/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141127.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, November 27, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 236 Headlines AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued Over Misleading Drug Product Statements AETNA INC: Faces "Isett" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AMERICAN CLASSIC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT APPLE INC: Offers Online Tool Amid iMessage Class Action ATLANTIC POWER: Court Sets Joint Schedule in Shareholder Action ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed Until March 2015 AUSTRALIA: Former Mr. Fluffy Home Owner Files Mesothelioma Suit BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Silver-Price Fixing BANKRATE INC: Plaintiff in "Tong" Case Dismisses Action BARNES AND NOBLE: Assistant Store Managers File OT Class Action BITCASA: Faces Class Action Over Infinite Storage Service BLACKSTONE GROUP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Feb. 11 BMO FINANCIAL: "Prena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime BODY CENTRAL: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for January 21 BUDDY BEE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BURGER KING: Parties Working to Finalize Settlement Agreement CALIFORNIA PUBLIC: Sued Over Failure Steam Generator Project CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reich" Suit Claims CARLYLE GROUP: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval on Feb. 11 CASTLE 5 LLC: "Kwon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CENTURYLINK INC: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq et al Defending Appeal in "Fulghum" Case CENTURYLINK INC: Provides Update on Fiber Optic Cable Class Suits CHOPS STEAKHOUSE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued in D.C. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement COCA-COLA CO: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Security Breach COVISINT CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint CU EMPLOYMENT: "Best" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages CYAN INC: Court Overrules Defendants' Demurrer in Class Action DIRECT IMPORT: Judge Scolds Attorneys in Labor Class Action DYNEGY INC: Deadline to Lodge Supreme Court Appeal Still Pending EL BRILLANTE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Vasconcello" Suit Says ENERGY XXI: Date to Respond to Merger Suit Indefinitely Extended FAIRWAY GROUP: Moved to Dismiss Securities Class Action FAIRWAY GROUP: To Defend Against Wage and Hour Class Action FASHION INSTITUTE: Faces "Vu" Suit in Cal. Over Breach of ERISA FLORIDA: Judge Expects to Rule on Medicaid Class Action This Month GLOBAL NOMADS: "Pititto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages GREAT LAKES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit GUCCI AMERICA: Faces Intern Class Action in New York HOME DEPOT: Faces Amalgamated Bank Suit Over Alleged Data Breach INVESTMENT EMPORIUM: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ISOPURE COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Powder Products, Suit Claims JOSE ARROYO: "Landaverde" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages JPM MANAGEMENT: "Stein" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime KKR & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Primedia Merger Actions KKR & CO: Feb. 11 Hearing to Approve Definitive Agreement KKR & CO: Del. Chancery Court Dismissed KFN Shareholders' Case LEANSPA: Settles FTC Suit Over Use of Fake News Websites LENNOX NATIONAL: "Prescott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: 3rd Cir. Hears Argument on Retaliation Claims MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MERCURY NEW HOLDCO: Plaintiffs Drop Motion to Expedite Hearing MSTREET MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages MUSCLEPHARM CORPORATION: Sued Over Deceptive Product Presentation NATIONAL BEEF: Settles Wage & OT Class Action for $350,000 NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Drug Agents Conduct Medical Staff Probe NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Hears Grievances Over Concussion Accord NEW YORK: "Occupy Wall Street" Demonstrators File Suit NEWS CORP: Plaintiffs in Wilder Case Oppose Motion to Dismiss NEWS CORP: Settlement in Canadian Actions Approved NEWS CORP: NAM Group Opposes Certification Motion OKLAHOMA: DUI License Revocation Suit Qualifies as Class Action ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Leave to Amend Suit in Hotel Booking Case Nixed PERCHERON FIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Lawsuits Over Eltroxin in Early Stages PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Supreme Court Affirmed Dist. Court Ruling PERRIGO COMPANY: Defendant in Tysabri(R) Product Liability Suits PHARMERICA CORPORATION: No Hearing Yet on Class Certification Bid PINSTRIPES INC: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PRINCIPAL LIFE: Faces "Razo" Suit in Iowa Over Violation of ERISA PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lowenbein" Suit Over Breach of FDCA RANCHO SANTO: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages RAYONIER INC: Sued in Florida Over Misleading Financial Reports REXNORD CORPORATION: Class Action Plaintiffs' Attorney Fees Paid REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Defendants Answer Second Amended Complaint SCOUT ANALYTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Violation of Securities Laws SEVENTH GENERATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Product Labeling SIRIUS XM: Motion for Summary Judgment in Copyright Suit Nixed SIXT RENT: "Ojeda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SODEXO INC: Faces "Chandler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SOLARCITY CORPORATION: Faces Stockholder Class Action SPECTRUM FINANCIAL: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT STARION ENERGY: Faces $50MM Class Action Over Electric Bill STONEMOR PARTNERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages STUDIO NAILS: "Liu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces "Neely" Suit Over Viptera Corn SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces RJR Farms Suit Over Viptera Corn SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Face Gilbert Jones Suit Over Viptera Corn TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Defective Airbags TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Shader" Suit Over Defective Airbags TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Gerhart" Suit Over Defective Airbags TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Airbags TRULIA INC: Dec. 3 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Motion UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Shareholder Class Action Appeal Ongoing UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Suit Reveals Issue on Bogus Courses WELLS FARGO: Fails to Timely File Mortgage Certificate, Suit Says WIND RESISTANT: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Sierra" Suit Says WOLF OIL: Faces "Bahr" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ZILLOW INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action ZILLOW INC: Preliminary Injunction Motion Hearing Set for Dec. 3 * Clement, Tribe to Challenge FDA Over Lab Test Regulation * Oregon Spent $50MM in Resolving Employment Claims in 10 Years * Some FLSA-Related Suits Subject to Dismissal Over Lack of Facts * US DOJ Collects $24.7 Billion in Penalties From Big Banks ********* AETERNA ZENTARIS: Sued Over Misleading Drug Product Statements -------------------------------------------------------------- Herbert Silverberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aeterna Zentaris Inc., Jude Dinges, David A. Dodd, Juergen Engel, and Dennis Turpin, Case No. 3:14-cv-07164 (D.N.J., November 14, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions concerning the safety and efficacy of the Company's drug products, which caused the Company's common stock to trade at artificially inflate price. Aeterna Zentaris Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company engaged in the development of novel treatments in oncology and endocrinology. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Aeterna Zentaris Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ, GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, ESQS. 210 Summit Avenue Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. Philip T. Taylor, Esq. ABRAHAM, FRUCHTER & TWERSKY, LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805 New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 279-5050 Facsimile: (212) 279-3655 AETNA INC: Faces "Isett" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Isett, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals v. Aetna Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01698 (D. Conn., November 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours per week. Aetna Inc. is a health and supplemental benefits company, providing health insurance benefits under health maintenance organization, Private Fee-For-Service, and preferred provider organization plans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq. HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC 221 Main Street, Suite 502 Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: (860) 522-8888 Facsimile: (860) 218-9555 E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com AMERICAN CLASSIC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Moises Hernandez and Ruben Yanez-Monroy, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. American Classic Finishes, Inc. and Marek Kosciuch, Case No. 1:14-cv-09216 (N.D. Ill., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week. American Classic Finishes, Inc. owns and operates a Commercial Construction company in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com APPLE INC: Offers Online Tool Amid iMessage Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Aira Quintana, writing for Ecumenical News, reports that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, Calif., has issued an order for Apple, Inc. to face Adrienne Moore, a complainant that has filed a lawsuit vs. the tech giant over vanishing messages when she switched from an iPhone 4 to Galaxy S5 using the same Verizon Wireless service. "Plaintiff does not have to allege an absolute right to receive every text message in order to allege that Apple's intentional acts have caused an actual breach or disruption of the contractual relationship," Judge Koh wrote, as reported by Reuters. Judge Koh has also consolidated previous cases filed in May and Moore's into a single lawsuit last Nov. 14. She also requested plaintiffs to submit amended and complete class action lawsuit on or before Dec. 4, 2014. In their response to the charges filed, the company established the fact that they did not claim that iMessage services would recognize when iPhone users switched to non-Apple devices. "Apple takes customer satisfaction extremely seriously, but the law does not provide a remedy when, as here, technology simply does not function as plaintiff subjectively believes it should," the Cupertino, California-based company said. Apple first introduced iMessage system together with iOS 5. Now, its revamped service is one of iOS 8 and OS X Yosemite's cornerstone, allowing users to create and receive messages using Macbook. The latest Apple OS for mobile phones is also capable of sending photo and voice messages. The company has also offered an online tool to assist users that are trading their iPhones for non-Apple smartphones. The site boldly instructs to "Deregister iMessage". Aside from a prowling class lawsuit, Apple is also facing another threat, this time in the form of an iOS malware that can menace millions of users around the world. Ecumenical News recently reported that a certain "Wirelurker" can mask itself as an ordinary iOS app and can penetrate the smartphone's system whenever a user agrees to update the app. ATLANTIC POWER: Court Sets Joint Schedule in Shareholder Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court entered an order setting a joint schedule filed by the Lead Plaintiff and Defendants in the shareholder class action lawsuits in Massachusetts District Court. Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court entered an order setting a joint schedule filed by the Lead Plaintiff and Defendants in the shareholder class action lawsuits in Massachusetts District Court. On March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23, 2013, five purported securities fraud class action complaints were filed by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch, the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer and a former Director of Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in addition to Mr. Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, its former Chief Financial Officer, Lisa Donahue, its former interim Chief Financial Officer, and Terrence Ronan, its current Chief Financial Officer, in certain of the actions (the "Proposed Individual Defendants," and together with Atlantic Power, the "Proposed Defendants") (the "U.S. Actions"). The District Court complaints differed in terms of the identities of the Proposed Individual Defendants they named, the named plaintiffs, and the purported class period they alleged (July 23, 2010 to March 4, 2013 in three of the District Court actions and August 8, 2012 to February 28, 2013 in the other two District Court actions), but in general each alleged, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, Atlantic Power and the Proposed Individual Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares. The District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b) and, against the Proposed Individual Defendants, under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The parties to each District Court action filed joint motions requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Proposed Defendants to answer, file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such motion to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that the Proposed Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond to any of the five District Court complaints prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint. On May 7, 2013, each of six groups of investors (the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion (collectively, the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the District Court seeking: (i) to consolidate the five U.S. Actions (the "Consolidated U.S. Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Consolidated U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its choice of lead counsel confirmed. On May 22, 2013, three of the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed oppositions to the other U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions, and on June 6, 2013, those three Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed replies in support of their respective motions. On August 19, 2013, the District Court held a status conference to address certain issues raised by the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions, entered an order consolidating the five U.S. Actions, and directed two of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants to file supplemental submissions by September 9, 2013. Both of those U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed the requested supplemental submissions, and then sought leave to file additional briefing. The Court granted those requests for leave and additional submissions were filed on September 13 and September 18, 2013. On March 31, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the five individual U.S. Actions, appointing the Feldman, Shapero, Carter and Smith investor group (one of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiffs Applicants) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead Plaintiff's selection of counsel. The Court also granted the parties' joint motion regarding initial case scheduling and directed the parties to resubmit a proposed schedule that contains specific dates. In response to that directive, on April 7, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed an application and proposed order, which sought an extension of the schedule contained in the joint motion. The application and proposed order requested that: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before May 30, 2014, (ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before July 29, 2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any, on or before September 24, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or before November 13, 2014. Proposed Defendants did not object to the schedule proposed by Lead Plaintiff. On May 29, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a renewed application and proposed order, which sought another extension of the schedule, and on June 3, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed Defendants jointly filed a stipulation and proposed order requesting the following revised schedule: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before June 6, 2014, (ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before August 5, 2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any, on or before October 6, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or before November 20, 2014. On June 3, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this requested schedule. On June 6, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan (the "Individual Defendants") and Atlantic Power (together with the Individual Defendants, the "Defendants") and alleges a class period of June 20, 2011 to March 4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint makes allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in the five initial complaints. Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend, which artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares during the class period. The Amended Complaint continues to assert claims under Section 10(b) and, against the Individual Defendants, under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. It also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against the Individual Defendants. In accordance with the schedule referenced above, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated (the "Motion to Dismiss") U.S. Action on August 5, 2014. On September 30, 2014, citing Atlantic Power's September 16, 2014 announcement of changes to its dividend and its President and CEO transition, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion (the "Extension Motion") requesting a thirty-day extension of its October 6, 2014 deadline for filing its brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, in which to determine whether to file a second amended complaint. On October 2, 2014, the Court entered an order (i) extending Lead Plaintiff's deadline to file its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss to October 10, 2014 and (ii) requiring Defendants to file their opposition to the Extension Motion by October 2, 2014. In accordance with this order, on October 2, 2014, Defendants filed their opposition to the Extension Motion. On October 10, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (the "Opposition") and also filed a motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint, attaching a proposed second amended complaint. On October 21, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants filed a joint scheduling motion requesting (i) November 7, 2014 as the deadline for Defendants to file their opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint; (ii) November 24, 2014 as the deadline for Defendants to file their reply in further support of the Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) November 24, 2014 as the deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file its reply in further support of its motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. On October 22, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this requested schedule. Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power generation assets in the United States and Canada. ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed Until March 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------- Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the proposed class action in Quebec is stayed until March 30, 2015 to follow the action in Ontario. On March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, three notices of action relating to Canadian securities class action claims against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch, the Company's former President and Chief Executive Officer and a former Director of Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in addition to Mr. Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, its former Chief Financial Officer, Lisa Donahue, its former interim Chief Financial Officer, and Terrence Ronan, its current Chief Financial Officer, were issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares, and in one of the actions, holders of Atlantic Power convertible debentures, with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario. On April 8, 2013, a similar claim issued by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares seeking to initiate a class action against the Proposed Defendants was filed with the Superior Court of Quebec in the Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions"). On April 17, May 22, and June 7, 2013 statements of claim relating to the notices of action were filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario. On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry. As in the U.S. Action, this claim names the Company, Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan as Defendants. The Plaintiffs seeks leave to commence an action for statutory misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and asserts common law claims for misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs' allegations focus on among other things, claims the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, regarding the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the statutory and common law claims under the Class Proceedings Act for security holders who purchased and held securities through a proposed class period of November 5, 2012 to February 28, 2013. On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiffs delivered materials supporting their request for leave to commence an action for statutory misrepresentations and for certification of the statutory and common claims as class proceedings. These materials estimate the damages claimed for statutory misrepresentation at $197.4 million. A schedule for the Plaintiffs' motions and the action is set that contemplates a hearing on leave and certification during the week of March 30, 2015. The proposed class action in Quebec is stayed until March 30, 2015 to follow the action in Ontario. Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power generation assets in the United States and Canada. AUSTRALIA: Former Mr. Fluffy Home Owner Files Mesothelioma Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Mosley, writing for 7 News, reports that a former owner of a Mr. Fluffy loose-fill asbestos house who has incurable cancer is seeking damages from the Commonwealth. The man bought a so-called Mr. Fluffy house in the Canberra suburb of Macgregor in 1978 and lived there with his family for 25 years. Earlier this year, the 84-year-old was diagnosed with the aggressive cancer mesothelioma -- a rare and often fatal condition that is almost always caused by exposure to asbestos. He has now launched a personal injury claim against the Commonwealth in the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales. He has alleged that he contracted mesothelioma as a result of living in a Mr. Fluffy house and the Commonwealth was negligent. The Commonwealth ran the ACT when the potentially deadly loose- fill asbestos insulation was pumped into more than 1,000 Canberra homes, in the 1960s and 1970s, by an operator that became known as Mr. Fluffy. The Commonwealth paid to have the roofs of the houses cleaned in the late 1980s and early 1990s and they were declared safe to live in. But it was recently revealed that the substance had made its way into the walls and subfloors of houses. In January the ACT Government will begin making payments for a buyback and demolition scheme for Mr. Fluffy homes across Canberra, after the Government received a concessional loan of AU$1 billion from the Commonwealth. The man is seeking unspecified damages. The matter was set down for a directions hearing on Nov. 18. The ABC has decided not to name the man for privacy reasons. The man is being represented by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. The firm said it had spoken with other affected residents about their potential legal rights and entitlements. But Brianna Heseltine from the Fluffy Owners and Residents Action Group said law firm Maurice Blackburn was investigating a potential class action on behalf of Mr. Fluffy home owners. Ms. Heseltine said a class action was infeasible because of statute of limitation restrictions, although people may choose to engage lawyers individually. "The response was that the different courses of action probably meant that too much time had passed, so ultimately a statute of limitations issue arises and if you have the course of action coming more than six years ago you can't bring proceedings," she said. The ACT Government has announced the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will hold an inquiry into the proposed Appropriation (Loose-fill Asbestos Insulation Eradication) Bill 2014-15. The legislation will allow the use of funds from the Federal Government's $1 billion concessional loan to help pay for the buyback and demolition scheme for 1,021 properties affected by loose-fill insulation. Victims and stakeholder groups are being approached for input and written submissions will be sought. The Legislative Assembly committee will hold the public hearing on November 28, 2014. BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Silver-Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry and Rebecca Barrett, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, Deutsche Bank, AG, HSBC Bank U.S.A. N.A., HSBC Bank PLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-09112 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2014), alleges that the Defendants conspired and agreed with one another to intentionally manipulate the price of silver and of silver derivative. The Defendants are three of the world's largest silver bullion banks. The Plaintiff is represented by: Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq. Thomas H. Burt, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Facsimile: (212) 545-4653 BANKRATE INC: Plaintiff in "Tong" Case Dismisses Action ------------------------------------------------------- Bankrate, Inc., in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, provided a business update, including preliminary selected financial results for the three months ended September 30, 2014. These results are preliminary due to the additional time needed to complete the Company's review of its financial statements for the prior periods and the impact, if any, of such review on the Company's results for the three months ended September 30, 2014. Due to the ongoing review of the Company's financial statements, the Company has provided only selected financial data, which is subject to change, in this press release. In September and October 2014, the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors were named as defendants in three substantially similar putative class action lawsuits alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. On the basis of the press release issued by the Company on September 14, 2014 and Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company on September 15, 2014 regarding the ongoing investigation by the SEC and the review being conducted by the Company's Audit Committee, the complaints in these actions allege, among other things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements about, and failed to disclose, alleged errors in the Company's financial statements relating to the improper recognition of revenues and expenses, and allegedly inadequate internal controls over financial reporting; and that, as a result, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading. The first of the three lawsuits, Tong v. Evans, et al., No. 14-cv- 8113-KLR, was filed on September 17, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and sought to recover damages on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's securities between March 1, 2013 and September 15, 2014, inclusive. The second, Atiyeh v. Evans, et al., No. 14 Civ. 8443 (JFK), was filed on October 22, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and seeks to recover damages on behalf of the same proposed class of investors. The third, Jahm v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-81323-DMM, was filed on October 28, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and seeks to recover damages on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons, other than the defendants, who purchased the Company's securities between October 16, 2012 and September 15, 2014, inclusive. On October 24, 2014, the plaintiff in Tong filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, terminating that action; the other two actions are proceeding. Bankrate is a publisher, aggregator and distributor of personal finance content on the Internet. BARNES AND NOBLE: Assistant Store Managers File OT Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Barnes and Noble is facing an unpaid overtime lawsuit to prove it. The potential class action is seeking nationwide certification. The lawsuit was filed by the company's assistant store managers who allege they were misclassified as exempt from overtime and that their primary role was not to supervise other employees but rather to provide customer service. The lawsuit alleges violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for a nationwide class. According to the plaintiffs, B&N assistant store manager positions are misclassified as exempt under state and federal law. Specifically, while some managerial work is required, assistant store managers have been "primarily engaged in the same routine tasks as hourly employees." Those tasks include helping customers find merchandise, working cash registers, stocking shelves and helping out in the store's cafe area, the class certification motion states. According to the complaint, B&N assistant store managers spent between 75 percent and 90 percent of their time completing the same types of "hourly duties" that other employees were required to perform. Further, the plaintiffs claim that the work required of assistant store managers was governed by B&N's nationwide policy, making the case ripe for class certification. "At B&N, all ASMs are required to follow closely circumscribed corporate policies and rules established by their store manager," the motion said. "These policies are implemented across the B&N brand and ASMs are prohibited from deviating from these guidelines." The motion is seeking class certification of New York assistant managers who worked at B&N between January 25, 2007, and July 2010 and conditional certification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act for a nationwide class. B&N reclassified the assistant store manager position in June 2010. The case Steven Trimmer et al. v. Barnes & Noble Inc. et al., case number 1:13-cv-00579, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. BITCASA: Faces Class Action Over Infinite Storage Service --------------------------------------------------------- Business Cloud News reports that cloud storage provider Bitcasa is facing a class action lawsuit in the US over its controversial decision to force existing users of its infinite storage service to migrate onto more expensive, lower volume plans. In October, as part of significant upgrades to the service's back- end, the company announced that it would be discontinuing its infinite storage plan, which cost $99 per year, and forcing infinite tier subscribers to move to (significantly more expensive) 1TB or 10TB storage plans to continue using the service. "While our Infinite offering was one of our early value propositions, we have since found that only a small percentage of people use it (only 0.5 percent of our accounts require more than 1TB, and less than 0.1 percent require more than 10TB)," the company explained in a blog post. "Also, the reality is while we have tried to make our vision of infinite work, the low demand combined with the growing number of suspected abusers, means that supporting an Infinite plan is not a viable business for us." As part of the change, users initially had between October 22 and November 16 to transfer their data to the new service, or the account and all of the data associated with it would be deleted. But a group of users represented by US law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein are suing Bitcasa on behalf of subscribers of its infinite plan, charging that the company breached their contracts and violated California law. The complaint seeks damages against Bitcasa and an order ensuring that infinite plan subscribers will have sufficient time to remove their digital files from Bitcasa's cloud computing platform; the law firm said three weeks is insufficient period for many subscribers to download their voluminous files and save them in a separate location. Bitcasa claims that because of its encryption technology, it cannot simply migrate accounts over to the new backend, and that some action is required from subscribers. The November 16 deadline was extended by the court until November 20, a day after a hearing is scheduled, and when the court is to determine the merits of plaintiffs' request that the injunction remain in place for a longer period. Bitcasa did not respond to requests for comment by the time this article was published. BLACKSTONE GROUP: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on Feb. 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Blackstone Group L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the court has scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for February 11, 2015 in a lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment banks. In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, et al.). The suit alleges that, from mid-2003 through 2007, eleven defendants violated the antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts. On July 28, 2014, Blackstone entered into a settlement agreement to resolve all of plaintiffs' claims without any admission of wrongdoing. On August 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, and the agreement was preliminarily approved by the court on September 29, 2014. The settlement agreement provides for a settlement payment to the class that was substantially covered by insurance and did not have a material effect on our financial condition or results of operations. The settlement agreement is subject to final approval by the court and the court has scheduled a final settlement approval hearing for February 11, 2015. The Blackstone Group L.P., together with its subsidiaries, is a global manager of private capital and provider of financial advisory services. BMO FINANCIAL: "Prena" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Jennifer Prena, Tedra Jackson, Stacey Charran, and Jeffrey Spratt, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. BMO Financial Corp., and BMO Harris Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-09175 (N.D. Ill., November 14, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Financial Corp. and BMO Harris Bank, N.A. are one of the 16 largest commercial banks in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com BODY CENTRAL: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for January 21 --------------------------------------------------------- Body Central Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that a settlement hearing is scheduled for January 21, 2015 in the class action, Mogensen v. Body Central Corp. et al. On August 27, 2012, a securities class action, Mogensen v. Body Central Corp. et al., 3:12-cv-00954, was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. An amended complaint, filed on February 22, 2013, on behalf of persons who acquired the Company's stock between November 10, 2011 and June 18, 2012, alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false or misleading statements about the business and operations, thereby causing the stock price to be artificially inflated during that period. The amended complaint seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount, equitable relief, costs and attorney's fees. On March 19, 2014, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court gave plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint. A second amended complaint was subsequently filed on April 23, 2014, which, in addition to the allegations previously filed, further alleges that one of the defendants, a former officer and director, violated Section 20A of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. On May 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. On July 18, 2014, the parties informed the court that the parties had reached an agreement in principle to settle this action for $3.4 million and requested a 30-day extension to allow the parties an opportunity to execute a settlement agreement. A settlement agreement was subsequently entered in to and a settlement hearing is scheduled for January 21, 2015. The Company does not believe that the outcome of the class action will have a material adverse effect on the business, financial statements, or disclosures as it is fully insured subject to an insurance deductible of $200,000 recorded in fiscal 2012. Founded in 1972, Body Central Corp., a Delaware company, is a multi-channel specialty retailer offering on-trend, quality apparel and accessories at value prices. BUDDY BEE: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jameka Brown and other similarly situated individuals v. Buddy Bee Corporation d/b/a Take One Lounge, a Florida Corporation, Karen Raley and Scott Cohen, individually, Case No. 1:14-cv-24368 (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an entertainment center in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ria Nikki Chattergoon, Esq. Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ AND ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: ria@saenzanderson.com msaenz@saenzanderson.com BURGER KING: Parties Working to Finalize Settlement Agreement ------------------------------------------------------------- Burger King Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit and the parties are currently working to finalize a settlement agreement and then expect to seek court approval of the settlement. On March 1, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against BKC in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The complaint alleges that BKC and/or its agents sent unsolicited advertisements by fax to thousands of consumers in Maryland and elsewhere in the United States to promote its home delivery program in violation of the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. Burger King franchises and operates fast food hamburger restaurants, principally under the Burger King(R) brand. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC: Sued Over Failure Steam Generator Project ------------------------------------------------------------ Citizens Oversight, Inc., a Delaware non-profit corporation, Ruth Henricks, Nicole Murray Ramirez, Niel Lynch, Hugh Moore, David Keeler, Francis Karl Holtzman, Roger Johnson, on behalf of themselves and a class of others similarly situated v. California Public Utilities Commission, Michael R. Peevey and Michel Peter Florio, in their official capacity as Commissioners, Southern California Edison Company, a California corporation, and Does 1- 100, Case No. 3:14-cv-02703 (S.D. Cal., November 13, 2014), arises out of a failed project to install four new steam generators at San Onofre in North County, San Diego. California Public Utilities Commission is a regulatory agency that is charged under California law with the legal duty of ensuring public utilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria C. Severson, Esq. AGUIRRE AND SEVERSON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1050 San Diego, CA 92101-3597 Telephone: (619) 876-5364 Facsimile: (619) 876-5368 E-mail: mseverson@amslawyers.com CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Reich" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lea Reich on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Capital Management Services, Case No. 1:14-cv-06750 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014), alleges that the Defendant unlawfully engaged in the collection of consumer debts in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Capital Management Services is a fee-only advisory and financial planning firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com CARLYLE GROUP: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval on Feb. 11 -------------------------------------------------------------- The Carlyle Group L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on February 14, 2008, a private class-action lawsuit challenging "club" bids and other alleged anti-competitive business practices was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v. Apollo Global Management, LLC, later renamed Kirk Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners LLC). The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain global alternative asset firms, including the Partnership, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forming multi-sponsor consortiums for the purpose of bidding collectively in company buyout transactions in certain going private transactions and agreeing not to submit topping bids once such a consortium had announced a signed deal, which the plaintiffs allege constitutes a "conspiracy in restraint of trade." All of Carlyle's codefendants reached settlement agreements with plaintiffs. To avoid the risk and cost associated with continuing the litigation through trial, Carlyle entered into an agreement with plaintiffs on August 29, 2014 to settle all claims against Carlyle without any admission of liability. The Court granted preliminary approval of all the defendants' settlements, including Carlyle's, on September 29, 2014. A hearing on final approval of the settlements is scheduled for February 11, 2015. Carlyle Partners IV, L.P. ("CP IV") and its affiliates will bear the costs of the settlement not covered by insurance. As a result, Carlyle's performance fees from CP IV were reduced by $19.3 million. CASTLE 5 LLC: "Kwon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Kwon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Castle 5, LLC d/b/a Chapel Beauty Supply, a Georgia Corporation, Beauty of America, LLC d/b/a Chapel Beauty Supply, a Georgia Corporation, and Nam K. Park, Case No. 1:14-cv-03665 (N.D. Ga., November 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidates damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate Castle Beauty retail stores within the State of Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly N. Martin, Esq. Thomas F. Martin, Esq. MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP P.O. Box 1070 Tucker, GA 30085-1070 Telephone: (770) 313-5538 Facsimile: (770) 837-2678 E-mail: Kimberlymartinlaw@gmail.com tfmartinlaw@msn.com CENTURYLINK INC: Sued Over Breach of Fair Credit Reporting Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Bultemeyer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CenturyLink, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02530 (D. Ariz., November 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violations the Fair Credit Reporting Act. CenturyLink, Inc. is a provider of telecommunications services in the Phoenix metropolitan area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Russell S. Thompson IV, Esq. David McDevitt, Esq. THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC 5235 E. Southern Ave., D106-618 Mesa, AZ 85206 Telephone: (602) 388-8898 Facsimile: (866) 317-2674 E-mail: rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com CENTURYLINK INC: Embarq et al Defending Appeal in "Fulghum" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Embarq and the other defendants are defending an appeal in the Fulghum case. In William Douglas Fulghum, et al. v. Embarq Corporation, et al., filed on December 28, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, a group of retirees filed a putative class action lawsuit challenging the decision to make certain modifications in retiree benefits programs relating to life insurance, medical insurance and prescription drug benefits, generally effective January 1, 2006 and January 1, 2008 (which, at the time of the modifications, was expected to reduce estimated future expenses for the subject benefits by more than $300 million). Defendants include Embarq, certain of its benefit plans, its Employee Benefits Committee and the individual plan administrator of certain of its benefits plans. Additional defendants include Sprint Nextel and certain of its benefit plans. The Court certified a class on certain of plaintiffs' claims, but rejected class certification as to other claims. On October 14, 2011, the Fulghum lawyers filed a new, related lawsuit, Abbott et al. v. Sprint Nextel et al. In Abbott, approximately 1,500 plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the changes in retiree benefits that also are at issue in the Fulghum case. The Abbott plaintiffs are all members of the class that was certified in Fulghum on claims for allegedly vested benefits (Counts I and III), and the Abbott claims are similar to the Fulghum breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count II), on which the Fulghum court denied class certification. The Court has stayed proceedings in Abbott indefinitely, except for limited discovery and motion practice as to approximately 80 of the plaintiffs. On February 14, 2013, the Fulghum court dismissed the majority of the plaintiffs' claims in that case. On July 16, 2013, the Fulghum court granted plaintiffs' request to seek interlocutory review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Embarq and the other defendants are defending the appeal, continue to vigorously contest any remaining claims in Fulghum and seek to have the claims in the Abbott case dismissed on similar grounds. "We have not accrued a liability for these matters because we believe it is premature (i) to determine whether an accrual is warranted and (ii) if so, to determine a reasonable estimate of probable liability," the Company said. CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged primarily in providing an array of communications services to its residential, business, governmental and wholesale customers. CENTURYLINK INC: Provides Update on Fiber Optic Cable Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- CenturyLink, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that several putative class actions relating to the installation of fiber optic cable in certain rights-of-way were filed against Qwest on behalf of landowners on various dates and in courts located in 34 states in which Qwest has such cable (Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin.) For the most part, the complaints challenge the Company's right to install the Company's fiber optic cable in railroad rights-of-way. The complaints allege that the railroads own the right-of-way as an easement that did not include the right to permit the Company to install the Company's cable in the right-of-way without the plaintiffs' consent. In general, the complaints seek damages on theories of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages. After previous attempts to enter into a single nationwide settlement in a single court proved unsuccessful, the parties proceeded to seek court approval of settlements on a state-by- state basis. To date, the parties have received final approval of such settlements in 30 states. The settlement administration process, including claim submission and evaluation, is continuing in relation to a number of these settlements. The parties have not yet received final approval in one state (Texas), and have not yet received either preliminary or final approval in two states where an action is pending (Massachusetts and New Mexico) and one state where an action was at one time, but is not currently, pending (Arizona). CenturyLink is an integrated communications company engaged primarily in providing an array of communications services to its residential, business, governmental and wholesale customers. CHOPS STEAKHOUSE: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Exequiel Vasquez Castillo and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Chops Steakhouse, LLC and Isaac Nahon, Case No. 1:14-cv-24356 (S.D. Fla., November 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 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 CHRYSLER GROUP: Sued in D.C. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Chrysler Group LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01920 (D.D.C., November 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Audio Home Recording Act, specifically by failing to register their digital audio recording devices with the U.S. Copyright Office, failing to pay royalties for these devices, and not having incorporated the Serial Copy Management System or its functional equivalent in these devices. Chrysler Group LLC designs, manufactures, markets, and distributes automotive vehicles in the United States under the Chrysler, Jeep, Dodge, Ram and Fiat brands. Mitsubishi Electric Automotive America, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. supply Chrysler with devices that are installed in and distributed with Chrysler's vehicles. