/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/141219.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, December 19, 2014, Vol. 16, No. 252
Headlines
A HEALTHY LIVING: "Avila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ACORD CORPORATION: Third Amended Complaint in Snyder Case Adopted
ADAMA AGRICULTURAL: Class Suit Plaintiffs Appeal to Supreme Court
AMERICAN ADVISORS: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
APPLE INC: Trial Begins in iPod Antitrust Suit
APPLE INC: Holiday Sale Cycle to Remain Strong Amid Class Action
ATLAS ROOFING: Judge Narrows Claims in Faulty Shingle Class Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Illegal Seizure Case
BILL COSBY: Moritz No Plan to Get Other Women to Join Suit
BROTHERS B PAINTING: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Serrano" Suit Says
CHEF'S TABLE: Faces Wage Theft Class Action in New York
CHEN & JIANG: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Dismissal of Child Migration Suit Affirmed
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
CONN'S INC: Faces "Pittel" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
DAIRY FARMERS: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Farm Milk
DOLE PACKAGED: Court Narrows Class in Labeling Suit
EL RANCHO: Obtains Initial OK of $2.3MM Accord in "Rosales" Case
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 25,000 Mesh Cases Currently Pending
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Entered Into MSAs to Fix 41,700 Mesh Claims
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 600 MCP Cases Currently Pending
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 40 Propoxyphene Cases Currently Pending
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 14 Testosterone Cases Currently Pending
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Civil Class Action Complaint in Ill.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bids to Nix Lidoderm Purchasers' Suit Pending
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Opana Purchasers' Suit
ERIE ISLANDS RESORT: Class Cert. Ruling Reversed in "Gordon"
FIREEYE INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in California
FUNKY BUDDHA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
HERBALIFE LTD: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Okay
HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Sued in Michigan Over Inverters-Price Fixing
HOME DEPOT: Faces Northeastern Engineers Suit Over Data Breach
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Repossession Practices
INTEGRITY STAFFING: Gets Favorable Security Screen Suit Ruling
JACO OIL: Pleading Amendment Deadline in FCRA Case Moved to April
JESUS BELTRAN: "Nieto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
M-I LLC: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Workers' Suit
MAGNUM HUNTER: Court Has No Responsibility to Rewrite Complaint
MERIDIAN HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisement, Suit Says
MERCK & CO: Defendant in 50 Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits
MERCK & CO: 4 Securities Suits Filed by Opt-Out Investors
MERCK & CO: 5,555 Fosamax Cases Currently Pending
MERCK & CO: 275 ONJ Injury Cases Pending in Atlantic County, NJ
MERCK & CO: 2,920 Femur Fracture Cases Pending in NJ State Court
MERCK & CO: 520 Femur Fracture Cases Filed in Calif. State Court
MERCK & CO: 700 Januvia/Janumet Product User Claims Pending
MERCK & CO: 1,945 NuvaRing Cases Currently Pending
MERCK & CO: 1,245 Propecia/Proscar Lawsuits Filed
MOL GLOBAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
NIDAJA LLC: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NOVEX BIOTECH: "Engel" Suit Over Growth Hormone Ads Dismissed
OAKLAND, CA: Mass Arrest Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
PREFERRED FREEZER: Faces "Altnor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RAMELLI GROUP: "Clincy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
REMINGTON ARMS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Rifle Trigger
SONY CORP: Anti-Poaching, Wage-Fixing Class Actions Consolidated
SUNRISE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Miller" Suit Claims
SUNSET MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Sayler" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Singer" Suit Over Defective Airbags
TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS: Class Suit Claims Not Moot, 11th Cir. Rules
TRACTOR SUPPLY: "Bellinghausen" Suit Deal Gets Initial Approval
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Illegal Background Check Class Action
VCA ANTECH: Case Over Illegal Surcharge Transferred to C.D. Cal.
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Potocki" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
WEST VIRGINIA'S CHOICE: Ruling in Wage & Hour Suit Affirmed
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid $900,000 to PI Claimant
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. to Review Ruling in PI Suit v. Crane Co.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Calif. Suit v. Crane Co. is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeals in 2 PI Suits Remain Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Peraica" Suit is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Had 75 Pending PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Had $13MM Fibro Liability as of Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Missouri Had $5-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Illinois Had $8MM Liability at Sept. 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Reports $22-Mil. IP Trust Fund Balance
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERC Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $331.1-Mil. Fibro Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific's Bid to Junk PI Suit Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM General's Bid to Junk "Pavlick" Suit Granted
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Reargument in "Konstantin" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Upholds Ruling in "DiSalvo" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Sowa" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kentucky Court Flips Ruling in "Fuqua" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Flips Ruling in Utica Reinsurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Remands "Whatley" Suit to State Court
*********
A HEALTHY LIVING: "Avila" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Avila, Sylvia Espinoza and Roxanne Garcia, On Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. A Healthy Living
Home Health Inc., Hugo Santana and Pete Cantu, Case No. 7:14-cv-
00982 (S.D. Tex., December 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a home healthcare facility in
Donna, Hidalgo County, Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Kevin Burke, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA
3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
McAllen, TX 78501
Telephone: (956) 682-5999
Facsimile: (888) 317-8802
E-mail: mburke@mmguerra.com
ACORD CORPORATION: Third Amended Complaint in Snyder Case Adopted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge John L. Kane issued an order on November 25,
2014, granting an agreed motion to adopt a third amended complaint
in the case captioned DALE SNYDER, et al., individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ACORD
CORPORATION, a Delaware non-profit corporation, et al. Defendants,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-01736-JLK, (D. Col.).
After conferring on the issues identified in a Notice of
Errata and in the Motion to Adopt Third Amended Complaint, and
having resolved the adoption of an efficient and practical
resolution to those issues, the Parties have reached an Agreement
to adopt Exhibit 1 to the Motion to Adopt Third Amended Complaint,
as identical to Exhibit 56 of the Notice of Errata, so that such
may be the Third Amended Complaint, replacing the Second Amended
Class Action Complaint and Jury Demand.
This Agreement constitutes part of a greater resolution by the
Parties to facilitate the practical management of the case by
amending the briefing schedule, in light of the Third Amended
Complaint, so as to allow Defendants reasonable time to respond
and incorporate the corrections of the Notice of Errata.
A copy of Judge Kane's ruling is available at http://is.gd/ObxslZ
from Leagle.com.
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs:
Eddie Gene Dougherty, Esq.
Josue David Hernandez, Esq.,
DOUGHERTY & HOLLOWAY, LLC
7200 NW 86th Street, Suite D
Kansas City, MO 64153
Telephone: 816-891-9990
Facsimile: 816-891-9905
Toll Free: 800-943-4529
Randall Hack -- rhack@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord, LLP, Chicago,
IL, Bryan Hays -- bhays@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Chicago,
IL, Attorneys for Defendant, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE.
Tom Johnson -- tom.johnson@dgslaw.com -- Davis Graham & Stubbs,
LLP, Denver, CO, Attorneys for Defendant, FARMERS INSURANCE
EXCHANGE.
Terence Ridley -- ridley@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell,
LLP, Denver, CO, Attorneys for Defendant, FIRST AMERICAN PROPERTY
& CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY.
Jon Sands -- jsands@SweetbaumSands.com -- Sweetbaum Sands
Anderson, PC, Denver, CO, Attorneys for Defendant, STATE FARM
MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY.
Mike Kenny -- mike.kenny@alston.com -- Alston and Bird, Atlanta,
GA, Attorneys for Defendant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY.
Mark Horning -- mhorning@steptoe.com -- Steptoe & Johnson, LLP,
Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Defendant, ACORD CORPORATION.
ADAMA AGRICULTURAL: Class Suit Plaintiffs Appeal to Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adama Agricultural Solutions Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,
2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the
plaintiffs in a class action filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.
On July 24, 2011, a financial claim and a request for approval of
the claim as a class action were received in the offices of Agan,
which were filed by two residents of Moshav Nir Galim and a
resident of Ashdod alleging damages caused due to odor and noise
nuisances. To the extent the claim will be approved as a class
action, the plaintiffs assess that the amount claimed from Agan is
about NIS 642 million ($185 million). On December 8, 2013, a
decision was rendered by the District Court in Be'er Sheva
rejecting the request for certification of the claim as a class
action and charging the plaintiffs for expenses. Subsequent to the
date of the statement of financial position, on February 10, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the said court decision to the
Supreme Court. In the Company's estimation, based on its legal
advisors, the chances the appeal will be accepted are less than
the chances it will be rejected.
AMERICAN ADVISORS: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Thompson, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. American Advisors Group, Case No. 1:14-cv-03966 (N.D.
Ga., December 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.
American Advisors Group is a lender in the reverse mortgage
industry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Howard Garber, Esq.
Marc N. Garber, Esq.
THE GARBER LAW FIRM, P.C.
Suite 14, 4994 Lower Roswell Road, NE
Marietta, GA 30068
Telephone: (678) 560-6685
Facsimile: (678) 560-5067
E-mail: ahgarber@garberlaw.net
mngarber@garberlaw.net
APPLE INC: Trial Begins in iPod Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------
Nick Statt and Shara Tibken, writing for CNET, report that
plaintiffs on Dec. 2 started outlining their case against Apple,
saying in a courtroom here that the electronics giant kept iPod
prices high by implementing unneeded software updates.
Because Apple wanted to hurt competitors and ban their music from
iTunes, it ended up harming consumers in the process, attorneys
for two plaintiffs in a class action antitrust lawsuit argued.
The trial, which is slated to last nine days, will decide an
almost decade-old claim that Apple's MP3 players may have been
overpriced while the company used its iTunes software to squash
cheaper devices.
The crux of the case is a set of now-defunct policies that Apple
instituted in the earliest days of the iPod to control how and
where users of iTunes and owners of its music players could play
back purchased songs. The plaintiffs argue that Apple, in
restricting iPod owners to songs purchased only through iTunes and
in banning songs from iTunes from playing on competing MP3
players, the company stifled competition. That kept iPod prices
artificially high, the plaintiffs say.
"Apple made those changes to its software after top executives at
Apple learned that competitors had figured out a way to have their
songs played on the iPod," Bonny Sweeney, the lead plaintiffs'
lawyer, said on Dec. 2. "And there was a concern by Apple that
this would eat into their market share."
Apple's lead attorney refuted those claims. "This insertion of
the stranger in the middle could not get everything right. It
posed a danger to the consumer experience and to the quality of
the product," William Isaacson said in defense of Apple's software
updates. Isaacson also pointed out that the plaintiffs' claim that
iPod prices were inflated happened to be at a time when iPod
storage increased while prices either fell or remained flat.
"There should be no damages here because prices went down and
quality went up."
The plaintiffs, Melanie Wilson and Marianna Rosen, are seeking
$350 million. Because of its class action status, the lawsuit
could award damages to as many as 8 million people who purchased
an iPod between September 12, 2006, and March 31, 2009. Apple
marketing chief Phil Schiller and iTunes chief Eddy Cue are set to
take the stand in the coming days, and the plaintiffs also will
play videotaped deposition from former CEO Steve Jobs, who died in
2011.
This case is not Apple's first antitrust rodeo. The company,
thanks to Mr. Jobs' often bullheaded business tactics, has been
embroiled in other high-profile cases concerning the iPhone
maker's competitive strategies and whether they stepped over the
line. In 2010, Apple was accused of conspiring with other tech
firms to fix employee wages to prevent competitors from recruiting
top talent from one another.
Two years later, Apple was accused of leading a charge in the
e-book industry against Amazon, conspiring with the top US book
publishers to fix prices of digital titles higher than Amazon
wanted to sell them to consumers. Apple failed in its e-book
crusade -- it may soon begin paying $400 million to as many as 23
million e-book customers -- and a rejected settlement agreement in
the wage-fixing suit means Apple will face another antitrust trial
in April.
The current case involving iPods is complex, having evolved
significantly since the original January 2005 filing. The suit
initially alleged that Apple broke the law by restricting owners
of its iPod to songs purchased only through iTunes. A court
deemed that legal, however, and the plaintiffs have since altered
the suit, alleging instead that Apple made a series of software
updates to iTunes specifically designed to shut out competing
music stores' ability to load their songs onto iPods.
The case will aim to determine what effect Apple's FairPlay
technology -- a so-called digital rights management tool that acts
like a watermark made of code -- had on the market for MP3 players
when it restricted iPod owners to iTunes and how to interpret
Apple's behavior in protecting FairPlay using software updates.
Apple refused to license FairPlay to competing music stores and
would not allow other MP3 players to connect to iTunes. The
plaintiffs lawyers will need to prove that Apple's actions were in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law.
Apple says that competing online music stores like RealNetworks,
which designed a specific tool called Harmony so that customers
could load its MP3s onto their iPods, were using the "ethics and
tactics of a hacker." The crucial updates to Apple's iTunes
software, numbered 7.0 and 7.4 and released in September 2006 and
September 2007, were designed not to block companies like
RealNetworks, Apple says, but to improve the user's experience and
maintain the security of its software.
The plaintiffs' argument, however, is that the updates "did not
make the iPod faster, improve sound quality, did not make the iPod
sleeker or smaller or cooler," but "prevented customers who had
legally purchased songs from Apple's competitors from playing
those songs on their iPod," Sweeney said.
Such "genuine product improvements," as they're called, would
exempt a company's actions from being deemed anticompetitive.
iTunes 7.0 is notable for introducing digital movie purchases to
the store. Mr. Jobs called it at the time "the most significant
enhancement" to iTunes "since it debuted in 2001." Yet the
updates also contained specially designed code that would go so
far as to force users to reset their iPods if they were loaded
with unauthorized MP3 files, wiping the devices clean.
"These fixes were really directed at competitors -- it blew up
everything if you used a third-party player," said Roger G. Noll,
a professor emeritus of economics at Stanford University and the
first expert witness called by the plaintiffs on Dec. 2. "That
was Apple's fix."
Apple's Isaacson says the iTunes 7.0 and 7.4 updates were designed
to improve security and purposefully keep third parties like
RealNetworks, which Apple still considers a hacker, out of its
system. "Harmony was outdated when FairPlay was updated. All
Apple was doing was updating FairPlay," he said. "That's what
happens when you reverse engineer the product and there's an
update of that architecture."
Neither RealNetworks nor any of the retailers named in the suit,
including Best Buy and Walmart, have filed suits of their own.
RealNetworks executives will not appear as witnesses. Instead,
the trial will hinge on the words of Jobs and other Apple
executives on the architecture of FairPlay and iTunes development
and expert testimony on both sides from university professors on
the strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs' antitrust
argument.
Ultimately, the case will not impact Apple beyond the potential
monetary damages. The company began offering DRM-free music in
January of 2009 and FairPlay is now used only to monitor the
number of computers and other devices to which a user has
downloaded a media file or mobile app. Music and other licensed
media purchased from other companies like Amazon and Google can
now be played on Apple devices.
Yet more interesting is that the music landscape is now
drastically different now than it was just seven years ago. The
iPod has been on a steady decline since 2008 -- smartphones having
demolished the MP3 player business -- while digital music
downloads have begun losing ground to subscription streaming
services like Spotify.
APPLE INC: Holiday Sale Cycle to Remain Strong Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ritesh Anan, writing for Benzinga, reports that a decade-old
lawsuit against Apple Inc. has just gone for trial at a court in
California and the Street is speculating how it's going to impact
the company in the long-run and what consequences it will have on
the company's stock.
Alex Gauna from JMP Securities was recently on CNBC to answer
those questions and the sales outlook for the company this holiday
season.
"It's exceptionally difficult to opine on how a trial like this
will turn out. It's very clear to JMP Securities that Apple is an
innovative company, arguably the most innovative electronics
company in the world," Gauna said.
"I personally believe that the company, back in time, was just
pushing the technology forward as fast as it could to deliver
better, in fact brilliant products to its consumers. I would
expect this trial to take some time, but what's really important
is that we are going to have, I think, a blockbuster holiday
season for Apple, not just in North America, but around the
world."
When asked whether this quarter is going to be exceptionally
strong for Apple, fueled by the iPhone 6, Gauna replied, "What
appears to be on the table is a resurgence in share gains for
Apple. In some of our store checks, we're seeing stocks out for
the iPad minis and iPad 2 airs, we're seeing exceptionally strong
demand for both the iPhone 6 and the iPhone 6 Plus that remains in
short supply and we haven't even moved into the Chinese Lunar New
Year selling season abroad. So, I do believe, it's going to be a
very strong holiday sale cycle for Apple."
