/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141104.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, November 4, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 219
Headlines
ABC CORP: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AFFILIATE MASTERS: Sued in C.D. Cal. for Making Unsolicited Calls
AFFINION GROUP: No Ruling Yet on Bid for Interlocutory Appeal
AFFINION GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Webloyalty Case Filed
AFFINION GROUP: No Ruling Yet in Bid to Dismiss Mass. Class Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Case Management Conference Held in Class Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Has Nov. 10 to Respond to Motion for Leave
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiff in Securities Suit Appeals to 9th Cir
ALPHA NATURAL: Reports $195MM Payments Related to Class Suit Deal
AMITABH BACHCHAN: Sued in C.D. California Over Alleged Genocide
ARCHSTONE-SMITH TRUST: Court Narrows "Stender" Suit
AVANQUEST NORTH AMERICA: Boyd Can Amend Defective Software Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of ISDAfix Rate
BLCH 3RD AVE: Faces "Tapia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Class Certification Bid in Gehl Suit Due Jan. 27
BUSARA'S HOUSE: Faces "Komolvich" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CBD ENERGY: Sued in E.D. Texas Over Misleading Financial Results
CHEVRON CORP: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Iraqis' Suit
CINEMA SOUND: "Cuartas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CLUB MACANUDO: Faces "Dwyer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COMCAST CORPORATION: E.D. Pa Judge Won't Transfer Suit to Mass.
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Faces Davie Police Pension Plan Class Action
COSTAR GROUP: Plaintiffs Agree to Drop Suit Over LoopNet Merger
CRIMSON EXPLORATION: Class Action Over Contango Merger Dismissed
CVS PHARMACY: 1st Cir. Clarifies Removal Time Period Under CAFA
DEN-OK INC: Faces "Dunn" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
EXPEDIA INC: Judge Dismisses Hotel Price-Fixing Class Action
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Claims Deadline in Holman Suit Extended
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Action
LYFT INC: Hagens Berman Mulls Suit Over Lack of Proper Licenses
IBIO INC: Exaggerates Role in Ebola-Related Efforts, Suit Says
K12 INC: Court Heard Oral Arguments on Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit
KKR FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Shareholder Litigation
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Actions Consolidated in New York Court
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: 18 Crash Plaintiffs Released Claims v. ACSS
LIFE TIME: TCPA Actions Transferred to Minnesota Court
LIFEWAY FOODS: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
LIVE NATION: $35.1MM Accrued in Ticket Fees Case Settlement
LOCAL 103 IBEW: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Union Member's Case
LOREAL USA: "Neuman" Lawsuit Remanded to Cuyahoga County Court
LUZERNE COUNTY: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Flora" Suit
MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS: Reply Deadline in "Oldham" Suit Moved
MASAGO NEO: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MASTERCARD INC: Executed Settlements With Opt-Out Merchants
MASTERCARD INC: Provides Updates on Canada Merchant Litigation
MASTERCARD INC: Provides Updates on Europe Litigations
MICHAELS STORES: Judge Won't Re-open "Moyer" Data Breach Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: TCPA Action Allowed to Proceed
NEUSTAR INC: Indiana Retirement System Named as Lead Plaintiff
NEW YORK MEDIA: Reduction of Magazine Delivery Labeled as Fraud
NIKON INC: Faces Suit Over Faulty Auto Focusing System in Cameras
NUVASIVE INC: Nov. 17 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
OSMOSE INC: Faces Class Action in Virgin Islands Court
PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Lovallo" Class Action
PANASONIC CORP: Faces "Wong" Suit Over Capacitors-Price Fixing
PAYPAL INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fox" Action Claims
PETCO ANIMAL: Dist. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Scholnick" Suit
PHILIPS ORAL: "Coe" Consumer Suit Denied Class Certification
PLY GEM: Strathcyle Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Celera Settlement to be Covered by Insurance
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Amended Complaint Filed in Biotechnology Suit
REPUBLIC NATIONAL: Sued in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
S.A.E ROACHBUSTERS: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Garces" Suit Claims
SECURITAS SECURITY: Court Certifies Class in "Deatrick" Suit
SUPERMEDIA INC: To Pay $3 Million to Settle Labor Class Action
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Dunn" Suit Over Defective Air Bags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Takeda" Suit Over Defective Air Bags
TIBOR SZABO: Sued for Conning Clients Out of Thousands of Dollars
TIME WARNER: Still Defending Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case
TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs in "Downs" Case Files Reconsideration Bid
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Certifies Class in Mail & Wire Fraud Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Summary Judgment Schedule in "O'Connor" Suit
UNITED MATTRESS: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Q3 2014 Results Exclude Class Suit Costs
WESTERN UNION: Lead Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Suit
WESTERN UNION: "Douglas" Class Action in Preliminary Stage
WHITING PETROLEUM: 4 Class Actions Voluntarily Dismissed
WHOLESALE TILE: Faces "Santiago" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Supreme Court to Hear Gas Purchasers' Case
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Flint Hills Appeals to Alaska Supreme Court
XEROX CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Case Dismissal
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Bellwether Hip Device Trial Begins
*********
ABC CORP: "Chen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhong Xian Chen, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. ABC Corp. d/b/a Tengda Asian Bistro or
Tengda Westport, Jason Chen, Andy Chen, John Doe and Jane Doe #1-
10, Case No. 3:14-cv-01586 (D. Conn., October 27, 2014), seeks to
recover unpaid wages for overtime work, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate the Tengda restaurant located at
1330 Post Road East, Westport, CT 06880.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jian Hang, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8388
Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
AFFILIATE MASTERS: Sued in C.D. Cal. for Making Unsolicited Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Robbins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Affiliate Masters LLC and Amazon.Com LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-08307 (C.D. Cal., October 27, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
Affiliate Masters LLC is the leading authority in affiliate
programs and websites.
Amazon.Com LLC is an American international electronic commerce
company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (877) 206-4741
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
AFFINION GROUP: No Ruling Yet on Bid for Interlocutory Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. does not know when the court will rule on the
motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions of the
court's order of March 28, 2014 in a class action lawsuit,
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.
On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"),
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment.
On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion.
On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration. On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit
affirmed the decision of the District Court denying arbitration.
While that issue was on appeal, the matter proceeded in the
district court. There was written discovery and depositions.
Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the
Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD
Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp.,
People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten
USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc. The second
of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the same
defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co.
These two cases assert similar claims as the claims asserted in
the earlier-filed lawsuit in connection with the sale by
Trilegiant of its membership programs.
On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The
court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012.
At that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file
a consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the
three previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the
class certification briefing schedule that had been set
previously.
On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants.
On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain
portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on
February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April
5, 2013. On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on
the motions to dismiss.
On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss,
granting them in part and denying them in part. The court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the
California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The
court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were
barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior
settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from
the case. The court also struck certain allegations from the
consolidated amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs'
class action allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and
Trilegiant, the court denied the motion to dismiss certain
Plaintiffs' claims under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well
as certain other claims of Plaintiffs under CUPTA.
Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010).
On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that
case into the existing set of consolidated cases. On June 13,
2013, the Court entered an order staying the date for all
Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the
court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate.
On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases
filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the
consolidated amended complaint. On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions
of the court's order of March 28, 2014. Briefing on the motion
was completed on June 5, 2014. The Company does not know when the
court will rule on that motion.
Affinion is a global leader in the designing, marketing and
servicing of comprehensive customer engagement and loyalty
solutions that enhance and extend the relationship of millions of
consumers with many of the largest and most respected companies in
the world.
AFFINION GROUP: Bid to Dismiss Webloyalty Case Filed
----------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, the Court has not yet
set a briefing schedule on the Company's further motion to dismiss
in a class action lawsuit against Webloyalty.
On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violation (the
"Connecticut Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's
alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008.
On November 1, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complaint, which plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss
this lawsuit.
On May 15, 2014, the Court heard oral argument on plaintiff's
motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the
plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of
the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2014, the
Court denied plaintiff's motion to strike. The Court, at the same
time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but reserved until
further proceedings the determination as to whether all of
plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those claims
not grounded in fraud are dismissible.
The Court has permitted the plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to
amend his complaint and has allowed the parties the opportunity to
conduct limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014,
concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order.
The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the Court will set a
further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the
conclusion of this limited discovery.
The plaintiff amended his complaint as scheduled, and the parties
conducted limited discovery as ordered. However, the Court has not
yet set a briefing schedule on the Company's further motion to
dismiss.
Affinion is a global leader in the designing, marketing and
servicing of comprehensive customer engagement and loyalty
solutions that enhance and extend the relationship of millions of
consumers with many of the largest and most respected companies in
the world.
AFFINION GROUP: No Ruling Yet in Bid to Dismiss Mass. Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action
lawsuit was filed on February 7, 2014 against the Company and one
of its clients in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts alleging, among other things, violations
of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic Communications
Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, money had and received,
conversion, misrepresentation, violation of the Massachusetts
Consumer Protection Act and equitable relief. Claims are based on
allegations that plaintiff was enrolled and billed for a package
program without plaintiff's proper consent and knowledge. On
April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. A hearing on
that motion was held on July 24, 2014. The Company does not know
when the court will rule on that motion.
Affinion is a global leader in the designing, marketing and
servicing of comprehensive customer engagement and loyalty
solutions that enhance and extend the relationship of millions of
consumers with many of the largest and most respected companies in
the world.
AFFINION GROUP: Case Management Conference Held in Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a class action
lawsuit was filed on May 12, 2014, against the Company and one of
its clients in the United States District Court, Northern District
of California - San Francisco Division. The complaint alleges
plaintiff was unknowingly enrolled in and charged for an Identity
Theft Protection program. The defendants moved to compel
individual arbitration of the case or in the alternative to
dismiss the case, and briefing on that motion concluded on
September 26, 2014. The court set a hearing on that motion, as
well as an initial case management conference, for October 30,
2014. The Company does not know when the court will rule on that
motion.
Affinion is a global leader in the designing, marketing and
servicing of comprehensive customer engagement and loyalty
solutions that enhance and extend the relationship of millions of
consumers with many of the largest and most respected companies in
the world.
AFFINION GROUP: Has Nov. 10 to Respond to Motion for Leave
----------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. is required to respond to the motion for
leave to amend a class action complaint by November 10, 2014, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.
On June 7, 2012, class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action.
The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business and Professional
Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act. Both claims are based on allegations
that in connection with enrollment and billing of the plaintiff,
Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card using
information obtained through a data pass process and without
obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name,
address, and contact information, as purportedly required under
Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.
On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety and the Court scheduled a hearing on the
motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial
notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account
documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012,
and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013.
Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the Court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing. On August 28, 2013, the Court sua sponte
dismissed plaintiff's complaint without prejudice with leave to
amend by September 30, 2013. The plaintiff filed his amended
complaint on September 30, 2013, adding purported claims under the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment,
money had and received, conversion, civil theft, and invasion of
privacy. On December 2, 2013, the Company moved to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint. Plaintiff responded to the motion
on January 27, 2014.
On February 6, 2014, the Court indicated that it would review the
submissions and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion without
oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the Court dismissed the
plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of
limitations grounds. The Court has allowed the plaintiff 28 days
to file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the
complaint would not be futile.
On October 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The
Company is required to respond to the motion by November 10, 2014.
Affinion is a global leader in the designing, marketing and
servicing of comprehensive customer engagement and loyalty
solutions that enhance and extend the relationship of millions of
consumers with many of the largest and most respected companies in
the world.
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Plaintiff in Securities Suit Appeals to 9th Cir
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Plaintiff in
the Securities Class Action Lawsuit filed a notice of appeal to
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345
Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align,
Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's
former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock (the "Securities Action").
On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the
same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
the Company's common stock between January 31, 2012 and October
17, 2012. The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott
and Mr. Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr.
Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged
that during the purported class period defendants failed to take
an appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29,
2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered the Company's financial statements and projections
of future earnings materially false and misleading and in
violation of U.S. GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary
damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees.
On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January
8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint.
On August 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss without leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of
this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any.
ALPHA NATURAL: Reports $195MM Payments Related to Class Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. reported a third quarter 2014 net
loss of $185 million or $0.84 per diluted share, compared with a
net loss of $458 million or $2.07 per diluted share in the third
quarter of 2013. Excluding the items described in "Reconciliation
of Adjusted Net Loss to Net Loss," the third quarter 2014 adjusted
net loss was $118 million or $0.53 per diluted share compared with
adjusted net loss of $134 million or $0.61 per diluted share in
the third quarter of 2013.
Cash provided by operating activities for the quarter ended
September 30, 2014 was $34 million, compared with cash provided by
operating activities of $111 million for the third quarter of
2013. Capital expenditures for the third quarter of 2014 were $45
million, compared with $56 million in the third quarter of 2013.
For the first nine months of 2014, cash used in operating
activities totaled $237 million, including $195 million in
payments related to the shareholder class action settlement, net
of insurance recoveries of $70 million, compared to cash provided
by operating activities of $179 million in the same period a year
ago.
Alpha Natural Resources is one of the largest and most regionally
diversified coal suppliers in the United States.
AMITABH BACHCHAN: Sued in C.D. California Over Alleged Genocide
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sikhs For Justice, Inc. "SFJ", Babu Singh Dukhiya, and Mohinder
Singh, on his own behalf and on behalf of deceased and injured
family members v. Amitabh Bachchan, a national and citizen of
India, Case No. 2:14-cv-08297 (C.D. Cal., October 27, 2014),
alleges that the Defendant is liable for genocide, extrajudicial
killings, torture, and crimes against humanity, forced excile,
attempted extrajudicial killings, torture and genocide and for
conspiring with and aiding and abetting others in the
aforementioned conduct.
Amitabh Bachchan is a citizen and national of India.
According to a Courthouse News Service report, the lawsuit claims
Bachchan, a Bollywood actor, incited the 1984 genocide of
thousands of Sikhs to avenge the assassination of Prime Minister
Indira Gandhi.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BABAK POURTAVOOSI PC
75-20 Astoria Boulevard, Suite 170
Jackson Heights, NY 11370
Telephone: (718) 672-8000;
Facsimile: (718) 732-4514
E-mail: Bpesq2@yahoo.com
ARCHSTONE-SMITH TRUST: Court Narrows "Stender" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
A Colorado court granted in part and denied in part a bid to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint brought by Steven Stender,
Harold Silver, and Infinity Clark Street Operating against
Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, et al.
The putative class action arose out of a 2007 transaction in which
the publicly held Archstone-Smith Real Estate Investment Trust was
taken private. Plaintiffs were investors in various Archstone-
predecessor UPREITs. In their Second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs allege:
-- breach of fiduciary duty against Archstone REIT in both its
capacity as trustee of the Archstone UPREIT and as majority
shareholder
-- aiding and abetting the breach of fiduciary duty against the
Tishman-Speyer Partnership
-- breach of contract against the Archstone UPREIT and the
Archstone REIT
-- tortious interference with contract against River Acquisition
(MD) LP and the Tishman Speyer Partnership;
-- civil conspiracy against Tishman-Speyer
-- unjust enrichment against River Acquisition (MD) LP and
Tishman-Speyer
In March 2014, Defendants sought dismissal of each of the claims.
