade judges to reopen their cases, plaintiffs attorneys said. And U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber in New York hasn't yet ruled on whether GM's 2009 bankruptcy bars older cases. The Feinberg fund, by contrast, will accept claims under both circumstances. "The compensation fund is really quite limited. And a lot of it hinges, too, on [GM's] bankruptcy motion," said Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit who specializes in white-collar crime and securities and is following the GM litigation. "If they can get the prebankruptcy claims essentially excluded, and you can't reopen those, that makes the compensation fund the only game in town." And crash victims who lack evidence -- their car's "black box" is missing, or they disposed of the wrecked vehicle -- might have a better chance with him, Mr. Feinberg said. "Especially for the older cases, going through this process will be much easier and much more accommodating than trying to reconstruct a lawsuit in the courtroom with all the legal barriers," he said. GETTING THROUGH THE DOOR But not for everyone. "If you can get in the door of Feinberg's fund, you are going to get money," Mr. Henning said. "The issue is how much, and if you can get into that door." Mr. Feinberg's firm, Feinberg Rozen in Washington, has hired outside vendors to help him process claims. The Garden City Group Inc., a legal administration company in New York City, will manage claims through a call center and will process online claims submitted to www.GMIgnitionCompensation.com, according to the law firm's business manager, Camille Biros. Economic consulting firm ARPC will help provide the estimated 20 people who will review each claim. The deadline to submit claims is Dec. 31. GM will be allowed to submit information about each claim, but Mr. Feinberg will have final say on payments. The fund covers only the vehicles GM recalled in February and March for ignition defects -- not the 12 million more it has recalled since then. In one of those later recalls, GM had acknowledged three deaths and eight injuries. That forces everyone else to file lawsuits. On July 29, for example, Robert Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi filed a lawsuit on behalf of more than 650 people who were injured or died, many of whose claims aren't eligible for payment under the fund. During a July 17 subcommittee hearing, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., argued the program should be expanded. "Many of the reasons for these recalls are defects in the same part," he said. "I believe strongly that your fund must be extended to include those victims of deaths, injuries and damage in those other recalls." The fund draws another line: Claimants have to prove their airbags didn't deploy. That's because the ignition defect shuts off electric power throughout the car, disabling airbags and power steering. "If the airbag went off, it's much more likely to be operator error or something else," Mr. Henning said. "And GM doesn't want to turn this into a battle over the facts or causation. They're using the airbag as a proxy." The distinction is important, Mr. Feinberg said. "If the airbag didn't deploy, or you don't know whether the airbag deployed or not, file a claim," he said. "If the airbag deployed, do not file a claim -- it cannot be ignition-switch failure." Still, plaintiffs attorneys were unclear whether their clients would qualify. For example, Paul Danziger of Houston's Danziger & De Llano, who plans to file claims on behalf of 10 people, has cases in which airbags didn't go off because the car spun around or rolled over. "Not every car will have a frontal impact," he said. "The question is: Are they going to pay those or not?" Mr. Feinberg insisted that the "great bulk" of the injuries and deaths associated with the ignition switch could be resolved through the claims process. During the Senate hearing, he acknowledged that he couldn't make everyone happy. "I don't think there is anybody who provided us input that is entirely satisfied with all aspects of the protocol," he said. "The perfect is the enemy of the good." GIBSON BRANDS: Accused of Violating Equal Pay Act in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Soraya Field Fiorio v. Gibson Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv- 05965-LGS (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014) seeks equitable relief and monetary damages to redress the Defendant's alleged unlawful employment discrimination against the Plaintiff based upon her sex and gender, in violation of the Equal Pay Act of 1963. Gibson Brands, Inc. is a foreign corporation duly organized under the laws of Delaware, and authorized to do and doing business in the state of New York in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc Owen Sheridan, Esq. MARKUS & SHERIDAN, LLP 116 Radio Circle, Suite 207 Mount Kisco, NY 10549 Telephone: (914) 261-6300 Facsimile: (914) 261-6308 E-mail: marc@mslawny.com GOLD'S GYM: Faces "Tate" Class Suit Alleging Violations of ERISA ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Tate and Jeffrey Mason, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gold's Gym International Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00861-MJR-PMF (S.D. Ill., August 1, 2014) is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher B. Daniels, Esq. DANIELS LAW FIRM, P.C. 106 Cross Creek Blvd. Salem, IL 62881 Telephone: (618) 548-6500 Facsimile: (618) 548-6573 E-mail: chris.daniels@danielslawoffice.net GREAT AMERICAN MARKETING: Recalls 475 Lbs of Ready-to-Eat Items --------------------------------------------------------------- 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: [View Labels (PDF Only)] 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 HEARTLAND AUTOMOTIVE: Removed "Cavazos" Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Mauricio Cavazos v. Heartland Automotive Services Inc., et al., Case No. PSC1401759, was removed from the Riverside County Superior Court, Palm Springs, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01584-VAP-SP to the proceeding. The lawsuit arises from labor-related issues. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq. Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq. Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG AND BHOWMIK 2255 Calle Clara La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 551-1223 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com Kyle@bamlawlj.com norm@bamlawlj.com Defendant Heartland Automotive Services Inc. is represented by: Brian James Mills, Esq. SNELL AND WILMER LLP 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7689 Telephone: (714) 427-7000 Facsimile: (714) 427-7799 E-mail: bmills@swlaw.com HEWLETT-PACKARD: Printer Class Action Settlement Challenged ----------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the controversial pact reached between Hewlett-Packard Co. and Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy in the HP-Autonomy litigation this summer could spell trouble for a smaller Cotchett-HP settlement that has been in the works for more than three years. A Washington, D.C., group is attempting to disqualify Cotchett Pitre as plaintiffs counsel in a consumer class action targeting HP inkjet printers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The group alleges that Joe Cotchett -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- and his firm, unbeknownst to the court or the class, represented the printer customers while simultaneously negotiating to work for HP in another deal worth at least $18 million in attorney fees. "It just seemed especially egregious that all along they've been disregarding their fiduciary duties to the class," said Theodore Frank with the Center for Class Action Fairness. "The whole concept is just kind of jaw-dropping." Cotchett Pitre principal Justin Berger -- jberger@cpmlegal.com -- head of the printer case, said Mr. Frank is wrong, there is no conflict. "It's really Mr. Frank who's got the conflict of interest here," Mr. Berger said, "because he seems to be more interested in doing away with class actions than representing the real interests of consumers and class members." A final settlement in the printer case is pending before U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern District of California. If approved, it would grant Cotchett Pitre lawyers $1.5 million in attorney fees and almost $600,000 in costs. Class members who claim they needlessly replaced ink cartridges because of deceptive low-ink indicators would receive vouchers of between $2 and $6 toward HP purchases. But in a motion filed on Aug. 1 to disqualify Cotchett Pitre and decertify the class, Mr. Frank accused the firm of colluding with HP. Cotchett Pitre, along with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, represents HP shareholders in derivative litigation filed in the Northern District of California over the company's botched acquisition of British software firm Autonomy Inc. The two firms reached a novel and controversial settlement in that