/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141013.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 13, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 203
Headlines
3B ENTERPRISES: Court Tosses Bid to Amend "Taylor" Case
978 SECOND: "Miller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ABLE ACCESS: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Cal.
ALCO STORES: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Postponed to October 24
ALCO STORES: Court Dismissed "Hughes" Action in April
AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Class Action Over Defective Door Lock
AMESLY REALTY: "Duran" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ANGELICA TEXTILE: Settles FLSA Class Action for $750,000
APEX CLEAN: Seeks Dismissal of $452-Mil. Wind Farm Class Action
APPLE INC: Canada Judge Tosses iOS4 Privacy Class Action
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Plaintiffs Cite Dow Ruling in Class Cert. Bid
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Lawyer Crosbie Still Pursues VLT Class Action
ATM NATIONAL: Faces "Valle" Suit Over ATM Withdrawal Fees
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Scheduled for Trial in March 2015
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Botsford" Case
BAY VIEW: "Whaley" Suit Remanded to Richmond Superior Court
BEALL'S INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
BERGEN DISCOUNT: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Agropong" Suit Says
BLUE KNIGHTS: "Simili" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Accused of Illegal Conduct Over 2016 Notes
CAFE CHIHUAHUA: Faces "Jara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CAPITAL ONE: Credit Card Interest Rate Litigation Dismissed
CARMAX INC: SG&A Reduced by $20.9MM From Settlement Proceeds
CAROLINA ALE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Gallego" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Atty Fees & Costs Awarded in "Antoninetti" Case
CITIBANK NA: Judge Approves $7-Mil. Attorney Fees in Class Action
CLAIRE'S STORES: Faces "Annoreno" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CORPORATE TRANSIT: Bid to Dismiss Drivers' FLSA Case Okayed
COUNTERTOP FACTORY: Faces "Rowenski" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DS SERVICES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Appleman" Suit Says
DUNCAN BURCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Lopez" Suit Claims
EGIRA LLC: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ENDO HEALTH: Delays Sale of Generic Oxymorphone HCI, Suit Claims
ESPN INC: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Athlete's Name and Image
FEDFIRST FINANCIAL: Wins Dismissal of Merger Litigation
FEIN SUCH & CRANE: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Laws
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
FORD MOTOR: Arguments Heard on Bid to Dismiss Exhaust System Suit
GAZIT-GLOBE: Class Actions Filed in July and August 2014
GENERAL CABLE: Motion to Dismiss Livonia Complaint Pending
GUTHY RENKER: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
HOME DEPOT: Sued in N.D. Georgia Over Alleged Data Breach
HOME RESTAURANT: "Mizhquiri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HONEYWELL INT'L: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in "Yates"
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Dist. Ct. Ruled on Bid to Dismiss "Marshall" Suit
ICARE FINANCIAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax, "Marcus" Action Claims
INTERNATIONAL WEB: Dist. Court Dismisses "Halperin" Class Action
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Sued in Ind. Over Misleading Financial Reports
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
KINDER MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Consolidation Plan
KMART CORP: Motion for Class Cert. Denied in "Holak" Case
LIONS GATE: Faces "Tart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Brown" FCRA Suit
LUCASFILM LTD: Illegally Suppresses Employees' Wages, Suit Claims
MARRONE BIO: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
MAZDA MOTOR: Faces "Stedman" Suit Over Defective Dashboards
MEDICAL ACTION: Bid to Enjoin Stockholders' Meeting Nixed
MISSOURI PIZZA: "Nyazee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Dist. Court Dismisses "Willis" Class Action
NAVISTAR INC: Sued in Pa. Over Defective Emission Control System
NOBE-NASH INC: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
ONLINE INFORMATION: Illegally Collects Debts, "Lands" Suit Claims
PACIRA PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
PANDORA MEDIA: Sued in California Over Copyright Infringement
PDL BIOPHARMA: Responds to Class Action Lawsuit
PEOPLES INSURANCE: Faces "Ryan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
REYNOLDSBURG, OH: Parents of Special Needs-Students Mull Suit
ROC OIL: May Face Class Action Over Fosun Takeover Deal
SOURCE MEDIA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. for Sending Unsolicited Fax
SPECIALIZED HOME: Faces "Mora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SUPER POLLO: Faces "Vera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Sued Over Damages Caused by MIR162 Corn
TANGOE INC: Court Junks "Stein" Class Action
TC QUEENS: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
TEWKSBURY, MA: Faces "Gage" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
THIRD FEDERAL: Sued Over Force-Placed Flood Insurance Policies
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Tacoma Rust Corrosion
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Briefings on Motions to Dismiss Completed in July
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Suit v. Homeland Security
UNITED STATES: Dearborn Man Sues Over Terrorist Selectee List
URBAN SETTLEMENT: Dist. Court Dismisses RICO Class Action
US ALLIANCE: "Fennell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
US INVESTIGATIONS: Accused of Unlawful Termination of Employees
WANRONG TRADING: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WORLDWIDE POOLS: "Chaviano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
*********
3B ENTERPRISES: Court Tosses Bid to Amend "Taylor" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
ANTOINETTE C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. 3B ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-259-S, (W.D. Ky.) is before
the Court on the motion of Defendants 3B Enterprises, LLC, et
alia, for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants argue that the
allegations of employment discrimination are implausible or the
claims are otherwise legally flawed and, therefore, fail to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. In response to this
motion, Plaintiff, Antoinette C. Taylor, pro se, filed four
motions for leave to amend the complaint. The Court ordered
Plaintiff to restate all allegations in one pleading, which is now
before the Court in Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Fifth
Amended Complaint, pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2). Defendants oppose
the motion as futile because, they argue, the 74-page amended
complaint does not cure the deficiencies in the original complaint
and because the additional claims and allegations also fail to
state a claim. In opposition to dismissal, the Plaintiff argues
all her claims are plausible and satisfy the federal standard for
notice pleading.
In a memorandum opinion entered September 30, 2014, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/UZqSDQfrom Leagle.com,
Senior District Judge Charles R. Simpson, III, denied leave to
amend because all allegations fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, and dismissed the action.
Kim Little, Individually and in her capacity as Director of Client
Care and on-call manager & an employee of Home Instead Senior
Care, Defendant, represented by Katharine C. Weber --
katharine.weber@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis PC.
978 SECOND: "Miller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michaela Miller, Jennifer Bleiweiss and Sarah Hicks, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly-situated v. 978 Second Pub,
Inc., d/b/a The Irish Exit, John Sullivan, Doe Corporations I
through X, inclusive, and Doe Limited Liability Companies I
through X, inclusive, Case No. 1:14-cv-07981 (S.D.N.Y., October 3,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
misappropriated gratuities, and other wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate bars and restaurants in New York
City.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Evan Gottlieb, Esq.
Douglas Holden Wigdor, Esq.
WIGDOR LLP
85 Fifth Avenue, 5th fl.
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 257-6800
Facsimile: (212) 257-6845
E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
dwigdor@wigdorlaw.com
- and -
Jeanne-Marie Bates Christensen, Esq.
IMBESI, CHRISTENSEN & MICHAEL P.C.
450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3002
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 736-5588
Facsimile: (866) 830-7484
E-mail: jchristensen@lawicm.com
ABLE ACCESS: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert M. Brown and Dana C. Whitlow, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. Able Access Transportation, LLC,
Steve L. Tipton and Annette M. Tipton, Case No. 2:14-cv-01240
(E.D. Wis., October 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay drivers overtime rates for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a given workweek.
Able Access Transportation, LLC is a para-transit service that
operates under contract with companies and governmental agencies
to provide non-emergency medical transportation services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron P. McCann, Esq.
James P. End, Esq.
Thomas C. Lenz, Esq.
FIRST ALBRECHT & BLONDIS SC
158 N Broadway-Ste 600
Milwaukee, WI 53202-6015
Telephone: (414) 271-1972
Facsimile: (414) 271-1511
E-mail: amccann@fabattorneys.com
jend@fabattorneys.com
tlenz@fabattorneys.com
ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on Oct. 2 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class comprising
those who purchased or otherwise acquired AcelRx's common stock
and/or call options, or sold/wrote AcelRx's put options between
December 2, 2013 and September 25, 2014 inclusive.
Please contact Casey Sadler or Lesley Portnoy at (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this
matter. If you inquire by email, please include your mailing
address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.
AcelRx is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the
development and commercialization of innovative therapies for the
treatment of acute and breakthrough pain. The Company plans to
commercialize its product candidates in the United States and
license the development and commercialization rights to its
product candidates for sale outside of the United States through
strategic partnerships and collaborations. One such product is
Zalviso, which consists of sufentanil tablets delivered by the
Zalviso System, a needle-free, handheld, patient-administered,
pain management system (collectively, "Zalviso").
The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose during the Class Period: (1)
that the Instructions for Use (IFU) for Zalviso were not designed
to adequately address the risk of the inadvertent misplacement of
tablets; (2) that the Company had not submitted to the FDA
sufficient data to support the shelf life of the product; and (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about
Zalviso, including the drug's regulatory approval and financial
prospects, were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
On July 25, 2014, after the market closed, AcelRx announced that
it had received a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA
regarding its New Drug Application for Zalviso. According to the
Company, the FDA requested additional information on the Zalviso
System to ensure proper use of the device, including changes to
the Instructions for Use for the device and additional data to
support the shelf life of the product. On this news, shares of
AcelRx declined $4.44 per share, nearly 41%, to close on July 28,
2014, at $6.39 per share, on unusually heavy volume.
On September 26, 2014, AcelRx revealed that the resubmission
process for its Zalviso NDA would not be complete until the first
quarter of 2015 at the earliest. According to the Company, the
FDA also communicated that the planned resubmission will qualify
as a Class 2 resubmission with a review period of six months. On
this news, shares of AcelRx declined $1.31 per share, over 19%, to
close on September 26, 2014, at $5.41 per share, on unusually
heavy volume.
If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this Notice,
to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish
to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, or
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com
If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.
ALCO STORES: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Postponed to October 24
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The court set a July 18, 2014 hearing for Alco Stores Inc.'s
motion to dismiss a class action which has been postponed to
October 24, 2014, the Company said in its Form 10-Q filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended August 3, 2014.
The Company said, "On September 5, 2013, a stockholder, Advanced
Advisors, filed a class action petition in the District Court of
Shawnee County, Kansas (case no. 13C001007) citing, among other
parties, us and our former directors, Royce Winsten, Terrence
Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson former
Chief Executive Officer, as defendants. The petition challenged
the defendants' actions in causing us to enter into the Merger
Agreement under which the Sponsor was to purchase all of our
outstanding shares. The allegations against the defendants
included breaches of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting
of breaches of fiduciary duties. The amount of the damages was
unspecified."
"On September 27, 2013, a stockholder, Jeffery R. Geygan, filed a
class action petition in the District Court of Shawnee County,
Kansas (case no. 13C001120) citing, among other parties, us and
our former directors, Royce Winsten, Terrence Babilla, Dennis
Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson former Chief Executive
Officer, as defendants. The petition challenged the defendants'
actions in causing us to enter into the Merger Agreement under
which the Sponsor was to purchase all of our outstanding shares.
The allegations against the defendants included breaches of
fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting of breaches of
fiduciary duties. The amount of the damages was unspecified.
"On November 21, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to
consolidate the Geygan case and the Advanced Advisors case,
discussed above. On December 18, 2013, the court granted the
consolidation motion, and the cases were consolidated under case
no. 13C1007. On January 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated and verified derivative petition, citing, among other
parties, we and our former directors, Royce Winsten, Terrence
Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and Richard Wilson former
Chief Executive Officer, as defendants. The petition challenges
the defendants' actions in causing us to enter into the Merger
Agreement under which the Sponsor was to purchase all of our
outstanding shares. The allegations against the defendants
include breaches of fiduciary duties and the aiding and abetting
of breaches of fiduciary duties. The amount of the damages is
unspecified.
"On January 30, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
consolidated and verified derivative petition. The court set a
July 18, 2014 hearing for our motion to dismiss which has been
postponed to October 24, 2014."
The Company also said costs associated with its change of control,
including legal fees, for the thirteen weeks and twenty-six weeks
ended August 3, 2014 were $1.3 million and $1.4 million,
respectively. Merger related costs, including legal fees, for the
thirteen weeks and twenty-six weeks ended August 4, 2013 were $1.2
million.
On July 25, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Mallard Parent, LLC,
("Parent") and M Acquisition Corporation, ("Merger Sub"),
providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company
(the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Acquisition Sub are
beneficially owned by an affiliate of Argonne Capital Group, LLC
(the "Sponsor"). The merger consideration was $14.00 per share in
cash, without interest, and was to be supported through financing
to be obtained by the Sponsor.
ALCO STORES: Court Dismissed "Hughes" Action in April
-----------------------------------------------------
Alco Stores Inc. said in its Form 10-Q filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended August 3, 2014, that a stockholder, Paul Hughes,
filed on September 23, 2013, a class action petition in the
District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas (case no. 13C001096)
citing, among other parties, the Company and its former directors,
Royce Winsten, Terrence Babilla, Dennis Logue, Lolan Mackey, and
Richard Wilson former Chief Executive Officer, as defendants. The
Company said "The petition challenged the defendants' actions in
causing us to enter into the Merger Agreement under which the
Sponsor was to purchase all of our outstanding shares. The
allegations against the defendants included breaches of fiduciary
duties and the aiding and abetting of breaches of fiduciary
duties. The amount of the damages was unspecified. On March 20,
2014, Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice.
On April 10, 2014, the court entered a dismissal order and removed
the case from the active docket."
On July 25, 2013, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Mallard Parent, LLC,
("Parent") and M Acquisition Corporation, ("Merger Sub"),
providing for the merger of Merger Sub with and into the Company
(the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly
owned subsidiary of Parent. Parent and Acquisition Sub are
beneficially owned by an affiliate of Argonne Capital Group, LLC
(the "Sponsor"). The merger consideration was $14.00 per share in
cash, without interest, and was to be supported through financing
to be obtained by the Sponsor.
AMERICAN HONDA: Settles Class Action Over Defective Door Lock
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class
members and American Honda Motor Co. have agreed on a settlement
in a class action alleging the Honda CR-V had a defective door
lock mechanism that was concealed.
The court should preliminarily approve the settlement agreement
because, among other things, it provides substantial benefits to
settlement class members and includes a comprehensive notice plan,
according to the settlement motion filed Sept. 24 in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey.
"The settlement represents an outstanding result to class members:
Honda has agreed to extend its three-year warranty with respect to
the allegedly defective door lock actuators to the greater of six
years from the original vehicle purchase date, or six months from
the date of the final approval hearing," the settlement document
states.
During this extended warranty period, class members can have their
door lock actuators repaired at an authorized Honda dealer at no
charge.
"In addition, Honda has agreed to reimburse class members for
reasonable expenses (including parts and labor) for past door lock
actuator repairs, and for any such repairs completed within seven
days after notice is sent to the settlement class," the document
states.
Honda has also agreed to replace the front driver's-side door lock
actuator on settlement class vehicles, according to the document.
