/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141110.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, November 10, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 223 Headlines AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Barbecue Flavor Potato Chips ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Sued by Women Alleging Sexual Harassment ALBERTA GAMING: Recalls Mogen David "Red Wine - Concord" ALOHA POOLS: Faces "Vickers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ALPHA CARWASH: "Manzanarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Priever" Over Misleading Fin'l Reports AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Patron" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Rubinstein" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Ciarulu" Suit Over Misleading Statements AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Misleading Statements AMGEN INC: Precedent Does Not Impede With Claims, 9th Cir. Rules AMITABH BACHCHAN: Accused of Inciting Genocide of Sikhs in 1984 APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over 2011 Macbook Pro Graphics Issue AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Sued Over Red-Light Camera Traffic Citations ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Possible Salmonella AUSTRALIA: CPC to Join Class Action Over Live Cattle Export Ban B JAYS USA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Lizardo" Suit Says B. H. KOSHER: Recalls Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix BALTIMORE GAS: Plaintiffs Abandon Environmental Lawsuit v. Cotter BALTIMORE GAS: ComEd Fails to Dismiss Customers' Suit BALTIMORE GAS: Final Approval Sought in PHI-Exelon Merger Suit BANK OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of RESPA Class Action BARTLETT MILLING: Recalls Certain Horse Feeds BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Investor Suit in Ill. in Discovery Stage BLUE EARTH: To Vigorously Defend Class Action BUTTERBALL LLC: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CARLTON FOODS: Recalls 25,764 Pounds of Fresh Boudin Products CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settlement of "Leathermon" Litigation Ongoing CAVIRTEX: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Share Price COOPERSURGICAL INC: Recalls Radius Loop Electrodes CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Removes "Frank" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma CRUNCH SAN DIEGO: California Court Dismisses TCPA Class Action DAKOTA GROWERS: Court OKs $7.9MM Settlement in Healthy Pasta Suit DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces Suit Over Defective Pinnacle Device DIGITAL RISK: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages DINGSHING TRADING: Recalls Sesame Paste Due to Undeclared Peanut DR GOODROOF: "Kirk" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY" Accused of Bias by Islamic Law Professor DYNTEK SERVICES: Fired Worker Over Criminal Conviction, Suit Says E.&B.'S NATURAL: Recalls 27,948 Pounds of Raw Lamb Products EDDY COTO: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime EEL LAKE: Recalls Eel Lake Oyster Farm Due to Salmonella EL TUMI: Accused of Not Paying Proper OT Rate for Hours Above 40 EVOLUTION LIGHTING: Recalls Tensor Brand Desk Lamp EXTREME NETWORKS: Accused of Violating Kentucky's Wage, Hour Laws FANNIE MAE: To Pay $170-Mil. to Settle Securities Class Suit FMA ALLIANCE: has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abouriche" Suit Says FUN WORLD: Recalls Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings GABRIEL RUFFOLO: Faces "Mena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GARMIN LTD: Utah Court Refuses to Transfer Venue of Consumer Suit GARMIN LTD: Kan. Court Partially Dismisses Suit Over Batteries GENERAL NUTRITION: Fluctuating Workweek Violates Pa. Wage Law GERBER PRODUCTS: Sued by FTC Over Claims of Allergy Prevention GO GREEN: Sued Over Breach of Telephone Consumer Protection Act GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces "Walsh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GT ADVANCED: Faces "Glassman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports HOME DEPOT: Removes "Henry" Suit to California District Court HOUSE OF SPICES: Recalls 200 gms. Packages of "Golden Raisin" HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Settles Hip Implant Suits for More Than $1BB IKO MANUFACTURING: "Machuzak" Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces $500-Mil. Suit Over Ebola-Protective Gowns LIFE CARE: Faces Wage and Hour Collective Suit in S.D. California LIFE TIME FITNESS: "Chrispens" Suit Moved From Cal. to Illinois MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: January Hearing in Employees' Suit MCDONALD'S USA: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces "Pecic" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces "Pelletier" Suit Over FLSA Violation METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Sued for Not Paying Sales Agents' Overtime METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wage MIKE MCMURRIN: Faces "Lucas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MONSANTO CO: Suit by Glyphosate Retailer in Texas Remains Dormant MONSANTO CO: Accord in Suit Over Dioxin Contamination Proceeds MOODY'S CORP: "Cheyne SIV" Suit Plaintiffs Want Rulings Reversed NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former UT Football Player Files Class Action NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act NAT'L FOOTBALL: Nearly 200 Former Players Opt Out of Settlement NAT'L FOOTBALL: Court Wants to Hear From Union in Doping Suit NCO FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act NEW BRITAIN, CT: Female Officers File Sexual Harassment Suit NYSA CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lawson" Suit Says OGDEN, UT: Faces Class Action Gang Restraining Orders OWENS-ILLINOIS: Judge Approves $9.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement PINOLANDIA CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Hines" Class Suit in North Carolina PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Principal Life Faces ERISA Suit in Iowa PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Upholds Class Certification Ruling PUBLIX SUPER: Settles Background Check Class Action for $6.8-Mil. RUST-OLEUM: Faces Class Action Over False Paint Product Claims SEARS HOLDINGS: Sued by Visa Over Disputes in Antitrust/Fee Suits SP BEACH: Removes "Derweduwen" Suit to Middle District of Florida SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Second Oil Consumption Class Action SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Illegally Sells Corn, "Hostler" Suit Says TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Archer" Suit Over Defective Airbags TAMPA, FL: Must Pay Over $1MM in Legal Fees Under Settlement TD AMERITRADE: Faces "Sarbacker" Suit in Nebraska District Court TITAN INDEMNITY: Removes "Jackson" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania TRUE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Gallusi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TWININGS OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Misleading Tea Labels VEMMA NUTRITION: Faces "Horanzy" Class Suit in N.D. New York VIKING CLIENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ordonez" Suit Claims WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Wipes WALGREEN CO: Appeals Court Refuses to Reinstate Class Action WILLBROS GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action XEROX EDUCATION: Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid ********* AFOD LTD: Recalls Jack 'N Jill Barbecue Flavor Potato Chips ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 24, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Wheat Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: AFOD Ltd., APO Products Ltd., Corinthian Distributors Ltd., UNO Foods Ltd., Wilby Commercial Limited Distribution: National Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9370 The food recall warning issued on Oct. 22, 2014, has been updated to include additional product information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Industry is recalling Jack 'N Jill brand barbecue flavor potato chip products from the marketplace because they contain mustard and wheat which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard or wheat or sensitivity to gluten should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to mustard or wheat or sensitivity to gluten, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the CFIA's inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Sued by Women Alleging Sexual Harassment ------------------------------------------------------------ In a federal class action, four civil rights activists claim they were sexually harassed and subjected to filthy conditions in the Alameda County jail, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Anne Weills, an attorney, sued Alameda County, Sheriff Gregory Ahern and seven named law enforcement officers, claiming the officers ordered the group to remove their shirts in front of male deputies and prisoners, among other things. When some of the women refused to disrobe, a female deputy "threatened and assaulted them, pushed, shoved and twisted their arms, groped their bodies, took away their shoes, forced them to walk barefooted on filthy floors, and then locked them in isolation closets for long periods of time without access to toilet facilities, water or food," the Oct. 27 complaint says. The plaintiffs also say they were denied medical treatment. The four named plaintiffs say they have been arrested a total of at least 13 times. Weills says she was first arrested in 1963 and has been arrested seven times in the past five decades. The women were arrested on Feb. 13 for minor trespass while protesting the California attorney general's failure to prosecute police officers who shoot and kill young black men. The plaintiffs say defendant Deputy Karla Varela ordered them to strip off their shirts in a hallway that had a glass window from which male inmates could see. "Weills stated that at her age, she was not going to disrobe in front of strange males," the complaint states. The women say Varela and male deputies screamed: "You must take off your shirt; you have no rights." The women said the jail had an overcrowded cell with a toilet and floor that were covered in menstrual blood and feces. They plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Yolanda Huang, Esq. LAW OFFICE YOLANDA HUANG PO Box 5475 Berkeley, CA 94705 Telephone: (510) 329-2140 Facsimile: (510) 580-9410 E-mail: yhuang.law@gmail.com ALBERTA GAMING: Recalls Mogen David "Red Wine - Concord" -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 28, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 3 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Alberta Gaming and Liquor Commission Distribution: Alberta Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9298 ALOHA POOLS: Faces "Vickers" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip E. Vickers, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Aloha Pools & Spas of Jackson, Union City, and Paducah, LLC, a Tennessee Limited Liability Company, Dennis Cook, in his individual capacity, John Doe1, and John Doe2, Case No. 1:14-cv-02863 (W.D. Tenn., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of installing residential leisure products such as swimming pools, spas, saunas, tanning beds, and other outdoor living amenities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan G. Crone, Esq. CRONE & McEVOY, PLC 5583 Murray Road, Suite 120 Memphis, TN 38119 Telephone: (901) 737-7740 Facsimile: (901) 737-7558 E-mail: acrone@thecmfirm.com ALPHA CARWASH: "Manzanarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Manzanarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Alpha Carwash, LLC, and K.H. Kim, Case No. 1:14-cv- 08674 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post- judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant known as Alpha Carwash located at 625 11th Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone (212)209-3933 Facsimile (212)209-7102 E-mail: pcpoper@jcpclaw.com AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Priever" Over Misleading Fin'l Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Bernard Priever, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Realty Capital Properties Inc., Lisa P. McAlister, and Brian S. Block, Case No. 1:14-cv-08668 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that owns and acquires commercial real estate, which then it leases, for both mid-term and long-term leases, to creditworthy tenants and passes a percentage of the taxable income it receives to shareholders. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Fei-Lu Qian, Esq. WOLF POPPER, LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212)759-4600 Facsimile: (212)486-2093 E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com fqian@wolfpopper.com AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Patron" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Patton, individually and on behalf of all others persons similarly situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., David S. Kay, Nicholas S. Schorsch, Brian S. Block, and Lisa P. McAlister, Case No. 1:14-cv-08671 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that owns and acquires commercial real estate, which then it leases, for both mid-term and long-term leases, to creditworthy tenants and passes a percentage of the taxable income it receives to shareholders. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRMS, PA 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212)202-3827 Email: pkim@,rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Rubinstein" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stuart Rubinstein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., Brian S. Block, Lisa McAlister and Nicholas S. Schorsch, Case No. 1:14-cv-08669 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. is a real estate investment trust that owns and acquires commercial real estate, which then it leases, for both mid-term and long-term leases, to creditworthy tenants and passes a percentage of the taxable income it receives to shareholders. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory M. Nespole, Esq. Lawrence P. Kolker, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212)545-4600 Facsimile: (212)545-4653 E-mail: Nespole@whafh.com - and - Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jason M. Leviton, Esq. Mark A. Delaney, Esq. Steven P. Harte, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 155 Federal Street, Suite 400 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617)398-5600 Facsimile: (617)507-6020 E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com Jason@blockesq.com Mark@blockesq.com Steven@blockesq.com AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Ciarulu" Suit Over Misleading Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Ciraulu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., Nicholas S. Schorsch, David S. Kay, Brian Block, and Lisa McAlister, Case No. 1:14-cv-08659 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. owns and acquires single tenant, freestanding commercial real estate that is net leased on a medium-term basis, primarily to investment grade credit rated and other creditworthy tenants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis Paul McConville, Esq. Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com AMERICAN REALTY: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Misleading Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- James W. Edwards, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., Nicholas S. Schorsch, David S. Kay, Brian S. Block and Lisa Pavelka McAlister, Case No. 1:14-cv-08721 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2014) alleges that during the Class Period, the Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial results. New York-based American Realty a real estate investment trust. The Company owns and acquires single-tenant, freestanding commercial real estate primarily subject to medium-term net leases with credit quality tenants. The Company principally invests in retail and office properties. The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of the Company. Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. Mary K. Blasy, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 srudman@rgrdlaw.com mblasy@rgrdlaw.com - and - David C. Walton, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. Nathan Hamler, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 110 West A Street, Suite 750 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 E-mail: FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com NathanH@JohnsonandWeaver.com - and - W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 802-1486 Facsimile: (212) 602-1592 E-mail: ScottH@JohnsonandWeaver.com AMGEN INC: Precedent Does Not Impede With Claims, 9th Cir. Rules ---------------------------------------------------------------- Supreme Court precedent does not interfere with claims related to a drop in Amgen share prices amid safety concerns over anemia drugs, reports Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service, citing a 9th Circuit ruling entered on October 30. A three-judge panel issued its second opinion on the case after the Supreme Court vacated its 2013 holding in light of Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer. For the 9th Circuit panel, Fifth Third did not alter its previous holding. Amgen employees had brought the suit in question under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. They said Amgen should have yanked the company stock option when its executives knew or should have known that the stock was being sold at an artificially inflated price. Amgen's problems first came to light in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when several clinical trials raised safety concerns about the drugs Epogen and Aranesp, used to treat anemia caused by cancer chemotherapy and chronic liver failure. In 2006 the two drugs made up about half of Amgen's $14.3 billion revenue. One study showed higher rates of blood clotting. Others showed lower survival rates for head, neck and breast cancer patients. A Danish clinical trial was permanently halted after investigators concluded that tumor growth was worse for patients who took Aranesp than for those who did not. Amgen stood by its drugs in public statements, calling them "effective and safe medicines when administered according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label." It conducted its own clinical trial, but those results were not exonerating. The FDA said Amgen's study revealed "significantly shorter" survival rates in cancer patients receiving the drugs than in those receiving transfusions. All the studies prompted the FDA in 2007 to issue a rare "black box" warning -- the strongest warning the agency can require -- for off-label use of Aranesp and Epogen. As the safety concerns became public, the price of Amgen stock tanked by one third. While one group of investors accused Amgen of violating its fiduciary duty under ERISA, another alleged violations of federal securities law in artificial inflation of the company's stock price. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld class certification in the securities-law case, but U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez dismissed Amgen from the ERISA lawsuit on the basis that the company was not a fiduciary. Gutierrez rejected the remaining claims in light of the "presumption of prudence," but the original 9th Circuit reversal found that the presumption does not shield Amgen because the company's pension plans did not require or encourage employees to invest in company stock. The Supreme Court weighed in on the presumption of prudence while assessing similar claims by Fifth Third Bancorp workers this year. Though both a federal judge and the 6th Circuit found that the plan fiduciaries enjoy that presumption, the unanimous Supreme Court rejected Fifth Third's claim "that the presumption at issue here is an appropriate way to weed out meritless lawsuits or to provide the requisite 'balancing.'" "The proposed presumption makes it impossible for a plaintiff to state a duty-of-prudence claim, no matter how meritorious, unless the employer is in very bad economic circumstances," Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the court. "Such a rule does not readily divide the plausible sheep from the meritless goats. That important task can be better accomplished through careful, context-sensitive scrutiny of a complaint's allegations. We consequently stand by our conclusion that the law does not create a special presumption of prudence for [certain] fiduciaries." The 9th Circuit took this holding into account while reviewing the Amgen case for the second time this year but found no reason to affirm dismissal of the investors' case. "We therefore conclude that plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that defendants have violated the duty of care they owe as fiduciaries under ERISA," the 41-page ruling states. The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by: Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. Garry T. Stevens, Jr., Esq. SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 421-6492 Facsimile: (212) 421-6553 E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com - and - Stephen M. Fishback, Esq. Daniel L. Keller, Esq. KELLER, FISHBACK & JACKSON, LLP 28720 Canwood Street, Suite 200 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 342-7442 Facsimile: (818) 342-7616 E-mail: sfishback@kfjlegal.com dkeller@kfjlegal.com - and - Francis M. Gregorek, Esq. Betsy C. Manifold, Esq. Rachele R. Rickert, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP Symphony Towers 750 B Street, Suite 2770 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 239-4599 Facsimile: (619) 234-4599 E-mail: gregorek@whafh.com manifold@whafh.com rickert@whafh.com - and - Mark C. Rifkin, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4762 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com - and - Thomas James McKenna, Esq. GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON 440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 983-1300 Facsimile: (212) 983-0383 E-mail: tjmckenna@gme-law.com The Defendants-Appellees are represented by: Emily Seymour Costin, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 2099 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 100 Washington, DC 20006-6801 Telephone: (202) 747-1900 Facsimile: (202) 747-1901 - and - Steven Oliver Kramer, Esq. Jonathan David Moss, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 620-1780 Facsimile: (213) 620-1398 E-mail: skramer@sheppardmullin.com jmoss@sheppardmullin.com - and - Jonathan Rose, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD, LLP The Atlantic Building 950 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1404 Telephone: (202) 239-3300 Facsimile: (202) 239-3333 E-mail: jonathan.rose@alston.com - and - John Nadolenco, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com - and - Brian David Netter, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 1999 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1101 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 Facsimile: (202) 263-3300 E-mail: bnetter@mayerbrown.com - and - Robert P. Davis, Esq. MAYER BROWN, LLP 1675 Broadway New York, NY 10019-5820 Telephone: (212) 506-2500 Facsimile: (212) 262-1910 E-mail: rdavis@mayerbrown.com The case is Steve Harris, et al. v. Amgen, Inc., et al., Case No. 10-56014, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. AMITABH BACHCHAN: Accused of Inciting Genocide of Sikhs in 1984 --------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that legendary Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan incited the 1984 genocide of thousands of Sikhs to avenge the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, a human rights group claims in a federal class action. Sikhs for Justice on October 27 sued Bachchan, 72, alleging crimes against humanity; cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; extrajudicial killing; wrongful death; negligence and other counts. Sikhs for Justice says it chose Los Angeles as the forum because Bachchan appeared almost three decades after the genocide in Baz Luhrmann's 2013 film "The Great Gatsby." Bachchan denied the allegations in a 2011 letter to a Sikh religious leader, The Times of India reported in a Dec. 2, 2011 article. Human Rights Watch says that several independent reports have confirmed that police and leaders of Gandhi's Congress Party were complicit in the murder of thousands of Sikhs in the riots. On Oct. 31, 1984, after Indira Gandhi was declared dead at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bachchan "raised the slogans . . . 