In an Oct. 14, 2014 Order, District Judge William J. Martinez
ruled that:
1. The Motion to Dismiss is granted as to Claims One and Two, and
such claims are dismissed without prejudice based on lack of
standing;
2. The Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot with respect to Claims
Ten, Eleven, and Twelve based on Plaintiffs' voluntary
dismissal of such claims;
3. The Motion to Dismiss is denied as to Claims Three, Four, Five,
Six, Seven and Eight, and such claims remain pending in this
action; and
4. Without delay, the parties are to contact Magistrate Judge
Michael J. Watanabe's Chambers to discuss the next procedural
step in this case, including whether a lift of the stay is
appropriate.
Equity Residential, Defendant, represented by Jonathan D. Polkes,
Esq. -- jonathan.polkes@weil.com -- Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP.
AVANQUEST NORTH AMERICA: Boyd Can Amend Defective Software Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Boyd mistakenly thought that he purchased defective Fix-it
Utilities Professional ("Fix-It") software instead of System Suite
PC Tune-up & Repair ("System Suite") when he joined a class action
more than a year ago against the designer of the software,
Avanquest North America Inc. Boyd's co-class representative,
Benson Worley, had previously been pursuing claims related to
System Suite. On August 25, 2014, Worley dismissed his claims with
prejudice, and the Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal states both
that the claims against System Suite are dismissed without
prejudice and that they will no longer be at issue in the action,
leaving only Boyd's claims concerning Fix-It. But a few days after
the dismissal, Boyd realized that he had bought System Suite, not
Fix-It, and notified Avanquest that he wanted to amend his
complaint.
A California district court held that the parties' voluntary
dismissal of System Suite claims without prejudice does not
prevent Boyd from amending the First Amended Complaint to include
claims involving System Suite. Under these unusual circumstances,
where Boyd acted in good faith and discovered his mistake shortly
after the dismissal, where the issues Boyd seeks to litigate have
been an integral part of the case's development thus far, and
where there will be no impact on the trial date, Boyd has
satisfied the requirements for leave to amend pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16, the Court opined.
For these reasons, District Judge William H. Orrick denies
Avanquest's motion to enforce the parties' voluntary dismissal,
and grants Boyd leave to amend the First Amended Complaint as set
forth in his opposition brief. Because the second amended
complaint cures any jurisdictional deficiencies in this case, the
judge also denies Avanquest's motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
The case is JOHNNY BOYD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AVANQUEST NORTH
AMERICA INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-04391-WHO (N.D. Calif.).
A copy of Judge Orrick's Oct. 14, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/oAP3zlfrom Leagle.com.
Avanquest North America Inc is represented by N. Kathleen
Strickland, Esq. -- kathleen.strickland@rmkb.com ; Devin C.
Courteau, Esq. -- devin.courteau@rmkb.com ; Justin Ananda Zucker,
Esq. -- justin.zucker@rmkb.com ; and Lael D. Andara, Esq. --
lael.andara@rmkb.com of Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley PC.
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of ISDAfix Rate
---------------------------------------------------------------
County of Montgomery, Pennsylvania, individually, and on behalf of
all those similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, Case
No. 1:14-cv-08576 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2014), arises out of the
Defendant's multi-year conspiracy to manipulate ISDAfix, a scheme
that caused billions of dollars damages to the Plaintiff and other
members of the proposed Class.
ISDAfix is a published interest rate that was intended to serve as
a transparent and reliable benchmark for the marketplace -- a
snapshot of average fixed interest rates for swaps of various
terms.
Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware corporation, with its
principal place of business in Charlotte, North Carolina, and with
branch locations in New York, New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
Peter A. Barile III, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646)722-8500
Facsimile: (646)722-8501
E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
lnussbaum@gelaw.com
pbarile@gelaw.com
BLCH 3RD AVE: Faces "Tapia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valentin Tapia, Romulo Ricano Balderas, and Eufemia Castillo,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BLCH
3rd Ave. LLC. (d/b/a Brick Lane Curry House), Ajit Bains, and
Satinder Sharma, Case No. 1:14-cv-08529 (S.D.N.Y., October 24,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Defendants own, operate, and control an Indian restaurant
located at 1664 Third Avenue, New York, New York 10128 under the
name Brick Lane Curry House.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Class Certification Bid in Gehl Suit Due Jan. 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A California district court approved a joint stipulation for the
continuance of a briefing schedule in the lawsuit GEHL v. BLOOMIN'
BRANDS, INC., Case No. 4:13-CV-05961-KAW (N.D. Calif.).
The District Court-approved stipulation dated Oct. 15, 2014,
available at http://is.gd/RdVWJzfrom Leagle.com, provides that
(1) Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed on
or before January 27, 2015; (2) the opposition to the motion shall
be filed on or before March 11, 2015; (3) the reply in support of
the motion shall be filed on or before March 25, 2015; and (4) the
hearing date shall be continued to a date convenient for the Court
on or after April 10, 2015.
The putative class action was brought by Holly Gehl, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all current and former hourly, non-exempt
employees of T-Bird Restaurant Group, Inc. and T-Bird Nevada at an
"Outback Steakhouse" Restaurant in California, at any time during
the statutory time period.
The T-Bird Defendants are franchisees of Bloomin' Brands.
Bloomin' Brands, Inc. is a holding company and conducts its
operations through OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC ("OSI"), the
Company's primary operating entity, and New Private Restaurant
Properties, LLC, an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company that leases certain Company-owned restaurant properties to
a subsidiary of OSI. The Company owns and operates casual,
polished casual and fine dining restaurants primarily in the
United States. The Company's restaurant portfolio has five
concepts: Outback Steakhouse, Carrabba's Italian Grill, Bonefish
Grill, Fleming's Prime Steakhouse and Wine Bar and Roy's.
Additional Outback Steakhouse, Carrabba's Italian Grill and
Bonefish Grill restaurants in which the Company has no direct
investment are operated under franchise agreements.
As reported in the Sept. 5, 2014 edition of The Class Action
Reporter, the District Court approved a stipulation on Aug. 25,
2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/CF1Ir6from
Leagle.com, providing that on or before September 5, 2014,
the T-Bird Defendants will provide plaintiffs' counsel with the
name of each non-exempt employee who has been employed at any
California Outback Restaurant from November 8, 2010 until the
present time (the Statutory Period), along with their locations of
employment, as has been requested, in part, by plaintiff Chris
Armenta's interrogatories to the defendants.
There was a delay in the TPA sending out the required mailings,
which were not sent out until October 7, 2014 as a result.
In light of the delay, the parties agreed to continue the briefing
schedule established at the August 26, 2014, case management
conference by 22 days, to provide plaintiffs the same amount of
time to prepare and file the motion for class certification as was
originally contemplated by the Court. Ultimately, they arrived at
a more recent stipulation that was approved by the Court on Oct.
15.
LATHROP & GAGE, LLP's Beth Schroeder, Esq. --
bschroeder@lathropgage,com ; Lauren Katunich, Esq. --
lkatunich@lathropgage.com ; and Allison Wallin, Esq. --
awallin@lathropgage.com -- serve as attorneys for Defendants
T-BIRD RESTAURANT GROUP, INC. and T-BIRD NEVADA, LLC
BUSARA'S HOUSE: Faces "Komolvich" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amornit Komolvich, Jirayu Goedglieng, Pisit Kuasakunrungroj,
Rittirong Kaewchusri, Teerawat Tossarath, Uraken Thongkipt, and
Worasak Huskhunphaisan, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Busara's House Incorporated(d/b/a Topaz Thai
Restaurant), 127 West 56th Street LLC(d/b/a Topaz Thai
Restaurant), Busara Chansakul, Aekachai Chansakul, and Busara
Yamsiriwong, Case No. 1:14-cv-08528 (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2014),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
The Defendants own, operate, and control a Thai restaurant located
at 127 West 56th Street, New York, NY 10019.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com
CBD ENERGY: Sued in E.D. Texas Over Misleading Financial Results
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Johnson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CBD Energy Limited, National Securities Corporation,
Northland Securities, Inc. Gerard McGowan, Richard Pillinger, Todd
Barlow, Carlo Botto, William Morro, and James Greer, Case No.
2:14-cv-00997 (E.D. Tex., October 27, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants' Registration Statement and Prospectus, which included
the Company's financial results in dating back to 2012, contained
misstatements of material fact.
CBD Energy Limited is an Australian corporation, which purportedly
provides clean, renewable and cost-effective sources of
electricity for consumers on three continents.
National Securities Corporation was the sole book running manager
and underwriter of the Company's Offering.
Northland Securities, Inc. was the co-manager and underwriter of
the Company's Offering.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
PAYNE MITCHELL LAW GROUP
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 252-1888
Facsimile: (214) 252-1889
E-mail: dean@paynemithcell.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
CHEVRON CORP: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Iraqis' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jose A. Cabranes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit dismissed the appellate case entitled SAADYA MASTAFA,
KAFIA ISMAIL, BATUL NUR, AFAF RASOOL, ZAHRA RASOOL, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. CHEVRON CORPORAION, BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS
PARIBAS, Defendants-Appellees., NO. 10-5258-CV (2nd Cir.)
Plaintiffs filed a suit against Chevron Corp. and Banque Nationale
de Paris Paribas, over violation of customary international law
particularly the Alien Tort Statute of 1789 or ATS, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1350, which establishes district court jurisdiction "of
any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in
violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States,
as well as the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 or TVPA, 28
U.S.C. Section 1350, and New York common law.
Plaintiffs are five Iraqi nationals who claim that they and their
family members were tortured, imprisoned, and in some cases
executed, by the Saddam Hussein regime. Plaintiffs filed the suit
in July 2010, alleging that the defendants illicitly diverted
money to the Saddam Hussein.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York dismissed plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice. The
plaintiffs appealed.
In his ruling, Judge Cabranes observes that Defendants are not
subject to liability under TVPA, since the term "individual" in
the TVPA authorizes suit against natural persons alone and the
statute does not provide for suits against corporate entities.
The Second Circuit held it has no jurisdiction over the ATS issue.
A copy of Circuit Judge Cabranes' decision dated October 23, 2014,
is available at http://is.gd/SnNLY6from Leagle.com.
Terrence Patrick Collingsworth -- tc@conradscherer.com -- at
Conrad & Scherer, LLP, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Human
Rights Watch and Labor Organizations.
CINEMA SOUND: "Cuartas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Cuartas, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Cinema Sound Unlimited, Inc. and Philip E. Henan, Case No. 1:14-
cv-23984 (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Cinema Sound Unlimited, Inc. is an award winning team of audio and
video professionals with 70 years of combined experience.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
Court House Tower
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
CLUB MACANUDO: Faces "Dwyer" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Dwyer, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees v. Club Macanudo, Inc. and Mauricio Cordoba,
Case No. 1:14-cv-08520 (S.D.N.Y., October 24, 2014), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation
for all hours worked over 40 per week.
The Defendants own and operate a cigar lounge and restaurant
located at 26 East 63rd St, New York, NY.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
420 Lexington Ave., Suite 2743
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (212) 300-5358
Facsimile: (888) 265-7054
E-mail: rgarbarini@garbarinilaw.com
COMCAST CORPORATION: E.D. Pa Judge Won't Transfer Suit to Mass.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case entitled JACK ROGERS and PAUL PINELLA, Plaintiffs, v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. MARTH KRISTIAN,
Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 07-218, NO. 07-219 (E.D. Pa.), two motions are filed
before District Judge Padova. The first Motion seeks to re-
transfer the two consolidated cases back to the United States
District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts for the
convenience of their counsel and the second Motion seeks leave to
file a Fifth Amended Complaint.
Defendant countered that the first motion should be denied since
to transfer the case back to the District of Massachusetts is a
transparent attempt at forum shopping. The only purpose of the
motion is to give Plaintiffs the ability to start over with a new
judge.
In rebutting the second motion, Defendant pose before the court
that Plaintiff will make an undue delay over the case and a fifth
amendment is not appropriate.
District Judge John R. Padova denied the Motion to re-transfer,
stating that whether or not the "primary reason for transferring
the Massachusetts cases to this Court no longer exists," the
pending request to transfer the case back to Massachusetts is
unsupported by any substantial argument other than the convenience
of Plaintiffs' counsel. Accordingly, there is no sufficient basis
to grant the Motion.
The motion to Seek Leave to File Fifth Amended Complaint is
likewise denied. Judge Padova said that, even if to accept that
litigating the arbitration issues occupied a substantial portion
of the parties' efforts while the case was pending in
Massachusetts, the factual basis of the new claims is identical to
that of the claims originally propounded, and the Class makes no
cogent argument why it failed to assert the new theories in a
timely manner.
A copy of Judge Padova's Memorandum dated October 22, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Pp557dfrom Leagle.com.
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Faces Davie Police Pension Plan Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
CommVault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a purported
class action complaint was filed on September 10, 2014, in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer. The case is captioned Town of Davie Police
Pension Plan vs. CommVault Systems, Inc. (Case No. 3:14-cv-05628-
JAP-LHG). The suit alleges that the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose material
facts, regarding the Company's financial results, business,
operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class
period from May 15, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during that period, and seeks compensatory damages,
costs and expenses, as well as equitable or other relief.
"We believe that the suit is without merit and we intend to defend
ourselves and our officers vigorously. However, due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict
the ultimate outcome of this matter. We are unable at this time
to determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a
material impact on our results of operations, financial condition
or cash flows," the Company said.
CommVault Systems is a provider of data and information management
software applications and related services in terms of product
breadth and functionality and market penetration.
COSTAR GROUP: Plaintiffs Agree to Drop Suit Over LoopNet Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
CoStar Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit have agreed to dismiss their claims and, upon
entry of the dismissal, the Company (and its insurer) have agreed
to reimburse certain legal fees to plaintiffs' counsel, of which
the Company will be responsible for approximately $200,000.
In May 2011, LoopNet, the Board of Directors of LoopNet ("the
LoopNet Board") and/or the Company were named as defendants in
three purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet
stockholders challenging LoopNet's then-proposed merger with the
Company. The stockholder actions alleged, among other things, that
(i) each member of the LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary duties
to LoopNet and its stockholders in authorizing the sale of LoopNet
to the Company, (ii) the merger did not maximize value to LoopNet
stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and the Company made incomplete or
materially misleading disclosures about the transaction and (iv)
LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of the LoopNet
Board. The stockholder actions sought class action certification
and equitable relief, including an injunction against consummation
of the merger. The parties stipulated to the consolidation of the
actions and permitted the filing of a consolidated complaint.
In June 2011, counsel for the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of
this litigation, which could result in a loss to the Company of
approximately $200,000. On March 20, 2013, the California Superior
Court declined to grant preliminary approval to the proposed
settlement and issued an order scheduling a hearing on June 11,
2013 to show good cause why the case should not be dismissed.
Shortly before the hearing, the plaintiffs filed a third
supplemental submission in support of their motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement. The show cause hearing took
place on May 13, 2014 and a follow up hearing took place on July
16, 2014.
At the July 16, 2014 hearing the Court again denied preliminary
approval of the settlement and encouraged the parties to discuss a
potential disposition of the case due to the mootness of
plaintiffs' disclosure claims.