ATLAS ROOFING: Judge Narrows Claims in Faulty Shingle Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar and Andrew Westney, writing for Law360, report that
a Georgia federal judge on Dec. 2 largely preserved a proposed
class action in the multidistrict litigation against Atlas Roofing
Corp. over allegedly defective roof shingles, preserving the
plaintiff's claims including for fraudulent concealment, but
rejecting his unjust enrichment claims.
U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. granted in part and denied
in part the motion to dismiss filed by Atlas, finding among other
things that plaintiff Noble Brooks satisfied the basic pleading
requirements for his fraudulent concealment claim, and could
pursue it. Mr. Brooks had claimed that Atlas had "fraudulently
represented that the shingles were manufactured in conformity with
applicable industry standards and building codes," both before and
while it sold the product, according to the opinion.
Judge Thrash also found that Brooks' unjust enrichment claim
should be dismissed, saying that such claims cannot proceed if
there is a contract at issue, and that the warranties that were
part of the sale of the shingles amounted to contracts.
"Under Mississippi law, '[t]o collect under an unjust enrichment
. . . theory, the claimant must show there is no legal contract
[and that] . . . the person sought to be charged is in possession
of money or property which in good conscience and justice he
should not retain, but should deliver to another,'" Judge Thrash
said in his opinion. He applied Mississippi law, noting that
both, Brooks and the defendant are citizens of the state.
Mr. Brooks had filed his suit in Mississippi, but his suit was
transferred in January to federal court in Georgia, where the
multidistrict litigation over the allegedly defective shingles is
consolidated.
The MDL, which was created in December, consolidated six product
liability cases over the shingles from federal courts in Alabama,
Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee.
The suits revolve around claims that Atlas made in the 30-year
warranty that it provides, that its products would be "free from
manufacturing defects," according to Brooks' amended complaint,
filed in March.
Despite these assurances, the shingles are prone to moisture,
because of the way they are manufactured, according to Brooks, who
claims that the shingles contain gas bubbles that expand in heat
and cause them to crack or blister. He also claimed that Atlas
had treated warranty claims inconsistently, rejecting some, while
settling others for too low a price, according to his complaint.
Mr. Brooks is represented by Christopher L. Coffin of Pendley
Baudin & Coffin LLP, Kenneth S. Canfield of Doffermyre Shields
Canfield & Knowles LLC.
Atlas is represented by Joel G. Pieper -- jpieper@wcsr.com -- and
Henry B. Smythe Jr. --HSmythe@wcsr.com -- of Womble Carlyle
Sandridge & Rice LLP.
The case is Noble L. Brooks, Jr. v. Atlas Roofing Corp., case
number 1:14-cv-1, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia. The MDL is In re: Atlas Roofing Corp. Chalet
Shingle Products Liability Litigation, case number 1:13-md-02495,
both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in Illegal Seizure Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson partly granted the motion filed
by defendants Bank of America, N.A., Public Storage, and Michael
Anz to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the case
captioned VICTORIA URENIA, an individual; SOLEDAD CORONA, an
individual, Plaintiffs, v. PUBLIC STORAGE, a real estate
investment trust; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a governmental entity; BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A.; MICHAEL ANZ, Defendants, CASE NO. 13-01934 DDP
(C.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Javier Hernandez and his sister Brenda Hernandez were
the owners of real property who secured a deed of trust originally
to Countrywide Bank which was subsequently owned by Bank of
America as successor. Thereafter, a trustee sale was conducted
with the property.
Plaintiffs alleged that after the sale, they were threatened with
deportation if they refused to vacate the Property and eventually
their father was deported. Thus, Plaintiffs formed and joined the
Occupy Fights Foreclosures ("OFF") group and made meetings and
demonstrations, including events at Ms. Corona's home and at the
Property.
Plaintiffs further alleged that despite having no valid search or
seizure warrant of the Property, the Los Angeles Police Department
("LAPD") officers monitored OFF and its members events and
protests through social media by showing up at the events,
removing signs placed on the Property as part of the protests and
demanding identification of those present for purposes of sharing
the identities of the protestors with Bank of America. Also,
Javier Hernandez was forced to sign a storage rental agreement
with Public Storage and pay $250.00 in order to see his personal
property again and that upon gaining access to his belongings, he
discovered that much of the property was damaged or missing.
Defendants argued that Plaintiffs' claim fails because their entry
onto the Property and seizure of personal property therein was
entirely lawful, as they assert that Plaintiffs no longer had an
interest in the Property. Further, Defendants argued that there
was no joint action.
Defendants did not challenge that Plaintiffs' activities at OFF
protests was protected activity. However, Defendants argued that
they have done nothing that would chill speeches and that those
acts were not motivated by a desire to chill speeches.
Judge Pregerson denied Bank of America's Motion to Dismiss by
ruling that Plaintiff have alleged sufficient facts and
allegations to support a plausible claim that their right was
violated. LAPD and Bank of America essentially worked together to
effect foreclosures on those individuals who were active
participants in the OFF movement. The fact that multiple
individuals were locked out within a short period of time after
such protests further supports the conclusion that the lock-outs
were intended to quell further protests against Bank of America
and the foreclosure process.
Judge Pregerson also noted that Bank of America allegedly used
information provided by LAPD to selectively evict those homeowners
who participated in the protests. This alleged scheme, jointly
performed by LAPD and Bank of America, would certainly chill a
person of ordinary firmness from continuing to protest.
In addition, even if Bank of America had a right to possession of
the Property and a right to remove personal property from the
Property, the arrangement which require Plaintiffs to either pay a
high rental fee or potentially lose their belongings forever can
be characterized as oppressive and substantially injurious to the
owners of such property.
A copy of the Order dated November 6, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1xMjLKR from Leagle.com.
Roes, 4 through 10 on behalf of themselves and all others
similarily situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lenore L Albert --
lenorealbert@msn.com -- Law Offices of Lenore L Albert.
Javier Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Lenore L Albert, Law
Offices of Lenore L Albert.
Brenda Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Lenore L Albert, Law
Offices of Lenore L Albert.
Public Storage, a real estate investment trust, Defendant,
represented by Peter J Kennedy, Reed Smith LLP & Tuan Van Uong,
Reed Smith LLP.
City of Los Angeles, a governmental entity, Defendant, represented
by Cory M Brente, Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney &
Elizabeth L Greenwood, Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney.
Bank of America NA, Defendant, represented by Peter J Kennedy --
pkennedy@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Tuan Van Uong, Reed
Smith LLP.
Michael Anz, Defendant, represented by Peter J Kennedy, Reed Smith
LLP & Tuan Van Uong, Reed Smith LLP.
BILL COSBY: Moritz No Plan to Get Other Women to Join Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Radar Online reports that the mountain of sexual assault claims
facing Bill Cosby took on even greater weight, when it was
reported that a group of his victims were preparing a class action
lawsuit against the comedian. But alleged victim Louisa Moritz,
best known for playing Rose in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,
tells RadarOnline.com exclusively that the online report was
false, and she has no plans to get other Cosby accusers on board
for a court battle.
Ms. Moritz, 68, is a licensed California lawyer in addition to her
long acting career. While denying that a class action suit was in
the works, she would not rule out the possibility of some legal
action in the future, undertaken by her individually. "Who
knows?" she said, unwilling to tip her hand to Cosby's lawyers.
Ms. Moritz alleges that she was sitting alone in her dressing room
before a taping for The Tonight Show in 1971 when the door opened
and it was Cosby. He "implied that he was going to see to it that
I will become a major star through his direction," according to
her written statement released by her publicist.
Mr. Cosby "suddenly approached me and took out his penis, which
was now in the line of my face and pressed up against it," she
claims. "He took his hands and put them on the back of my head
and forced his penis in my mouth, saying, 'Have a taste of this.
It will do you good in so many ways.'"
Ms. Moritz did not report the incident to police.
On Nov. 21, Mr. Cosby's attorney Martin D. Singer denied the
claims of sexual assault against Mr. Cosby: "The new, never-
before-heard claims from women who have come forward in the past
two weeks with unsubstantiated, fantastical stories about things
they say occurred 30, 40, or even 50 years ago have escalated far
past the point of absurdity."
The alleged sexual assault was not Mr. Cosby's only alleged
offense that night 43 years ago, Ms. Moritz tells Radar.
Just minutes after Mr. Cosby forced his penis into her mouth, he
claims he upstaged her by walking out when Johnny Carson
introduced her in the NBC studio, stealing her big laugh, she
says.
"I'm sure he thought it was funny, because everything he does he
thinks is funny," Ms. Moritz tells Radar. Mr. Cosby added insult
to injury by imitating her unusual voice, getting "a big laugh"
pretending to be her, on the talk show, she says, claiming, "After
the assault, he hadn't done enough."
Along with a public apology to her and other women who claim Cosby
sexually assaulted them, "he needs to explain why he went on when
my name was called," Ms. Moritz says.
BROTHERS B PAINTING: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Serrano" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Serrano, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Brothers B Painting, LLC, A Georgia Limited Liability Company, and
Omar Betancur, Case No. 1:14-cv-03960 (N.D. Ga., December 12,
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 painting business in Gwinnett
County, Georgia.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
P.O. Box 4979, 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
Orlando, FL 32802
Telephone: (407) 420-1414
E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com
CHEF'S TABLE: Faces Wage Theft Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Marguerite Preston, writing for New York Eater, reports that
Maimon Kirschenbaum, the legal thorn in the restaurant industry's
side, sends word on Dec. 1 of a new class action lawsuit he's just
filed against Cesar Ramirez and Moe Issa, the chef and proprietor
of the Michelin-starred Chef's Table at Brooklyn Fare. The suit
involves five plaintiffs, including one sous chef, one prep cook,
and several servers, who are leveling multiple allegations of wage
theft and discrimination against the acclaimed tasting counter.
For starters, the servers claim that they didn't receive any of
the 20 percent service charge that the restaurant charges diners
in lieu of a tip. They also claim that when diners left
additional tips, the owners withheld "significant portions" of
those. All the plaintiffs also claim they worked varying degrees
of overtime -- often 10 hours a day for as much as six days a
week -- without being paid overtime rates.
On top of all that, one server has also come forward with some
serious accusations of racism against Ramirez. Emi Howard, who
herself is Asian American, claims that the chef "routinely
referred to Asian customers as 'shit people.'" She also says he
demanded that Asians not be seated near his station at the
counter, and that he instructed her to give them the worst pieces
of meat from any large piece that had to be broken down for
diners. That last treatment, apparently, was also reserved for
"Upper West Siders."
The former employees are suing the restaurant for an unspecified
amount, equal to their lost wages plus damages. Eater has reached
out to the Brooklyn Fare team for comment, but is still awaiting a
response.
Moe Issa responds with the following statement: "To clarify, our
offices have no knowledge of a lawsuit other than what has been
posted without documentation on-line. No lawyer has contacted my
office or I with regards to any lawsuit.
At Brooklyn Fare, we pride ourselves on the diversity of our staff
who hail from around the globe, and we welcome everyone who comes
through our doors with open arms, be it a guest, vendor, or
employee, regardless of their creed, religion, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, or nationality. We pay all of our staff fair wages
for their hours worked as well as gratuity in accordance to the
law."
CHEN & JIANG: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Zhong Xian Chen, indivdually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Chen & Jiang Sushi Inc., d/b/a Akari Sushi
and Japanese Food, Stella Xiaoyu Jiang and John Does and Jane Does
#1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-09827 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 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 Japanese restaurant located at 35
Main Street, Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jian Hang, Esq.
HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
Flushing, NY 11354
Telephone: (718) 353-8588
E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com
CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Dismissal of Child Migration Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of
a case brought against Catholic Church entities by plaintiffs,
originally from Europe, who alleged they had been tricked as
children into going to Australia in the 1940s in an effort to
populate it with "pure white stock."
The unanimous Dec. 8 decision in Ellul v. Christian Brothers,
11-1682-cv, held that the suit, brought under the Alien Tort
Statute, had to be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds after the
U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,
133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013), applying the presumption against the
extraterritorial application of U.S. law to claims under the
statute.
"With very limited exceptions, the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), does
not apply extraterritorially to conduct that occurs outside the
United States," said Judge Gerald Lynch, who wrote the Second
Circuit opinion.
"The actions that form the basis of this case occurred far from
the United States and many decades ago," said Judge Lynch, citing
statute of limitations grounds as an additional basis for
dismissal.
When the three plaintiffs were aged 14, 10 and 8, "defendants
allegedly took them away from their families, falsely told them
that their parents had died or abandoned them, and transported
them to Australia, where plaintiffs and other children were made
to work essentially as slaves," Judge Lynch said.
According to "Lost Innocents: Righting the Record: Report on Child
Migration," a 2001 report of an Australian government
investigation, the plaintiffs were part of a "child migration"
effort that spanned four centuries, beginning in 1618 when the
first group of destitute children were sent from the United
Kingdom to Richmond, Virginia.
Between 100,000 and 180,000 children were sent from Britain to the
American colonies, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Rhodesia, South
Africa and the Caribbean from the 17th century to the mid-1960s,
according to the report, which was cited in the opinion.
Most were abandoned youth taken from the orphanages, homes,
workhouses and reformatories in the United Kingdom. Although the
practice had died out in most other countries, in the post-World
War II era, Australia sought 30,000 new child migrants, who were
received mostly by Catholic institutions that were paid government
stipends for each child migrant, the report said.
The 2001 report said investigators had been informed that only a
few people had been convicted of criminal activity in the child
migrant scheme.
Civil suits in Australia have been stymied by statutes of
limitations, the report said. However, in 1996 an out-of-court
settlement was reached with the Christian Brothers, who paid $5
million, of which $1.5 million went to legal costs. Payments to
plaintiffs ranged from AUS$4,000 to AUS$25,000, the report said.
Involuntary Servitude
The plaintiffs in Ellul, who were swept up in the post-war
Australian child migration efforts, sued the U.S. affiliates of
various Australia Catholic orders in the Southern District in
2009, alleging violations of customary international law,
including slavery and involuntary servitude, child trafficking,
forced child labor, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.
Their complaint said that in 1946 Emmanuel Ellul and his brothers
were taken from Malta to a commercial farm in Western Australia
operated by the Congregation of Christian Brothers.
His parents were told that he would be educated in Australia, but
he was not given any schooling.
"The children at the farm performed unpaid physical labor from
early morning until nightfall, were frequently beaten and
threatened with physical violence, and were told that their
parents were dead," Judge Lynch said, referring to the allegations
in the complaint.
Valerie Carmack's mother was told that Carmack, who is now a U.S.
citizen, had been adopted by another family in Britain, but in
fact she had been sent to Australia in 1946.
Hazel Goulding was sent from Britain to Australia in 1947 and made
to work long hours for no pay and received virtually no education,
she alleged.
She lived at an institution run by nuns who allegedly were part of
the defendant Order of the Sisters of Mercy. The nuns routinely
beat and starved their wards, the complaint said.
In 2011, Southern District Judge Paul Crotty dismissed the case
mainly on statute of limitations grounds.
The Alien Tort Statute, enacted in 1789, allows for a "civil
action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the
law of nations or a treaty of the United States."
The appellate opinion noted the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in
Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 724 (2004) that claims
under "the present-day law of nations" could be brought, so long
as the claims "rest on a norm of international character accepted
by the civilized world."
Judge Lynch said the panel "accepted without deciding" that the
plaintiffs' claims met that standard.
But the circuit panel held that the Supreme Court ruled in Koibel,
that unless the conduct complained of "touches and concerns the
territory of the U.S." an an alient tort claim could not be
maintained.
Judge Lynch held that standard was not met in Ellul. He was
joined in the ruling by Judges Guido Calabresi and Raymond Lohier.
Neal DeYoung, a partner at Sharma & DeYoung, represented the
plaintiffs.
Timothy O'Shaughnessy, a partner at Mauro Lilling Naparty, and
Thomas Wack, a partner at Bryan Cave, represented the defendants.
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 2 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Cobalt International Energy, Inc. and certain
of its officers. The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of Texas, is on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Cobalt
securities between February 21, 2012 and November 4, 2014,
inclusive including persons who purchased or otherwise acquired:
(i.) Cobalt securities on the open market; (ii.) Cobalt's common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to registered public offerings
conducted on or about February 23, 2012, January 16, 2013 and
May 8, 2013; and/or (iii.) Cobalt's 2.65% Convertible Senior Notes
due 2019, pursuant and/or traceable to the registered public
offering conducted on or about December 12, 2012, and/or Cobalt
Convertible Senior Notes due 2024, pursuant and/or traceable to
the registered public offering conducted on or about May 8, 2014.