case at the end of June; they are proposing to drop the claims and join forces with HP's attorneys to go after former Autonomy executives. If that deal is approved, plaintiffs attorneys will see a fixed retainer of $18 million and will be eligible for an extra $30 million in contingency fees. The promise of a huge return in the Autonomy case caused both Cotchett Pitre and HP to roll over, Mr. Frank argued, and now none of the work done on that settlement can be trusted. For example, HP attorneys didn't fight Cotchett Pitre's request for $2.1 million in fees and costs, he said. They didn't file papers objecting to the sum; their only mention of it was a one-sentence suggestion that the court could consider a smaller number. "We now know why HP put up only token resistance to fees: HP was in negotiations with class counsel to resolve larger litigation, and did not want to offend them," Mr. Frank wrote. This isn't the first time Mr. Frank has attacked the HP printer settlement. The trial court first approved the deal in 2011, but two years later Mr. Frank succeeded in reversing the settlement at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The higher court ruled the calculation of attorney fees was not consistent with federal law because it did not base them on the redemption value of the coupons awarded to HP customers. Cotchett Pitre lawyers returned to Judge Fogel's courtroom in May to argue once again on behalf of the settlement. Meanwhile, a battle is shaping up over the proposed Autonomy acquisition settlement. Sushovan Hussain, the former chief financial officer of Autonomy, has filed a motion to intervene in the deal he called "collusive and unfair." Mr. Hussain, who HP has listed as a potential target for follow-up litigation, is represented by John Keker and Keker & Van Nest. On Aug. 4, HP's attorneys with Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Farella Braun & Martel fired back. As someone facing a lawsuit from HP, Hussain's interests are at odds with the company's and he has no standing to intervene in the case, they argued. "The notion that he should be permitted to intervene," HP's attorneys wrote, "and challenge the substance of a settlement designed to protect the interests of the company he defrauded is ludicrous." Mr. Keker declined to comment on what effect, if any, Mr. Frank's opposition could have on the Autonomy agreement. HITACHI LTD: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Electronic Capacitors ------------------------------------------------------------ Chris Fry at Courthouse News Service reports that Hitachi, Panasonic, Sanyo and a host of other electronics manufacturers conspired to fix prices of capacitors, a Silicon Valley company claims in a federal antitrust class action. eIQ Energy, of San Jose, named 27 companies as defendants, including NEC Tokin Corp., AVX Corp., Elna Co., Rubycon and TDK Corp. Capacitors are "passive electronic components that are used to store electricity and release it when required" according to the complaint. "Capacitors are incorporated into almost every electronic device, including audio/video equipment, telecommunication equipment, computers and automobiles." eIQ, a small company that makes clean energy electronic products, claims that the capacitor market is "susceptible to collusion" because the market is concentrated and "the five largest defendants collectively make up more than 76 percent of the global market for tantalum capacitors." It adds that "pricing for capacitors is highly inelastic in large part because there are no adequate substitutes." After the recession that began in 2008, eIQ says, "the price gap between Japanese-sourced aluminum capacitors and Chinese-sourced capacitors significantly widened." Because of this, eIQ claims, "the defendants were able to impose supra-competitive prices for their film capacitor products." During this time, the defendants "made public statements attributing price increases to market forces, including increased raw material costs and shortages caused by natural disasters, rather than attributing price increases to the effective implementation of their anticompetitive agreement," eIQ says. But eIQ says that several governments have noticed the trend, and that as early as 2008, "the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice confirmed that it is conducting an investigation into price fixing of capacitors." eIQ claims that other investigations are under way, including ones launched by the Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese governments, in addition to the European Union. eIQ claims that neither it nor other members of the proposed class "did not discover, and could not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the existence of the alleged conspiracy until approximately March 2014, when governmental investigations about the conspiracy were publicly revealed in the press." eIQ accuses the defendants of "participating in meetings, conversations, and communications to discuss the price and pricing terms for the sale of capacitor products in the United States." eIQ claims that violates Section I of the Sherman Act. In 2013, "global sales of capacitors exceeded 1.3 trillion units and global revenue for capacitors exceeded $16 billion," the complaint states. "By 2019, it is estimated that over 2 trillion capacitors will be sold globally for over $22 billion." eIQ seeks class certification, to cover "all persons that purchased capacitor products in the United States directly from the defendants . . . from January 2008 until the present." It estimates "that the class numbers in the hundreds, if not thousands." It seeks treble damages and costs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis J. Drasco, Esq. LUM, DRASCO & POSITAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 403-9000 Facsimile: (973) 403-9021 HUESTON MCNULTY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Andre Peterson, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated v. Hueston McNulty, P.C. and Robert J. Hueston, Case No. 1:14-cv-05984-SHS (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014) is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer against the Defendants for their alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Hueston McNulty regularly collects or attempts to collect defaulted consumer debts owed or due or alleged to be owed or due to others. Robert J. Hueston is a partner of Hueston McNulty. The Plaintiff is represented by: Novlette R. Kidd, Esq. FAGENSON & PUGLISI 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 268-2128 Facsimile: (212) 268-2127 E-mail: Nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com KODIAK OIL: Being Sold to Whiting for Too Little, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- James Rogowski, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated and Derivatively on Behalf of Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp. v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, 1007695 B.C. Ltd., Lynn A. Peterson, James E. Catlin, William J. Krysiak, Rodney D. Knutson and Herrick K. Lidstone, Jr., and Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp., a Canadian corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-02136 (D. Colo., July 31, 2014) arises out of the Defendants' efforts to complete the sale of the Company to Whiting Petroleum pursuant to an unfair process and for an unfair price. Denver, Colorado-based Kodiak is an independent energy exploration and development company focused on exploring, developing and producing oil and natural gas primarily in the Williston Basin in the U.S. Rocky Mountains. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Whiting Petroleum is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Denver, Colorado. 1007695 B.C. Ltd., a company organized under the laws of British Columbia, Canada, and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Whiting Petroleum. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kip B. Shuman, Esq. Rusty E. Glenn, Esq. THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM 885 Arapahoe Avenue Boulder, CO 80302 Telephone: (303) 861-3003 Facsimile: (303) 484-4886 E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com rusty@shumanlawfirm.com - and - Randall J. Baron, Esq. A. Rick Atwood, Jr., Esq. David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com ricka@rgrdlaw.com DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (610) 667-6200 Facsimile: (610) 667-9029 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com mackerman@brodsky-smith.com LINK SNACKS: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Ann Truesdell and Darvin A. Heider, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Link Snacks, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00550-CRS (W.D. Ky., August 1, 2014) accuses the Company of failing to pay overtime compensation, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew G. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW G. JONES 10401 North Meridian Street, Suite 300 Indianapolis, IN 46290 Telephone: (317) 616-3671 Toll Free: (866) 272-2071 E-mail: ajones@andrewgjoneslaw.com MAPCO EXPRESS: Faces "Winsouth" Class Suit in M.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------ Winsouth Credit Union, Individually and on Behalf of All Similarly Situated v. Mapco Express, Inc. and Delek US Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-01573 (M.D. Tenn., July 31, 2014) alleges violations of The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin A. Gastel, Esq. James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS 227 Second Avenue, N, 4th Floor Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: beng@branstetterlaw.com gstranch@branstetterlaw.com MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Jackson, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated who were employed by Marvel Entertainment, LLC or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Marvel Entertainment, LLC, v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by Marvel Entertainment, LLC, Case No. 157644/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., August 4, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages owed to the Plaintiff and all similarly situated persons, who are presently or were formerly employed by the Defendant. Marvel Entertainment, LLC is a New York business corporation headquartered in New York City. The Company is engaged in the entertainment industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq. Jack L. Newhouse, Esq. VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP 40 Broad Street, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 943-9080 Facsimile: (212) 943-9082 E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com jnewhouse@vandallp.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Michael A. Tompkins, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Patent Claims Prompt Derivative Suits --------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for Law.com, reports that a $1.5 billion patent judgment finalized against Marvell Technology Group Ltd. this year is so juicy, plaintiffs securities lawyers can't seem to stay away. A Pennsylvania jury found Marvell willfully infringed two Carnegie Mellon University patents for hard-drive technology in 2012 and awarded the university $1.17 billion in damages. In March, U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the Western District of Pennsylvania upped the award. Plaintiffs lawyers began filing derivative suits soon after, and so far three are pending before U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose. Francis Bottini Jr., a securities attorney out of La Jolla, is leading two of the cases. The other is led by Kip Shuman -- kip@shumanlawfirm.com -- of The Shuman Law Firm in Colorado. Marvell has tapped Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partner Harry Olivar Jr. -- harryolivar@quinnemanuel.com -- in Los Angeles. Patent judgments don't usually spawn shareholder derivative litigation. Typically, attorneys launch a derivative suit to go after a company's executives and board members following a securities fraud case. But securities experts say plaintiffs' interest in companies' patent losses, such as Marvell's, is on the rise. As securities fraud suits dwindle, patent and antitrust judgments could be the next frontier for derivative litigation. "Plaintiffs lawyers will look for opportunities to think outside the box as a way of bringing shareholder derivative cases," said Winston & Strawn partner Neal Marder of Los Angeles. "And I think this is an example of that." The sheer size of the Marvell patent judgment, as well as the damning evidence that came out against the company during trial, made the case too attractive for Mr. Bottini to pass up. "This patent that they in essence misappropriated . . . was essential to their business, to the chips that they make. They made a conscious decision -- the highest-level employees -- to use that technology that they knew was owned by Carnegie Mellon without paying a royalty," Mr. Bottini said. "And they obtained over a billion dollars from sales of their chips that violated the patent." Witness testimony, depositions and documents presented during trial support those allegations, Mr. Bottini said. In particular, plaintiffs lawyers uncovered emails in which Carnegie Mellon told top Marvell executives about their patents and offered to sell them a license, an offer the Marvell executives declined. More attorneys are following Mr. Bottini's lead as it grows more difficult to file traditional securities fraud-driven derivatives, according to experts in the field. Many say securities fraud cases are no longer as numerous or as lucrative as they once were. Since 2008, the number of federal securities cases initiated each year has remained below a 15-year average, according to a 2014 Cornerstone Research report. On the other hand, the number of federal patent cases filed in 2013 grew by 25 percent compared with the previous year, reaching a record high of 6,500, according to a 2014 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers. High-publicity megasettlements or verdicts are more likely to spawn derivative litigation, attorneys say. A prime example is the widely watched "no-poach" antitrust case, in which plaintiffs accused Silicon Valley tech companies' top CEOs of forming illegal agreements not to recruit each others' employees. The two sides reached a tentative $324 million settlement earlier this year, and the case has since inspired derivative suits against board members of Google Inc., Apple Inc., Intel Corp. and Adobe Systems Inc. A $1 billion patent infringement verdict against GMO company E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. also has spawned derivative litigation. A Missouri jury ruled in favor of rival Monsanto Co. over herbicide-resistant soybeans in 2012, and DuPont shareholders took action six months later. The two companies made amends in 2013 and Monsanto dismissed its claims, rendering the $1 billion jury verdict moot. But the derivative litigation is proceeding in Delaware federal court, pending the court's ruling on DuPont's recent motion to dismiss. Those cases, which break the traditional securities litigation mold, pose challenges for plaintiffs attorneys. "Every patent case is not a case where you can have a claim against the board for breaching its fiduciary duty," said James Kramer -- jkramer@orrick.com -- a securities litigation partner with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. To be successful in a derivative case, attorneys must be able to hold board members and executives responsible for the alleged wrongdoing. They must also get over the demand hurdle by proving the board is so involved in the wrongdoing that it would be futile to ask the company to launch its own investigation into the problem. That's easier in a securities fraud case, where a company's finances are an integral part of its business and board members are expected to keep track of gains and losses. It's harder to prove board members kept a close eye on their company's patents. Mr. Bottini and his team are fighting an uphill battle, according to Kaufhold Gaskin partner Steven Kaufhold who serves as cochairman of an American Bar Association securities subcommittee. "The types of claims that they make are extremely hard to prove, legally or factually," he said. "I think it will be very challenging for the plaintiffs to recover on it." Marvell also has appealed the $1.5 billion judgment, which could further complicate Mr. Bottini's case. It seems premature to have filed a derivative suit without waiting to see how the appeal will turn out, Mr. Kaufhold said. "To me, it would make sense to stay it," he said, "because you don't know that the company is going to not be successful." Marvell's legal team also cites its pending appeal in its defense against the derivative litigation. "Marvell believes the evidence and the law do not support the jury's findings or judgment in that case, and that it has strong grounds for appeal," Marvell attorney Olivar wrote in a statement. Mr. Bottini brushed off the appeal. Marvell's motions to set aside the verdict have failed so far, he said, adding, "the damage is done right now." Despite the obstacles Mr. Bottini faces in this suit, few are surprised he undertook the challenge. "If a judgment of over a billion dollars was rendered against a company," Mr. Marder said, "they should expect to get hit with other types of cases, like securities cases or shareholder derivative cases." PricewaterhouseCoopers ranked the original $1.17 billion Marvell verdict as the third-largest federal patent judgment awarded between 1995 and 2013. Tacking on the increased judgment, it would rank second. In addition, Marvell's expenses increased by $7.9 million in 2012, primarily because of legal costs, Mr. Bottini's complaint states. The loss of the Carnegie Mellon patent could result in a 25 percent reduction in the company's net earnings going forward, he added. Derivative suits following patent judgments are