For most settlement class members, this settlement will provide
them with a full recovery, the sides claim.
The lawsuit was initially filed Jan. 18, 2013, with Kevin Davitt,
Scott Carter and Mark Tudyk as the three named plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs claimed that 2007, 2008 and some 2009 Honda CR-V's
suffered from a door lock defect that caused the door lock
actuators to cease operating properly, thereby causing the door
locking mechanism to fail to function as intended and expected.
The plaintiffs claimed Honda violated New Jersey, Florida and
California consumer fraud statutes, and also sought recovery for
breach of express warranty, breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, common law fraud and, alternatively, unjust
enrichment.
"Plaintiffs alleged that Honda was aware of the door lock defect,
but failed to disclose it to consumers," the document states.
Honda has agreed not to oppose class counsel's attorneys' fees and
expenses request in the aggregate amount of $1.4 million. Honda
has also agreed not to oppose incentive awards of $1,500 to each
of the three named plaintiffs. The plaintiffs will seek court
approval of these payments before the deadline for settlement
class members to file objections.
"Significantly, these obligations to pay class counsel's court-
approved fees and expenses and the incentive awards will not
reduce the settlement consideration the settlement class will
receive," the settlement document states.
The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph G. Saunder, Matthew D.
Schelkopf and Benjamin F. Johns -- BenJohns@chimicles.com -- of
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP; and Jonathan W. Cuneo and William H.
Anderson -- wanderson@cuneolaw.com -- of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca
LLP.
Honda is represented by Robert M. Goodman --
rgoodman@greenbaumlaw.com -- of Greenbaum Rowe Smith & Davis LLP.
The case is assigned to District Judge Faith S. Hochberg.
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey case number:
2:13-cv-00381
AMESLY REALTY: "Duran" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Duran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Amesly Realty Management Corp., and Louis Lamarche, in
his individual and professional capacities, Case No. 1:14-cv-05785
(E.D.N.Y., October 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, overtime compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own multiple residential buildings throughout the
New York City.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Gastman, Esq.
BORRELLI AND ASSOCIATES
1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
E-mail: alg@employmentlawyernewyork.com
ANGELICA TEXTILE: Settles FLSA Class Action for $750,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Angelica
Textile Services Inc. has agreed to a settlement in a class action
in which class members claimed it failed to pay overtime to hourly
employees.
The settlement, which was proposed on Aug. 12, states that class
counsel will receive $750,000 in attorneys fees and $10,413.80 in
costs.
Albert Solorio will receive $7,500 as a class representative
enhancement payment.
"After settlement administration expenses, attorney's costs and
fees and an enhancement award are deducted from the gross
settlement amount, the remaining funds . . . shall be available
for distribution to class members who submit timely and valid
claims," the settlement document states.
The remaining $2.17 million will go to class members, and the
amount each member will receive will be based on the number of
work weeks he or she worked during the class period.
The lawsuit was initially filed on July 9, 2012. Mr. Solorio
claimed the defendant maintained uneven rounding practices that
resulted in hourly employees not getting paid wages for all hours
they worked. Mr. Solorio claimed the defendant violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act and caused the class members damages.
The plaintiff is represented by Gregory N. Karasik of Karasik Law
Firm and Sahag Majarian II of the Law Office of Sahag Majarian II.
Angelica is represented by Jeremy T. Naftel --
jnaftel@cdflaborlaw.com -- of Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger
LLP.
The case is assigned to District Judge Paul Singh Grewal.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number: 5:12-cv-03569
APEX CLEAN: Seeks Dismissal of $452-Mil. Wind Farm Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
the developer of a $452 million wind farm in rural Oklahoma has
asked a federal court to dismiss a class action opposing the
project, asserting a lack of scientific support for plaintiffs'
trespass and nuisance claims.
In a Sept. 23 motion filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma, Apex Clean Energy and other
defendants said the complaint brought by nearby homeowners and the
Oklahoma Wind Action Association "fails to plead facts sufficient
to plausibly suggest that plaintiffs will be able to prevail on
their asserted claims."
Virginia-based Apex and related entities are developing the
Kingfisher Wind project, which will include 500-foot turbines on
privately leased land in Canadian and Kingfisher counties in
Oklahoma.
In their complaint, filed Aug. 27, plaintiffs said they want to
"enjoin defendants from creating a nuisance that will cause
unreasonable inconvenience, interference, annoyance, adverse
health effects, and loss of use and value of each plaintiff and
class member's property."
Apex's motion said plaintiffs have interfered with the developer's
efforts to move forward on the project for two years. "Now that
their petitions to city, county, and state governments have
failed, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit as a last-ditch effort to
stop the proposed wind farm."
Apex argues the association lacks standing to sue, and therefore
the complaint should be dismissed. Apex also claims the complaint
is deficient because it fails to distinguish between defendants.
In addition, the plaintiffs' anticipatory nuisance claim fails
because the complaint does not show any plaintiff is likely to
suffer substantial, irreparable harm, Apex argues. "Although
there is a conclusory reference that some unspecified health
effects have been observed up to three miles from a turbine, the
complaint does not identify what those alleged health effects are,
how likely they are to occur, or how prevalent or severe the
alleged effects will be."
Further, the complaint "does not allege plaintiffs' property is
likely to be physically invaded by the turbines," Apex said,
arguing that "noise is not a physical invasion."
Finally, Apex asserts the class allegations should be dismissed
because the proposed class is not presently ascertainable.
APPLE INC: Canada Judge Tosses iOS4 Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jane Deacon, writing for Vancouver24, reports that a Surrey woman
who alleges tech giant Apple has deceived users and violated their
privacy was denied class-action status in her case.
A B.C. Supreme Court judge dismissed the application, ruling the
plaintiff failed to meet two necessary requirements of a class-
action suit.
Amanda Ladas launched the legal fight in 2011, alleging Apple had
breached her privacy by designing products that record and store
users' locational data without their consent -- and makes it
easily accessible through online tools like Google maps.
"I did not appreciate that, without my permission, anyone can find
out where I have been. I consider my and my family's comings and
goings personal, private and sensitive information," read Ms.
Ladas' comments in court documents.
The issue centres on Apple's iOS4 operating system for iPods,
iPads and iPhones.
The judge ruled Ladas could not satisfy the need for an
"identifiable class" of two or more people needed for a class-
action case.
Justice Elaine Adair took issue with the application's broad
language, which could not properly define who would be included in
the case, she ruled. Because Ms. Ladas received an Apple product
as a gift and no longer uses iOS4 devices, she wouldn't fit under
the proposed definition of: "All persons in British Columbia and
elsewhere in Canada who have purchased an (Apple device) that
utilizes the software operating system known as iOS4."
Combined with the application's inability to demonstrate there
would be common issues among potential plaintiffs, the judge
dismissed Ladas' class-action application, determining "the
litigation plan presented here fails to demonstrate that the
representative plaintiff and class counsel have a clear of the
potential complexities of the case, and a plan to address them."
ASTRAZENECA PLC: Plaintiffs Cite Dow Ruling in Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Wickham and Melissa Lipman, writing for Law360, report
that plaintiffs fighting AstraZeneca PLC and other drug producers'
attempt to nix their class certification in a suit over alleged
pay-for-delay deals regarding the acid reflux medication Nexium
sought to bolster their case on Oct. 2 by pointing the First
Circuit to a recent ruling upholding certification for
polyurethane purchasers.
In a notice of supplemental authority, the end payor plaintiffs,
which include union health funds and insurance companies, directed
the First Circuit's attention to the Tenth Circuit's recent ruling
in a customer class action accusing Dow Chemical Corp. of fixing
prices on polyurethanes.
Dow, which also unsuccessfully challenged a roughly $400 million
damages award, had claimed that class certification was improper
because common questions didn't predominate over individualized
ones. The three-judge Tenth Circuit panel flatly rejected that
argument, however, pointing to the fact the district court had
found that the existence of a conspiracy and its impact raised
common questions, and that they predominated over individual ones
when it came to each class members' damages.
In the First Circuit appeal at issue, defendants AstraZeneca,
Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Inc. have asked the court to overturn a
ruling certifying a class of end payors including insurance
companies, third-party payors and individual consumers despite the
fact that some of the buyers may not have actually paid the
alleged overcharges that stemmed from the reverse payment
settlements.
First filed by 10 union-sponsored health care plans in August 2012
in Pennsylvania federal court, the case ultimately landed in
Massachusetts federal court as part of multidistrict litigation
accusing AstraZeneca of paying off the generic-drug makers to
avoid challenges to its blockbuster heartburn medication.
In November, U.S. District Judge William G. Young agreed to
certify an end payor class even though he noted that "more than a
de minimis number" of consumers and third-party payors weren't
actually injured because they received rebates, benefited from
favorable contracts or would have stuck with the more expensive
Nexium product anyway because of brand loyalty.
Although the district judge reasoned that the alleged scheme's
antitrust impact presented a classwide issue, the defendants
maintain that the judge's logic simply doesn't pass muster in
light of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent rulings in Wal-Mart
Stores Inc. v. Dukes and Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.
The plaintiffs, for their part, argue that Judge Young didn't hold
that some of the class members were uninjured but instead held
that they might not have suffered any net damages. In their view,
the defendants are trying to take advantage of the "semantic
ambiguity" of Judge Young's use of the term "injury" even though
the plaintiffs maintain that the district court "correctly
understood and applied the relevant substantive antitrust
principles.
The First Circuit, which has already rejected a similar petition
to review Judge Young's certification of a class of direct
purchasers in the case, held oral arguments in the appeal in late
July, with the panel voicing skepticism of the defendants' claim
that a pay-for-delay case couldn't be certified as a class action
if the class included any uninjured buyers.
While the plaintiffs didn't make specific arguments in their
notice of the Tenth Circuit's ruling on Oct. 2, they pointed out
that the appeals panel shot down the argument that the district
court abused its discretion by denying Dow the "right to show
through individualized proceedings that certain members suffered
no injury."
In a response filed late on Oct. 3, the drug companies argued that
the Tenth Circuit's decision doesn't support the plaintiffs'
position, as that ruling didn't cover whether a class can be
certified when court finds it contains more than a "de minimis"
number of uninjured members, and the named plaintiffs have
admitted their damages model can't distinguish those members.
"And even if [the ruling] could be read to permit certification of
a class that includes uninjured members, it would be
irreconcilable both with the Supreme Court's recent class-action
decisions and with this court's controlling decision in New Motor
Vehicles, and thus should not be followed," the drug companies
claimed.
Teva is represented by Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC
and Kirkland & Ellis LLP. AstraZeneca is represented by Williams &
Connolly LLP, Covington & Burling LLP and McCarter & English LLP.
Dr. Reddy's is represented by Jones Day. Ranbaxy is represented by
Venable LLP and Minerva Law PC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Wexler Wallace LLP, Hilliard &
Shadowen LLC, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Pomerantz LLP
and Berman DeValerio.
The case is In re: Nexium Antitrust Litigation, case number 14-
1521, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
ATLANTIC LOTTERY: Lawyer Crosbie Still Pursues VLT Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to vocm.com, lawyer Ches Crosbie is still fighting with
the courts in an attempt to make a VLT class action official. The
Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador on Oct. 2 rejected an
attempt by the Atlantic Lottery Corporation to have the deceptive
gaming claims struck out. The courts have already twice dismissed
Mr. Crosbie's efforts to initiate a video lottery terminal class
action. In 2008, a judge ruled that the ALC was a Crown
corporation and "immune" from the trade practice law.
Crosbie believes the Oct. 2 rulings shows legal grounds for a
potential winning case against ALC. Plaintiffs in the class
action Doug Babstock and Fred Small are recovering from
problematic VLT gambling habits.
The class action would call for the elimination of VLTs.
ATM NATIONAL: Faces "Valle" Suit Over ATM Withdrawal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Josefina Valle and Wilfredo Valle, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ATM National, LLC d/b/a Allpoint
Network, Cardtroncis, Inc. and Popular Community Bank f/k/a Banco
Popular North America a/k/a Banco Popular North America, Case No.
1:14-cv-07993 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for false and deceptive advertisement and
misrepresentations to its deposit holders that ATM transactions
using its ATM and debit card will be free and not subject to any
ATM fees if completed at Allpoint Network ATMs, in fact
withdrawals at an Allpoint ATM were charged an ATM fee or
surcharge by Allpoint and Cardtronics.
The Defendants own and operate a chartered trust company or
banking corporation that engages in the business of consumer and
commercial banking in the State of New York and in other states in
North American.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David R. Scott, Esq.
Erin Green Comite, Esq.
SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP
156 South Main Street
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com
ecomite@scott-scott.com
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Scheduled for Trial in March 2015
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avid Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2014, that in March 2013 and May
2013, two purported securities class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its former executive officers
seeking unspecified damages in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. In July 2013, the two cases were
consolidated and the original plaintiffs agreed to act as co-
plaintiffs in the consolidated case. In September 2013, the co-
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of
those who purchased the Company's common stock between October 23,
2008 and March 20, 2013.
The consolidated amended complaint, which named the Company,
certain of its current and former executive officers and its
former independent accounting firm as defendants, purported to
state a claim for violation of federal securities laws as a result
of alleged violations of the federal securities laws pursuant to
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
In October 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, resulting in the dismissal of some
of the claims, and the dismissal of Mr. Hernandez and one of the
two plaintiffs from the case. The matter is scheduled for trial in
March 2015.
At this time, the Company believes that a loss related to the
consolidated complaint is neither probable nor remote, and based
on the information currently available regarding the claims in the
consolidated complaint, the Company is unable to determine an
estimate, or range of estimates, of potential losses.
Avid Technology provides technology products, solutions and
services that enable the creation and monetization of audio and
video content.
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Botsford" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH L. BOTSFORD, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 13-13379, (E.D. Mich.) is before the Court on
a motion from Bank of America to dismiss the Plaintiff's first
amended class action complaint.
This putative class action challenges the actions Bank of America
allegedly took before and after it entered into a loan
modification agreement with Mr. Botsford. The Plaintiff filed his
First Amended Complaint on December 5, 2013, alleging breach of
the Permanent Modification Agreement (Count I), promissory
estoppel (Count II), breach of "the Mortgage" (Count III), breach
of contract of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing
(Count IV), fraud/intentional misrepresentation (Count V),
constructive fraud (Count VI), violation of the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act (Count VII), and violation of Michigan's
Regulation of Collection Practices Act (Count VIII).
District Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff granted in part and denied in
part the Defendant's motion. In an opinion and order entered
September 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1oPQUQzfrom Leagle.com, Judge Zatkoff held that
that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with regards to Count II and
Counts IV-VIII of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is granted.
The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with regards to Counts I and III
of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is denied. The Plaintiff's
ex parte motion for leave to file excess pages for brief in
opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first
amended complaint is granted.
Bank of America, NA, Defendant, represented by David G. Michael,
Law Offices of David G. Michael, PC, James W. McGarry --
jmcgarry@goodwinprocter.com -- Goodwin Proctor & Mark E. Plaza --
mplaza@maddinhauser.com -- Maddin, Hauser.