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
If you are a shareholder who purchased Cobalt securities during
the Class Period, you have until February 2, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.
Cobalt is engaged in the exploration and production of oil-focused
and below-salt exploration prospects.
The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Cobalt and
certain of its senior executives violated provisions of the
Exchange Act by issuing materially false and misleading press
releases, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and
statements during investor conference calls. The Complaint also
alleges that in connection with the Offerings, the Company issued
securities pursuant to materially misstated filings with the SEC.
As alleged in the Complaint, Cobalt has portrayed itself as a
company with "world class," "large" and "oil-focused" wells in the
Republic of Angola and claimed that the Company gained access to
those wells in compliance with the U.S. law outlawing the bribery
of foreign officials (the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or
"FCPA"). In truth, Cobalt obtained access to its Angolan wells
from the Republic of Angola by partnering with shell companies in
Angola that were partially owned by high-level Angolan officials,
putting the Company at serious risk of enforcement action by the
SEC and U.S. Department of Justice for violations of the FCPA and
the federal securities laws. In addition, Cobalt misrepresented
the value of its wells in Angola after the Company learned that
they contained very little or no oil.
As a result of the Company's statements to investors, the prices
of Cobalt's stock and bonds were artificially inflated during the
Class Period. Investors first began to learn the truth when: (i.)
on December 1, 2013, the Company revealed negative results from
its Lontra well; (ii.) on August 5, 2014, Cobalt announced that
the SEC had escalated its then-ongoing investigation of the
Company for possible violations of the federal securities laws by
issuing Cobalt a Wells Notice; and (iii.) on November 4, 2014,
Cobalt disclosed negative results regarding its Loengo well.
On this news, shares of Cobalt fell $1.31 per share, or
approximately 11.51%, to close at $10.07 per share on November 4,
2014.
With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The
Pomerantz Firm-- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.
CONN'S INC: Faces "Pittel" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Pittel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Conn's, Inc., Theodore M. Wright, Brian E. Taylor, and
Michael J. Poppe, Case No. 4:14-cv-03548 (S.D. Tex., December 12,
2014), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Conn's, Inc. is a specialty retailer that offers consumer goods
and related services.
The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Conn's,
Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
PAYNE MITCHELL LAW GROUP, LLP
2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 252-1888
Facsimile: (214) 252-1889
E-mail: dean@paynemitchell.com
- and -
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
DAIRY FARMERS: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Farm Milk
----------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group on Dec. 3 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
against Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. (DFA) has been certified by
Judge Edith L. Messina in the Circuit Court of Jackson County,
Missouri.
In granting class certification, the Court has ruled that the
plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of a class action
pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 52.08. The lawsuit is
Kristie Tessandori and Barbara Cusick, et al. v. Dairy Farmers of
America, Inc., Case No. 1216-CV13257, Division 12.
The class action lawsuit alleges that DFA and its co-conspirators
engaged in a conspiracy to control the supply of raw farm milk
("farm milk"), thereby inflating the prices of milk and fresh
dairy products in violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act. The lawsuit further alleges defendant and its co-
conspirators agreed to and did in fact conspire and overcharge
direct and indirect purchasers in Missouri, such as Plaintiffs and
Class Members, by intentionally inflating the price of farm milk
sold during the time period January 1, 2004 through the present.
Defendant DFA denies these allegations.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendant's activities constitute an
unfair practice in connection with the sale of farm milk and fresh
dairy products made from farm milk in the State of Missouri. This
lawsuit is brought as a class action on behalf of all persons and
entities in Missouri, exclusive of Defendant and its co-
conspirators, (and their respective officers, employees, agents,
representatives, parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates),
that purchased farm milk and fresh dairy products indirectly from
the Defendant in the State of Missouri during the Class Period.
In signing the certification order, the Court ordered that the
lawsuit shall be maintained as a class action under Rule 52.08 on
behalf of the Plaintiff class that includes: all Missouri citizens
that indirectly purchased in Missouri milk and fresh dairy
products produced or supplied by DFA primarily for personal,
family or household purposes, and not for resale, at any time from
January 1, 2004 to the present. Excluded from the class are
governmental entities or agencies, Defendant or any of their
representatives, parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessors
or successors in interest, and Defendant's co-conspirators.
On the Net: http://www.missourimilkconsumers.com/
DOLE PACKAGED: Court Narrows Class in Labeling Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh partly granted Defendant's Motion to
Decertify in the case captioned CHAD BRAZIL, an individual, on his
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DOLE PACKAGED FOODS, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO.
12-CV-01831-LHK (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Brazil is a California consumer who cares about the
nutritional content of food and seeks to maintain a healthy diet
while Defendant Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, is a limited liability
corporation and a leading producer of retail food products that
sells to consumers through grocery and other retail stores a
product specifically labeled with "All Natural Fruits".
Brazil alleged that Dole made numerous representations on the
labels of its products which are mislabeled, false and misleading,
and misbranded in violation of federal and state law. Brazil
further alleged that Dole's products contained artificial
ingredients and flavorings, artificial coloring and chemical
preservatives. Specifically, Brazil contended that all of the
products labeled with "All Natural Fruit" were misleading because
all contained ascorbic acid (commonly known as Vitamin C) and
citric acid, both allegedly synthetic ingredients.
Brazil filed a Motion for Class Certification which was eventually
granted by the court. In granting class certification, the Court
relied on Dr. Capps' representation that he would be conducting
before-and-after analysis once Dole provided him the necessary
discovery.
On the other hand, Dole filed its Motion to Decertify by arguing
that the Damages Class certified under Rule 23(b)(3) should be
decertified because Dr. Capps' Regression Model is fundamentally
flawed, thereby rendering it incapable of measuring only those
damages attributable to Dole's alleged misbranding and that the
Damages Class, as well as the Injunction Class certified under
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(b)(2), should be decertified because
neither is ascertainable.
In his Order granting in part and denying in part Dole's Motion to
Decertify, District Judge Lucy H. Koh agreed with Dole that Brazil
failed to show how the Regression Model controls for other
variables affecting price. Thus, Brazil has not met his burden to
show that the model he proposes is capable of controlling for all
other factors and isolating the price premium attributable to
Dole's "All Natural Fruit" label only.
Accordingly, because Brazil's proposed damages model fails to
provide a means of showing damages on a classwide basis through
common proof, the Court concludes that Brazil has not satisfied
the Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that common issues predominate over
individual ones. The Court must therefore decertify the Damages
Class.
In his Order, the Court certifies the following class under Rule
23(b)(2): "All persons in the United States who, from January 1,
2009, until the date of notice, purchased a Dole fruit product
bearing the front panel label statement `All Natural Fruit' but
which contained citric acid and ascorbic acid. Excluded from the
class are (1) Dole and its subsidiaries and affiliates, (2)
governmental entities, and (3) the Court to which this case is
assigned and its staff."
The Court grants Dole's Motion to Decertify the Damages Class. The
Court denies Brazil's request to keep the Damages Class certified
for purposes of pursuing nominal damages.
The Court denies as moot Dole's request for a non-testimonial
Daubert review.
A copy of the Order dated November 6, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1EBaCsv from Leagle.com.
Chad Brazil, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Peet, Lovelace Law Firm,
P.A., Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates, David Shelton, David
Shelton, PLLC, Frank Karam, Fleischman Law Firm, Ananda N.
Chaudhuri, Fleischman Law Firm, Brian K Herrington, Don Barrett,
P.A., Carol Nelkin, Nelkin, Nelkin & Krock, PC, Charles F.
Barrett, Charles Barrett, P.C., Colin Harvey Dunn, Clifford Law
Offices, P.C., David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Don Barrett, P.A.,
Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., J. Price
Coleman, Coleman Law Firm, Jay P. Nelkin, Nelkin & Nelkin, P.C.,
John W. (Don) Barrett, Don Barrett, P.A., Katherine B. Riley, Don
Barrett, P.A., Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman Law Firm,
Kristofer Scott Riddle, Clifford Law Offices, Richard Barrett, Law
Offices of Richard R. Barrett, PLLC, Robert Anthony Clifford,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C. & Stuart M Nelkin, Nelkin, Nelkin &
Krock, PC.
Dole Packaged Food, LLC, Defendant, represented by William Lewis
Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria
Vetesi, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Lisa Ann Wongchenko, Morrison
Foerster LLP & William Francis Tarantino, Morrison & Foerster.
EL RANCHO: Obtains Initial OK of $2.3MM Accord in "Rosales" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston grants preliminary approval
of a class settlement in the case titled MARGARITA ROSALES, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. EL RANCHO FARMS, et al., Defendants. ANGEL
LOPEZ CRUZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EL RANCHO FARMS, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-001934-AWI-JLT, (E.D. Cal.).
Pursuant to the proposed accord, the parties agree to a gross
settlement totaling $2,300,000. Defendants El Rancho and Garza
agree to fund the Settlement. Defendants will pay $100,000 to the
Claims Administrator within ten days of preliminary approval of
the class settlement, and pay the remainder no later than January
31, 2015.
The class is defined as: All persons who have been employed or
jointly employed by farm labor contractor Garza Contracting, Inc.
at El Rancho facilities between November 9, 2001 and June 11,
2014.
Margarita Rosales, Lorena Corza, Angel Lopez Cruz, and Angelica
Alvarez are appointed the Class Representatives for the Settlement
Class. Stan Mallison and Hector Martinez are appointed Class
Counsel. Gilardi and Co., LLC is appointed as the Settlement
Administrator, with responsibilities pursuant to the terms set
forth in the Settlement Agreement.
The Class Representative enhancement requests for Plaintiffs are
granted preliminarily up to the amount of $10,000, subject to a
petition and review at the final approval and fairness hearing.
Class Counsel's request for fees of not to exceed 33 1/3% of the
gross settlement amount and costs up to $50,000 is granted
preliminarily, subject to counsel's petition for fees and review
at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing.
The petition for attorneys' fees and for class representative
enhancement fee must be filed no later than February 27, 2015.
Costs of settlement administration shall not exceed $30,000.
The Settlement Administrator must mail the approved Class Notice
Packet no more than December 22, 2014. Any Class Member who
submits a timely and valid Claim Form on or before February 13,
2015 will receive a settlement share.
A class member who wishes to be excluded from settlement must
postmark the Opt-Out Form no later than February 13, 2015. Any
objections to or comments on the Settlement Agreement must be
filed with the Court and mailed to Class Counsel no later than
February 13, 2015.
According to the preliminary approval of the settlement, copies of
which are available at http://is.gd/bO3sDjand http://is.gd/Bd6Nba
from Leagle.com, the determination of the cy pres beneficiary is
not ripe for decision.
A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing is set for March 20, 2015,
at 9:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse located at 510 19th
Street, Bakersfield, California. At this hearing, the Court will
determine whether the Settlement should be granted final approval
as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the class members.
The Court reserves the right to vacate the Final Approval and
Fairness Hearing if no comments or objections are filed with the
Court on or before February 13, 2015.
Angel Lopez Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Marco A. Palau --
mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Stanley S.
Mallison -- StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison and Martinez,
Hector Rodriguez Martinez -- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison
& Martinez & Joseph Donald Sutton -- jsutton@themmlawfirm.com --
Mallison & Martinez.
Angelica Alvarez, Plaintiff, represented by Marco A. Palau,
Mallison & Martinez, Stanley S. Mallison, Mallison and Martinez,
Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Mallison & Martinez & Joseph Donald
Sutton, Mallison & Martinez.
Margarita Rosales, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff S. Westerman --
jwesterman@jswlegal.com -- Westerman Law Corp., Joseph Donald
Sutton, Mallison & Martinez, Marco A. Palau, Mallison & Martinez,
Nicole Marie Duckett -- nduckett@milberg.com -- Milberg Weiss LLP,
Stanley S. Mallison, Mallison and Martinez & William A. Sokol --
wsokol@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg Roger and Rosenfeld.
Angelica Rosales, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff S. Westerman,
Westerman Law Corp., Joseph Donald Sutton, Mallison & Martinez,
Marco A. Palau, Mallison & Martinez, Nicole Marie Duckett, Milberg
Weiss LLP, Stanley S. Mallison, Mallison and Martinez & William A.
Sokol, Weinberg Roger and Rosenfeld.
El Rancho Farms, Defendant, represented by William L. Alexander --
walexander@alexander-law.com -- Alexander & Associates, PLC.
Garza Contracting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas P.
Feher, LeBeau - Thelen, LLP.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 25,000 Mesh Cases Currently Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of November 3,
2014, approximately 25,000 filed vaginal mesh cases are currently
pending against AMS and/or the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, some of which may have been filed on behalf of
multiple plaintiffs, and a minority of which seek class action
certification.
Since 2008, AMS, and more recently, in certain cases the Company
or certain of its subsidiaries, have been named as defendants in
multiple lawsuits in various federal and state courts, as well as
in Canada, Scotland, the UK and the Netherlands alleging personal
injury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical mesh
products designed to treat POP and SUI. Plaintiffs in these suits
allege various personal injuries including chronic pain,
incontinence and inability to control bowel function and permanent
deformities.
On February 7, 2012, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed,
and cases pending in federal courts are now consolidated in the
Southern District of West Virginia as part of MDL No. 2325.
Similar cases in various state courts around the country are also
currently pending.
As of November 3, 2014, approximately 25,000 filed mesh cases are
currently pending against AMS and/or the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, some of which may have been filed on behalf of
multiple plaintiffs, and a minority of which seek class action
certification. In addition, other cases have been served upon AMS
pursuant to a tolling agreement order issued in the MDL in May
2013. Any complaint properly served on AMS from the effective date
of that order on May 15, 2013 through October 1, 2013, and
ultimately filed with the court by February 14, 2014 is deemed
filed as of the service date. Some of these cases served pursuant
to the tolling agreement have been timely filed with the court.
Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. The majority of the
currently pending cases are in the MDL. The Company cannot predict
the ultimate number of cases to be filed against it with
certainty.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Entered Into MSAs to Fix 41,700 Mesh Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September
30, 2014, AMS and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-
related product liability claimants have entered into various
Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) regarding settling up to
approximately 41,700 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled or
controlled by the participating counsel. These MSAs, which were
executed at various times from June 14, 2013 through September 30,
2014, were entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement
and are not in any way an admission of liability or fault by the
Company or AMS.
The following table presents the changes in the vaginal mesh
Qualified Settlement Funds accounts and product liability balance
during the nine months ended September 30, 2014 (in thousands):
Qualified Settlement Funds Product Liability
-------------------------- -----------------
Balance as of
December 31, 2013 $11,518 $520,000
Additional charges - 1,128,358
Cash distributions to
Qualified
Settlement Funds 149,630 -
Cash distributions
to plaintiffs' counsel - (7,098)
Cash distributions
to plaintiffs'
counsel from escrow (11,518) (11,518)
-------------------------- -----------------
Balance as of
September 30, 2014 $149,630 $1,629,742
Approximately $728.2 million of the total liability amount shown
above is expected to be paid by September 30, 2015 and is
classified as Accrued expenses in the September 30, 2014 Condensed
Consolidating Balance Sheet, with the remainder to be paid over
time and classified as Other liabilities in the September 30, 2014
Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet. AMS expects to fund the
payments under all settlement agreements by December 31, 2017.
As the funds are disbursed out of the Qualified Settlement Funds
accounts from time to time, the product liability accrual will be
reduced accordingly with a corresponding reduction to restricted
cash and cash equivalents. Amounts included in the Qualified
Settlement Funds are included in Restricted cash and cash
equivalents in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.
All MSAs discussed above are subject to a process that includes
guidelines and procedures for administering the settlements and
the release of funds and have participation thresholds requiring
participation by the vast majority of claims represented by each
law firm. If certain participation thresholds are not met, then
AMS will have the right to terminate the settlement with that law
firm. In addition, one agreement gives AMS a unilateral right of
approval regarding which claims may be eligible to participate
under that settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are
authorized under an agreement participate, the total settlement
payment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon
amount for each such non-participating claim. Distribution of
funds to any individual claimant is conditioned upon a full
release and a dismissal of the entire action or claim as to all
AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving funds, an
individual claimant shall represent and warrant that liens,
assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in the
claims administration process have been or will be satisfied by
the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and
procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the
negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept confidential
by all parties and their counsel.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 600 MCP Cases Currently Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of November 3,
2014, approximately 600 MCP cases, some of which may have been
filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are currently pending
against Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and/or the Company.
Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, and in certain cases the Company or
certain of its subsidiaries, along with several other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in
numerous lawsuits in various federal and state courts alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of the prescription
medicine metoclopramide. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various
personal injuries including tardive dyskinesia, other movement
disorders and death. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and the Company
intend to contest all of these cases vigorously and to explore
other options as appropriate in the best interests of the Company
and Qualitest Pharmaceuticals.
"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannot
predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether
any additional litigation will be brought against the Company or
its subsidiaries," the Company said.
As of November 3, 2014, approximately 600 MCP cases, some of which
may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are
currently pending against Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and/or the
Company.
The Company and its subsidiaries have reached an agreement with
certain plaintiffs' counsel in an effort to reach resolution of
substantially all of the pending MCP cases. The agreement was
entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is not
in any way an admission of liability or fault by the Company or
any of its subsidiaries. An essential element of these settlements
will be participation by the vast majority of plaintiffs involved
in pending litigation. If certain participation thresholds are not
met, the Company will have the right to terminate the agreements.
Distribution of funds to any individual plaintiff will be
conditioned upon, among other things a full release and a
dismissal with prejudice of the entire action or claim as to the
Company and/or each of its subsidiaries. Prior to receiving an
award, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating plaintiffs, claimants, the claims evaluation process
and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and
the negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept
confidential by all parties and their counsel. The cost of this
settlement has been incorporated into the increase in our product
liability reserve.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 40 Propoxyphene Cases Currently Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of November 3,
2014, approximately 40 propoxyphene cases, some of which may have
been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are currently pending
against Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and/or the Company.
Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and, in certain cases, the Company or
certain of its subsidiaries, along with several other
pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in
numerous lawsuits originally filed in various federal and state
courts alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
prescription pain medicines containing propoxyphene. Plaintiffs in
these suits allege various personal injuries including cardiac
impairment, damage and death.
In August 2011, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed, and
certain transferable cases pending in federal court were
coordinated in the Eastern District of Kentucky as part of MDL No.
2226. On March 5, 2012 and June 22, 2012, pursuant to a standing
show cause order, the MDL Judge dismissed with prejudice certain
claims against generic manufacturers, including Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals and the Company. Certain plaintiffs appealed those
decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
cases that had been pending as part of a consolidated appeal. In
November 2012, additional cases were filed in various California
state courts, and removed to corresponding federal courts. Many of
these cases have already been remanded, although appeals are being
pursued. A coordinated proceeding was formed in Los Angeles.
Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and the Company intend to contest all of
these cases vigorously and to explore other options as appropriate
in the best interests of the Company and Qualitest
Pharmaceuticals.
"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannot
predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether
any additional litigation will be brought against the Company or
its subsidiaries," the Company said.
As of November 3, 2014, approximately 40 propoxyphene cases, some
of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are
currently pending against Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and/or the
Company. The Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict
the outcome of this matter or the ultimate legal and financial
liability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, for this matter.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 14 Testosterone Cases Currently Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of November 3,
2014, approximately 14 Testosterone cases are currently pending
against EPI, including a class action complaint filed in Canada.
EPI, and in certain cases the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has
been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury
resulting from the use of prescription medications containing
testosterone, including Fortesta(R) Gel. Plaintiffs in these suits
allege various personal injuries including pulmonary embolism,
stroke, and other vascular and/or cardiac injuries.
In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all
testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI and other
manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable cases
pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern District
of Illinois as part of MDL No.2545. In addition to the federal
cases filed against EPI that have been transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545,
litigation has also been filed against EPI in the Court of Common
Pleas Philadelphia County.
"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in
federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of
Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL 2545. However, we cannot
predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether
any such additional litigation will be brought against the Company
or EPI, but EPI intends to contest the litigation vigorously and
to explore all options as appropriate in the best interests of EPI
and the Company," the Company said.
As of November 3, 2014, approximately 14 cases are currently
pending against EPI, including a class action complaint filed in
Canada.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Civil Class Action Complaint in Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on November 5,
2014, a civil class action complaint was filed in the Northern
District of Illinois against EPI and various other manufacturers
of testosterone products on behalf of a proposed class of health
insurance companies and other third party payors that had paid for
certain testosterone products, alleging that the marketing efforts
of EPI and other defendant manufacturers with respect to certain
testosterone products constituted racketeering activity in
violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec.1962(c), and other civil RICO claims.
Further, the complaint alleges that EPI and other defendant
manufacturers violated various state consumer protection laws
through their marketing of certain testosterone products. The
Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome of
this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any,
and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss for this matter, if any.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bids to Nix Lidoderm Purchasers' Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that multiple direct
and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) have filed a number of
cases against EPI and co-defendants Teikoku Seiyaku Col, LTD,
Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively Teikoku) and Actavis plc.,
f/k/a as Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and a number of its
subsidiaries (collectively Actavis). The complaints in these cases
generally allege that Endo, Teikoku and Actavis entered into an
anticompetitive conspiracy to restrain trade through the
settlement of patent infringement litigation concerning U.S.
Patent No. 5,827,529 (the '529 patent). Some of the complaints
also allege that Teikoku wrongfully listed the '529 patent in the
Orange Book as related to Lidoderm(R), that Endo and Teikoku
commenced sham patent litigation against Actavis and that Endo
abused the FDA citizen petition process by filing a citizen
petition and amendments solely to interfere with generic
companies' efforts to obtain FDA approval of their versions of
Lidoderm(R). The cases allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of
the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2) and various state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes. These cases generally
seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits,
restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, issued an order on April 3, 2014,
transferring these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2521, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
before Judge William H. Orrick.
Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in
federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of
California as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm Antitrust
Litigation.
On June 13, 2014, pursuant to a case management order entered by
Judge Orrick, the direct and indirect purchasers each filed
consolidated amended class complaints. In addition, one indirect
purchaser filed a separate complaint. Defendants recently filed
motions to dismiss each of the operative complaints. These motions
were heard on November 5, 2014, but a decision has not yet been
reached.
"However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any of this
litigation, or whether any additional litigation will be brought
against the Company or EPI," the Company said.
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Opana Purchasers' Suit
------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that multiple direct
and indirect purchasers of Opana(R) ER have filed cases against
EHSI, EPI, Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax Laboratories
Inc. in multiple federal courts. These cases generally allege that
the agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle patent
infringement litigation concerning multiple patents pertaining to
Opana(R) ER and EPI's introduction of the re-formulation of
Opana(R) ER violated antitrust laws. The complaints allege
violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
Sections 1, 2), various state antitrust and consumer protection
statutes, as well as state common law. These cases generally seek
damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, and some allege that they
will seek to represent classes of direct and indirect purchasers
of Opana(R) ER.
"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannot
predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether
any such litigation will be brought against the Company or EPI,"
the Company said.
ERIE ISLANDS RESORT: Class Cert. Ruling Reversed in "Gordon"
------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Jensen reversed the trial court's order in the case
captioned Carl R. Gordon, et al., Appellees, v. Erie Islands
Resort & Marina, et al. Appellants (C.A. NO. OT-13-040).
Appellant Erie Islands Resort & Marina is a collection of
cottages, campground sites, recreational facilities, and a marina
located in Port Clinton, Ohio. Appellees on the other hand
purchased an undivided 1/15,000 fee simple ownership interest as
tenants-in-common.
Appellees filed a 19-count complaint for Appellants failure to
provide all of the amenities that the latter had represented,
including various claims of fraud, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, and violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices ("CSPA") and the Ohio Retail Installment Sales Acts
("RISA"). Appellees sought for class certification under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and to serve as class representatives.
Appellants filed an opposition to the class certification arguing
that each of the potential class members would need to be examined
to resolve the various fraud claims to determine what was
represented to each of them, whether they relied on those
representations, and whether they suffered damages. Also,
Appellants contended that Appellees' claims are time-barred.
The lower court issued its decision granting appellees' motion and
certified the classes identified by appellees.
Appellants filed an appeal contending that the trial court erred
in certifying this matter as a class action. Appellants claim
that the trial court erred in granting appellees' motion for class
certification because there exists no identifiable class, the
proposed class definition is ambiguous, there are not sufficient
questions of law or fact common to the class, there is no
commonality between appellees and the class, typicality is
lacking, appellees do not fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the proposed class, and the Rule 23(B) requirements
have not been established.
In his reversal Order, Justice Jensen emphasized that a trial
court is required to address any argument raised in opposition to
class certification otherwise a decision that ignores such an
argument is properly reversed. Hence, the appellate court reversed
the trial court's judgment and remanded the matter to the trial
court so that it could articulate its reasons for finding that
each of the class certification requirements had been satisfied.
A copy of the Decision and Judgment dated November 7, 2014, is
available at http://bit.ly/1AMEGhWfrom Leagle.com.
FIREEYE INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on Dec. 2 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of FireEye, Inc.
between January 2, 2014 through November 4, 2014, inclusive.
FireEye shareholders may, no later than January 26, 2015, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you
purchased shares of FireEye and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/feye
On May 6, 2014, FireEye announced its first quarter results,
surprising investors and analysts. The Company's $24.3 million in
product revenue fell meaningfully short of analysts' estimates of
$31 million and reflected a move away from FireEye's organic
software business and towards service-oriented offerings which
lacked the same potential for profitability. In reaction to these
disclosures, FireEye closed at $28.65, down $8.48 per share. This
23% decline represented a market capitalization loss of over $1.25
billion.
The Company's stock continued its precipitous decline, plummeting
to close at a low of $25.76 on October 10, 2014, down 73.1% from
its Class Period high of $95.63 on March 5, 2014. Notwithstanding
the Company's declining product revenue and the marked turn away
from its organic software business, Defendants continuously touted
FireEye's organic and acquired growth as reasons for optimism and
promising future results. Finally, on November 4, 2014, after the
market closed for trading, the Company released disappointing
third quarter results that missed analysts' expectations, and
further revealed the Company's virtual abandonment of its core
software product business model, resulting in a quarterly loss of
$0.51 per share.
If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January
26, 2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.
If you purchased FireEye common stock during the Class Period
either in the open market and/or pursuant to the Secondary Public
Offering (SPO) on March 6, 2014, and would like to learn more
about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights,
contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free: (877) 316-3218 or
visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/feye
You may also email Mr. Maniskas at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com
For more information about class action cases in general, please
visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP -- http://www.rmclasslaw.com-- is a national
shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to
protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors
in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide.
FUNKY BUDDHA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Postelnek, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Funky Buddha Brewery, Inc. d/b/a Funky
Buddha Brewery, Ryan S. Sentz, individually, and Kristopher C.
Sentz, a/k/a K.C. Sentz, individually, Case No. 0:14-cv-62837
(S.D. Fla., December 12, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages or pre-judgment interest, reasonable
attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a commercial brewery in Oakland
Park, Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Scott Dwoskin, Esq.
Steven Leo Schwarzberg, Esq.
SCHWARZBERG & ASSOCIATES
Phillips Point-East Tower
777 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1120E
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Telephone: (561) 253-2211
E-mail: edwoskin@schwarzberglaw.com
steve@schwarzberglaw.com
HERBALIFE LTD: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Herbalife Ltd
won preliminary court approval of its $15 million settlement of
class-action litigation accusing the maker of weight loss and
nutritional products of being a "pyramid scheme" that misleads
distributors about how much money they can make.
In a decision dated Dec. 2, U.S. District Judge Beverly Reid
O'Connell in Los Angeles called the accord "fair, reasonable, and
adequate," a standard often used to assess class-action
settlements.
The accord also requires Herbalife to provide up to $2.5 million
to distributors who return unused products.
In addition, Herbalife agreed to change some corporate policies,
including over how it defines distributors and handles shipping
charges on returned products, for at least three years.
The Los Angeles-based company did not admit wrongdoing.
Mr. O'Connell scheduled a May 11, 2015 hearing to consider final
approval of the accord. About $5.25 million of the settlement
funds could go toward attorney's fees.
Herbalife has long been under attack by short-sellers like
billionaire hedge fund manager William Ackman, who has accused it
of inflating results that depend more on its ability to recruit
new distributors than its ability to sell products.
Authorities such as the FBI, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission,
and some state attorneys general have also been probing
Herbalife's activities.
Herbalife has denied being a pyramid scheme, but the negative
publicity has hurt North American sales.
The case is Bostick et al v. Herbalife International of America
Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California,
No. 13-02488.
HITACHI AUTOMOTIVE: Sued in Michigan Over Inverters-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martens Cars of Washington, Inc., et la., v. Hitachi Automotive
Systems, Ltd. and Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc., Case
No. 2:14-cv-14721 (E.D. Mich., December 12, 2014), alleges that
the Defendants are engaged in a long-running conspiracy to
unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and stabilize prices,
rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United
States for Inverters.
The Defendants are engaged in the development, manufacture, sales,
and service of automotive components.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
David Hansma, Esq.
Brendan Frey, Esq.
MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN AND WILLIAMSON, P.C.
1361 E. Big Beaver Road
Troy, MI 48083
Telephone: (248) 457-9200
E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
dhansma@manteselaw.com
bfrey@manteselaw.com
- and -
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
Joel Davidow, Esq.
Daniel Cohen, Esq.
Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
507 C Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20002
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
joel@cuneolaw.com
danielc@cuneolaw.com
vicky@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
300 North Tucker, Suite 801
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 226-1015
E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Don Barrett, Esq.
Brian Herrington, Esq.
David McMullan, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
P.O. Box 927
404 Court Square
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
Paul A. Sand, Esq.
LARSON KING, LLP
2800 Wells Fargo Place
30 East Seventh Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Telephone: (651) 312-6500
E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com
psand@larsonking.com
-and -
Phillip Duncan, Esq.
Richard Quintus, Esq.
DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
Little Rock, AR 72211
Telephone: (501) 228-7600
E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
richard@duncanfirm.com
- and -
Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
Valerie Nettles, Esq.
LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, PA
Suite 200, 12870 US Hwy 98 West
Miramar Beach, FL 32550
Telephone: (850) 837-6020
E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
alex@lovelacelaw.com
- and -
Gregory Johnson, Esq.
G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
6688 145th Street West,
Apple Valley, MN 55124
Telephone: (952) 930-2485
E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com
- and -
Charles Barrett, Esq.
CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
Nashville, TN 37205
Telephone: (615) 515-3393
E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com
-and -
Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
1101 Garland Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 374-1058
E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
HOME DEPOT: Faces Northeastern Engineers Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Northeastern Engineers Federal Credit Union, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated financial institutionsv.
Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-03951 (N.D. Ga., December
12, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
adequate security and protection for its computer systems
containing customers' financial and personal data.
The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a
wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and
construction supplies.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
W. Pitts Carr, Esq.
Alex D. Weatherby, Esq.
W. PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES
10 North Parkway Square
4200 Northside Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30327
Telephone: (404) 442-9000
Facsimile: (404) 442-9700
E-mail: pcarr@wpcarr.com
aweatherby@wpcarr.com
- and -
Robert J. Gralewski Jr., Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
600 B Street, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 398-4340
Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
E-mail: bgralewski@kmllp.com
- and -
Michael E. Jacobs, Esq.
MICHAEL E. JACOBS LAW & CONSULTING LLC
1129 Portland Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55104
Telephone: (612) 999-8602
E-mail: Michael.E.Jacobs@gmail.com
- and -
Kent M. Williams, Esq.
WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
1632 Homestead Trail
Long Lake, MN 55356
Telephone: 612-940-4452
E-mail: williamslawmn@gmail.com
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Repossession Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aebra Coe and Daniel Siegel, writing for Law360, report that the
consumer finance arm of Hyundai Motor Co. has been hit with a
proposed class action in California court for allegedly violating
consumer protection laws by failing to provide required details on
notifications to customers telling them their recently repossessed
vehicles are to be sold.
The suit against Hyundai Capital America and its subsidiary Kia
Motors Finance is the latest filed against auto lenders who
allegedly botched the legally required repossession process in
California.