still rare, mostly only popping up after those once-in-a-blue-moon megaverdicts, according to Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton partner Robert Artuz, a Silicon Valley patent litigator. But that doesn't mean the suits shouldn't be a worry for companies facing patent litigation. "It's certainly something that large companies have to keep in mind when they're dealing with high-stakes litigation," Mr. Artuz added. MCCALLA RAYMER: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Demand Letter --------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that McCalla Raymer's Orlando office found itself pitted against Hialeah resident Xilena Caseres over a demand letter the firm sent in 2012 to collect just under $270,000 on a delinquent mortgage. But Ms. Caseres said the collection letter violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. She filed suit, demanding a jury trial and charging the law firm with failing to correctly notify her of her rights under the debt collection law. She also moved to raise a putative class made up of all Reverse Mortgage Solutions clients who'd received similar notices. First Contact? Ms. Caseres' complaint said McCalla Raymer's "demand letter would be deceptive to the least sophisticated consumer with regard to his/her legal rights." Her attorney, Hallandale Beach-based Scott Owens, argued the letter was McCalla Raymer's initial contact with his client, so it had to meet several criteria under the Fair Debt Collection Practices law. A key sticking point was whether McCalla flubbed a line notifying the consumer of her right to dispute the debt. The line should have read the "debt collector" would assume the debt was valid if the borrower didn't dispute it within 30 days, Owens argued. Instead, it referenced the "creditor," and therefore violated the law. McCalla had five days after the initial communication to send proper notice, but never did, according to the complaint. Instead, it skipped right to a foreclosure suit on behalf of the lender, Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc. Even though the letter preceded the foreclosure, it included a reference to the impending suit, Reverse Mortgage Solutions Inc. v. Xilena Caseres. "As a result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff and the class are entitled to an award of statutory damages," according to the complaint in Xilena M. Caseres v. McCalla Raymer, which requested expenses, damages, attorney's fees and other relief. But McCalla's attorneys, Jamie Isani and Barry Davidson of Hunton & Williams in Miami, said the law firm clearly distinguished itself from Reverse Mortgage Solutions. The letter reads, "This law firm represents the interest of your lender, as named herein above, regarding an alleged unpaid debt." Plus, McCalla's lawyers argued, there was no technical difference between the law firm and the creditor assuming the debt's validity. "The plaintiff was trying to apply a hyper-technical reading of the statute. The letter informed the consumer that the law firm is representing the lender, so it does not mislead the consumer," Isani said. "The court didn't determine whether McCalla had to give that notice, but did find the letter was an initial communication. And because it was an initial communication, it had to comply with the statute. But both the trial court and the appellate court found it did comply." McCalla Raymer escaped the class action when the case came before U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit judges Lanier Anderson and Stanley Marcus, with Richard Goldberg of the Court of International Trade sitting in by designation. The judges upheld the district court's dismissal of the case, even though they disagreed with the lower court's finding that the letter was not an "initial communication." "Because we hold that the letter, which was an initial communication, would not mislead the least sophisticated consumer, we affirm the decision of the district court," Anderson wrote in a decision affirmed by the other judges. More litigation The ruling might have stopped further action by the homeowners, but their attorney says it opens the door for future cases against lenders. Owens predicted more litigation would follow, after the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issues new scheduled guidelines for creditors and debt collectors, including a model for informing borrowers of their right to dispute debts. "The Caseres decision will have very little impact on either consumers or the debt collection industry," he said in a statement. " . . . In the debt collection industry, the underlying collector-creditor contracts typically specify that debt collectors are not agents of the creditor, but are instead independent contractors. The 11th Circuit has now ruled otherwise. McCalla Raymer and other debt collectors will likely face more -- not less -- FDCPA litigation because of this aspect of the Caseres decision, at least within the Eleventh Circuit." MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Weaver" Suit to Tennessee District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit entitled Weaver v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No. CT-003327-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Memphis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02594-JTF-cgc to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts product liability and personal injury claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Renfro, Esq. BECKER LAW OFFICE 9300 Shelbyville Rd., Suite 215 Louisville, KY 40222 Telephone: (502) 581-1122 E-mail: krenfro@beckerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew E. Tauber, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP - Washington, DC 1999 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3324 Facsimile: (202) 263-5324 E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com - and - Daniel L. Ring, Esq. MAYER BROWN LLP 71 S. Wacker Dr. Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 701-8520 E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com - and - Leo Maurice Bearman, Jr., Esq. Robert F. Tom, Esq. BAKER DONELSON BEARMAN CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 Facsimile: (901) 577-0717 E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com rtom@bakerdonelson.com - and - Sean P. Fahey, Esq. LAW FIRM OF PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteen and Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-0799 Telephone: (215) 981-4296 E-mail: FaheyS@PepperLaw.com MEDTRONIC INC: Removed "Harris" Infuse Suit to W.D. Tennessee ------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Harris v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., Case No. CT-003328-14, was removed from the Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District at Memphis to the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 02597-JTF-cgc to the proceeding. In his complaint, Charles Harris alleges that he was injured by his physician's off-label use of Medtronic and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc.'s Infuse Bone Graft/LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered Fusion Device. Infuse is a Class III medical device whose design, manufacturing method, and labeling were specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration pursuant to the agency's Premarket Approval process. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Renfro, Esq. BECKER LAW OFFICE 9300 Shelbyville Rd., Suite 215 Louisville, KY 40222 Telephone: (502) 581-1122 E-mail: krenfro@beckerlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Leo M. Bearman, Esq. Robert F. Tom, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC First Tennessee Building 165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901) 526-2000 Facsimile: (901) 577-0818 E-mail: lbearman@bakerdonelson.com rtom@bakerdonelson.com - and - Andrew E. Tauber, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3324 Facsimile: (202) 263-5324 E-mail: atauber@mayerbrown.com - and - Daniel L. Ring, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 71 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 701-8520 Facsimile: (312) 706-8675 E-mail: dring@mayerbrown.com - and - Sean P. Fahey, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON, LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799 Telephone: (215) 981-4000 Facsimile: (215) 981-4750 E-mail: faheys@pepperlaw.com MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------- Mona Henderson, on behalf of herself individually and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-05990-PGG (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2014) is an action for damages brought by an individual consumer and on behalf of a class for the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair acts and practices. Midland Credit Management, Inc., is a foreign business corporation incorporated in Kansas. Midland's principal purpose is the collection of defaulted consumer debts owed or due or alleged to be owed or due to