The parties engaged in such discussions, and on October 14, 2014,
the plaintiffs requested that the Court dismiss their claims with
prejudice. Upon entry of the dismissal, the Company (and its
insurer) have agreed to reimburse certain legal fees to
plaintiffs' counsel, of which the Company will be responsible for
approximately $200,000.
CoStar Group, Inc. provides information, analytics and marketing
services to the commercial real estate and related business
community through its comprehensive, proprietary database of
commercial real estate information covering the United States
("U.S."), the United Kingdom ("U.K."), Toronto, Canada, and parts
of France, as well as its complementary online marketplaces for
commercial real estate listings and apartment rentals. The Company
operates within two operating segments, North America and
International, and its services are typically distributed to its
clients under subscription-based license agreements that renew
automatically, a majority of which have a term of one year.
CRIMSON EXPLORATION: Class Action Over Contango Merger Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons of the Court of Chancery of
Delaware granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the class
action entitled IN RE: CRIMSON EXPLORATION INC. STOCKHOLDER
LITIGATION., Civil Action No 8541-VCP (Del. Ch.).
Plaintiffs in this class action suit are holders of 228,000 shares
of Crimson common stock. They allege that Crimson directors have
breached their fiduciary duties in approving the merger of Crimson
and Contango Oil & Gas Co. They also allege a group of affiliated
defendants, including Oaktree Capital Management, L.P.,
constituted controlling stockholders of Crimson and breached their
fiduciary duties by selling the company below market value for
self-serving reasons. They claim that the merger was held in an
inadequate process, inadequate price and inadequate disclosure.
Plaintiffs ask the Court to review the challenged transaction
under the entire fairness standard.
The Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Vice Chancellor
Parsons opined that the complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted, as the well pleaded allegations are
insufficient to implicate entire fairness.
The Court also denied the motion filed by Angelo Fisichella, as
trustee for a trust that owned stock in Crimson, to intervene in
the action.
A copy of Vice Chancellor Parsons' Memorandum Opinion dated
October 24, is available at http://is.gd/aHoEDwfrom Leagle.com.
Srinivas M. Raju, Esq., -- raju@rlf.com -- Robert L. Burns, Esq.,
-- burns@rlf.com -- RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington,
Delaware -- Michael C. Holmes, Esq., -- mholmes@velaw.com --
Elizabeth C. Brandon. Esq., -- ebrandon@velaw.com -- at VINSON &
ELKINS LLP, Dallas, Texas; Attorneys for Defendants Crimson
Exploration Inc., Thomas H. Atkins, Lee B. Backsen, B. James Ford,
E. Joseph Grady, Anthony C. Isaac, Allan D. Keel, Lon McCain, Jay
S. Mengle, Adam C. Pierce, John A. Thomas, Cassidy J. Traub, Ni
Zhaoxing, Oaktree Capital Management, L.P., OCM GW Holdings, LLC,
and OCM Crimson Holdings, LLC.
CVS PHARMACY: 1st Cir. Clarifies Removal Time Period Under CAFA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch ruled on an interlocutory appeal made
by the defendant and reversed the Order granting the Plaintiffs'
Motion to Remand in a class action lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy
Inc.
The appellate case is entitled DAVID ROMULUS, CASSANDRA BEALE,
NICHOLAS HARRIS, ASHLEY HILARIO, AND ROBERT BOURASSA, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
Appellees, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, Appellant., Case No.
14-1937 (1st Cir.).
Named plaintiffs David Romulus, Cassandra Beale, Nicholas Harris,
Ashley Hilario, and Robert Bourassa, all "Shift Supervisors" at
CVS stores in Massachusetts, filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint against CVS in Massachusetts Superior Court on August
31, 2011. The plaintiffs allege that CVS has a policy under which
Shift Supervisors must remain on store premises when taking rest
or meal breaks when there are no other managerial employees on
duty or when there is only one other employee on duty. Despite
requiring Shift Supervisors to stay on store premises, the
plaintiffs allege that CVS does not pay them for these "breaks" in
violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149,
Sec. 148, and the Massachusetts Overtime Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws
ch. 151, Sections 1A, 1B.
The plaintiffs allege that "CVS has employed many hundreds, if not
thousands, of Shift Supervisors in Massachusetts" since July 25,
2008. They seek unpaid wages (including overtime wages), treble
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs for those breaks in
the class period during which they were required to stay on store
premises. The plaintiffs did not provide information on the
number of breaks at issue, or the total amount of damages sought
in the First Amended Complaint.
Defendant filed two notice of removal to the federal district
court, since there is a reasonable probability that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000.
The District Court later lodge granted plaintiffs motion to remand
the case to Massachusetts state court.
The proprietary issue in this case is whether or not the second
notice filed by the defendant was timely filed.
Chief Judge Lynch stated that CVS's second notice of removal was
timely filed under 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) and under The
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 or CAFA, federal courts have
jurisdiction over a class if, among other requirements, the amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million. Judge Lynch said the total
amount in controversy in this case is $6,291,285.
A copy of Chief Judge Lynch Order dated October 24, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/WgxJ32from Leagle.com.
The case is before Lynch, Juan R. Torruella and Jeffrey R. Howard.
Thomas V. Urmy, Jr., Esq. -- turmy@shulaw.com with whom Rachel M.
Brown, Esq. -- rbrown@shulaw.com -- Patrick J. Vallely, Esq. --
pvallely@shulaw.com -- at Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP were on brief
for appellees.
DEN-OK INC: Faces "Dunn" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Dunn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Den-Ok, Inc., and Dave Boozary, Case No. 6:14-cv-01351
(D. Kan., October 27, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
failure to pay employees legal minimum wage and overtime
compensation.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1100 E. 2nd
St., Edmond, Oklahoma 73034.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald N. Peterson II, Esq.
Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
WITHERS, GOUGH, PIKE, PFAFF & PETERSON LLC
O.W. Garvey Building
200 W. Douglas, Suite 1010
Wichita, KS 67202
Telephone: (316) 266-5023
Facsimile: (316) 303-1018
E-mail: dpeterson@withersgough.com
smcgivern@withersgough.com
EXPEDIA INC: Judge Dismisses Hotel Price-Fixing Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a
consumer antitrust class action in the U.S., alleging widespread
price-fixing by the top booking sites and the country's biggest
hotel chains, has reached a dead end.
Now the class action, at least, has reached a dead end. Eight
months after lead plaintiffs counsel at Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro got a second chance to press claims that the defendants
conspired to limit competition, on Oct. 28 a federal judge in
Dallas dismissed the case for good. An appeal is likely, but the
decision is very welcome news for some of the world's largest
hotels and online booking sites, along with the small army of
defense lawyers they assembled to fight the plaintiffs' antitrust
claims.
Hagens Berman and other plaintiffs firms launched the proposed
class action two years ago, alleging that the reservation
companies -- whose services account for half of U.S. hotel
bookings -- inked "Resale Price Maintenance" agreements with the
hotel chains that caused customers to overpay for their rooms.
The litigation targeted Expedia Inc., Priceline.com Inc., Orbitz
Worldwide Inc., Travelocity.com LP, Trump International Hotels,
Hilton Worldwide Inc., Marriott International Inc., Sheraton
Hotels and Resorts, and Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide
Inc., among others.
U.S. District Judge Jane Boyle dismissed the underlying complaint
in February, ruling that the industry's move toward RPM pricing
had legitimate economic explanations and wasn't necessarily
anticompetitive. The judge ruled that Hagens Berman could move to
replead its antitrust allegations, however.
The plaintiffs filed their proposed amended complaint in March.
They dropped the hotel defendants from the case entirely and homed
in on an "abrupt halt" in price competition that they say occurred
in 2003, allegedly setting the stage for a lasting and concerted
price-fixing effort.
The new claims weren't enough to persuade Judge Boyle, who ruled
that the plaintiffs had mainly "recycled" their earlier
allegations. Dropping the hotel defendants may have made the
alleged conspiracy more plausible, she concluded, but it didn't
make the plaintiffs' factual claims any more compelling. And she
wrote, "even if the [amended complaint's] timing allegations are
new, they still fail to suggest a conspiracy actually formed."
Judge Boyle rejected the plaintiffs' proposed new complaint on
Oct. 27, and on Oct. 28 she entered final judgment for the
defendants.
Hagens Berman's Steve Berman was previously appointed lead counsel
for the plaintiffs, who had additional counsel from more than two
dozen major class action plaintiffs firms.
The defense lineup included Covington & Burling (for Expedia),
King & Spalding (for InterContinental Hotels Group), Weil, Gotshal
& Manges (for Hilton), Baker Botts (also for Expedia), O'Melveny &
Myers (for Marriott), Mayer Brown (for Starwood), Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett (for Priceline), Locke Lord (also for Priceline),
Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton (for Travelocity), Seyfarth Shaw
(for Trump), Latham & Watkins (for Orbitz), Kirkland & Ellis (for
Wyndham), Haynes and Boone (also for Wyndham), and Kelley Drye &
Warren (for Carlson Hotels Inc.).
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Claims Deadline in Holman Suit Extended
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken approved a stipulation whereby
counsel to parties in the class action HOLMAN v. EXPERIAN
INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. CV-11-00180-CW (N.D.
Calif.), were to have forwarded unresolved disputed claims to the
Ombudsman by Oct. 21, 2014.
Judge Wilken preliminarily approved on April 21 a class settlement
deal to resolve claims by a certified class of consumers accusing
Experian Information of willfully violating the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by turning over consumer reports containing their
credit information to collection agency Finex Group LLC, as it
attempted to collect on debts incurred for towed vehicles. The $8
million deal, submitted for approval in March, calls for each
class member with a valid claim to receive $375. The settlement
also includes incentive awards of up to $10,000 to each named
plaintiff and $2.25 million in attorneys' fees. The class members
had initially sought damages of between $100 and $1,000 per class
member, according to court documents. Each claimant has until
Sept. 2, 2014, to either submit a claim or exclude themselves from
the deal. They must also prove that they owned a vehicle that was
towed, that they did not initiate the towing transaction and that
the debt was not reduced to judgment.
The approved stipulation dated Oct. 15, 2014, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/DjD2PPfrom Leagle.com, noted that the
Settlement Administrator provided counsel a list of about 150
timely claims that were deficient for various reasons. Class
counsel then provided Experian's counsel with information on
claims that it believe should be approved. Ultimately, the
parties agree that an extension of the date for submission of
disputed claims won't interfere with the administration of the
settlement. The original deadline for the submission of
disagreements on unresolved claims was Oct. 14, 2014.
JONES DAY's Daniel J. McLoon, Esq. -- djmcloon@jonesday.com --
serve as attorneys for Defendant Experian Information Solutions,
Inc.
FIRST MARBLEHEAD: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Securities Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The First Marblehead Corporation said in a Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014,
the court has granted the Corporation's motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit.
On August 28, 2013, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
against The First Marblehead Corporation (the "Corporation"),
Daniel Meyers, the Corporation's Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of Directors, and Kenneth Klipper, the
Corporation's former Chief Financial Officer and Managing
Director. The action is entitled Smith v. The First Marblehead
Corp. et al., Civ. A. No. 13-cv-12121-PBS (D. Mass.). The
plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
information in various filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, press releases and other public statements concerning
the Corporation's corporate income tax filings. The complaint
alleged various claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification, unspecified
damages, fees and such other relief as the court may deem just and
proper. On April 7, 2014, the Corporation filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint filed in the action. On October 28,
2014, the court granted the Corporation's motion to dismiss.
LYFT INC: Hagens Berman Mulls Suit Over Lack of Proper Licenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that with state
and city regulators already nipping at Lyft's heels, the Bay Area
ride-sharing company may soon face a threat from another corner.
In anticipation of a class action filing, Seattle-based plaintiffs
firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro has announced it is investigating
claims that Lyft Inc. failed to obtain the permits, licenses and
insurance necessary to operate in more than a dozen states. Its
easy pickings, according to partner Robert Carey, as regulators
including the California Public Utilities Commission and San
Francisco's district attorney have accused Lyft of breaking the
law.
"They are operating in violation of a number of states'
regulations and statutes, and have been told this much," he said.
"The reality is, they're flouting the law."
Still, some plaintiffs lawyers said they see speed bumps ahead.
It could be challenging to prove Lyft passengers, who successfully
got from point A to point B, were harmed as a direct result of the
company's alleged non-compliance.
Mr. Carey, who is leading the firm's investigation, isn't worried.
"[Riders] ended up paying for an illegal enterprise," he said.
"You're not allowed to receive funds when you don't have proper
licenses and are operating illegally."
Hagens Berman is investigating Lyft claims in more than a dozen
states and may consider Uber Technologies Inc. and Sidecar
Technologies Inc. as future targets. There's a good chance the
Lyft litigation will be filed in the Northern District of
California, Carey said, as the company is headquartered in San
Francisco. Possible claims include violations of the state's
Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
In an email on Oct. 22, Lyft spokeswoman Paige Thelen said the law
firm's accusations are without merit. The company has worked with
regulators in markets including California, Colorado and
Washington, D.C. to draft new ride-sharing rules, Ms. Thelen
wrote.
"Lyft is committed to the safety of drivers and passengers and has
implemented strict safety criteria that go above and beyond what's
required of existing transportation options," she stated.
Lyft and its ride-sharing peers also have repeatedly maintained
they are apps, not traditional transportation carriers subject to
government oversight.
In October the California Public Utilities Commission warned Lyft
Line, UberPool and Sidecar's Shared Rides that their new carpool
features violate state law by charging multiple passengers for the
same ride. District Attorneys George Gascon in San Francisco and
Jackie Lacey in Los Angeles County also threatened the three
companies with legal action over "unlawful business practices." A
letter sent to Sidecar accused the company of misrepresenting the
extent of its driver background checks.
Lyft and Uber also are facing wage and hour class actions in the
Northern District of California over claims the companies short-
changed drivers on tips and expenses.
Mike Danko, of Danko Meredith in Redwood Shores, questioned how
Hagens Berman lawyers would show plaintiffs lost money as a result
of Lyft's alleged unfair business practices.
"It's not enough, for example, to simply mislead consumers," he
said.
Hagens Berman can argue riders wouldn't have paid for the trip if
they knew Lyft didn't have the proper licenses, said San Diego
solo Mark Ankcorn, who specializes in consumer law. But that
means proving it was the promise of a licensed driver, not cheap
fares or a flashy pink moustache, that enticed them to ride.
"It seems to me," Mr. Ankcorn said, "that they've got a very hard
road."
To complicate matters, Ankcorn added, if Lyft had not allegedly
misled customers and the customers had not used the ride-sharing
service, they probably would have paid more for a taxi.
Mr. Carey said that's like claiming patients given a counterfeit
drug are better off because they paid less.
"If our fundamental premise is right, they're not allowed to
operate," Mr. Carey said. "Nothing they say will matter. It's
illegal."
IBIO INC: Exaggerates Role in Ebola-Related Efforts, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Pena, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated v. iBio, Inc. and Robert B. Kay, Case No. 1:14-cv-01343
(D. Del., October 24, 2014), seeks to recover damages caused by
defendants' violations of federal securities laws.
iBio, Inc. engages in the development and manufacture of plant-
made pharmaceutical products using its trademark iBioLaunch
platform.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
Brian D. Long, Esq.