BAY VIEW: "Whaley" Suit Remanded to Richmond Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert G. Ainsworth and Management Resources of America (the MRA
Defendants) timely removed to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Georgia, Augusta Division, the case
captioned ROLINDA WHALEY, on behalf of Herself and all others
Similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BAY VIEW LAW GROUP, PC; US DEBT
RELIEF CENTER; JEDEDIAH THURKETTLE, individually; DOUGLAS A.
CROWDER, individually; JAMES COMEAUX, individually; EFA
PROCESSING, L.P.; KENNETH TALBERT, individually; PAUL F. BOYD,
individually; PHILIP DANEMAN, individually; DOUGLAS WILLIAMS,
individually; MANAGEMENT RESOURCES OF AMERICA; and ROBERT G.
AINSWORTH, individually, Defendants, NO. CV 114-050, (S.D. Ga.).
Plaintiff Rolinda Whaley filed a motion to remand.
District Judge J. Randal Hall granted the request in an order
dated September 30, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/6LfEWFfrom Leagle.com. The Court found that the MRA
Defendants have not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
the amount in controversy is greater than $5 million. The case
was remanded to the Superior Court of Richmond County, Georgia.
BEALL'S INC: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Savard-Powell, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective
action v. Beall's, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Case No.
8:14-cv-02494 (M.D. Fla., October 2, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Beall's, Inc. operates more than 530 retail store sites in the
states across Florida to California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dennis A. Creed III, Esq.
FELDMAN & MORGADO, PA
501 N Reo St
Tampa, FL 33609
Telephone: (813) 639-9366
Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
E-mail: dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com
BERGEN DISCOUNT: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Agropong" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Agropong, et al., individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Michael Memon a/k/a Iqbal Memon,
Gulan Doria a/k/a Jeff Doria, Bergen Discount Inc., Bergen
Discount Plus, Inc., 518 Willis Realty, Inc., Willis Discount
Inc., Ali M. Abadi d/b/a Willis Discount, Ziad Nassradin, ZNF 99
Cent Discount Corp., Dollar-Rite Inc., Todo Barato Discount Inc.,
Community Dollar Plus, Inc., 167 Trading Discount Inc., 167 Primo
Trading Inc., B&S Discount Inc., 99 Cent Discount & Party Store
Inc., 99 Cent Discount, Inc., Clear Choice, Inc., John and Jane
Does 1-50, and John Doe Corporations 1-20, Case No. 1:14-cv-07990
(S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages while requiring the Plaintiffs to
work 66 hours or more per week.
The Defendants own and operate numerous discount stores in the
Bronx County, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Paul Slater, Esq.
SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
445 Broad Hollow Road
Melville, NY 11747
Telephone: (631) 420-9300
E-mail: aslater@srslawfirm.com
- and -
Kenneth J. Katz, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
280 Madison Avenue, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 460-0047
Facsimile: (212) 428-6811
E-mail: kjkatz@katzmelinger.com
BLUE KNIGHTS: "Simili" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Simili, and others similarly-situated v. Blue Knights
Protective Services, Inc., Doral Security Services, d/b/a Blue
Knights, both Florida limited liability companies, Roland Fongon
individually, and Jorge Rojas individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23650
(S.D. Fla., October 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Blue Knights Protective Services, Inc. offers Burglar and Fire
Systems installation services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 448-9292
Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Accused of Illegal Conduct Over 2016 Notes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Barton Danner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Caesars Entertainment Corporation and
Caesars Entertainment Operating Company, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-
07973 (S.D.N.Y., October 2, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
entered into an Agreement with the Preferred Note holders to
purchase certain of their 2016 Notes at par plus accrued interest,
on the condition that they vote all 2016 Notes to approve the
Amendments, without offering to repurchase all 2016 Notes, thus
impermissibly binding and disenfranchising the remaining note
holders.
The Defendants own and operate dozens of casinos throughout the
United States and internationally.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Stuart Notis, Esq.
Meagan Alicia Farmer, Esq.
GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (201) 567-7377
Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com
mfarmer@gardylaw.com
- and -
Mark Casser Gardy, Esq.
GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
440 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 110
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
Telephone: (201) 567-7377
Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
CAFE CHIHUAHUA: Faces "Jara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo "Oscar" Jara and Hugo Esparza, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. George Medina, Sr., d/b/a Cafe Chihuahua,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02701 (D. Colo., October 2, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for
all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
George Medina, Sr. is the owner and manager of the Cafe Chihuahua,
a restaurant doing business at 2250 S. Federal Blvd., Denver, CO
80219.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandt Powers Milstein, Esq.
MILSTEIN LAW OFFICE
595 Canyon Boulevard
Boulder, CO 80302
Telephone: (303) 440-8780
Facsimile: (303) 957-5754
E-mail: brandt@milsteinlawoffice.com
CAPITAL ONE: Credit Card Interest Rate Litigation Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., granted a motion for summary
judgment filed by defendants in IN RE: CAPITAL ONE BANK CREDIT
CARD INTEREST RATE LITIGATION, NO. 1:10-MD-02171-TWT, (N.D. Ga.).
Judge Thrash directed the Clerk of the Court to dismiss with
prejudice the Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
A copy of Judge Thrash's September 30, 2014 opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/QVhqOefrom Leagle.com.
Capital One Financial Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan
A. Fratkin -- bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, LLP,
Jonathan Chiu -- jchiu@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods, LLP,
Michelle N. Comeau -- mcomeau@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, LLP
& Nancy R. Thomas -- nthomas@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster-LA.
CARMAX INC: SG&A Reduced by $20.9MM From Settlement Proceeds
------------------------------------------------------------
CarMax, Inc., in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on September 23, 2014, reported record second quarter
results for the quarter ended August 31, 2014. The Company said
net earnings per diluted share for the current quarter included a
$0.06 benefit in connection with the Company's receipt of
settlement proceeds in a class action lawsuit. The Company said
net earnings grew 10.2% to $154.5 million. Net earnings per
diluted share rose 12.9% to $0.70.
The Company also said that SG&A expenses increased 5.1% to $297.6
million. SG&A was reduced by $20.9 million, which represented the
Company's receipt of settlement proceeds in a class action lawsuit
related to the economic loss associated with certain Toyota
vehicles. Excluding this item, SG&A expenses increased 12.5%
year-over-year, primarily due to the 15% increase in the Company's
store base since the beginning of last year's second quarter
(representing the addition of 18 stores), as well as a $6.4
million increase in share-based compensation expense. Excluding
the legal settlement gain, SG&A per retail unit rose $116 to
$2,183.
The Company also said costs for the three and six months ended
August 31, 2014, were reduced by $20.9 million in connection with
the receipt of settlement proceeds in a class action lawsuit.
CarMax, a member of the Fortune 500 and the S&P 500, and one of
the Fortune "100 Best Companies to Work For," for ten consecutive
years, is the nation's largest retailer of used vehicles.
Headquartered in Richmond, Va., CarMax currently operates 139 used
car stores in 70 markets. The CarMax consumer offer features low,
no-haggle prices, a broad selection of CarMax Quality Certified
used vehicles and superior customer service.
CAROLINA ALE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Katie D. McClaran, Ashley Thomas, and Jennifer L. Roach, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Carolina Ale
House Operating Company, LLC, and LM Restaurants, Inc., Case No.
3:14-cv-03884 (D.S.C., October 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant chain as well as over
twenty other separate restaurant locations in South Carolina,
North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Tennessee.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Badge Humphries, Esq.
James Mixon Griffin, Esq.
Margaret Nicole Fox, Esq.
LEWIS BABCOCK AND GRIFFIN
PO Box 768, Sullivan's Island, SC 29482
Telephone: (843) 883-7444
Facsimile: (843) 883-7461
E-mail: bh@lbglegal.com
jmg@lbglegal.com
mnf@lbglegal.com
- and -
Todd R. Ellis, Esq.
TODD ELLIS LAW OFFICE
7911 Broad River Road, Suite 100
Irmo, SC 29063
Telephone: (803) 732-0123
Facsimile: (803) 732-0124
E-mail: todd@toddellislaw.com
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Gallego" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey J. Gallego, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC; and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 1:14-cv-07953 (S.D.N.Y., October 2, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for violation Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC is a debt collector with its
business located at 500 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 400, Valhalla,
New York 10595.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
555 Fifth Avenue 17th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
jkj@legaljones.com
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Atty Fees & Costs Awarded in "Antoninetti" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz granted in part and
denied in part plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees & costs in
the case captioned MAURIZIO ANTONINETTI, JEAN RIKER, JAMES
PERKINS, KAREN FRIEDMAN JAY RIFKIN, SUSAN CHANDLER, LAURA
WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 06-CV-
02671-BTM-JLB, (S.D. Cal.).
Judge Moskowitz awarded Plaintiffs attorneys' fees and costs
totaling $337,752.27. This award includes $317,927.50 in
attorneys' fees and $19,824.77 in costs, Judge Moskowitz held in
his September 29, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/F7viNsfrom Leagle.com.
"As no issues remain, the Clerk shall close the docket of this
case," the Court concluded.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Charles C Cavanagh -- ccavanagh@messner.com --
Messner & Reeves LLC, David R Sugden -- dsugden@calljensen.com --
Call & Jensen, Edward J. Hafer -- ehafer@messner.com -- Messner &
Reeves, LLC, Kent Roger Christensen -- kchristensen@calljensen.com
-- Call & Jensen & Melinda Evans -- mevans@calljensen.com -- Call
& Jensen.
CITIBANK NA: Judge Approves $7-Mil. Attorney Fees in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge has approved more than $7 million in attorney fees
for the plaintiffs' counsels in a class action claim against
Citibank, its affiliates and other defendants accused of making
homeowners buy excessive insurance coverage.
Northern District Judge David Hurd, ruling from Utica, signed off
on legal fee awards on Aug. 22 and Oct. 1. He noted in both
motions that none of the defendants objected to the proposed fees
sought by the class counsels led by Nichols Kaster in Minneapolis
and Berger & Montague in Philadelphia. Gilman Law of Bonita
Springs, Fla., and Taus, Cebulash & Landau of Manhattan also
represented the plaintiffs.
Attorneys reported spending more than 4,700 hours on the
litigation in Casey v. Citigroup, 5:12-cv-820, and in a similar
case that was consolidated before Hurd, Coonan v. Citibank, 1:13-
cv-353.
Under the settlement to which Hurd agreed in August, Citibank will
make $110 million available to compensate consumers for what
plaintiffs claimed were unnecessary insurance purchases between
2006 and February 2014. Just over 400,000 consumers were
identified as potentially being in the class.
Citibank argued that federal banking statutes required special
insurance coverages for residences located in high-risk areas,
such as flood plains, and it denied receiving kickbacks from
insurers who wrote policies for its mortgage-holders.
Other defendants in the suit were Assurant, American Security
Insurance Co., Standard Guaranty Insurance Co., MidFirst Bank and
FirstInsure.
CLAIRE'S STORES: Faces "Annoreno" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Annoreno and Rebecca Perez, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Claire's Stores, Inc., and
Claire's Boutiques, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07744 (N.D. Ill.,
October 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages and overtime compensation.
The Defendants are retailers of accessories and jewelry to girls
and young women.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kathleen Currie Chavez, Esq.
FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL LLC
10 West State Street, Suite 200
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: (630) 232-4480
Facsimile: (630) 232-7452
E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com
CORPORATE TRANSIT: Bid to Dismiss Drivers' FLSA Case Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Southerland, Yvette Williams, and Leander Chatman are
delivery drivers who provide transportation services to third
parties on behalf of defendant Corporate Transit of America (CTA).
They allege CTA has improperly classified them as independent
contractors and thereby failed to pay minimum wage and overtime in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq. (FLSA) and the laws of seven states. CTA
moved to dismiss and/or stay and to compel arbitration.
According to District Judge Judith E. Levy's opinion and order
entered September 30, 2014, the Court will first modify the
remedies provision in the arbitration agreement, then grant
defendant's motion and dismiss this case without prejudice. A
copy of the ruling is available at http://bit.ly/1pPjPV5from
Leagle.com.
The case is Edwin Southerland, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Corporate
Transit of America, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-14462, (E.D. Mich.).
Corporate Transit of America, Defendant, represented by Kate M.
Heideman -- kate.heideman@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell
LLP, Robert J. Tomaso -- bob.tomaso@huschblackwell.com -- Husch
Blackwell LLP & William M. Thacker -- wthacker@dickinsonwright.com
-- Dickinson Wright.
COUNTERTOP FACTORY: Faces "Rowenski" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Rowenski, individually, and on behalf of all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. The Countertop
Factory Midwest, Inc. and The Countertop
Factory, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07719 (N.D. Ill., October 3,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.
The Countertop Factory Midwest, Inc. and The Countertop
Factory, Inc. own and operate a full service countertop company
that offers measurement, fabrication, and installation.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard James Miller, Esq.
MILLER LAW FIRM, PC
1051 Perimeter Drive, Ste 400
Schaumburg, IL 60173
Telephone: (847) 995-1205
E-mail: richard.miller@millerlawfirm.org
- and -
Scott C. Polman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT C. POLMAN
8130 N. Milwaukee Ave.
Niles, IL 60714
Telephone: (847) 292-1989
E-mail: spolman.law@comcast.net
DS SERVICES: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Appleman" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Appleman, individually and on behalf of alll others
similarly situated v. DS Services of America, Inc., Case No. 0:14-
cv-62275 (S.D. Fla., October 3, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay proper overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
DS Services of America, Inc. sells water and other products
throughout the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Alan Netburn, Esq.
ROLNICK & NETBURN, LLC
9734 W. Sample Road
Coral Springs, FL 33065
Telephone: (954) 346-5001
Facsimile: 346-5006
E-mail: dnetburn@rolnicknetburn.com
- and -
Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
221 Main Street, Suite 502
Hartford, CT 06106
Telephone: (860) 522-8888
E-mail: rhayber@hayberlaw.com
DUNCAN BURCH: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Lopez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Enid Lopez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Duncan Burch, Inc., d/b/a Michael's International,
Steven Craft, Bert Stair, and Eugene Leclaire, Case No. 4:14-cv-
02809 (S.D. Tex., October 2, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Defendants own and operate adult entertainment club in Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
KENNEDY HODGES LLP
711 W. Alabama Street
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (713) 523-0001
E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
EGIRA LLC: "Jackson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Jackson, Craig A. Koehler, Jr., and Russell P. Jackson, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Egira, LLC,
Anastasia Vasilakopoulos, Gus Vasilakopoulos, and Bill
Vasilakopoulos, Case No. 1:14-cv-03114 (D. Md., October 2, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, damages, and relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate the Speakeasy Saloon and Dining
House in Canton neighborhood of Baltimore City, Maryland.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bradford W. Warbasse, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF BRADFORD WARBASSE
401 Washington Avenue, Suite 200
Towson, MD 21204
Telephone: (410) 337-5411
Facsimile: (410) 938-8668
E-mail: warbasselaw@gmail.com
- and -
Howard Benjamin Hoffman, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF HOWARD B. HOFFMAN
600 Jefferson Plz Ste 304
Rockville, MD 20852
Telephone: (301) 251-3752
Facsimile: (301) 251-3753
E-mail: HHoffman@hoholaw.com
ENDO HEALTH: Delays Sale of Generic Oxymorphone HCI, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Penwest
Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax Laboratories Inc., Case No. 1:14-
cv-07742 (N.D. Ill., October 3, 2014), arises out of the
Defendants' overarching anticompetitive scheme to allocate and
unreasonably delay competition in the market for extended-release
oxymorphone hydrochloride, which the Company sells under the brand
name Opana ER.