others. The Plaintiff is represented by: Novlette R. Kidd, Esq. FAGENSON & PUGLISI 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 704 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 268-2128 Facsimile: (212) 268-2127 E-mail: Nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com NEBRASKA: Health Department Sued Over Untimely Food Stamps ---------------------------------------------------------- Tami Leiting-Hall, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Kerry Winterer, as Chief Executive Officer of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, and Thomas Pristow, as Director of the Division of Children and Family Services, Case No. 4:14-cv-03155 (D. Neb., August 1, 2014) challenges the Defendants' alleged failure to timely process initial and renewal applications for and to provide Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits to eligible households, as required by federal SNAP statutes and implementing regulations. The Plaintiff and all others similarly situated are indigent individuals, who are seeking desperately needed benefits from the SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, administered by the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants' ongoing and persistent failure or refusal to process initial and recertification SNAP applications and to provide timely SNAP benefits causes hundreds of low-income Nebraskans to go hungry. Kerry Winterer is Chief Executive Officer of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. Thomas Pristow is Director of the Division of Children and Families of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly M. McCleery, Esq. James A. Goddard, Esq. Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law In the Public Interest 941 O Street, Suite 920 Lincoln, NE 68508 Telephone: (402) 438-8853 Facsimile: (402) 438-0263 E-mail: mmccleery@neappleseed.org jgoddard@neappleseed.org NEW ENGLAND GREENS: Recalls Green Vibrance and Rainbow Vibrance --------------------------------------------------------------- New England Greens of Canaan, Connecticut announced a recall of specific lots of Green Vibrance and one lot of Rainbow Vibrance. Due to a miscommunication, the list of lot numbers identified in the recall notice was not a complete and accurate list. The company is now revising the recall notice with an updated list of the lots affected by the recall. The company is asking the public to disregard the list provided in the previous notice and refer to the lot numbers below. New England Greens of Canaan, Connecticut is recalling 15 lots of Green Vibrance and one lot of Rainbow Vibrance after a former raw material supplier, Raw Deal of Allamuchy, NJ, recalled the Organic Parsley Leaf Powder used to manufacture Green Vibrance and Rainbow Vibrance because of the potential for contamination with Salmonella. Although the possibility is slight that any amount of Salmonella is present in any of the recalled lots of the above- mentioned products, New England Greens is issuing the recall with an abundance of caution for the safety of its consumers. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. Salmonella is a bacterial organism which may cause from mild to severe food poisoning. In severe cases, sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems may result. 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. The implicated lots of Green Vibrance and Rainbow Vibrance were distributed nationwide through both brick and mortar and online health food and natural product retailers. The products are packaged in white, high density polyethylene (HDPE) canister jars ranging in size from 20 ounce to 51 ounce. One lot of Green Vibrance capsules, 240 per bottle, are also included in the recall as well as one lot of Green Vibrance single-serving packets, 15 packets per cardboard display box. Recalled products and lot numbers are as follows: SKU Code Lot # --- ---- ----- Green Vibrance Single Serving Display GVSD 1040176 Green Vibrance Capsules, 240 count GVC 1401078 Green Vibrance pdr, 181.5 gm, 15-day GV15 1041084 Green Vibrance pdr, 363 gm, 30-day GV30 1041083 1401092 1401094 Green Vibrance KILOGRAM GVKG 1041079 1041080 1041081 Green Vibrance pdr, 726 gm, 60-day GV60 1041081 1041082 1041085 1041086 Green Vibrance pdr, 726 gm, 60-day GV60 1041087 1041088 1041089 Rainbow Vibrance RV19 131193 53,740 units of the above products were sold into the marketplace. To date, Vibrant Health has received NO COMPLAINTS and there have been NO INCIDENTS of salmonellosis related to any lot number of Green Vibrance or Rainbow Vibrance. Organic parsley leaf comprises just 2.07% of one serving of Green Vibrance and 3.26% of one serving of Rainbow Vibrance. Furthermore, to date, 21 analyses have been run on the parsley material and the finished products containing that material. No contamination has been found. Consumers who have purchased any of the lot numbers of Green Vibrance or Rainbow Vibrance listed above are urged to return the product to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-242-1835. NORTH CHEROKEE: Sued for Not Having Accurate Record of Work Hours ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Karam and Richard Schoeneman, on Behalf of themselves and those similarly Situated v. North Cherokee Electrical Contractors, Inc., David Jordan, and Freddie Cronan, Case No. 1:14-cv-02506-WBH (N.D. Ga., August 4, 2014) alleges that the Defendants have failed to keep accurate records of the hours worked by the Plaintiffs and of the class members they represent, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. North Cherokee Electrical Contractors, Inc., is a Georgia corporation and is licensed to do business in the state of Georgia. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stacy Barnett, Esq. THE BARNETT LAW FIRM, PC 135 Village Centre West, Suite 200 Woodstock, GA 30188 Telephone: (770) 400-9170 Facsimile: (770) 400-9171 E-mail: barnettlawfirm@gmail.com OASIS BRANDS: Recalls Quesito Casero 12oz Due to Health Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ Oasis Brands, Inc of Miami, FL is recalling Quesito Casero 12oz with expiration date 09/27/14, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Quesito Casero 12oz was distributed in North Carolina and Virginia through retail stores. Product comes in plastic bags, name Quesito Casero 12oz, Brand Lacteos Sta. Martha, Fresh Curd, Exp. Date 09/27/14 "No illnesses have been reported to date." The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the company which revealed that the fmished products contained the bacteria. The company has ceased the production and distribution of the product as FDA and the company continue their investigation as to what caused the problem." Consumers who have purchased Lacteos Sta Martha Quesito Casero 12oz are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 305.599.0225 OBERTO'S BRANDS: Recalls 57,578 lbs Chicken Strip Products ---------------------------------------------------------- Oberto's Brands, a Kent, Wa. establishment, is recalling approximately 57,578 pounds of chicken strip products due to company quality issues, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products subject to recall includes: 3, 5.75 and 16 oz. film bags of "Smokey Sweet BBQ Style Chicken Strips" 2.75, 3, 5.75, 9 and 16 oz. film bags of "Spicy Buffalo Style Chicken Strips" The Smokey Sweet BBQ Style Chicken Strips were first produced on May 14, 2014 and last packaged on July 28, 2014. The Spicy Buffalo Style Chicken Strips were first produced on May 16, 2014 and last packaged on August 6, 2014. The product bears the establishment number "P4837" on the package. The product was sent to retail establishments nationwide as well as internet sales. The problem was discovered by the company. A sister establishment noticed bloated packages and alerted the company to the problem. The plant determined that the increased water activity is due to "an undetected process deviation." The establishment further stated the product met all critical limits during production. The company has determined that this a quality control issue and that there are no food safety hazards. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Lisa Austin, Vice President of Sales, at (253) 437-6308. Media with questions about the recall should contact Demir Vangelov, Chief Financial Officer, at (206) 437-6370. 