The suit said Kia's notices of intent to sell the repossessed
vehicles fails to meet requirements of the Rees-Levering Act by
failing to itemize collection or repossession costs and failing to
list the precise amount for storage fees, preventing the recipient
from ascertaining how much to pay in order to redeem their
vehicle.
Although Kia's notices included a statement informing the
recipient that they could call the lender to confirm the exact
amount due, consumers should not be required to make further
inquiries, according to the complaint filed Nov. 26 in California
superior court.
"These unnecessary hurdles to reinstatement are burdens that are
not permitted by the Rees-Levering Act," the complaint says.
The company sold the repossessed vehicles and then billed the
named plaintiffs anywhere from $2,600 to $8,200 for the amount
still allegedly owed on their loans after the car was cashed in,
the plaintiffs say.
These bills, called deficiency balances, are not permitted under
California law if the lender did not first send a legally
sufficient notice of intent, according to the complaint.
"Absent strict compliance with the mandatory requirements for the
statutory notice, a seller or holder may not lawfully collect any
deficiency from any person liable under a form agreement following
disposition of the repossessed vehicle," the proposed class action
says.
The company is further accused of violating consumer protection
laws by requiring those whose cars have been repossessed to show
proof of income, insurance, residence and other unspecified
documents in order to qualify for reinstatement.
Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg LLP, counsel for the named plaintiffs,
Debra Johnson, Alyssa Caras and Christopher Larsen, has filed
similar litigation against other auto financing companies in
California court and in late October reached a $200 million
settlement with Santander Consumer USA in a class action over the
allegedly faulty notices.
Santander agreed to stop collecting the $199.4 million outstanding
deficiency, or amount remaining on an auto loan, after it
repossessed and sold vehicles, for the roughly 30,000 class
members whose vehicles were repossessed and who received allegedly
faulty notices.
The bank also agreed to return 60 percent of the roughly $712,000
it collected for deficiency payments from potential class members,
according to court documents. The suit said the notices Kia sent
to the three named plaintiffs are typical of those sent to all car
owners from which the company attempts to collect. It also said
that the scripts used by employees who spoke with the plaintiffs
are used companywide and show a pattern of consumer protection law
abuse by Kia Finance.
The proposed class action was filed on behalf of all similarly
situated car buyers going back four years whose vehicles were
repossessed or voluntarily surrendered and who were assessed a
deficiency balance by Kia Finance. It seeks a permanent
injunction ending the allegedly illegal collection practices,
restitution, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and a
correction made to the credit scores of class members.
The plaintiffs are represented by Amy Tay and Bryan Kemnitzer of
Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg LLP.
The case is Debra Johnson et al. v. Hyundai Capital America et
al., case number BC565263, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.
INTEGRITY STAFFING: Gets Favorable Security Screen Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
companies that require employees to go through security screenings
at the end of their workday are not required to pay overtime, the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 9.
The unanimous ruling in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk was a
big win for business groups that told the court in amicus briefs
that security checks are used by nearly two-thirds of retailers to
curb employee theft. The National Retail Federation warned the
justices that the outcome of the case was "critically important."
"The court's unanimous decision reinforces the clear dividing line
between compensable work and noncompensable pre- and post-shift
activities that had been widely understood by employers for many
years," said Proskauer Rose partner Edward Brill --
ebrill@proskauer.com -- who wrote a brief in the case for the
Retail Litigation Center, the Chamber of Commerce and others.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the terse nine-page decision on the
first signed opinion day of the court's new term -- the latest
start in at least 10 years. The court also issued another
unanimous decision Tuesday in Warger v. Shauers, on the use of
jury testimony in seeking a new trial.
Former Solicitor General Paul Clement argued for Integrity
Staffing Solutions Inc., which contracted with Amazon.com Inc. to
provide workers for its warehouses. Two Nevada employees filed a
class action claiming that they should be compensated for the
roughly 25 minutes they spent each day waiting in lines to be
screened. A U.S. district court judge dismissed the suit, ruling
that under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the screenings were
"postliminary" activities not integral to workers' duties.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, finding
that the screenings were a necessary part of their work performed
for the employer's benefit.
The high court reversed the Ninth Circuit. Judge Thomas asserted
that Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act in 1947 specifically
to stop lawsuits that took advantage of ambiguities in the Fair
Labor Standards Act and in court rulings over what constitutes
compensable work time.
Applying the 1947 law, Judge Thomas said it was clear that time
spent waiting for security screening did not need to be
compensated. Certain activities -- like showering after a day in
a chemical plant or sharpening knives after a shift in a
meatpacking plant -- were necessary and integral to employees'
tasks, Judge Thomas said.
But security screenings, Judge Thomas said, are neither an
employee's principal task nor indispensable for their jobs.
"Integrity Staffing did not employ its workers to undergo security
screenings, but to retrieve products from warehouse shelves and
package those products for shipment to Amazon customers," Judge
Thomas wrote. "Integrity Staffing could have eliminated the
screenings altogether without impairing the employees' ability to
complete their work."
The Ninth Circuit was wrong, Judge Thomas added, to focus on
whether the screenings were required by employers. The proper
test, he said, was whether an activity is "an intrinsic element"
of work duties, and "one with which the employee cannot dispense
if he is to perform his principal activities."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, wrote a
brief concurrence.
Judge Thomas also responded to an assertion made by the employees:
that Integrity Staffing should compensate workers because it could
have implemented measures -- like staggered shifts -- that would
have reduced the waiting time. Judge Thomas said that possibility
did not change the nature of the activity, and besides, "these
arguments are properly presented to the employer at the bargaining
table."
Catherine Ruckelshaus, general counsel to the National Employment
Law Project said Judge Thomas' comment "ignores the fact that
there is no bargaining table. There is no union representing
these workers." She also said, "If the employer requires it, the
work should be paid. That's the common-sense principle that
should have carried the day but was violated here."
Michael Droke -- droke.michael@dorsey.com -- a partner at Dorsey &
Whitney, on Dec. 9 called the high court's ruling "a terrific
outcome for employers. But now, there are some things employers
need to do. . . . Employers should ask themselves: Why the
employee was hired? What task or role the was the employee hired
to perform?"
Thomas Wassel -- twassel@cullenanddykman.com -- of Cullen and
Dykman said the "case was an attempt to expand employer liability
into new areas not recognized before. Businesses faced potential
liabilities of hundreds of millions of dollars if the Supreme
Court had changed the rules. Many employers who have closely
followed this case will breathe a sigh of relief."
JACO OIL: Pleading Amendment Deadline in FCRA Case Moved to April
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston signed on November 25, 2014,
a joint stipulation continuing the pleading amendment deadline in
the case captioned LINDA DE SANTOS an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JACO OIL
COMPANY, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00738-JLT, (E.D. Cal.).
The Plaintiff filed this class action based on JACO's alleged
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
1681, et seq. ("FCRA"), and the Investigative Consumer Reporting
Agencies Act, California Civil Code Section 1786, et seq.
("ICRAA").
On August 27, 2014, the Court ordered that all pleading amendments
in the case be filed no later than February 13, 2015. On October
28, 2014, the Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents on JACO to investigate her
claims regarding Defendant's unlawful practices. JACO's responses
to Plaintiff's discovery were due on or before December 1, 2014.
The parties agreed to a 30-day extension of time for JACO to
respond to Plaintiff's discovery, which will now be due on or
before December 31, 2014.
The parties further agreed to a 60-day extension of time for the
parties to file pleading amendments, from February 13, 2015 to
April 13, 2015, in the event Plaintiff uncovers additional
entities that should be named as defendants in this matter.
A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/rQZCIkfrom Leagle.com.
Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA DE SANTOS, and all others similarly
situated:
Ross E. Shanberg, Esq.
Shane C. Stafford, Esq.
Aaron A. Bartz, Esq.
Shanberg, Stafford & Bartz LLP
19200 Von Karman Ave., Suite 400
Irvine, CA 92612
Telephone: (949) 622-5444
KLEIN, DENATALE, GOLDNER, COOPER, ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL LLP David J.
Cooper -- dcooper@kleinlaw.com -- Connie M. Parker --
cparker@kleinlaw.com -- Attorneys for Defendant JACO OIL COMPANY
JESUS BELTRAN: "Nieto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Nieto and all others similarly situated v. Jesus Beltran,
M.D. PA., Case No. 4:14-cv-03550 (S.D. Tex., December 12, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
Jesus Beltran, M.D. PA owns and operates a medical center located
at 11605 Spring Cypress Road, Tomball, Texas 77377.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Micah Williams, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES
810 Highway 6 South, Ste 111
Houston, TX 77079
Telephone: (832) 230-4125
Facsimile: (832) 230-5310
E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com
JUMEI INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Barry Yim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jumei International Holding Limited, Leo Ou Chen,
Yunsheng Zheng, and Mona Meng Gao, Case No. 1:14-cv-07269
(E.D.N.Y., December 12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.
Jumei International Holding Limited is an online retail company
based in China that sells beauty products and cosmetics through
the internet.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 686-1060
Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
M-I LLC: Court Certifies FLSA Class in Workers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anthony W. Ishii, Sr., adopted with modifications a
finding and recommendations issued July 30, 2014, regarding a
motion to certify class in the case captioned SARMAD SYED,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
ASHLEY BALFOUR, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. M-I, L.L.C., a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, doing business as M-I SWACO; and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:12-CV-1718 AWI MJS, (E.D.
Cal.)
In his November 26, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/XJdrVmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ishii conditionally
certified a class consisting of: "All persons who were or are
employed by Defendant, on or after August 5, 2010 (the 'FLSA Class
Period'), in the job position known as drilling fluids specialist
('DFS'), 'mud engineer,' 'mud man,' 'mud man trainee,' or
'consultant mud man,' or equivalent titles (the 'FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs')."
According to the ruling, by 4:00 p.m., January 8, 2015, Defendant
must have prepared in Microsoft excel, a class list that includes,
to the extent known by Defendant, the names, last known mailing
addresses, all prior mailing address, last known email addresses,
all prior email addresses, last known telephone number, all prior
telephone numbers, and social security numbers of present and
former employees falling within the above class description and to
file a notice certifying that the dataset is ready to be given to
a third party administrator. By 4:00 p.m., January 8, 2015,
Plaintiffs must file with the court an updated proposed notice
that complies with the rulings of this order and to name a third
party administrator that is able and willing to comply with the
procedures specified in this order.
Equitable tolling applies through January 13, 2015, when the court
anticipates issuing a final order approving issuance of the
notices to potential class members.
Sarmad Syed, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Lynn Connor --
jennifer@spirolawcorp.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jeff Holmes,
Jeff Holmes, Esq. & R Ira Spiro -- ira@spirolawcorp.com -- Spiro
Law Corp.
Ashley Balfour, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Lynn Connor,
Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jeff Holmes, Jeff Holmes, Esq. & R Ira
Spiro, Spiro Law Corp.
M-I, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by George Alan Stohner --
gstohner@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Llp, Alexander
M. Chemers -- achemers@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
LLP & Jason S. Mills -- jmills@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP.
MAGNUM HUNTER: Court Has No Responsibility to Rewrite Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
appellate court has ruled that it is not the court's
responsibility to rewrite a complaint to set forth a claim and,
because of that, a class action judgment in favor of Magnum Hunter
Production Inc. was affirmed.
Circuit judges Martha Craig Daughtrey, Eric L. Clay and Deborah L.
Cook voted in the majority and issued a per curiam decision on
Nov. 25 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Dennis Cornett, Peggy Cornett, Ida L. Osbourne Middleton, Billy F.
Middleton, Sonny Begley and Susan Begley filed their class action
lawsuit on June 21, 2013, in Harlan Circuit Court, and it was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky on July 24, 2013.
The plaintiffs claimed they had entered into leases with the
defendant's predecessor allowing the defendant to remove natural
gas from their property.
In return, among other things, the plaintiffs were to be paid one-
eighth of the price received for the gas, less certain costs.
Although the plaintiffs received royalties under the lease terms
for several years, in 2012 the defendant ceased paying royalties,
apparently due to a drop in the market price for natural gas.
The defendant continued to produce natural gas from the properties
but after the deduction of costs, it was selling it at a loss.
Since the spring months of 2012, Magnum has allegedly failed to
tender or pay any royalty whatsoever to the plaintiffs and other
members of the class.
On March 31, the district court ordered that the class action case
be dismissed. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on April 3.
"Plaintiffs additionally allege that the district court
erroneously credited defendant's version of the facts in ruling on
the motion to dismiss, citing Mediacom Southeast L.L.C. v.
BellSouth Telecomm Inc. . . ." the opinion states. "But they
point to no facts set forth in the district court opinion that
contradict the allegations in the complaint."
The plaintiffs also argued that if the complaint does not state a
claim for waste, it may state a claim for some other cause, and
they invited the Sixth Circuit to discern such a claim or to
remand for the district court to do so.
"But the complaint is required to state a plausible claim for
relief on its face in order to survive a motion to dismiss," the
opinion states. "It is not the responsibility of the court to
rewrite the complaint to set forth a claim. Because the complaint
failed to state a claim of waste, we affirm the district court's
judgment in favor of the defendant."
"Plaintiffs argue that the leases allowed defendant to 'shut in'
the wells if the price dropped," the opinion states. "But that
provision in the lease was permissive, not mandatory, and was
intended to protect defendant from losing its lease."
The plaintiffs also argued that their case is similar to Mullins
v. Dees, which held that a claim of waste was stated.
In Mullins, the defendant coal lessee was not mining coal as
provided in the lease, but was removing the pillars supporting the
roof, thus destroying the mine and causing subsidence of the
surface above the mine, according to the opinion.
"Mullins is entirely distinguishable from the case at hand,
because defendant continues to produce natural gas as provided in
the lease and is not destroying the mine or the property," the
opinion states.
The plaintiffs are represented by John C. Whitfield --
john@wbmllp.com -- of Whitfield Bryson & Mason in Madisonville,
Ky., and George E. Stigger of the Law Office of George E. Stigger
in St. Marys, Ga.
The defendant is represented by Anne Adams Chesnut of Bingham
Greenebaum Doll in Lexington, Ky., and Harry D. Callicotte in
Lexington.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit case number: 14-5390
MERIDIAN HEALTH: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisement, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lolita A. Wilburn, D.C., P.C. d/b/a Back To Health Chiropractic
Medical Center, an Illinois Professional Corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. Meridian Health Plan Of Michigan, Inc., Meridian Health Plan Of
Illinois, Inc., and John Does 1-12, Case No. 1:14-cv-09998 (N.D.
Ill., December 12, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendants'
practice sending unsolicited fax advertisements.
The Defendants own and operate a health insurance company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
BOCK & HATCH, LLC
134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 658-5500
Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
MERCK & CO: Defendant in 50 Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company is a
defendant in approximately 50 federal and state lawsuits (the
"Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging personal injury as a
result of the use of Vioxx. Most of these cases are coordinated in
a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon
E. Fallon.
Merck is also a defendant in approximately 30 putative class
action lawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of the
purchase of Vioxx. All but two of those cases are in the Vioxx
MDL. Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Fallon, of
these class actions in the Vioxx MDL. Under the settlement, Merck
will pay up to $23 million to pay all properly documented claims
submitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and expenses,
and approved settlement notice costs and certain other
administrative expenses. The court entered an order approving the
settlement in January 2014. One objector to the settlement has
filed an appeal from the approval order, which is fully briefed
and pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.
Merck is also a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys
General of three states -- Alaska, Montana and Utah. A fourth
action, brought by the Attorney General of Mississippi, was
settled and dismissed earlier this year. The remaining three
actions were pending in the Vioxx MDL proceeding, although Judge
Fallon asked that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") remand the cases to their original federal courts. The
JPML issued conditional remand orders in all three cases, and
Merck's motions to vacate the conditional remand orders in all
three cases were heard without oral argument at the JPML's October
2, 2014 hearing in Louisville, Kentucky.
On October 10, 2014, the JPML issued an order remanding the three
actions back to their original federal courts. These three actions
allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seek
recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health
care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged
Consumer Fraud Act violations.
MERCK & CO: 4 Securities Suits Filed by Opt-Out Investors
---------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that four additional
individual securities complaints were filed by institutional
investors that opted out of the Vioxx Securities class action.
Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under
federal securities laws and state laws have been filed against
Merck and various current and former officers and directors (the
"Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are
coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R.
Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes.
In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part
Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
in the consolidated securities action. Among other things, the
claims based on statements made on or after the voluntary
withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed.