The Defendants are specialty healthcare solutions companies
focused on branded and generic pharmaceuticals, devices and
services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
190 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 357-0370
Facsimile: (312) 357-0369
E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
J. Douglas Richard, Esq.
Sharon Robertson, Esq.
COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 838-7797
Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com
srobertson@cohenmilstein.com
- and -
Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
Gregory S. Hach, Esq.
HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE, LLP
185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 213-8311
Facsimile: (212)779-0028
E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
ghach@hrsclaw.com
ESPN INC: Sued Over Unlawful Use of Athlete's Name and Image
------------------------------------------------------------
Javon Marshall, Steven Clarke, Chris Conner, Patrick Miller, Byron
Moore, Chaz Moore, Sean Parker, Eric Samuels, Marlon Walls, and
Rod Wilks, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ESPN Inc., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-01945 (M.D. Tenn., October 3, 2014), arises out of the
deliberate and unlawful use Student Athletes' names, images, and
likenesses in advertisements and airings produced and televised by
the Defendants.
The Defendants own and operate an entertainment sports network.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen J. Zralek, Esq.
John P. Branham, Esq.
BONE McALLESTER NORTON PLLC
511 Union Street, Suite 1600
Nashville, TN 37219
Telephone: (615) 259-5508
E-mail: szralek@bonelaw.com
jbranham@bonelaw.com
- and -
Richard Manson, Esq.
Ronald A. Stewart, Esq.
STEWART JOHNSON CONNER & MANSON, LLP
215 2nd Avenue North, Suite 300
Nashville, TN 37201
Telephone: (615) 600-4614
Facsimile: (615) 891-2395
E-mail: richardmanson@comcast.net
rstewart@stewartjohnsonlaw.com
FEDFIRST FINANCIAL: Wins Dismissal of Merger Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
CB Financial Services, Inc. ("CB") (OTCQB:CBFV), the Carmichaels-
based holding company for Community Bank, and FedFirst Financial
Corporation ("FedFirst") (Nasdaq:FFCO), the Monessen-based holding
company for First Federal Savings Bank, announced on Sept. 22,
2014, that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted FedFirst's
motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit purportedly brought on
behalf of the shareholders of FedFirst in connection with
FedFirst's pending merger with CB (Case No. 24C14002331, filed on
April 21, 2014). The Court dismissed all claims as to all
defendants with prejudice, including claims against FedFirst and
its directors as well as claims against CB.
"We are very pleased with the Court's decision and believe that
the ruling confirms our view that the lawsuit was without merit,"
stated Patrick G. O'Brien, President and Chief Executive Officer
of FedFirst.
Additional Information About the Merger and Where to Find It
CB Financial Services, Inc. has filed a registration statement
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The registration statement
includes a proxy statement/prospectus and other relevant documents
in connection with the proposed merger. FEDFIRST STOCKHOLDERS ARE
ADVISED TO READ THE PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS AND ANY OTHER
RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS
OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THOSE DOCUMENTS, BECAUSE THEY CONTAIN IMPORTANT
INFORMATION.
The proxy statement/prospectus and other relevant materials filed
with the SEC may be obtained free of charge at the SEC's website
(www.sec.gov). In addition, investors and security holders may
obtain free copies of the documents CB files with the SEC by
contacting Barron P. "Pat" McCune, Jr., CB Financial Services,
Inc., 90 West Chestnut Street, Suite 100, Washington, PA 15301 and
free copies of the documents FedFirst files with the SEC by
contacting Patrick G. O'Brien, FedFirst Financial Corporation, 565
Donner Street, Monessen, PA 15062.
FedFirst and certain of its directors and executive officers may
be deemed to be participants in the solicitation of proxies from
FedFirst stockholders in connection with the proposed merger.
Information concerning such participants' ownership of shares of
FedFirst common stock is set forth in the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on August 18, 2014.
This press release does not constitute an offer of any securities
for sale. The shares of common stock of CB are not savings or
deposit accounts and are not insured by the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation or any other government agency.
About CB Financial Services, Inc.
CB Financial Services, Inc. is the bank holding company for
Community Bank, a Pennsylvania-chartered commercial bank.
Community Bank operates eleven offices in Greene, Allegheny and
Washington Counties in southwestern Pennsylvania.
About FedFirst Financial Corporation
FedFirst Financial Corporation is the parent company of First
Federal Savings Bank, a community-oriented financial institution
operating seven full-service branch locations in southwestern
Pennsylvania. First Federal offers a broad array of retail and
commercial lending and deposit services and provides commercial
and personal insurance services through Exchange Underwriters,
Inc., its 80% owned subsidiary.
FEIN SUCH & CRANE: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Akoundi on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Fein, Such & Crane, LLP, and John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:14-cv-07952 (S.D.N.Y., October 2, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Fein, Such & Crane, LLP is a foreign corporation that engages in
the business of collecting debts alleged to be due another.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
Joseph Karl Jones, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
555 Fifth Avenue 17th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
jkj@legaljones.com
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 30 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Flagstar Bancorp, Inc. and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Eastern District of Michigan, and docketed under 14-cv-
13459, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Flagstar securities between January 22,
2014 and August 26, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Flagstar securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 4, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.
Flagstar is the holding company for Flagstar Bank, FSB. Flagstar
Bank accepts deposits from the general public and originates or
acquires residential mortgage loans. Flagstar Bank also
originates consumer, commercial real estate, and non-real estate
commercial loans and it operates predominantly in Michigan and
Indiana, as well as throughout the United States.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, prospects, performance, and compliance with federal
law. Specifically, during the Class Period, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
dating back to 2011, the Company's loss mitigation practices and
default servicing operations were not in compliance with various
federal consumer financial laws promulgated by the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau ("CFPB"); (ii) the Company lacked
proper internal controls; and (iii) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On August 26, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, announcing that it has begun
settlement discussions with the CFPB over alleged violations of
consumer finance laws dating back to 2011.
As a result of these allegations, Mark Palmer, an analyst at BTIG
investment bank, downgraded its rating on Flagstar to sell, noting
that the "allegations raise questions regarding servicing
operations amid uncertainty of potential rebound of its mortgage
business."
On this news, Flagstar stock fell $0.83, or almost 4.5%, on
unusually heavy trading volume, to close at $17.66 on August 27,
2014.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.
FORD MOTOR: Arguments Heard on Bid to Dismiss Exhaust System Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, Igor Kossov and Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, report
that a Florida federal judge heard arguments on Oct. 2 on Ford
Motor Co.'s motion to dismiss a putative class action over an
allegedly dangerous exhaust system defect in several years of Ford
Explorer models, focusing his attention on claims regarding
implied warranty and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
In the suit filed on June 9, plaintiff Angela Sanchez-Knutson says
exhaust leaks into the passenger cabin of the 2011-13 models of
the sport utility vehicles when the air conditioning is on, posing
a health risk from carbon monoxide to people inside and a safety
risk to others on the road.
U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas, who did not rule on
Oct. 2 but took the arguments under advisement, devoted
substantial attention to Ford's argument that because
Ms. Sanchez-Knutson bought her car from an independent dealer and
did not deal directly with Ford, she is not in privity with the
carmaker and thus cannot bring implied warranty claims.
The judge peppered Ford counsel Joel A. Dewey --
joel.dewey@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper with questions about other
cases raised by the parties and certain hypothetical scenarios,
but Dewey said most of those situations related to express
warranty issues.
"The cases made clear that it has to be privity of contract -- the
sale contract between the buyer and the manufacturer -- and if
that's missing, there is no privity and there is no implied
warranty," Mr. Dewey said.
Mr. Dewey conceded that Ms. Sanchez-Knutson may be able to bring a
claim under express warranty, but he said that in regard to those
claims, Ford's warranty would not cover design defects.
On that point, Judge Dimitrouleas raised the question of whether
there may be ambiguity in Ford's warranty, which mentions design
defects in one part.
Ms. Sanchez-Knutson's attorney Jordan M. Lewis -- jml@kulaw.com --
of Kelley Uustal PLC also argued that there may be an "awfully
skinny" distinction between what is a design defect and what is a
manufacturing defect, and noted that none of the terms are defined
in the warranty.
"There is no doubt that a warranty is a contract. If there are
ambiguities, it's construed against the drafter," Mr. Lewis said.
Regarding Ms. Sanchez-Knutson's federal breach of warranty claims
brought under the Magnuson-Moss Act, Ford argues that the
plaintiff failed to allege that she exhausted her remedies by
participating in Ford's mandatory dispute resolution program,
which it says is a prerequisite to bringing the claim.
Mr. Lewis said that courts have consistently found that the
exhaustion requirement is not the plaintiff's burden to prove and
that it is an affirmative defense. He said that if the defense
wants to raise the issue, it would be appropriate at the summary
judgment stage. He said that by that point, the plaintiff will
have gathered facts to show that the particular process available
in this case is futile.
"We should be given the opportunity to develop these facts and be
able to present to the court evidence of futility," Lewis said.
If the case survives Ford's motion, it appears it may still be
ripe for paring down. Judge Dimitrouleas asked Lewis why he needs
an implied warranty claim if he has one under express warranty, to
which the attorney acknowledged that he has cast a wide net,
unable to know at the case's start which claims will reach the
finish line.
Ms. Sanchez-Knutson and her daughter allegedly suffer from chronic
headaches as a result of exposure to dangerous levels of carbon
monoxide in her 2013 Ford Explorer, the suit claims. She says she
brought her car to the dealership for repair several times to stop
the sulfuric smell in the car but that she was never told that the
odor actually signified exposure to the gas.
The putative class action complaint says that an internal
technical service bulletin, TSB 12-12-4, distributed by Ford to
its dealerships, showed that the company knew certain Explorer
models' exhaust systems were leaking into the cabins of the cars
through the air conditioning.
The bulletin provided dealerships with instructions on how to
handle to smell in the vehicles but did not specify that carbon
monoxide was seeping into the cabins or provide any remedies to
protect consumers from exposure, the complaint said.
But in its motion to dismiss, Ford says the bulletin is not the
"sweeping acknowledgment" of a design defect or an attempt to
conceal a safety hazard. The auto giant says that Sanchez-Knutson
has mischaracterized the contents of the bulletin to assert breach
of warranty and deceptive advertising claims against Ford.
Ms. Sanchez-Knutson is represented by Michael A. Hersh --
mah@kulaw.com -- Jordan M. Lewis and John J. Uustal --
jju@kulaw.com -- of Kelley Uustal PLC.
Ford is represented by Joel A. Dewey -- joel.dewey@dlapiper.com --
J. Trumon Phillips -- trumon.phillips@dlapiper.com -- and E. Colin
Thompson -- colin.thompson@dlapiper.com -- of DLA Piper.
The suit is Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Co., case number 0:14-
cv-61344, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.
GAZIT-GLOBE: Class Actions Filed in July and August 2014
--------------------------------------------------------
Gazit-Globe Ltd. said in its Form 20-F/A (Amendment No.1) filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2014,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, that lawsuits were
filed to certify as class actions, against Dori Construction, Dori
Group, their directors and officers and their auditors, as well as
against Gazit Development and the Company in July and August 2014.
GENERAL CABLE: Motion to Dismiss Livonia Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The defendants' motion to dismiss the City of Livonia Complaint is
pending, General Cable Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22,
2014.
The Company said, "Two civil complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
October 21, 2013 and December 4, 2013 by named plaintiffs, on
behalf of purported classes of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our publicly traded securities, against us, Gregory
Kenny, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian
Robinson, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer. On our motion, the complaints were transferred to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky,
the actions were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was
filed in that Court on May 20, 2014 by City of Livonia Employees
Retirement System, as lead plaintiff on behalf of a purported
class of all persons or entities who purchased our securities
between November 3, 2010 and October 14, 2013 (the "City of
Livonia Complaint"). The City of Livonia Complaint alleges claims
under the antifraud and controlling person liability provisions of
the Exchange Act, alleging generally, among other assertions, that
we employed inadequate internal financial reporting controls that
resulted in, among other things, improper revenue recognition,
understated cost of sales, overstated operating income, net income
and earnings per share, and the failure to detect inventory lost
through theft; that we issued materially false financial results
that had to be restated on two occasions; and that statements of
Messrs. Kenny and Robinson that they had tested and found
effective our internal controls over financial reporting and
disclosure were false. The City of Livonia Complaint alleges that
as a result of the foregoing, our stock price was artificially
inflated and the plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with
their purchase of our stock. The City of Livonia Complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount; reasonable costs and expenses,
including counsel and experts fees; and such equitable injunctive
or other relief as the Court deems just and proper."
On July 18, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the City of
Livonia Complaint based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.
On August 28, 2014, the plaintiff filed a response opposing the
motion, and on September 11, 2014, defendants filed a reply to
plaintiff's response. The motion is pending.
GUTHY RENKER: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Matthews, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Guthy Renker Fulfillment Services, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Case No. 3:14-cv-00547 (W.D.N.C,
October 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Guthy Renker Fulfillment Services, LLC operates at least two brick
and mortar call centers and fulfillment distribution centers in
Arden, North Carolina, and, upon information and belief, has home-
based customer service representatives employees located
throughout North Carolina and other states.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Edward B. Davis, Esq.
BELL, DAVIS & PITT PA
227 W. Trade St., Suite 2160
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 227-0400
Facsimile: (704) 227-0178
E-mail: ward.davis@belldavispitt.com
- and -
Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, Suite 1700
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
kstoops@sommerspc.com
jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
HOME DEPOT: Sued in N.D. Georgia Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Savings Institute Bank and Trust Company, Individually and on
behalf of a class of all similarly situated financial institutions
v. The Home Depot, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03178 (N.D. Ga., October
2, 2014), arises out of the data breach that enables computer
hackers to steel data consisting of millions of customers' debit
and credit card information, card numbers, account holders' names,
and the address.
The Home Depot, Inc. owns and operates retail stores throughout
the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, Esq.
W. PITTS CARR AND ASSOCIATES, PC
Building 10, 4200 Northside Parkway, N.W.
Atlanta, GA 30327
Telephone: (404) 442-9000
E-mail: aweatherby@wpcarr.com
- and -
David R. Scott, Esq.