Gina M. Serra, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Telephone: (302) 295-5310
Facsimile: (302) 654-7530
Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
bdl@rl-legal.com
gms@rl-legal.com
- and -
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Jonathan Horne, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenelgal.com
jhorne@rosenlegal.com
* * *
A drugmaker inflated its stock by exaggerating its role in efforts
to treat the Ebola virus, a federal shareholder class action
alleges, reports Sean Kelly at Courthouse News Service.
The complaint Juan Pena filed October 24 accuses iBio Inc. and its
CEO, Robert Kay, of trying to exploit the publicity tied to the
demand for the experimental Ebola-fighting drug ZMapp.
On Oct. 16, 2014, just one day after the U.S. Ebola scare
escalated with a second health care worker testing positive for
the virus, iBio "issued a materially false and misleading press
release" that led investors to believe that it had an affiliation
"based on creating antibody-based drugs to fight the Ebola virus,"
Pena says.
IBio shares "spiked nearly 70 percent" after news broke that the
U.S. government had requested ZMapp-production plans from Texas
A&M Health Science Center, Emergent Biosolutions and a third
center led by Novartis AG, according to an Oct. 20 article by
SeekingAlpha.com, as quoted in Pena's complaint.
Pena says iBio tried to horn in on the publicity of that news by
touting its collaboration deal with (nonparty) Caliber
Biotherapeutics, a subcontractor with the Texas A&M Health Science
Center. Though the iBio-Caliber deal from February 2013 involved
a certain antibody for oncology indications, iBio offered in its
Oct. 16 press release "to assist the U.S. government by making its
proprietary technology available for emergency use . . . [in] the
current Ebola virus outbreak."
The next day, investment site Benzinga.com quoted an iBio
spokesperson as saying: "Any Lab that Wants to Make ZMapp Vaccine
Using Plant-Based Technology Would Have to License it from iBio;
Caliber has License from iBio," according to the complaint.
In demonstrating those assertions as "materially false and
misleading" on Oct. 20, SeekingAlpha reported that "iBio's
relationship with Caliber had nothing to do with the production of
ZMapp or combating the Ebola virus," according to the complaint.
Pena says that news caused iBio shares fell to close on Oct. 20 at
32 percent below its prior closing price of $3.21 per share.
SeekingAlpha gave its Oct. 23 follow-up article the headline "A
Wannabe Ebola Player Infecting Buyers With False Hope," Pena
notes.
"No matter how tempted IBIO might have felt to further capitalize
on the Ebola scare -- or how thrilled it must be with the
immediate results -- the company should have known better than to
hype a vague possibility so remote that it looks downright far-
fetched," the article states, according to the complaint.
That article goes on to say that "we feel so confident that IBIO
will play no role in the urgent mass production of ZMapp that we
dare the company to share any concrete evidence that clearly
suggests otherwise."
Pena says iBio's August 2014 sale of stock to Aspire Capital Fund
"incentivized" iBio "to increase the value of the stock and to do
so in a short period of time."
IBio and Robert Kay thus "were motivated to materially
misrepresent the truth concerning the affiliation between iBio and
Caliber, as well as the lack of any role for the Company in the
manufacture of ZMapp in order to artificially inflate the price of
iBio's stock to increase the proceeds from the sale of stock to
Aspire," according to the complaint.
Pena seeks damages for violations of the Exchange Act.
Both Texas nurses who contracted Ebola from the Liberian patient
who brought the virus stateside in September were declared cured
in October. A doctor meanwhile reportedly remains in isolation in
New York.
K12 INC: Court Heard Oral Arguments on Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
K12 Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court oral arguments on
the motion to dismiss the Oklahoma Firefighters's class action
lawsuit.
On January 30, 2014, a securities class-action lawsuit captioned
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. K12 Inc., et
al., was filed against the Company, four of its officers and
directors, and a former officer, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, In re K12 Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:14-CV-108-AJT-JFA. On June 24,
2014 the Court appointed the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and
Retirement System as lead plaintiff, and on May 23, 2014 the lead
plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint ("Amended
Complaint"). The plaintiff purports to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired K12 common stock
between February 5, 2013 and October 8, 2013, inclusive, and
alleges violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
made false or misleading statements of material fact, or failed to
disclose material facts, about (i) the Company's enrollment and
revenue growth prospects for fiscal 2014, and (ii) the Company's
compliance with state regulations governing enrollment. The
plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The Company intends to defend vigorously against the claims
asserted in the Amended Complaint and filed a motion to dismiss
the Amended Complaint on June 20, 2014. The parties have fully
briefed the motion to dismiss and on August 8, 2014 the Court
heard oral arguments on the motion. At September 30, 2014, the
Company had not recorded a liability as it was neither probable
nor estimable.
KKR FINANCIAL: Court Dismisses Shareholder Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
KKR Financial Holdings LLC won in its bid for a dismissal of a
shareholder litigation in its entirety with prejudice.
The case is In re KKR FINANCIAL HOLDINGS LLC SHAREHOLDER
LITIGATION, Consol. C.A. No. 9210-CB (Del. Ch.). It involves the
novel claim that a holder of less than one percent of the stock of
a Delaware corporation was a controlling stockholder and thus owed
fiduciary obligations to the other stockholders of the
corporation.
Plaintiffs are Pompano Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement
System, Robert A. Corwin, Eric Greene, Margaret DeMauro and
Pipefitters Local Union No. 120 Pension Fund -- who were
stockholders of KFN who owned shares of KFN at all times relevant
to the action.
Defendant KFN was a specialty finance company whose business was
generating income and capital appreciation, primarily through
investing in sub-investment grade corporate debt securities.
The other Defendants are Tracy Collins, Robert L. Edwards, Craig
J. Farr, Vincent Paul Finigan, Jr., Paul M. Hazen, R. Glenn
Hubbard, Ross J. Kari, Ely L. Licht, Deborah H. McAneny, Scott C.
Nuttall, Scott Ryles, and Willy Strothotte -- were the twelve
members of the KFN board of directors in December 2013, when the
decision was made to merge with KKR & Co. LP.
In April 2004, KKR & Co. L.P. (KKR) acquired KKR Financial
Holdings LLC (KFN) in a stock-for-stock merger involving two
widely-held, publicly-traded companies.
In its Oct. 14, 2014 Opinion available at http://is.gd/w0AAgmfrom
Leagle.com, the Court of Chancery of Delaware noted that the
Plaintiffs' controlling stockholder theory is based on the terms
of a management agreement whereby an affiliate of KKR managed the
day-to-day business of KFN, making KFN operationally dependent on
KKR. Since KFN's inception, however, the ultimate authority for
managing its business and affairs, including the decision whether
to approve a merger with KKR, was in the hands of a board of
directors subject to annual stockholder election, the Court found
out.
Attorneys for Defendants Tracy Collins, Robert L. Edwards, Craig
J. Farr, Vincent Paul Finigan, Jr., Paul M. Hazen, R. Glenn
Hubbard, Ross J. Kari, Ely L. Licht, Deborah H. McAneny, Scott C.
Nuttall, Scott Ryles, Willy Strothotte, and KKR Financial Holdings
LLC are:
Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esq.
Garrett B. Moritz, Esq.
Eric D. Selden, Esq.
SEITZ ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
100 S West St #400
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: 302-576-1600
Email: cseitz@seitzross.com
gmoritz@seitzross.com
eselden@seitzross.com
- and -
William Savitt, Esq.
Ryan A. McLeod, Esq.
David Zhou, Esq.
WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Tel: 212-403-1000 or 800-848-0301
Fax: 212-403-2000
Email: WDSavitt@wlrk.com
RAMcLeod@wlrk.com
DZhou@wlrk.com
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Class Actions Consolidated in New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that Zubair Patel, Alan
Nguyen and Carmen Valentino filed in August 2014 separate,
putative class action complaints in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of its officers. Each complaint alleges violations of
federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting
errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment,
and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
fees and expenses. On October 20, 2014, these cases were
consolidated into a single, putative class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Company believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend
against it vigorously. The Company is unable to reasonably
estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred
in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in
their early stages.
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. is a prime contractor in
aerospace systems and national security solutions.
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: 18 Crash Plaintiffs Released Claims v. ACSS
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits were filed on July 1, 2004, on behalf of the estates of
31 Russian children in the state courts of Washington, Arizona,
California, Florida, New York and New Jersey against Honeywell,
Honeywell TCAS, Thales USA, Thales France, the Company and
Aviation Communications & Surveillance Systems (ACSS), which is a
joint venture of L-3 and Thales. The suits relate to the crash
over southern Germany of a Bashkirian Airways Tupelov TU 154M
aircraft and a DHL Boeing 757 cargo aircraft. On-board the Tupelov
aircraft were 9 crew members and 60 passengers, including 45
children. The Boeing aircraft carried a crew of two. Both aircraft
were equipped with Honeywell/ACSS Model 2000, Change 7 Traffic
Collision and Avoidance Systems (TCAS). Sensing the other
aircraft, the on-board DHL TCAS instructed the DHL pilot to
descend, and the Tupelov on-board TCAS instructed the Tupelov
pilot to climb. However, the Swiss air traffic controller ordered
the Tupelov pilot to descend. The Tupelov pilot disregarded the
on-board TCAS and put the Tupelov aircraft into a descent striking
the DHL aircraft in midair at approximately 35,000 feet. All crew
and passengers of both planes were lost.
Investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board after
the crash revealed that both TCAS units were performing as
designed. The suits allege negligence and strict product liability
based upon the design of the units and the training provided to
resolve conflicting commands and seek approximately $315 million
in damages, including $150 million in punitive damages.
The Company's insurers have accepted defense of this matter and
have retained counsel. The matters were consolidated in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey, which then
dismissed the actions on the basis of forum non conveniens.
Plaintiffs representing 30 of the estates re-filed their complaint
against ACSS on April 23, 2007 with the Barcelona Court's Registry
in Spain.
On March 9, 2010, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and
entered judgment against ACSS in the amount of approximately $6.7
million, all of which represented compensatory damages. Both ACSS
and the plaintiffs appealed the judgment. In May 2012, the
appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and entered
judgment against ACSS in the amount of $48 million. ACSS filed an
appeal of the judgment with the Supreme Court of Spain on
September 28, 2012.
On July 1, 2013, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the appeal,
and the parties are awaiting the Supreme Court's decision. The
Company believes that the ruling and the damages awarded are
inconsistent with the law and evidence presented and, accordingly,
that it is not probable that the Company has incurred a loss with
respect to this matter.
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 26, 2014, that 18 out of the 30
plaintiffs have released their claims against ACSS in
consideration for payments made by the Company's insurance
carriers.
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. is a prime contractor in
aerospace systems and national security solutions.
LIFE TIME: TCPA Actions Transferred to Minnesota Court
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted Life Time Fitness, Inc.'s motion to transfer the TCPA
Actions to the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly
period ended September 30, 2014.
On April 17, 2014, a putative class action was filed against LTF
Club Operations Company, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Life
Time Fitness, Inc., in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri. On June 13, 2014, LTF Club Operations Company, Inc.
removed this action to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. On April 23, 2014,
a second putative class action was filed against Life Time
Fitness, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota. On April 23, 2014, a third putative class action was
filed against Life Time Fitness, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On July
1, 2014, a fourth putative class action was filed against Life
Time Fitness, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota. These actions are collectively referred to
as the "TCPA Actions" or "TCPA Litigation."
"The TCPA Actions allege that we violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") when we, or a third party on our
behalf, sent marketing text messages to plaintiffs' cellular
telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system without
plaintiffs' consent. We deny the allegations," the Company said.
On October 15, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company's motion to transfer
the TCPA Actions to the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.
"We have not recorded an expense related to damages in connection
with the TCPA Actions because any potential material loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. generally
accepted accounting principles. Additionally, we cannot reasonably
estimate the range of loss, if any, that may result from the TCPA
Action," the Company said.
The Company operates distinctive and large, multi-use sports and
athletic, professional fitness, family recreation and spa centers
in a resort-like environment.
LIFEWAY FOODS: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Isaias Alarcon, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Lifeway Foods, Inc.,
Julie Smolyansky, and Edward Smolyansky, Individually, Case No.
1:14-cv-08386 (N.D. Ill., October 24, 2014), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Lifeway Foods, Inc. is a dairy manufacturing and distributing
company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Meghan Vanleuwen, Esq.
FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
33 N. State Street, Suite 900
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 853-1450
Facsimile: (312) 853-1459
E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org
- and -
Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq.
John William Billhorn, Esq.
BILLHORN LAW FIRM
120 S. State Street, Suite 400
Chicago, IL 60603
Telephone: (312) 513-9555
E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com
jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com
LIVE NATION: $35.1MM Accrued in Ticket Fees Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
As of September 30, 2014, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. had
accrued $35.1 million, its best estimate of the probable costs
associated with the settlement in the Ticketing Fees Consumer
Class Action Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.
In October 2003, a putative representative action was filed in the
Superior Court of California challenging Ticketmaster's charges to
online customers for shipping fees and alleging that its failure
to disclose on its website that the charges contain a profit
component is unlawful. The complaint asserted a claim for
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and
sought restitution or disgorgement of the difference between (i)
the total shipping fees charged by Ticketmaster in connection with
online ticket sales during the applicable period, and (ii) the
amount that Ticketmaster actually paid to the shipper for delivery
of those tickets. In August 2005, the plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint, then pleading the case as a putative class
action and adding the claim that Ticketmaster's website
disclosures in respect of its ticket order processing fees
constitute false advertising in violation of California's False
Advertising Law. On this new claim, the amended complaint seeks
restitution or disgorgement of the entire amount of order
processing fees charged by Ticketmaster during the applicable
period. In April 2009, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint adding new claims
that (a) Ticketmaster's order processing fees are unconscionable
under the UCL, and (b) Ticketmaster's alleged business practices
further violate the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs later filed a third amended complaint, to which
Ticketmaster filed a demurrer in July 2009. The Court overruled
Ticketmaster's demurrer in October 2009.
The plaintiffs filed a class certification motion in August 2009,
which Ticketmaster opposed. In February 2010, the Court granted
certification of a class on the first and second causes of action,
which allege that Ticketmaster misrepresents/omits the fact of a
profit component in Ticketmaster's shipping and order processing
fees. The class would consist of California consumers who
purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's website from 1999 to
present. The Court denied certification of a class on the third
and fourth causes of action, which allege that Ticketmaster's
shipping and order processing fees are unconscionably high.
In March 2010, Ticketmaster filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate
with the California Court of Appeal, and plaintiffs also filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of the Superior Court's class
certification order. In April 2010, the Superior Court denied
plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's class
certification order, and the Court of Appeal denied Ticketmaster's
Petition for Writ of Mandate. In June 2010, the Court of Appeal
granted the plaintiffs' Petition for Writ of Mandate and ordered
the Superior Court to vacate its February 2010 order denying
plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class and enter a new
order granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class on
the first and second claims. In September 2010, Ticketmaster filed
its Motion for Summary Judgment on all causes of action in the
Superior Court, and that same month plaintiffs filed their Motion
for Summary Adjudication of various affirmative defenses asserted
by Ticketmaster. In November 2010, Ticketmaster filed its Motion
to Decertify Class.