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel K. Oakes, Esq. Michael David Bednarek, Esq. Walter D. Davis Jr., Esq. Richard Brian Dagen, Esq. AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP 950 F Street, NW, 7th Floor Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 721-5403 E-mail: doakes@axinn.com mbednarek@axinn.com wdavis@axinn.com rdagen@axinn.com COCA-COLA CO: Ex-Employee Files Class Action Over Security Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a former employee has filed a putative class action against The Coca-Cola Co. for allegedly failing to alert workers that their personal information was at risk following the theft of 55 laptop computers, blaming the company for being more careful in protecting the formula for its iconic beverage than in safeguarding them against identity theft. Former Coca-Cola service technician Shane Enslin alleges that, due to the lack of encryption of the sensitive data and Coca-Cola's delay in notifying him and others of the loss, he fell victim to identity thieves who used $1,784 from his checking account to order merchandise from Bloomingdale's and make a purchase from Fingerhut. "In spite of the diligence with which they guard this trade secret, the Coke defendants had no security policy in effect which required their employees' personal information entrusted to their care to be encrypted," according to the complaint in Enslin v. Coca-Cola, which includes as defendants various Coca-Cola subsidiaries and offshoots. According to his Nov. 12 filing in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the thieves used Ms. Enslin's information -- believed to include his Social Security number, address, and bank and credit account numbers -- to make a purchase in Ireland after getting a bank to reissue a credit card Ms. Enslin had closed after learning of the breach. A perpetrator even used Ms. Enslin's information to get a job in his name at United Parcel Service. Ms. Enslin alleges Coca-Cola was also negligent in delaying the notification of as many as 74,000 current and former employees of the theft, which he said occurred from 2007 until it was discovered in November 2013. It wasn't until Jan. 23 that Ms. Enslin was apprised in a letter from Coca Cola. The company offered to pay for 12 months of credit monitoring for Ms. Enslin and others whose information was compromised, according to the letter. According to the complaint, a suspect was arrested by Cobb County, Ga., police and charged with felony and misdemeanor theft by taking on June 14. Ms. Enslin, who worked for Keystone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. in Pennsylvania for 11 years before leaving in 2007, alleges the defendants engaged in violations of the federal Drivers Privacy Protection Act, negligence, negligent misrepresentation in connection with the delay in notification, breaches of contract and covenant of good faith, and unjust enrichment, among other counts. He seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as 25 years of credit monitoring, bank monitoring and credit restoration services for the class. Plaintiffs' attorneys are with Haviland Hughes. COVISINT CORPORATION: Lead Plaintiff Files Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------ Covisint Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that Charles Rankin has been appointed lead plaintiff in a class action and the lead plaintiff has filed an amended complaint. Beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Covisint Corporation, directors and certain officers at the time of the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") alleging violation of securities laws in connection with the Company's IPO and seeking unspecified damages. On August 15, 2014, the cases were consolidated with Charles Rankin appointed lead plaintiff. October 15, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Covisint provides a cloud engagement platform for enabling organizations to securely connect, engage and collaborate with large, distributed communities of customers, business partners, and suppliers. CU EMPLOYMENT: "Best" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Best, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. C.U. Employment, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03673 (N.D. Ga., November 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. C.U. Employment, Inc. is a cable installation provider. The Plaintiff is represented by: Deirdre M. Stephens-Johnson, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF DIERDRE M. STEPHENS-JOHNSON, LLC 4567 Rockbridge Road # 1537 Pine Lake, GA 30072 Telephone: (404) 537-3002 E-mail: dsjohnsonlaw@gmail.com CYAN INC: Court Overrules Defendants' Demurrer in Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Cyan Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court overruled a demurrer (motion to dismiss) filed by the Company and other defendants in a stockholder class action lawsuit. On April 1, 2014 a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against the Company, the members of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and the underwriters of the Company's IPO. On April 30, 2014 a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The two cases have been consolidated. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's IPO, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. In July 2014, the Company and other defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to the consolidated complaint. On October 22, 2014, the court overruled the demurrer and allowed the case to proceed. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available, the Company has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable. Cyan, Inc. has pioneered innovative, carrier-grade networking solutions that transform disparate and inefficient legacy networks into open, high-performance networks. DIRECT IMPORT: Judge Scolds Attorneys in Labor Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that imparting guidance far more common in a kindergarten classroom than a federal courtroom, U.S. District Judge Patricia Gaughan found herself ordering defense counsel to remember that it is not nice to pound your fist on the table during a deposition, and reminding the plaintiffs' attorney that it is rude to interrupt when another person is talking. That was the substance of an order Judge Gaughan issued on Nov. 12 in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio denying the plaintiffs' motion to sanction defense attorney James Boulas in a conditionally certified class action brought by a Cleveland laborer against his former employers. By all accounts, Sardisco v. Direct Import Home Decor is a contentious and volatile case, allegedly involving exploitation of undocumented workers, beatings, threats, a paid-off plaintiff and strong-arm pressure to settle. Lead plaintiff Felix Sardisco alleges Direct Import and its owners, who include Eddie Ni and Eric Chung, never made good on their agreement to pay him $1,400 a month and provide free housing when he began work there in 2011. Instead, they allegedly forced him to work 10 hours a day, or longer, for $500 a week; never paid overtime; and made him pay rent for a bedbug-infested room. Mr. Sardisco, a U.S. citizen, alleges the company abused undocumented workers and took no action when he complained that he was being beaten by a foreman. The complaint accuses the defendants of violating the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and engaging in fraud, fraudulent inducement, and assault and battery. Mr. Sardisco's fellow plaintiff, Guang Chen, filed a similar FLSA claim for allegedly never receiving overtime compensation. But he withdrew as a plaintiff after "influential" members of the local Chinese community advised him it was not in his best interest to pursue the case, according to the motion for sanctions by Lei Jiang, his and Mr. Sardisco's counsel. Without Mr. Jiang's knowledge, Chen allegedly reached an "under-the-table" settlement with one of the defendants, the motion contends. Because of that alleged secret deal, and the "undue influence" exerted on Chen, the defendants intentionally interfered with Jiang's attorney-client relationship and engaged in witness tampering and conspiracy, and should be sanctioned, Mr. Jiang argued. And defense counsel Mr. Boulas' allegedly boorish behavior during the Oct. 15 deposition of Sardisco also merits sanction, her motion saus. Mr. Boulas allegedly yelled at both Messrs. Sardisco and Jiang repeatedly during the three-hour deposition and allegedly intimidated and bullied Mr. Sardisco, who is hard of hearing and unfamiliar with legal terms, by shouting at him when Mr. Sardisco indicated he didn't understand. "Attorney Boulas' behavior was also physically terrifying; at one point, he began pounding violently on the table as plaintiff Sardisco struggled to understand what Boulas was asking of him," Mr. Jiang alleged. Judge Gaughan was not persuaded that the circumstances of the settlement with Chen merited a rebuke. "Simply put, plaintiffs do not establish that plaintiff's Chen (sic) settlement with defendants warrants sanctions," Judge Gaughan wrote in an Oct. 23 order. As for the conduct during Mr. Sardisco's deposition, Judge Gaughan wagged a rhetorical finger at both parties. The judge said the record supports Boulas' complaint that "throughout the entire deposition, counsel for the plaintiff routinely interrupted the deposition and attempted to answer questions on the plaintiff's behalf." Thus, Judge Gaughan wrote, "plaintiff's counsel did not abide by the rules governing depositions." And Mr. Boulas? The judge called his conduct disturbing and reminded the defense attorney that, "regardless of how frustrating or difficult an opposing counsel may be, the type of conduct he displayed is never appropriate." Judge Gaughan denied the motion for sanctions and warned each party that she would not tolerate such behavior in the future. DYNEGY INC: Deadline to Lodge Supreme Court Appeal Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dynegy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in connection with the prepetition restructuring and corporate reorganization of the Dynegy Holdings, LLC (formerly known as Dynegy Holdings Inc.) Debtor Entities and their non-debtor affiliates in 2011 (the "2011 Prepetition Restructuring"), and specifically the transfer of Dynegy Midwest Generation, LLC or DMG, a putative class action stockholder lawsuit captioned Charles Silsby v. Carl C. Icahn, et al., Case No. 12CIV2307 (the "Securities Litigation"), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit challenged certain disclosures made in connection with the transfer of DMG. As a result of the filing of the voluntary petition for bankruptcy by Dynegy Inc., this lawsuit was stayed as against Dynegy Inc. and as a result of the confirmation of the Joint Chapter 11 Plan (the "Plan"), the claims against Dynegy Inc. in the Securities Litigation are permanently enjoined. On August 24, 2012, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Litigation filed an objection to the confirmation of the Plan asserting, among other things, that lead plaintiff should be permitted to opt-out of the non-debtor releases and injunctions (the "Non-Debtor Releases") in the Plan on behalf of all putative class members. We opposed that relief. On October 1, 2012, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that lead plaintiff did not have standing to object to the Plan and did not have authority to opt-out of the Non-Debtor Releases on behalf of any other party-in-interest. Accordingly, the Securities Litigation may only proceed against the non-debtor defendants with respect to members of the putative class who individually opted out of the Non-Debtor Releases. The lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on October 10, 2012. On June 4, 2013, the District Court dismissed the appeal. On July 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and filed a brief on November 4, 2013. On October 31, 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal based upon the lead plaintiff's lack of standing. The lead plaintiff's appellate deadline to the U.S. Supreme Court remains pending. Additionally, on July 19, 2013, the defendants filed a substantive motion to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims by any opt-out plaintiffs against the non-debtor defendants. On April 30, 2014, the District Court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the action. Plaintiff is appealing this decision to the Second Circuit, but no decision has been issued. EL BRILLANTE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Vasconcello" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Claudia A. Vasconcello and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. El Brillante Supermarket Restaurant, Inc., Jaime A. Marine, and Jesus Bermudez, Case No. 1:14-cv-24331 (S.D. Fla., November 14, 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 grocery store and cafeteria in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 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 ENERGY XXI: Date to Respond to Merger Suit Indefinitely Extended ---------------------------------------------------------------- Energy XXI LTD said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Defendants date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to a class action lawsuit has been indefinitely extended. In March and April, 2014, three alleged EPL stockholders (the "plaintiffs") filed three separate class action lawsuits in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of EPL stockholders against EPL, its directors, Energy XXI, Energy XXI Gulf Coast, Inc., a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Energy XXI ("OpCo"), and Clyde Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of OpCo ("Merger Sub" and collectively, the "defendants"). The Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware consolidated these lawsuits on May 5, 2014. The consolidated lawsuit is styled In re EPL Oil & Gas Inc. Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9460-VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "lawsuit"). Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action challenging the Agreement and Plan of Merger between Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub, and EPL (the "merger agreement"), which provides for the acquisition of EPL by Energy XXI. Plaintiffs allege that (a) EPL's directors have allegedly breached fiduciary duties in connection with the merger and (b) Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub, and EPL have allegedly aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs' causes of action are based on their allegations that (i) the merger allegedly provided inadequate consideration to EPL stockholders for their shares of EPL common stock; (ii) the merger agreement contains contractual terms -- including, among others, the (A) "no solicitation," (B) "competing proposal," and (C) "termination fee" provisions -- that allegedly dissuaded other potential acquirers from making competing offers for shares of EPL common stock; (iii) certain of EPL's officers and directors allegedly received benefits -- including (A) an offer for one of EPL's directors to join the Energy XXI board of directors and (B) the triggering of change-in- control provisions in notes held by EPL's executive officers -- that were not equally shared by EPL's stockholders; (iv) Energy XXI required EPL's officers and directors to agree to vote their shares of EPL common stock in favor of the merger; and (v) EPL provided, and Energy XXI obtained, non-public information that allegedly allowed Energy XXI to acquire EPL for inadequate consideration. Plaintiffs also allege that the Registration Statement filed on Form S-4 by EPL and Energy XXI on April 1, 2014 omits information concerning, among other things, (i) the events leading up to the merger, (ii) EPL's efforts to attract offers from other potential acquirors, (iii) EPL's evaluation of the merger; (iv) negotiations between EPL and Energy XXI, and (v) the analysis of EPL's financial advisor. Based on these allegations, plaintiffs seek to have the merger agreement rescinded. Plaintiffs also seek damages and attorneys' fees. Defendants date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise respond to the lawsuit has been indefinitely extended. Neither Energy XXI nor EPL can predict the outcome of the lawsuit or any others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this quarterly report; nor can either Energy XXI or EPL predict the amount of time and expense that will be required to resolve the lawsuit. The defendants intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit. Energy XXI Ltd and its wholly-owned subsidiaries is an independent oil and natural gas exploration and production company. FAIRWAY GROUP: Moved to Dismiss Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Fairway Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss an amended securities class action. In February and March 2014, three purported securities class action lawsuits alleging violation of the federal securities laws were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, certain of its directors and the underwriters for its initial public offering. The actions were consolidated on June 3, 2014 under the caption In re Fairway Group Holdings Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-0950. On July 18, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed, adding affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges misleading statements in the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public offering and in subsequent communications regarding its business and financial results. On September 5, 2014, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action complaint. Fairway Group operates in the retail food industry, selling fresh, natural and organic products, prepared foods and hard to find specialty and gourmet offerings along with a full assortment of conventional groceries. FAIRWAY GROUP: To Defend Against Wage and Hour Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Fairway Group Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 28, 2014, that in May 2014, a purported wage and hour class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and employees. This suit alleges, among other things, that certain of the Company's past and current employees were not properly compensated in accordance with the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. While the Company believes that these claims are without merit and intends to defend the matter vigorously, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. Fairway Group operates in the retail food industry, selling fresh, natural and organic products, prepared foods and hard to find specialty and gourmet offerings along with a full assortment of conventional groceries. FASHION INSTITUTE: Faces "Vu" Suit in Cal. Over Breach of ERISA --------------------------------------------------------------- Saeyoung Vu, an individual, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Fashion Institute Of Design & Merchandising, a California Corporation, The Fashion Institute Of Design & Merchandising 401(K) Plan, Case No. 2:14-cv-08822 (C.D. Cal., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising is for-profit private college in California offering bachelors and associates degrees related to the fashion industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark A. Ozzello, Esq. Suzy E. Lee, Esq. ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC LLP 6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90045-1558 Telephone: (310) 670-1600 Facsimile: (310) 670-1231 E-mail: mozzello@aogllp.com slee@aogllp.com - and - Robert R. Ronne, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT R. RONNE, APC 840 Apollo Street, Suite 307 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-1696 Facsimile: (310) 322-3039 E-mail: rrr55@sbcglobal.net FLORIDA: Judge Expects to Rule on Medicaid Class Action This Month ------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Galewitz, writing for Standard Examiner, reports that millions of low-income children are failing to get the free preventive exams and screenings guaranteed by Medicaid and the Obama administration is not doing enough to fix the problem, according to a federal watchdog report. The report, released on Nov. 13 by the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General, says the administration has boosted rates of participation but needs to do more to ensure that children get the regular wellness exams, dental checkups and vision and hearing tests. The report notes that 63 percent of children on Medicaid received at least one medical screening in 2013, up from 56 percent in 2006, but still far below the department's 80 percent goal. Only Iowa and California exceeded that standard last year. Alaska and Ohio were below 40 percent. Five more states -- Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon and Wyoming -- were between 40 percent and 45 percent. The report did not provide a breakdown that showed where Utah stands. Child health advocates cite several factors for the low rates, including a shortage of doctors treating Medicaid patients, states' low pay for providers and parents' lack of awareness about the importance of the visits. Both children and taxpayers pay a steep price when children's health problems are not caught early. "We end up with kids who are sicker, with more long-term, serious medical issues that are more expensive to treat," said Jennifer Clarke, executive director of Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia. Some experts say that state officials -- not the federal government -- bear most of the responsibility for low screening rates because they administer Medicaid, the state-federal program for the poor. They say states need to step up oversight over the private Medicaid health plans that many contract to cover children in the program. "The federal government is working hard on this, but the only power they have over states is to take away their funding and that is highly unlikely," said Jane Perkins, legal director of the National Health Law Program. Congress introduced the Medicaid benefit, known as the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program, or EPSDT, in 1967 so that children would get age-appropriate diagnostic tests, including for vision and hearing, preventive services such as immunizations and treatments. About 32 million children on Medicaid were eligible for the benefit in 2013. The preventive care program is more generous than those offered by the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) or private health insurers because it guarantees coverage not just for a wide range of tests, but also the treatments to address health problems. Most states follow the guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which calls for 13 preventive visits in first three years of life followed by mostly annual visits until age 21. Boston pediatrician Michael McManus, a member of the academy's state government affairs committee, said he is saddened by the fact that more than a third of children on Medicaid are not getting at least one regular preventive exam. "We have a lot of work to do," he said. Low participation rates have plagued the program for years, according to previous reports by the inspector general's office and the U.S. Government Accountability Office. A 2010 OIG report found that 76 percent of children in nine states did not receive all required medical, vision, and hearing screenings, 41 percent of children nationwide did not receive any of the screenings, and more than half did not receive any vision or hearing screenings. All states are required to provide the benefit. The latest OIG report praised the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for working to increase screening rates, such as by distributing guides that enable states and providers to share their best ideas. The guides show, for instance, how some states used websites to educate providers and parents. Some states such as New York require Medicaid health plans to educate members about the benefit and what it covers. Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island boosted adolescent screening rates by 40 percent by offering gift certificates for pizza and movie tickets, according to a 2014 CMS report. Still, the report said, "the underutilization of medical screenings is an ongoing concern." CMS has done "very little" to encourage providers to complete all five components of an EPSDT medical screening -- physical exam, medical history, immunizations, lab test and education, the report said. CMS had no immediate comment on the report. Medical screening rates fall off dramatically as children get older, according to federal data that track states' efforts. For example, about 90 percent of children below the age of 1 get at least one screening. But screening rates drop to 77 percent for kids between the ages of 1 and 2, and 56 percent for those between 10 and 14. Ohio, which had the lowest rate of children getting regular exams in 2013, attributed its problems to the process of getting Medicaid managed care plans to report their data to the state. Neva Kaye, interim executive director of the National Academy for State Health Policy, said data collection is an issue for some states but it doesn't explain most of the low rates. In addition to the shortage of doctors participating in Medicaid, parents often face transportation and language barriers getting children in for the exams, she said. Dr. David Kelley, chief medical officer for Pennsylvania's Medicaid program, said that state is working to boost the number of children getting checkups in part by paying bonuses to doctors to do them. He said that the rate of Pennsylvania kids getting the screenings is "in the middle of the pack" and "that is not good enough." Mr. Clarke, with the Public Interest Law Center, said low Medicaid reimbursement to pediatricians means fewer doctors are available to see poor children and parents face long delays getting their kids in for preventive visits and treatment, if they can get to see them at all. The center filed a federal class-action lawsuit in 2005 against the state of Florida on behalf of 2 million children in Medicaid saying low reimbursement for Medicaid pediatricians prevented children from getting the health services to which they are entitled. A judge is expected to rule later this month on the case. GLOBAL NOMADS: "Pititto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Thierry Pititto, and other similarly situated individuals v. Global Nomads CCD, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, and Catherine De Villada, Case No. 1:14-cv-24337 (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Global Nomads CCD, LLC is a real estate company in Miami-Dade Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com GREAT LAKES: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court entered an order denying a motion to dismiss a securities class action. On March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013, primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company's announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second and third quarter 2012 financial statements. Two additional, similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and Connors v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02450, were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on March 28, 2013, and April 2, 2013, respectively. These three actions were consolidated and recaptioned In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02115, on June 10, 2013. The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on August 9, 2013, which the defendants moved to dismiss on October 8, 2013. After briefing and oral argument by the parties, the Court entered an order on October 21, 2014 denying that motion to dismiss. The Company denies liability and intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company is the largest provider of dredging services in the United States. GUCCI AMERICA: Faces Intern Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------- David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a former David Letterman intern's awkward retreat from a labor lawsuit against CBS Broadcasting Inc. hasn't stopped plaintiffs firms from rounding up more interns to sue their employers. Over the past month, Virginia & Ambinder and Leeds Brown Law have jointly filed at least three new proposed class actions in New York on behalf of unpaid interns who claim they were illegally deprived wages. Their latest suit, filed on Nov. 18 in state court in Manhattan, accuses Gucci America Inc. of violating New York labor laws since at least November 2008 by hiring interns to work for free. In October the firms filed similar suits against Marc Jacobs International LLC, Calvin Klein Inc. and Calvin Klein parent company PVH Corp. According to the Nov. 18 complaint, former intern Lindsey Huggins performed standard shop clerk duties in Gucci America's flagship Fifth Avenue store in late 2008 and early 2009, putting in 40 hours per week without pay. "Defendant's unlawful conduct had been pursuant to a corporate policy or practice of minimizing labor costs by denying named plaintiff and the putative class compensation," the suit alleges. It's been a busy fall in the intern wars, with new cases and a fair bit of activity in those already pending. Pioneers in the litigation at the plaintiffs firm Outten & Golden negotiated the first two significant settlements for former interns. NBCUniversal agreed in October to pay $6.4 million to an intern class, and Conde Nast reached a similar deal worth $5.8 million. There were some setbacks for the plaintiffs as well: notably the CBS episode, in which a former Letterman intern backed out of her newly filed suit in September and accused her lawyers of strong- arming her. Still, the main event right now for both plaintiffs and defendants is a pair of cases that Outten & Golden brought against Hearst Corporation and Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has consolidated the cases and tentatively scheduled oral arguments for January to resolve an existential issue for the fast-expanding litigation: whether interns deserve wage protections granted to "employees" under state and federal labor laws. Outten & Golden's Rachel Bien is lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Second Circuit appeal. Neal Katyal of Hogan Lovells represents Fox, along with lawyers at Proskauer Rose. Hearst is relying on an in-house team led by deputy general counsel Jonathan Donnellan. HOME DEPOT: Faces Amalgamated Bank Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amalgamated Bank, a New York banking corporation, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated financial institutions v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 1:14- cv-03668 (N.D. Ga., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to protect and safeguard customers personal and financial information. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. is the world's largest home improvement retailer, selling a variety of tools, home goods, and construction supplies in its more than 2200 United States retail stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ranse M. Partin, Esq. CONLEY GRIGGS PARTIN LLP 1380 West Paces Ferry Road, N.W., Suite 2100 Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 467-1155 Facsimile: (404) 467-1166 E-mail: Ranse@conleygriggs.com - and - Andrew N. Friedman, Esq. Matthew S. Axelrod, Esq. Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. Sally M. Handmaker, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC East Tower, 5th Floor 1100 New York Ave. NW Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 INVESTMENT EMPORIUM: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Armando Luis Jessurum Medrano and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. The Investment Emporium LLC d/b/a Jaiba Cabinets, and Antonio Pena, Case No. 1:14-cv-24314 (S.D. Fla., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a company that manufacture of fine quality kitchen cabinets, custom bathroom cabinets and commercial cabinetry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 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 ISOPURE COMPANY: Falsely Marketed Powder Products, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Dani Tocci, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Isopure Company, LLC, d/b/a Nature's Best, General Nutrition Corp., Case No. 7:14-cv-09097 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's misrepresentation of Isopure Zero-Carb and Low-Carb Protein Powder as: being 100% Whey Protein Isolate, having 50 Grams Of Protein From 100% Whey Protein Isolate, and having "50 Grams Protein Per Serving, when in fact, it is spiked with additional and unnecessary free-form amino acids, non-protein amino acids, and a litany of other non-whey ingredients. The Defendants are manufacturer, distributor, and retailer of dietary products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh A venue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com ndeckant@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com fklorczyk@bursor.com JOSE ARROYO: "Landaverde" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Raul Landaverde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jose Arroyo, L.L.C. and C&S Lease Service, L.C., Case No. 2:14-cv-01046 (E.D. Tex., November 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees, and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide a single source for fabrication, construction, maintenance, remediation and environmental compliance consulting services to the energy and manufacturing industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: William S Hommel Jr, Esq. WILLIAM S. HOMMEL, JR. PC 1404 Rice Road, Ste 200 Tyler, TX 75703 Telephone: (903) 596-7100 Facsimile: (469) 533-1618 E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com JPM MANAGEMENT: "Stein" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- David Stein, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JPM Management Group, LLC, a Florida Corporation d/b/a MMPB Group, LLC, a Florida corporation, and Michael Martin, Case No. 1:14-cv-24326 (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2014), seeks to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. JPM Management Group, LLC is an asset and investment management company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad Evan Levy, Esq. LEVY & LEVY, PA 300 Southeast 13th Street Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 763-5722 Facsimile: (954) 763-5723 E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com KKR & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Primedia Merger Actions ------------------------------------------------------ KKR & CO. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that discovery is ongoing in shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger. On May 23, 2011, KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was completed on July 13, 2011. These actions allege, among other things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all material information about the merger. Plaintiffs also allege that the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8, 2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia when the Primedia merger was completed. The dismissed shareholder derivative claims included allegations concerning open market purchases of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock by KKR affiliates in 2002 and allegations concerning Primedia's redemption of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock in 2004 and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR affiliates. With respect to the pending shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger. On July 18, 2011, the Court of Chancery consolidated the two pending shareholder class actions and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. On October 7, 2011, defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated shareholder class action. The operative complaint seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary damages and rescission of the merger. On December 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, which similarly alleges that the Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates breached their respective fiduciary duties by entering into the merger agreement at an unfair price in light of the value of the dismissed shareholder derivative claims. That amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages. On January 31, 2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 10, 2013, the Court of Chancery denied the motion to dismiss the complaint as it relates to the Primedia board members, KKR and certain KKR affiliates. On July 1, 2013, KKR and other defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On December 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery granted the motion in part and denied the motion in part. Discovery is ongoing. Additionally, in May 2011, two shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger were filed in Georgia state courts, asserting similar allegations and seeking similar relief as initially sought by the Delaware shareholder class actions above. Both Georgia actions have been stayed in favor of the Delaware action. KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across multiple asset classes including private equity, energy, infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds. KKR & CO: Feb. 11 Hearing to Approve Definitive Agreement --------------------------------------------------------- KKR & CO. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a hearing is scheduled for February 11, 2015 to approve a definitive agreement to settle the class action by shareholders in certain public companies acquired by private equity firms. In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003. In August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported consolidated amended class action complaint. The suit alleges that from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity services for leveraged buyouts. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who sold securities to any of the defendants in leveraged buyout transactions and specifically challenges nine transactions. The first stage of discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010. On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to proceed to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery as to eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight specified transactions. On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the original nine transactions. The fourth amended complaint also includes eight purported sub classes of plaintiffs seeking unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new separate claims against two of the original nine challenged transactions. On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a putative damages sub class in connection with the acquisition of PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the PanAmSat transaction. The second phase of discovery permitted by the court is completed. On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint that seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified in the previous complaints. Defendants opposed plaintiffs' motion. On September 7, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion in part and denied it in part. Specifically, the court granted a third stage of limited discovery as to the ten additional transactions identified in plaintiffs' proposed fifth amended complaint but denied plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint. On June 14, 2012, following the completion of the third phase of discovery, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint which, like their proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified in the previous complaints. On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the fifth amended complaint. On July 18, 2012, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing certain previously released claims against certain defendants. On March 13, 2013, the United States District Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the count involving KKR. However, the court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to an alleged overarching agreement to refrain from jumping other defendants' announced proprietary transactions, thereby limiting the case to a smaller number of transactions subject to plaintiffs' claim. KKR filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2013, which the court denied on July 18, 2013. Plaintiffs moved for class certification on October 21, 2013. Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on January 24, 2014. The court has not yet decided plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On July 28, 2014, KKR entered into a definitive agreement to settle all claims without the admission of wrongdoing, which was preliminarily approved by the court on September 29, 2014, and is subject to the court's final approval, the hearing for which is scheduled for February 11, 2015. The amount to be paid by KKR pursuant to the settlement is not expected to have a material effect on KKR's financial results. KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across multiple asset classes including private equity, energy, infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds. KKR & CO: Del. Chancery Court Dismissed KFN Shareholders' Case -------------------------------------------------------------- KKR & CO. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss a consolidated complaint in the class action filed by shareholders of KKR Financial Holdings LLC ("KFN"). From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, the United States District Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by KKR Financial Holdings LLC ("KFN") shareholders against KFN, individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR, and certain of KKR's affiliates in connection with KFN's entry into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR. The merger transaction was completed on April 30, 2014. The actions filed in California state court have been consolidated but an operative complaint has not been filed or designated. The complaint filed in the California federal court action, which was never served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed on May 6, 2014. Two of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated. On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss. The complaints in these actions allege variously that the members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices; failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders; and failing to disclose material information necessary for KFN shareholders to make a fully informed decision about the proposed transaction. The actions also allege variously that KKR, and certain of KKR's affiliates aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and that KKR is a controlling shareholder of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors LLC, a subsidiary of KKR, and KKR breached a fiduciary duty it allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into the merger agreement. The relief sought in these actions includes, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and the proposed transaction, rescission, an accounting by defendants, damages and attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief. KKR is a global investment firm that manages investments across multiple asset classes including private equity, energy, infrastructure, real estate, credit and hedge funds. LEANSPA: Settles FTC Suit Over Use of Fake News Websites -------------------------------------------------------- LawyersandSettlements.com reports that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the State of Connecticut have reached a settlement with LeanSpa for allegedly engaging in consumer fraud by using fake news websites to promote acai berry and "colon cleanse" weight-loss products, making deceptive weight-loss claims, and telling consumers they could receive free trial products by paying a nominal fee for shipping and handling. In addition to allegations of creating fake new websites, the deceptive marketing class action also claimed that the marketers of the weight loss supplement LeanSpa falsely informed consumers that they could receive a free trial of the weight loss products if they paid a small shipping and handling fee. However, the lawsuit contends that consumers in fact paid nearly $80 for the "free" trial and were signed up for monthly subscriptions that were difficult to cancel. Consumers reportedly paid more than $25 million to the defendants. The FTC and the state of Connecticut shut down the alleged LeanSpa scam operation and charged the defendants with violating portions of the FTC Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, in 2011. Then, in January, 2014 an agreement was reached between the parties in which the marketers of LeanSpa supplements have agreed to pay up to $7 million in consumer refunds. Eligible consumers include people who bought LeanSpa weight loss or other LeanSpa health supplements such as LeanSpa; LeanSpa with Acai; LeanSpa with HCA; LeanSpa Cleanse; NutraSlim; NutraSlim with HCA; QuickDetox; and SlimFuel. LENNOX NATIONAL: "Prescott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Harvey Prescott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lennox National Accounting Services, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-00581 (E.D. Va., November 13, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Lennox National Accounting Services, LLC provides hearing, ventilation, and air conditioning services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Allen Schreiber, Esq. BURKE HARVEY, LLC 3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35243 Telephone: (205) 930-9091 Facsimile: (205) 930-9054 E-mail: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com - and - Todd Michael Gaynor, Esq. TAYLOR & WALKER PC 555 E Main St, Suite 1300 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 625-7300 E-mail: tgaynor@taylorwalkerlaw.com LUZERNE COUNTY, PA: 3rd Cir. Hears Argument on Retaliation Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that attorneys in the wrongful termination case of former Luzerne County Chief Public Defender Albert J. Flora Jr. -- who, before being forced out, had sued the county for underfunding the office -- grappled on Nov. 18 with a key issue: whether he filed his funding suit as a private citizen or as a public official. Mr. Flora had argued in a complaint filed last April that he was let go partially in retaliation for a class action suit he filed in 2012 in which he alleged the county and county manager, Robert Lawton, showed "deliberate indifference to the funding needs" of the Adult Unit of the Luzerne County Public Defender's Office. Before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Nov. 18, counsel for Mr. Flora argued that he filed the class action as a private citizen, and therefore he was able to make retaliation claims under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, which held that a public official is protected by the First Amendment when speaking "as a citizen addressing matters of public concern." However, counsel representing Lawton and Luzerne County said Mr. Flora was acting within the scope of his job description when he sued. The case was heard by Third Circuit Judges Kent A. Jordan, Marjorie Rendell and Richard Nygaard, who participated via telephone. Judge Jordan asked Mr. Flora's attorney, Mary Catherine Roper of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, how Mr. Flora was protected when part of his job was to handle the office's funding. Ms. Roper said Mr. Flora's class action to obtain funding for indigent defense went beyond the scope of his employment as a public defender and lent more to his ethical obligation as an attorney trying to ensure his clients were adequately represented. "But when he's fighting for funding as a bureaucrat assigned by the county, is he not operating within the scope of his job?" Judge Jordan asked. Ms. Roper responded that a public defender has responsibilities independent from his role as a county employee. "When he steps outside anything that he is paid to do," Ms. Roper said, "he is acting not as a government employee, but as a private citizen." Mr. Flora suing his employer, Ms. Roper said, was outside of Mr. Flora's normal job description. Following Ms. Roper's argument, Deborah H. Simon -- dhs@elliottgreenleaf.com -- of Elliott Greenleaf spoke on behalf of Luzerne County and Lawton. When Ms. Simon stepped up, Judge Rendell immediately asked her, "Where is it in Pennsylvania statute that it is the duty of a public defender to bring a case like that," referring to Mr. Flora's class action. Ms. Simon said it was not explicitly stated, but the chief public defender "has duties to manage the office that are separate and apart from representing indigents." Judge Rendell replied, "To say that it is an ordinary part of his job duties; that's a stretch." She added that public defenders' offices across the country are facing funding problems: "Shouldn't they all run out to court?" Simon said there was a propriety issue over whether that was possible elsewhere. With regard to Mr. Flora, Ms. Simon said Mr. Flora mentioned in briefs that he was acting in his capacity as chief public defender. The fact that he did it in a way "that thumbs his nose at his employer," she added, does not entitle him to First Amendment protection. Mr. Flora further alleged in his complaint that his firing was also done as an attempt "to punish" him for an audit his office conducted that found that a number of juvenile records the state Supreme Court had ordered be expunged in connection with the "kids-for-cash" scandal were not being properly removed from the docket. Judge Jordan, recognizing that second portion of Flora's complaint, asked Ms. Simon how Mr. Flora's expungement claims could be construed in any way other than those of a concerned citizen. Ms. Simon answered that Ms. Flora filed his report to the Supreme Court on his office's stationery. "It can't be that the stationery makes the difference, does it?" Judge Jordan asked in apparent disbelief. Again, Ms. Simon said Mr. Flora made his claims in an official capacity. In March, U.S. District Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the Middle District of Pennsylvania agreed with Luzerne County and Lawton. Judge Mannion said that, despite Mr. Flora's contention that he was not required as chief public defender to bring the class action suit, "the issue is not whether the plaintiff's duties as the chief public defender required him to file the action, but whether the action related to his official duties as the chief public defender." "It is not the average citizen who would file a state-court funding action in order to ensure that the OPD had adequate funding to provide indigent criminal defendants with adequate representation, nor is it the average citizen who would be in charge of overseeing the proper docketing of juvenile matters," Judge Mannion said. "Instead, the court finds that the plaintiff, pursuant to his duties as the chief public defender, took these actions and, as such, was acting as a government employee, not a private citizen. His actions are therefore not protected by the First Amendment and the defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted with respect to this claim." MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- De Ivory Smith and Marlie Trujillo v. Manhattan Management Co., LLC and Berk-Cohen Associates, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02623 (E.D. La., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages. The Defendants own and operate apartment properties in Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. Jody Forester Jackson, Esq. JACKSON & JACKSON 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599-5953 E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net jjackson@jackson-law.net MERCURY NEW HOLDCO: Plaintiffs Drop Motion to Expedite Hearing -------------------------------------------------------------- Mercury New Holdco, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in a consolidated class action sent a letter to the Court withdrawing the pending motion to expedite hearing on their motion for a permanent injunction to enjoin the merger transaction. Following the announcement on March 21, 2014, of the execution of the merger agreement between Media General, Inc. and LIN Media LLC, three complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging the proposed acquisition of LIN: Sciabacucchi v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9530-CB), International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No.9538-CB), and Pryor v. Lin Media LLC, et al. (C.A. No. 9577-CB). The litigations are putative class actions filed on behalf of the public stockholders of LIN and name as defendants LIN, its directors, Media General, New Holdco, Merger Sub 1 and Merger Sub 2 and HM Capital Partners LLC and several of its alleged affiliates (Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund III, L.P.; HM3 Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Equity Fund IV, L.P.; Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst Private Equity Fund IV, L.P.; HM4-EQ Coinvestors, L.P.; Hicks, Muse & Co. Partners, L.P.; Muse Family Enterprises, Ltd.; and JRM Interim Investors, L.P. (together with HM Capital Partners LLC and individual director defendant John R. Muse, which are collectively referred to as "HMC")). On April 18, 2014, the plaintiff in Engineers Local 132 Pension Fund voluntarily dismissed that action without prejudice and, on April 21, 2014, the Court approved the dismissal. The operative complaints generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger transaction, that the entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches and that individual director defendant Royal W. Carson III and HMC breached their fiduciary duties as controlling shareholders of LIN by causing LIN to enter into the merger transaction, which plaintiffs allege will provide disparate consideration to HMC. The complaints seek, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the merger transaction. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiff in the Sciabacucchi action filed an amended complaint, and the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and Pryor actions each filed a motion for an expedited hearing on the plaintiff's (yet-to-be filed) motion for a permanent injunction to enjoin the merger transaction, requesting, among other things, that the Court set a permanent injunction hearing for September 2014. On April 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Sciabacucchi and Pryor actions filed a stipulation to consolidate the two actions, which was approved by the Court on May 1, 2014. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated action sent a letter to the Court withdrawing the pending motion to expedite. Mercury New Holdco, Inc. ("New Holdco"), is a Virginia corporation and a direct, wholly owned subsidiary of Media General, Inc. ("Media General"). New Holdco was formed on March 19, 2014, solely to effect the combination of Media General and LIN Media LLC ("LIN") by merging Mercury Merger Sub 1, Inc., its direct, wholly owned subsidiary, with and into Media General, and merging Mercury Merger Sub 2, LLC, its direct, wholly owned subsidiary, with and into LIN, in each case, as provided for in their merger agreement dated as of March 21, 2014, as amended on August 20, 2014. Following the completion of the merger transaction, New Holdco will be the parent company of Media General and LIN and will be renamed "Media General, Inc." MSTREET MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Baxter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MStreet Management Group, LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-01934 (D.D.C., November 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and statutory damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. MStreet Management Group, LLC owns and operates an exotic dance club in the District of Columbia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg Cohen Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 836 Bonifant Street Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (301) 587-9397 E-mail: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com MUSCLEPHARM CORPORATION: Sued Over Deceptive Product Presentation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jake Bruaner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Musclepharm Corporation and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-08869 (C.D. Cal., November 14, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's false, fraudulent, unfair, deceptive and misleading representation of the amount of whey protein in Musclepharm Combat Protein Powder. Musclepharm Corporation is a manufacturer and distributor of dietary supplements in the State of Nevada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elie Ghodsizadeh, Esq. Jonathan J. Delshad, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN J. DELSHAD 1663 Sawtelle Blvd Suite 220 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (424) 255-8376 Facsimile: (310) 382-2086 E-mail: eghodsizadeh@delshadlegal.com jdelshad@delshadlegal.com NATIONAL BEEF: Settles Wage & OT Class Action for $350,000 ---------------------------------------------------------- Roxana Hegeman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that an apparent settlement has been reached in the class action lawsuit against National Beef brought by workers at its Liberal, Kansas, meatpacking plant, according to a court filing on Nov. 21. A joint motion seeks court approval of the proposed deal affecting some 480 production employees who joined the litigation. Workers at the southwest Kansas plant are seeking unpaid wages and overtime. National Beef has agreed to pay up to $350,000 to settle all claims without acknowledging any wrongdoing, court documents show. At issue is payment to meat-processing workers based on what is known as gang time, which counts only the time the production line runs. The lawsuit claims employees have been systematically underpaid for the time it takes to take off and put on protective gear during unpaid meal breaks, walking to and from production lines, waiting in line for equipment, waiting in line to clean equipment and cleaning equipment. The practice is "fairly common in the meat processing industry," said Mark Kistler, the Overland Park attorney representing workers. National Beef spokesman Keith Welty said he was unaware of the settlement and had no immediate comment. Under the proposed agreement, each worker's claim would be paid according to a formula that factors in the number of weeks each employee worked, among other things. The two named plaintiffs, Valente Sandoval Barbosa and Carolina Gaytan, would receive $3,500 each. The National Beef lawsuit is the latest in a string of class action lawsuits brought by Mr. Kistler on behalf of workers against meatpacking plants and food processing companies. In the past three years, Mr. Kistler said he has filed five similar cases against meat processing plants and three other food processing companies seeking unpaid wages and overtime for their employees. In nearly all his cases, the companies settled out of court, he said. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Drug Agents Conduct Medical Staff Probe ---------------------------------------------------------- Reuters' Peter Cooney, Kevin Murphy and Steve Ginsburg, citing a Washington Post report, said U.S. drug agents carried out surprise inspections of the medical staffs of several National Football League teams on Nov. 16 in an investigation of alleged prescription drug abuse in the league. The Washington Post newspaper, citing a senior law enforcement official, said agents from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Transportation Security Administration searched bags and questioned team doctors. A DEA spokesman told the Post the investigation followed a class- action suit filed in May by more than 1,300 retired NFL players alleging the medical staffs violated the law by giving players narcotics and painkillers to help them play through injuries, without prescriptions. The medical staffs that were questioned included those of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and San Francisco 49ers, the newspaper said. The DEA was expected to inspect a total of six teams on Nov. 16. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said, "Our teams cooperated with the DEA and we have no information to indicate that irregularities were found." He did not say which teams were involved. The 49ers said in a statement the DEA inspection took place while the team was in New Jersey to play the New York Giants at MetLife Stadium. "The 49ers medical staff complied and the team departed the stadium as scheduled," it said. After the Buccaneers played the Washington Redskins, the Tampa Bay team said on Twitter that "authorities checked with our travel party" at Baltimore/Washington International Airport. The team boarded its plane after a five-minute delay, it said. The DEA did not respond immediately to requests from Reuters for comment. The probe was not limited to those clubs, the official told the Post. The official said it was focused on league wide practices, "including possible distribution of drugs without prescriptions or labels, and the dispensing of drugs by trainers rather than physicians," the Post said. The drug investigation comes as the NFL has been roiled by allegations of violent off-field behavior by some players. Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson pleaded no contest this month to a misdemeanor charge of child abuse. Former Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice is appealing his indefinite suspension from the league imposed after he punched his then-fiancee. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Judge Hears Grievances Over Concussion Accord ---------------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for Law.com, reports that the peculiar fault lines in the case against the NFL split before the federal judge overseeing the litigation during the highly anticipated fairness hearing for the settlement in a class action over head injuries on Nov. 19. Lawyers for the National Football League and the lead counsel for the thousands of former players suing the league hailed the deal they made as historic. Other plaintiffs' lawyers in the case challenged the settlement and told the judge that it's not a fair deal and she shouldn't grant it final approval. U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania gave preliminary approval in July to the settlement after lead counsel, Chris Seeger, and lawyers for the NFL agreed to do away with the $675 million cap on the amount of money the NFL would put into the fund from which players with qualifying diagnoses -- of Alzheimer's disease, dementia and other neurocognitive diseases -- would draw. Dozens of lawyers representing former players have since said the settlement isn't a good one for players, primarily because it doesn't compensate players who have chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE. "This is an insidious disease," Steven Molo, of MoloLamken in New York, told Judge Brody, arguing that the settlement she finally approves should cover CTE. Both Mr. Seeger and lawyers for the NFL, however, told the court that the diseases and symptoms associated with advanced levels of CTE are covered in the settlement they've proposed. "CTE is not per se covered, but the significant symptoms of CTE are covered," said Bruce Birenboim -- bbirenboim@paulweiss.com -- of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who is on the NFL's defense team. "This settlement draws a line at the more significant aspects of CTE, which are covered under the dementia category, and does not cover mood and behavioral problems," Mr. Birenboim told the court. Earlier, Mr. Seeger, who was the first to speak on Nov. 19, told Judge Brody that the issue now before her -- when she is weighing final approval of the settlement -- is "not whether it's perfect," but, rather, whether it is fair, reasonable and adequate. He noted that Third Circuit precedent entitles the settlement to a presumption of fairness. Referring to the adequacy requirement for class settlements and the other plaintiffs lawyers' challenges, Mr. Seeger said, "These aren't objections to adequacy, they're objections to where the lines were drawn." He characterized the objecting lawyers as wanting to structure the settlement their way, by having various subclasses of plaintiffs rather than the two that are included in the settlement. Later, when Mr. Birenboim was addressing the judge, he framed the issue of deciding which CTE-related ailments to cover this way: "Is the line that was drawn here fair and reasonable; given the science and, we think, given the causation issues and given the infancy of the research in the area, the line is clearly a fair line." Mr. Seeger, Mr. Birenboim and Brad Karp, who is another Paul Weiss lawyer on the NFL's defense team, all repeatedly emphasized that players don't have to prove causation in order to collect for their qualifying injuries under their proposed settlement. Proving that the players' neurocognitive ailments were caused by head injuries they suffered while playing in the NFL had loomed as one of the major obstacles the plaintiffs would have to overcome if the case went to litigation. Mr. Karp characterized the criticisms of the settlement for its lack of coverage for CTE as a deliberate and fundamental misunderstanding of the settlement and its scope. Mood disorders and depression, both of which some objectors list as symptoms of CTE, are also distributed across the general population and "have nothing in the world" to do with football or CTE, Mr. Karp said. The lines have to be drawn somewhere, he said, and experienced defense and plaintiffs lawyers recognize that line-drawing is necessary. "This is not our first case like it is for some of the objectors' counsel," Mr. Seeger had said earlier, referring to the plaintiffs' steering committee. "If I decide to approve this settlement," Judge Brody had said at the very beginning of the fairness hearing, she would appoint Wendell Pritchett and Jo-Ann Verrier, both of the University of Pennsylvania's law school, to implement the settlement. Both were present at the fairness hearing. Judge Brody has expressed her preference for a settlement in the case since she sent the parties to mediation in the summer of 2013. She rejected the deal that came out of those first negotiations because she was concerned that the $675 million cap on the award fund wouldn't last through the 65-year life of the settlement, leaving some former players unable to collect down the road. Mr. Molo made clear that he, too, wants to see a settlement in the case, but he and the other objectors don't think that the one in front of the judge now is fair, reasonable and adequate. "The question, then, for the court is not whether the settlement is perfect or whether every condition is compensated for, but whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, given the strengths and weaknesses of the claims," Mr. Birenboim told the court. NEW YORK: "Occupy Wall Street" Demonstrators File Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Charles Meyers, John Baker, Justin Strekal and Miles Walsh v. City of New York, Michael Rubens Bloomberg, individually and in his official capacity as former Mayor of the City of New York, former NYPD Chief of Department Joseph J. Esposito, individually and in his official capacity, former NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly, individually and in his official capacity, NYPD Patrol Officers Freddy Ynoa Shield 18851, Hans Francois Shield 25825, John Zaranis Shield 09645, Vasile Dubovici Shield 28892, Officer DOES 1-100, Case No. 1:14-cv-09142 (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014), arises out of the unlawful eviction by the City of New York, through its New York Police Department, without a prior court ruling, of Occupy Wall Street demonstrators visiting and camping in the Manhattan Financial District's Zuccotti Park. City Of New York is a municipal corporation which, under the administration of its former Mayor, Michael Rubens Bloomberg and through its New York Police Department, operated a number of subordinate law enforcement facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul L. Mills, Esq. Park West Finance Branch, PO Box 20141 New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (646) 637-3693 E-mail: plm36@columbia.edu NEWS CORP: Plaintiffs in Wilder Case Oppose Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------- News Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that plaintiffs in the Wilder litigation opposed the motions filed by defendants to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint. On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Wilder v. News Corp., et al. was filed on behalf of all purchasers of 21st Century Fox's common stock between March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Wilder Litigation"). The plaintiff brought claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were issued regarding alleged acts of voicemail interception at The News of the World. The suit named as defendants 21st Century Fox, Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and sought compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained and costs. On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff in the litigation and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. Avon filed an amended consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things, added as defendants the Company's subsidiary, NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK & Ireland Limited), and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to comprise February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the litigation, which were granted by the court on March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their complaint, and on April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands the class period to comprise July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011. On August 11, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, and on October 24, 2014 plaintiffs opposed those motions. The Company's management believes these claims are entirely without merit and intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company will be indemnified by 21st Century Fox for certain payments made by the Company that relate to, or arise from, the U.K. Newspaper Matters, including all payments in connection with the Wilder Litigation. NEWS CORP: Settlement in Canadian Actions Approved -------------------------------------------------- News Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the settlement agreement relating to the Canadian actions involving HarperCollins was approved by the relevant courts. In 2011 and 2012, various civil lawsuits and governmental investigations were commenced against certain publishers, including the Company's subsidiary, HarperCollins Publishers L.L.C. ("HarperCollins"), relating to alleged violations of antitrust and unfair competition laws arising out of the decisions by those publishers to sell their e-books pursuant to an agency relationship. The publishers, including HarperCollins, entered into various settlement agreements to resolve these matters. These included a settlement with the DOJ, which, among other things, required that HarperCollins terminate its agreements with certain e-book retailers and placed certain restrictions on any agreements subsequently entered into with such retailers. Additional information about this settlement can be found on the DOJ's website. The publishers, including HarperCollins, also entered into substantially similar settlements with the European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau ("CCB"). The settlements with the DOJ and the European Commission received final approval in September and December 2012, respectively. The consent agreement with respect to the settlement with the CCB was registered with the Competition Tribunal on February 7, 2014. However, on February 21, 2014, Kobo Inc. ("Kobo") filed an application to rescind or vary the consent agreement with the Competition Tribunal, and, on March 18, 2014, the Competition Tribunal issued an order staying the registration of the consent agreement. The stay will remain in effect pending further order of the Competition Tribunal or final disposition of Kobo's application. The publishers, including HarperCollins, also entered into settlements relating to an investigation led by certain state Attorneys General and a number of purported class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. and Canada arising out of similar claims. Final approvals of the settlements relating to the U.S. actions were granted in February and December 2013. In May 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement relating to the Canadian actions, and in October and November 2014, the settlement agreement was approved by the relevant courts. NEWS CORP: NAM Group Opposes Certification Motion ------------------------------------------------- News Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the NAM Group filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion seeking certification of a class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased in-store marketing services on or after April 5, 2008, and have not purchased those services pursuant to contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. On April 8, 2014, in connection with a pending action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in which The Dial Corporation, Henkel Consumer Goods, Inc., H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., Foster Poultry Farms, Smithfield Foods, Inc., HP Hood LLC, BEF Foods, Inc., and Spectrum Brands, Inc. ("Spectrum") allege various claims under federal and state antitrust law against News Corporation, News America Incorporated ("NAI"), News America Marketing FSI L.L.C. ("NAM FSI"), and News America Marketing In-Store Services L.L.C. ("NAM In-Store Services" and, together with News Corporation, NAI and NAM FSI, the "NAM Group"), plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on consent of the parties. The fourth amended complaint asserts federal and state antitrust claims both individually and on behalf of two putative classes in connection with plaintiffs' purchase of in-store marketing services and free-standing insert coupons. The complaint seeks treble damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. The NAM Group answered the fourth amended complaint and asserted counterclaims against The Dial Corporation, H.J. Heinz Company, H.J. Heinz Company, L.P., and Foster Poultry Farms on April 21, 2014, and discovery is proceeding. The District Court subsequently permitted Spectrum to voluntarily dismiss its claims without prejudice, subject to certain conditions. On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class of all persons residing in the United States who purchased in-store marketing services on or after April 5, 2008, and have not purchased those services pursuant to contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses. Plaintiffs did not, however, move to certify a class of purchasers of free-standing insert coupons. The NAM Group filed its opposition to plaintiffs' motion on October 10, 2014. While it is not possible at this time to predict with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of this action, the NAM Group believes it has been compliant with applicable antitrust laws and intends to defend itself vigorously. OKLAHOMA: DUI License Revocation Suit Qualifies as Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Ziva Branstetter, writing for Tulsa World, reports that an Oklahoma County judge has dismissed a lawsuit that sought refunds for thousands of drivers who received DUIs using a faulty affidavit. However, the judge also ruled that the lawsuit qualifies as a class-action case, a ruling apparently made in case a higher court overturns his dismissal, said attorney John Hunsucker. The plaintiffs claim that the Department of Public Safety lacked jurisdiction to revoke their driving privileges and charge associated fees because the affidavits officers signed did not comply with state law. Mr. Hunsucker, based in Oklahoma City, and Tulsa attorney Bruce Edge filed the lawsuit and a similar suit in Tulsa County. Ultimately, if the plaintiffs prevail, DPS could be ordered to pay refunds and interest to an estimated 40,000 drivers whose licenses were revoked after being cited with alcohol-related driving offenses between June 2008 and October 2013. The plaintiffs also seek to have their driving privileges restored and the cases expunged from their driving records. Nine plaintiffs have sued the Department of Public Safety in Oklahoma County challenging their license revocations, while seven drivers have sued in Tulsa County. Mr. Hunsucker said the ruling on Nov. 13 by Oklahoma County District Judge Roger Stuart does not affect the Tulsa case, which also seeks class-action status. "We don't necessarily see it as a defeat. It's a bump in the road," Mr. Hunsucker said. "We had already anticipated it going to the (state) Supreme Court one way or the other." As of late Nov. 14, Judge Stuart had not issued a written order outlining his ruling. Mr. Hunsucker said attorneys for both sides will try to agree on the wording of a proposed order. Judge Stuart set a Dec. 4 hearing if the two sides cannot agree, he said. Capt. George Brown, a spokesman for DPS, referred comment about the case to Attorney General Scott Pruitt's office. A spokesman for Pruitt could not be reached on Nov. 14. In a motion filed earlier this year, DPS claims that the suits should be dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust all administrative remedies and did not challenge the affidavit at their administrative hearings. "Plaintiffs were violating state criminal laws by driving on the roads of Oklahoma under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicating substance," the motion states. The license-revocation process is an administrative action separate from criminal charges filed against the drivers. Actions in criminal cases involving DUI arrests would not be affected by the civil lawsuits, Mr. Hunsucker said. Most drivers who would be in the class have had their driving privileges restored or are driving with interlock ignition devices, he said. DPS has not provided an estimate of how many people would receive refunds if the plaintiffs were successful. A Tulsa World analysis of DPS records found that at least 37,000 drivers cited for alcohol-related offenses requested hearings or modifications during the time in question. If a court eventually rules the fees must be refunded retroactively to 2008, DPS could be required to refund at least $11 million. That figure does not include interest. A class-action case in 1995 cost DPS about $10 million. In that case, the state Supreme Court ruled that DPS overcharged motorists for reinstating their driver's licenses from 1990 through 1993. Mr. Hunsucker noted that in the 1995 case, a trial court judge had also granted DPS' motion to dismiss but the Supreme Court eventually ordered the refunds. In DUI cases, state law requires "a sworn report from a law enforcement officer that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the arrested person" drove or could have driven a car under the influence of alcohol. The affidavit that DPS used to revoke licenses in such cases from June 2008 through October 2013 did not contain that language. Instead, it contained a description of the driver's behavior, circumstances of the arrest and a statement by the officer "that the foregoing is true and correct." DPS uses the affidavits to revoke driver's licenses and can later modify or reinstate the licenses, charging fees with each action. Last year, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals ruled that the affidavit was "fatally flawed" and the Supreme Court refused to hear DPS' appeal of that ruling, meaning the appeals court ruling stands. ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Bid to Dismiss ---------------------------------------------------------------- Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in the litigation relating to hotel taxes, the intermediate appellate court affirmed on September 10, 2014, the court's denial of the online travel companies' motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The appellate court reversed the court's certification of a class of municipalities and its denial of the OTCs' motion to dismiss Nassau County, New York's claim for imposition of constructive trust. Orbitz is a global online travel company ("OTC") that uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a broad range of travel products and services including hotels, flights, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, rail tickets, travel insurance, destination services and event tickets. ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Leave to Amend Suit in Hotel Booking Case Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the District Court denied leave to amend a consolidated amended complaint, and dismissed it with prejudice in the case Online Travel Company Hotel Booking Antitrust Litigation. On August 20, 2012, a putative consumer class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against certain major hotel chains and the leading OTCs, including Orbitz. The complaint alleged that the hotel chains and OTCs, including Orbitz, violated antitrust and consumer protection laws by entering into agreements in which OTCs agree not to facilitate the reservation of hotel rooms at prices that are less than those found on the hotel chain websites. Following the filing of the initial complaint on August 20, 2012, several dozen additional putative consumer class action complaints were filed in federal courts across the country. These cases were then consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation and transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. On May 1, 2013, counsel for the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. On July 1, 2013, Orbitz filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint. On February 16, 2014, the District Court granted Orbitz's motion to dismiss all of the Claims in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and provided the Plaintiffs with leave to seek the opportunity to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs moved for leave to amend the complaint on March 20, 2014. On October 27, 2014, the District Court denied leave to amend the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and dismissed it with prejudice. Plaintiffs have the right to appeal the decision. Orbitz is a global online travel company ("OTC") that uses innovative technology to enable leisure and business travelers to research, plan and book a broad range of travel products and services including hotels, flights, vacation packages, car rentals, cruises, rail tickets, travel insurance, destination services and event tickets. PERCHERON FIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Humphrey and Rob Nash, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Percheron Field Services, LLC and Percheron LLC, Case No. 5:14-cv-06556 (E.D. Pa., November 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants provide services for land management projects like oil, natural gas, and pipeline industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Senoff, Esq. CAROSELLI BEACHLER MCTIERNAN & CONBOY 1845 Walnut Street, 15th Fl Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 609-1350 Facsimile: (215) 609-1351 E-mail: cmcnally@cbmclaw.com PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Lawsuits Over Eltroxin in Early Stages -------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that several hearings on whether or not to certify lawsuits related to the 2011 launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The matter is in its early stages. During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product, and various health care providers who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health care system in Israel. The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally alleged that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation. All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications. On July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and ordered that the remaining eight applications be consolidated into one application. On September 19, 2012, a consolidated motion to certify the eight individual motions was filed by lead counsel for the claimants. Generally, the allegations in the consolidated motion are the same as those set forth in the individual motions; however, the consolidated motion excluded the manufacturer of the reformulated Eltroxin as a respondent. Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. As this matter is in its early stages, the Company cannot reasonably predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if any, associated with these claims. Perrigo Company plc (formerly known as Perrigo Company Limited, and prior thereto, Blisfont Limited) is a manufacturer of OTC healthcare products for the store brand market. PERRIGO COMPANY: Israel Supreme Court Affirmed Dist. Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the Supreme Court of Israel affirmed the ruling of the District Court in favor of the Company in the lawsuits filed against the state of Israel and the Council of Neot Hovav and as a result, the matter is now closed. In March and June of 2007, lawsuits were filed by three separate groups against both the State of Israel and the Council of Neot Hovav in connection with waste disposal and pollution from several companies, including the Company, that have operations in the Neot Hovav region of Israel. These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding in the District Court of Beer-Sheva. The Council of Neot Hovav, in June 2008, and the State of Israel, in November 2008, asserted third-party claims against several companies, including the Company. The pleadings allege a variety of personal injuries arising out of the alleged environmental pollution. Neither the plaintiffs nor the third- party claimants were required to specify a maximum amount of damages, but the pleadings allege damages in excess of $72.5 million, subject to foreign currency fluctuations between the Israeli shekel and the U.S. dollar. On January 9, 2013, the District Court of Beer-Sheva ruled in favor of the Company. On September 29, 2014, the Supreme Court of Israel affirmed the ruling of the District Court in favor of the Company and as a result, the matter is now closed. Perrigo Company plc (formerly known as Perrigo Company Limited, and prior thereto, Blisfont Limited) is a manufacturer of OTC healthcare products for the store brand market. PERRIGO COMPANY: Defendant in Tysabri(R) Product Liability Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Perrigo Company plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 27, 2014, that the Company and collaborator Biogen are co-defendants in product liability lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy ("PML"), a serious brain infection, and serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in patients taking Tysabri(R). The Company and Biogen will each be responsible for 50% of losses and expenses arising out of any Tysabri(R) product liability claims. While these lawsuits will be vigorously defended, management cannot predict how these cases will be resolved. Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits could result in substantial judgments against the Company. Perrigo Company plc (formerly known as Perrigo Company Limited, and prior thereto, Blisfont Limited) is a manufacturer of OTC healthcare products for the store brand market. PHARMERICA CORPORATION: No Hearing Yet on Class Certification Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Pharmerica Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that no hearing has yet been set on a move for, among other things, certification of a putative class for the purposes of effectuating a settlement and preliminary approval of the parties' settlement. On October 29, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Pines Nursing Homes (77), Inc. as a putative class action against the Corporation. The complaint alleged that the Corporation sent unsolicited advertisements promoting the Corporation's goods or services by facsimile to individuals or entities, and that such communications did not include an opt-out clause, all in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The Complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, but the TCPA provides a statutory remedy of $500 per facsimile communication sent in violation of the statute, which may be trebled in the event of a willful violation. On August 18, 2014, the Corporation entered into a Settlement Agreement with the putative class and class counsel resolving all claims raised in the complaint. The parties moved on September 8, 2014 for, among other things, certification of the putative class for the purposes of effectuating the settlement and preliminary approval of the parties' settlement, and have requested a hearing on that motion. No hearing has yet been set on that motion and the Corporation awaits a decision on the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. Pharmerica Corporation's core business provides pharmacy products and services to residents and patients in skilled nursing facilities, nursing centers, assisted living facilities, hospitals, and other long-term alternative care settings. PINSTRIPES INC: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Luis Sanchez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Pinstripes, Inc. and Dale Schwartz, Case No. 14-cv-09215 (N.D. Ill., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours work in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate restaurant within the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com PRINCIPAL LIFE: Faces "Razo" Suit in Iowa Over Violation of ERISA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Rozo v. Principal Life Insurance Company and Principal Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-00463 (S.D. Iowa, November 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Principal Life Insurance Company and Principal Financial Group, Inc. operate as insurance companies with headquarters located in Des Moines, Iowa. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Barton Goplerud, Esq. Brian O. Marty, Esq. HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER & ANDERSON P.C. 5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100 West Des Moines, IA 50265 Telephone: (515) 223-4567 Facsimile: (515) 223-8887 E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net bmarty@hudsonlaw.net - and - Todd Jackson, Esq. Nina Wasow, Esq. Julie Wilensky, Esq. LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 97607 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 Facsimile: (510) 839-7839 E-mail: tjackson@lewisfeinberg.com nwasow@lewisfeinberg.com jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com - and - Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. Michael McKay, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 8501 N. Scottsdale Rd., Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Telephone: (480) 428-0145 Facsimile: (866) 505-8036 E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com mmckay@schneiderwallace.com - and - Todd Schneider, Esq. Mark Johnson, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Ste. 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com - and - Christopher Micheletti, Esq. Heather T. Rankie, Esq. ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1912 Facsimile: (415) 693-0770 E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com hrankie@zelle.com PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Lowenbein" Suit Over Breach of FDCA --------------------------------------------------------------- Bashie Lowenbein on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-06733 (E.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc. is regularly engaged, for profit, in the collection of debts allegedly owed by consumers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, PC 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com RANCHO SANTO: Sued in Texas Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Fernando Salas-Sanchez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Rancho Santo Cristo, Inc. d/b/a Southcoast Produce Co. and Arnulfo Perez, Case No. 3:14-cv-04041 (N.D. Tex., November 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a fruit and vegetable market located in Dallas, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL PC 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com RAYONIER INC: Sued in Florida Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Lake Worth Firefighters Pension Trust Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Rayonier Inc., Paul Boynton, Hans E Vanden Noort, H. Edwin Kiker, and David L. Nunes, Case No. 3:14-cv-01403 (M.D. Fla., November 14, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading financial statements and failure to disclose cost of sales, operating income, net income, diluted and basic earnings per share, and other important financial metrics. Rayonier Inc. owns, leases and manages working forests in the US and New Zealand to supply timber to a wide variety of markets. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Rayonier Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Josefson, Esq. Gerald H. Silk, Esq. BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER & GROSSMANN, LLP 38th Floor, 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com jerry@blbglaw.com - and - Robert D. Klausner, Esq. KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON 10059 NW 1st Ct Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 916-1202 Facsimile: (954) 916-1232 E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com REXNORD CORPORATION: Class Action Plaintiffs' Attorney Fees Paid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC ("Zurn Industries"), were named as defendants in a number of individual and class action lawsuits in various United States courts. The plaintiffs in these suits claimed damages due to the alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX plumbing systems in homes and other structures. In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the liability underlying this litigation. The settlement is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims independently. The settlement received final court approval in February 2013, and utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is capped at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the seven year period based on claim activity and minimum funding criteria. The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which were paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2014. Rexnord is a growth-oriented, multi-platform industrial company with what it believes are leading market shares and highly trusted brands that serve a diverse array of global end-markets. REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Defendants Answer Second Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that defendants have answered the Second Amended Complaint in the class action by two pre-IPO investors denying all allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. On October 3, 2013, two pre-IPO investors filed a putative class action purportedly brought on behalf of the investors in RIF III in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On February 14, 2014, a First Amended Complaint was filed adding an additional individual pre-IPO investor and putative class claims on behalf of investors in RIF IV. This complaint also alleged that the communication of the proposed accommodation (in which Messrs. Schwimmer, Frankel and Ziman, together with certain other pre-IPO owners of the pre- IPO management companies agreed to return up to $32.1 million that they received in connection with the Company's IPO and formation transactions) was materially misleading by not including disclosures regarding the lawsuit and claims asserted by plaintiffs. On July 15, 2014, a Second Amended Complaint was filed withdrawing the class action allegations and the allegations concerning communication of the accommodation, and adding four additional plaintiff investors. During the third quarter of 2014, the Company entered into settlement agreements with three of these four additional plaintiffs. The aggregate amounts paid by the Company in these settlements was not material. Plaintiffs assert claims against the Company, RIF III, RIF IV, RILLC and Messrs. Schwimmer, Frankel and Ziman for breach of fiduciary duty, violation of certain California securities laws, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the terms of the Company's formation transactions were unfair to investors in RIF III and RIF IV, that the consideration received by investors in RIF III and RIF IV in the formation transactions was inadequate, that the pre-IPO management companies were allocated unfair value in the formation transactions and that the disclosure documents related to the formation transactions were materially misleading. Plaintiffs also request to inspect the books and records of RIF III and RIF IV, which entities no longer exist, and further seek declaratory relief, unspecified recessionary damages, disgorgement, compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages, an accounting for unjust enrichment, and an award of costs including pre-judgment interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other unspecified relief. Defendants have answered the Second Amended Complaint denying all allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. "While we believe that the action is without merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously, we expect to incur costs associated with defending the action. At this early stage of the litigation, the ultimate outcome of the action is uncertain and we cannot reasonably assess the timing or outcome, or estimate the amount of loss, if any, or its effect, if any, on our financial condition," the Company said. Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc. is a self-administered and self- managed full-service REIT focused on owning and operating industrial properties in Southern California infill markets. SCOUT ANALYTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Violation of Securities Laws --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Weller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Scout Analytics, Inc., a Washington corporation, Service Source International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Mike Smerklo, Case No. 3:14-cv-05046 (N.D. Cal., November 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Scout Analytics, Inc. is a cloud-based customer lifecycle management solution designed to maximize customer value and accelerate sustainable growth in revenue and profits. Service Source International, Inc. provides cloud-based recurring revenue management solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: John David Du Wors, Esq. NEWMAN DU WORS LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 1600 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 274-2800 Facsimile: (206) 274-2801 E-mail: duwors@newmanlaw.com SEVENTH GENERATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Product Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tziva Rapoport-Hecht individually on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Seventh Generation, Inc., Case No. 7:14-cv-09087 (S.D.N.Y., November 14, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's material misrepresentation and deceptive business practice of labeling its laundry detergent and dish liquid products as natural, when in fact they contain synthetic preservatives benzisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone. Seventh Generation, Inc. manufactures and distributes Natural Laundry Detergent, Natural 4x Concentrated Laundry Detergent, Ultra Plus Natural Laundry Detergent, Natural Dish Liquid, and Ultra Power Natural Dish Liquid to retailers nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. LITTLETON JOYCE UGHETTA PARK & KELLY LLP 4 Manhattanville Road, Suite 202 Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone: (914) 417-3400 Facsimile: (914) 417-3401 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Joseph Lipari, Esq. THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C. 77 Water Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-4266 Facsimile: (888) 749-4267 E-mail: joseph.lipari@wilsonelser.com SIRIUS XM: Motion for Summary Judgment in Copyright Suit Nixed -------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Sisario, writing for The New York Times, report that a federal judge in New York has ruled against Sirius XM over an obscure copyright issue that has galvanized the music industry: royalties for recordings made before 1972. Sirius XM and Pandora Media have both been hit in the last year by a series of lawsuits over old recordings. Neither company pays record labels or performing artists on songs recorded before 1972, when federal copyright protection was first applied to recordings. (Both services, however, pay separate royalties for songwriting.) Last year, members of the 1960s band the Turtles -- who sang hits like "Happy Together" and "She'd Rather Be With Me" -- sued Sirius XM in California, New York and Florida, saying that by playing its songs without permission, the broadcaster had infringed on the group's rights under state laws. The Turtles sought class-action status and asked for $100 million in damages. But these cases may well have broader implications if they lead to changes in copyright law. On Nov. 14, Judge Colleen McMahon of United States District Court in Manhattan rejected Sirius XM's motion for summary judgment, saying the Turtles have performing rights to their recordings under New York State law. Sirius XM has until Dec. 5 to dispute remaining facts in the case, the judge wrote, otherwise Sirius XM will be ruled liable for infringement. "In short, general principles of common law copyright dictate that public performance rights in pre-1972 sound recordings do exist," Judge McMahon wrote. A representative of Sirius XM declined on Nov. 16 to comment on the decision. The ruling comes after a separate win for the Turtles in September, when a federal judge in California found Sirius XM liable for infringement under state laws there. That decision was viewed as a major victory for artists and record companies, although its wider impact was unclear because it applied only to California. Judge McMahon's decision bolstered the music industry's position that old recordings are covered under state laws. But both recording and broadcasting executives say the potential for wide confusion over music licensing -- for example, it may mean that thousands of AM-FM radio stations, as well as restaurants or sports arenas where music is performed, may have been infringing on recording rights for decades -- may require clarification from Congress. The cases also come as record sales have continued to decline and the music industry has become more reliant on income from online and streaming audio services. SoundExchange, a nonprofit organization that collects recording royalties from Internet and satellite radio, estimates that about $60 million is lost each year in uncollected royalties from oldies. SIXT RENT: "Ojeda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Livan Ojeda, and others similarly situated individuals v. Sixt Rent A Car LLC, a foreign Limited Liability Company, Vincent Todd Sazera, and Johannes A. Boeingoff, Case No. 1:14-cv-24334 (S.D. Fla., November 14, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a car rental company in Miami-Dade, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower, 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com SODEXO INC: Faces "Chandler" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Ella Chandler, for herself and all others similarly situated v. Sodexo, Inc., Sodexo Management, Inc., and Heartland Employment Services, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-06553 (E.D. Pa., November 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Sodexo, Inc. is a leading provider of comprehensive service solutions to corporations, health care, long term care, retirement, schools, higher education, government and remote sites. Sodexo Management, Inc. provides contract based food facility management services as well as staff development and training, food catering, menu and nutritional planning and material procurement services. Heartland Employment Services, LLC owns and operates 27 skilled nursing facilities in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. KOLMAN ELY PC 414 Hulmeville Ave Penndel, PA 19047 Telephone: (215) 750-3134 E-mail: dcohenlaw@comcast.net SOLARCITY CORPORATION: Faces Stockholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed on March 28, 2014, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and two of its officers. The complaint alleges claims for violations of the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our securities from March 6, 2013 to March 18, 2014. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit. SolarCity is engaged in the design, manufacturing, installation and sale or lease of solar energy systems to residential and commercial customers, or sale of electricity generated by solar energy systems to customers. The Company's headquarters are located in San Mateo, California. SPECTRUM FINANCIAL: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Courtney Mills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Spectrum Financial Services, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv- 00175 (N.D. Ga., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week. Spectrum Financial Services, LLC is a national employee staffing company hiring employees across the country to work at its clients' offices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly N. Martin, Esq. Thomas F. Martin, Esq. MARTIN & MARTIN, LLP P.O. Box 1070 Tucker, GA 30085-1070 Telephone: (770) 313-5538 Facsimile: (770) 837-2678 E-mail Kimberlymartinlaw@gmail.com tfmartinlaw@msn.com STARION ENERGY: Faces $50MM Class Action Over Electric Bill ----------------------------------------------------------- Jay Stapleton, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports that a Connecticut energy company faces a potential class action from consumers who are upset that their electric bills have gone up instead of down. The claim against Middlebury-based Starion Energy seeks $50 million. The complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan seeks to recover damages on behalf of consumers estimated in the thousands from several states in which Starion does business, including Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts. The primary claim is that Starion made money-saving promises that didn't come to fruition. The complaint, filed on behalf of lead plaintiff Diana Windley of the Bronx, N.Y., alleges that Starion violated the New York's consumer protection act, as well as contractual agreements with Windley. According to the complaint, Windley was "promised" she would save money on her bill from her former energy provider, Con Edison, but ended up paying three times more. "Starion promises customers savings on their energy bills if they switch their accounts from other energy suppliers," said Jeremy Heisler -- jheisler@sanfordheisler.com -- the managing partner of Sanford Heisler in New York, the firm representing the plaintiffs. "In fact, Starion often jacks up its promised rate to two or three times what customers were paying before making the switch." The suit claims that Starion targeted elderly and low-income consumers by offering them savings if they switched from their current utility, including Con Edison in New York and Connecticut Light & Power in Connecticut. But instead of savings, the comsumers paid hundreds of dollars more per year for electricity than they had before signing on with Starion. Starion Energy is one of dozens of alternative energy suppliers that resulted from deregulation of the U.S. electric industry. The company has 30,000 customers in Connecticut and many thousands more in Delaware, Maryland Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. According to the company website, Starion, which started in Connecticut in 2002, is "one of the fastest growing energy suppliers in the United States." The company serves residential and commercial customers by offering fixed or variable ragte plans to allow consumers to buy electricity. "You have the ability to choose a fixed-rate and lock in the prices for a specified period allowing you budget certainty month to month," the Starion website says. "Or you can enroll in our variable rate program to take advantage of current market conditions of energy that we buy day- to-day." Attorney George Jepsen's office has represented the state in a pair of complaints against Starion lodged with the Department of Public Utility Control. According to state records, a settlement agreement was reached with Starion in 2011 after the company was accused of violating Connecticut law by switching customers to its energy service without obtaining confirmation that customers desired to do so. Under the settlement, Starion paid fines and also made a $20,000 donation to Operation Fuel, Inc., an energy assistance program in Hartford for low-income families. Earlier this year, Mr. Jepsen issued a consumer advisory in which he informed the public that Starion Energy was on a list of energy providers doing business in Connecticut that were charging more than standard rates for electricity. Mr. Jepsen also stated that Starion was one of a number of companies that offer variable rate plans in which low initial ratesa are "quickly replaced by significantly higher charges without notice. We have also received complaints from customers who enrolled in fixed-rate supply arrangements who were automatically transferred to exorbitantly high variable rate products at the conclusion of the fixed-rate term." Andrew Melzer, another attorney at Sanford Heisler, said complaints against Starion handled in Connecticut, New York, and Maryland helped bolster the claims of lead plaintiff Windley, and prompted the lawyers to file the putative class action. "Basically, when the complaints were filed against Starion, at that point they were kind they had just started out and they really got a little bit of a slap on the wrist," Mr. Melzer said. "Now they've extended into other states, and a lot more people have been taken advantage of." Starion has several weeks to respond to the complaint, which is the first lawsuit of its kind to be filed against the company. Phone messages left with Starion executives in Connecticut were not returned. STONEMOR PARTNERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Brandi Brodzenski, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Stonemor Partners LP, Stonemor Operating, LLC, and Stonemor GP LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-02517 (N.D. Ohio, November 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate cemeteries in Ohio and across the country, and sell cemetery products including but not limited to: burial lots, lawn and mausoleum crypts, burial vaults, urns, caskets, memorials, and services to provide for the installation of the cemetery merchandise. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason R. Bristol, Esq. COHEN, ROSENTHAL & KRAMER 400 Hoyt Block Bldg. 700 St. Clair Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 781-7956 Facsimile: (216) 781-8061 E-mail: jbristol@crklaw.com STUDIO NAILS: "Liu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ai Ping Liu, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Studio Nails & Spa, Inc, Hartsdale Floris Spa and Nails Inc. d/b/a Floris Spa & Nail, Kyung Sil Ahn, Jennifer Doe, John Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv- 09128 (S.D.N.Y., November 17, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidates damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a massage and nail spa doing business in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCITES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003 Flushing, New York 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com SUN-TEC INSTALLATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Napoleon Owens, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v. Sun-Tec Installation, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, d/b/a Sun-Tec Solar Energy and Heng Phu, individually, Case No. 9:14-cv- 81429 (S.D. Fla., November 17, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are engaged in the business of home and commercial solar panel installation and repair. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maguene Dieudonne Cadet, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A. 2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Telephone: (561) 853-2212 Facsimile: (561) 853-2213 E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces "Neely" Suit Over Viptera Corn ---------------------------------------------------------- Ivory Neely, 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-00669 (E.D. Ark., November 17, 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: John Charles Williams, Esq. Hank Bates, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 11311 Arcade Drive, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72212 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 E-mail: jwilliams@cbplaw.com hbates@cbplaw.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. 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 51 00 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, Texas 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, W A 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 E-mail: smorrissey@susmangodfrey.com SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Faces RJR Farms Suit Over Viptera Corn ------------------------------------------------------------ RJR Farms, Keeter Farms, Inc. Marge Farms, Jeff Keeter, Eifling Farm General Partnership, and Clay Eifling individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00415 (E.D. Ark., November 17, 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 E. Poynter, Esq. Will T. Crowder, Esq. Corey D. McGaha, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP The Rozelle-Murphy House, 1301 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 E-mail: scott@emersonpoynter.com wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488-8854 Facsimile: (281) 488-8867 E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com SYNGENTA CORPORATION: Face Gilbert Jones Suit Over Viptera Corn --------------------------------------------------------------- Gilbert Jones & Sons Farm LLC, on its own behalf, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-14384 (E.D. Mich., November 14, 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: Paul F. Novak, Esq. Diana Gjonaj, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Kennedy Square, 777 Woodward Ave., Ste. 890 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 309-1760 E-mail: pnovak@milberg.com dgjonaj@milberg.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. Peggy Wedgworth, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor New York, NY 10119 Telephone: 212-594-5300 E-mail: lfeldman@milberg.com pwedgwort@milberg.com - and - Thomas A. Doyle, Esq. DOYLE LAW PC 4101 W. St. Joseph Highway, Ste. 1, P.O. Box 16066 Lansing, MI 48901-6066 Telephone: (517) 323-7366 E-mail: tdoy1e@doy1e1awpc.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Defective Airbags ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yessica Martinez and Eric Anthony Rosson on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-24346 (S.D. Fla., November 14, 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: David M. Buckner, Esq. Seth E. Miles, Esq. Brett E. von Borke, Esq. GROSSMAN ROTH, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1150 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 442-8666 Facsimile: (305) 285-1668 Email: dbu@grossmanroth.com sem@grossmanroth.com bvb@grossmanroth.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Shader" Suit Over Defective Airbags -------------------------------------------------------------- Shelley Shader, Barry Balmuth, and Connie Collins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-24343 (S.D. Fla., November 14, 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: John Scarola, Esq. SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY PA 2139 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone: (561) 686-6300 Facsimile: (561) 383-9451 E-mail: jsx@searcylaw.com - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq. Robert Neary, Esq. Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq. Joshua L. Plager, Esq. KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 Facsimile: (305) 372-3508 E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com tr@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com tjl@kttlaw.com jplager@kttlaw.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Gerhart" Suit Over Defective Airbags --------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Gerhart, John Huebner, Kangyi And Ann Xiaoyan Chen, Judy Rumlik, and Thomas Williams, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14- cv-01562 (W.D. Pa., November 14, 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: Richard M. Golomb, Esq. Ruben Honik, Esq. Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C. 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 985-9177 Facsimile: (215) 985-4169 E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com rhonik@golombhonik.com kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Airbags -------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Horton, David Bear Mclaughlin, Mary Christine Rapoza, David Neto, Corene L. Quirk, Mary B. Johnston, Joyce M. Wichmann and Richard E. H. Howells, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-04433 (D.S.C., November 14, 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: Joseph F. Rice, Esq. Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq. Kevin R. Dean, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC 28 Bridgeside Boulevard Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 216-9000 Facsimile: (843) 216-9450 E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com - and - Brian M. Knowles, Esq. KNOWLES LAW FIRM, PC 1212 Wappoo Road Charleston, SC 29407 Telephone: (843) 810-7596 Facsimile: (877) 408-1078 E-mail: brian@knowlesinternational.com - and - Robert M. Turkewitz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT M. TURKEWITZ, LLC 2186 Wappoo Hall Road Charleston, SC 29412 Telephone: (843) 628-7868 Facsimile: (843) 277-1438 E-mail: rob@rmtlegal.com TRULIA INC: Dec. 3 Hearing on Preliminary Injunction Motion ----------------------------------------------------------- Trulia, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the hearing on the preliminary injunction motion in the In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation is set for December 3, 2014. Between August 7, 2014 and August 20, 2014, four plaintiffs filed purported class action lawsuits against the Company and its directors, Zillow and HoldCo in connection with the Zillow Merger. Three of those purported class actions were brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Shue et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Case No. 10020 (August 7, 2014), Sciabacucci et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Case No. 10022 (August 8, 2014), and Steinberg et al. v. Trulia, Inc. et al., Case No. 10049 (August 20, 2014). The fourth of those purported class actions was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, captioned Collier et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Case No. CGC 14-540985 (August 7, 2014). The Company said, "Each of the lawsuits alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duties to Trulia stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Trulia through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair terms. The Collier complaint filed in Delaware and the Sciabacucci complaint (as amended, as described below) also allege that our directors breached their fiduciary duties to Trulia stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, with respect to the contents of HoldCo's registration statement on Form S-4. All lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of the Zillow Merger and attorneys' fees and costs. The Delaware actions also seek rescission of the Merger Agreement (to the extent it has already been implemented) or rescissory damages, and orders directing the individual defendants to account for alleged damages suffered by the plaintiff and the purported class as a result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing." "On September 23, 2014, the plaintiff in the Sciabacucci action filed an amended complaint, alleging substantially the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as in the original complaint, and on September 24, 2014, the plaintiff filed (1) a motion for expedited proceedings, (2) a motion for a preliminary injunction, (3) a request for production of documents from defendants, and (4) notice of depositions. On October 7, 2014, the plaintiff in the Collier action filed a new complaint in Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Collier et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Case No. 10209 (October 7, 2014), alleging substantially the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as the original complaint filed in California. "On October 8, 2014, the plaintiff in the Collier action filed a request for dismissal of the California case without prejudice. On October 13, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating all of the Delaware actions into one matter captioned In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, C.A. No. 10020-CB and appointed a lead counsel. On October 13 and 14, 2014, the motions were refiled under the consolidated case number. The hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is set for December 3, 2014. "We believe that the foregoing lawsuits are entirely without merit and intend to defend against the actions vigorously," the Company said. Trulia is redefining the home search experience for consumers and changing the way that real estate professionals build their businesses. Its marketplace, delivered through the web and mobile applications, gives consumers powerful tools to research homes and neighborhoods and enables real estate professionals to efficiently market their listings and attract and manage new clients. UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Shareholder Class Action Appeal Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the plaintiffs in a class action filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the court and that appeal is ongoing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws. On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following the plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April 16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the other defendants, and against the plaintiffs. On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the court. The appeal is ongoing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There can be no assurance that the Company will prevail in the appeal proceeding. The Company cannot currently estimate the possible loss, if any, that it may experience in connection with this litigation. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Suit Reveals Issue on Bogus Courses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Naomi Schaeffer Riley, writing for New York Post, reports that a lawsuit filed by former University of North Carolina football player Michael McAdoo claims that UNC "systematically funneled its football student-athletes into a 'shadow curriculum' of bogus courses which never met and which were designed for the sole purpose of providing enrollees high grades." Indeed, a recently released 130-page independent investigation of the school reports that more than 3,100 students (both athletes and non-athletes) were taking "paper" courses in the formerly named African and Afro-American Studies department for 18 years ending in 2011. The courses didn't meet and didn't have any requirements. While for years the university maintained that only the department chair of the African-American studies program, Julius Nyang'oro, understood what was going on, it is clear from this new report that coaches and athletic tutors were fully aware. After all they were funneling their students into the classes in order to boost their GPAs. Administrators knew, too. According to the report, one administrator "became aware in 2005 or 2006 that Mr. Nyang'oro was routinely listed as the instructor-of-record for a number of independent studies -- approximately 300 per year. Three-hundred? "That administrator's response was just to ask Nyang'oro to reduce his independent studies numbers and then to let the matter drop." As a result these completely fraudulent courses went on for another five years. The initial motivation for this widespread fraud was to ensure the eligibility of UNC athletes -- Mr. Nyang'oro's assistant was a big UNC sports fan! But the problem was systemic. UNC was regularly admitting kids who could not do college-level work. According to one researcher, who looked at the reading abilities of 183 UNC- Chapel Hill basketball and football players, 60% read between fourth- and eighth-grade levels. Between 8% and 10% read below a third-grade level. Obviously these athletes could not be enrolled in regular college classes, so they were steered into particular departments -- communications, exercise studies and African- American studies -- that would offer an easier ride. The temptation is to assume that the fake courses offered by the school are an athletic scandal. They're not. What happened at UNC is an academic scandal through and through. The reason these courses went unnoticed for so long is the result of a university culture that is dysfunctional and unserious about education. And that starts with the oversight of the faculty. As Jane Shaw points out, "There is a mantra that professors are in charge of their own courses because they have academic freedom." Shaw, who heads the North Carolina-based Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, says that academic freedom should not mean there is no quality control. Moreover, Ms. Shaw wonders whether the fact that it was a minority studies department on a campus that is unusually focused on "multiculturalism" meant that it got a free pass. No one wants to be the politically incorrect professor calling attention to the problem. Many of these administrators used to be faculty members themselves so they give professors undue deference too. And the administrators also face no oversight. Anne Neal of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni points out that obviously the accreditors here proved particularly useless. How did they not notice what was going on for almost two decades? Fundamentally, she suggests that what happened at UNC is a governance problem. Ms. Neal says trustees have been marginalized to the point where most don't see it as their role to oversee the academic integrity of a school. UNC, she says, "is an example of an institution that has lost its way and really seems to put reputation and revenues ahead of academic mission." Ms. Neal compares it to the situation at Penn State a couple of years ago, but notes that the problem is far broader than just the way that athletics has corrupted higher education. "There is a question of academic seriousness here. Students in large numbers are not showing significant cognitive gain in college. They are spending more time sleeping and socializing than studying." And the results are clear. According to the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, the vast majority of four-year college graduates fell below the "proficient" level in prose, document, and quantitative literacy. To score proficiently, you need to do things like compare viewpoints in two editorials and compute the cost per ounce of food items. Tough stuff. Imagine if all the college grads who took "bogus" courses "designed for the sole purpose of providing enrollees high grades" decided to sue. Now that would be a class action. WELLS FARGO: Fails to Timely File Mortgage Certificate, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony King and Renee King, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:14-cv-06715 (E.D.N.Y., November 14, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to file on a timely basis their satisfactions of mortgage or certificates of discharge. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a full-service interstate bank that operates throughout the United States, including in New York State. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Dudley Jordan, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER, LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 - and - Todd S. Collins, Esq. Eric Lechtzin, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 - and - Stuart Rossman, Esq. Charles Delbaum, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER 7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 542-8010 WIND RESISTANT: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Sierra" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Omar Guzman Sierra, Domingo Junior Del Villar and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Wind Resistant Concrete System Corp., Onevo, LLC, SSCC Group, Inc., Jose L. Henriquez, and Raul Hinojosa, Case No. 1:14-cv-24355 (S.D. Fla., November 16, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants are concrete work contractors in Miami-Dade, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. 