SCOTT & SCOTT, LLC
P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue
Colchester, CT 06415
Telephone: (860) 537-5537
Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
E-mail: drscott@scott-scott.com
- and -
E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
P.O. Box 382434
Birmingham, AL 35283
Telephone: (205) 612-0243
- and -
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
MILBERG LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
New York, NY 10119-0165
Telephone: (212) 594-5300
- and -
W. Pitts Carr, Esq.
W. PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES, PC
4200 Northside Parkway, N.W.
10 North Parkway Square
Atlanta, GA 30327
Telephone: (404) 442-9000
Facsimile: (404) 442-9700
E-mail: pcarr@wpcarr.com
HOME RESTAURANT: "Mizhquiri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Nicolas Mizhquiri, on behalf of himself and FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs v. Home Restaurant, LLC, and Dominick D'Alleva, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08007 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Home Restaurant, LLC, and Dominick D'Alleva own and operate a
restaurant, which serves American food and wine located at 20
Cornelia Street, New York, NY 10014.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 465-1124
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
cklee@leelitigation.com
HONEYWELL INT'L: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in "Yates"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case GRAHAM YATES and BECKY YATES, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID
SYSTEMS CORPORATION, successor by merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc.,
individually and as successor-in-interest to The Delaval Separator
Company; ALFA LAVAL, INC.; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation
f/k/a Viacom, Inc. (sued as successor by merger to CBS
Corporation) f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation; CRANE CO.;
ELLIOTT TURBO MACHINERY COMPANY, a/k/a Elliot Company; FORD MOTOR
COMPANY; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC., successor-in-interest to
Bendix Corporation, f/k/a Allied-Signal, Inc.; METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and WEIR VALVES & CONTROLS USA, INC., f/k/a
Atwood & Morrill, Defendants, Case No. 5:12-CV-752-FL (E.D.N.C.)
is brought by residents of Wake County, North Carolina,
complaining of personal injury and loss of consortium in relation
to exposure to asbestos.
Among other things, the Plaintiffs bring claims for negligence in
putting asbestos or asbestos-containing products into the market.
District Judge Louise W. Flanagan entered an order in the case on
Sept. 30, 2014. Specifically, the judge held that:
1. Summary judgment is GRANTED for defendants regarding
plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty (Second
Cause);
2. The court maintains its earlier decision to grant summary
judgment for defendants regarding plaintiffs' claims for
willful and wanton conduct (Third Cause) and false
representation/fraud (Fourth Cause); and
3. Summary judgment is DENIED for defendants regarding
plaintiffs' claims of negligence (First Cause), and failure
to warn (Fifth Cause).
A copy of the Sept. 30, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/AdRaP4from Leagle.com.
Defendant Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc. is represented by Tracy
E. Tomlin, Esq. -- tracy.tomlin@nelsonmullins.com -- of Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP.
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Dist. Ct. Ruled on Bid to Dismiss "Marshall" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted in part and denied in part
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned KAREN
MARSHALL, PAUL FLANNERY, and DARRELL R. WHITE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. NO. 12-CV-3072(KMK),
(S.D.N.Y.).
The Plaintiffs brought the action on behalf of similarly situated
owners of Hyundai Sonata vehicles, model years 2006-2010, who
complained of defective brake mechanisms.
In his Opinion and Order dated Sept. 30, 2014 available at
http://is.gd/9uF9f3from Leagle.com, Judge Karas (1) granted the
Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs' breach-of-
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment claims, and
(2) denied the Motion to Dismiss with respect to the Plaintiffs'
express warranty and Section 349 claims, insofar as the Sec. 349
claim is based on Defendant's conduct after Plaintiffs purchased
their vehicles. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is granted with
respect to all other Sec. 349 claims.
Michael L. Kidney, Esq. -- michael.kidney@hoganlovells.com ,
Audrey E. Moog, Esq. -- audrey.moog@hoganlovells.com , John J.
Sullivan, Esq. -- john.sullivan@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan
Lovells US L.L.P., serve as counsel for Hyundai Motor America.
ICARE FINANCIAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax, "Marcus" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Marcus, individually and on behalf of all others Similarly
Situated v. iCare Financial, Case No. 3:14-cv-06131 (D.N.J.,
October 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
transmitting one or more facsimiles advertising the commercial
availability or quality of property, goods, or services, without
having obtained prior express invitation or permission to transmit
said facsimiles.
iCare Financial offers patient financing programs for businesses
in dental, auto repair, cosmetic surgery, industries.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 228-6667
E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com
- and -
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
INTERNATIONAL WEB: Dist. Court Dismisses "Halperin" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
DAN HALPERIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL WEB SERVICES, LLC, and AFFLUENT ADS,
LLC, Defendants, NO. 13 C 8573, (N.D. Ill.) alleges violations of
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. Section 1030;
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act's anti-wiretap
provisions ("Wiretap Act"), 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 et seq.; the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(ICFA), 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.; and the Illinois Computer
Tampering Act (ICTA), 720 ILCS 5/17-50 et seq. Defendants moved
to dismiss the suit pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). In an oral ruling, the court denied the
motion insofar as it argued that an offer of judgment served by
Defendants on Mr. Halperin rendered his claims moot.
In a memorandum opinion and order entered September 30, 2014, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/AUN37Kfrom Leagle.com,
District Judge Gary Feinerman denied the Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1)
motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and grants
Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim,
though Mr. Halperin will be given a chance to replead. And because
the complaint is dismissed, Defendants' Rule 12(f) motion to
strike the complaint's class allegations, is denied without
prejudice as moot.
Affluent Ads, LLC, Defendant, represented by Blaine C Kimrey --
bkimrey@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price PC & Bryan K. Clark --
bclark@vedderprice.com -- Vedder Price.
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Sued in Ind. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Babulal Tarapara, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. Kevin M.
Modany, and Daniel M. Fitzpatrick, Case No. 1:14-cv-01618 (S.D.
Ind., October 3, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.
ITT Educational Services, Inc. provides accredited, technology-
oriented under graduated and graduate degree programs through its
ITT Technical Institutes and Daniel Webster College.
The Individual Defendants are officers of ITT Educational
Services, Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Offer Korin, Esq.
KATZ & KORIN P.C.
The Emelie Building
334 North Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 464-1100
Facsimile: (317) 464-1111
E-mail: okorin@katzkorin.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
GLANCY BINKOW & GLOLDBERG LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Glancy Binkow & Goldberg Files Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of ITT
Educational Services Inc., on Oct. 3 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of ITT securities between February 26, 2013 and
September 18, 2014, inclusive.
Please contact Lesley Portnoy at (888) 773-9224 or (310) 201-9150,
or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you
inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone
number and number of shares purchased.
ITT provides postsecondary degree programs in the United States in
various fields, including business, criminal justice, information
technology, electronics technology, drafting and design, and
nursing and health sciences. The Complaint alleges that
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations and prospects, including material information
concerning two private education loan programs for its students.
Specifically, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the Company had failed to consolidate the financial
results of the PEAKS Trust into ITT's financial results; (2) the
Company's financial statements contained errors related to the
accounting of the PEAKS Trust and PEAKS Program; (3) the Company
had improperly accounted for is guarantee obligations under the
PEAKS program; (4) as a result, the Company's financial results
were overstated; (5) the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (6), as a result of the foregoing, ITT's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On September 19, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and disclosed that on August 7,
2014, the Company received a "Wells Notice" from the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Division of Enforcement, notifying the
Company that the division Staff had made a preliminary
determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action
against the Company.
According to the Company, the Staff informed ITT that "the
enforcement action would allege violations of Sections 10(b),
13(a) and 13(b)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934," and
various Rules promulgated under the Exchange Act, and "the Staff's
recommendation may:
-- involve a civil injunctive action, public administrative
proceeding and/or cease-and-desist proceeding against us; and
-- seek remedies that include an injunction, a cease-and-desist
order and monetary relief, including civil monetary penalties."
Following this news, the price of ITT shares fell 35 percent, or
$2.70 per share, to close at $4.95 per share on September 19,
2014.
If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from the date of this notice to serve
as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be
a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time;
you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain
an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about
this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com
If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.
KINDER MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Consolidation Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Anna Domanska, writing for Industry Leaders, reports that a Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners LP shareholder has filed a class action
lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court on Oct. 3 to put the imminent
$70 billion merger between Kinder Morgan Inc.'s limited
partnership units to a halt. Lead petitioner Irwin Berlin said
that under the tax structure of the KMI buy out of equity shares
of its oil and gas units is such that, shareholders will lose a 4
percent premium per share.
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP shareholders will face a critical
tax burden from Richard Kinder's $44 billion consolidation plan,
Irwin Berlin said in the lawsuit.
"The tax consequences of the proposed transaction significantly
(and disproportionately) impact" Energy Partners holders, Berlin
said in the complaint. "Investors who purchased units of the
company as a retirement strategy will immediately owe taxes which
they, if they had held the investment until death, would not have
had to pay."
Earlier in August, it was announced that Houston billionaire
Richard Kinder is disbanding his pipeline empire to fortify it for
growth as the U.S. shale drilling boom opens up $1.5 trillion in
potential projects. Kinder Morgan, which incorporates a gigantic
network of oil and gas pipelines across North America, will
acquire its three associated organizations and revamp as one
organization situated in Houston. Mr. Kinder, 69, holds a 24
percent stake in Kinder Morgan Inc.
Investors since long have been putting a lot of pressure on Kinder
to consolidate in order to cut costs and boost profits. The
consolidated Kinder Morgan empire is set to have an estimated
value of about $140 billion, which is $100 billion of market value
and $40 billion of debt, which now makes it the third-largest
energy organization in the United States, after Exxon and Chevron.
Industry Leaders Magazine reported earlier, that under the terms
of the deal, Kinder Morgan will acquire its two related M.L.Ps --
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners and El Paso Pipeline Partners -- and
a third related organization, Kinder Morgan Management, for $70
billion. Kinder Morgan will pay a premium for each one
organization, and utilize for the most part stock in order to fund
the purchases, permitting shareholders to basically proceed with
their ownership. The deal consists of $40 billion in parent-
company equity, $4 billion in cash and $27 billion in for assumed
debt, as indicated by a presentation posted on Kinder's site in
August.
Irwin Berlin is trying to speak to all Energy Partners
shareholders in an attempt to annul the consolidation agreement.
Larry Pierce, a representative for Houston-based Kinder Morgan,
hasn't commented on the issue yet.
KMART CORP: Motion for Class Cert. Denied in "Holak" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMIE HOLAK, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. KMART CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-00304-AWI-MJS, (E.D.
Cal.), Ms. Holak filed a motion for class certification pursuant
to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against Kmart
Corporation. The action was set before a United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule
302. The Plaintiff also filed a motion to modify the scheduling
order to permit it to conduct rebuttal discovery regarding the
declarations submitted by the Defendant in opposition to the
Plaintiff's certification motion.
On June 6, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued her findings and
recommendations (F&R) which was served on the parties and which
contained notice that any objections to the F&R were to be filed
within 14 days. The Plaintiff made four objections and the
Defendant also made four objections.
In an order dated September 30, 2014, a copy of which is available
at http://is.gd/A7SQhmfrom Leagle.com, Senior District Judge
Anthony W. Ishii adopted the magistrate judge's F&R with
clarifications made. Judge Ishii granted the Defendant's motion to
strike and held that the declarations of six putative class
members provided by Plaintiff are stricken. The Plaintiff's
motion to strike was granted in part and denied in part:
a. The declarations of the hourly associate employees provided by
Defendant are stricken; and
b. The declarations of the associate manager employees provided
by Defendant are not stricken and were appropriately
considered;
The Court denied the Plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling
order and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Sears Holdings Management Corporation, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant, represented by Amanda C. Sommerfeld --
asommerfeld@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP & Michelle Sara
Kunihiro -- michelle.kunihiro@dlapiper.com -- Winston & Strawn
LLP.
LIONS GATE: Faces "Tart" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Tart, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation,
Lions Gate Films, Inc., and Debmar-Mercury LLC or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by Lions Gate Entertainment
Corporation, Lions Gate Films, Inc., and Debmar-Mercury LLC, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08004 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a foreign multimedia corporation
that operates in the motion picture production and distribution,
television programming and syndication, and other entertainment
industries.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alison Genova, Esq.
Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
LaDonna Lusher, 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
-and-
Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, New York 11514
Telephone: (516)873-9550
E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Brown" FCRA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit JASON DAVID BROWN, LASZLO BOZSO, and MERIS DUDZIC,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., and LEXISNEXIS SCREENING
SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, CIVIL DOCKET NO. 5:13CV79-RLV
(W.D.N.C.), stems from the Plaintiffs' allegations that the
Defendants violate aspects of the Fair Credit Reporting Act via
the hiring process and practices implemented by Lowe's.
Lowe's contracts with LexisNexis, who provides consumer reports
concerning applicants pursuing employment with Lowe's. The
Plaintiffs are individuals who each sought employment with Lowe's
between 2008 and 2011 but were not selected for hire.
In a Sept. 29, 2014 Memorandum and Order available at
http://is.gd/JfaTBifrom Leagle.com, District Judge Richard L.
Voorhees ordered that:
(1) Defendant Lowe's Motion to Dismiss Count One is denied, and
Defendant LexisNexis's Motion to Dismiss Counts Two and
Three is likewise denied.
(2) The individual claims of Plaintiffs Brown and Bozso in Count
Four alleging that LexisNexis failed to employ reasonable
procedures to ensure the accuracy of its reporting will
remain as Count Four was not challenged.
(3) Plaintiffs are granted leave to amend their Original Class
Action Complaint in regards to Count One.
LexisNexis Screening Solutions, Inc., is represented by C. Knox
Withers, Esq. -- knox.withers@agg.com , Henry R. Chalmers, Esq. --
henry.chalmers@agg.com , Jeffrey S. Jacobovitz, Esq. --
jacobovitz@chalmers@agg.com -- of Arnall Golden Gregory, LLP, as
well as Pearlynn Gilleece Houck, Esq. -- shuber@rbh.com -- and
Robert Walker Fuller, III, Esq. -- rfuller@rbh.com -- of Robinson,
Bradshaw & Hinson, P. A.
LUCASFILM LTD: Illegally Suppresses Employees' Wages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Wentworth, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC., Pixar, Dreamworks
Animation SKG, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, Sony Pictures
Animation Inc., Sony Pictures Imageworks Inc., Imagemovers LLC,
Imagemovers Digital, and Digital Domain 3.0 Inc., Case No. 3:14-
cv-04422 (N.D. Cal., October 2, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
engaged in a long-running conspiracy to suppress the wages of
their highly skilled workers and employees.
The Defendants are companies that create visual effects and
animation for movies.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (510) 725-3000
Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
MARRONE BIO: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 3 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Eastern District of California, and docketed under 14-cv-
02055, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased Marrone securities between March 6, 2014
and September 2, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Marrone securities during
the Class Period, you have until November 4, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.
Marrone makes bio-based pest management and plant health products.
Bio-based products are comprised of naturally occurring
microorganisms, such as bacteria and fungi, and plant extracts.
The Company targets the major markets that use conventional
chemical pesticides, including certain agricultural and water
markets, where the bio-based products are used as substitutes for,
or in connection with, conventional chemical pesticides. Marrone
also targets new markets for which there are no available
conventional chemical pesticides, the use of conventional chemical
products may not be desirable or permissible because of health and
environmental concerns or the development of pest resistance has
reduced the efficacy of conventional chemical pesticides.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Marrone's financial statements contained errors related to the
improper recognition of revenues; (2) the Company lacked adequate
internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On September 3, 2014, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC,
announcing, among other things, that some of its previously issued
financial statements should no longer be relied upon as being in
compliance with generally accepted accounting principles.