In December 2010, the parties entered into a binding agreement
providing for the settlement of the litigation and the resolution
of all claims therein. In September 2011, the Court declined to
approve the settlement in its then-current form. Litigation
continued, and in September 2011, the Court granted in part and
denied in part Ticketmaster's Motion for Summary Judgment. The
parties reached a new settlement in September 2011, which was
preliminarily approved, but in September 2012 the Court declined
to grant final approval. In June 2013, the parties reached a
revised settlement, which was preliminarily approved by the Court
in April 2014. Ticketmaster and its parent, Live Nation, have not
acknowledged any violations of law or liability in connection with
the matter.
As of September 30, 2014, the Company had accrued $35.1 million,
its best estimate of the probable costs associated with the
settlement. This liability includes an estimated redemption rate.
Any difference between the Company's estimated redemption rate and
the actual redemption rate it experiences will impact the final
settlement amount; however, the Company does not expect this
difference to be material.
LOCAL 103 IBEW: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Union Member's Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Indira Talwani, Granted the Motion to Dismiss in
the case entitled BRENDON J. LYDON, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. LOCAL
103, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, Defendant,
Appellee., No. 13-2009
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed
a district court order dismissing Brendon J. Lydon's lawsuit
against Local 103, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers.
Plaintiff Lyndon alleges the following in his complaint: (1)
unfair-labor practice as defined in the National Labor Relations
Act or NLRA, 29 U.S.C. Section 158, violating the Labor-Management
Relations Act or LMRA, 29 U.S.C. Section 185 et seq., (2)
violation of Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act or
LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. Section 401 et seq., (3) breach of duty of fair
representation by bargaining for the solicitation system, a system
that flies in the face of IBEW rules and that Local 103 runs in a
discriminatory manner. Lyndon asserts a class-action claim with
respect to his unfair labor practice allegations.
Local 103 later asked the district judge to dismiss the complaint
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, alternatively, to resolve the
case on summary judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. The judge
granted a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, holding that Lydon's complaint
failed to allege a plausible theory of relief. The ruling
triggered the appeal.
The Appeals Court affirms the judgment of dismissal and awards
Local 103 its costs on appeal.
A copy of the Court's decision dated October 24, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/j5jjF9from Leagle.com.
Local 103 is represented by Indira Talwani, with whom Ira Sills,
Esq. -- isills@segalroitman.com -- Kevin C. Merritt, Esq. --
kmerritt@segalroitman.com -- at Segal Roitman, LLP were on brief.
The First Circuit panel consists of Judges Jeffrey R. Howard, O.
Rogeriee Thompson, and New Hampshire District Judge Joseph
Laplante.
LOREAL USA: "Neuman" Lawsuit Remanded to Cuyahoga County Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit JUDITH NEUMAN, Plaintiff, v. L'OREAL USA S/D, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-01615, seeks an injunction on behalf
of a putative class against allegedly deceptive advertising of
Lancome brand Teint Idole Ultra 24H liquid foundation makeup by
L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc. She filed her complaint in the Court of
Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, and L'Oreal removed it to an Ohio
district court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
Neuman has filed a "Suggestion the Court Lacks Subject Matter
Jurisdiction." With that filing, she suggests she lacks Article
III standing to ask a federal court for an injunction because she
has no intention to purchase the product in question again.
In an Oct. 14, 2014 Opinion & Order available at
http://is.gd/Wi1Txhfrom Leagle.com, District Judge James S. Gwin
agrees with Neuman's suggestion and therefore remands the case to
the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County.
Defendant L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc., is represented by Dennis S.
Ellis, Esq. -- dennisellis@paulhastings.com -- and Katherine F.
Murray, Esq. -- katherinemurray@paulhastings.com -- of Paul
Hastings; as well as William A. Doyle, Esq. -- wdoyle@taftlaw.com
-- and Stephen H. Jett, Esq. -- sjett@taftlaw.com -- of Taft
Stettinius & Hollister.
LUZERNE COUNTY: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of "Flora" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Al Flora, Jr., Adam Kuren, and Steven Allabaugh appealed the order
of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) granting
the preliminary objections of Luzerne County and County Manager
Robert C. Lawton to their amended complaint. The amended complaint
asserts that, due to inadequate funding, the Office of Public
Defender of Luzerne County is unable to represent indigent clients
adequately, thereby depriving those clients of their right to
counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The trial court
sustained the County's objections that the plaintiffs lacked
standing, for separate reasons, and that the complaint failed to
state a cause of action. The trial court overruled the County's
objection that the plaintiffs should have joined the current Chief
Public Defender as an indispensable party. The County cross-
appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to disqualify an
attorney representing the plaintiffs on the basis of her alleged
ethics violations.
In an Opinion dated Oct. 14, 2014 available at http://is.gd/Ym2Acb
from Leagle.com, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed
the trial court's order sustaining Lucerne County's preliminary
objections and dismissing the amended complaint brought by Al
Flora, Jr., et al.
"The amended complaint does not state a cause of action for either
constructive or actual denial of counsel, and the trial court
correctly sustained the County's preliminary objections. The
funding at any office of public defender presents a series of
political and public policy challenges, as do all programs
established to serve society's less fortunate. These questions are
better resolved in the political process, which includes the
County's budgetary processes," the Commonwealth Court opined.
The appeals case is Al Flora, Jr., and Adam Kuren and Steven
Allabaugh, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Appellants, v. Luzerne County of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and Robert C. Lawton, County Manager, in his official
capacity, Appellants.
MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS: Reply Deadline in "Oldham" Suit Moved
--------------------------------------------------------------
A California judge approved a stipulation deferring deadlines to
respond in the securities class action lawsuit KENT OLDHAM,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD
J. GLIDEWELL, PAMELA G. MARRONE, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA, TIM
FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, RICHARD ROMINGER, SEAN
SCHICKEDANZ, SHAUGN STANLEY, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., STIFEL, NICOLAUS
& COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC and JEFFERIES
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-02130-WBS-DAD (E.D. Calif.).
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of Marrone Bio
Innovations, Inc. between August 2, 2013, and September 2, 2014.
The parties to the lawsuit stipulate that Defendants will have no
obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint until
after the Court appoints a lead plaintiff and lead counsel in the
case.
Defendants will meet and confer with the court-appointed lead
counsel within 20 days following the appointment of a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel to (i) confirm whether the lead
plaintiff will file a new complaint that supersedes all previously
filed complaints or deem the existing complaint operative; and
(ii) establish a common response date for all defendants,
including a briefing schedule on defendants' anticipated motions
to dismiss.
Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. is a provider of bio based pest
management and plant health products for the agriculture, turf and
ornamental and water treatment markets. The Individual Defendants
are officers and directors of Marrone.
A copy of the District Court's Oct. 15, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/PtMWKdfrom Leagle.com.
Lesley Weaver, Esq., GREEN & NOBLIN P.C., Larkspur, California,
United States, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
MASAGO NEO: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wenping Wang, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Masago Neo Asian Inc. d/b/a Masago Neo Asian
Fusion, Xingan Lin, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 2:14-
cv-06249 (E.D.N.Y., October 24, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours
worked over 40 each workweek.
The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 32 Atlantic
Avenue, Oceanside, New York, 11572.
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
MASTERCARD INC: Executed Settlements With Opt-Out Merchants
-----------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that during the
third quarter of 2014, MasterCard executed settlement agreements
with a number of opt-out merchants in the Interchange litigation.
In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in
the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of
these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state
law. The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard,
Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the
price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules
(including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws
and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and
services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint that seeks treble damages.
In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to
assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. The class
plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.
In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions. The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations. Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard
would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the
event of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards,
MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.
In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above.
MasterCard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify
certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge
Rule. Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants
and certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections
include a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain
of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a
restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, which has been appealed by objectors to the settlement.
Merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard
and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out
of the class settlement. MasterCard anticipates that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions. The defendants have consolidated all of
these matters (except for one state court action in Texas) in
front of the same federal district court that is overseeing the
approval of the settlement. In July 2014, the district court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant
complaints for failure to state a claim.
MasterCard recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the fourth
quarter of 2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in
the second quarter of 2012 relating to the settlement agreements.
In 2012, MasterCard paid $790 million with respect to the
settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a qualified cash
settlement fund related to the merchant class litigation. At
September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, MasterCard had $540
million and $723 million, respectively, in the qualified cash
settlement fund classified as restricted cash on its balance
sheet. The class settlement agreement provided for a return to the
defendants of a portion of the class cash settlement fund, based
upon the percentage of purchase volume represented by the opt-out
merchants. This resulted in $164 million from the cash settlement
fund being returned to MasterCard in January 2014 and reclassified
at that time from restricted cash to cash and cash equivalents. In
the fourth quarter of 2013, MasterCard recorded an incremental net
pre-tax charge of $95 million related to the opt-out merchants,
representing a change in its estimate of probable losses relating
to these matters.
During the third quarter of 2014, MasterCard executed settlement
agreements with a number of opt-out merchants and no adjustments
to the amount reserved was deemed necessary. As of September 30,
2014, MasterCard had accrued a liability of $789 million as a
reserve for both the merchant class litigation and the filed and
anticipated opt-out merchant cases.
The portion of the accrued liability relating to the opt-out
merchants does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the
opt-out merchant matters were litigated to a final outcome, in
which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability.
MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may change
depending on progress in settlement negotiations or depending upon
decisions in any opt-out merchant cases. In addition, in the event
that the merchant class litigation settlement approval is
overturned on appeal, a negative outcome in the litigation could
have a material adverse effect on MasterCard's results of
operations, financial position and cash flows.
MASTERCARD INC: Provides Updates on Canada Merchant Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on
merchants litigation in Canada.
In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in MasterCard's
favor) related to certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-
sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules. The suit sought compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief.
In the first half of 2011, additional purported class action
lawsuits containing similar allegations to the Quebec class action
were commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against MasterCard,
Visa and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The
British Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified
amounts, and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5
billion. The British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief,
interest and legal costs.
In April 2012, the Quebec suit was amended to include the same
defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and
Ontario suits. With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1)
the Quebec suit has been stayed, (2) the Ontario suit is being
temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds,
and (3) the British Columbia court issued an order in March 2014
certifying a number of the merchants' causes of action. The
parties have appealed the certification decision.
Additional proposed class action complaints have been filed in
Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in
the British Columbia and Ontario suits.
If the class action lawsuits are ultimately successful, negative
decisions could have a significant adverse impact on the revenue
of MasterCard's Canadian customers and on MasterCard's overall
business in Canada and could result in substantial damage awards.
MASTERCARD INC: Provides Updates on Europe Litigations
------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on
litigations in Europe.
In the United Kingdom, beginning in May 2012, a number of
retailers filed claims against MasterCard seeking damages for
alleged anti-competitive conduct with respect to MasterCard's
cross-border interchange fees and its U.K. and Ireland domestic
interchange fees. More than 20 different retailers have filed
claims or notice of claims. An additional 13 potential claimant
retailers have agreed to delay filing their claims in exchange for
MasterCard agreeing to suspend the running of the time limitations
on their damages claims. Although the claimants have not
quantified the full extent of their compensatory and punitive
damages, their purported damages exceed $2 billion. MasterCard
has submitted statements of defense to the retailers' claims
disputing liability and damages. The litigations are at an early
stage, and the courts in two of the actions will address
preliminary issues before addressing issues concerning any
liability and damages. Similarly, in Belgium, a retailer filed
claims in December 2012 for unspecified damages with respect to
MasterCard's cross-border and domestic interchange fees paid in
Belgium, Greece and Luxembourg.
MICHAELS STORES: Judge Won't Re-open "Moyer" Data Breach Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois district judge denied reconsideration of a July 2014
order dismissing a data breach class action lawsuit against
Michaels Stores, Inc. The judge also denied re-opening of the
case so putative class member Mary Jane Whalen can file an amended
complaint.
The consolidated class action complaint, composed of four data
breach cases, is CHRISTINA MOYER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAELS
STORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-C-51. The other named
plaintiffs are Michael and Jessica Gouwen, Nancy Maize, and Daniel
Ripes.
In her Oct. 14, 2014 Memorandum Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/cILMX4from Leagle.com, Judge Elaine E. Bucklo said
she wasn't informed the Named Plaintiffs intended to join Ms.
Whalen as a party at the April 16, 2014 status hearing. "Ms.
Whalen's name appeared out of the blue for the first time in the
body of the consolidated complaint. Her name did not appear
anywhere on the docket because she had not been properly joined as
a party and no attorney had filed an appearance on her behalf.
Under these circumstances, I did not commit a manifest error of
law in concluding Ms. Whalen was not a plaintiff in this action."
Moreover, the judge held the facts relating to Ms. Whalen are not
newly discovered evidence.
Movant DANIEL RIPES is represented by Katrina Carroll, Esq. --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- and Kyle Alan Shamberg, Esq. --
kShamberg@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC;
Richard R Gordon, Esq. -- richard.gordon@gordonlawchicago.com --
of Gordon Law Offices, Ltd.; Tina Wolfson, Esq. --
twolfson@adhootwolfson.com -- of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC; and Joseph
J Siprut, Esq. -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- of Siprut PC.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Doyle, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No. 4:14-cv-00679 (E.D.
Tex., October 24, 2014), alleges that the Defendants repeatedly,
knowingly and willfully violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, specifically by placing calls to the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone using an automated telephone dialing system without
obtaining express consent to do so.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC is one of the largest non-bank mortgage
loan services in the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brant C. Martin, Esq.
R. Casey O'Neill, Esq.
WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP
100 Throckmorton Street, Suite 500
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Telephone: (817) 332-7788
Facsimile: (817) 332-7789
E-mail: brant.martin@wickphillips.com
casey.oneill@wickphillips.com
- and -
Paul O. Paradis, Esq.
Gina M. Tufaro, Esq.
PARADIS LAW GROUP, PLLC
570 Seventh Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 986-4500
Facsimile: (212) 986-4501
E-mail: pparadis@hhplawny.com
gtufaro@hhplawny.com
- and -
Jack Landskroner, Esq.
Drew Legando, Esq.
LANDSKRONER GRIECOMERRIMAN LLC
1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 522-9000
Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com
drew@lgmlegal.com
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: TCPA Action Allowed to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick denied the defendant's motion to
stay proceedings in the case entitled ROBERT JORDAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-
CV00787-WHO (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs filed two putative class suits against defendant.
Those lawsuits were later consolidated at request of the
Plaintiffs. The consolidated complaint alleges four causes of
action for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
resulting from unsolicited telephone calls made through the use of
an automated telephone dialing system or using an artificial or
pre-recorder voice.
Defendant moves for a stay of this case on the ground that the
Federal Communications Commission has primary jurisdiction to
decide the following three issues: (1) whether dialing equipment
that lacks the current capacity for random or sequential dialing
constitutes an "automatic telephone dialing system" ("ATDS") as
defined by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec.