In October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class
Action Complaint. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification and, in January 2013, Judge Chesler granted
that motion. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to
amend their complaint to add certain allegations to expand the
class period. In May 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend their complaint to expand the class period, but
granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add certain
allegations within the existing class period.
In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action
Complaint. In July 2013, defendants answered the Sixth Amended
Class Action Complaint. Discovery has been completed and is now
closed. Under the court's scheduling order, dispositive motions
have been fully briefed.
Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign
institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx
Securities Lawsuits. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed amended
complaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits.
Also in October 2011, an individual securities lawsuit (the "KBC
Lawsuit") was filed in the District of New Jersey by several
foreign institutional investors; that case is also consolidated
with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.
In January 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss in one of the
individual lawsuits (the "ABP Lawsuit"). Briefing on the motions
to dismiss was completed in March 2012. In August 2012, Judge
Chesler granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss
the ABP Lawsuit. Among other things, certain alleged misstatements
and omissions were dismissed as inactionable and all state law
claims were dismissed in full. In September 2012, defendants
answered the complaints in all individual actions other than the
KBC Lawsuit; on the same day, defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint in the KBC Lawsuit on statute of limitations grounds.
In December 2012, Judge Chesler denied the motion to dismiss the
KBC Lawsuit and, in January 2013, defendants answered the
complaint in the KBC Lawsuit. Discovery has been completed and is
now closed. Under the court's scheduling order, dispositive
motions have been fully briefed.
In March and April 2014, four additional individual securities
complaints were filed by institutional investors that opted out of
the class action. The new complaints are substantially similar to
the complaints in the other individual securities lawsuits.
MERCK & CO: 5,555 Fosamax Cases Currently Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September
30, 2014, approximately 5,555 cases involving Fosamax, which
include approximately 5,760 plaintiff groups, had been filed and
were pending against Merck in either federal or state court,
including one case which seeks class action certification, as well
as damages and/or medical monitoring.
Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of
September 30, 2014, approximately 5,555 cases, which include
approximately 5,760 plaintiff groups, had been filed and were
pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including
one case which seeks class action certification, as well as
damages and/or medical monitoring.
In approximately 1,070 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw
("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such
as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in
association with the use of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs in
approximately 4,485 of these actions generally allege that they
sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries ("Femur
Fractures") in association with the use of Fosamax.
In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC") in the Fosamax ONJ MDL (as
defined below) to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the
Fosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of
$27.7 million, which the Company recorded as a liability in the
fourth quarter of 2013. Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized
the terms of this agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement ("ONJ
Master Settlement Agreement") that was executed in April 2014. All
of plaintiffs' counsel have advised the Company that they intend
to participate in the settlement plan. As a condition to the
settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs must also
agree to participate in the settlement plan or Merck can either
terminate the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement, or waive the 100%
participation requirement and agree to a lesser funding amount for
the settlement fund.
On July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master
Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the current
participation level is approximately 95%. In addition, the judge
overseeing the Fosamax ONJ MDL granted a motion filed by Merck and
has entered an order that requires approximately 40 non-
participants whose cases are filed in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to
submit expert reports in order for their cases to proceed any
further. The ONJ Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on the
cases alleging Femur Fractures.
MERCK & CO: 275 ONJ Injury Cases Pending in Atlantic County, NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September
30, 2014, approximately 275 cases alleging ONJ and/or Other Jaw
Related Injuries were pending against Merck in Atlantic County,
New Jersey, although these cases are also subject to pending
settlement.
In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases
pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (the "Fosamax ONJ
MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Fosamax ONJ MDL
has been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. As a result of the
JPML order, approximately 785 of the cases are before Judge
Keenan, although, these cases are subject to the pending
settlement.
In addition, in July 2008, an application was made by the Atlantic
County Superior Court of New Jersey requesting that all of the
Fosamax cases pending in New Jersey be considered for mass tort
designation and centralized management before one judge in New
Jersey. In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered that
all pending and future actions filed in New Jersey arising out of
the use of Fosamax and seeking damages for existing dental and
jaw-related injuries, including ONJ, but not solely seeking
medical monitoring, be designated as a mass tort for centralized
management purposes.
MERCK & CO: 2,920 Femur Fracture Cases Pending in NJ State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September
30, 2014, approximately 2,920 cases alleging Femur Fractures have
been filed in New Jersey state court.
In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking to
have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into
one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and
all federal cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have
been or will be transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the
District of New Jersey (the "Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL"). As a
result of the JPML order, approximately 1,035 cases were pending
in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL as of September 30, 2014.
A Case Management Order was entered requiring the parties to
review 33 cases. Judge Joel Pisano selected four cases from that
group to be tried as the initial bellwether cases in the Fosamax
Femur Fracture MDL. The first bellwether case, Glynn v. Merck,
began on April 8, 2013, and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's
favor on April 29, 2013; in addition, on June 27, 2013, Judge
Pisano granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in
the Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim
was preempted by federal law. Judge Pisano set a May 5, 2014,
trial date for the bellwether trial of a case in which the alleged
injury took place after January 31, 2011.
Following the completion of fact discovery, the court selected
Sweet v. Merck as the next Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL case to be
tried on May 5, 2014, but plaintiffs subsequently dismissed that
case. As a result, the May 2014 trial date was withdrawn.
In addition, Judge Pisano entered an order in August 2013
requiring plaintiffs in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL to show
cause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury
that took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be
dismissed based on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn
case. Plaintiffs filed their responses to the show cause order at
the end of September 2013 and Merck filed its reply to those
responses at the end of October 2013. A hearing on the show cause
order was held in January 2014 and, on March 26, 2014, Judge
Pisano issued an opinion finding that all claims of the
approximately 650 plaintiffs who allegedly suffered injuries prior
to September 14, 2010 were preempted and ordered that those cases
be dismissed.
The majority of those plaintiffs are appealing that ruling to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Furthermore, on June
17, 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary judgment in the
Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck's updates in January
2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures were
adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicated
those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor have appealed Judge
Pisano's decision to the Third Circuit.
In August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisano
enter a further order requiring all remaining plaintiffs in the
Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why their cases should
not be dismissed based on the court's preemption decision and its
ruling in the Gaynor case that the 2011 Merck label is adequate as
a matter of law. Plaintiffs have opposed that motion and asked the
court to stay the remaining cases in the Fosamax Femur Fracture
MDL until the Third Circuit rules on their appeal of Judge
Pisano's preemption decision.
In September 2014, Judge Pisano also ordered the parties to
participate in a mediation process.
As of September 30, 2014, approximately 2,920 cases alleging Femur
Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and were
pending before Judge Carol E. Higbee in Atlantic County Superior
Court until she was reassigned to the New Jersey Appellate
Division in August 2014. The parties selected an initial group of
30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional
groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were
selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. In
September 2014, Judge Julio Mendez, the Assignment Judge for
Atlantic County, advised that the Fosamax Femur Fracture cases
will be transferred to the Multi-County Litigation Vicinage in
Middlesex County.
MERCK & CO: 520 Femur Fracture Cases Filed in Calif. State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September
30, 2014, approximately 520 cases alleging Femur Fractures have
been filed in California state court. A petition was filed seeking
to coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in California state
court before a single judge in Orange County, California. The
petition was granted and Judge Thierry Colaw is currently
presiding over the coordinated proceedings.
In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10 discovery
pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and subsequently
scheduled the Galper v. Merck case as the first trial for February
2015. Two additional trials are scheduled for May and July 2015.
Additionally, there are five Femur Fracture cases pending in other
state courts.
Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL and in
state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the
Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.
MERCK & CO: 700 Januvia/Janumet Product User Claims Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., Inc. is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in
the United States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. Merck said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014, that as of September 30, 2014, approximately
700 product user claims were served on, and are pending against,
Merck alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused
the development of pancreatic cancer. These complaints were filed
in several different state and federal courts. Most of the claims
are pending in a consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
called "In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability
Litigation." That proceeding includes federal lawsuits alleging
pancreatic cancer due to use of the following medicines: Januvia,
Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of which are products
manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies. In addition to the
cases noted above, the Company has agreed, as of September 30,
2014, to toll the statute of limitations for 19 additional claims.
The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.
MERCK & CO: 1,945 NuvaRing Cases Currently Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September
30, 2014, there were approximately 1,945 NuvaRing cases, the vast
majority of which are subject to settlement agreement.
Beginning in May 2007, a number of complaints were filed in
various jurisdictions asserting claims against the Company's
subsidiaries Organon USA, Inc., Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Organon International (collectively, "Organon"), and the Company
arising from Organon's marketing and sale of NuvaRing (the
"NuvaRing Litigation"), a combined hormonal contraceptive vaginal
ring. The plaintiffs contend that Organon and Schering-Plough,
among other things, failed to adequately design and manufacture
NuvaRing and failed to adequately warn of the alleged increased
risk of venous thromboembolism ("VTE") posed by NuvaRing, and/or
downplayed the risk of VTE. The plaintiffs seek damages for
injuries allegedly sustained from their product use, including
some alleged deaths, heart attacks and strokes. The majority of
the cases are currently pending in a federal multidistrict
litigation (the "NuvaRing MDL") venued in Missouri and in a
coordinated proceeding in New Jersey state court.
As of September 30, 2014, there were approximately 1,945 NuvaRing
cases, the vast majority of which are subject to settlement
agreement. Of these cases, approximately 1,720 are or will be
pending in the NuvaRing MDL in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri before Judge Rodney Sippel, and
approximately 215 are pending in coordinated proceedings in the
Bergen County Superior Court of New Jersey before Judge Brian R.
Martinotti. Seven additional cases are pending in various other
state courts, including cases in a coordinated state proceeding in
the San Francisco Superior Court in California before Judge John
E. Munter.
Merck and negotiating plaintiffs' counsel agreed to a settlement
of the NuvaRing Litigation to resolve all filed cases as of
February 7, 2014, and all unfiled claims under retainer by counsel
prior to that date. Pursuant to this settlement agreement, which
became effective as of June 4, 2014, Merck paid a lump total
settlement of $100 million to resolve more than 95% of the cases
filed and under retainer by counsel as of February 7, 2014. The
vast majority of the plaintiffs with pending lawsuits have opted
into the settlement and all participants in the settlement have
tendered dismissals of their cases to the settlement
administrator. The dismissals will be filed with the courts upon
completion of the settlement administration process. The Company
has certain insurance coverage available to it, which is currently
being used to partially fund the Company's legal fees. This
insurance coverage has also been used to fund the settlement. Any
plaintiff not participating in the settlement who chooses to
proceed with their case, as well as any future plaintiffs, in the
NuvaRing MDL or New Jersey state court are and will be obligated
to meet various discovery and evidentiary requirements under the
case management orders of the NuvaRing MDL and New Jersey state
court. Plaintiffs who fail to fully and timely satisfy these
requirements under set deadlines will be subject to an Order to
Show Cause why their case should not be dismissed with prejudice.
MERCK & CO: 1,245 Propecia/Proscar Lawsuits Filed
-------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the
United States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. Merck said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014, that as of September 30, 2014, approximately
1,245 lawsuits involving a total of approximately 1,515 plaintiffs
(in a few instances spouses are joined as plaintiffs in the suits)
who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side
effects following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or
Proscar have been filed against Merck. Approximately 45 of the
plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can
cause prostate cancer or male breast cancer. The lawsuits have
been filed in various federal courts and in state court in New
Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before Judge John
Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York. The matters pending
in state court in New Jersey have been consolidated before Judge
Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. In addition, there is one
matter pending in federal court in Kansas and one matter pending
in federal court in California. The Company intends to defend
against these lawsuits.
MOL GLOBAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 2 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of MOL
Global, Inc. American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between October
14, 2014, the date of MOL Global's initial public offering
("IPO"), and December 1, 2014.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from November 24, 2014. If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/molglobal/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.
The complaint charges MOL Global, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933. MOL Global provides e-payment solutions
for online goods and services in Southeast Asia.
On October 8, 2014, the SEC declared the Registration Statement
for the IPO effective and on or about October 14, 2014, MOL Global
and the underwriters priced the IPO. The IPO was a success, with
MOL Global issuing and selling more than 7.485 million ADSs of MOL
Global to the public at $12.50 each, raising $93.6 million in
gross proceeds, and certain selling stockholders selling another
more than 6 million ADSs, raising $75.2 million in gross proceeds.
The complaint alleges that under the rules and regulations
governing the preparation of the Registration Statement, MOL
Global was required to disclose at the time of the IPO that the
Company lacked adequate financial reporting capabilities to timely
and accurately report its financial results and forecasts, that it
had misstated Revenue and Direct Cost and Other Ancillary Expenses
in its Vietnam subsidiary, and that the shift from online to
mobile gaming had decreased volumes in the Company's online games
portal, MMOG.asia, which decrease was being further compounded by
technical delays in introducing and monetizing new mobile games on
the Company's platform. The Registration Statement, however,
contained no such disclosures.
When the market learned the truth, the price of MOL Global ADSs
fell. At the time of the filing of this action, MOL Global ADSs
were trading below $2 each, a more than 85% decline from the IPO
price.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
MOL Global ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with MOL Global's October 14, 2014
IPO (the "Class"), including purchasers of its ADSs through and
including December 1, 2014. The plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class
actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial
fraud.
With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history, including the
largest securities class action judgment.
NIDAJA LLC: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Reyes, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated v.
Nidaja, LLC d/b/a Gastronomie 491, and Nicole Ahronee, Case No.
1:14-cv-09812 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-
judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate Gastronomie restaurant located at
491 Columbus Avenue, New York, New York 10024.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 209-3933
Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
NOVEX BIOTECH: "Engel" Suit Over Growth Hormone Ads Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James granted Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss in the case captioned JULIAN ENGEL, Plaintiff, v. NOVEX
BIOTECH LLC, et al., Defendants CASE NO. 14-CV-03457-MEJ (N.D.
Cal.).
Plaintiff filed an action against Defendants whose are into
business of distributing, marketing, promoting and selling Growth
Factor-9, an over-the-counter amino acid supplement marketed to
boost human growth hormone ("HGH").
Plaintiff alleged that in their labeling and marketing campaigns,
Defendants have made the following marketing representations: (1)
that Growth Factor-9 provides a 682% mean increase in HGH levels;
(2) that Growth Factor-9 is clinically tested; and (3) that "a
recent, randomized, cross-over, double-blind clinical trial"
supports the growth hormone representations.
Defendants moved for the dismissal of the Complaint, arguing that:
(1) Plaintiff brings only substantiation claims, for which there
exists no available private right of action; (2) even if
Plaintiff's claims are construed to be something other than
substantiation claims, the Complaint fails to demonstrate that
Defendants' claims regarding Growth Factor-9 are false; and (3)
Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege that Defendants did not rely
on competent scientific evidence.
In her order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss, Magistrate
Judge James ruled that the Complaint, as drafted, is insufficient
and does not demonstrate that Defendants' advertising claims are
false or misleading. Besides, no private right of action exists
for a substantiation claim to arise. Thus, private litigants may
only bring claims under these sections for false or misleading
advertising, and must provide adequate factual bases for such
allegations. In the bare-bones allegations, there is no cited
authorities that actually refers to Growth Factor-9 false
advertising.
A copy of the Order dated November 6, 2014, is available at
http://bit.ly/1za8B6xfrom Leagle.com.
Julian Engel, an individual on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Manfred Patrick
Muecke, Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint, P.C., Elaine A.
Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint,
P.C, Lindsey M Gomez, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman Balint, Stewart
M. Weltman, Stewart M Weltman LLC & Patricia Nicole Syverson,
Bonnett Fairbourn et al.
Novex Biotech LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher B
Sullivan -- csullivan@lewisthomason.com -- Price Parkinson and
Kerr, Jeremy Noah Lateiner, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, John P
Snow, Price Parkinson and Kerr, Mark J. Williams, Rollin Bernard
Chippey, II, Morgan Lewis & Bockius & Jason M. Kerr.
GNC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Rollin Bernard Chippey,
II -- rchippey@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius,
Christopher B Sullivan, Price Parkinson and Kerr, Jason M. Kerr,
John P Snow, Price Parkinson and Kerr & Mark J. Williams.
OAKLAND, CA: Mass Arrest Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a
second million-dollar class action settlement stemming from mass
arrests during Occupy Oakland demonstrations will head to federal
court on Dec. 17, when a magistrate will assess the deal that
could provide close to $3,000 for each of 360 protesters rounded
up by police.