On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.50, or over 44%, to
close at $3.15 on September 3, 2014.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.
MAZDA MOTOR: Faces "Stedman" Suit Over Defective Dashboards
-----------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Stedman, Gary Soto, and Jody Soto, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mazda Motor
Corporation, Mazda Motor of America Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-01608
(C.D. Cal., October 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to disclose to the consumers that they had opted to
install dashboards in the vehicles that do not withstand exposure
to sunlight, melt, emit a noxious chemical smell, and take on a
reflective quality. When the dashboards become reflective, drivers
trying to see through the windshield must struggle to see past the
reflection of the dashboard in the windshield. And when the sun or
another bright light catches the dashboard at the right angle,
light shoots unexpectedly into drivers' eyes, temporarily blinding
them and endangering everyone on the road.
The Defendants manufacture, market, distribute and warrant
automobiles in the United States, including Mazda 3 and Mazda 6
cars.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
Dylan Hughes, Esq.
Jennifer L. McIntosh, Esq.
GIRARD GIBBS LLP
601 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: ehg@girardgibbs.com
dsh@girardgibbs.com
jlm@girardgibbs.com
- and -
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Adam Edwards, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
Bank of America Center, 550 Main Avenue, Suite 600
Knoxville, TN 37902
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
MEDICAL ACTION: Bid to Enjoin Stockholders' Meeting Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------
Medical Action Industries Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2014,
that as previously disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement on
Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "SEC") by Medical Action on August 25, 2014 (the "definitive
proxy statement") and in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the SEC by Medical Action on September 15, 2014, two putative
stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the proposed merger
were filed, both in Suffolk County Supreme Court in New York (the
"court"): (i) Hilary Coyne v. Medical Action Industries Inc., et
al. (Case No. 064930/2014); and (ii) Isaac Koll, et al. v. Medical
Action Industries Inc., et al. (Case No. 065061/2014). Both of
these cases name the Company, certain of the Company's current
directors and officers, Owens & Minor, and Merger Sub as
defendants. Each of the lawsuits has been brought by a purported
stockholder of the Company, both individually and on behalf of a
putative class consisting of public stockholders of the Company.
The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that certain of
the directors and officers of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties to stockholders of the Company by agreeing to a transaction
with inadequate consideration and unfair terms pursuant to an
inadequate process.
The Hilary Coyne lawsuit alleges further that Owens & Minor and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors and officers of the
Company in the alleged breach of their fiduciary duties. The Isaac
Koll lawsuit alleges further that the Company, Owens & Minor and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the directors and officers of the
Company in the alleged breach of their fiduciary duties.
The lawsuits seek, in general, and among other things, (i)
injunctive relief enjoining the transactions, (ii) in the event
the proposed merger is consummated, rescission or an award of
rescissory damages, (iii) an award of plaintiffs' costs, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees, (iv) an accounting by the
defendants to plaintiffs for all damages caused by the defendants
and (v) such further relief as the court deems just and proper.
On July 14, 2014, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to
consolidate the Hilary Coyne lawsuit and the Isaac Koll lawsuit
under the caption, In re Medical Action Industries Inc.
Shareholders Litigation (the "Consolidated Action"). The court
appointed Hilary Coyne and Isaac Koll as lead plaintiffs, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel, and Gardy & Notis, LLP
as liaison counsel. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
was filed on July 21, 2014.
On August 14, 2014, the court entered a scheduling order on
consent providing for expedited discovery and a hearing date of
September 16, 2014 for plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction. The Consolidated Action generally includes the
allegations from the Hilary Coyne and Isaac Koll lawsuits and
alleges that the directors and officers breached their fiduciary
duties in entering into the Merger Agreement by agreeing to
allegedly inadequate consideration for Medical Action's
stockholders, and by failing to disclose allegedly material
information in Medical Action's preliminary proxy statement filed
with the SEC on July 16, 2014. The lawsuit also alleges that Owens
& Minor aided and abetted the directors and officers in the
alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties.
On September 2, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction and opening brief in support thereof. On
September 9, 2014, the defendants filed their papers in opposition
to plaintiffs' motion. On September 12, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed their reply papers in further support of their motion for
preliminary injunction.
On September 16, 2014, the court heard arguments concerning
plaintiffs' preliminary injunction motion. On September 19, 2014,
the court denied the plaintiffs' motion seeking to enjoin, among
other things, the stockholders' meeting set for September 29,
2014. The Company and the other defendants believe that this
lawsuit is without merit and intend to continue to defend the
Consolidated Action.
MISSOURI PIZZA: "Nyazee" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Naimatullah Nyazee, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons v. Central Missouri Pizza, Inc., Case No. 4:14-
cv-01699 (E.D. Mo., October 3, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Central Missouri Pizza, Inc. operates approximately 38 Domino's
franchise stores in Missouri and Kentucky.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK
11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
St. Louis, MO 63141
Telephone: (314) 997-9150
Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Dist. Court Dismisses "Willis" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan O. Hickey granted a motion to dismiss the
case captioned GEORGE WILLIS and AUDREY WILLIS, Individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a NATIONWIDE INSURANCE, Defendants, CASE
NO. 4:14-CV-04024, (W.D. Ark.).
The Defendants moved to dismiss some of the claims pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
because the Plaintiffs do not have standing. Nationwide also moved
to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6).
"Plaintiffs' allegations fail because the statute of limitations
has run for all claims and the allegations of fraud have not been
pled in a manner to toll the running of the limitations period.
Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is hereby granted and
this case is dismissed," wrote Judge Hickey in her September 30,
2014 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/8dxcA7
from Leagle.com.
Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Lyn Peeples Pruitt -- lpruitt@mwlaw.com -- Mitchell, Williams,
Selig, Gates & Woodyard, Mark L Hanover --
mark.hanover@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP, Leah R Bruno --
leah.bruno@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP & Melissa Economy --
melissa.economy@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.
NAVISTAR INC: Sued in Pa. Over Defective Emission Control System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Klinger, an individual, on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Navistar, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01914 (M.D. Pa.,
October 2, 2014), alleges that Defendant's Advanced EGR emission
control system did not reduce exhaust emissions to the
Environmental Protection Agency Standard and was defective,
causing the MaxxForce Engines to not function as required, and as
represented, on a consistent and reliable basis, even after
repeated warranty repairs and replacements.
Navistar, Inc. designs, manufactures, distributes, deliveries,
supplies, inspects, markets, leases and sell for profit, and
warranted the MaxxForce Engine and in particular the exhaust
emission control, the Advanced EGR.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SEEGER WEISS LLP
1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Telephone: (215) 564-2300
Email: jshub@seegerweiss.com
- and -
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES
2500 Gulf Tower, 707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 281-7229
Email: arihn@peircelaw.com
- and -
Richard J. Burke, Esq.
QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
1010 Market Street, Suite 1310
St. Louis, MO 63101
- and -
Jeffrey A. Leon, Esq.
Jamie E. Weiss, Esq.
Zachary Jacobs, Esq.
QUANTUM LEGAL LLC
513 Central Avenue, 3rd Floor
Highland Park, IL 60035
Telephone: (847) 433-4500
- and -
James Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
NOBE-NASH INC: Sued Over Breach of Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Armstrong, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nobe-Nash, Inc. and Vance Nobe and Robin
Cavinder-Nash, individually, Case No. 4:14-cv-02814 (S.D. Tex.,
October 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants are engaged in the restoration and construction
business.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert J. Filteau, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FILTEAU & SULLIVAN, LTD., LLP
2626 South Loop West, Ste 426
Houston, TX 77005
Telephone: (713) 236-1400
Facsimile: (713) 236-1706
E-mail: rfilteau@fso-lawprac.com
ONLINE INFORMATION: Illegally Collects Debts, "Lands" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Lands, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Online Information Service d/b/a Online Collections,
John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-06149 (D.N.J., October 3, 2014),
seeks to redress the Defendant's actions of using an unfair and
unconscionable means to collect debt.
Online Information Service is a collection agency with a mailing
address of PO Box 1489, Winterville, North Carolina 28590-1489.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS LAW LLC
1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 660-8169
E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com
PACIRA PHARMA: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 3 disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its
officers. The class action, filed in United States District
Court, District of New Jersey is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased Pacira securities between
April 9, 2012 and September 24, 2014, inclusive. This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Pacira securities during
the Class Period, you have until December 2, 2014 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.
Pacira is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops,
commercializes, and manufactures pharmaceutical products primarily
for use in hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers worldwide.
Its product pipeline includes EXPAREL, which has completed Phase
III clinical trials for postsurgical analgesia-nerve block
administration.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company was overstating the efficacy of
its EXPAREL drug; (ii) the Company was improperly promoting its
EXPAREL drug by touting its ability to be effective for up to 72
hours, when in fact, it is only approved for 24 hours of pain
relief; (iii) the Company improperly claimed that EXPAREL is safe
for use in cholecystectomy and colectomy procedures, when in fact,
approved labeling does not provide instructions for, or indicate
that EXPAREL will be safe and effective for postsurgical pain, if
used in surgical procedures other than hemorrhoidectomy or
bunionectomy; (iv) a substantial portion of the Company's revenues
were derived from off label marketing; and (v) and as a result of
the above, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
On September 25, 2014, the Company announced that it received a
Warning Letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's
("FDA") Office of Prescription Drug Promotion ("OPDP") referencing
certain promotional materials relating to EXPAREL (the "Warning
Letter"). In the Warning Letter, the FDA's OPDP stated that it
has evidence that EXPAREL has been promoted for uses for which it
does not have approval, and for which its labeling does not
provide adequate directions for use, thus rendering EXPAREL
"misbranded." The FDA noted that Pacira's advertising materials
suggested that EXPAREL is safe and effective for use in
cholecystectomy and colectomy procedures. However, the FDA said
that the approved labeling for EXPAREL does not provide
instructions for, or indicate that EXPAREL will be safe and
effective for postsurgical pain, if used in surgical procedures
other than a hemorrhoidectomy or bunionectomy. Further, the
Warning Letter noted that a journal advertisement by Pacira
claimed EXPAREL was able to provide pain-relief for up to 72
hours, while the drug is only approved for pain-relief up to 24
hours. The agency said these claims overstate EXPAREL's efficacy
and are misleading.
On the news, Pacira stock fell $11.66, or almost 11%, on unusually
heavy volume, to close at $94.62 on September 25, 2014.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.
PANDORA MEDIA: Sued in California Over Copyright Infringement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Flo & Eddie Inc., a California , corporation, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pandora Media, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:14-cv-
07648 (C.D. Cal., October 2, 2014), alleges that the Defendants
did not obtain licenses from one large category of copyright
owners of 1972 sound recordings of musical performance.
Pandora Media, Inc. is one of the leading operators of an internet
radio service in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Henry Gradstein, Esq.
Maryann R. Marzano, Esq.
Harvey W. Geller, Esq.
GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, P.C.
6310 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 510
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (323) 776-3100
E-mail: hgradstein@gradstein.com
mmarzano@gradstein.com
hgeller@gradstein.com
- and -
Evan S. Cohen, Esq.
COHEN AND COHEN
1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 510
Los Angeles, CA 90035
Telephone: 310-556-9800
Facsimile: (310) 556-9801
E-mail: esc@manifesto.com
* * *
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Gigaom, reports that it's gold rush
time out there for music industry lawyers, who racked up a major
court victory against SiriusXM, and have now doubled down with a
similar lawsuit against digital radio service Pandora.
The latest legal action came on Sept. 30 as the 1960's duo Flo and
Eddie -- who performed hits like "It Ain't Me Babe" with The
Turtles -- filed a fresh class action complaint in Los Angeles
federal court, demanding that Pandora should pay more for playing
pre-1972 sound recordings. The legal details are mind-numbing
but, broadly stated, the cases turn on a novel legal theory based
on state copyright laws -- laws that, in the view of many people,
were superseded by 1972 updates to the federal Copyright Act.
The novel theory hit pay dirt, however, when a Los Angeles judge
ruled, in a case that also involved Flo and Eddie, that SiriusXM
had to pay federal and state copyright royalties. The surprise
ruling led copyright lawyers to predict a flood of follow-up
lawsuits (a prediction that now seems accurate.)
As for the "sound recording" royalties in question, they represent
payments for record labels and the musicians who perform the song.
For companies like Pandora, such royalties would be in addition to
those they already pay to songwriters and their publishers.
The Sept. 30 lawsuit in California follows a similar one that the
music industry filed against Pandora in New York in August, and
that is still ongoing.
The litigation also coincides with a sentimental campaign by the
music industry for Congress to pass a "Respect Act" bill that
would further expand sound recording copyrights.
PDL BIOPHARMA: Responds to Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
PDL BioPharma, Inc. (PDL) (NASDAQ: PDLI), has been informed of a
class action lawsuit filed against the company that alleges
violations of federal securities laws. The company disputes the
allegations in the complaint and will vigorously defend this
lawsuit.
"We believe that any claims alleging violations of securities laws
are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend our
position," stated John P. McLaughlin, president and chief
executive officer of PDL. "We remain committed to our strategy of
acquiring income generating assets and continuing to pay dividends
to our shareholders."
About PDL BioPharma
PDL BioPharma manages a portfolio of patents and royalty assets,
consisting primarily of its Queen et al. antibody humanization
patents and license agreements with various biotechnology and
pharmaceutical companies. PDL pioneered the humanization of
monoclonal antibodies and, by doing so, enabled the discovery of a
new generation of targeted treatments for cancer and immunologic
diseases for which it receives significant royalty revenue. PDL is
currently focused on intellectual property asset management,
acquiring new income generating assets, and maximizing value for
its shareholders.
The company was formerly known as Protein Design Labs, Inc. and
changed its name to PDL BioPharma, Inc. in 2006. PDL was founded
in 1986 and is headquartered in Incline Village, Nevada.
To support its ability to pay dividends, PDL seeks to provide non-
dilutive growth capital and financing solutions to late stage
public and private healthcare companies and offers immediate
financial monetization of royalty streams to companies, academic
institutions, and inventors. PDL has invested approximately $715
million to date. PDL is focused on the quality of the income
generating assets and potential returns on investment.
For more information, please visit www.pdl.com.
PEOPLES INSURANCE: Faces "Ryan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anjelina Ryan v. Peoples Insurance Claim Center, Inc., Gedale
Fenster, individually, and Jason Saka, individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-23655 (S.D. Fla., October 3, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.
Peoples Insurance Claim Center, Inc. owns and operates an
insurance company in Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
Andrew Ira Glenn, Esq.
JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
168 Franklin Corner Road, Building 2, Suite 220
Larenceville, NJ 08648
Telephone: (305) 726-0060
Facsimile: (305) 726-0046
E-mail: Jaffe.glenn@me.com
aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
REYNOLDSBURG, OH: Parents of Special Needs-Students Mull Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Croft, writing for WBNS-10TV, reports that parents of
special needs students in Reynoldsburg may be taking legal action
against the district. They plan to meet to talk about a class
action lawsuit.