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 WOLF OIL: Faces "Bahr" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Bahr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wolf Oil and Gas, LLC, Jeffery Wolf, and Jesse Wolf, Case No. 1:14-cv-03071 (D. Colo., November 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants provide oil and gas well monitoring services to energy companies nationwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Galvin Bernard Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, LLP 711 West Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com ZILLOW INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Zillow, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court has issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss a securities class action and Plaintiffs have 30 days from the date of entry of the judgment to appeal the Court's judgment. The Company said, "In November 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle against us and certain of our executive officers seeking unspecified damages. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in June 2013. The complaint purports to state claims for violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased our common stock between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that during the period between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012, we issued materially false and misleading statements regarding our business practices and financial results." "In August 2013, we moved to dismiss the lawsuit. On October 20, 2014, the Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. Also on October 20, 2014, the Court entered a judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice." Plaintiffs have 30 days from the date of entry of the judgment to appeal the Court's judgment dismissing the consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. "We have not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of September 30, 2014 or December 31, 2013, as we do not believe a material loss is probable," the Company said. Zillow operates the real estate and home-related information marketplaces on mobile and the Web, with a complementary portfolio of brands and products to help people find vital information about homes, and connect with local professionals. ZILLOW INC: Preliminary Injunction Motion Hearing Set for Dec. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zillow, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 6, 2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Court has issued an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss a securities class action and Plaintiffs have 30 days from the date of entry of the judgment to appeal the Court's judgment. In August 2014, four purported class action lawsuits were filed by plaintiffs against Trulia and its directors, Zillow, and Zebra Holdco, Inc. in connection with Zillow's proposed acquisition of Trulia. One of those purported class actions, captioned Collier et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., was brought in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, however on October 7, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a new complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging substantially the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as the original complaint filed in California. On October 8, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a request for dismissal of the California case without prejudice. The other three of the purported class action lawsuits, captioned Shue et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Sciabacucci et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., and Steinberg et al. v. Trulia, Inc. et al., were brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery. All four lawsuits allege that Trulia's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Trulia stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Trulia through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price and on unfair terms. All lawsuits seek, among other things, equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of Zillow's proposed acquisition of Trulia and attorneys' fees and costs. The Delaware actions also seek rescission of the Merger Agreement (to the extent it has already been implemented) or rescissory damages and orders directing the defendants to account for alleged damages suffered by the plaintiffs and the purported class as a result of the defendants' alleged wrongdoing. On September 24, 2014, plaintiff in the Sciabacucci action filed (1) a motion for expedited proceedings, (2) a motion for a preliminary injunction, (3) a request for production of documents from defendants, and (4) notice of depositions. On October 13, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an order consolidating all of the Delaware actions into one matter captioned In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation and appointed Rigrodsky & Long as lead counsel. On October 13 and 14, 2014, the above-referenced motions were refiled under the consolidated case number. The hearing on the preliminary injunction motion is set for December 3, 2014. "We have not recorded an accrual related to these lawsuits as of September 30, 2014, as we do not believe a material loss is probable," the Company said. Zillow operates the real estate and home-related information marketplaces on mobile and the Web, with a complementary portfolio of brands and products to help people find vital information about homes, and connect with local professionals. * Clement, Tribe to Challenge FDA Over Lab Test Regulation ---------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that in a not-so-subtle hint that it's prepared to fight, the American Clinical Laboratory Association on Nov. 18 announced it has hired longtime U.S. Supreme Court advocate Paul Clement and constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe to challenge federal regulators. The conservative-liberal team isn't working on a cert petition or an appellate argument. Messrs. Clement and Tribe have been retained to fight draft guidance by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to regulate certain laboratory tests -- proposed nonbinding rules that are open for comment until February. The unusually aggressive early move by the laboratory trade group underscores how important the issue is to its members. They oppose the FDA's push to bring so-called laboratory developed tests under its regulatory oversight. "We are pleased that Laurence Tribe and Paul Clement, two of the nation's most preeminent experts in constitutional law and administrative procedure, will advise ACLA in its opposition to the FDA proposal," said Stephen Rusckowski, president and CEO of Quest Diagnostics Inc. and ACLA chairman, in a written statement. Some of the lab tests at issue are relatively simple -- measuring, for example, a person's cholesterol. But in recent years, many tests have gotten more complex, detecting someone's risk for breast cancer or Alzheimer's disease, for example. Making matters more complicated, depending on the manufacturer, some tests for these conditions are already subject to FDA regulation. But laboratory-developed tests -- designed, manufactured and used within a single lab -- are not regulated by the FDA. Instead, test makers have been regulated for decades by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, and by state law. The FDA wants to change that, arguing that oversight should be "based on risk to patients rather than whether [the tests] were made by a conventional manufacturer or a single laboratory." The agency notes that it is "aware of faulty [laboratory developed tests] that could have led to: patients being over- or undertreated for heart disease; cancer patients being exposed to inappropriate therapies or not getting effective therapies; incorrect diagnosis of autism; unnecessary antibiotic treatments; and exposure to unnecessary, harmful treatments for certain diseases such as Lyme disease." The laboratory trade group counters that its members' tests are lab services, not medical devices, and the FDA lacks the statutory authority to regulate them. The test makers say that FDA regulation would be burdensome and stifle innovation. The current scheme, by contrast, "allows laboratories to develop tests quickly and to update them regularly as research and medicine advances, giving patients access to the most current diagnostic testing available. Such flexibility would be lost under the FDA device regulatory framework," ACLA President Alan Mertz testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee's health subcommittee in August. Mr. Clement, a partner at Bancroft, was solicitor general from 2005 until 2008 and has argued 75 cases in the Supreme Court. Tribe is a professor at Harvard Law School and well-known constitutional scholar. While Mr. Clement said he's usually brought in after an adverse decision, "From my standpoint, it's a huge luxury to be able to get involved in an issue at the beginning . . . and have the ability to shape the argument and debate," he said. He added, "We'll try to make the argument in a way that prevents the need for litigation." * Oregon Spent $50MM in Resolving Employment Claims in 10 Years --------------------------------------------------------------- Hannah Hoffman, writing for Statesman Journal, reports that about once every other day, a state worker files an employment claim against the state of Oregon. The claims include discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination, retaliation for whistleblowing and wage-and-hour disputes, among other issues. They come from people who have been fired, demoted, laid off and from people who still work in state offices. Occasionally, those claims lead to large payouts from the state. Earlier this year, for example, two former employees were paid $300,000 each, a total of $600,000 in 10 days. Both were top officials who were fired and later filed claims against the state for wrongful discharge. However, most of the would-be litigants fail, and records show the state is not in the habit of writing big checks to chagrined former employees. Rather, the state is more likely than not to tell them to go away, and settlements it does reach, on average, are worth about one year of mid-level salary. Records provided by the Department of Administrative Services show the settlements from earlier this year are anomalies in more ways than one. In 10 years, workers filed 1,115 claims against the state. Some people filed more than one claim during the years. Three quarters of claims are resolved without the state paying someone. Of the remaining one quarter, the average payment was about $47,000. The state has spent almost $50 million dealing with claims over 10 years. However, about $13 million of that was spent on just one class-action lawsuit that dragged on for 15 years. Employment cases almost never go to trial. Just 33 made it to a courtroom in 10 years. The state won 24 of those trials. Trials are more expensive than settling. Records show the state spends an average $120,923 on a case it settles, including attorney fees on both sides. For a trial, it spends an average $257,574, more than twice as much. The decision to settle or go to trial hangs over every case. Trials carry a bigger financial risk, but there is also the principle at stake in each case, which can make it unappealing to settle a case where the state feels it is in the right. The decision to cut a check or not lies with Department of Justice and the Department of Administrative Services, whose risk division analysts decide how likely it is the state would win in a courtroom after listening to attorneys and looking over the case. As the numbers show, trials are rare. "The unknown of it and the cost are what keep you from going there most of the time," said Department of Administrative Services Director Michael Jordan. For the most part, it's about making the most prudent financial decision. The state is sometimes faced with a choice between spending more money to stand on principle or resolving the case more smoothly with a settlement. There are times when the moral case wins out, Mr. Jordan said, as when many people have sued over the same thing and the state needs to send a message that it believes the claims are without merit. Why state worker lawsuits almost never go to trial "Every once in a while you stand firm on a case and say you're not going to just roll over and write a check," Mr. Jordan said. Most of the time however, Mr. Jordan said, the financial risk of a trial simply isn't worth it. Even if the state wins, it comes at a price. For example, the state won a trial in 2005 against Glenn Rudner, who sued the Oregon State Police. Mr. Rudner got nothing, but the state spent $131,420 fighting his lawsuit. In fact, most cases don't even make it to the pretrial depositions, he said. The two $300,000 settlements that drew so much attention earlier this year were not quite the largest in the past decade. The largest payout went to Douglas Samuels, a demoted vice provost at Portland State University who sued for racial discrimination and received $500,000. The two this year were both among the top five largest, however. Rob Killgore and George Dunford were officials at Oregon Corrections Enterprises and the Oregon Employment Department, respectively. Both were fired in the spring of 2013, and both claimed wrongful discharge and retaliation for whistleblowing. Mr. Dunford also claimed defamation. Mr. Dunford's was settled before he ever filed an official lawsuit. His claim is not alone. Most do not become lawsuits, but most don't result in any money either. Mr. Dunford's case was rare in that he was paid out without ever filing anything in court. Mr. Dunford's settlement was unusually large, but it was resolved early in the process, which is typical. Mr. Killgore's, on the other hand, not only went through months of depositions, but the jury trial was scheduled when it finally settled. About 26 percent of employment claims end in a settlement, and about 36 percent of those settlements result in money for the employee. Mr. Killgore's case was a tricky one. He sued for $1.5 million and had a high profile, very public case. However, Department of Corrections Director Colette Peters, who fired him, had reams of documentation for why she made her decision. Mr. Jordan wouldn't speak to any specific case, but he said some decisions are very hard to make. It's not always about who was right and who was wrong, he said. The amount of risk and the likely outcome at trial play a huge role. Sometimes even the lawyers from the Department of Justice disagree about the possible outcome. "Sometimes they're not easy," Mr. Jordan said. "Sometimes you're on a razor's edge." Ultimately, most cases do not turn out like Mr. Killgore's and Mr. Dunford's. Most people aren't paid anything, and very few people are paid as much as they were. Records show just nine people received payouts worth more than $250,000. In total, the state has paid plaintiffs a collective $11,828,013 over those 10 years. However, more than half of that money went to just 32 people. The payouts the state does give don't necessarily reflect what really happened behind the scenes, Mr. Jordan said. The decision of what to do ultimately falls with the state's lawyers and the Department of Administrative Services risk department, not the agency involved in the case. Money for the plaintiff doesn't necessarily mean guilt on the state's behalf, he said, nor do those "admit no fault" clauses in every settlement mean the state was actually blameless in every case. "It would be naive of people to think we never do anything wrong," Mr. Jordan said. * Some FLSA-Related Suits Subject to Dismissal Over Lack of Facts ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick T. Ryan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that the number of lawsuits alleging uncompensated work time has skyrocketed in recent years, as employees in many industries, such as health care, retail, food service, manufacturing and financial services, allege that employer practices or policies undercompensate them for required activities. Most of the lawsuits are brought as potential collective actions under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, and many include claims under analogous state wage laws. The FLSA does not define what constitutes "work" or a "workweek," and courts have been forced to address these issues in an increasing number of cases alleging unpaid overtime for work performed beyond the statute's 40-hour threshold. Recent decisions are beginning to make clear that some of these complaints are subject to dismissal for failure to allege enough specific facts to state a claim under the FLSA. On Aug. 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided in Davis v. Abington Memorial Hospital, 765 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2014), that the FLSA claims of plaintiffs who alleged that they "typically" worked between 32 and 40 hours per week and that they "frequently" worked extra time during meal breaks or after their shifts ended were properly dismissed for failing to allege enough facts in their complaints. The court adopted an approach taken last year by the Second Circuit in Lundy v. Catholic Health System of Long Island, 711 F.3d 106 (2013), on how much factual specificity is required to survive a motion to dismiss in an FLSA case. The need for more factual specificity in federal court complaints stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Twombly and Iqbal. In May 2007, in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), the Supreme Court tightened the federal court pleading requirements by construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) to require a plaintiff to include "enough factual matter" to plausibly show that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief he or she seeks. Two years later, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), the court emphasized that it is not sufficient to plead facts that, if true, make it possible that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff. A complaint must allege enough facts to allow the court "to draw the reasonable inference" that, if the claimed facts are true, "the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." The need to plead enough facts to make the claim plausible has caused plaintiffs to include more facts in their complaints and prompted defendants to seek dismissal of complaints they assert are inadequate under the Twombly/Iqbal -- sometimes colloquially shortened to "Twiqbal" -- standards. In Davis, the Third Circuit applied those pleading standards in an FLSA case alleging that an employer is not properly compensating employees for overtime work. The court affirmed the dismissal of complaints against five hospital systems alleging failure to compensate nurses and other patient-care professionals for hours worked in excess of the FLSA's 40-hour-per-week threshold. The plaintiffs alleged that the hospital employers failed to compensate them for work done during meal breaks, at required training programs, and before and after their scheduled shifts. The deficiency the Third Circuit found in each plaintiff's complaint was a failure to allege that in any single workweek when the plaintiff worked at least 40 hours the plaintiff also worked additional uncompensated time that was over the 40-hour threshold. Instead, each plaintiff alleged that he or she typically worked shifts between 32 and 40 hours, occasionally worked longer shifts, and frequently worked extra hours that were not compensated. Some alleged they were not paid for work done during meal breaks or outside scheduled shifts. Others alleged that they typically missed or had interrupted lunch breaks. But, the court explained, "none of the named plaintiffs has alleged a single workweek in which he or she worked at least 40 hours and also worked uncompensated time in excess of 40 hours." The plaintiffs argued that in light of their allegations about what typically and frequently occurred, it was plausible that at least some of the uncompensated time involved work done in excess of 40 hours, but the Third Circuit disagreed. The court emphasized that it was not requiring a plaintiff to "identify the exact dates and times that she worked overtime" and was not adopting a standard that required FLSA plaintiffs to allege approximately how many hours of uncompensated time over the 40-hour threshold they worked. But under the pleading standards announced in Twombly and Iqbal, the plaintiff had to plead enough facts for the court to infer that the plaintiff worked uncompensated time in excess of 40 hours in one or more weeks. The court explained: "A plaintiff's claim that she 'typically' worked 40 hours per week, worked extra hours during such a 40-hour week, and was not compensated for extra hours beyond 40 hours he or she worked during one or more of those 40-hour weeks, would suffice." In other words, what a plaintiff's complaint must do is "connect the dots between bare allegations of a 'typical' 40-hour workweek and bare allegations of work completed outside of regularly scheduled shifts, so that the allegations concerning a typical 40-hour week include an assertion that the employee worked additional hours during such a week." The need for an FLSA plaintiff to "connect the dots" is not a tremendously onerous pleading burden. Under Davis in the Third Circuit and Lundy in the Second Circuit, there is no need for the complaint to itemize or even approximate how many unpaid overtime hours the plaintiff worked. But the need to be able to allege unpaid (or underpaid) hours of work in one or more weeks in which the plaintiff also worked at least 40 hours may pose some obstacles in some circumstances. For example, the FLSA permits former employees to sue for unpaid overtime, and indeed -- perhaps not surprisingly -- many of the ever-increasing number of FLSA lawsuits being filed in the past few years are brought by former employees. A former employee is likely to recall how many hours he or she typically worked each week and that certain activities occurred before the shift started or after it ended, but the passage of time may make it more difficult to be sure that any extra time occurred in a week that was already over the FLSA overtime threshold of 40 hours. By contrast, a current employee contemplating an FLSA lawsuit can document that unpaid time is occurring in weeks when the employee is already working at least the 40-hour threshold. Indeed, lawyers can advise their prospective FLSA clients to wait and record those instances of engaging in extra activities before the complaint is filed. Decisions like Davis and Lundy do not mean that every FLSA overtime case should be met with a motion to dismiss. But, thanks to Twombly and Iqbal, Rule 8(a)'s pleading requirement has some teeth in it. Boilerplate complaints alleging more conclusions than facts should be scrutinized to see if, in the rush to join the recent trend of filing FLSA overtime cases, enough facts are properly alleged to show that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief the statute provides. * US DOJ Collects $24.7 Billion in Penalties From Big Banks ----------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that the U.S. Department of Justice in fiscal 2014 secured $24.7 billion from its cases, more than tripling its haul from fiscal 2013, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. announced on Nov. 19. The money flows mostly from deals JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup Inc. reached to settle financial fraud claims stemming from the 2008 financial crisis. The settlements with the banks accounted for $20 billion of DOJ's collection. The Justice Department also pulled in millions of dollars from ATM maker Diebold Inc. in a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act case and auto parts manufacturer Bridgestone Corp. in a price-fixing case, among other matters. Mr. Holder said in a statement: Every day, the Justice Department's federal prosecutors and trial attorneys work hard to protect our citizens, to safeguard precious taxpayer resources, and to provide a valuable return on investment to the American people. Their diligent efforts are enabling us to achieve justice and recoup losses in virtually every sector of the U.S. economy. Mr. Holder in his statement urged "leaders from both parties to come together to increase investments in this critical work -- so we can ensure that the Justice Department will continue to have the resources we need to build on these efforts." Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Congress should support the Fighting Fraud to Protect Taxpayers Act, which he and Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the panel, introduced to boost government efforts to combat fraud. "Congress can and should do more to ensure that law enforcement can prosecute these crimes," Mr. Leahy said in a written statement. Of the $24.7 billion collected, $13.7 billion went to the Justice Department and $11 billion ended up outside the agency in the coffers of other agencies and entities. DOJ collected about $8.1 billion in fiscal 2013. The department kept $5.5 billion, while the remaining $2.6 billion went to other recipients, including state governments. ********* 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 * * *