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 ONEWEST BANK: "Meyer" Suit Moved From N.D. to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Meyer v. OneWest Bank F.S.B., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02259, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The Central California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 05996-RSWL-RZ to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Angela Mann, Esq. Jack Wagoner, III, Esq. WAGONER LAW FIRM, P.A. 1320 Brookwood, Suite D Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 663-5225 Facsimile: (501) 660-4030 E-mail: angela@wagonerlawfirm.com jack@wagonerlawfirm.com - and - Barry R. Himmelstein, Esq. HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1605 Emeryville, CA 94608-1861 Telephone: (510) 450-0782 Facsimile: (510) 380-6147 E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com Defendant OneWest Bank F.S.B. is represented by: Elizabeth Lemond McKeen, Esq. Danielle Nicole Oakley, Esq. OMELVENY AND MYERS LLP 610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660-6429 Telephone: (949) 823-6900 Facsimile: (949) 823-6994 E-mail: emckeen@omm.com doakley@omm.com Defendant American Security Insurance Company is represented by: Frank G. Burt, Esq. William Glenn Merten, Esq. Brian P. Perryman, Esq. Dawn B. Williams, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT PA 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 965-8100 Facsimile: (202) 965-8104 E-mail: fburt@cfjblaw.com gmerten@cfjblaw.com bperryman@cfjblaw.com dwilliams@cfjblaw.com Intervenor Peter Maloney is represented by: Adam William Hansen, Esq. Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 277-7236 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: ahansen@nka.com helland@nka.com ORTHO MOLECULAR: Recalls Lifecore Choco & Lifecore Complete Choco ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ortho Molecular Products of Stevens Point, Wisconsin is recalling all lots of LifeCore Chocolate and LifeCore Complete Chocolate because the flavoring may contain undeclared milk. According to food safety standards, people who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. Products were distributed nationwide to health care practitioners who then distribute the products to their patients as warranted. Distribution of the product has been suspended until further notice. All LifeCore Chocolate and LifeCore Complete Chocolate products distributed through August 1, 2014 are subject to the recall. Products subject to the recall contain lots numbers beginning with the following numbers: 73286, 73620, 74419, 75339, 73288, 73840, 74562, 75568, 73455, 73859, 74773, 75749, 73482, 73987, 74920, 75919, 73569, 74038, 75309 The lot number and expiration date can be located at the neck of the bottle just above the label. No adverse events have been reported to date regarding the undeclared milk allergen. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the chocolate flavoring used in the products contains a milk allergen which was not disclosed on the packaging of the products. Consumers who have LifeCore Chocolate or LifeCore Complete Chocolate are urged to contact their health care practitioner who distributed the product to discuss returning or replacing the product. Consumers with questions may contact the company directly at 1-(715) 342-9881 PEP BOYS-MANNY: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------ Damien M. Zipf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack, Case No. 2:14-cv- 01029-CRE (W.D. Pa., July 31, 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 PFIZER INC: Oregon to Get $1.2 Mil. in Rapamune Drug Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Oregon will receive $1.2 million as part of a $35 million settlement with a pharmaceutical giant over the marketing of one of its drugs. Forty-two states are involved in the settlement with Pfizer Inc., the parent company of Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., to resolve allegations that Wyeth misrepresented the uses and benefits of the drug Rapamune. Rapamune was approved to help patients' bodies prevent the rejection of kidney transplants. The states alleged the company promoted the drug to doctors for uses following other organ transplants, such as livers or hearts, and promoted its use in unapproved drug combinations. Oregon was one of two lead states in the settlement. The money will go into the state's consumer protection and education account. PFIZER INC: South Dakota to Get $419,000 in Rapamune Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Attorney General Marty Jackley says South Dakota will receive $419,000 from a multistate settlement with a drug company. Pfizer has agreed to pay $35 million to resolve allegations by 42 states that a subsidiary illegally marketed an organ transplant drug for unapproved uses. Jackley says the misleading claims put consumers' health at risk. Authorities say Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which Pfizer bought in 2009, trained sales representatives to encourage doctors to prescribe Rapamune for uses other than preventing rejection of transplanted kidneys. Rapamune was approved in 1999 for use in kidney transplant patients. It's illegal to promote drugs for uses not cleared by the Food and Drug Administration. Pfizer says the alleged activity occurred before it acquired Wyeth. The company didn't admit any wrongdoing or liability as part of the settlement. PROGRESO LLC: Accused of Not Paying Proper OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Julio Santos, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Progreso, LLC d/b/a La Michoacana Meat Market, Progreso GP, LLC, and Progreso LMMM San Antonio #7, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-00702 (W.D. Tex., August 4, 2014) accuses the Defendants of not paying their hourly employees proper overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. Progreso, LLC is a foreign limited liability company. Progreso GP, LLC is a Texas limited liability company. Progreso San Antonio #7, LLC is a Texas limited liability company. The Defendants are in the grocery business and operate throughout the states of Texas and Oklahoma. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos A. Solis, Esq. 310 S. St. Mary's St., Suite 2600 San Antonio, TX Telephone: (210) 446-5000 Facsimile: (210) 446-5001 E-mail: csolis@solis-law.com PROGRESSIVE PAINTING: Fails to Pay Painters' Overtime, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jhonatan Sanchez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Progressive Painting, Inc. d/b/a Finishing by Progressive, Inc. and Michael Sullivan, Case No. 4:14-cv-02234 (S.D. Tex., August 4, 2014) alleges that the Defendants do not pay their hourly painters overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants, instead, improperly label these workers as "independent contractors" and pay them "straight-time" for all hours worked, including those hours in excess of 40 in any workweek, Mr. Sanchez contends. Mr. Sanchez is a resident of Harris County, Texas. He was employed as hourly laborer by the Defendants. Progressive Painting, Inc., does business as Finishing By Progressive, Inc. Michael Sullivan owns and operates the Company. The Defendants are in the commercial construction business. They provide commercial painting for schools, apartments and other businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com PURITAN FOODS: Misbranding Prompts Boneless Turkey Breast Recall ---------------------------------------------------------------- Puritan Foods Co., Inc., a Boston, Mass., establishment, is recalling approximately 2,476 pounds of raw boneless turkey breasts due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains milk, a known allergen, which is not declared on the product label. The following product is subject to recall: Raw Boneless Turkey Breasts (various weights) with pack dates of June 11 and July 18, 2014 The product was produced on June 11, 2014, and July 18, 2014, and bears the establishment number "P-5933" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The product was distributed to a local distributor, which sold the product to hotels, restaurants and institutions in the New England area. FSIS personnel discovered the problem while checking product labels. The source materials typically used by the firm do not contain milk. On the two dates in question, the source materials used declared they were "butter basted," which was not carried over to the finished product label. Milk is a sub-ingredient in butter and must be noted on the label. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure 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 www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact Christopher Mendez at (617) 596-4917. 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 REGENECA WORLDWIDE: Recalls RegeneSlim Appetite Control Capsules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Regeneca Worldwide a division of VivaCeuticals, Inc. Las Vegas, NV is conducting a voluntary nationwide recall of its RegeneSlim appetite control dietary supplement from lot # EX0616R15814 and lot #11414RE5516 because FDA analysis confirmed the presence of DMAA. DMAA is also known as 1,3-dimethylamylamine, methylhexanamine, or geranium extract. DMAA is commonly used as a stimulant, pre-workout, and weight loss ingredient in dietary supplement products. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned that DMAA is potentially dangerous to health as it can narrow blood vessels and arteries, which can cause a rise in blood pressure or other cardiovascular problems such as shortness of breath, arrhythmias, tightening in the chest, and heart attack. RegeneSlim is purchased by and distributed through a direct sales force within the United States and Puerto Rico, and through online sales, for both personal consumption and retail sales. RegeneSlim is packaged in approximately 3 «" by 3" green and white sachets that contain 2 capsules, with the name RegeneSlim displayed prominently on the front of the sachet. There have been no illnesses reported to date. This voluntary recall was the result of FDA analysis confirming the presence of DMAA in RegeneSlim and our company's sampling. The company continues their investigation as to what caused the problem. Consumers who have purchased RegeneSlim with the above-mentioned lot numbers are advised to immediately stop using the product and are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full exchange. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1- 949-281-2600 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. PDT. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they experience any problems that may be related to taking or using RegeneSlim. 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. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. ROCKWOOD HOLDINGS: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholders Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Directors are selling Rockwood Holdings, a chemical company, too cheaply through an unfair process to Albemarle Holdings, in a cash and stock deal valued at $6.2 billion, shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court, reports Courthouse News Service. SEOUL SHIK POOM: Recalls Choripdong Choco Almond Richmond Ice Bar ----------------------------------------------------------------- Seoul Shik Poom Inc. of Englewood, NJ is recalling Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice Bar (4bags/432ml) because they may contain undeclared eggs. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. The recalled Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice Bar(4bars/432 ml) was distributed nationwide through retail stores. Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice Bar (4bars/432 ml) was sold in a silver plastic cooling bag marked with code # IC1006 and UPC CODE: 761898632925. The product has an expiration date of 03/20/2015 which is stamped on the package. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after the issue was discovered during an FDA inspection of the foreign manufacturer. Consumers who have Choripdong Chocolate Almond Richmond Ice Bar(4bars/432 ml) and are allergic to eggs are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 201-567-7780 ext 140, Monday to Friday between 9:00am to 5:00pm (Eastern Time Zone). SCOUT W.H. CHICAGO: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Monica Balleza, on behalf of herself and similarly situated individuals v. The Scout W.H. Chicago, Inc. d/b/a The Scout, Case No. 1:14-cv-05966 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2014) arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law for the Defendant's alleged failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked and to pay overtime wages to the Plaintiff. The Scout W.H. Chicago, Inc. is an Illinois corporation doing business under the name "The Scout." The Defendant operates a sports bar -- "The Scout" -- located in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos G. Becerra, Esq. Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq. BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 957-9005 Facsimile: (773) 890-7780 E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com pgonzalez@law-rb.com SILVERADO SENIOR: Removed "Pichardo" Suit to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit entitled Jennifer Pichardo v. Silverado Senior Living, Inc., et al., Case No. BC541042, was removed from the Superior Court of Los Angeles, Central District, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv- 06125-ODW-AS to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts labor-related claims. The Defendants are represented by: Diane Marie O'Malley, Esq. HANSON BRIDGETT LLP 425 Market Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 777-3200 Facsimile: (415) 541-9366 E-mail: domalley@hansonbridgett.com STAPLES INC: Accused of Violating Americans with Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Staples, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01038-NBF (W.D. Pa., August 4, 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 SUNBURST SUPERFOODS: Recalls Organic Raw Carob Powder ----------------------------------------------------- Sunburst Superfoods of Tuckahoe, NY, is recalling Sunburst SUPERFOODS Organic Raw Carob Powder sold from March 12, 2014 through July 28th, 2014, because it has 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. Sunburst SUPERFOODS Organic Raw Carob Powder was distributed throughout the United States to consumers through online sales. Sunburst SUPERFOODS Organic Raw Carob Powder was sold in One Pound and Five Pound bags with no coding. The product is packaged in re- sealable, all-natural brown paper bags with a thin metal and thin plastic lining on the interior of the bags. No illnesses associated with this product have been reported to date. Our supplier initiated a recall of the bulk Organic Raw Carob Powder after learning that one of its customers received a positive test for Salmonella from their original lot. While sampling conducted by the manufacturer did not indicate the presence of Salmonella, we are recalling this product out of an abundance of caution. Consumers who have purchased Sunburst SUPERFOODS Organic Raw Carob Powder are urged not to consume the product and to return it to us as soon as possible for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-228-4436, Monday - Friday, 9 am - 4 pm, ET or by e-mail to customerservice@sunburstsuperfoods.com TARGET CORP: Removed "Rojas" Employment Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Rojas, et al. v. Target Corporation, Case No. 30-2014-00728254-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the Superior Court of Orange County to the U.S. District Court for the Central District Of California (Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-01229 to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert labor-related claims. The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey D. Wohl, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 55 Second Street, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: jeffwohl@paulhastings.com TOTAL SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Alleging Wage and Hour Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- John Cerrone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Total Systems Control, Inc. and Jordan Enterprises of Pittsburgh, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01025-NBF (W.D. Pa., July 31, 2014) is a collective action filed on behalf of similarly situated persons, who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged violations of federal wage and hour laws. Total Systems Control, Inc. and Jordan Enterprises of Pittsburgh, Inc. are Pennsylvania corporations with their principal places of business located in Clairton, Pennsylvania. The Defendants provide services to hospitality businesses and residential customers, including the installation of draft beer systems, draft beer cleaning, maintenance and repair, and basic business consultation. The Defendants provide services to customers located in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, the panhandle of Maryland, and North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Sunshine R. Fellows, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com sfellows@carlsonlynch.com jetzel@carlsonlynch.com TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Removed "Chau" Class Suit to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Trang Ho Chau v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, et al., Case No. BC548572, was removed from the Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-06109 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related disputes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arnold D. Hernandez, Esq. PENNEY AND ASSOCIATES 1201 Dove Street, Suite 560 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 955-3566 Facsimile: (866) 620-4757 E-mail: arnold@arnoldhernandez.