Gail Kelly's son, Bryce, is a 15-year-old freshman in
Reynoldsburg. He has learning disabilities in writing and
language.
"Bryce has had no help so far. He has not been pulled aside one-
on-one," said Ms. Kelly. She says that is part of his IEP
(Individualized Education Plan).
She just sat down for his yearly IEP evaluation. "When I met with
the school on Oct. 1, I only knew one person there," Ms. Kelly
said. "Nobody knew my child."
Ms. Kelly says its clear Bryce needs extra help right now but he
can't get it. "They basically told me that once the strike is
over and once the teachers are back, they would reevaluate his
IEP," said Ms. Kelly.
"The concern is the people that are working with these students
right now are not equipped (and) do not know the background of
these students," said Ellen Andersen-Ross.
Ms. Andersen-Ross is a retired special education intervention
specialist and has been with Reynoldsburg for 31 years. She's now
helping parents band together as they look into a possible class
action lawsuit. She believes the district is clearly violating
laws.
"They are not receiving instruction specific to their IEP goals,"
said Ms. Andersen-Ross.
Under Ohio code, a substitute can sub for up to five days in a
class they are not specifically certified in. Ms. Andersen Ross
says in some special education classrooms, they're simply
switching out subs every few days. "It's one of those great big
old loopholes."
The district says it is making efforts to meet the minimum
requirements and it's not breaking any laws. A spokesperson says
the district has brought in subs for most of the related services.
The group says it has more than 50 parents involved so far. The
meeting with the attorney was scheduled for Oct. 5 at 6:00 p.m. at
the Messiah Lutheran Church.
If you are interested in attending the meeting, e-mail
raideriep@gmail.com if your child is under IEP. E-mail
raider504plan@gmail.com if your child is under a 504 plan.
ROC OIL: May Face Class Action Over Fosun Takeover Deal
-------------------------------------------------------
Angela Macdonald-Smith and Sarah Thompson, writing for The Sydney
Morning Herald, report that the AU$474 million cash takeover of
Roc Oil by China's Fosun International has been placed in doubt by
a potential class action against the Australian oil and gas
company.
Slater and Gordon has contacted institutional shareholders in
Roc that may support a claim for losses because the company
allegedly knowingly failed to inform the market of a reserve
downgrade at an oil and gas field in Victoria as soon as it became
apparent.
The claim would seek to recover losses suffered by investors
resulting from the purchase of Roc Oil shares between May 21, 2009
and February 2, 2010. The move for a potential class action
several years later is being seen as opportunistic by some
investors because it has apparently been timed to get in before
Roc ends its days as a publicly listed company and is taken over
by the Chinese player.
Slater and Gordon said the proposed class action was notified to
institutional investors on August 4. It said the fact Fosun made
its offer for Roc on the same day was "entirely coincidental".
But should the action go ahead, it could trigger a material
adverse change (MAC) condition in the Fosun-Roc transaction,
involving any event that results in a U$S15 million (AU$17
million) reduction in asset value or earnings.
The initial deadline for the registration of claims for the class
action is October 17, the same day Fosun could declare its offer
unconditional for Roc. Fosun's offer, which has so far gained 29
per cent acceptances, closes on October 15 and can be declared
unconditional two days after reaching the 50 per cent minimum
condition.
"The question really is whether Slater and Gordon bring the action
against Roc before the offer is declared unconditional, and
whether the quantum of the claim is sufficient to trigger the MAC
clause," one broker said.
Roc, which is being advised in the takeover by JB North & Co,
described the attempt to garner shareholder support for a
potential claim as "purely speculative and highly opportunistic".
The company said it will "vigorously defend its position and does
not consider this matter to be material in relation to the Fosun
takeover".
Slater and Gordon senior class action lawyer Ben Phi said the
takeover was "entirely irrelevant" to the proposed class action,
which he said should not be material to the takeover.
She said all information that the company was aware of that was
material to the Fosun deal had been disclosed in the target's
statement. Roc shares on Oct. 3 fell 0.5 cent to 68 cents, 1 cent
shy of Fosun's cash offer.
The potential class action is the latest hurdle to arise in the
takeover of Roc, after an earlier AU$800 million proposal by the
mid-cap player to merge with Horizon Oil was knocked off course by
the Fosun cash offer. Controversy also surrounded the Roc-Horizon
merger proposal because it was structured so that Roc Oil
shareholders did not get an opportunity to vote on the
transaction. The claim relates to an 80 per cent downgrade in
reserves at the Basker-Manta-Gummy venture by Roc in February
2010, which drove a 31 per cent slump in the share price.
It alleges Roc knew or ought to have known of the issues driving
the cut in reserves no later than May 21, 2009, causing losses to
shareholders who bought stock in the intervening period. The
claim alleges Roc was therefore in breach of the Corporations Act
and engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct, breaching its
obligations of continuous disclosure.
"In our opinion, the price reaction on February 3, 2010 is
evidence that ROC shares were trading at an artificially inflated
price during the claim period," the letter says.
"It will be alleged that persons who acquired ROC shares at
inflated prices have suffered a compensable loss."
Slater and Gordon said a Queen's Counsel has considered the
allegations and advised that the proposed claim "has reasonable
prospects of success".
SOURCE MEDIA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. for Sending Unsolicited Fax
----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Curtis Associates, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Source Media LLC d/b/a Source Media,
Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07987 (S.D.N.Y., October 3, 2014), is
brought against the Defendant for sending out thousands of fax
advertisements for goods and services that were unsolicited and
lacked proper opt-out notices to persons throughout New York.
Source Media LLC owns and operates a diversified business-to-
business digital media company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
BELLIN & ASSOCIATES
85 Miles Avenue
White Plains, NY 10606
Telephone: (212) 358-5345
Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com
SPECIALIZED HOME: Faces "Mora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank P. Mora and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C.
216(b) v. Specialized Home Electronics, Inc., Dwayne M. Diaz, and
Robert A. Barker, Case No. 1:14-cv-23671 (S.D. Fla., October 3,
2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.
Specialized Home Electronics, Inc. offers a variety of electronic
products for your home.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
SUPER POLLO: Faces "Vera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Vera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated
v. Super Pollo Rest. Inc., and Julio Vasquez and Luis Vasquez,
both in their individual and professional capacities, Case No.
1:14-cv-05788 (E.D.N.Y., October 2, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Defendants own and operate 865 Woodward Avenue, Ridgewood, New
York 11385.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Gastman, Esq.
BORRELLI AND ASSOCIATES
1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
E-mail: alg@employmentlawyernewyork.com
SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Sued Over Damages Caused by MIR162 Corn
-------------------------------------------------------------
Volnek Farms, Inc. v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop
Protection, LLC, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-00305 (D.
Neb., October 3, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to inform farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and
the general public into believing that regulatory approval of
MIR162 corn from China was imminent and that the lack of Chinese
approval would not impact the corn market prices.
The Defendants are engaged in the business of developing and
selling, in interstate commerce, corn seed which includes certain
genetically engineered traits.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles T. Patterson, Esq.
PATTERSON, PRAHL LAW FIRM
25043 Little Water Lane, P.O. Box 767
Custer, SD 57730
Telephone: (605) 673-5223
E-mail: tom.patterson@heidmanlaw.com
- and -
James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
Mindy B. Pava, Esq.
Richard S. Lewis, Esq.
HAUSFELD FIRM
1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
- and -
Paul D. Lundberg, Esq.
LUNDBERG LAW FIRM
600 4th Street, Suite 906, Terra Centre
Sioux City, IA 51101
Telephone: (712) 234-3030
Facsimile: (712) 234-3034
E-mail: patl@terracentre.net
- and -
Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
WALTERS, BENDER LAW FIRM
1100 Main Street, Suite 2500,
City Center Square, P.O. Box 26188
Kansas City, MO 64196
Telephone: (414) 751-1278
Facsimile: (414) 751-1418
TANGOE INC: Court Junks "Stein" Class Action
--------------------------------------------
District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant dismissed the consolidated class
action complaint captioned LEWIS STEIN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Other Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. TANGOE, INC.,
ALBERT R. SUBBLOIE JR., GARY R. MARTINO, and GARY P. GOLDING,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 313-CV-00286 (VLB), (D. Conn.).
The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted and for failure to plead fraud with specificity as
required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) and the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).
A copy of Judge Bryant's September 30, 2014 memorandum of decision
is available at http://bit.ly/1sca8pyfrom Leagle.com.
Tangoe Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Jonathan Horne --
jhorne@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A..
TC QUEENS: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Polina Zhukovskaya Clements, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. TC Queens Entertainment Corp. d/b/a Scandals
and Anastasios Tsementzis, Case No. 1:14-cv-05772 (E.D.N.Y.,
October 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
misappropriated tips and other monies pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club in Long
Island City.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Joseph Redenburg, Esq.
MICHAEL J. REDENBURG ESQ. PC
150 Broadway, Suite 808
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 240-9465
Facsimile: (917) 591-1667
E-mail: mredenburg@mjrlaw-ny.com
TEWKSBURY, MA: Faces "Gage" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason L. Gage, Jr., Kimberly Griffin, Jason Mcnamara, Karen
Poisson, and Garin Worth v. Town Of Tewksbury, Case No. 1:14-cv-
13787 (D. Mass., October 3, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum wage pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Town Of Tewksbury is an independent body politic established under
the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, located in
Middlesex County, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel W. Rice, Esq.
GLYNN, LANDRY & RICE, LLP
25 Braintree Hill Office Park
Braintree, MA 02184
Telephone: (781) 849-8479
Facsimile: (781) 356-3393
E-mail: daniel.rice@glhrlaw.com
THIRD FEDERAL: Sued Over Force-Placed Flood Insurance Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of
Cleveland, Case No. 0:14-cv-62279 (S.D. Fla., October 3, 2014),
alleges that the Defendants and Assurant Specialty Property
entered into contracts and arrangements that establish Assurant,
Inc. subsidiaries will provide force-placed flood insurance
policies to Third Federal. Third Federal then charges borrowers
amounts -- purportedly to pay for such insurance -- by diverting
the borrowers' monthly mortgage payments, directly charging their
lines of credit and debiting the borrowers' escrow accounts.
Such policies provide less coverage and are substantially more
costly than the borrowers' original, voluntary policies, while
providing improper, undisclosed, and lucrative financial benefits
to servicers and their affiliates, as well as to providers of
force-placed insurance.
Third Federal Savings and Loan Association of Cleveland offers
home equity line of credit, jumbo loans, and bridge loans.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tod N. Aronovitz, Esq.
ARONOVITZ LAW
One Biscayne Tower
2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 2630
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 372-2772
Facsimile: (305) 397-1886
E-mail: ta@aronovitzlaw.com
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Tacoma Rust Corrosion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lipkin, Kurt Orzeck and Andrew Scurria, writing for
Law360, report that an Arkansas Tacoma truck owner hit Toyota
Motor Sales USA Inc. with a federal putative class action on
Oct. 3, alleging some Tacoma frames were vulnerable to rust, less
than a week after Toyota recalled almost 700,000 Tacomas over
separate corrosion concerns.
Plaintiff Ryan Burns alleges that 2005 to 2009 model Tacomas are
prone to rust corrosion, making them unsafe to drive without
expensive repairs or replacements for which Toyota has declined to
pay.
"Toyota USA has long known that the frames on its Tacoma vehicles
lack adequate rust corrosion protection," Mr. Burns said.
"Despite this knowledge, Toyota USA failed to disclose the
existence of this defect to plaintiff and other class members at
the time of sale."
Mr. Burns claims Toyota knew about the corrosion problems in
Tacoma frames because it extended warranty coverage in 2008 for
Tacomas from 1995 to 2000 after getting complaints about frame
rust. That warranty extension was later applied to 2001 through
2004 Tacomas, as well, according to the suit.
The company also launched a limited campaign in some cold-weather
states this summer, paying for dealers to apply corrosion
protection to 2005 to 2008 Tacoma frames, or to repair and replace
rusted ones.
"The limited service campaign is inadequate to remedy the latent
defect existing on subject Tacoma vehicles because it only applies
to a fraction of subject Tacoma vehicles and was not widely
publicized," Mr. Burns said.
The suit alleges Toyota violated Arkansas' Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and was unjustly
enriched. It seeks a declaration that the rust defect exists and
that Toyota will repair or replace any class member's truck.
Toyota on Sept. 29 said it was recalling about 690,000 Tacoma
pickup trucks from 2005 to 2011 over concerns that faulty rear
suspension systems could cause fuel tank leaks and potentially
lead to fires. Parts of the suspension system could fracture due
to stress and corrosions, according to Toyota, and those broken
pieces could potentially puncture the fuel tank. Toyota said it
doesn't know of any fires, crashes or casualties tied to the
defect.
That announcement came soon after Toyota said it would recall
about 20,000 Avalon, Camry, Highlander, Sienna and Lexus RX
vehicles over fears that the fuel delivery pipe in the engine
compartment could leak and potentially increase the risk of fires.
On Sept. 11, the company also said it would recall about 130,000
Tundra Crew-Max Cab and Double Cab vehicles because a possible
installation problem could cause airbags to improperly deploy.
In April, Toyota issued recalls covering 6.4 million vehicles
worldwide over cable assemblies that can deactivate driver's side
airbags and weak rail springs that can allow seats to shift.
As with the Tacoma suspension system defect, the company said it
didn't know of any crashes, injuries or fatalities linked to the
other defects.
Mr. Burns is represented by Phillip J. Milligan of Milligan Law
Offices, Michael L. Roberts of Roberts Law Firm PA and Ben Barnow
and Erich P. Schork of Barnow and Associates PC.
The case is Ryan Burns v. Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc., case number
2:14-cv-02208, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Arkansas.
TRIBUNE MEDIA: Briefings on Motions to Dismiss Completed in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York District Court entered an order establishing a
protocol for defendants and the Litigation Trustee to brief
additional motions to dismiss the FitzSimons Complaint and the
Committee Advisor Complaint, and briefings on those additional
motions to dismiss were completed on or about July 3, 2014,
Tribune Media Company said in its Form 10 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2014.
On April 1, 2007, the Predecessor's board of directors (the
"Predecessor Board"), based on the recommendation of a special
committee of the Predecessor Board comprised entirely of
independent directors, approved the Leveraged ESOP Transactions.
On Dec. 20, 2007, the Predecessor completed the Leveraged ESOP
Transactions, which culminated in the cancellation of all issued
and outstanding shares of the Predecessor's common stock as of
that date, other than shares held by the Predecessor or the ESOP,
and with the Predecessor becoming wholly-owned by the ESOP. See
Note 1 to the Company's consolidated financial statements for the
year ended Dec. 29, 2013 for a description of the Leveraged ESOP
Transactions. The Leveraged ESOP Transactions and certain debt
financings were the subject of extensive review by the Debtors,
including substantial document review and legal and factual
analyses of these transactions as a result of the prepetition debt
incurred and payments made by the Company in connection therewith.