The proposed $1.36 million settlement in Angell v. Oakland was
initially rejected on Nov. 21 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael
Cousins of the Northern District of California, who requested
clarification and revisions to several components of the deal
between the protesters and the city of Oakland and Alameda County
regarding a roundup of hundreds during a downtown Oakland
demonstration on Jan. 28, 2012.
If approved, it would bring to nearly $3 million the total awarded
to Occupy arrestees and their attorneys by the city and county.
The earlier settlement in Spalding v. City of Oakland, for $1.17
million stemming from arrests during a Nov. 3, 2011,
demonstration, was approved in 2013, in a deal that also led to
changes in police and city crowd-control practices.
Elsewhere, a putative class action in New York by hundreds of
Occupy Wall Street protesters was kept alive on Aug. 21 when the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused to dismiss
the suit, Garcia v. Doe, in which the demonstrators alleged they
were goaded by police into violating the law on Oct. 1, 2011. In
a 2-1 ruling, the appeals panel affirmed a lower court's decision
against dismissal, giving little merit to New York City's argument
of qualified immunity.
In the pending Oakland case, the plaintiffs allege violations of
their rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, as
well as violations of California law requiring the citation and
release of those arrested for misdemeanors; instead, the
protesters allege, they were held in cells for as long as 24
hours.
Under the terms of current proposed settlement, the jurisdictions
agree to pay $1.36 million, including the estimated $2,664 per
class member, $9,000 each for lead plaintiff Steven Angell and
seven other class representatives, and $350,000 for plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees and costs.
The parties also have agreed to seal and destroy arrests records
of those taken into custody, according to the proposed settlement.
Plaintiffs' counsel are Yolanda Huang and attorneys with the firm
Siegel & Yee. Representing Oakland is City Attorney Barbara
Parker, and representing Alameda County are attorneys with the
firm Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe.
PETROLEO BRASILEIRO: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Messing, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras, Case No.
1:14-cv-09847 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2014), alleges that the
Defendant made materially false and misleading statements,
specifically by misrepresenting facts and failing to disclose a
multi-year, multi-billion dollar money-laundering and bribery
scheme.
Petroleo Brasileiro SA - Petrobras is an integrated oil and gas
company that is the largest corporation in Brazil, in terms of
revenue.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Francis Paul McConville, Esq.
Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com
jalieberman@pomlaw.com
PREFERRED FREEZER: Faces "Altnor" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Altnor and Christina Oyola, individually, and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. Preferred Freezer Services, Inc.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-07043 (E.D. Pa., December 12, 2014), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
Preferred Freezer Services, Inc. owns and operates 35 refrigerated
warehouse facilities throughout the United States.
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
RAMELLI GROUP: "Clincy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
April Clincy, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Ramelli Group, LLC d/b/a Jackson Ramelli, LLC and Robert C.
Ramelli, Case No. 3:14-cv-00959 (S.D. Miss., December 12, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.
The Defendants own and operate a company that provides group
removal services to its customers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher William Espy, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
One Jackson Place, Suite 777
188 East Capitol Street
Jackson, MS 39201
Telephone: (601) 718-2087
Facsimile: (601) 718-2102
E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com
REMINGTON ARMS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Rifle Trigger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Remington Arms Co. has agreed to replace the trigger mechanism in
as many as 8 million of its iconic Model 700 bolt-action rifles,
according to the terms of a settlement in a putative class action
that alleged a defect allowed the rifle to fire even when the
trigger is not pulled.
The proposed agreement to settle Pollard v. Remington, filed on
Dec. 5 in U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Missouri, followed years of legal combat, thousands of consumer
complaints, reports of more than 100 serious injuries and deaths
and an earlier recall of thousands of what is called the world's
most popular hunting rifle, one favored by elements of the U.S.
military and law enforcement.
The deal covers more than a dozen rifle models, including the
Model 7 variation. The company -- which continues to maintain the
firearms are safe and has blamed user error for most reported
malfunctions -- agreed to retrofit the rifles equipped with Walker
Fire Control System at no cost to the owners. The deal, which
does not include a recall, also includes up to $12.5 million for
plaintiffs' counsel's fees and costs.
Remington said it would replace those with improved X-Mark Pro
trigger mechanisms, which were upgraded to remedy a defect of
their own. Earlier this year, the company recalled thousands of
rifles with X-Mark Pro triggers after finding that an excess of
bonding agent used in the manufacturing process could cause them
to unintentionally fire. Remington said it corrected the problem,
and the mechanisms to be installed in the rifles covered by the
settlement are free of the bonding defect.
The proposed settlement was triggered by a putative class action
brought in 2013 by Ian Pollard of Concordia, Mo., and a similar
suit in Washington state. Mr. Pollard alleged his Model 700 rifle
discharged multiple times without a trigger pull. He alleged
Remington engaged in negligence, breach of warranty, unfair and
deceptive trade practices and fraudulent concealment.
Class counsel are attorneys with the firms Bolen Robinson & Ellis
and Neblett Beard & Arsenault. Remington is represented by
attorneys with Swanson, Martin & Bell; and Shook, Hardy & Bacon.
SONY CORP: Anti-Poaching, Wage-Fixing Class Actions Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline reports that while not
altogether unexpected, the three class-action suits over alleged
anti-poaching and wage-fixing deals by Sony, Disney, DreamWorks
Animation and other animation studios have been consolidated into
one big complaint. This amended filing in federal court by
lawyers for digital artists David Wentworth, Robert Nitsch Jr. and
Georgia Cano now delivers a potential powerhouse legal punch to
the toonsters.
"The conspiracy deprived Plaintiffs and other class members of
millions of dollars in compensation while the films they produced
generated billions of dollars in revenues for Defendants," says
the trio's filing, which seeks a jury trial. Like the previous
suits, this one seeks reclassification to a class action that
could grow to thousands of members who worked at the companies
from 2004 onward.
While now adding Fox subsidiary Blue Sky Studios, this filing is
similar in many respects to the original complaint by Mr. Nitsch
back in early September. However, unlike past paperwork on this
issue, this new consolidated and amended complaint not only names
DWA CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg and Disney-Pixar's Ed Catmull, among
others, but points some very specific new fingers to make its
points about the illegal agreement among the animation studios.
"Despite his concern that it was 'taboo' to do so, DreamWorks'
Head of Production Technology emailed the heads of human resources
at Pixar, ILM, Sony Pictures Animation, and Disney in January 2009
to learn how they handled overtime -- an issue that was
competitively sensitive in an industry where workers are regularly
asked to work dozens of hours of overtime a week," claims the new
34-page filing. "He sought to see if the other companies were 'as
generous' -- an answer that could allow him to reduce compensation
without fear of losing a competitive advantage. A Sony executive
called him after emailing him the subject was not 'taboo' for
her."
Adds the new complaint: "No studio acting in its own independent
self-interest in the absence of a conspiracy to suppress
compensation would share this kind of compensation information,
let alone with such a large group of competitors. Such behavior
only makes sense in the context of a conspiracy to suppress
compensation."
Add that to the animation studios' concerns that the case is under
the watch of Judge Lucy Koh. Back in late September, Judge Koh
agreed to the request from former DWA effects artist Mr. Nitsch
that the Northern District of California federal judge be
reassigned his class action. Mr. Nitsch's gist was that his
September 8-filed antitrust class-action complaint was "related"
to the High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation case that Judge Koh
had been presiding over for the past several years. Coming out of
a DOJ investigation, that case was where details of the toon
studios' anti-poaching deal came to light.
While Lucasfilm and a few others settled with a $9 million payment
in the High-Tech case, Judge Koh rejected Apple and other tech
companies' $325 million settlement attempt to end the case --
something the tech giants now are fighting in the courts. In
October, Judge Koh assigned herself the Cano case, which was filed
on September 17, and the Wentworth case, filed on October 2.
Interestingly late last month, the plaintiffs sought to file their
amended complaint under seal because it had "documents defendants
have designated as 'Confidential' or 'Confidential - Attorneys'
Eyes Only.'" However, with the toon studios saying that they
would not "maintain the CAC under seal," Judge Koh on Dec. 2
ordered Nitsch, Cano and Wentworth to have their attorneys in the
public record.
All of which makes this case even more of one to watch, wild cards
and all.
The consolidated amended class-action complaint was submitted by
Daniel A. Small -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- of Washington DC's
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. Mr. Small was on Mr. Nitsch's
legal team in the first 'toon class action complaint filing.
Other lawyers from the firm and over 10 others representing the
trio join him now in this one.
SUNRISE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Miller" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 1:14-cv-09818 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2014), arises out of the
Defendants abusive, deceptive and unfair practices of collecting
debt.
Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. is a Debt Collection agency located
at 260 Airport Plaza, P.O. Box 9100, Farmingdale, New York 11735-
9100.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 459-4971
Facsimile: (646) 459-7973
E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com
bwolf@legaljones.com
SUNSET MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven K. Sullivan and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(B) v. Sunset Management Company, Inc., Elizabeth A.
Colross a/k/a Elizabeth A. Harper, Victoria A. Colross a/k/a
Victoria Colross Hucks, Case No. 1:14-cv-24711 (S.D. Fla.,
December 12, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for worked performed in excess of 40 hours
weekly.
The Defendants own and operate a company that offers home
maintenance services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
300 71st Street, Suite 605
Miami Beach, FL 33141
Telephone: (305) 865-6766
Facsimile: 865-7167
E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Sayler" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard H. Sayler v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-
02722 (N.D. Ohio, December 12, 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:
Daniel Frech, Esq.
Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
SPANGENBERG, SHIBLEY & LIBER
1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 696-3232
Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
E-mail: dfrech@spanglaw.com
sscott@spanglaw.com
TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Singer" Suit Over Defective Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Singer, Judith Hollywood, Shaun Taylor, Laura Killgo,
Dennis Hubbard, and Frances Osterhout, on behalf of themselves and
all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:14-cv-09562 (C.D. Cal., December 12, 2014), alleges that the
Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant
that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury
during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants
with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel.
Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety
systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes,
and sells airbags.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
tomloeser@hbsslaw.com
TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS: Class Suit Claims Not Moot, 11th Cir. Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
appeals court has ruled that a plaintiff's individual claim is not
mooted by an unaccepted offer of judgment in a class action
lawsuit against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for allegedly sending
unsolicited faxes to businesses.
"This case presents the question whether a defendant may moot a
class action through an unaccepted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
68 offer of complete relief to the named plaintiffs -- but not to
class members -- before the named plaintiffs move to certify the
class," the Dec. 1 opinion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit states. "In the circumstances of this case, the
answer is no. We join the majority of circuits that have
addressed the issue."
Circuit judges Beverly B. Martin, Richard K. Eaton and Robert L.
Hinkle voted in the majority, with Hinkle authoring the opinion.
"On the issue of the mootness of the class claims, Zeidman [v. J.
Ray McDermott & Co.] is different from our case in only one
significant respect: in Zeidman, the plaintiffs moved to certify a
class before the individual claims became moot, while here, the
plaintiffs moved to certify the class only after [Buccaneers
Limited Partnership] served its Rule 68 offers," the opinion
states. "BLP says this changes the result. We disagree."
The class action lawsuit was initially filed in the Circuit Court
of the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Pinellas County, Fla. on Aug. 1,
2013. It was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on Aug. 16, 2013.
Jeffrey M. Stein, D.D.S., M.S.D., P.A.; Devito Orthodontics P.A.;
Steven J. Melilli, D.C., P.A.; Charles R. Hatley Inc.; Donald
White and Jonathan Hall claimed beginning on July 14, 2009, the
defendant transmitted unsolicited facsimiles to the plaintiffs for
the purpose of offering for sale game tickets to the Tampa Bay
Buccaneers' home football games.
The plaintiffs claimed the defendants actions violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
On Oct. 24, 2013, the district court ordered the class action
lawsuit dismissed for lack of jurisdictionally necessary "case or
controversy."
In Sosna v. Iowa, the named plaintiff challenged Iowa's durational
residence requirement for divorces, according to the opinion.
"After a three-judge district court upheld the Iowa provision on
the merits, and while the case was pending on appeal to the
Supreme Court, the named plaintiff's individual claim became moot
on two grounds: she got a divorce in another state, and she had
lived in Iowa long enough to satisfy the durational residence
requirement."
The Supreme Court said the case could nonetheless go forward and
the court said that upon certification, class members "acquired a
legal status separate from the interest of [the named plaintiff]."
"And the Court cited its prior decisions holding that disputes
were not moot when they were 'capable of repetition, yet evading
review,'" the opinion states. "Sosna squarely refutes any
assertion that a class action is always moot just because the
named plaintiff's claim is moot.
"First, a plaintiff's individual claim is not mooted by an
unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment. Second, a proffer that
moots a named plaintiff's individual claim does not moot a class
action in circumstances like those presented here, even if the
proffer comes before the plaintiff has moved to certify a class.
The district court's order dismissing the action is reversed."
The panel stated it is plain that this case still presents a live
controversy.
"The plaintiffs say BLP violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act and that all class members are entitled to money damages; BLP
denies it," the opinion states. "In indistinguishable
circumstances, Zeidman held the dispute was still live and said:
'The case before us, therefore, rests not on whether there exists
a live controversy, but on whether the district court has before
it some plaintiff with a personal stake in that controversy.'
. . . The same is true here."
The panel stated the Supreme Court has made clear, more than once,
that the necessary personal stake in a live class action
controversy sometimes is present even when the named plaintiff's
own individual claim has become moot.
The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph J. Siprut and Gregg M.
Barbakoff of Siprut PC in Chicago; James M. Thomas of the Law
Office of James M. Thomas in Dunedin, Fla.
The Buccaneers are represented by Thomas Emerson Scott Jr. --
thomas.scott@csklegal.com -- Scott Allan Cole, Barry Adam Postman,
Justin C. Sorel -- justin.sorel@csklegal.com -- of Cole Scott &
Kissane PA in Miami.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit case number: 13-15417
TRACTOR SUPPLY: "Bellinghausen" Suit Deal Gets Initial Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted preliminary
approval of a class action settlement in PATRICK BELLINGHAUSEN,
Plaintiff, v. TRACTOR SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-
02377-JSC, (N.D. Cal.).
Judge Corley approved the appointment of Shaun Setareh as Class
Counsel and Plaintiff Patrick Bellinghausen as class
representatives for settlement purposes, and the form and content
of the revised proposed notice in the case.
In their joint motion for approval of the settlement, the parties
stated that "Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of all
non-exempt employees employed by Tractor Supply in California
between April 25, 2009 until the date this Court grants
preliminary approval, except any employee who has individually
adjudicated his or her claims during that same time period."
The parties' agreement provides a settlement fund of $1,000,000.
Reduced from that fund are 1) attorney's fees up to 30 percent of
the fund ($300,000); 2) actual litigation costs up to $30,000; 3)
enhancement awards to Plaintiff up to $20,000; 4) payment of
$35,000 in civil penalties to the Labor Workforce and Development
Agency ("LWDA"); and 5) claims administration expenses up to
$16,000. The remaining funds are then distributed to the class
members who do not opt out of the class. Class members will
receive a pro rata share of the fund based on his or her
"compensable hours"1 worked during the class period, less
statutorily required tax withholdings.
The Court observed two minor deficiencies in the class notice
regarding the terms of the settlement. First, Paragraph 20 of the
notice, which describes the settlement fund and the amounts
proposed for deduction, omits the $35,000 set aside as LWDA
penalties; the notice shall include this deduction, ruled Judge
Corley. Second, Paragraph 21 provides a hypothetical regarding a
potential payment to a class member. The hypothetical suggests
that the fund may be reduced to as low as $550,000, after
accounting for attorneys' fees, costs, etc.; however, the lowest
possible balance for the fund is $600,000. "The parties shall
alter this hypothetical as to not confuse class members. Other
than the above two points, the Court finds the information
provided in the notice meets the requirements of Rule
23(c)(2)(B)," Judge Corley added.
Within 15 business days of the preliminary class approval,
Defendant must provide the Settlement Administrator with the Class
List.
The Class Notice Packet will be mailed around the week of December
24, 2014. Class counsel will then have until approximately
sometime until the second week in January to file and post their
motion for attorneys' fees and costs (31 days after the Class
Notice Packet mailing). Any objections to the settlement and/or
fees and costs must be submitted within 45 days of the mailing of
the Class Notice Packet.