227 et seq., ("TCPA"); (2) whether TCPA liability arises when a
cell phone number is reassigned from someone who consented to
calls to someone who did not without notice to the caller; and (3)
whether the TCPA applies to debt collection calls.
Nationstar asserts that petitions pending before the FCC address
these issues and that a relevant agency decision is imminent.
Judge Orrick issued a stay order on September 4, 2014.
In vacating the stay order and denying the defendants motion to
stay, Judge Orrick opined that a court must balance the parties'
need to resolve the action expeditiously against the benefits of
obtaining the federal agency's expertise on the issues. Awaiting a
ruling by the FCC would likely involve substantial delay, and a
ruling on the pending petitions would not be dispositive on the
outcome of the litigation. The impact of such delay on the
expedient resolution of disputes and the interest of providing
certainty to the parties and to others similarly situated outweigh
any potential benefits of deferring to the FCC. Nationstar will
not be prejudiced if the case moves forward, because any FCC
ruling that might excuse Nationstar of liability may be addressed
through a renewed motion to stay under the primary jurisdiction
doctrine or a motion for summary judgment. To secure the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and
proceeding, the case should go forward.
The stay imposed pursuant to the September 4 order is lifted and
Nationstar's motion for stay is denied, Judge Orrick said.
A copy of Judge Orrick's Order dated October 20, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/dDY714from Leagle.com.
Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by Abraham Joshua
Colman, Esq. -- acolman@reedsmith.com -- Felicia Yangru Yu, Esq.
-- fyu@reedsmith.com -- Jack J. Gindi, Esq. --
jgindi@reedsmith.com -- Raymond Yoon Ho Kim, Esq. --
rkim@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith, LLP.
NEUSTAR INC: Indiana Retirement System Named as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
NeuStar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Alexandria
Division Court issued an order appointing lead counsel and
designating The Indiana Public Retirement System, or IPRS, as lead
plaintiff.
On July 15, 2014, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System, or OFPRS, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, or Alexandria Division, against the Company
and certain of its senior executive officers. The OFPRS complaint
asserts claims for purported violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on
behalf of those who purchased the Company's securities between
April 19, 2013 and June 6, 2014, inclusive, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' and
experts' fees, and injunctive relief. The Company believes the
allegations set forth in the OFPRS complaint are without merit.
On October 7, 2014, the Alexandria Division issued an order
appointing lead counsel and designating The Indiana Public
Retirement System, or IPRS, as lead plaintiff. In accordance with
the order, the Company does not need to respond to the OFPRS
complaint, but will be required to respond to any amended
complaint filed by the IPRS. The Company intends to defend itself
vigorously against any action filed by IPRS. At this stage, the
Company is unable to quantify the impact of these claims on its
future consolidated financial position or results of operations.
NeuStar, Inc. is a neutral and trusted provider of real-time
information services and analytics, using authoritative, hard-to-
replicate data sets and proprietary analytics to help its clients
promote and protect their businesses.
NEW YORK MEDIA: Reduction of Magazine Delivery Labeled as Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that New York
Magazine became a biweekly but never refunded the difference to
subscribers, a federal class action by a Queens couple alleges.
The complaint filed October 28 describes the New York Media
publication, before the March 2014 delivery change, as "a weekly
periodical with a few 'doble' issues thereby only being sent
approximately 46-52 times per year."
Rochelle Berliner and Neil Zipkin say their pre-existing
subscription was "for a weekly (or near weekly) magazine
distribution" of New York Magazine.
Since the company decision to "unilaterally change[]" their
subscription status, however, Burliner and Zipkin "have received
far fewer magazines to date and have not received a rebate and/or
extension of their NYM subscription to make up for the difference
in value."
The class seeks punitive damages from New York Media for fraud,
violations of New York General Business law, negligence, breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH
192 Lexington Ave, Suite 802
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-1199
NIKON INC: Faces Suit Over Faulty Auto Focusing System in Cameras
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Wynn v. Nikon, Inc., 2:14-cv-06268 (E.D.N.Y, October 25,
2014) alleges fraud.
In another story, Courthouse News Service reports that Nikon D800
camera has a defective automatic focusing system, a class action
claims in Federal Court.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
768 Plandome Road 3
Manhasset, NY 11030
Telephone: (516) 426-6870
Facsimile: (212) 658-9685
E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com
NUVASIVE INC: Nov. 17 Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nuvasive, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a hearing on the
Company's motion to dismiss the securities class action is
scheduled for November 17, 2014.
On August 28, 2013, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California naming the Company and certain of its
current and former executive officers for allegedly making false
and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and financial results, specifically relating to the
purported improper submission of false claims to Medicare and
Medicaid. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from October 22, 2008 to July 30, 2013. The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.
On February 13, 2014, the lead plaintiff ("Plaintiff") filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws. In March 2014, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws. On August 19, 2014, the Court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss and ordered Plaintiff to amend its
complaint. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on September
8, 2014. The Company once again moved to dismiss the complaint on
September 22, 2014 and a hearing on the Company's motion is
scheduled for November 17, 2014.
At September 30, 2014, the probable outcome of this litigation
cannot be determined, nor can the Company estimate a range of
potential loss. In accordance with authoritative guidance on the
evaluation of loss contingencies, the Company has not recorded an
accrual related to this litigation.
Nuvasive is a medical device company focused on developing
minimally-disruptive surgical products and procedurally-integrated
solutions for the spine.
OSMOSE INC: Faces Class Action in Virgin Islands Court
------------------------------------------------------
Osmose, Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 30, 2014, that on July 28, 2014, that OSI
was served with a class action complaint that was filed on July
16, 2014 in the United States District Court of the Virgin
Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John. The complaint
alleges that wood preservatives manufactured by OSI were defective
from 2004 to the present, failing to protect wood treated with the
preservatives from decay. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and
attorney fees and costs in excess of $5,000,000.
"Based on the allegations, it is possible that OSI could have
exposure to some plaintiff somewhere; however, it is not possible
at this time to estimate the potential damage, if any, for which
OSI would be liable. OSI believes it has strong legal basis on
which to seek a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. OSI
intends to contest this case vigorously and believes it has strong
defenses both to class action and the merits of the case," OSI
said.
Osmose, Inc. and subsidiaries ("OSI") is a wholly owned subsidiary
of Osmose Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries ("Osmose"). OSI is a
global provider of wood preservation treatment formulations and
technologies. Osmose Railroad Services, Inc. ("ORS") is also a
wholly owned subsidiary of Osmose. ORS is primarily involved in
providing bridge repair, construction, inspection, and design
services and products to the railroad industry.
PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Lovallo" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a
purported class action lawsuit was filed on October 3, 2014, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and three of its current officers, Nicholas R. Lovallo v.
Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06172-WHW-
CLW. The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised
on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-
disclosure of material facts, regarding the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance during the proposed class
period of April 9, 2012 to September 24, 2014. The Company intends
to vigorously defend all claims asserted, including by filing a
motion to dismiss. Given the early stage of the litigation, at
this time the Company is unable to reasonably estimate possible
losses or form a judgment that an unfavorable outcome is either
probable or remote. It is not currently possible to assess whether
or not the outcome of these proceedings will have a material
adverse effect on the Company.
Pacira is a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the
development, commercialization and manufacture of proprietary
pharmaceutical products, based on its proprietary DepoFoam drug
delivery technology, for use primarily in hospitals and ambulatory
surgery centers.
PANASONIC CORP: Faces "Wong" Suit Over Capacitors-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Wong, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-04782 (N.D. Cal., October 27, 2014), alleges that the
Defendants and other co-conspirators agreed, combined and
conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices, and to
allocate market shares for aluminum and tantalum electrolytic
capacitors.
Panasonic Corporation manufactured, sold and distributed aluminum
and tantalum electrolytic capacitors either directly or through
its subsidiaries, agents or affiliates to customers throughout the
United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jack W. Lee, Esq.
Derek G. Howard, Esq.
Aron K. Liang, Esq.
Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq.
MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
360 Post Street, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 788-9000
Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com
dhoward@minamitamaki.com
aliang@minamitamaki.com
seant@minamitamaki.om
- and -
Daniel R. Shulman, Esq.
GRAY PLANT MOOTY
500 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 632-3335
Facsimile: (612) 632-4335
E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com
PAYPAL INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Fox" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ann Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Paypal, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08264 (C.D. Cal.,
October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
negligently contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone,
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby
invading the Plaintiff's privacy.
Paypal, Inc. is an international e-commerce business allowing
payments and money transfers to be made throughout the world via
the internet.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
gouya@kazlg.com
PETCO ANIMAL: Dist. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Scholnick" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petco Animal Supplies Store, Inc., failed to convince a
Massachusetts district court to throw out a putative class action
brought by Jeffrey Scholnick and Leah Crohn over the collection of
customer information, specifically their ZIP codes.
District Judge Indira Talwani didn't subscribe to the Defendant's
assertion that Plaintiffs failed to serve a demand letter on them.
The judge noted that Masachusetts courts typically have allowed
plaintiffs to amend in order to cure certain kinds of modest
pleading defects.
In his Oct. 14, 2014 order available at http://is.gd/Shn8IMfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge Indira Talwani also stayed the case for
60 days to allow Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their
complaint after complying with Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, Sec.
9(3)'s requirements.
Defendant Petco Animal Supplies Store, Inc., is represented by
Elizabeth M Mitchell, Esq. -- matthew.mitchell@hklaw.com ; and
Nathaniel F. Hulme, Esq. -- nathaniel.hulme@hklaw.com -- of
Holland & Knight LLP.
PHILIPS ORAL: "Coe" Consumer Suit Denied Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Marsha J. Pechman, on Oct. 14, 2014, granted
Philips Oral Healthcare Inc.'s motion to deny class certification
of a lawsuit seeking damages and equitable relief for purchasers
of Philips Oral's allegedly defective Sonicare Diamond Clean,
FlexCare, FlexCare+, Healthy White, EasyClean, and Sonicare for
Kids powered toothbrushes and related replacement parts.
The judge said, "Material differences between the consumer
protection laws of the relevant states overwhelm common questions,
and Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate the predominance or
manageability required for class certification."
Having determined that Washington Consumer Protection Act (WCPA)
does not apply, the Court also DISMISSES Plaintiff Sam Chawla's
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) claim for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff Lance Ng's claims are time-
barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and Defendant's
motion for summary judgment as to his claims is GRANTED.
The lawsuit is AMY COE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PHILIPS ORAL
HEALTHCARE INC., Defendant, CASE NO. C13-518 MJP (W.D. Wash.). A
copy of the Washington Court's Oct. 14, 2014 Order is available at
http://is.gd/wIQrOcfrom Leagle.com.
Philips Oral Healthcare Inc, Defendant, represented by Antonia
Stamenova-Dancheva, Esq. -- stamenovaa@sullcrom.com , Brian R
England, Esq. -- englandb@sullcrom.com , Michael H. Steinberg,
Esq. -- steinbergm@sullcrom.com -- of SULLIVAN & CROMWELL as well
as Jeffrey I Tilden, Esq. -- jtilden@gordontilden.com -- of GORDON
TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP.
PLY GEM: Strathcyle Named Lead Plaintiff in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Waterford Township Police and Fire Retirement System brought a
putative securities class action against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc.,
the underwriters of its initial public offering, and several of
its executives. Waterford published notice of the putative class
action on Business Wire shortly after filing suit. In response,
two entities moved to be appointed lead plaintiff: (1) The Macomb
County, Michigan, Employees' Retirement System and (2) a proposed
combination of (a) The Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of
IBEW Local Union No. 58 and IBEW Local Union No. 58 Annuity Fund,
(b) The Strathclyde Pension Fund, and (c) The Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System (collectively, "The
Triumvirate"). The Triumvirate moved to consolidate several
pending actions.
In an Oct. 14, 2014 Opinion and Order available at
http://is.gd/GJ9xuyfrom Leagle.com, District Judge J. Paul Oetken
ruled that:
(1) the actions are consolidated,
(2) Strathclyde, the single entity with the largest financial
stake in the litigation, is certified as lead plaintiff, and
(3) Robbins Geller is appointed class counsel.
Nevertheless, the judge acknowledges that Strathclyde moved to be
lead plaintiff only as part of The Triumvirate. It might not want
to be lead plaintiff on its own. If so, Strathclyde was directed
to notify the Court by October 21, 2014.
The lawsuit is IN RE PLY GEM HOLDINGS, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION
NO. 14-CV-3577 (JPO) (S.D.N.Y.).
Defendant Stephens Inc. is represented by Peter Eric Kazanoff,
Esq. -- pkazanoff@stblaw.com ; Thomas C. Rice, Esq. --
trice@stblaw.com ; Sara Ann Ricciardi, Esq. --
sricciardi@stblaw.com ; and Sarah Emily Phillips, Esq. --
sarah.phillips@stblaw.com -- of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Celera Settlement to be Covered by Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, a purported class action entitled In re Celera Corp.
Securities Litigation was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against Celera
Corporation and certain of its directors and current and former
officers. An amended complaint filed in October 2010 alleges that
from April 2008 through July 22, 2009, the defendants made false
and misleading statements regarding Celera's business and
financial results with an intent to defraud investors. The
complaint was further amended in 2011 to add allegations regarding
a financial restatement. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
damages on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of Celera's
stock during the period in which the alleged misrepresentations
were made.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that its motion
to dismiss the complaint was denied. Celera and the director and
officer defendants have reached an agreement to settle this
action, which is subject to court approval. The settlement is
expected to be fully covered by insurance.
Quest Diagnostics provides diagnostic information services
("DIS"), providing insights that empower and enable patients,
physicians, hospitals, integrated delivery networks, health plans,
employers and others to make better healthcare decisions.
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Amended Complaint Filed in Biotechnology Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that
Biotechnology Value Fund, L.P. and others filed in July 2013 a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, Celera, former
directors of Celera and Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC
("Credit Suisse") alleging, among other things, federal securities
laws violations and breach of fiduciary duty claims against
Celera, its directors and Credit Suisse. Following motions by the
parties, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
Quest Diagnostics provides diagnostic information services
("DIS"), providing insights that empower and enable patients,
physicians, hospitals, integrated delivery networks, health plans,
employers and others to make better healthcare decisions.
REPUBLIC NATIONAL: Sued in S.D. New York Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Kaba on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Republic National Recovery and John Does 1-25, Case No. 1:14-
cv-08551 (S.D.N.Y., October 27, 2014), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.
Republic National Recovery is a business that uses the mail,
telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in business the
principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged
to be due another.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
- and -
Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 459-7971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
S.A.E ROACHBUSTERS: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Garces" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Garces, and other similarly situated individuals v. S.A.E
Roachbusters Bug Killers of American, Inc., a Florida profit
corporation and Juan Lopez, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-23966
(S.D. Fla., October 24, 2014), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 per week.
S.A.E Roachbusters Bug Killers of American, Inc. is engaged in
interstate commerce doing business in Miami Dade Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
Court House Tower
44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
SECURITAS SECURITY: Court Certifies Class in "Deatrick" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge conditionally
certified a class action accusing Securitas Security Services of
overtime and vacation pay violations involving tens of thousands
of workers.
The case is Michael Deatrick v. Securitas Security Services USA,
Inc., Case No. 13-cv-05016-JST, in the United States District
Court for the Northern District Of California.