Additionally, the Creditors' Committee and certain other
constituencies undertook their own reviews and due diligence
concerning these transactions, with which the Debtors cooperated.
On Nov. 1, 2010, with authorization from the Bankruptcy Court, the
Creditors' Committee initiated two adversary proceedings: Official
Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re
Tribune Co.), Case No. 10-53963, (the "JPMorgan Complaint") and
Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors v. FitzSimons (In re Tribune
Co.), Case No. 10-54010 (as subsequently modified, the "FitzSimons
Complaint"), which assert claims and causes of action related to
the Leveraged ESOP Transactions including, among other things,
breach of duty, disgorgement, professional malpractice,
constructive and intentional fraudulent transfer, and preferential
transfer actions against certain of Tribune Company's senior
lenders and various non-lender parties, including current and
former directors and officers of Tribune Company and its
subsidiaries, certain advisors, certain former shareholders of
Tribune Company and Samuel Zell and related entities. The
Bankruptcy Court imposed a stay of proceedings with respect to the
JPMorgan Complaint and the FitzSimons Complaint.
With limited exceptions, the claims and causes of action set forth
in the JPMorgan Complaint against JPMorgan and other senior
lenders named as defendants therein were settled pursuant to the
Plan. For administrative ease in effectuating the settlement
embodied in the Plan, on April 2, 2012, the Creditors' Committee
initiated an additional adversary proceeding relating to the
Leveraged ESOP Transactions against certain advisors to the
Company, captioned Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors v.
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. and Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Inc. (In re Tribune Co.), Case No. 12-50446, (the "Committee
Advisor Complaint"). The Committee Advisor Complaint re-states
certain counts of the JPMorgan Complaint and seeks to avoid and
recover the advisor fees paid to the defendants in connection with
the Leveraged ESOP Transactions as alleged fraudulent and
preferential transfers, seeks compensatory damages against the
defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary
duty by the Company's directors and officers, and seeks damages
for professional malpractice against the defendants. The claims
and causes of action set forth in the FitzSimons Complaint and the
Committee Advisor Complaint were preserved under the Plan and
transferred to the Litigation Trust established pursuant to the
Plan.
Pursuant to certain agreements between Reorganized Tribune Company
and the Litigation Trust, Reorganized Tribune Company is required
to reasonably cooperate with the Litigation Trustee in connection
with the Litigation Trustee's pursuit of these and other
Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action by providing
reasonable access to records and information relating thereto.
On or about June 2, 2011, Deutsche Bank, Law Debenture and WTC, as
indenture trustees for Tribune Company's senior noteholders and
PHONES, and, separately, certain retirees, filed approximately 50
complaints in over 20 different federal and state courts, seeking
to recover amounts paid to all former shareholders of Tribune
Company whose stock was purchased or cash settled in conjunction
with the Leveraged ESOP Transactions under state law constructive
fraudulent transfer causes of action (collectively and as
subsequently amended, the "SLCFC Actions"). Those complaints named
over 2,000 individuals and entities as defendants, included
thousands of "doe" defendants, and also asserted defendant class
actions against the balance of the approximately 38,000
individuals or entities who held stock that was purchased or
redeemed via the Leveraged ESOP Transactions. The SLCFC Actions
were independent of the Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of
Action and were dismissed by the NY District Court (as defined
below) on Sept. 23, 2013. The named defendants included a Debtor
subsidiary of Tribune Company, certain current employees of
Reorganized Tribune Company and certain benefit plans of
Reorganized Tribune Company. The SLCFC Actions were brought for
the sole benefit of the senior noteholders and PHONES and/or
certain retirees and not for the benefit of all of the Company's
creditors.
On Aug. 16, 2011, the plaintiffs in the SLCFC Actions filed a
motion to have all the SLCFC Actions removed to federal court
during the pre-trial stages through multi-district litigation
("MDL") proceedings before a single judge. All but one of these
actions were transferred on Dec. 19, 2011 (or by additional orders
filed in early January 2012) to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (the "NY District Court")
under the consolidated docket numbers 1:11-md-02296 and 1:12-mc-
02296 for pre-trial proceedings. The NY District Court entered a
case management order on Feb. 23, 2012 allowing all pending
motions to amend the complaints in the SLCFC Actions and directing
the defendants to form an executive committee representing
defendants with aligned common interests. The NY District Court
imposed a stay of proceedings with respect to the SLCFC Actions
for all other purposes. The one SLCFC Action that was not
transferred to the NY District Court is pending before a state
court. However, no current or former employees, directors,
officers or subsidiaries of Reorganized Tribune Company are named
defendants in that action.
In related actions, on Dec. 19, 2011, the Zell Entity and related
entities filed two lawsuits in Illinois state court alleging
constructive fraudulent transfer against former shareholders of
Tribune Company. These suits propose to protect the Zell Entity's
right to share in any recovery from fraudulent conveyance actions
against former shareholders. These actions are independent of the
Litigation Trust Preserved Causes of Action. By order dated June
11, 2012, the MDL panel transferred one of the lawsuits to the NY
District Court to be heard with the consolidated SLCFC Actions in
the MDL proceedings.
On March 15, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order,
effective June 1, 2012, lifting the stay in each of the SLCFC
Actions and the FitzSimons Complaint. On March 20, 2012, the MDL
panel entered an order transferring the FitzSimons Complaint to
the NY District Court to be heard with the consolidated SLCFC
Actions in the MDL proceedings. By order dated Aug. 3, 2012, the
MDL panel transferred the Committee Advisor Complaint to the NY
District Court to be heard with the FitzSimons Complaint and the
consolidated SLCFC Actions in the MDL proceedings. By order dated
May 21, 2013, the MDL panel transferred 18 Preference Actions (as
defined and described below) seeking to recover certain payments
made by Tribune Company to certain of its current and former
executives in connection with the Leveraged ESOP Transactions from
the Bankruptcy Court to the NY District Court for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the other MDL proceedings.
The NY District Court presiding over the MDL proceedings held a
case management conference on July 10, 2012 for the purpose of
establishing the organizational structure of the cases, a schedule
for motions to dismiss and discovery and other issues related to
the administration of such proceedings, but otherwise stayed all
other activity. On Sept. 7, 2012, the NY District Court issued a
case management order designating liaison counsel for the
plaintiffs and various defendant groups and approved the formation
of the executive committee for plaintiffs' counsel and defendants'
counsel. In accordance with that case management order, counsel
for the defendants filed motions to dismiss the SLCFC Actions
based on certain statutory and jurisdictional defenses. The
plaintiffs filed their responses to the motions to dismiss on Dec.
21, 2012. The NY District Court heard oral arguments on the
defendants' motions to dismiss on May 23, 2013 and on May 29, 2013
issued an order denying certain of those motions in their
entirety.
On June 4, 2013, the Litigation Trustee sought leave from the NY
District Court to amend the FitzSimons Complaint and the Committee
Advisor Complaint. The NY District Court granted that request on
July 22, 2013, and the Committee Advisor Complaint was amended
thereafter on Aug. 13, 2013. On Sept. 23, 2013, the NY District
Court entered an order dismissing the SLCFC Actions (except for
the one action, pending in California state court, which had not
been transferred to the MDL) and the related action filed by the
Zell Entity that was consolidated with the SLCFC Actions. The
plaintiffs in the SLCFC Actions filed a notice of appeal of that
order on Sept. 30, 2013. The defendants' liaison counsel filed a
joint notice of cross-appeal of that order on behalf of all
represented defendants on Oct. 28, 2013. No appeal of the order
was lodged by the Zell Entity. The appeals remain pending.
On Nov. 20, 2013, the NY District Court issued a case management
order, which authorized the Litigation Trustee to continue the
FitzSimons Complaint in accordance with a court-ordered protocol.
On Jan. 29, 2014, Feb. 3, 2014 and Feb. 11, 2014, the Litigation
Trustee filed four Notices of Voluntary Dismissal, dismissing the
FitzSimons Complaint against approximately 107 former shareholder
defendants who received less than $50,000 on account of their
Tribune Company common stock in connection with the Leveraged ESOP
Transactions.
On Feb. 28, 2014, the NY District Court entered an order
establishing a protocol for defendants and the Litigation Trustee
to follow when the defendant believes they should be dismissed
from the FitzSimons Complaint because the amounts they received on
account of their Tribune Company common stock in connection with
the Leveraged ESOP Transactions were below certain thresholds. On
April 24, 2014, the NY District Court entered an order
establishing a protocol for defendants and the Litigation Trustee
to brief additional motions to dismiss the FitzSimons Complaint
and the Committee Advisor Complaint. Briefings on those additional
motions to dismiss were completed on or about July 3, 2014.
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Class in Suit v. Homeland Security
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum opinion and order entered September 30, 2014,
available at http://bit.ly/10Or6ipfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
John Z. Lee granted in part an amended motion for class
certification filed by plaintiffs' in JOSE JIMENEZ MORENO and
MARIA JOSE LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS); JOHN MORTON, Director of
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Removal
Operations (ERO); DAVID C. PALMATIER, Unit Chief, ICE/ERO Law
Enforcement Support Center (LESC); RICARDO WONG, ICE/ERO Director,
Chicago Field Office, in their official capacities, Defendants,
CASE NO. 11 C 5452, (N.D. Ill.).
The Court certified the class defined as: All current and future
persons against whom Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has
issued an immigration detainer of the Chicago Area of
Responsibility where: (1) ICE has instructed the law enforcement
agency (LEA) to continue to detain the individual after the LEA's
authority has expired; (2) where ICE has not served a Notice to
Appear or other charging documents, has not served a warrant of
arrest for removal proceedings, and/or has not obtained an order
of deportation or removal with respect to the individual; and (3)
where the LEA cooperates with ICE in complying with detainers.
The Court declined to certify Plaintiffs' proposed sub-class.
In this complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the issuance of the
detainers exceeded ICE's statutory authority under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. Sections 706(2)(A)-
(D), and the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), 8 U.S.C.
Sections 1226(a), 1357(a)(2), and 1357(d), and violated their
constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth
Amendments.
Ricardo Wong, Defendant, represented by Colin Abbott Kisor, United
States Navy, Craig Arthur Oswald, United States Attorney's Office,
Jacob A Bashyrov, U.s. Department Of Justice, Civil, Office Of
Imm. Lit., Lana Lunskaya Vahab & William Charles Silvis, United
States Department of Justice.
UNITED STATES: Dearborn Man Sues Over Terrorist Selectee List
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Park, writing for WXYZ, reports that a Detroit area
businessman is suing the government for what he calls unfair
targeting based on his race. Dearborn resident Nasser Beydoun
says he's on a government "selectee" list that requires him to
undergo secondary checks and questioning every time he tries to
fly.
Mr. Beydoun says his status doesn't allow him to check in online
for flights, his bags get screened, and TSA agents have to call
the Terrorist Screening Center before Mr. Beydoun boards a plane.
"This happens every single time," Mr. Beydoun said.
Mr. Beydoun says he's never been told why he's on a watch list,
but that he's being unfairly targeted because he's Arab American.
"I don't have any connections to known terrorists or associate
with terrorists or support terrorists or sympathize with
terrorists," he said.
Efforts to clear his name with the Department of Homeland Security
have gone nowhere, Mr. Beydoun says.
So now, he wants to take the government to court. The class
action lawsuit he filed on Oct. 3 names U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder and the heads of the FBI and Terrorist Screening Center.
"People might say, 'Hey, look. He's an Arab. Maybe he's a
terrorist.' We're not gonna fall for that. We're gonna basically
fight for our rights because when we fight for our rights were
fighting for everybody else's rights," Mr. Beydoun said.
Mr. Beydoun says he's willing to represent thousands of other Arab
Americans in metro Detroit and across the country in his fight for
due process and transparency from the government.
Action News' request for comment from the Justice Department has
not been returned.
URBAN SETTLEMENT: Dist. Court Dismisses RICO Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD GEORGE, STEVEN LEAVITT, SANDRA LEAVITT, DARRELL DALTON,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. URBAN SETTLEMENT
SERVICES, d/b/a Urban Lending Solutions, and BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-01819-PAB-KLM, (D. Colo.)
arose out of BOA's and Urban's administration of the Home
Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). On behalf of themselves
and a nationwide class, plaintiffs bring a claim against BOA and
Urban under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c). Plaintiffs' RICO claim alleges
that BOA and Urban were part of an enterprise that engaged in mail
and wire fraud and extortion. On behalf of themselves and
statewide classes of similarly situated borrowers, plaintiffs also
bring a claim against BOA for promissory estoppel. The matter is
before the Court on motions to dismiss the first amended class
action complaint filed by Urban and BOA.
District Judge Philip A. Brimmer granted the motions and dismissed
the case in its entirety. A copy of the court's September 30,
2014 order is available at http://bit.ly/1tzyfdjfrom Leagle.com.
Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by James W. McGarry,
Goodwin Procter, LLP, Keith Eric Levenberg --
klevenberg@goodwinprocter.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP & Peter John
Korneffel, Jr. -- peter.korneffel@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.
US ALLIANCE: "Fennell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Fennell v. U.S. Alliance Management Corp., a Florida
corporation, and Jonathan Hamilton, individually, Case No. 0:14-
cv-62270 (S.D. Fla., October 2, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages or pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fee and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
U.S. Alliance Management Corp. owns and operates a security
management company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
MILITZOK & LEVY, P.A.
3230 Stirling Road, Suite
Hollywood, FL 33021
Telephone: (954) 727-8570
Facsimile: (954) 241-6857
E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com
US INVESTIGATIONS: Accused of Unlawful Termination of Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Karaniewsky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. US Investigations Services, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-
01344 (W.D. Pa., October 3, 2014), alleges that the Defendant
terminated without notice the employment of approximately 1200 or
so full-time employees on August 7, 2014.
US Investigations Services, LLC is a U.S. government contractor
that specializes in conducting investigations for U.S. government
agencies.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Cordes, Esq.
SAMUEL J. CORDES & ASSOCIATES
245 Fort Pitt Boulevard, 2nd Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 281-7991
Facsimile: (412) 325-3348
E-mail: scordes@cordeslawfirm.com
WANRONG TRADING: Faces "Lin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shu Song Lin and Jun Chen, individually and on behalf of all other
employees similarly situated v. Wanrong Trading Corp., Tai Chang
Inc., Hui Chang Inc., Yi Ang Shao, Xiang Qi Chen, Xiang Chao Shao,
Xu Mao Ren, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-05786
(E.D.N.Y., October 2, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
in a workweek.
The Defendants are engaged in meat processing business located at
48-43 32nd Place, Long Island City, New York 11101.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jian Hang, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
WORLDWIDE POOLS: "Chaviano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rolando Chaviano v. Worldwide Pools II, Inc., Hector Negron Jr.,
and Richard Arroyo, Case No. 1:14-cv-23648 (S.D. Fla., October 2,
2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a commercial pool cleaning business
in Miami Lakes, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
2501 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 100
Hollywood, FL 33020
Telephone: (954) 921-9994
Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2014. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200.
* * * End of Transmission * * *