'Sikhs have killed Indira' . . . 'Kill these bastards, they are traitors' . . . 'the blood stains should reach the households of Sikhs" and "'blood for blood," according to the 35-page lawsuit. Sikhs for Justice claims that the actor's statements spread like the "'Ebola virus'" after a state-owned television broadcast them, leading to four days of attacks on Sikhs in 1984, from November 1 to November 4. Human Rights Watch says at least 2,733 were killed in Delhi during the massacre. Sikhs for Justice says the nationwide death toll was 30,000. The group says that thousands of others were "maimed, wounded, raped and burnt" and that more than 300,000 Sikhs were forced to flee from their homes after days of looting and vandalism. "Defendant's words and anti-Sikh propaganda were like venom being spit out of a cobra, poisoning the minds and hearts of all they touched," the complaint states. The group says Bachchan used his "super star status" to incite the genocide, and was nominated to a seat for the Parliament of India to "reward his role in avenging the death of Ms. Gandhi." Bachchan won the election by a wide margin. In a report released October 29, Human Rights Watch said the Indian government to this day refuses to acknowledge its role in the massacre, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Only 30 people, "mostly low-ranking Congress Party supporters," have been convicted, and not one police officer was jailed, Human Rights Watch says. "India's failure to prosecute those most responsible for the anti- Sikh violence in 1984 has not only denied justice to Sikhs, but has made all Indians more vulnerable to communal violence," said Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "The authorities repeatedly blocked investigations to protect the perpetrators of atrocities against Sikhs, deepening public distrust in India's justice system." According to Human Rights Watch, Sikh bodyguards assassinated Indira Gandhi after a military operation to remove Sikh militants from the Golden Temple in the northwestern city of Amritsar left hundreds dead and damaged the holy shrine. After he succeeded his mother as Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi said of the 1984 massacre: "When a big tree falls, the earth shakes." Prime Minister Manmohan Singh apologized for the atrocities in 2005 but stopped short of acknowledging government complicity. "I have no hesitation in apologizing not only to the Sikh community but the whole Indian nation, because what took place in 1984 is the negation of the concept of nationhood and what is enshrined in our Constitution," Singh said. "So, I am not standing on any false prestige. On behalf of our government, on behalf of the entire people of this country, I bow my head in shame that such a thing took place." But Singh added a disclaimer while speaking in Parliament about a probe into the violence. "The report is before us, and one thing it conclusively states is that there is no evidence, whatsoever, against the top leadership of the Congress Party," Singh said. Sikhs for Justice seeks compensatory and punitive damages, a declaration that Bachchan violated the law of nations, and declaratory judgment that the violence against Sikhs was genocide under U.S. and International law. The Plaintiff is represented by: Babak Pourtavoosi, Esq. PANNUN THE LAW FIRM 75-20 Astoria Blvd., Suite 170 Jackson Heights, NY 11370 Telephone: (718) 672-8000 Facsimile: (718) 672-4728 E-mail: bpourtavoosi@pannunfirm.com APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over 2011 Macbook Pro Graphics Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Rossignol, writing for 9to5mac.com, reports that following a petition with thousands of signatures related to GPU complaints, Apple has been named a defendant in a new class-action lawsuit filed against the Cupertino-based company in the United States District Court for Northern California over system failures and graphical issues affecting 2011 MacBook Pros. The class-action lawsuit was filed by Kentucky-based law firm Whitfield Bryson & Mason on behalf of plaintiffs Zachary Book, Donald Cowart, and John Manners, a trio of individuals that accuse Apple of failing to rectify the graphical issues that have affected both 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pro models released in 2011. The lawsuit covers California and Florida residents that purchased an affected MacBook Pro model between approximately February 2011 and May 2012. According to court documents, the issue stems from a defective AMD GPU that did not function correctly because of lead-free soldering that caused short circuiting among other problems. MacBook Pro models that were affected by this problem would often have visual banding or malfunctions on the screen, especially when users were performing highly intensive tasks like watching high- resolution videos or using multimedia programs like the Adobe Creative Suite, Final Cut Pro and similar software. Apple did offer a free video card replacement on some mid-2011 iMacs exhibiting similar symptoms, though the cards in the MacBook Pro are different, and recalls as a whole are rare. The most recent was in August, when Apple offered free battery replacements for some iPhone 5 models that were deemed to have defective batteries. The lawsuit alleges that Apple has failed to reimburse customers that were forced to pay for out-of-warranty repairs that could cost between $350 and $600 to fix the GPU issues. The legal filing also accuses Apple of largely ignoring customers that have complained, even those that attempted to reach out directly to CEO Tim Cook. Apple has yet to comment on this lawsuit and, given that it generally remains tight lipped on matters such as these, it might not ever provide any official word regarding the case. Whitfield Bryson & Mason is examining this issue further and there is a possibility that legal action could extend beyond the jurisdictions of California and Florida. AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Sued Over Red-Light Camera Traffic Citations -------------------------------------------------------------- Daily Commercial and The Associated Press report that a national law firm with offices in Palm Beach Gardens filed a class-action lawsuit on Oct. 27 to toss out red-light camera citations issued across the state by American Traffic Solutions, the company contracted by the city of Clermont. "The law mandates that qualified officers must determine who has violated our traffic laws and issue traffic citations, keeping the authority to enforce the law in the hands of law enforcement," attorney Theodore J. Leopold of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll said in a press release issued on Oct. 28. The class-action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami alleges ATS improperly "stepped into the shoes of law enforcement" in administering Florida's red-light program by issuing violations and citations, the press release states. A state statute says only traffic infraction enforcement officers, who are government employees, can issue citations. On Oct. 15, the 4th District Court of Appeals affirmed that ATS's practices contravene the statute in city of Hollywood vs. Arem, No. 4D12-1312. "Such outsourcing to a third-party for-profit vendor of a city's statutorily mandated obligation to issue uniform traffic citations for red-light camera violations is contrary to the plain wording of the Florida Statutes," the court ruling said. When contacted after the court ruling, Clermont officials issued a brief, prepared statement, saying they were studying their options. "Our city attorney, Daniel Mantzaris, and I are reviewing the court's decision," City Manager Darren Gray said. "We will adjust our process, as necessary to comply with applicable, emerging law." The lawsuit was filed by Florida residents Christopher L. Parker and Marwa Moussa, on behalf of all individuals who received citations from red-light cameras administered by ATS from July 1, 2010, through the present, the release states. "ATS, acting as a contractor to and agent for various Florida municipalities and counties, under color of state law, violated plaintiffs' right to due process of law under the U.S. Constitution," the 140-page lawsuit states. At stake are hundreds of thousands of citations in 70 Florida cities and counties, according to the release. The lawsuit is seeking more than $5 million and seeks to include anyone who was issued a ticket and paid fines from cases handled by the company. Company spokesman Charles Territo says the company complies with the law and doesn't decide what is a violation. ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Possible Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------------- Aspen Foods Division of Koch Meats, a Chicago, Ill., based establishment, is recalling 28,980 pounds of chicken products that may be contaminated with a particular strain of Salmonella Enteritidis, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. FSIS requested Aspen Foods conduct this recall because this product is known to be associated with a specific illness cluster. The recalled product includes partially prepared chicken products sold by retailers under the Antioch Farms brand name, with "sell by" dates of Oct. 1, 2015 and Oct. 7, 2015. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-1358" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The chicken products were produced on July 2, 2014 and July 8, 2014. These products were shipped to retail stores and distribution centers in Minnesota. The product is identified as: Single 5 once plastic packets of Raw Stuffed Chicken Breast Breaded, Boneless Breast of Chicken with Rib Meat "A La Kiev" FSIS was notified of an investigation of Salmonella Enteritidis illnesses on Oct. 9, 2014. Working in conjunction with Minnesota Department of Health, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, FSIS determined that there is a link between the Chicken Kiev from Aspen Foods Division of Koch Foods and this illness cluster. Based on epidemiologic investigation, 6 case-patients have been identified in Minnesota with illness onset dates ranging from Aug. 17, 2014 to Sept. 27, 2014. Among the 6 case-patients with available information, 1 case-patient was hospitalized; 0 deaths have been reported. All 6 case-patients reported chicken Kiev consumption prior to illness onset. Samples of product collected during the course of this investigation by Minnesota Department of Agriculture tested positive for Salmonella Enteritidis with the outbreak strain. It is not known at this time if this outbreak strain has any drug resistance. On Oct. 17, 2014, FSIS received evidence that linked the illnesses associated with this outbreak to a specific product or production lot. Evidence that is required for a recall includes obtaining case-patient product that tests positive for the same particular strain of Salmonella that caused the illness, and packaging on product that clearly links the product to a specific facility and a specific production date, which were all met. FSIS is continuing to work with its public health partners on this investigation and will provide updated information as it becomes available. Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after eating the contaminated product. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health care provider. FSIS reminds consumers to properly handle raw poultry in a manner to prevent contamination from spreading to other foods and food contact surfaces. FSIS further reminds consumers of the critical importance of following package cooking instructions for frozen or fresh chicken products and general food safety guidelines when handling and preparing any raw meat or poultry. In particular, while cooking instructions may give a specific number of minutes of cooking for each side of the product in order to attain an 165F internal temperature, consumers should be aware that actual time may vary depending on the cooking method (broiling, frying or grilling) and the temperature of the product (chilled versus frozen), so it is important that the final temperature of 165F must be reached for safety. Do not rely on the cooking time for each side of the product, but use a food thermometer. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Media with questions regarding the recall can contact David Mehlman, Vice President, Aspen Foods Division of Koch Meats Co., at (847) 384-5940. Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact the company's Consumer Affairs hotline at (844) 765- 7463 and on weekends (601) 732-3366. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem AUSTRALIA: CPC to Join Class Action Over Live Cattle Export Ban --------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Zonca, writing for ABC Rural, reports that Australia's largest private cattle business, Consolidated Pastoral Company (CPC), will seek more than AU$80 million in compensation as part of the class action against the Federal Government's live cattle export suspension in 2011. CPC is one of the country's biggest live cattle exporters and owns 19 properties across Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The company's chief executive, Troy Setter, says he's hoping for a "quick and equitable settlement" of the claim lodged in the Federal Court. "We were right in the middle of delivering cattle to Indonesia and there was substantial operational cost. "It caused the market for beef cattle in Australia to collapse. "It also impacted our two feedlots that we have as part of a joint venture in Indonesia," he said. "The flow-on impacts have been long-lasting with a fall in land values across much of the beef sector in northern Australia and the ongoing effects of a lack of confidence [in the industry]." While record numbers of live cattle were exported from Australia in the past financial year, Mr. Setter says CPC is yet to reach the levels seen before the trade suspension. "We'll send around 40,000 head of live cattle this year to Indonesia. "We still haven't recovered to the full amount -- we're probably about 10,000 head of cattle shy of where we were in 2011." The country's largest cattle producer, the Australian Agricultural Company, has also confirmed it's a party to the class action, with a spokesman saying the business is standing 'shoulder to shoulder' with the wider industry in a bid to win compensation. CPC is owned by the European-based private equity firm Terra Firma. According to The West Australian's Brad Thompson and Nick Butterly, a veteran pastoralist who lost everything in the fallout from the ban on live cattle exports to Indonesia says a damages claim against the Federal Government has come too late to bring back her beloved Kimberley station. Ruth Webb-Smith said she would like to join the class action but wasn't sure how much fight she had left after her leading role in protests to have the 2011 ban overturned. The 71-year-old and her son Nathan's financial stocks never recovered from the ban and it ultimately cost them the Yakka Munga station. "We wouldn't be where we are today if it wasn't for the ban," Mrs. Webb-Smith said. Pastoralists and associated businesses in WA are considering joining an action launched in the Federal Court with the backing of cattle producers in the Northern Territory, according to The West Australian. The cattle producers are seeking damages over the snap ban imposed by the-then Gillard government in response to animal welfare concerns. They also want former agriculture minister Joe Ludwig's order suspending the trade declared invalid. WA cattle producers were offered the chance to join the class action soon after the ban was lifted, but many could not afford the initial cost of about AU$20,000. Kalyeeda station owner Peter Camp said the industry was still recovering from the ban, which put Australia's biggest live cattle export market off limits at a peak time for producers in the Kimberley and Pilbara. Mr. Camp estimated the average family-run stations had lost AU$250,000 to AU$500,000 as a result. During a meeting of coalition MPs in Canberra on Oct. 28, Liberal National Party Senator Ian Macdonald questioned why the Government was not simply paying out cattle producers. Prime Minister Tony Abbott said the Government had a responsibility to ensure that all claimants were deserving. "We have to serve the interests of justice but also we have to protect the interests of taxpayers," Mr. Abbott said. B JAYS USA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Lizardo" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Roberto Lizardo, Sameh M. Abdelraham, Jose A. Castillo, Juan Baez, and Rafael Lopez, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated v. B Jays USA, Inc., and American B Jay's, Inc., d/b/s B Jay's, and Youssef Haidar, a/k/a Joseph Haidar, and Kamel Youssef, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08675 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay non-exempt employees overtime compensation. The Defendants own and operate shoe stores in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone (212)209-3933 Facsimile (212)209-7102 E-mail: pcpoper@jcpclaw.com B. H. KOSHER: Recalls Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix ----------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 28, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: B. H. Kosher Products Distribution: Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9378 Affected products: 35.4 g. Ortega Taco Seasoning Mix BALTIMORE GAS: Plaintiffs Abandon Environmental Lawsuit v. Cotter ----------------------------------------------------------------- The plaintiffs in a case against Cotter Corporation by individuals living in the North St. Louis area, voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice, according to Baltimore Gas And Electric Company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On April 11, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against Cotter Corporation and six additional defendants. The complaint alleges that individuals living in the North St. Louis area within a three-mile radius of the West Lake Landfill suffered damage to property or loss of use of property due to the defendants' negligent handling of radioactive materials. On August 22, 2014, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice. BALTIMORE GAS: ComEd Fails to Dismiss Customers' Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Commonwealth Edison Company failed to have a lawsuit filed by customers enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program dismissed by the court, according to Baltimore Gas And Electric Company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by sending approximately 1.2 million text messages to customers without first obtaining their consent to receive such messages. The complaint seeks certification of a class along with statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd from sending additional text messages. Such statutory damages could range from $500 to $1,500 per text. ComEd intends to contest the allegations of this suit. In February 2014, ComEd filed a motion to dismiss this class action complaint, which was denied in June 2014. As of September 30, 2014, ComEd has a reserve, which is not material, representing its best estimate of probable loss associated with this class action complaint. BALTIMORE GAS: Final Approval Sought in PHI-Exelon Merger Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Final court approval is being sought in a settlement reached in a suit over the merger between Pepco Holdings, Inc. and Exelon Corp., according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. PHI and its directors have been named as defendants in purported class action lawsuits filed on behalf of named plaintiffs and other public stockholders challenging the proposed Merger and seeking, among other things, to enjoin the defendants from consummating the Merger on the agreed-upon terms. Exelon has been named as a defendant in these lawsuits. Exelon has also been named in a federal court case with similar claims. In September 2014, the parties reached a proposed settlement which is subject to court approval. Final court approval of the proposed settlement is not expected to occur until the second quarter of 2015, at the earliest. BANK OF AMERICA: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of RESPA Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- According to an article posted by BuckleySandler LLP at JDSupra Business Advisor, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss a class action lawsuit against a large financial institution for allegedly violating Section 8 of RESPA. Riddle v. Bank of America Corp., No. 13-4543 (3rd Cir. Oct. 15, 2014). The complaint, originally filed in 2012, alleged that, between 2005 and 2007, the defendant profited hundreds of millions of dollars from illegal referrals from private insurance companies. The plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant engaged in fraudulent concealment that the plaintiffs relied upon. As a result, the Third Circuit dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, citing the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations. The court noted, "the clock has run on the plaintiffs' RESPA claims, and despite ample opportunity, they are unable to create a triable fact that they are entitled to equitable tolling." BARTLETT MILLING: Recalls Certain Horse Feeds --------------------------------------------- Bartlett Milling Company has initiated a limited recall of certain horse feeds due to potential Rumensin contamination. The products were distributed to customers and retailers in North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. Rumensin contamination can result in health problems, including mortality, in horses. The products and lot number in the recall includes: -- 50 lb. bags of Bartlett Pasture Horse 10 Feed - Lot 288 -- 50 lb. bags of Cleveland Carolina Champion Horse Feed - Lot 288 The recalled products were packaged in typical brand-specific feed bags. Lot numbers are printed on the front and back of each bag. Retailers have been contacted and instructed to immediately withdraw from sale the recalled product and to notify customers who purchased the product. Customers should discontinue feeding the product immediately. Customers who purchased this product should return remaining bags to their retailer. For more information on the product recall, contact Bartlett Milling at 1-800-438-6016 from 8AM to 5PM Monday through Friday. Contact Bartlett at 1-336-655-1840 outside of regular business hours. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the North Carolina Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services and the United States Food and Drug Administration. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Investor Suit in Ill. in Discovery Stage -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery continues in a consolidated lawsuit pending against Baxter International Inc. in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois, seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. Baxter is a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain of the company's current and former executive officers and its board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of the company and issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin product, and other quality issues. Plaintiffs allege these actions damaged the company and its shareholders by resulting in a decline in stock price in the second quarter of 2010, payment of excess compensation to the board of directors and certain of the company's current and former executive officers, and other damage to the company. In January 2014, an independent special litigation committee was established by the company's board of directors to determine whether it was in the best interests of the company and its shareholders to pursue or otherwise resolve the claims raised in and arising from this matter. The company and the plaintiffs in the consolidated derivative suit filed in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois have entered into a revised memorandum of understanding outlining the terms of a settlement of that suit, including the establishment of a Regulatory Council for the Medical Products business, $12 million to be spent on quality and regulatory compliance initiatives over the next three years, and the payment of legal fees (which have been reserved). The settlement has been approved by the board of directors and separately by its special litigation committee, and has been preliminarily approved by the court. Two other derivative actions were previously filed in state courts, one in Lake County, Illinois and one in the Delaware Chancery Court, and both matters have been stayed pending the resolution of the federal action. In addition, a consolidated alleged class action is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the company and certain of its current executive officers seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock and the parties are currently proceeding with discovery. In April 2013, the company filed its opposition to the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action. The company was a defendant, along with others, in a number of lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003. The company settled with the direct purchaser plaintiffs for $64 million, which was paid during the first quarter of 2014. BLUE EARTH: To Vigorously Defend Class Action --------------------------------------------- Blue Earth, Inc., a renewable/alternative energy and energy efficiency services company, on Oct. 28 disclosed that a class action lawsuit, captioned "Jordan Cianci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blue Earth, Inc., Johnny R. Thomas (an executive officer), Brett Woodard (an executive officer) and John Francis (a non-executive officer)," was filed on October 24, 2014 in United States District Court Central District of California (case no. 2:14-cv-08263) against Blue Earth, Inc. and the aforementioned officers of the Company. The complaint is based, in large part, on the allegations contained in an anonymous article posted on October 21, 2014 on the website "SeekingAlpha.com." The Company has previously responded to the "SeekingAlpha" allegations in a press release dated October 21, 2014 and refuted the veracity of the claims made in the article. The Company believes the claims contained in the complaint are without merit and will vigorously defend this matter. BUTTERBALL LLC: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisette Cardenas, Armando Ortiz, Bertha Contreras-Torres, Eva Rojas, Mauricio Rosiquez Perez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v. Butterball, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-08589 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week. Butterball, LLC operates a meat processing facility, located at 2125 Rochester Road, Montgomery, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez , Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (877) 509-6422 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com CARLTON FOODS: Recalls 25,764 Pounds of Fresh Boudin Products ------------------------------------------------------------- Carlton Foods, a New Braunfels, Texas establishment, is recalling approximately 25,764 pounds of fresh Boudin products, which were produced with pre-cooked rice that may have experienced temperature abuse and may contain an emetic toxin produced by Bacillus cereus, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The Boudin (sausage-like) products were produced on Aug. 22, 2014, through Oct. 17, 2014. The products subject to recall include: 12-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "RICHARD'S HICKORY SMOKED BOUDIN" 12-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "RICHARD'S PREMIUM BOUDIN" 12-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "RICHARD'S 'HOT' PREMIUM BOUDIN" 16-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "RICHARD'S PREMIUM BOUDIN" 32-oz. vacuum-packed packages of "RICHARD'S CAJUN GRILLERS BOUDIN" The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. 1943" or "EST. 961" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Products with the EST. 961 inside the mark of inspection would also have NB printed on the label. "Sell By" dates for the recalled products range from Oct. 28, 2014, to Dec. 16, 2014. The products were shipped to retail locations in Louisiana and Texas. The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a Food Safety Assessment. During production, FSIS personnel observed pre-cooked rice, a component of the Boudin, being held at unsafe temperatures which could result in the products containing an emetic toxin produced by Bacillus cereus. Bacillus cereus is a type of bacteria that can be found in a variety of foods, particularly rice that has been stored too long at room temperature. Emetic toxins produced by Bacillus cereus are characterized by nausea and vomiting occurring within 30 minutes to six hours after consumption of contaminated foods. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact a health care provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website. Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Tim Bruer, Chief Executive Officer, at (818) 415-7333. Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Randy Rust, President, at (830) 625-7583 ext. 109. CARRIAGE SERVICES: Settlement of "Leathermon" Litigation Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et al., pending in the United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana (Case No. 4:07-cv-137) are administering the settlement of the case in accordance with its terms, according to Carriage Services, Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in Madison, Indiana, including the company's subsidiaries that owned the cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of all individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and services at Grandview Cemetery. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages and claim that the cemetery owners performed burials negligently, breached Plaintiffs' contracts and made misrepresentations regarding the cemetery. The Plaintiffs also allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after the company owned the cemetery. On October 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana. On April 24, 2009, shortly before the Defendants had been scheduled to file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to abandon other claims. The company , as well as several other Defendants, opposed Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and add parties. In April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this action. On June 30, 2010, the court granted Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiffs' counsel. On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the trial court's order of disqualification of counsel. On May 19, 2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus. On July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for writ of mandamus. Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order, Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010 in which to retain new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf. Plaintiffs retained new counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel moved for leave to amend both the class representatives and the allegations stated within the complaint. Defendants filed oppositions to such amendments. The court issued an order permitting the Plaintiffs to proceed with amending the class representatives and a portion of their claims; however, certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been dismissed. The parties reached a proposed class settlement and the court granted its preliminary approval of such settlement by order dated March 19, 2014. Notice of the class settlement was provided pursuant to the Preliminary Order Approving Class Action Settlement and no settlement class members opted out of the class nor objected to the terms of the settlement. The court issued its final approval of the settlement on June 23, 2014. The parties are administering the settlement in accordance with its terms. CAVIRTEX: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Share Price ---------------------------------------------------- Carter Graydon, writing for CryptoCoinsNews, reports that CAVirtex, Canada's largest and oldest Bitcoin online exchange, is facing a potential class action lawsuit to the tune of C$884,880. The alleged losses were incurred by the lawsuit-bringers after the company offered 10% of its shares for sale on the cryptocurrency- based asset exchange, Havelock Investments then stopped listing the stock by the end of 2013. A total of 10,000 shares were sold on March 23, 2013 and continued to be traded until the end of 2013. At that time, CAVirtex announced that they would no longer be listing stock from Havelock and that they would offer to buy back their shares at an "adjusted exit price" of C$30 a share. At the time of the announcement, the stock was trading around C$120 a share. Not only was the exit price unfair but the process for selling the shares was made complex, and many investors were left stock and as a result of this became permanent shareholders in CAVirtex. The class-action lawsuit against CAVirtex is based on the market cap at the time of the incident and takes into account the adjusted exit price offered. Those who feel they have been wronged by CAVirtex had until Nov. 1 to submit a claim by contacting claim@cavirtexlawsuit.com with your name, phone number, number of shares you held, and any other relevant information. After Nov. 1, more details will be revealed; including, the name of the firm behind this. This is the second time CaVirtex has been in the news in October. On Oct. 6, they disabled Bitcoin withdraws citing an increase in volume that lead their "hot wallet running dry." The likelihood of CAVirtex's actions being related to recent SEC actions increases as more news comes to light. COOPERSURGICAL INC: Recalls Radius Loop Electrodes -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 28, 2014 Posting date: November 4, 2014 Type of communication: Medical Device Recall Subcategory: Medical Device Hazard classification: Type III Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Medical Devices Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals Identification number: RA-42017 Recalled Products: Radius Loop Electrodes (P/N R2010) Coopersurgical is recalling a single lot of the Radius Loop Electrodes (P/N R2010, lot 159621) because the product may have been packaged with an incorrectly labelled package type (radius loop electrode P/N R1010). Companies: Manufacturer: Coopersurgical Inc. 95 Corporate Drive Trumbull 06611 Connecticut United States CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Removes "Frank" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Frank v. Crawley Petroleum Corporation, Case No. CJ-2014-00065, was removed from the District Court of Kingfisher County to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The Oklahoma District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:14-cv-01193-R to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rex A. Sharp, Esq. GUNDERSON SHARP LLP 5301 W 75th Street Prairie Village, KS 66208 Telephone: (913) 901-0500 Facsimile: (913) 901-0419 E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Patrick L. Stein, Esq. Philip D. Hart, Esq. Robert W. Dace, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT 211 N Robinson Ave., 10th Floor Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-9621 Facsimile: (405) 235-0439 E-mail: patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com philip.hart@mcafeetaft.com bob.dace@mcafeetaft.com CRUNCH SAN DIEGO: California Court Dismisses TCPA Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- David O. Klein, Esq. -- dklein@kleinmoynihan.com -- of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the United States District Court for the Southern District of California recently dismissed a putative class action filed against Crunch San Diego, LLC under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), ruling that Crunch did not use an autodialer to send text messages to the named plaintiff. The TCPA Putative Class Action Lawsuit In Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, Case No. 14-cv-348 (S.D. Cal.), Crunch, which operates gyms in California and in other states, allegedly sent unwanted promotional text messages to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA. Crunch filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that it does not use an "automated telephone dialing system," or autodialer, to transmit promotional text messages to its members or prospective members. It maintained that it uses a third-party web-based platform to send promotional text messages, but that phone numbers are only inputted into the platform manually by human hand. Crunch argued that because the platform it uses to send text messages "lacks the capacity to store or produce telephone numbers . . . using a random or sequential number generator," it cannot -- by definition -- be an autodialer under the TCPA and, therefore, the TCPA does not apply. In rendering its decision, the Court analyzed commentary published by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), which broadly interpreted the definition of autodialer and focused on the equipment's capacity to generate numbers and dial them without human intervention. The Court held that the FCC analysis is not binding on courts, as the FCC does not have the statutory authority to change the TCPA's definition of an autodialer (contrary to the rulemaking authority granted to the FCC under different provisions of the TCPA). The Court analyzed other courts' interpretations of "capacity" under the TCPA which have determined that it is the system's present, not potential, capacity to store, produce or call randomly or sequentially generated telephone numbers that matters for purposes of falling within the scope of the TCPA's autodialer definition. Of course, if a broader interpretation of the autodialer definition was adopted, all smart phones could potentially fall within the scope of the TCPA. The Court noted that because the platform used by Crunch requires "human curation and intervention" for number entry, it could not reasonably be considered a random or sequential number generator within the purview of the TCPA. Accordingly, because Crunch's platform is not an autodialer within the meaning of the statute, the Court found that Crunch did not violate the TCPA. Crushing TCPA Actions It is important to understand the nuances of the TCPA to ensure telemarketing compliance, particularly because there are numerous plaintiffs-in-waiting who are seeking to commence suit against potential violators. Companies involved in telemarketing and text message marketing should take caution when deciding what technology to use to increase efficiency, or face potential liability under the TCPA. DAKOTA GROWERS: Court OKs $7.9MM Settlement in Healthy Pasta Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Allegations that Dreamfields pasta was falsely advertised as a healthy alternative to traditional pasta will cost a Post Foods subsidiary $7.9 million to settle, reports Rose Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. Joseph Mirakay, Louis Messina, Michael Elefterakis and John Gembinski filed the class action against Dakota Growers Pasta Co. Inc. last year in New Jersey. In addition to claiming that Dakota deceptively markets, advertises and sells Dreamfields pasta as a healthy alternative, the class said Dakota misstated that the product has a lower glycemic index than traditional pasta, and that it contains only 5 grams of digestible carbohydrates. The parties went to mediation in December, along with Jesse Weiss who filed a similar suit in Minnesota, and ultimately reached a $5 million settlement. U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano gave the class action settlement final approval October 20. The deal entitles class members to $1.99 for each Dreamfields box bought online, or reimbursement for up to 15 boxes bought in store. If the claims submitted amount to less than $5 million, however, each class member will receive as much as 50 percent more than his or her purchase price. Rather than have residual funds revert to Dakota, moreover, the settlement calls for them to be donated on a cy pres basis to the American Diabetes Association. Dakota also agreed -- for one year from the date of the final order -- to remove all packaging claiming Dreamfields has a lower glycemic index than traditional pastas, the ability to reduce spikes in blood glucose levels and only 5 grams of digestible carbs. The company must also pay an additional $2.9 million in attorneys' fees and costs, and an aggregate incentive award of $20,000 to the class representatives. Judge Pisano noted that class members received notice of the settlement website via nearly 339,000 emails; Better Homes & Gardens, People, and Good Housekeeping; 350 million ads on AOL, Facebook and Twitter; and a press release to more than 5,000 news outlets. Plus, the Diabetes Association notified more than 234,000 members, the ruling states. "As of Sept. 9, 2014, this website had been visited approximately 213,311 times," the unpublished ruling states. "This notice program has fully informed members of their rights and benefits under the settlement, and all required information has been fully and clearly presented to class members. Accordingly, this widespread and comprehensive campaign provides sufficient notice under the circumstances." Objections that Dakota's website and product boxes should have contained the notice failed to sway the judge. Pisano also rejected calls for supermarkets, drug stores, heart associations and diabetic associations to disseminate notice. In denying a motion to file a sur-reply, Pisano said the mere 12 objections "from the class is a strong indication of the reaction of the class which favors settlement." The ruling calls the requested attorneys' fee figure "comparable to fees typically awarded in analogous cases and is fair and reasonable in relation to the settlement amount, particularly when the value of the injunctive relief is taken into consideration." Post Holdings Inc., which bought Dakota from former defendant Viterra Inc. in January 2014, reported net sales of $633.0 million, including $394.8 million from acquisitions, for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2014. The case is Joseph Mirakay, et al. v. Dakota Growers Pasta Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-4429 (JAP), in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS: Faces Suit Over Defective Pinnacle Device ------------------------------------------------------------- Williamena R. Bare v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.; Depuy Products, Inc.; Depuy International, Limited; Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc.; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 3:14-cv-03885-K (N.D. Tex., October 31, 2014) arises from the alleged injuries and complications suffered by the Plaintiff due to the defective design, warnings, construction and unreasonably dangerous character of the Pinnacle Device that was implanted in the Plaintiff. The Defendants manufactured the Pinnacle Acetabular Cup System, and launched it in 2001. The Pinnacle Device was designed, developed, and sold for human hip joints damaged or diseased due to fracture, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and avascular necrosis. The Pinnacle Device is designed to be fastened to human bone with surgical screws. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and Depuy Products, Inc. are Indiana Corporations with their principal place of business located in Warsaw, Indiana. Depuy International, Limited, is a United Kingdom entity headquartered in West Yorkshire, UK. Johnson & Johnson Services, Inc. is a New Jersey Corporation headquartered in New Brunswick, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Diamond, Esq. D. Greg Sakall, Esq. GOLDBERG & OSBORNE 698 E. Wetmore Road, Suite 200 Tucson, AZ 85705 Telephone: (520) 620-3975 Facsimile: (520) 620-3991 E-mail: ddiamond@goldbergandosborne.com gsakall@goldbergandosborne.com DIGITAL RISK: "Guzman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Guzman, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. Digital Risk, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Digital Risk Mortgage Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 9:14-cv-81331 (S.D. Fla., October 30, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Digital Risk, LLC is an independent provider of quality control, valuation & fulfillment solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Camar Ricardo Jones, Esq. THE SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 South Federal Hwy., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com DINGSHING TRADING: Recalls Sesame Paste Due to Undeclared Peanut ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 28, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Dingshing Trading Ltd. Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Possibly National, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9381 The food recall warning issued on Oct. 24, 2014 has been updated to include additional distribution information. This additional information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation. Dingshing Trading Ltd., is recalling a sesame paste product from the marketplace because it contains peanut which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to peanut should not consume the recalled product described. Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled product should be thrown out or returned to the store where it was purchased. If you have an allergy to peanut, do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of this product. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Affected products: 400 g. Sesame paste product with all codes where peanut is not declared on the label DR GOODROOF: "Kirk" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- James Kirk, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Dr. Goodroof, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Ian McLellan, Case No. 2:14-cv-00639 (M.D. Fla., October 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Dr. Goodroof, Inc. offers roof tile manufacturing and installations of concrete tiles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bill B. Berke, Esq. BERKE LAW FIRM, PA 4423 Del Prado Blvd. S. Cape Coral, FL 33904 Telephone: (239) 549-6689 Facsimile: (239) 549-3331 E-mail: Berkelaw@yahoo.com DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY" Accused of Bias by Islamic Law Professor ------------------------------------------------------------- Susan Hascall, 1 Forbes Terrace, Pittsburgh, PA 15217 v. Duquesne University of the Holy Spirit, t/d/b/a Duquesne University School of Law, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, and Dean Kenneth G. Gormley, 600 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15282, Case No. 2:14-cv-01489-TFM (W.D. Pa., October 31, 2014) is seeking justice against the Defendants for the alleged systemic and vicious discrimination the Plaintiff suffered on the basis of her age, gender and religious scholarship as it relates to Islamic Law, along with other violations of Pennsylvania law. Over time, the Defendants have willfully, purposefully and maliciously sought to destroy and sabotage Professor Hascall's outstanding academic reputation in every way conceivable causing her irreparable professional damage and significant emotional distress, according to the complaint. Professor Hascall is an assistant professor of law, who received her J.D. magna cum laude from Washburn University School of Law. She also holds a master's degree in anthropology from Wichita State University, and received her B.A. in political science from Texas A&M University. Professor Hascall's scholarship focuses primarily on Islamic law and legal pluralism. She also teaches courses in civil procedure, sales, banking law, Islamic law and emerging legal systems. Duquesne University School of Law is a private Catholic law school, created and existing pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Kenneth G. Gormley is an attorney licensed to practice law in Pennsylvania, and serves as the Dean of Duquesne University School of Law. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy M. Kolman, Esq. Wayne A. Ely, Esq. W. Charles Sipio, Esq. KOLMAN ELY, P.C. 414 Hulmeville Avenue Penndel, PA 19047 Telephone: (215) 750-3134 Facsimile: (215) 750-3138 E-mail: tkolman@kolmanlaw.net DYNTEK SERVICES: Fired Worker Over Criminal Conviction, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Scott Goe v. Dyntek Services, Inc., Dyntek, Inc., and Alan Gottesman, Individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08693 (S.D.N.Y., October 31, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff has suffered as a result of being discriminated against and terminated by his employer solely on the basis of his criminal convictions from over 20 years earlier. Dyntek Services, Inc., and Dyntek, Inc. are Delaware business corporations headquartered in Newport Beach, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alex Umansky, Esq. PHILLIPS & ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, PLLC 45 Broadway, Suite 620 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 248-7431 E-mail: aumansky@tpglaws.com E.&B.'S NATURAL: Recalls 27,948 Pounds of Raw Lamb Products ----------------------------------------------------------- E.&B.'s Natural Way, a Frederick, Md. establishment, is recalling approximately 27,948 pounds of raw lamb products because they were not presented at the border for USDA-FSIS Import Inspection, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse health consequences exists. The lamb products were packaged on Oct. 21, 2013, Sept. 2, 20, 21 and 22, 2014. The products subject to recall include: Lamb Packs Lamb Bone-In Legs Lamb Boneless Legs Lamb Saddles Lamb Racks Lamb Loins Lamb Shoulders Lamb Shanks Lamb Trim Lamb for Stew The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "IS A022 EFTA" and include a label indicating "Product of Iceland." These products were shipped to retail establishments in Washington and Oregon where the products would have been repackaged. The problem was discovered during a routine review using the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) database. ACE is a web- based portal for the collection and use of international trade data maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The failure-to-present was the result of the importing establishment not following appropriate procedures. FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS issues a Public Health Alert for an imported product when the country of origin recalls the product. FSIS issues a recall for imported product when the product is not presented for inspection at the U.S. border. A failure-to-present (FTP) occurs when importers fail to present a shipment to FSIS for import inspection prior to the product entering U.S. commerce. Failure-to-present will result in the recall of the product. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Blair Gordon, Owner, at (301) 471-5615. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website. EDDY COTO: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Santos Manuel Panchame Martinez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Eddy Coto Produce, Inc. and Edvardo Coto, Case No. 1:14-cv-24054 (S.D. Fla., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM EEL LAKE: Recalls Eel Lake Oyster Farm Due to Salmonella -------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 27, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Eel Lake Oyster Farm Ltd. Distribution: Ontario Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 9392 Affected products: 250 count Eel Lake Oyster Farm Live Oysters EL TUMI: Accused of Not Paying Proper OT Rate for Hours Above 40 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daniela Dassori and other similarly-situated individuals v. El Tumi De Oro, Inc. a Florida profit corporation, and Juan Mariano Mayorga, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24085-FAM (S.D. Fla., October 31, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was not paid at the proper overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. El Tumi De Oro, Inc. is a Florida profit corporation headquartered in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Juan Mariano Mayorga is a corporate officer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com EVOLUTION LIGHTING: Recalls Tensor Brand Desk Lamp -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 30, 2014 Posting date: October 30, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fire Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-41967 Affected products: Tensor Brand Desk Lamp The recall involves black 60 watt incandescent Tensor brand desk lamps with an adjustable gooseneck, a funnel shaped metal shade, and an off/off rocker switch located on the top of a round base. The model number 17341-000 is printed at the top left of a white label located on the underside of the base. These three lot numbers are affected: C10132822, C10132830 and C11132862. The lot number can be found at the lower left of the same label bearing the model number on the underside of the lamp base. The on/off rocker switch is wired incorrectly and poses an electrical shock and fire hazard to consumers. Evolution Lighting LLC has received two reports of incidents in which the product failed to illuminate and electrical panel circuit breakers tripped when the rocker switch was turned on. Sparking at the electrical outlet was reported in one of those incidents. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these lamps. Approximately 1,305 of the recalled lamps were distributed to Staples stores across Canada. The number of units sold to consumers is unknown. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from Nov. 29, 2013 through Feb. 14, 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Huizhou City Create Success Industry Co. Ltd. Huizhou City China Distributor Evolution Lighting LLC Miami Florida United States Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the recalled lamps. Recalled lamps can be returned to the place of purchase for a free replacement. EXTREME NETWORKS: Accused of Violating Kentucky's Wage, Hour Laws ----------------------------------------------------------------- Extreme Networks, Inc. is facing an amended labor complaint in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and two other defendants. The complaint alleges that Enterasys and its subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a. Unbridled Information Technologies ("Subcontractor"), violated Kentucky's wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the "Act") on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky government agencies since January 2010. Plaintiffs also allege common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees, although there was no quantified amount identified. One of the defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC ("IFS"), has also filed a cross-claim against Enterasys. The Company denies the claims and filed answers to both the complaint and cross-claim on April 16, 2014. In addition, the Company filed a cross-claim for indemnity against IFS. Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 26, 2014, in which they named Commonwealth of Kentucky's Office of Technology under the State's Finance and Administration Cabinet ("COT") as a defendant. The Company filed an answer to the Plaintiffs' first amended complaint on October 10, 2014 and is considering filing a cross-claim against COT. This litigation is in the early stages of discovery. FANNIE MAE: To Pay $170-Mil. to Settle Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) will pay $170 million to settle a class action alleging that its statements caused investor losses. The Boston Retirement System, one of the court-appointed lead plaintiffs for a proposed common-shareholder class, heralded the case for achieving what a similar lawsuit against Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp., better known as Freddie Mac. "Unlike the plaintiffs in the Freddie Mac case, we were able to successfully allege that investors' losses were caused by Fannie Mae's statements and actions rather than by the financial crisis," Boston Retirement chairman Daniel Green said in a statement. In addition to Boston Retirement, the Southern District of New York had appointed the Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment Management for the proposed common-shareholder class. It had appointed the Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System as lead plaintiff for a proposed preferred-shareholder class. Together these classes claimed that Fannie Mae and two of its former officers made false and misleading statements about Fannie Mae's internal controls and its exposure to subprime- and other risky mortgage-loan products, between Nov. 8, 2006, and Sept. 5, 2008. Fannie Mae's true exposure to these risky assets finally came to light the Sept. 7, 2008, announcement by the company's regulator, the Federal Housing and Finance Agency (FHFA), that it had placed the company into conservatorship, capped off several partial disclosures. Attorneys at Labaton Sucharow say the proposed $170 million settlement will benefit thousands of class members, if the court approves it. Lead partner Thomas Dubbs noted in a statement that the "risks were indeed substantial." The action is captioned as In re Fannie Mae 2008 Securities Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-7831. FMA ALLIANCE: has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Abouriche" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Nabil Abouriche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FMA Alliance, Ltd., Case No. 8:14-cv-01742 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. FMA Alliance, Ltd. is a leader in consumer debt buying and recovery or collection. 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 FUN WORLD: Recalls Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings -------------------------------------------------- Starting date: October 30, 2014 Posting date: October 30, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Flammability Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-41801 Affected products: Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings The recall involves the "Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings" adult Halloween costume accessory. This costume consists of burgundy and black, white or black feathered wings with a lace shoulder strap. The products can be identified by item number 90443 and UPC numbers 071765010214 (burgundy and black), 071765002714 (white) and 071765002660 (black). Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program determined that the feathered wings of the "Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings" adult costume accessories do not meet the requirements for textile flammability under Canadian law. If exposed to flame such as from candles, matches, or lighters, the "Fun World Fantasy Feather Wings" adult costume accessories could catch fire and possibly cause burns to consumers. Neither Fun World, Division of Easter Unlimited, Inc. nor Health Canada has received any reports of consumer incident or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these costumes. For tips to help consumers celebrate Halloween safely, see the following Health Canada's publication: Halloween Safety and Reminding Canadians to have a safe Halloween. Approximately 972 units of the recalled costumes were sold at retail across Canada. The recalled costumes were manufactured in China and sold from Sept. 2008 to Oct. 2014 at various retail locations across Canada. Companies: Importer: Fun World Div. (Easter Unlimited Inc.) Carle Place New York United States Consumers should return the recalled costume to the place of purchase for a full refund. GABRIEL RUFFOLO: Faces "Mena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Reynaldo Mena, on behalf of himself and all other employees similarly situated v. Gabriel Ruffolo Landscaping, Inc. and John Popiolek, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-08593 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a landscaping company, doing business within the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1263 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com GARMIN LTD: Utah Court Refuses to Transfer Venue of Consumer Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Garmin Ltd.'s motion to transfer the venue for the case filed by Andrea Katz against Garmin Ltd. and Garmin International, Inc., according to the Garmin Ltd.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 27, 2014. On December 18, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The lead plaintiff was Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. The class of plaintiffs that Andrea Katz purported to represent includes all individuals who purchased any model of Forerunner watch in the State of Illinois and the United States. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Illinois statutory law. Plaintiff alleged that Forerunner watch bands have an unacceptable rate of failure in that they detach from the watch. Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. On January 29, 2014 the court dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice. On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff re-filed the lawsuit with the same claims for relief as the earlier action and adding an additional claim for unjust enrichment. On February 4, 2014, the court ordered the case to be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Utah. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case filed in Illinois and, on March 6, 2014, she refiled the lawsuit in the District Court for the District of Utah with the same claims, but with additional claims for violations of the Utah Consumers Sales Practice Act, Lanham Act, and Utah Truth in Advertising Act. The relief she requested is the same. On March 31, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to transfer the venue of the Utah action back to the Northern District of Illinois. On October 21, 2014, the United States District Court for the District of Utah denied Garmin's motion to transfer venue. GARMIN LTD: Kan. Court Partially Dismisses Suit Over Batteries -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Kansas partly dismissed a suit filed by Brian Meyers against Garmin International, Inc. Garmin USA, Inc. and Garmin Ltd., according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On August 13, 2013, Brian Meyers filed a putative class action complaint against Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Meyers alleges that lithium-ion batteries in certain Garmin products are defective and alleges violations of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act, breach of an implied warranty of merchantability, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty and also requests declaratory relief that the batteries are defective and must be covered by Garmin's warranties. The complaint seeks an order for class certification, a declaration that the batteries are defective, an order of injunctive relief, payment of damages in an unspecified amount on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of certain Garmin products, and an award of attorneys' fees. On September 18, 2013 the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Garmin Ltd. as a defendant without prejudice. On October 18, 2013 the plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint. On November 1, 2013 the remaining Garmin defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. On January 24, 2014, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the count for declaratory relief and the prayer for a declaration that the batteries are defective, but allowing the case to proceed on other substantive counts. No class has been certified at this time. GENERAL NUTRITION: Fluctuating Workweek Violates Pa. Wage Law ------------------------------------------------------------- Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that basing the calculation for overtime pay on the fluctuating total number of hours worked each week, as opposed to the 40-hour standard workweek, violates the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, a judge has ruled. In an issue of apparent first impression for state courts, Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge R. Stanton Wettick Jr. ruled Oct. 20 in Chevalier v. General Nutrition Centers that using a fluctuating workweek as the basis to calculate overtime for salaried employees went against the intent of the state's minimum-wage law. "I find that these goals of the PMWA are furthered by construing the PMWA to bar the use of the fluctuating workweek for compensating salaried employees who work overtime. The fluctuating workweek method of compensating salaried employees provides very little financial incentive to expand the workforce rather than pay substantial hours of overtime to existing employees at lower rates per hour," Judge Wettick said. "A reading of the PMWA that reduces the hourly overtime compensation as the amount of overtime increases clashes with the goals of the PMWA." According to Judge Wettick's opinion, the dispute in the case centers around the calculation of the "regular rate" that an employer is supposed to use to calculate overtime pay. State law requires that an employee receives at least one-and-one-half of his or her regular rate for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours; however, the law does not define the term "regular rate." GNC, according to Judge Wettick, paid salaried managers, assistant managers and senior managers a fixed sum that they received each week regardless of the number of hours they worked. Whenever an employee worked more than 40 hours, the company used the total number of hours worked each week to calculate the regular rate, which was then used to calculate the overtime pay. Judge Wettick gave an example of an employee who earns $1,000 each week. If that employee worked a 50-hour week, overtime pay would be based on a $20-per-hour regular rate. However, if that same employee had worked a 70-hour week, overtime would be based on the smaller $14.28 regular rate, and if the employee worked an 80-hour week, the employee would receive overtime pay based on a $12.50 regular rate. Plaintiffs in the case, all of whom were managers at GNC between 2009 and 2011, had been paid based on this fluctuating workweek model, according to Judge Wettick. The plaintiffs filed a class action suit contending that GNC's use of the fluctuating model violated the state law. The plaintiffs argued that the regular rate should be calculated based on the fixed sum that an employee receives each week. Judge Wettick said both parties agreed the question of whether GNC's method of calculating overtime is allowed under the PMWA was governed by 43 P.S. Section 333.104(c). But that section does not define "regular rate" and only authorizes the secretary to "promulgate" regulations that could define the term. The defendants, according to Judge Wettick, argued that the language of the PMWA indicated that the General Assembly intended to adopt the federal scheme outlined in the Fair Labor Standards Act, which allows the use of the fluctuating workweek. The plaintiffs, however, argued that because portions of the state law had used language from the federal statute, the legislature had intentionally not adopted the federal scheme in sections where the language differed. Judge Wettick disagreed with both sides. "The secretary would have been very aware of the common practice of salaried employees being required to work overtime," he said. "I believe that the most reasonable explanation as to why the secretary did not promulgate a regulation governing salaried employees is that there was not sufficient support for a regulation answering, one way or the other, the question of whether an employer may use the fluctuating workweek for salaried employees." Judge Wettick turned to the intent behind the law to make his decision. He said the purpose of the act was to "increase employment, reduce overtime and adequately compensate employees who must work more than a standard 40-hour workweek." With the fluctuating scale, he said, "for each extra hour of overtime the employee works, the hourly rate declines. Consequently, the fluctuating workweek creates an incentive to increase the hours of overtime, rather than expanding the workforce." Plaintiffs attorney Michael D. Simon of Monroeville, Pa., said the case is still "a long way from being over," and the decision could be appealed, or could move on to address class certification, or damages issues. He said the fluctuating workweek is a hot topic in both state and federal courts, and that many employers across the state use the model for calculating overtime. "We're pleased with" the decision, Simon said. "We think it goes where it needed to go." Neither Pittsburgh attorney Adrian N. Roe, who also represented the plaintiffs, nor counsel for GNC, Brad A. Funari -- bfunari@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuire Woods in Pittsburgh, returned a call seeking comment. GERBER PRODUCTS: Sued by FTC Over Claims of Allergy Prevention -------------------------------------------------------------- Barbara Leonard at Courthouse News Service reports that the makers of Gerber Good Start Gentle formula cannot substantiate claims that the product prevents infants from developing allergies, federal regulators say. On the heels of class actions advancing similar claims across the county, the Federal Trade Commission sued Gerber Products Co. on October 29 for a permanent injunction and disgorgement of ill- gotten money. Gerber and its Nestle subsidiary have marketed the baby formula at issue since 2011, according to the complaint. The FTC called it "false or misleading" for Gerber to say that the Food and Drug Administration has already approved Gerber Good Start Gentle "for a health claim," or to say that the formula qualified for such approval. Gerber has no basis to purport that its Good Start formula prevents or reduces the risk of allergies in infants with a family history, the complaint states. The baby-food giant called the FTC's complaint disappointing. "We are defending our position because we believe we have met, and will continue to meet, all legal requirements to make these product claims," Gerber said in a statement. Though the company bases its claim on its product's "partially hydrolyzed whey protein" content, the FTC noted that the FDA refused back in 2005 to give Gerber "a health claim explaining the relationship between partially hydrolyzed whey protein ('PHWP') infant formula and reduced risk of food allergies in infants." The FDA said there was "no credible" evidence for the assertion, and it also rejected a 2009 petition to let Gerber "use a qualified health claim describing the relationship between PWHP infant formula and reduced risk of atopic dermatitis in infants," according to the complaint. Gerber countered October 30 that "extensive, peer-reviewed scientific evidence supports the role of 100% whey partially hydrolyzed infant formula in reducing the risk of atopic dermatitis, commonly known as baby eczema, in infants with a family history of allergy." "Further, Gerber has been authorized by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to feature a qualified health claim based on this evidence," the company added. But the FTC says that the FDA warned that "enforcement" action could follow to let Gerber "make a highly qualified health claim that 'the relationship between 100% Whey-Protein Partially Hydrolyzed infant formulas and the reduced risk of atopic dermatitis is uncertain, because there is little scientific evidence for the relationship." "Notwithstanding the FDA's letter of enforcement discretion, defendant advertises its Gerber Good Start Gentle infant formula with, among other things, a circular gold seal or badge emblazoned with '1st and Only' in the center, 'Meets FDA' in the top perimeter, and 'Qualified Health Claim' in the bottom perimeter," the FTC says. In addition to those badges and seals, the 14-page complaint recites a series of print advertisements and television spots that advance Gerber's claims about the supposed benefits of Good Start formula. Gerber sells its powdered Good Start formula in a 23.2-ounce container for $24, and bills it as "easier to digest than formula made with intact cow's milk protein," the FTC notes. Both the "false FDA approval claim," and the "false or unsubstantiated allergy claim" violate the FTC Act, according to the complaint. FTC attorney Victor DeFrancis of Washington, D.C., signed the action. In the same court, U.S. District Judge Jose Linares is presiding over a consolidated class action over Gerber probiotic formula. GO GREEN: Sued Over Breach of Telephone Consumer Protection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Pfening, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Go Green Education, Case No. 2:14-cv-08422 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Go Green Education is an advocacy group organized to distribute free information about the importance of switching to solar and also to provide the assistance to each and every homeowner by connecting each homeowner with a reputable Solar company within their community. 