SUPERMEDIA INC: To Pay $3 Million to Settle Labor Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that phone
book publisher SuperMedia will pay $3 million to settle a
nationwide class action accusing it of making employees work off
the clock.
Lead plaintiff Byron Jones sued the Dallas-based company in 2011
in Federal Court under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The class included up to 1,700 current and former employees who
worked at SuperMedia between Jan. 1, 2010, and June 18, 2012.
The parties filed a joint motion for settlement approval on Oct.
24. They settled before the court ruled on SuperMedia's February
motion to decertify the class. The company claimed the 314
plaintiffs who opted in were not similarly situated and that no
nationwide policy allowed or encouraged off-the-clock work or
unpaid overtime.
"SuperMedia further argued that decertification was required
because defenses individual to each plaintiff precluded collective
treatment," the motion stated. "The parties resolved the matter
before the court ruled on SuperMedia's motion, and the uncertainty
regarding the court's eventual ruling was considered by the
parties as part of the settlement."
Under the agreement, each plaintiff will receive approximately
$5,848 after attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs' attorneys with
Oberti Sullivan in Houston and Baron & Budd in Dallas will receive
a 40 percent contingency fee.
The parties said the settlement was the "result of vigorous arm's
length settlement negotiations" that were "complicated and hard
fought."
"Given the vagaries of the plaintiffs' claimed time, the
difficulties inherent in establishing off-the-clock time worked by
any method of exact precision, and the difficulties of asking
jurors to determine the number of hours worked by plaintiffs on a
person-by-person basis for a three-year period of time, the
parties agree that this is a fair and efficient method of
calculating each named plaintiff and opt-in member's pro rata
share of the settlement funds," the motion states.
Known for its Superpages phone directories, SuperMedia became Dex
Media in 2013 after a merger with Dex One Corp. Dex Media could
not be reached for comment on October 27 evening.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Edwin Sullivan, Esq.
OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
723 Main Street, Suite 340
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 401-3555
Facsimile: (713) 401-3547
E-mail: ed@osattorneys.com
- and -
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Dan G. Hartsfield, Esq.
Karen E. Griffin, Esq.
Talley R. Parker, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
500 N. Akard, Suite 2500
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 520-2400
Facsimile: (214) 520-2008
E-mail: dan.hartsfield@jacksonlewis.com
griffink@jacksonlewis.com
talley.parker@jacksonlewis.com
The case is Byron Jones, et al. v. Supermedia Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:11-CV-01467-B, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Dunn" Suit Over Defective Air Bags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Dunn, et al., on behalf of themselves and all those
similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-
cv-24009 (S.D. Fla., October 27, 2014), alleges that the Defective
Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that,
instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during
accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with
lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.
Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Prieto, Esq.
John Gravante III, Esq.
Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
jgravante@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
- and -
Lawrence A. Sucharow, Esq.
Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
Martis Alex, Esq.
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212)-907-0700
Facsimile: (212)-818-0477
E-mail: lsucharow@labaton.com
ckeller@labaton.com
malex@labaton.com
ebelfi@labaton.com
mstocker@labaton.com
gasciolla@labaton.com
- and -
Roland Tellis, Esq.
Mark Pifko, Esq.
David Fernandes, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 839-2333
Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
mpifko@baronbudd.com
dfernandes@baronbudd.com
- and -
J. Burton Leblanc, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
9015 Bluebonnet Blvd
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
Telephone: (225) 761-6463
Facsimile: (225) 927-5449
- and -
Frank C. Dudenhefer Jr., Esq.
THE DUDENHEFER LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
5200 St. Charles Ave.
New Orleans, LA 70115
Telephone: (504) 616-5226
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Takeda" Suit Over Defective Air Bags
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Takeda, Teresa Lemke, William Dougherty, Coleman Haklar,
Susan Nattrass, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., alleges that the Defective
Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that,
instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during
accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with
lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.
Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roland Tellis, Esq.
Mark Pifko, Esq.
David Fernandes, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91403
Telephone: (818) 839-2333
Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
mpifko@baronbudd.com
dfernandes@baronbudd.com
- and -
J. Burton Leblanc, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
9015 Bluebonnet Blvd
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
Telephone: (225) 761-6463
Facsimile: (225) 927-5449
- and -
Peter Prieto, Esq.
John Gravante III, Esq.
Matthew Weinshall, Esq.
PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 358-2800
Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com
jgravante@podhurst.com
mweinshall@podhurst.com
- and -
Lawrence A. Sucharow, Esq.
Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
Martis Alex, Esq.
Eric J. Belfi, Esq.
Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212)-907-0700
Facsimile: (212)-818-0477
E-mail: lsucharow@labaton.com
ckeller@labaton.com
malex@labaton.com
ebelfi@labaton.com
mstocker@labaton.com
gasciolla@labaton.com
- and -
Michael M. Goldberg, Esq.
GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG
1925 Century Park East ste 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
E-mail: mgoldberg@glancylaw.com
TIBOR SZABO: Sued for Conning Clients Out of Thousands of Dollars
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action accuses the owner of a chic San Francisco
music and event space of conning clients out of hundreds of
thousands of dollars, reports Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse
News Service.
The Oct. 21 lawsuit from lead plaintiffs Matthew Figures and
Colleen Devlin calls Tibor Szabo, owner of Hayes Valley's Salle
Pianos & Events, "a renowned con artist with a long history of
swindling legitimate San Francisco business men and women by
surreptitiously ingratiating himself into their social sphere
through the pretext of operating as a respectable arts dealer."
Co-defendant Salle Pianos & Events describes itself on its
Facebook page as "the only endeavor in North America" specializing
in restoring and selling European art-case and period pianos.
Photos show a small, stylish space used for concerts and
gatherings.
But plaintiffs Figures and Devlin claim Szabo solicits deposits
for pianos that do not exist or are never delivered, and does not
issue refunds.
They claim that Salle Pianos & Events -- which they call a
racketeering enterprise -- holds classical music performances to
attract new clients for Szabo.
In an interview, Szabo acknowledged some matters of financial
dispute and said he is determined to clear up them up. The
October 21 lawsuit also claims sexual impropriety, which Szabo
denies.
Szabo told Courthouse News that he "150 percent" denies the sexual
assault accusations.
"There is no way I am a scam artist," Szabo said, adding that he
has earned a large amount of support from customers, as reflected
on his Yelp page.
To bolster a racketeering claim, the second and third pages of the
17-page lawsuit cite more than a dozen lawsuits against Szabo in
the past decade.
Court records show several lawsuits, including:
* that Szabo was sued in 2010 for allegedly failing to deliver
a 1930 Gaveau piano the plaintiff agreed to buy for $57,000;
* that he was in sued 2007, accused of not delivering several
dining room tables; and
* that he was accused in 2003 of selling a woman's piano
without her consent.
San Francisco Superior Court records show at least 15 cases in
which Szabo is a defendant.
Salle Pianos & Events has a glowing 4.5 star score on the consumer
review Web site Yelp.com.
"Having live music played alongside the Chaplin short films made
for a memorable night," one review states.
"Faith F." of Burlingame called the venue a place with "a
quintessential San Francisco vibe with an other-worldly
atmosphere."
"Owner Tibor went out of his way to create a look and feel for my
event that fit my vision," she added.
There are a few scathing reviews.
"Terri E." of San Francisco called her friend's wedding experience
a "NIGHTMARE!!!!" because the space was not clean and the food was
mediocre.
At least four reviews from "Colleen D." of Indianapolis have been
removed from Yelp for violating content guidelines, according to
the Web site. One, dated Oct. 15 and viewed by Courthouse News
before it was removed, details an accusation of sexual assault.
In the Oct. 21 lawsuit, Devlin claims that Szabo sexually
assaulted her in September.
Szabo has not been arrested this year for sexual assault,
according to the San Francisco Police Department.
According to exhibits filed by the plaintiff's attorney, Alameda-
based Timothy Rumberger, Szabo was charged with felony domestic
violence in 2012 and has had at least four restraining orders
issued against him.
The 2012 felony charges were dropped to misdemeanor false
imprisonment, according to the San Francisco Public Defender's
Office. Szabo says he was trying to prevent his former girlfriend
from driving drunk.
Szabo acknowledges the lawsuits regarding his pianos, and says
he's paying the plaintiffs. He told Courthouse News that none of
those incidents were malicious or intentionally fraudulent.
"I'm actually very grateful if I can get my side of the story. It
is very much the opposite [of what the lawsuit alleges]," Szabo
said in an interview. "Don't get me wrong, there are issues --
I'm going to take care of what I legally owe people. But there is
no way I am a scam artist like they are saying."
He added: "I could go on for 185 pages. Please see my huge
support on Yelp that is real and sincere."
The plaintiffs, who say Szabo is not U.S. citizen, want him
deported, and seek class certification, restitution and treble
damages for RICO charges, "violent assaults [and] threats of
blackmail."
TIME WARNER: Still Defending Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. is the defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable
Television Box Antitrust Litigation, ten purported class actions
filed in federal district courts throughout the U.S. These actions
are subject to a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order
transferring the cases for pretrial proceedings to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.
On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
consolidated class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint"), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state
unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of
premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top
converter boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease
such alleged practices.
On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011.
On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Company intends
to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably estimate a range
of possible loss.
No updates were provided in Time Warner's Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.
Time Warner is among the largest providers of video, high-speed
data and voice services in the U.S., with technologically
advanced, well-clustered cable systems located mainly in five
geographic areas -- New York State (including New York City), the
Carolinas, the Midwest (including Ohio, Kentucky and Wisconsin),
Southern California (including Los Angeles) and Texas.
TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs in "Downs" Case Files Reconsideration Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case Michelle Downs and Laurie Jarrett, et al.
v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a motion for
reconsideration in a purported class action in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Time Warner Cable Inc.
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for the quarterly period
ended September 30, 2014.
On August 9, 2010, the plaintiffs in Michelle Downs and Laurie
Jarrett, et al. v. Insight Communications Company, L.P. filed a
second amended complaint in a purported class action in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky alleging that
Insight Communications Company, L.P. violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act by tying the sales of premium cable
television services to the leasing of set-top converter boxes,
which is similar to the federal claim against the Company in In
re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust Litigation. The
plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, unspecified treble
monetary damages and an injunction to cease such alleged
practices.
On July 19, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment,
which argued that Insight Communications Company, L.P. did not
coerce the plaintiffs to lease a set-top converter box, a
necessary element of the plaintiffs' claim. On July 29, 2014, the
court granted TWC's summary judgment motion and entered judgment
in TWC's favor and, on August 26, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration.
The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but
is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Certifies Class in Mail & Wire Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
California federal judge has certified a nationwide class of
students who allege Donald Trump defrauded them by marketing Trump
University as an actual institution of learning in which Trump was
integrally involved.
U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel of the Southern District of
California on Oct. 27 certified the action brought by plaintiff
Art Cohen on behalf of students who purchased "live event"
mentorship seminars from the university, now called the Trump
Entrepreneur Initiative, thinking they would learn some of Trump's
real estate investing secrets.
The complaint, Cohen v. Trump, filed on Oct. 18, 2013, alleges a
single count of mail and wire fraud in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Mr. Cohen alleges Trump
devised a "scheme to make tens of millions of dollars" by selling
access to real estate seminars and through Trump University, which
he allegedly fraudulently marketed as "a premier institution of
higher learning rivaling Wharton Business School and with which he
was so integrally involved, students would effectively be learning
from him," according to the complaint.
Mr. Cohen said he spent $36,490 for a three-day real estate
retreat and a subsequent "Gold Elite" program, but saw no signs of
Trump's influence or of the type of professors found at a
legitimate university.
Trump's legal team had asked the judge to deny certification,
arguing, among other things, that Mr. Cohen failed to provide any
evidence of actual harm, and that the experiences of other
students are not common enough to qualify for class status. The
developer also contended that the suit is barred by the statute of
limitations.
Judge Curiel disagreed. Regarding commonality, he said:
"Plaintiff has introduced evidence that defendant's marketing
campaign repeatedly made at least the two representations that
defendant was integrally involved in Trump University and that
Trump University was an 'actual university. The court therefore
finds that common questions exist as to all members of the
putative class regarding whether defendant made these
representations and whether these representations were false and
materially misleading."
Class counsel are Jason Forge -- jforge@rgrdlaw.com -- and
Rachel Jensen -- rachelj@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd and Amber Eck -- ambere@zhlaw.com -- of Zeldes Haeggquist &
Eck. Mr. Trump is represented by attorneys with Foley & Lardner.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Summary Judgment Schedule in "O'Connor" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen entered on Oct. 14, 2014, an order
in the putative class action O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
et al., Case No. C-13-3826 (N.D. Calif.), providing guidance for
summary judgment briefing and schedule.
Plaintiffs will not be permitted to file a motion for summary
judgment prior to class certification in the case, the judge
ruled.
In his Oct. 14 order available at http://is.gd/TSSetGfrom
Leagle.com, Judge Chen clarifies that Defendant's motion for
summary judgment will be filed by Nov. 21, 2014, Plaintiff's
opposition to that motion will be filed by Dec. 15, 2014, and
Defendant's reply in support of its motion will be filed on Dec.
22, 2014. Defendant's motions for summary judgment will be heard
on Jan. 15, 2015, at 1:30 p.m.
As reported in the June 18, 2014 edition of The Class Action
Reporter, the class action complaint was filed by Douglas O'
Connor and Thomas Colopy against Uber Technologies, Inc. and two
of its executives, alleging violations of statutory employee
reimbursement and California Business and Profession Code Section
17200 et seq. and other causes of action for unremitted gratuity.
Uber licenses a software application which is used by drivers and
riders to facilitate an "on demand" car service. Plaintiffs are
former drivers and users of the App.
Caren Ehret, Movant, represented by Myron Milton Cherry, Esq. --
mcherry@cherry-law.com -- of Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC.
UNITED MATTRESS: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Martinez, Yoleysi Ricardo and, Silvio Ricardo, and other
similarly-situated individuals v. United Mattress Materials, Inc.
and Saul Santos, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24004 (S.D. Fla.,
October 27, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
United Mattress Materials, Inc. is a manufacturer, supplier and
distributor of mattresses, all kind of supplies, components, and
quilting services to the bedding industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
Miami, FL 33133
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Q3 2014 Results Exclude Class Suit Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc. reported revenue of $23.1 million, a
GAAP net loss per share of ($0.31) and a non-GAAP net loss per
share of ($0.16) for the third quarter of 2014. The company also
raised the low end of its full-year 2014 revenue guidance to a
range of $92 to $95 million.
The Company said, "In August 2013, Vocera and other related
parties were named as defendants in two purported securities class
actions, alleging claims for allegedly misleading statements
regarding our business and financial results. As the cases
progress, we may encounter more significant legal costs for our
defense. Our projections of net income/(loss), and non-GAAP
earnings/(loss) per diluted share for the full year and fourth
quarter 2014 do not give effect to any such future legal expenses
because we do not regard them as reflective of the costs we incur
to operate our business. For the same reason, third quarter 2014
non-GAAP results exclude these securities litigation expenses."