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew Marc Paley, Esq. Sheryl L. Skibbe, Esq. Casey J.T. McCoy, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 E-mail: apaley@seyfarth.com sskibbe@seyfarth.com cjtmccoy@seyfarth.com - and - Brian T. Ashe, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 E-mail: bashe@seyfarth.com UNITED STATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Labor Suit Over Shutdown ------------------------------------------------------------ Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that the federal government violated labor laws by requiring certain employees to work without pay during last year's government shutdown, even though they were paid later on, a federal judge has ruled. Chief Judge Patricia Campbell-Smith of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on July 31 denied the government's effort to dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed in November by a group of federal employees who worked during the shutdown. The shutdown began on Oct. 1, after Congress failed to pass a budget. The impasse ended on Oct. 16. During the shutdown, federal workers deemed "essential" were required to keep working, but they weren't paid in full until the shutdown ended. The plaintiffs claimed that although they were eventually paid their full wages, the government violated the federal Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay them on their normal pay schedule. Campbell-Smith agreed. "The FLSA requires -- and the Supreme Court has recognized approvingly -- that an employee receive on time payment for work performed," she wrote. "The court understands such timeliness to mean that an employer pays an employee on the regularly scheduled payday." The federal workers are represented by Mehri & Skalet. Partner Heidi Burakiewicz said in a statement on Aug. 4 that the ruling represented the "first step" to relief for her clients. "All federal employees -- especially those being paid low wages -- should get the compensation they need to help make up for hardships caused by the government's own dysfunction and outright violation of the law," she said. A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman was not immediately reached for comment. Judge Campbell-Smith didn't decide whether the federal employees were entitled to any damages. The government will still have an opportunity to prove federal officials acted in "good faith" and had a "reasonable basis" for thinking they were complying with labor laws amid the unusual circumstances of the shutdown. The plaintiffs have asked the judge to certify the case as a collective action, which would raise the stakes for the government if it is ultimately required to pay damages. The Justice Department has until Sept. 2 to file a response on that issue. USABLE MUTUAL: Removed "Wroten" Insurance Suit to E.D. Arkansas --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Wroten, et al. v. USAble Mutual Insurance Company, et al., was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:14-cv-00462-SWW to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts insurance-related claims. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph Henry Bates, III, Esq. Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq. Tiffany M. Wyatt Oldham, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72212 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 315-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com toldham@cbplaw.com - and - William G. Horton, Esq. NOLAN, CADDELL & REYNOLDS, P.A. Post Office Box 184 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0184 Telephone: (479) 464-8269 E-mail: bhorton@justicetoday.com Defendant USAble Mutual Insurance Company, doing business as Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield, is represented by: Chet A. Roberts, Esq. ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD Post Office Box 2181 Little Rock, AR 72203-2181 Telephone: (501) 378-2374 E-mail: cxroberts@arkbluecross.com - and - Gordon S. Rather, Jr., Esq. Kathryn A. Pryor, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone: (501) 371-0808 E-mail: grather@wlj.com kpryor@wlj.com YORK COUNTY, SC: Fails to Pay Overtime, Ex-Detention Officer Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Billioni v. Sheriff Bruce Bryant, York County, York County Detention Center, and York County Sheriff's Office, Case No. 0:14- cv-03060-JFA (D.S.C., July 31, 2014) is brought on behalf of similarly situated employees, who suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged violations of the overtime compensation provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Billioni is a resident of York County, South Carolina. He was employed as a detention officer at the York County Detention Center from November 8, 2010, until he was terminated on October 25, 2013. York County provides governmental services for the citizens of the County. York County Sheriff's Office is responsible for law enforcement, corrections, and court services within the County. The Sheriff, who is an elected official, oversees and directs the daily operations. The York County Detention Center houses persons arrested in York County by local law enforcement. The Detention Center houses individuals for short periods, particularly people awaiting trial or sentence. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. 321 Wingo Way, Suite # 201 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (800) 385-8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net - and - Jennifer Munter Stark, Esq. 210 Wingo Way #300 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 972-0004 Facsimile: (843) 972-0006 E-mail: jmunterstarklaw@gmail.com ZEMCO INDUSTRIES: Recalls Sausages Due to Misbranding & Allergen ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zemco Industries Inc., a Buffalo, NY, establishment, is recalling approximately 106,800 pounds of smoked sausage due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The product contains soy, a known allergen that is not declared on the label of the product. The product subject to recall includes: [View Labels (PDF Only)] 2.5 lb. packages of "CAVANAUGH SMOKED SAUSAGE" The products were produced on June 11, 2014; June 13, 2014; June 19, 2014; July 10, 2014; July 19, 2014; and Aug. 1, 2014. The recalled product has Use By dates of Sept. 9, 2014; Sept. 11, 2014; Sept. 17, 2014; Oct. 8, 2014; Oct. 17, 2014; and Oct. 30, 2014. The product bears the establishment number "Est. 5222" on the package. The product was sent to distribution centers for resale as well as retail establishments nationwide. The problem was discovered by the company. The problem occurred when the company reformulated the product and updated packaging and labeling but the employees utilized the old formulation containing soy that was not declared on the updated packaging and labels. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to ensure 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 www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers with questions about the recall should contact Consumer Relations at (866) 328-3156. Media with questions about the recall should contact Worth Sparkman, Public Relations Manager, at (479) 290-6358. 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. "Ask Karen" live chat services are available Monday through Friday from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. ET. 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. * Advocacy Group Says Some Recalled Products Still in Homes ----------------------------------------------------------- WCPO reports that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recalls hundreds of products every year -- several of which have caused deaths or started fires. But despite warnings, many of these dangerous products are still in homes around the country because consumers either ignored the warning or weren't aware of it, experts say. "We know most recalled products, no matter how dangerous, remain in homes," Nancy Cowles, executive director for the safety advocacy group Kids in Danger, told Dailyfinance.com. Here are seven recalled products that are believed to be in millions of homes across the country: 1. Dehumidifiers More than 2.5 million dehumidifiers (all made in China by Gree Electric Applicances) were recalled in 2013 and 2014 because they can start fires. Gree is arranging for refunds ($110 to $400) for anyone who bought one. 2. Nap Nanny The Nap Nanny infant recliner, designed for babies to sleep in, has been connected to at least six deaths by government investigators. Consumers who have Nap Nanny products are urged to stop using them. 3. Blair chenille robes After a recall of hundreds of thousands of chenille robes sold by catalog retailer Blair over concerns about their flammability, the CPSC learned that at least nine women had died wearing robes that had ignited. 4. Maclaren strollers After the CPSC received reports of children's fingertips being chopped off by exposed hinges in Maclaren strollers, it recalled about a million sold from 1999 to 2009. 5. Buckyballs and Buckycubes Magnetic Buckyballs and Buckycubes were recalled after dozens of kids swallowed the toys and required medical treatment. The high- powered magnets can twist inside the intestines of anyone who swallows them, posing a risk of death or serious injury. 6. Lane cedar chests Lane cedar chests were first recalled in 1996 after at least a half-dozen children died from suffocation after being trapped inside the chests. More deaths were reported since the recall, including two more this year. 7. Simplicity cribs and bassinets More than a dozen babies died in Simplicity cribs and bassinets. ********* 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 * * *