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 GOLDMAN SACHS: Faces "Walsh" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Walsh, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08643 (S.D.N.Y., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation. Goldman, Sachs & Co. and The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. conduct business in New York by providing banking, securities and investment management services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin M. Swartz, Esq. Deirdre Aaron, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (212)977-4005 - and - Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415)638-8810 - and - Galvin B. Kennedy, esq. Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 711 W. Alabama Street Houston, Texas 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 GT ADVANCED: Faces "Glassman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael S. Glassman, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Thomas Gutierrez, Kanwardev Raja Singh Bal and Richard J. Gaynor, Case No. 1:14-cv-00485 (D.N.H., October 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose that there were significant risks that the Company would be unable to fulfill the requirements of the Apple Agreement to supply sapphire material, that the Company's sapphire material would not be used in the Apple iPhone 6 devices, that, as a result of the Apple Agreement problems, the Company was facing a liquidity crisis. GT Advanced Technologies Inc. is a diversified technology company producing advanced materials and innovative crystal growth equipment for the global consumer electronics, power electronics, solar and LED industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Mallory, Esq. MALLORY & FRIEDMAN, PLLC 3 N. Spring Street Concord, NH 03301 Telephone: (603) 228-2277 Facsimile: (603) 228-2275 Email: mark@malloryandfriedman.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Francis P. McConville, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com fmcconville@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com HOME DEPOT: Removes "Henry" Suit to California District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Henry v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. RG14741264, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:14-cv-04858-JCS to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chaim Shaun Setareh, Esq. Neil Michael Larsen, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com neil@setarehlaw.com tuvia@setarehlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Donna Marie Mezias, Esq. Liz Kathryn Bertko, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 580 California Street, Suite 1500 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 765-9500 Facsimile: (415) 765-9501 E-mail: dmezias@akingump.com lbertko@akingump.com HOUSE OF SPICES: Recalls 200 gms. Packages of "Golden Raisin" ------------------------------------------------------------- House of Spices of Flushing, NY is recalling its 200 gms packages of "Laxmi Nutkhhat Golden Raisin" food treats because they contained undeclared sulfites. Consumers who have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product. The product comes in a 200 gms, clear plastic package marked with lot# ABA20A2014 on the top. The recalled "Laxmi Nutkhhat Golden Raisins" were distributed in New York & New Jersey retail stores. The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of sulfites in the 200 gms packages of "Laxmi Nutkhhat Golden Raisin" which were not declared on the label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics. Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites. Analysis of the "Laxmi Nutkhhat Golden Raisin" revealed they contained 30 grams per serving. No illnesses or allergic reactions involving this product have been reported to date. Consumers who have purchased 200 gms packages of "Laxmi Nutkhhat Golden Raisin" with lot# ABA20A2014 are urged to return them to the place of purchase for full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-718-507- 4900. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Settles Hip Implant Suits for More Than $1BB ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Pat Gallagher, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that thousands of plaintiffs in New Jersey and around the country who had surgery to remove failed hip implants settled their claims Nov. 3 in a deal that is expected to pay out more than $1 billion. The global settlement with Howmedica Osteonics Corporation, a Mahwah, N.J., corporation that does business as Stryker Orthopaedics, resolves the claims of about 3,000 individuals who were implanted with Stryker Rejuvenate and ABG II Modular hip stems. New Jersey alone has more than 2,100 cases and there are another 1,700 or so federal suits centralized in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, as well as cases scattered among other state courts. The agreement, announced in the Bergen County courthouse by Superior Court Judge Brian Martinotti will pay a base award of $300,000 per failed implant, with additional compensation for those who suffered complications as a result of surgery to remove the implant, a procedure known as revision. Stryker voluntarily recalled the hip stems on July 3, 2012, and since then, lawsuits have been mounting. Those filed in New Jersey state court were centralized in Bergen County before Judge Martinotti, in January 2013. Five months later, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated the federal actions before U.S. District Judge David Frank in Minnesota, the home state of parent company Stryker Corp. On the morning of Nov. 3, Judge Martinotti scheduled an emergent conference for 4 p.m., and ordered liaison counsel and other interested lawyers to show up in his courtroom, where the settlement was announced and signed. A similar order from Frank summoned lawyers to his St. Paul courtroom at the same hour, 3 p.m., central time, for a parallel proceeding. Lawyers for both sides appeared and laid out the terms of the settlement, including a time line that requires claimants to register by Dec. 14 and enroll by Jan. 16, 2015, and should see the first payouts in the summer of 2015. To qualify for payment, claimants must be U.S. citizens or residents and must have had both surgeries -- first to implant and then to take out the failed device -- at a hospital in the U.S. or a U.S. military hospital. The revision surgery had to occur at least 180 days after the implant process and before the Nov. 3 date of settlement. The failure of the implant must be shown by evidence such as a blood test showing elevated cobalt or an abnormal diagnostic scan. People who take out an implant because of an auto accident or other trauma do not qualify, while those with failed implants who need a revision but cannot have one for medical reasons are eligible. The $300,000 base amount is subject to a 15 percent reduction -- $45,000 -- if the Rejuvenate or ABG II was put in after a preexisting total hip replacement and is also adjusted downward five percent for those over the age of 70 on the date they got the implant, increasing by five percent increments until the age of 85, where the reduction is 20 percent. For patients who died before the settlement's Nov. 4 execution date, the base award shrinks by 30 percent, to $210,000. Enhanced payments are available for a variety of complications. For example, those who require additional revisions following removal of an implant will get an added $175,000, while those whose bones must be cut to remove the implant -- an osteotomy -- are entitled to $75,000 more, which rises to $100,0000 if cabling is required to secure the femur. More serious complications -- foot drop, heart attack, stroke and death -- can result in enhancements as high as $288,000, $360,000, $516,000 and $600,000, respectively. Smaller enhancements are also available for some nonsurgical complications, such as infections. There is no fixed fund for the settlement nor a cap on Stryker's liability. Stryker's press release about the settlement said it had "recorded charges to earnings totaling $1.425 billion representing the actuarially determined low end of the range of probable loss to resolve these matters and no additional charge to earnings is being recorded in connection with entering into the settlement agreement. The ultimate cost to entirely resolve these matters will depend on many factors that are difficult to predict and may be materially different than the amounts accrued to date. Further charges to earnings may need to be recorded in the future as additional information related to patient enrollment in the settlement program becomes available." The release quoted Bill Huffnagle, president of Stryker's Reconstructive Division as stating "Following our voluntary recall and our patient support program for recall-related care, this settlement program provides patients compensation in a fair, timely and efficient manner." There is no sum set aside for legal fees, which are to be paid case-by-case in accordance with the retainer agreements and state law. Claimants will have to kick in to fund the process, including lien administration expenses, costs associated with the special masters and claims administrator and reimbursement of counsel costs. Those who sued in New Jersey will have to pay 0.5 percent, while those in the MDL will have to pay 4 percent -- one percent towards costs and three percent toward fees. The Garden City Group, based in Lake Success, N.Y., will administer the settlement. Appeals from awards will be heard by three special masters: C. Judson Hamlin, a retired N.J. state court judge, now with Keefe Bartels in Red Bank, N.J.; Arthur Boylan, who was the chief Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota until his retirement earlier this year; and Edgar Gentle, of Gentle Turner Sexton Debrosse & Harbison in Hoover, Ala. Their determinations will be subject to final review by Diane Welsh, a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1994 to 2005, now with JAMS in Philadelphia. Judge Welsh mediated the settlement, in a series of sessions that began in July. Judge Martinotti and counsel credited Judge Welsh for the agreement, along with an early mediation program that facilitated it by establishing a framework for valuing the claims and a groundwork of trust among the attorneys. Ellen Relkin -- erelkin@weitzlux.com -- of Weitz & Luxenberg in New York, liaison counsel in New Jersey, said it's "virtually unprecedented to globally resolve a litigation less than one-and- a-half years from the formation of mass tort litigation." Ms. Relkin said the individual mediations allowed the parties "to recognize specific damage endpoints which became the building blocks for the matrix used for the numerous enhancements in the settlement program." Of the 21 bellwether cases selected for mediation, 20 settled. Judge Martinotti lauded the process that led to the settlement as "historic" and "unprecedented," without a single case going to trial. The first trial in New Jersey was scheduled for June 2015. In recalling the implants, Stryker referred to the potential risk of "fretting and/or corrosion" of the metal components of the implants, deterioration that can allegedly produce metal debris and metal ions leading to such symptoms as pain, swelling and the death of tissue and bone. The Plaintiff Steering Committee for the New Jersey litigation consisted of chairwoman Relkin, Thomas Anapol -- tanapol@anapolschwartz.com -- of Anapol Schwartz in Philadelphia, C. Calvin Warriner III -- CCW@searcylaw.com -- of Searcy, Denney, Scarola Barnhart & Shipley in West Palm Beach, Fla., Tara Sutton -- tdsutton@rkmc.com -- of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi in Minneapolis, David Buchanan -- dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss in New York, and Tobias Millrood -- tmillrood@pbmattorneys.com -- of Pogust, Braslow & Millrood in Conshohocken, Pa. The MDL had a separate Plaintiff Steering Committee. Stryker is represented by Kim Catullo and other lawyers from the Gibbons firm in New York and Newark. Also present at the New Jersey conference was Stryker in-house counsel Ethan York. IKO MANUFACTURING: "Machuzak" Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Machuzak v. IKO Manufacturing, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-01895, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois (Urbana). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-02270-HAB to the proceeding. Plaintiff Michael Machuzak and the Class are owners of organic- based or matted shingles manufactured and distributed under various trade names by the Defendants. The Plaintiff alleges that the IKO Shingles are uniformly defective such that the Plaintiff's and Class members' Shingles are failing before the time periods advertised, marketed, and guaranteed by IKO or otherwise expected by ordinary consumers purchasing Shingles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Shub, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 1515 Market Street, Suite 1380 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 564-2300 Facsimile: (215) 851-8029 E-mail: jshub@seegerweiss.com - and - Howard G. Silverman, Esq. KANE AND SILVERMAN P.C. 2401 Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 1A5 Philadelphia, PA 19130 Telephone: (215) 232-1000 E-mail: HGS@PaLegalAdvice.com - and - D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 2500 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com - and - Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. Scott C. Harris, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com scott@wbmllp.com INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Faces Overtime Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------- MediaPost.com reports that the Interpublic Group of Companies has been slapped with a lawsuit from a former planning associate who claims the company illegally classified her as a type of employee not entitled to overtime pay. The former employee, Heather Freireich, claims she regularly worked more than 40 hours a week, and that it wasn't unusual for her to work close to or more than 50 hours a week without overtime pay, in violation of Federal and New York City and State employment laws. She filed her lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan on Oct. 22. The suit comes at a time when the ad industry is facing what many believe is a talent crisis as many of the country's best and brightest college graduates pursue careers in more lucrative professions. In a commentary this summer, 4As President Nancy Hill noted that the group's most recent survey (2014) found that entry-level salaries (Assistant Account Executive and Assistant Media Planner) are between $25,000 and $28,000. "Those numbers haven't changed significantly in a decade," Ms. Hill wrote in The Wall Street Journal's CMO Today column. "There is something terribly wrong with this equation." She noted that starting salaries in other industries, like technology and consulting, are three times or more what Adland pays. In her lawsuit, Ms. Freireich said that she was paid a salary of $33,000 as an associate working on an integrated planning team at J3 -- part of Universal McCann, which was established a few years back as a dedicated unit to the Johnson & Johnson business. Ms. Freireich held the position from March to August of this year and said she accrued about 160 hours of overtime that was not paid. She calculated in her lawsuit that her regular rate of pay was $15.87 per hour and that her overtime pay should have been $23.81 per hour. If Ms. Freireich were to prevail in the legal battle, the numbers could add up pretty quickly for IPG. The plaintiff is seeking class-action status, potentially covering every associate-level employee at the company over the past three years. Under the laws she cited in her suit, a ruling in her favor could also add putative damages equal to the amount of the unpaid overtime plus interest. Attempting to make a case that she was not exempt from overtime pay status, Ms. Freireich presented her role at the firm as essentially that of a low-level minion who obeyed orders and nothing more. "Plaintiff's work, including emails, was reviewed by senior team members, and at no time did Plaintiff exercise any discretion and independent judgment," the suit contends. Nor did her duties "involve work that required invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic or creative endeavor." IPG has not yet filed a response with the court to the lawsuit. KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces $500-Mil. Suit Over Ebola-Protective Gowns ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Reynolds,writing for Courthouse News Service, report that in a $500 million class action, a surgeon claims Kimberly-Clark recommends its medical gowns for healthcare workers treating Ebola patients, though it knows they do not protect against the virus. Kimberly-Clark's "recklessness and indifference to the prospect that it is responsible for placing patients and health care professionals at great and unnecessary risk of infection and bodily harm is nothing short of astonishing and, more to the point, utterly reprehensible," Dr. Hrayr Shahinian claims in the lawsuit filed on October 29 in Federal Court. A spokeswoman for Shahinian's law firm told Courthouse News that the gowns had been supplied to medical workers in West Africa. Shahinian claims Kimberly-Clark has known since 2013 that its MicroCool Breathable High Performance Surgical Gowns do not provide adequate protection, but remained silent on the issue and failed to recall the product. Kimberly-Clark, which makes Kleenex, Huggies and other famous brands, enjoys a 50 percent share of surgical gown market, according to the lawsuit. In a submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the corporation claimed that during testing the gowns resisted exposure to synthetic blood and blood-borne pathogens, Shahinian says. But the surgeon claims the gowns experienced "catastrophic failures," though Kimberly-Clark claims they offer the highest level of protection against liquids, under Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation's Level 4 Liquid Barrier Standards. Kimberly-Clark still recommends the protective gowns as healthcare professionals around the world work to prevent the spread of the deadly Ebola virus in the West African nations Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, according to the complaint. According to Shahinian, a statement at the Kimberly-Clark website links to a guide that recommends the high-performance gown to workers treating Ebola. Kimberly Clark "together with certain of its employees, executives, agents, distributors, and others have been silent in disclosing the truth," the lawsuit states. In addition to $500 million in damages, Shahinian wants a judge to order Kimberly-Clark to make clear on its website and packaging that the gowns are unsafe and do not meet industry standards. "Kimberly-Clark needs to immediately recall these gowns and come clean with the FDA, CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], healthcare professionals and the general public," Avenatti said in a statement. "The risks associated with continued concealment of the truth are far too great." Eagan Avenatti spokeswoman Suzy Quinn told Courthouse News that the gowns had been supplied to healthcare workers in West Africa. Kimberly-Clark spokesman Bob Brand said he could not comment on pending litigation. "The company does stand behind the efficacy and safety of its products," Brand said. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Avenatti, Esq. EAGAN AVENATTI LLP 450 Newport Center Dr., 2nd Floor Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-7000 Facsimile: (949) 706-7050 E-mail: mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com LIFE CARE: Faces Wage and Hour Collective Suit in S.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shannon Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; J Carole Cherry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; Nicole Senesac, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., a Tennessee corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-02611- JLS-KSC (S.D. Cal., October 31, 2014) is brought to recover for, among other things, failure to pay wages and overtime compensation, failure to pay timely wages due at the end of employment and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. Life Care Centers of America, Inc., is in the healthcare business and owns and operates 11 healthcare facilities in California primarily caring for the aged, who are unable to care for themselves, who also reside at the facilities, two of which are located in San Diego County. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq. Tyler J. Belong, Esq. Bryce A. Dodds, Esq. HOGUE & BELONG 430 Nutmeg Street, Second Floor San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone No: (619) 238-4720 Facsimile No: (619) 270-9856 E-mail: jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com tbelong@hoguebelonglaw.com bdodds@hoguebelonglaw.com LIFE TIME FITNESS: "Chrispens" Suit Moved From Cal. to Illinois --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned John Chrispens, et al. v. Life Time Fitness Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-01280 , was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-08706 to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and other wage and hour laws. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Branigan Andrew Robertson, Esq. BRANIGAN ROBERTSON, INC. 9891 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 667-3025 E-mail: branigan@brobertsonlaw.com - and - Brian D. Chase, Esq. Jerusalem Beligan, Esq. BISNAR CHASE, LLP 1301 Dove St., Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92656 Telephone: (949) 752-2999 E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com jbeligan@bisnarchase.com The Defendants are represented by: Andranik Tsarukyan, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS LLP 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: andy.tsarukyan@jacksonlewis.