Vocera -- http://www.vocera.com/-- empowers integrated,
intelligent communication in healthcare, hospitality, energy and
other mission-critical mobile environments.
WESTERN UNION: Lead Plaintiffs File Consolidated Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the lead
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in the
shareholder class action.
On December 10, 2013, City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement
System filed a purported class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against The
Western Union Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer
and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission rule
10b-5 against all defendants.
On September 26, 2014, the Court appointed SEB Asset Management
S.A. and SEB Investment Management AB as lead plaintiffs. On
October 27, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which asserts the same claims as the
original complaint, except that it brings the claims under section
20(a) of the Exchange Act only against the individual defendants.
The consolidated amended complaint also adds as a defendant
another former executive officer of the Company. The consolidated
amended complaint alleges that, during the purported class period,
February 7, 2012 through October 30, 2012, defendants made false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material
facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the
competitive advantage the Company derived from its compliance
program; (2) the Company's ability to increase market share, make
limited price adjustments and withstand competitive pressures; (3)
the effect of compliance measures under the Southwest Border
Agreement on agent retention and business in Mexico; and (4) the
Company's progress in implementing an anti-money laundering
program for the Southwest Border Area.
This action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, which could be associated with this action. The Company and
the named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in
this matter.
WESTERN UNION: "Douglas" Class Action in Preliminary Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Jason Douglas
filed on March 12, 2014, a purported class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
asserting a claim under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on allegations that since 2009,
the Company has sent text messages to class members' wireless
telephones without their consent. The plaintiff has not sought and
the Court has not granted class certification. The Company intends
to vigorously defend itself in this matter. However, due to the
preliminary stage of the lawsuit and the uncertainty as to whether
it will ever be certified as a class action, the potential outcome
cannot be determined.
WHITING PETROLEUM: 4 Class Actions Voluntarily Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Whiting Petroleum Corporation, in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014, for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, provided updates on
seven class action lawsuits in connection with the Kodiak
Acquisition.
Seven purported class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
Kodiak shareholders in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado:
1) Quigley and Koelling v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et
al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02023, filed July 22, 2014 (the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit on September 24, 2014);
2) Fioravanti v. Krysiak, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02037, filed
July 23, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this lawsuit
on October 24, 2014);
3) Wilkinson v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-2074, filed July 25, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed this lawsuit on October 23, 2014);
4) Goldsmith v. Krysiak, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-2098, filed
July 29, 2014;
5) Rogowski v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:14-cv-2136, filed July 31, 2014 (the plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed this lawsuit on October 20, 2014);
6) Reiter v. Peterson, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02176, filed
August 6, 2014; Sohler v. Whiting Petroleum Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02863, filed October 20, 2014 (the "Sohler
Case"); and
7) one purported class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf
of Kodiak shareholders in Denver District Court, State of
Colorado: The Booth Family Trust v. Kodiak Oil & Gas Corp., et
al., Case No. 14-cv32947, filed July 25, 2014.
This last case was removed to the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on September 4, 2014 and is pending in
that court now as Case No. 1:14-cv-2457.
It is possible that other related or amended suits could
subsequently be filed. The defendants have filed motions to
dismiss with prejudice in all of the remaining cases other than
the Sohler Case. The allegations in the four remaining lawsuits
are similar. They purport to be brought as class actions on
behalf of all shareholders of Kodiak. The complaints name as
defendants us and the individual members of the Kodiak board of
directors, and list Kodiak as a nominal party or a defendant.
Additionally, one complaint lists James Henderson, Kodiak's Chief
Financial Officer, as a defendant. The complaints allege that the
Kodiak board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to Kodiak
shareholders by, among other things, failing to engage in a fair
sale process before approving the arrangement and to maximize
shareholder value in connection with the arrangement.
Additionally, the Sohler Case alleges violations under Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the
complaints allege that the Kodiak board of directors undervalued
Kodiak in connection with the arrangement and that the Kodiak
board of directors agreed to certain deal protection mechanisms
that precluded Kodiak from obtaining competing offers. The
complaints also allege that we aided and abetted the Kodiak board
of directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Sohler
Case alleges additionally that in issuing the Preliminary Proxy
Statement the Kodiak board of directors violated the cited
sections of, and rule promulgated under, the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended. The complaints seek, among other things,
injunctive relief preventing the closing of the Kodiak
Acquisition, rescission of the Kodiak Acquisition or an award of
rescissory damages to the purported class in the event that the
Kodiak Acquisition is consummated, and damages, including counsel
fees and expenses.
One of the conditions to the closing of the Kodiak Acquisition is
that no law, order, injunction or judgment has been enacted or
issued by any government entity that has the effect of prohibiting
the consummation of the Kodiak Acquisition. Consequently, if any
lawsuit is successful in obtaining an injunction prohibiting us or
Kodiak from consummating the Kodiak Acquisition on the agreed upon
terms, the injunction may prevent the Kodiak Acquisition from
being completed within the expected timeframe, or at all.
Furthermore, if the Kodiak Acquisition is prevented or delayed,
the lawsuits could result in substantial costs, including any
costs associated with the indemnification of directors. The
defense or settlement of any lawsuit or claim that remains
unresolved at the time the Kodiak Acquisition is completed may
adversely affect the combined company's business, financial
condition or results of operations.
WHOLESALE TILE: Faces "Santiago" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Santiago Jr., individually & on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Wholesale Tile Supply, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 8:14-cv-02687 (M.D. Fla., October 24,
2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours per week.
Wholesale Tile Supply, LLC is a wholesale tile, glass and stone
products supply company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
20 N Orange Ave-Ste 1600, PO Box 4979
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
cthomas@forthepeople.com
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Supreme Court to Hear Gas Purchasers' Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 30, 2014,
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the U.S.
Supreme Court has agreed to hear the class actions alleging the
manipulation of published gas price indices.
Direct and indirect purchasers of natural gas in various states
filed class actions against WPX Energy Inc. and others alleging
the manipulation of published gas price indices and seeking
unspecified amounts of damages. Such actions were transferred to
the Nevada federal district court for consolidation of discovery
and pre-trial issues.
In 2011, the Nevada district court granted WPX's joint motions for
summary judgment to preclude the plaintiffs' state law claims
because the federal Natural Gas Act gives the FERC exclusive
jurisdiction to resolve those issues. The court also denied the
plaintiffs' class certification motion as moot.
The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on April 10, 2013,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court and
remanded the cases to the district court to permit the plaintiffs
to pursue their state antitrust claims for natural gas sales that
were not subject to FERC jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act.
On July 1, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the cases.
"Because of the uncertainty around the remaining pending
unresolved issues, including an insufficient description of the
purported classes and other related matters, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of potential exposures at this time. However, it
is reasonably possible that the ultimate resolution of these items
and our related indemnification obligation could result in future
charges that may be material to our results of operations. In
connection with this indemnification, we have an accrued liability
balance associated with this matter, and as a result, have an
indirect exposure to future developments in this matter," the
Company said.
Williams Companies is an energy infrastructure company focused on
connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon resource plays
to growing markets for natural gas, natural gas liquids, and
olefins. Its operations are located principally in the United
States, but span from the deepwater Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian
oil sands, and are organized into the Williams Partners, Access
Midstream Partners, and Williams NGL & Petchem Services reportable
segments.
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Flint Hills Appeals to Alaska Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC has appealed a decision to the
Alaska Supreme Court in the Alaska refinery contamination
litigation, The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.
In 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state court in
Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property owners whose
water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from
the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska.
"The suit named our subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc.
(WAPI), and Flint Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary
of Koch Industries, Inc., as defendants. We owned and operated the
refinery until 2004 when we sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA have made
claims under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in
connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. We
and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking, among other
things, contractual indemnification alleging that the other party
caused the sulfolane contamination," the Company said.
"In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. We and FHRA
subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the other's
claims. On November 5, 2013, the court ruled that the applicable
statute of limitations bars all FHRA's claims against us and
dismissed those claims with prejudice. FHRA asked the court to
reconsider and clarify its ruling. On July 8, 2014, the court
reaffirmed its dismissal of all FHRA's claims and entered judgment
for us. On August 6, 2014, FHRA appealed the court's decision to
the Alaska Supreme Court.
"We currently estimate that our reasonably possible loss exposure
in this matter could range from an insignificant amount up to $32
million, although uncertainties inherent in the litigation
process, expert evaluations, and jury dynamics might cause our
exposure to exceed that amount," the Company said.
XEROX CORP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Securities Case Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in September
affirmed the District Court's decision dismissing the Xerox
Corporation Securities Litigation, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 30, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.
A consolidated securities law action (consisting of 17 cases) was
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut (the "Court"). Defendants were the Company, Barry
Romeril, Paul Allaire and G. Richard Thoman. The consolidated
action was a class action on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased Xerox Corporation common stock during the period
October 22, 1998 through October 7, 1999 inclusive ("Class
Period") and who suffered a loss as a result of misrepresentations
or omissions by Defendants as alleged by Plaintiffs (the "Class").
The Class alleged that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (1934 Act), and
SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants was liable as a
participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the Class Period by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing material facts
relating to the defendants' alleged failure to disclose the
material negative impact that the April 1998 restructuring had on
the Company's operations and revenues.
The complaint further alleged that the alleged scheme: (i)
deceived the investing public regarding the economic capabilities,
sales proficiencies, growth, operations and the intrinsic value of
the Company's common stock; (ii) allowed several corporate
insiders, such as the named individual defendants, to sell shares
of privately held common stock of the Company while in possession
of materially adverse, non-public information; and (iii) caused
the individual plaintiffs and the other members of the purported
class to purchase common stock of the Company at inflated prices.
The complaint sought unspecified compensatory damages in favor of
the plaintiffs and the other members of the purported class
against all defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages
sustained as a result of defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including
interest thereon, together with reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in the action, including counsel fees and expert fees.
In 2001, the Court denied the defendants' motion for dismissal of
the complaint. The plaintiffs' motion for class certification was
denied by the Court in 2006, without prejudice to refiling.
In February 2007, the Court granted the motion of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Welfare Fund of
Local Union No. 164, Robert W. Roten, Robert Agius ("Agius") and
Georgia Stanley to appoint them as additional lead plaintiffs. In
July 2007, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class
certification, without prejudice to renewal after a pre-filing
conference to identify factual disputes the Court would be
required to resolve in ruling on the motion.
After that conference and Agius's withdrawal as lead plaintiff and
proposed class representative, in February 2008 plaintiffs filed a
second renewed motion for class certification. In April 2008,
defendants filed their response and motion to disqualify Milberg
LLP as a lead counsel. On September 30, 2008, the Court entered an
order certifying the class and denying the appointment of Milberg
LLP as class counsel.
Subsequently, on April 9, 2009, the Court denied defendants'
motion to disqualify Milberg LLP.
On November 6, 2008, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. On March 29, 2013, the Court granted defendants' motion
for summary judgment in its entirety.
On April 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On September 8, 2014, the
Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision dismissing
the action.
"At this time, we do not believe it is reasonably possible that we
will incur additional material losses in excess of the amount we
have already accrued for this matter. Should developments cause a
change in our determination as to an unfavorable outcome, or
result in a final adverse judgment or a settlement for a
significant amount, there could be a material adverse effect on
our results of operations, cash flows and financial position in
the period in which such change in determination, judgment or
settlement occurs," the Company said.
ZIMMER HOLDINGS: Bellwether Hip Device Trial Begins
---------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the first bellwether trials over alleged defects in Zimmer
Holdings Inc.'s recalled Durom Cup hip implant are moving ahead,
with the first one set for Nov. 3.
Zimmer is one of several companies facing lawsuits over its hip
implants. The suits allege the company's Durom Cup can loosen and
cause pain in the hips and other areas, requiring surgery in most
cases to remove the device.
"Many of these plaintiffs have been waiting since 2008 and 2009 in
court, and we're very excited we're getting the opportunity to
finally be able to take these cases to trial," said Kyla Cole, a
partner at Dallas-based Waters, Kraus & Paul, lead plaintiffs
counsel in the litigation.
The Nov. 3 trial, in St. Clair County, Ill., Circuit Court, will
be the first of some 350 lawsuits filed against Zimmer, which
temporarily withdrew the Durom Cup from the U.S. market in 2008.
Most of the cases are in New Jersey federal court as part of a
multidistrict coordinated proceeding before U.S. District Judge
Susan Wigenton. On Oct. 23, Ms. Wigenton picked the first case to
go to trial in federal court.
The Illinois case was brought by John Pugliese, 61, who had the
Durom Cup implanted in 2008 but removed months later, Ms. Cole
said. The lead plaintiffs attorneys in the Oct. 27 case -- Joseph
Bartholomew, managing partner of Cook, Ysursa, Bartholomew, Brauer
& Shevlin in Belleville, Ill., and Robert G. Jones of The Jones
Law Firm -- did not return calls for comment.
Larry Hepler of HeplerBroom -- lhepler@heplerbroom.com -- in
Edwardsville, Ill., who represents Zimmer, did not respond to a
request for comment. Monica Kendrick, a spokeswoman for Zimmer,
which is based in Warsaw, Ind., did not respond to a request for
comment.
Zimmer has a trial in a second case scheduled for Jan. 20 in Los
Angeles County Superior Court. That case was brought by Gary
Kline, 58, who had the device implanted in 2007 and removed a year
later, Ms. Cole said.
In federal court, jurors could be selected as soon as April for
the first bellwether case, which both sides have fought over in
the past few months.
In an Oct. 16 letter to the court, Zimmer attorney J. Joseph
Tanner -- joe.tanner@FaegreBD.com -- a partner at Faegre Baker
Daniels in Indianapolis, pushed for the first trial to be a case
filed by Maryann Ruttenbur, 71, a Salt Lake City resident who had
the Durom Cup implanted in her right hip in 2007 but had it
removed five years later after suffering pain. Mr. Tanner argued
that, since Zimmer had picked the Illinois case and the plaintiffs
had chosen the Los Angeles case, the Ruttenbur case "strikes an
appropriate balance and achieves fundamental fairness."
But plaintiffs attorney George Tankard, of counsel in Dallas-based
Waters, Kraus & Paul's Baltimore office, said in his own Oct. 16
letter that the case was less representative of the litigation as
a whole because Ruttenbur's revision surgery followed a car
accident.
Neither Tankard nor Tanner returned calls for comment.
In the end, Ms. Wigenton selected the plaintiffs' pick: A case
brought by Christine Brady, 64, a retired schoolteacher in
Louisiana who underwent surgery in 2009 to remove a Durom Cup
implanted three years earlier.
The litigation, coordinated in 2010, has progressed slowly. Zimmer
has settled some cases, while the plaintiffs have moved for
sanctions alleging Zimmer destroyed or lost more than 5,000
surplus Durom Cups after the first lawsuits were filed.
In other hip implant litigation, DePuy Orthopaedics Inc., a
division of Johnson & Johnson, agreed last year to settle most of
the litigation over its ASR device for $830 million. On Oct. 23,
the company won the first bellwether trial over another hip
implant, the Pinnacle.
Bellwether selections also are underway in the litigation against
Stryker Corp. over its Rejuvenate and ABG II hip implants.
*********
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 202-362-8552.
* * * End of Transmission * * *