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: January Hearing in Employees' Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- A January 12, 2015 hearing is set in a lawsuit filed by former employees of Marriott International, Inc., according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott employees (the "plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint against the company and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"), alleging that certain equity awards of deferred bonus stock granted to the plaintiffs and other current and former employees for fiscal years 1963 through 1989 are subject to vesting requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more rapid than those set forth in the awards. The plaintiffs seek damages, attorneys' fees and interest, with no amounts specified. The action is proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt Division) and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P. Steigman are the remaining named plaintiffs. The parties completed limited discovery concerning Marriott's defense of statute of limitations with respect to Mr. Bond and Mr. Steigman and concerning class certification. The company opposed plaintiffs' motion for class certification and sought summary judgment on the issue of statute of limitations in 2012. On August 9, 2013, the court denied the company's motion for summary judgment on the issue of statute of limitations and deferred its ruling on class certification. The company moved to amend the court's judgment on the company's motion for summary judgment in order to certify an interlocutory appeal, which was denied. On January 7, 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and issued a Scheduling Order for full discovery of the remaining issues in this case. The parties completed full discovery and filed cross motions for summary judgment, with a final reply brief to be filed by plaintiffs by December 8, 2014, and a hearing on all motions scheduled for January 12, 2015. MCDONALD'S USA: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dasmine Bell, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated individuals v. McDonald's USA, LLC and McDonald's Restaurants of Florida, Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-02742 (M.D. Fla., October 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conduct an illegal background check on the Plaintiff in violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act. McDonald's USA, LLC is the global food service retailer with more than 35,000 local restaurants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces "Pecic" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jelena Pecic v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, a Rhode Island corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02426-GMS (D. Ariz., October 31, 2014) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. MetLife is a Rhode Island corporation, authorized to do business in Arizona. MetLife sells insurance and related products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Ty D. Frankel, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com tfrankel@bffb.com METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Faces "Pelletier" Suit Over FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Pelletier v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, a Rhode Island corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00476-ML-PAS (D.R.I., October 31, 2014) is brought to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and statutory penalties resulting from MetLife's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. MetLife is a Rhode Island corporation, authorized to do business in 48 of the United States, including Rhode Island and Arizona. MetLife sells insurance and related products in Rhode Island and throughout the United States, with its principal place of business in Rhode Island. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Schreck, Esq. 99 Wayland Avenue, Suite 200 Providence, RI 02906-4314 Telephone: (401) 421-9600 Facsimile: (866) 587-1527 E-mail: JSchreck@msn.com - and - Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Ty D. Frankel, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com tfrankel@bffb.com METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bao Quoc N. Le v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, a Rhode Island corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-02427-MEA (D. Ariz., October 31, 2014) alleges that the Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime wages at a rate of one and one half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a work week in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. MetLife is a Rhode Island corporation, authorized to do business in Arizona. MetLife sells insurance and related products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Ty D. Frankel, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com tfrankel@bffb.com METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Sued for Not Paying Sales Agents' Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Bailey v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, a Rhode Island corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-00477-S-LDA (D.R.I., October 31, 2014) is brought against the Defendant regarding its alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed during his tenure for MetLife as a MetLife Property and Casualty Specialist, also known as Sales Agent. MetLife is a Rhode Island corporation, authorized to do business in 48 of the United States, including Rhode Island and Arizona. MetLife sells insurance and related products in Rhode Island and throughout the United States, with its principal place of business in Rhode Island. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey C. Schreck, Esq. 99 Wayland Avenue, Suite 200 Providence, RI 02906-4314 Telephone: (401) 421-9600 Facsimile: (866) 587-1527 E-mail: JSchreck@msn.com - and - Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Ty D. Frankel, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com tfrankel@bffb.com METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Suit Seeks to Collect Unpaid Overtime Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brigette Vlahandreas v. Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, a Rhode Island corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv- 02429-NVW (D. Ariz., October 31, 2014) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and statutory penalties resulting from MetLife's alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. MetLife is a Rhode Island corporation, authorized to do business in Arizona. MetLife sells insurance and related products through its Sales Agents like the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew S. Friedman, Esq. Ty D. Frankel, Esq. BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC 2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 274-1100 Facsimile: (602) 274-1199 E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com tfrankel@bffb.com MIKE MCMURRIN: Faces "Lucas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Lucas, Alex Sherrill, and all others similarly situated v. Mike McMurrin Trucking, Inc. and Mike McMurrin, Case No. 1:14-cv- 00116 (N.D. Iowa, October 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mike McMurrin Trucking, Inc. is engaged in the business of hauling debris, waste and other materials within the state of Iowa. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan T. Willems, Esq. RUSH & NICHOLSON, PLC 101 Second Street SE, Suite 100, PO Box 637 Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-0637 Telephone: (319) 363-5209 Facsimile: (319) 363-6664 E-mail: nate@rushnicholson.com MONSANTO CO: Suit by Glyphosate Retailer in Texas Remains Dormant ----------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit filed in federal court in San Antonio, Texas against Monsanto Company on behalf of a retailer of glyphosate named Texas Grain remains dormant, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2014. Two purported class action suits were filed against the company on Sept. 26, 2006, supposedly on behalf of all farmers who purchased the company's Roundup brand herbicides in the United States for commercial agricultural purposes since Sept. 26, 2002. Plaintiffs essentially allege that the company monopolized the market for glyphosate for commercial agricultural purposes. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages and injunctive relief. In late February 2007, three additional suits were filed, alleging similar claims. All of these suits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On July 18, 2007, the court ruled that any such suit had to be filed in federal or state court in Missouri; the court granted the company's motion to dismiss the two original cases. On Aug. 8, 2007, plaintiffs in the remaining three cases voluntarily dismissed their complaints, which have not been re-filed. On Aug. 10, 2007, the same set of counsel filed a parallel action in federal court in San Antonio, Texas, on behalf of a retailer of glyphosate named Texas Grain. Plaintiffs seek to certify a national class of all entities that purchased glyphosate directly from the company since August 2003. The magistrate judge issued his recommendation to the District Court on Aug. 7, 2009, denying class certification and the litigation has remained dormant since that event. MONSANTO CO: Accord in Suit Over Dioxin Contamination Proceeds -------------------------------------------------------------- Monsanto Company is now executing the terms of the settlement of a suit filed by persons allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia after an objection to the settlement was quelled, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31, 2014. On Dec. 17, 2004, 15 plaintiffs filed a purported class action lawsuit, styled Virdie Allen, et al. v. Monsanto, et al., in the Putnam County, West Virginia, state court against Monsanto, Pharmacia and seven other defendants. Monsanto is named as the successor in interest to the liabilities of Pharmacia. The alleged class consists of all current and former residents, workers, and students who, between 1949 and the present, were allegedly exposed to dioxins/furans contamination in counties surrounding Nitro, West Virginia. The complaint alleges that the source of the contamination is a chemical plant in Nitro, formerly owned and operated by Pharmacia and later by Flexsys, a joint venture between Solutia and Akzo Nobel Chemicals, Inc. (Akzo Nobel). Akzo Nobel and Flexsys were named defendants in the case but Solutia was not, due to its then pending bankruptcy proceeding. The suit seeks damages for property cleanup costs, loss of real estate value, funds to test property for contamination levels, funds to test for human exposure, and future medical monitoring costs. The complaint also seeks an injunction against further contamination and punitive damages. Monsanto has agreed to indemnify and defend Akzo Nobel and the Flexsys defendant group, but on May 27, 2011, the judge dismissed both Akzo Nobel and Flexsys from the case. The class action certification hearing was held on Oct. 29, 2007. On Jan. 8, 2008, the trial court issued an order certifying the Allen (now Zina G. Bibb et al. v. Monsanto et al., because Bibb replaced Allen as class representative) case as a class action for property damage and for medical monitoring. On Nov. 2, 2011, the court, in response to defense motions, entered an order decertifying the property class. After the trial for the Bibb medical monitoring class action began on Jan. 3, 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle as to both the medical monitoring and the property class claims. The proposed settlement provides for a 30 year medical monitoring program consisting of a primary fund of up to $21 million and an additional fund of up to $63 million over the life of the program, and a three year property remediation plan with funding up to $9 million. On Feb. 24, 2012, the court preliminarily approved the parties' proposed settlement. A fairness hearing was held June 18, 2012, resulting in the trial court's final approval of the settlement. Certain plaintiffs objected to the approval of the settlement and appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. On Nov. 22, 2013, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and upheld the fairness of the class action settlements. The objector filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court which was denied. The settlement is final and the parties have commenced performance of the terms of the settlement. MOODY'S CORP: "Cheyne SIV" Suit Plaintiffs Want Rulings Reversed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, seeking reversal of a dismissal of their claims and also seeking reversal of a denial of class certification of a suit against Moody's Corp. related to a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance, according to the company's Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's for aiding and abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions, reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed. On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013. On April 24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements, the 14 plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these claims as against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that stipulation on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover certain claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed by the Court. On May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their claims and also seeking reversal of the Court's denial of class certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in earlier proceedings, they seek approximately $76 million in total compensatory damages in connection with the two claims at issue on the appeal. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Former UT Football Player Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Adam Silverstein, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that Julius Whittier, a former Texas football player who was diagnosed with early onset Alzheimer's disease in August 2012, is the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against the NCAA that could max out at $50 million in damages. Mr. Whittier, 64, is seeking a minimum of $5 million in restitution while leading the charge for a yet-to-be-determined class of players meeting the following criteria, according to the lawsuit filed on his behalf by his sister, Mildred Whittier, in United States District Court on Oct. 27. "All former NCAA football players residing in the U.S. who played from 1960 - 2014 who did not go on to play professional football in the NFL and who have been diagnosed with a latent brain injury or disease." The lawsuit alleges that the NCAA failed to do enough to protect its student-athletes from head injuries despite the organization's constitution (article 2, 2.2.3) requiring that each member school "protect the health of, and provide a safe environment for" its players. "The NCAA has breached its duty to protect college football players in the face of long-standing and overwhelming evidence regarding the need to do so. The NCAA has ignored this duty and profited immensely from its inaction and denial, all to the detriment of the players." It also mentions that the NCAA has failed in other areas, such as educating football players about the "long term, life-altering risks and consequences of head impacts" and establishing "known protocols to prevent, mitigate, monitor, diagnose and treat brain injuries." Julius Whittier, an offensive lineman and tight end who was the first African-American player to suit up for the Longhorns (1969- 72), filed his case as somewhat of a response to the NCAA proposing a $75 million concussion settlement in August that would not have provided immediate care to many former players in need. Speaking in opposition to that proposed deal was Whittier's attorney, Dwight E. Jefferson, who told Law360.com that his client is now "totally disabled". NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Nichole Tucker and Erica Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-2, a Delaware statutory trust; The National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-4, a Delaware statutory trust; Weinstein, Pinson & Riley, P.S., a foreign corporation; and Anthony D. Colunga, an individual, Case No. 8:14-cv-02756-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., October 31, 2014) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher Charles Nash, Esq. Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq. J. Andrew Meyer, Esq. LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA 3900 First St N, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, FL 33703-6109 Telephone: (727) 347-7828 Facsimile: (727) 327-3305 E-mail: cnash@leavenlaw.com ileavengood@leavenlaw.com ameyer@leavenlaw.com NAT'L FOOTBALL: Nearly 200 Former Players Opt Out of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, The Legal Intelligencer, reports that nearly 200 former football players have opted out of the settlement for the class action suit over concussions against the NFL. Of the roughly 25,000 former players who are eligible to take part in the settlement, 196 decided to opt out by the Oct. 14 deadline, according to the report from BrownGreer, the claims administrator for the case, that was filed with the court late on Nov. 3. A total of nearly 34,000 people are eligible to take part in the settlement, including family members of former players, and a total of 220 people opted out by the deadline. U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted preliminary approval in early July to a settlement agreed to by the National Football League and co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. The judge had rejected the first deal in January because she was troubled by the lack of empirical support for the total amount of the settlement -- which was $760 million -- and that she was unsure that there would be enough money to cover all of the players with potential claims because the portion of the settlement from which injured players could draw was capped at $675 million. The agreement she gave preliminary approval to doesn't include a cap, but it does limit the concussion-related ailments that can qualify for claims, according to critics of the deal. The primary concern among critics is that the deal doesn't sufficiently compensate players who suffer from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. Some members of the class had asked the court to move back the opt-out date past the fairness hearing, which is scheduled for Nov. 19, but Judge Brody denied the request. Several lawyers representing former players in the case have been at odds with the co-lead counsel for the class, arguing that they've been left in the dark about the information underlying the settlement agreement, so they can't properly advise their clients as to whether they should take part in the class settlement or opt out and pursue their own case against the NFL. Chris Seeger and Sol Weiss, the co-lead counsel for the class, saw the report as an affirmation of the settlement, saying in a prepared statement, "With over 99 percent participation, it is clear the retired player community resoundingly supports this settlement. Over the last several months, we have heard from countless retired players who are in dire need of these benefits, as well as those who take comfort in the long-term protections the settlement provides. If the settlement receives final approval, former NFL players will be able to take advantage of its benefits within months, unless appeals are filed that will indefinitely delay the start of these programs." Thomas Demetrio -- TAD@CorboyDemetrio.com -- of Corboy & Demetrio in Chicago was one of the lawyers concerned about the structure of the settlement and argued during a telephone conference with the court for pushing back the opt-out deadline. Demetrio's primary concern about the settlement is that it doesn't sufficiently compensate for CTE. That's an argument to be raised at the fairness hearing, Judge Brody had told Mr. Demetrio. The issue she was deciding during that conference was the length of the opt-out period, which was set to be 90 days from when she granted preliminary approval to the settlement in July. "We believe that at the end of the day, you are going to see that CTE must be included in the settlement going forward," Mr. Demetrio had said. His firm is representing Tregg Duerson, who is handling his father Dave Duerson's estate. He did not opt out of the settlement. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Court Wants to Hear From Union in Doping Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- The federal judge overseeing a class action that accuses the NFL of providing football players with dangerous painkillers to mask their injuries wants to hear from the NFL players' union before deciding whether to allow the case to go forward, reports Maria Dinzeo at Courthouse News Service. "The plaintiffs' lawyer is a buttinsky, to borrow an old phrase," U.S. District Judge William Alsup said at an October 30 hearing. "The union is supposed to be looking out for the plaintiffs. The labor union is the one that is supposed to be doing this." "But that's exactly my point," the former players' attorney Steve Silverman said. "The union doesn't represent the former players." Lead plaintiff Richard Dent, a former Chicago Bear, accuses the league of treating players' injuries on the field for decades with nonprescription opioids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and local anesthetics, with little regard for the side effects or the players' medical histories. Among the medications handed out, the players say, were Percodan, Vicodin, Percocet, Prednisone, Toradol, Ambien and Celebrex. Toradol's complications include renal failure and increased risk of bleeding, but the drug is increasingly used on athletes, according to the lawsuit. Jeremy Newbery, Roy Green, J.D. Hill, Keith Van Horne, Ron Stone, Ron Pritchard and James McMahon are also named as plaintiffs in the May 2014 complaint. The NFL claims that it bears no legal responsibility because the collective bargaining agreements that govern the terms and conditions of the players' medical care places the teams' medical staff in charge of players' diagnoses and treatments. At the October 30 hearing on its motion to dismiss, NFL attorney Dan Nash said the players "are making allegations based on medical care provided while they were covered under the CBAs. These rights don't go away because they retire." Nash said the league was under no obligation to question the medical opinions of team doctors and trainers. "They're suggesting we had a duty to second-guess the doctors' expert judgment," Nash said. But the players argued that not only has their coverage under those agreements expired, the CBAs do not actually cover the issues raised in their class action, such as whether the NFL breached its duty to inform the players about the controlled substances injected into their bodies. Alsup, who said, "I don't follow fantasy football. I go to a game every ten years," asked Silverman what team Dent played for. "I think it's the Bears, but I don't really follow football either," Silverman said. During the hour-long hearing, Silverman argued that the NFL could have foreseen the harm the drugs were causing the players, and that the league knew the players were stuck with needles full of drugs before being sent back to the field. "So what if they knew? Where does it say the NFL is supposed to swoop down and intervene? I question whether the NFL has a duty to intervene and stop the clubs from mistreating a player," Alsup said. The case hinges partly upon whether the former players are bound to arbitrate their grievances under the collective bargaining agreements they signed as players. "I would like to get the views of the union," Alsup said. "If a retiree goes to the union and says, 'I want to grieve the type of injury in the complaint,' would the union be obligated to pursue that grievance? Or is it true that the retiree has no rights to grieve anything? If it were to be grieved, would the CBA cover the types of claims that are being asserted?" The union had until Nov. 5 to reply with a letter to the court on whether it will answer Alsup's questions. NCO FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Phillip Mazzucco, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. NCO Financial Systems, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:14-cv-06867-JAP-LHG (D.N.J., October 31, 2014) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC 555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 459-7971 E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com - and - Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com NEW BRITAIN, CT: Female Officers File Sexual Harassment Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Jay Stapleton, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that a New Britain police sergeant is accused of repeatedly massaging the shoulders of a female officer without her permission and making vulgar comments about her body. While in the police department's conference room, the sergeant allegedly shared his thoughts on her uniform and how it fit her, sometimes in front of fellow officers. And so Jennifer Raspardo became one of three former New Britain female officers to file a federal lawsuit against the sergeant and the New Britain Police Department, complaining of sexual harassment and gender discrimination between 2007 and 2009. With a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, portions of the lawsuit will proceed, focusing on claims that Sgt. John Carlone created a hostile work environment by sexually harassing two of the female officers with inappropriate jokes, comments and unwanted physical contact. The New Britain case is hardly the only current or recent case alleging discrimination against female officers in Connecticut police departments. Decades after sexual harassment and gender discrimination became hot-button issues, women in law enforcement and firefighting frequently complain that they are poorly treated by male counterparts and supervisors. "We're in the 21st century, and you'd figure we would have advanced beyond this type of thing," said Thomas Bucci -- tbucci@wwblaw.com -- of Willinger, Willinger & Bucci in Bridgeport, who is representing a female firefighter in a discrimination claim against Bridgeport. Why all the lawsuits? One reason is simply the increased number of women in law enforcement. In the 1970s, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, they accounted for roughly 2 percent of sworn officers. Now that percentage has increased to 13 percent, which is still well below what one might expect in a society with nearly a 50/50 gender split. "Women in law enforcement are often inexplicitly resented by their male counterparts and many face harassment," stated a July 2013 post on the Justice Department website. "Additionally, many women encounter a 'brass' ceiling and are unable to rise to supervisory positions despite their qualifications. Many women do not even try to reach these positions because of fear of oppression from male coworkers." In Connecticut, in 2008, the Wolcott Police Department's only female police officer won a $300,000 settlement in a discrimination case against the town. Officer Doreen Spiotti alleged that her superiors harassed and discriminated against her based on her gender and status as a mother. Similar claims have been brought more recently in cities such as Norwalk and New Haven, and have either settled or been dismissed. In July, the Greenwich Police Department's first female captain filed a discrimination complaint against the police department and its chief with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Details of her pending complaint have not been made public. But the police department's top brass have called the allegations brought by Capt. Pamela Gustovich "baseless." "The town has responded to the complaints, denying that there was any discrimination or other illegal actions by the police department or the town," Police Chief James Heavey said in a statement. "We also participated in a mediation with the EEOC in an attempt to resolve the matter, but unfortunately there was no resolution. An outside investigative agency was hired by the town to look into the matter and no actionable issues were discovered." Capt. Gustovich is being represented by Deborah McKenna of Stamford, whose practice focuses on women's rights and labor law. McKenna did not respond to a request for comment. "We get those all the time," said CHRO spokesman James O'Neill, referring to bias claims filed by women in law enforcement. While no statistics on such claims are available, O'Neill said the CHRO investigates all gender discrimination and workplace bias complaints, with the vast majority being sent to mediation early on so the parties can work out a resolution. "We get good results that way, before the complaints fester and everyone gets their hackles up," he said. If administrative remedies are exhausted without an agreement, which could include a financial award, the complaints will often go to court. "Everyone thinks they have a million-dollar lawsuit," Mr. O'Neill said. But state and federal law regarding gender discrimination tends to limit large damage awards. The legal standard requires proof that discrimination was intentional, as well as "severe and pervasive." In the New Britain lawsuit, the women's complaints were not just lodged against Sgt. Carlone, but four other male officers. The allegations prompted a vigorous defense by lawyers for the police department and the officers. In 2012, Connecticut U.S. District Judge Alvin Thompson refused a request by the city to grant the officers full immunity from the claims, which prompted an appeal from Sgt. Carlone and the other defendants. On Oct. 6, the Second Circuit affirmed that decision in part and reversed it in part. In a 97-page decision, the court dismissed some of the claims, finding that there was no evidence that female officers' equal protection rights were violated. The decision did, however, allow two of the women to proceed with their claims against Sgt. Carlone. Lawyers for the police department, Sgt. Carlone and the women did not respond to calls seeking comment. In 2012, New Haven settled a federal gender discrimination lawsuit filed by a female officer. Officer Jodianne Novella had claimed she was the target of "outrageously degrading remarks" made by other patrol officers while members of the department were gathered for duty assignments. She settled for $20,000 on the eve of trial. "The standard to prove these types of cases at trial is very high, you have to show they acted intentionally," said Bridgeport's Bucci, who was Novella's lawyer. "She immediately complained [to superiors] about degrading comments that were made to her, and the case was really more about retaliation that happened to her after that. The officer had a really tough time." Although women have been rising through the ranks to become supervisors and top administrators at many police departments for many years, Mr. Bucci said behavior by male officers to create hostile work environments continues to be "all too common." He and other employment lawyers said similar complaints are brought by female firefighters. The civil rights lawsuit Mr. Bucci filed on behalf of the Bridgeport firefighter on Sept. 29 claims the city's handling of her pregnancy violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act. In her complaint, Regina Scates argues that the city unfairly disciplined her last year for taking pregnancy-related sick days and then forced her to take an unpaid maternity leave despite providing unlimited paid sick leave for nonpregnancy-related physical disabilities. Ms. Scates alleges that she was still capable of working when she was placed on leave. "The reaction of the city to her pregnancy, it would be comical if it wasn't so illegal," Mr. Bucci said. Robert Mitchell, an employment lawyer with Mitchell & Sheehan in Stratford, said the high standard required under state and federal employment and civil rights law can make gender discrimination claims challenging for plaintiffs. "Often, one horrible act is not enough" to allow a plaintiff to prevail, he said. "You have to have a lot of it and that has to have an impact on the plaintiff. The fact that a plaintiff may have heard about a cop or firefighter [making a sexually explicit comment or viewing pornography] isn't enough. The plaintiff has to see it." Such behavior "has been going on for years" at police departments, he said. In 2011, Norwalk succeed in fending off a gender discrimination lawsuit that was filed by a retired female police lieutenant, Angela Walsh. U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Martinez found there was no evidence to show that a male officer was given preferential treatment over Walsh. M. Jeffry Spahr, Norwalk's deputy corporation counsel, said he takes any complaint of gender discrimination seriously. "I'm an in-house lawyer with the city, and we all have to work together here," he said. "You don't want to take a scorched-earth policy and start lobbing grenades at either the accusers or the accused, because you have to live with the aftermath." The facts alleged in each case have to be looked at very closely, before deciding what course of action the city might take. "I'm not saying this is the case in Norwalk, but in general there are times when people are mistreated," he said. "At the same time, you want to aggressively defend against" unwarranted allegations. NYSA CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lawson" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tavia Lawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nysa Corporation d/b/a The Bill Coach, Case No. 2:14- cv-08401 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Nysa Corporation is a debt relief company that purportedly offers consumers counseling. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, 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 abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com OGDEN, UT: Faces Class Action Gang Restraining Orders ----------------------------------------------------- Ben Winslow, writing for Fox13, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed over Ogden's gang restraining orders. In a petition filed on Oct. 28, the ACLU of Utah asked the courts to vacate the convictions of any alleged gang member picked up under Ogden's controversial restraining orders. The injunctions were declared unconstitutional by the Utah Supreme Court. "In this case, the Utah Supreme Court has ruled that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue the Ogden gang injunction. Since the court was without power to issue that order, no one can be lawfully punished for violating it," ACLU of Utah Legal Director John Mejia said in a statement to FOX 13. In an effort to crack down on gangs, the Ogden Police Department served members of the Ogden Trece gang with restraining orders, prohibiting them from associating with each other in public within city limits. It also established curfews and other restrictions. Ogden police insisted the restraining orders cut crime within the city. The ACLU of Utah estimates at least 50 people were arrested for violating the injunction, which carried with it a six month jail term and a $500 fine. Alleged members of the gang sued, arguing that the injunctions violated their First Amendment right to free association. The Utah Supreme Court ruled the injunctions were unconstitutional. Because it is unconstitutional, the ACLU seeks to have those convictions overturned. OWENS-ILLINOIS: Judge Approves $9.5-Mil. Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. District Court Judge Robert D. Mariani on October 23, 2014, approved a $9.5 million class settlement of a decade-long dispute between former Owens-Illinois (O-I) employees and the company. Carol Mager and Susan Saint-Antoine of Console Law Offices LLC, and Sidney Gold of Sidney L. Gold & Associates, P.C. respectively represented 100 long-service terminated employees who were denied subsidized retirement benefits when the business they worked for was sold by O-I. In 2010 the case was certified as a class action and had proceeded through full pre-trial discovery. The settlement provides a lump sum tax-deferred payment to each of the 100 class members from the pension plan, in addition to the regular retirement benefit. It also represents the successful conclusion of seven years of hard fought litigation over the entitlement to the special retirement benefit. About Console Law Offices, LLC Console Law Offices LLC -- http://www.consolelaw.com-- is an employment rights law firm with offices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Moorestown, New Jersey. Since its inception in 1990, the firm has specialized in the representation of current, former and potential employees concerning work-related matters. The lawyers at Console Law Offices LLC counsel whistleblower- employees who have been retaliated against and individuals who have been victimized by illegal employment discrimination and retaliation, including harassment at work. They also represent employees concerning medical leaves, disability benefits, wage and hour claims, employment contracts, severance agreements, stock option plans, and class action lawsuits. PINOLANDIA CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Evert Jose Carvajal Juarez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Pinolandia Corporation, Julia Leon, Jacqueline Leon, Case No. 1:14-cv-24050 (S.D. Fla., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week. Pinolandia Corporation owns and operates a restaurant in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Hines" Class Suit in North Carolina -------------------------------------------------------------- Joann Hines, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv- 00752-F (E.D.N.C., November 1, 2014) asserts claims related to consumer credit. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchel Erik Luxenburg, Esq. LUXENBURG & LEVIN, LLC 23875 Commerce Park, Suite 105 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 452-9301 Facsimile: (866) 551-7791 E-mail: mitch@luxenburglevin.com PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Principal Life Faces ERISA Suit in Iowa ------------------------------------------------------------ On March 18, 2014, McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement Program ("McCaffree") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa against Principal Life, according to Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. The complaint alleged, among other things, breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of prudence and prohibited transactions under ERISA. McCaffree seeks a nationwide class action on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of defined contribution retirement plans that invested in any Principal Separate Account in the last six years. McCaffree seeks disgorgement of all fees it alleges Principal Life improperly retained in addition to other general claims for relief. Principal Life has filed a motion to dismiss the case and is aggressively defending the case. PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: 8th Cir. Upholds Class Certification Ruling ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request for permission to appeal the denial of class certification in In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation, according to Principal Financial Group, Inc.'s Oct. 29, 2014, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2014. On December 2, 2009 and December 4, 2009, two plaintiffs, Cruise and Mullaney, each filed putative class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us; Principal Life; Principal Global Investors, LLC; Principal Management Corporation; and Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC (the "Cruise/Mullaney Defendants"). The lawsuits alleged the Cruise/Mullaney Defendants failed to manage the Principal U.S. Property Separate Account ("PUSPSA") in the best interests of investors, improperly imposed a "withdrawal freeze" on September 26, 2008, and instituted a "withdrawal queue" to honor withdrawal requests as sufficient liquidity became available. The two lawsuits, as well as two subsequently filed complaints asserting similar claims, have been consolidated and are now known as In re Principal U.S. Property Account Litigation. Plaintiffs' request for permission to appeal the denial of class certification was denied by the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on December 31, 2013. The Cruise/Mullaney Defendants are aggressively defending the lawsuit. PUBLIX SUPER: Settles Background Check Class Action for $6.8-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Kennedy, writing for the Ledger, reports that Publix Super Markets Inc. is scheduled to pay nearly $6.8 million in a class- action lawsuit settlement over background checks. The lawsuit, being handled in Tennessee federal court, alleges that Lakeland-based Publix violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by not making legally required disclosures about background checks to job applicants. Publix has denied any wrongdoing and was not found liable in court, but agreed to the settlement "because of the substantial expense of litigation . . . and the disruption to its business operations," according to legal documents filed in July. The settlement class totals 90,633 people who would receive $75 apiece -- amounting to roughly $48 each after lawyers' expenses. A Publix spokesman declined to discuss the case with The Ledger. Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not be reached for comment on Oct. 28. The settlement includes people who applied for work at Publix stores and were subjected to background checks during the period March 12, 2012, to May 13, 2014. The lead plaintiff in the case, Erin Knights, applied for a job with Publix in early 2013 through an electronic kiosk at a store in Hendersonville, Tenn. The lawsuit says Publix's application process included an authorization for a background check, but says it "blatantly violated" an FCRA rule that requires businesses obtaining a consumer report for employment purposes to notify the applicant "in a document consisting solely of the disclosure." RUST-OLEUM: Faces Class Action Over False Paint Product Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Boyle, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that a paint manufacturers' claim that one of its products creates long- lasting coats outside restore surfaces with minimal maintenance is completely false, according to a class action suit filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by five plaintiffs from Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Rust-Oleum, headquartered in Vernon Hills, Ill., and the makers of the Restore line of paint products. According to the claim, all the plaintiffs experienced significant damage to their outdoor decking as a result of the paint's cracking, bubbling and peeling away. The complaint was filed on behalf of any consumers in Pennsylvania and New Jersey who purchased the Restore paint, seeking damages in excess of $5 million on violations of the Magnusson-Moss Act, which protects the public from deceptive warranty practices, plus counts of unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation and breach of warranty. According to the complaint, Rust-Oleum made several claims about the high quality of Restore, including advertisements that said the product had a durable coating "formulated to resurface most wooden and composite decks while providing lasting protection against moisture and the damaging effects of the sun." The plaintiffs claim that Rust-Oleum has created a product that begins to fail on its first day of use. Because of the paint mixture, it takes a large amount of effort to remove the paint and replace it, plus endangering the underlying deck materials. The company offers a lifetime warranty, the claim says, but it only covers the cost of the paint, which is only a fraction of the expense to replace the product. For example, Steve and Gina Cady of Berks County, Pa., purchased $230 worth of Restore in July 2013, based on conversations with store representatives and video demonstrations. A year after applying the paint to their outside deck, the couple noticed chipping and wearing away at several spots. After contacting Rust-Oleum, they were told to fill out a warranty card, then received a refund for the paint, but no consideration for the substantial damage and deterioration to the deck. It's a similar story for plaintiffs Scott Reinhart and John Riello, who used the paint and at least six months later reached out to the company to complain about product, receiving a refund for the purchase and not the full cost of repairing the damage. The complaint says that by packaging and selling Restore, Rust-Oleum made an implicit warranty that the product would work as promised on the label and advertisements, and the plaintiffs relied on those warranties to purchase and use the paint. The defendant had a duty to disclose the foreseeable risks of using Restore, and a duty not to put defective products on the market, according to the claim. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Audet & Partners in San Francisco, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia and Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca in Bethesda, Md. The federal case ID is 5:14-cv-06156-LS. SEARS HOLDINGS: Sued by Visa Over Disputes in Antitrust/Fee Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa Inc., and Visa International Service Association v. Sears Holdings Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-06450- JG-JO (E.D.N.Y., October 31, 2014) is brought for declaratory judgment to resolve a long-standing dispute with Sears. The dispute was the subject of class action lawsuits against Visa and MasterCard Incorporated in 1996, captioned In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation, 96-cv-5238 (E.D.N.Y.) Shortly after the settlement of that lawsuit and the payment by Visa and MasterCard of substantial sums to the plaintiff class, including Sears, in that action, a new collection of class action lawsuits was filed against Visa and MasterCard, captioned In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 05-md-1720 (E.D.N.Y.) (Gleeson, J.) (Orenstein, M.J.). In the Interchange Fee Litigation, many of the same claims and issues that were raised in Visa Check were again asserted. The Interchange Fee Litigation class actions also settled. The Interchange Settlement again provides for substantial payments to merchants and requires Visa to make significant changes to certain of its rules relating to all merchants. In particular, the Interchange Settlement modified the "no surcharge rule," a change the Court cited as the "central piece" of the settlement and a "critical accomplishment." Sears, however, has publicly opposed and denigrated the Interchange Settlement, apparently preferring to continue litigating with Visa, the Plaintiffs say. They assert that Sears opted out of the Settlement Class and did so to bring a third lawsuit for the same alleged antitrust violations against Visa, continuing 17 years of seriatim litigation over the same issues. Accordingly, Visa seeks a declaratory judgment in its favor and against Sears to prevent the continuation of endless, wasteful litigation between the parties. To resolve the parties' disputes expeditiously and finally, Visa seeks a declaration that from January 1, 2004, to November 27, 2012, the time period for which Sears may, as an opt-out, seek damages under the Interchange Settlement, Visa's conduct in, among other things, continuing to set its "default interchange" rates, maintaining its "honor-all- cards" rules, enforcing its Merchant Rules, and restructuring itself did not violate federal antitrust law or the antitrust laws of the several States or the District of Columbia. Visa Inc. is a global payments technology company that enables consumers, businesses, financial institutions, and governments to use electronic payments instead of cash and checks, and has built one of the world's most advanced processing networks. Visa Inc. is incorporated in the state of Delaware and has its principal place of business in Foster City, California. Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa International are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Visa Inc., incorporated in Delaware, and have their principal places of business in Foster City. Sears is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Hoffman Estates, Illinois. Sears owns and operates over two-thousand retail stores throughout the United States. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard J. Holwell, Esq. Michael S. Shuster, Esq. Demian A. Ordway, Esq. HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG LLP 125 Broad Street, 39th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 837-5151 E-mail: rholwell@hsgllp.com mshuster@hsgllp.com dordway@hsgllp.com - and - Robert C. Mason, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022-4690 Telephone: (212) 715-1000 E-mail: robert.mason@aporter.com - and - Robert J. Vizas, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER, LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4024 Telephone: (415) 471-3100 Facsimile: (415) 471-3400 E-mail: Robert.Vizas@aporter.com - and - Mark R. Merley, Esq. Matthew A. Eisenstein, Esq. 555 12th Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1206 Telephone: (202) 942-5321 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: Mark.Merley@aporter.com Matthew.Eisenstein@aporter.com SP BEACH: Removes "Derweduwen" Suit to Middle District of Florida ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Derweduwen v. SP Beach Hotel Corp., Case No. 14-007382-CI, was removed from the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:14-cv-02757-JDW-AEP to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from alleged job discrimination due to age. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq. FLORIN ROEBIG, PA 777 Alderman Rd. Palm Harbor, FL 34683 Telephone: (727) 786-5000 Facsimile: (727) 772-9833 E-mail: fgo@florinroebig.com The Defendant is represented by: James R. Douglass, III, Esq. Theresa M. Gallion, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP 401 E Jackson St., Suite 2300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 769-7500 Facsimile: (813) 769-7501 E-mail: jdouglass@laborlawyers.com tgallion@laborlawyers.com SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Second Oil Consumption Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Denis Flier, writing for Torque News, reports that a 2nd class- action oil consumption lawsuit has been filed against Subaru of America. The popular 2014 Subaru Forester is on the list. Which other vehicles are included? The top-selling 2014 Subaru Forester is on the oil consumption lawsuit as Subaru of America now has a second class-action suit that has been filed against the Cherry Hill based automaker. The first lawsuit was filed in July, and this second class-action suit was filed on October 8, 2014. The Courier-Post reports that this second lawsuit also contends Subaru of America has failed to address customers' concerns about excessive oil consumption in some of the automaker's vehicles. Is your vehicle on the list? In an article in the New Jersey Law Journal, the first lawsuit, filed in July on behalf of a California man, claims the 2011-14 Forester, 2013 Legacy and 2013 Outback, with 2.5-liter engines, and 2012-13 Impreza and 2013 Crosstrek, with 2-liter engines are having this oil consumption issue. The suit claims the vehicles "prematurely burn off and/or consume abnormal and excessive amounts of engine oil." The second lawsuit was filed in federal court on October 8, Camden, New Jersey, on behalf of two Subaru owners from Connecticut and New Jersey. This second lawsuit also claims Subaru of America has not disclosed an oil-consumption problem in "some vehicles and has refused to cover repair bills caused by an alleged engine defect." The two lawfirms will work together The Attorneys who are representing these Subaru owners in the two oil consumption lawsuits "will work together with the common goal of getting relief for Subaru customers," said Eric Lechtzin -- elechtzin@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague, the Philadelphia firm that filed the second class-action suit. SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Illegally Sells Corn, "Hostler" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Travis W. Hostler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Syngenta Seeds Inc., Syngenta Corporation, and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC., Case No. 4:14-cv-04162 (D. S.D., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide an adequate warning to farmers, grain elevators, grain exporters, and the general public regarding the dangers of planting, growing, harvesting, transporting, or otherwise using Viptera corn at the time Viptera corn was sold. The Defendants are engaged in commercial seed business, developing, producing, and selling, through dealers and distributors or directly to growers, a wide range of agricultural products throughout the United States, including corn seed with certain genetically modified traits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Swier, Esq. Jake Fischer, Esq. SWIER LAW FIRM, PROF. LLC 202 North Main Street Avon, SD 57315 Telephone: (605) 286-3218 Facsimile: (605) 286-3219 E-mail: scott@swierlaw.com jake@swierlaw.com - and - R. Bryant McCulley, Esq. McCULLEY McCLUER PLLC 2113 Middle Street, Suite 208 Sullivan's Island, SC 29482 Telephone: (205) 238-6757 Facsimile: (662) 368-1506 E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com - and - Stuart H. McCluer, Esq. McCULLEY McCLUER PLLC 1223 Jackson Avenue East, Suite 200 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 550-4511 Facsimile: (662) 368-1506 E-mail: smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com - and - Stephen D. Susman, Esq. Vineet Bhatia, Esq. Manmeet Walia , Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 651-9366 Facsimile: (713) 654-6666 E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com vbhatia@susmangodfrey.com mwalia@susmangodfrey.com - and - Joseph C. Portera, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 5100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 754-1900 Facsimile: (214) 754-1933 E-mail: jpotera@susmangodfrey.com - and - Stephen E. Morrissey, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 3800 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Archer" Suit Over Defective Airbags -------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Archer, on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc., Highland Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08447 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 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: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com tomloeser@hbsslaw.com TAMPA, FL: Must Pay Over $1MM in Legal Fees Under Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the city of Tampa has to pay over $1 million in legal fees as part of a class action settlement to resolve claims by firefighters and police officers over pension benefits, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in a 6-1 decision. Florida has two statutes under which parties are entitled to be paid fees when they prevail in suits over minimum pension benefits owed to firefighters and police officers. The laws also authorize Florida municipalities to enact local pension plans. At issue was whether the fee-shifting provisions apply in lawsuits seeking to enforce pension benefits under local plans. The plaintiffs said that the Board of Trustees of the City Pension Fund for Firefighters and Police Officers in the city of Tampa failed to pay beneficiaries their 13th check for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2004. The city settled the class action in exchange for paying the remaining principal payments and interest on the late payments. While the Tampa retiree plan "is a local law plan created by special act of the Legislature, that plan exists within and is subject to the framework for local law plans" established in Florida state law, the majority said in a per curiam opinion. The fee-shifting provisions can't be altered when localities adopt their own pension benefit plans, the court added. In dissent, Justice Charles T. Canady said the attorney fee provisions in state law don't apply to a claim for local pension plan benefits that are not required under state law. "A particular provision of law may come into existence by authorization of a higher law, but claims to enforce the particular provisions are not said to be claims brought 'under or pursuant to' the higher law," Justice Canady said. TD AMERITRADE: Faces "Sarbacker" Suit in Nebraska District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Sarbacker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD Ameritrade Inc., TD Ameritrade Clearing, Inc., Frederic J. Tomczyk and Paul Jiganti, Case No. 8:14-cv-00341-JFB-TDT (D. Neb., October 31, 2014) arises from alleged contract dispute. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES JR. PC YATES LAW FIRM Allegheny Building, Suite 519 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1649 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com - and - Andrew J. Brown, Esq. Ashley M. Price, Esq. Benny C. Goodman, III, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 55 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: andrewb@rgrdlaw.com aprice@rgrdlaw.com bennyg@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Jorde, Esq. DOMINA LAW GROUP 2425 South 144th Street Omaha, NE 68144-3267 Telephone: (402) 493-4100 Facsimile: (402) 493-9782 E-mail: bjorde@dominalaw.com TITAN INDEMNITY: Removes "Jackson" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit entitled Jackson v. Titan Indemnity Company, Case No. 2014, No. 03271, was removed from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:14-cv-06258-LDD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that "Titan has engaged in a common course of conduct . . . hereby it has sought to avoid paying liability claims . . . by imposing, relying upon and enforcing the wrongful exclusion." The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael D. Donovan, Esq. Noah Axler, Esq. DONOVAN AXLER, LLC 1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 732-6067 E-mail: mdonovan@donovanaxler.com naxler@donovanaxler.com - and - Kevin P. Kelly, Esq. KELLY & HERRON, P.C. 1500 Market Street, Suite W3112 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 972-1500 E-mail: kkelly@kellyherronlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Charlotte E. Thomas, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 S 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4196 Telephone: (215) 979-1170 Facsimile: (215) 405-2582 E-mail: cthomas@duanemorris.com TRUE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Gallusi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Gallusi, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. True Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-08583 (N.D. Ill., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week. True Communications, Inc. provides a variety of tower services including engineering, maintenance and network deployment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen Ann Salas, Esq. Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq. Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq. Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com TWININGS OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Misleading Tea Labels ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Norris, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Twinings of North America, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-14048 (D. Mass., October 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants utilize unlawful and misleading labels to market its green, black and white tea products. Twinings of North America, Inc. is a producer of retail tea products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW, LLC 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: erica@mirabellallc.com - and - Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. Bonnie J. Prober, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 589-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com bprober@cuneolaw.com - and - Don Barrett, Esq. DON BARRETT, P.A. P.O. Box 927, 404 Court Square North Lexington, MS 39095 Telephone: (662) 834-2488 Facsimile: (662) 834-2628 E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com - and - Robert A. Clifford, Esq. CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES, PC 120 North LaSalle, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 899-9090 Facsimile: (312) 251-1160 E-mail: chd@cliffordlaw.com - and - Zona Jones, Esq. PROVOST UMPHREY LAW FIRM, LLP 490 Park Street Beaumont, TX 77701 Telephone: (409) 835-6000 Facsimile: (409) 813-8618 E-mail: zjones@pulf.com - and - Keith M. Fleischman, Esq. THE FLEISCHMAN LAW FIRM, PLLC 565 Fifth Avenue, Seventh Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: 212-880-9571 Facsimile: 917-591-5245 E-mail: keith@fleischmanlawfirm.com - and - Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq. LOVELACE AND ASSOCIATES, LLC 12870 U.S. Hwy 98 West, Suite 200 Miramar Beach, FL 32550 Telephone: (850) 837-6020 Facsimile: (850) 837-4093 E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com - and - Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda, Suite 425 San Jose, CA 95126 Telephone: (408) 429-6506 Facsimile: (408) 369-0752 E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com - and - J. Price Coleman, Esq. COLEMAN LAW FIRM 1100 Tyler Avenue, Suite 102 Oxford, MS 38655 Telephone: (662) 236-0047 Facsimile: (662) 513-0072 E-mail: colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net VEMMA NUTRITION: Faces "Horanzy" Class Suit in N.D. New York ------------------------------------------------------------ John Horanzy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Vemma Nutrition Company, Benson K. Boreyko and Yibing Wang, Case No. 7:14-cv-01296-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., October 22, 2014) seeks relief under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. In another story, Courthouse News Service reports that Vemma Nutrition Co. pushes its products with false and unsubstantiated claims that they contain a "clinically studied" and "doctor formulated" formula, a class action claims in Federal Court. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com VIKING CLIENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ordonez" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Liz Garcia-Ordonez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Viking Client Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-08425 (C.D. Cal., October 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy. Viking Client Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency that offers a full range of recovery solutions for large, regional and community banks, insurance companies, debt buyers and other financial establishments across the United States. 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 WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Action Over Contaminated Wipes ----------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that an Alabama woman who says she became ill after using baby wipes has initiated a proposed class action against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., blaming the company for selling allegedly bacteria- contaminated product. Plaintiff Rochelle Endres brought the suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on Oct. 24, the day before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced the manufacturer of the wipes -- Nutek Disposables Inc. -- was recalling all lots of 10 brands of the pre-moistened, disposable wipes because some packages may contain Burkholderia cepacia, or B. cepacia, bacteria. Also listed as defendants are McElhattan, Pa.-based Nutek and its Long Island, N.Y.,-based parent company, First Quality Enterprises Inc. The FDA said in an Oct. 25 press release that this bacteria poses little medical risk to healthy people, but those with weakened immune systems or chronic lung diseases, particularly cystic fibrosis, may be more susceptible to infection. In Endres v. Wal-Mart, Ms. Endres says that she bought boxes of 900-count Simply Right wipes from June 30 until Oct. 10 at a Wal-Mart-owned Sam's Club in Birmingham for her household's use and for the care of her young daughter. Ms. Endres' complaint says she suddenly became ill in September with a bacterial infection. She said Sam's Club informed her on Oct. 10 about the possible contamination and advised her and other customers to discontinue use of the product and to return any unused wipes to the store. Ms. Endres' complaint alleges the defendants failed to disclose the health risks and defects of the wipes, and engaged in breaches of warranty, violation of the federal Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, violations of various state consumer protection laws, fraud and unjust enrichment. She seeks damages, restitution and injunctive relief. According to the FDA, after Nutek received a small number of complaints of discoloration and odor, the company performed microbial testing that showed the presence of B. cepacia in some of the products. On Oct. 3, the company initiated a voluntary recall. Nutek has received numerous reports of complaints about rashes, irritation, infections, fever, gastrointestinal problems, and respiratory effects, but none have been confirmed to be related to the use of the wipes, the FDA release said. The investigation continues. Aside from Sam's Club, the Nutek wipes were sold by Walgreen Co.; Family Dollar Stores Inc.; Fred's Inc.; and Diapers.com, the FDA announcement said. WALGREEN CO: Appeals Court Refuses to Reinstate Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the submission of form declarations from plaintiffs, most of which later were recanted, amounted to a corruption of the "pursuit of truth," a California appeals court panel said in refusing to reinstate a proposed class action against The Walgreen Co. A panel of California's Second District Court of Appeal on Oct. 23 affirmed a lower court's denial of class certification for an action brought by Walgreens employees alleging the company violated the workers' rights to breaks for meals. In its decision, the appeals court echoed the condemnation of Superior Court of Los Angeles County Judge Carl West of the submission of "mostly identical" declarations from 44 plaintiffs, and their subsequent partial or full disavowal. "The trial judge repeatedly said these declarations 'appalled' him, and he told counsel, 'You know better'," according to the appeals court opinion, written by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge John Wiley, Jr., designated by California's chief justice to serve on the panel. The justices found other reasons, as well, to deny certification for In re: Walgreen Company Overtime, which alleged the company violated the California law requiring employers to give employees time off for meals. The motion from lead plaintiff Darryl Collins "failed in the trial court because Collins had no good proof," the justices wrote. For instance, an expert's testimony was discounted because he misapplied California law. And emails purporting to show Walgreens forced workers to miss their meal periods actually demonstrated the company viewed the breaks as important and took pains to provide them, the order stated. In assessing the declarations, the justices described each one as stating that, on some occasions, "meal periods were not made available to me" because the allegedly short-handed store required them to work through their breaks. "When witnesses speak exactly the same words, one wonders who put those words there, and how accurate and reliable those words are," the opinion stated, noting the large number of workers who later recanted. "The prevalence of falsity in the declarations raised questions about how Collins's lawyers had created these declarations in the first place," the opinion said. "The prevalence of falsity in the declarations raised questions about how Collins's lawyers had created these declarations in the first place." Justices Victoria Chaney and Jeffrey Johnson also sat on the panel. Plaintiffs and appellants counsel are with the firms Krutcik & Georggin, and Westrup Klick. Seyfarth Shaw represented Walgreen Co. WILLBROS GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ The Rosen Law Firm on Oct. 28 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Willbros Group, Inc. common stock between August 4, 2014 and October 21, 2014. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Willbros investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Willbros class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-408.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, Willbros issued materially false financial statements for the second quarter ended June 30, 2014. On October 22, 2014, Willbros announced that it intends to restate its financial statements for the second quarter of 2014, which should no longer be relied upon. The Company revealed that the intended restatement stems from an error in the estimation of a significant pipeline construction project and its correction would result in the reversal of approximately $8.0 million in recognized pre-tax income and the recognition of approximately $14.0 to $16.0 million in estimated pre-tax losses at completion. Disclosure of these adverse facts caused the price of Willbros stock to drop by over 35% on October 22, 2014, damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than December 29, 2014. If you wish to join the litigation go to http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-408.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. XEROX EDUCATION: Plaintiffs Lose Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- Amaris Elliott-Engel, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal judge has refused to certify two class actions in which plaintiffs alleged that their federal student loan company failed to give them reductions in their interest rates. Plaintiffs allege that they were entitled to the reductions if they made on-time payments for a certain time period or, while enrolled in an auto-debit program, made payments in excess of their regular installments. U.S. District Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York said the plaintiffs would not be able to show on a classwide basis that defendants Xerox Education Services LLC, NextStudent Inc. and U.S. Bank, N.A. had a common policy of handling payments for its borrowers incorrectly. One class pursued a claim for breach of contract only and the other class alleged a breach of contract claim and a violation of New York General Business Law Section 349. There may have been over 40,000 borrowers in one program and over 12,000 borrowers in another program. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and monetary damages. "First, individualized inquiries would be necessary to determine which class members provided instructions regarding prepayments, which class members sought to advance their next due date, and which set of contract terms applied to each class member," Judge Crotty said. ". . . Defendants have offered a plausible argument that some borrowers seek to advance their due date in various circumstances, such as serving in the military, with seasonal earnings or inconsistent income streams, or on extended travel." The class representative and the proposed classes met the requirements for numerosity of the class, commonality, typicality and adequacy of class representation, Judge Crotty said. "The claims of the entire . . . class arise from the same course of conduct in which defendants allegedly failed to allow prepayments without advancing monthly payments to slow repayment of loans and increase the amount of interest paid," the judge said. The court also denied the motion to appoint Bragar Eagle & Squire as counsel in the class actions. ********* 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 * * *