No later than January 7, 2015, Class Counsel must file and post on
the website for class review their motion for attorneys' fees and
costs.
This matter will be heard for a final fairness hearing on March
19, 2015 at 9 a.m. Plaintiff's application for attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards will be reviewed at that time.
A copy of the court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/0ZLwKF
from Leagle.com.
Patrick Bellinghausen, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun
Setareh -- shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.
Tractor Supply Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by Alex Santana -- alex.santana@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Christopher
William Decker -- christopher.decker@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Illegal Background Check Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Coren, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Uber
Technologies was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging it
performs illegal background checks and violated federal law when
it checks on drivers for its mobile-app that helps users find
transportation, according to a Boston cabdriver.
Uber along with its subsidiary Rasier, LLC and Hirease, LLC, a
company that performs background checks, was hit with the illegal
background check class action lawsuit on Nov. 24 in California
federal court by plaintiff Abdul Kadir Mohamed, who alleges that
they violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act as well as credit
reporting laws in both California and Massachusetts.
Mr. Mohamed claims that he had been employed by Uber as an "Uber
Black" driver and wanted to become and "Uber X" driver. However,
Uber said that he would have to get a new car.
In the Uber class action lawsuit, Mr. Mohamed says that in
September he bought a new car for about $25,000 to comply with the
Uber X requirements.
However, on Oct. 28, Mr. Mohamed says he received an email from
"uberreports@hireease.com" saying that because of information from
a consumer report from Hireease, Rasier was "unable to further
consider" his proposal to become an Uber X driver.
In addition, around the same time that he received the email,
"access to the Uber app on his phone, which previously enabled him
to work as an Uber driver, was turned off."
The email said that Mohamed had received a copy of the report "'in
accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act,'" but the Boston
cabdriver says that this was not the case.
In addition to not receiving a copy of the consumer report, he
also did not receive a "pre-adverse action notice," giving him a
chance to explain the contents of the consumer report in
accordance with the FCRA, the Uber class action lawsuit states.
"On information and belief, defendants terminated plaintiff
because Hireease's consumer report concerning plaintiff indicated
he had a minor criminal record that, in fact, stems from his seven
children receiving much-needed Medicaid benefits," Mr. Mohamed
explains in his illegal background check class action lawsuit.
And now, because he was fired by Uber, he is left "without an
alternative means of providing for his family, including his seven
children."
According to the Uber class action lawsuit, the credit reporting
laws give businesses guidelines for how consumer background checks
may be used for hiring or firing employees.
"Specifically, the statutes require that an employer first
disclose its intent to use a background report in its hiring
decision and must obtain the prospective employee's written
authorization to do so, and the employer's disclosure must be 'in
a document that consists solely of the disclosure,'" Mohamed
explains in the FCRA lawsuit.
In addition, because "misreported information can and does often
lead to grave consequences for the job seeker," businesses are
supposed to provide a copy of the report to the subject, as well
as a copy of the person's rights under the federal law, and give
each person "a reasonable opportunity to dispute the information"
before there are "any adverse" decisions about the person's
employment.
The same rights are granted under the California law, where Uber
is headquartered, and Massachusetts credit reporting laws, where
Mohamed lives and works.
Also, under California law, employers are supposed to notify the
person in writing that a consumer credit report is going to be
performed. That notice is also supposed to include "the source of
the report, and shall contain a box that the person may check off
to receive a copy of the credit report."
Mr. Mohamed claims that Uber and Rasier uses consumer reports for
the purpose of employment and that the FCRA applies to them.
He "alleges that Uber and Rasier knowingly, voluntarily, and with
the assistance of its counsel, executed a certification providing
that it would comply with various provisions of the FCRA," but
that the companies "knowingly violated" the federal and state
laws.
Mr. Mohamed is represented by Tina Wolfson, Robert Ahdoot,
Theodore W. Maya and Bradley K. King of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC.
The Uber Illegal Background Check Class Action Lawsuit is Mohamed
v. Uber Technologies Inc et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05200, in the
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California.
VCA ANTECH: Case Over Illegal Surcharge Transferred to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria Elena James granted Defendant's Motion to
Transfer venue in the case captioned TONY M. GRAHAM, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. VCA ANTECH, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO.
14-CV-02158-MEJ (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs as purchaser of goods and services from the Defendants,
filed a class action case by alleging that Defendants routinely
and improperly imposed "Biohazard Waste Management" surcharges on
relevant transactions.
Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to the Central
District of California arguing that the action could have been
brought there in the first instance and that the relevant factors
relating to convenience and the interests of justice favor
transfer.
Defendants stated further that majority of their witnesses are
employees with knowledge of their practices and decisions
concerning the Biohazardous Waste Management Fee. Also, they are
presently assigned at their headquarters in Southern California.
In granting the Defendant's motion to transfer venue, Magistrate
Judge James ruled that Plaintiffs' complaint originated at
Defendants' headquarters in the Central District. Judge James also
pointed out that Plaintiffs' choice of the Northern District of
California is entitled to less deference because in a class action
case, Plaintiff's choice of forum is given less weight.
Plaintiff's argument that Central District is more congested than
the Northern District Case is not likely to raise litigation costs
due to its comparatively quick resolution time.
A copy of the Order dated November 6, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1GOLTD3 from Leagle.com.
Mr. Tony M. Graham, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Terrell,
McCallum Methvin and Terrell PC, Jeffrey W Lawrence, The Lawrence
Law Firm, John David Bogatko, Toon Osmond PLLC, Kenneth Wagner,
Latham Wagner Steele and Lehman LLC & Richard S Toon, Jr., Toon
Osmond PLLC.
Pamela G Moe, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Terrell,
McCallum Methvin and Terrell PC, Kenneth Wagner, Latham Wagner
Steele and Lehman LLC & Richard S Toon, Jr., Toon Osmond PLLC.
VCA Antech Inc, Defendant, represented by Hyongsoon Kim, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP & John A Karaczynski, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer and Feld LLP.
VCA Animal Hospitals Inc, Defendant, represented by Hyongsoon Kim
-- kimh@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP &
John A Karaczynski, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld LLP.
WALGREEN CO: Faces "Potocki" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard C. Potocki, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-10006
(N.D. Ill., December 12, 2014), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.
Walgreen Co. is an international, pharmacy-led health and beauty
retailing and pharmaceutical wholesaling and distribution company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent Louis DiTommaso, Esq.
DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C.
17 W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
Telephone: (630) 333-0000
E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com
- and -
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Julia J. Sun, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
WEST VIRGINIA'S CHOICE: Ruling in Wage & Hour Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Allen H. Loughry II of the Supreme Court of Appeals of
West Virginia affirmed a circuit court order granting WV Choice'
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned CAROL KING, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
Below, Petitioner, v. WEST VIRGINIA'S CHOICE, INC., Defendant
Below, Respondent, CASE NO. 13-CV-04115-WHO (W.Va. App.).
Ms. King was hired by WV Choice as an in-home direct care worker
to provide companionship services to the elderly or infirm. These
services include meal preparation, bed-making, prompting clients
to take medications, washing clothing, and assisting clients with
personal care, such as dressing and personal grooming.
WV Choice states that these services are typical of the in-home
companionship care services provided by Ms. King and its other
direct care worker employees.
Ms. King filed a class action complaint against WV Choice for
unpaid overtime compensation for herself and all other similarly
situated employees by alleging that WV Choice violated the Minimum
Wage and Maximum Hours Standards (MWMHS) by failing to pay her for
hours worked in excess of forty hours per week at a rate of one
and one-half times her regular rate.
WV Choice filed its motion for summary judgment. Thereafter, the
circuit court granted motion in favor of WV Choice.
In its order, the circuit court found that the undisputed evidence
established that more than 80% of WV Choice's employees, including
Ms. King, were subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), a
federal act which relates to minimum wage, maximum hours, and
overtime compensation. Hence, the circuit court dismissed, with
prejudice, Ms. King's overtime compensation claim filed under the
MWMHS.
Ms. King appealed.
Justice Loughry issued an Opinion that the circuit court acted
properly in granting summary judgment to WV Choice and concluded
that WV Choice is a FLSA-regulated employer. Further, Justice
Loughry stated that because more than 80% of its employees are
subject to a federal act relating to minimum wage, maximum hours
and overtime compensation, WV Choice does not meet the definition
of an employer under the state's MWMHS for purposes of Ms. King's
overtime compensation claim.
A copy of the Opinion dated November 7, 2014, is available at
bit.ly/1qDO16k from Leagle.com.
Cameron S. McKinney, Esq., The Grubb Law Group, Charleston, West
Virginia, Attorney for Petitioner.
Patrick E. McFarland, Esq., Patrick E. McFarland, P.L.L.C.,
Parkersburg, West Virginia; David K. Hendrickson, Esq., Barbara A.
Samples, Esq., Christopher S. Arnold, Esq., Hendrickson & Long,
PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Respondent.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid $900,000 to PI Claimant
-------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. paid $900,000 to William Paulus, who filed an asbestos-
related personal injury claim, according to the Company's Form 10-
Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.
On August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in the
William Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury found
that the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%) of
plaintiffs' non-economic damages of $6.5 million, plus a portion
of plaintiffs' economic damages of $0.4 million. Based on
California court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgment
was entered in the amount of $0.8 million against the Company. The
Company filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in the
Company's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which were
denied. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed by
order dated February 21, 2014. The Company sought review of
certain aspects of the ruling before the California Supreme Court,
and review was denied. Having exhausted all post-trial and
appellate remedies, the Company in June 2014 paid to plaintiffs
the amount of $0.9 million, the judgment including interest, and
this amount is included in second quarter indemnity totals.
Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. to Review Ruling in PI Suit v. Crane Co.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Court of Appeals has accepted Crane Co.'s request for
a review of a ruling entered in the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit filed by Gerald Suttner, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.
On October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that
the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs'
damages of $3 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict, which were denied. The court entered a judgment of
$0.1 million against the Company. The Company appealed, and the
judgment was affirmed by order dated March 21, 2014. The Company
sought reargument of this decision, which was denied. The Company
sought review before the New York Court of Appeals, which was
accepted in the fourth quarter of 2014.
Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Calif. Suit v. Crane Co. is Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed in
California against Crane Co. remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.
On November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA. The jury found that the
Company was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non-
economic damages of $4.5 million, plus a portion of their economic
damages of $0.9 million. Based on California court rules regarding
allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company in
the amount of $1.282 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict and also requesting that settlement offsets be
applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with California law.
On January 31, 2013, the court entered an order disposing
partially of that motion. On March 1, 2013, the Company filed an
appeal regarding the portions of the motion that were denied. The
court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.1
million. The Company appealed. By opinion dated April 16, 2014,
the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of liability against the
Company, and the California Supreme Court denied review of this
ruling. The Court of Appeal reserved the arguments relating to
recoverable damages to a subsequent appeal that remains pending.
Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeals in 2 PI Suits Remain Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal in two asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania remain pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.
On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5
million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a
$2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were
consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement
offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with
Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has
appealed.
Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Peraica" Suit is Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal in the asbestos-related personal injury
lawsuits filed by Ivo Peraica remains pending, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.
On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35
million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. The
Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict,
to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Company
argues were excessive under New York appellate case law governing
awards for non-economic losses and further were subject to
settlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to
$18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion,
judgment also entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6
million (including interest). The Company has appealed. The
Company has taken a separate appeal of the trial court's denial of
its summary judgment motion. The Court has consolidated the
appeals, which were heard in the fourth quarter of 2014.
Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineered
industrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, Fluid
Handling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two
groups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The
Engineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced
plastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised of
two businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions for
sensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Company
announced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI Conlux
Holdings.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Had 75 Pending PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
There were 75 pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against
Ameren Corporation and its subsidiaries, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.
The Company states: "Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinois
have been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number of
lawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injury
from asbestos exposure at our present or former energy centers.
Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each case
varies, with the average number of parties being 81 as of
September 30, 2014. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that,
if awarded at trial, typically would be shared among the various
defendants.
"The total pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the
Ameren Companies as of September 30, 2014, were 75."
Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The
Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company
(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).
The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company
(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced that
it has completed the divestiture of its merchant generation
business, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC
(AER).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Had $13MM Fibro Liability as of Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation reported that its recorded asbestos-related
liability was $13 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.
Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The
Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company
(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).
The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company
(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced that
it has completed the divestiture of its merchant generation
business, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC
(AER).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Missouri Had $5-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation reported that Ameren Missouri's asbestos-
related liability was $5 million, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.
Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The
Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company
(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).
The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company
(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced that
it has completed the divestiture of its merchant generation
business, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC
(AER).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Illinois Had $8MM Liability at Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Illinois' asbestos-related liability was $8 million,
according to Ameren Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.
Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The
Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company
(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).
The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company
(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced that
it has completed the divestiture of its merchant generation
business, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC
(AER).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Reports $22-Mil. IP Trust Fund Balance
--------------------------------------------------------------
The balance of the IP trust fund created by Ameren Corporation for
asbestos-related litigation claims was $22 million, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.
Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of IP
asbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the following
terms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount included
in base electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund that
was established when Ameren acquired IP. At September 30, 2014,
the trust fund balance was $22 million, including accumulated
interest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in base
rates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference to
the trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowed
cash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recovered
through charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider. The
rider will permit recovery from customers within IP's historical
service territory.
Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. The
Company's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company
(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).
The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and Ameren
Illinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electric
generation, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-
regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business in
Missouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric and
natural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.
AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including Ameren
Energy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy Resources
Generating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company
(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced that
it has completed the divestiture of its merchant generation
business, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC
(AER).
ASBESTOS UPDATE: CERC Continues to Defend Fibro Suits
-----------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. continues to defend itself
against asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2014.
Some facilities owned by CERC's predecessors contain or have
contained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containing
materials. CERC or its predecessor companies have been named,
along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by a
number of individuals who claim injury due to exposure to
asbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned by
CERC, but most existing claims relate to facilities previously
owned by CERC's subsidiaries. CERC anticipates that additional
claims like those received may be asserted in the future. Although
their ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, CERC
intends to continue vigorously contesting claims that it does not
consider to have merit and, based on its experience to date, does
not expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate,
to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.
CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., (CERC) is an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., which is a domestic
energy delivery company. The Company's business segments include
Electric Transmission and Distribution, Natural Gas Distribution,
Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate Pipelines,
Field Services and Other Operations. The Company serves metered
customers primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. The company also owns a 58.3%
interest in a midstream partnership it jointly controls with OGE
Energy Corp. with operations in natural gas and liquids-rich
producing areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $331.1-Mil. Fibro Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Re Group, Ltd., had gross asbestos loss reserves of $331.1
million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
September 30, 2014.
The Company states: "With respect to asbestos only, at September
30, 2014, we had gross asbestos loss reserves of $331.1 million,
or 94.7%, of total A&E reserves, of which $263.1 million was for
assumed business and $68.1 million was for direct business.
"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot be
accomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe that
our A&E reserves represent our best estimate of the ultimate
liability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate loss
payments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significant
amount.
"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&E
reserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratio
is typically calculated by dividing a company's current net
reserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence,
the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would take
to exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were to
continue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our net
three year asbestos survival ratio was 6.2 years at September 30,
2014.These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlements
occurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not be
indicative of the timing of future payments."
Everest Re Group, Ltd. through its subsidiaries, is principally
engaged in the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in the
United States, Bermuda and international markets. The Company
underwrites reinsurance both through brokers and directly with
ceding companies. The Company operates in four segments: U.S.
Reinsurance, International, Bermuda and Insurance. The Company
underwrites insurance principally through general agent
relationships, brokers and surplus lines brokers. The Company's
principal operating subsidiaries include Bermuda Re, Everest
International Reinsurance, Ltd., Ireland Re, Everest Re, Everest
Insurance Company of Canada, Everest National Insurance Company,
Everest Indemnity Insurance Company, Everest Security Insurance
Company, Mt. McKinley and Heartland Crop Insurance, Inc.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific's Bid to Junk PI Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kelli Griffin, as executor of the estate of Robert
Griffin, alleges that, due to the wrongful conduct of Defendant
Union Pacific Railroad Company and Defendant Union Carbide
Corporation, Mr. Griffin was exposed to asbestos and, as a result
of that exposure, developed asbestos-related lung cancer.
Union Pacific filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
contending that the action must be dismissed on the ground that
the action violates the claim-splitting doctrine by impermissibly
seeking recovery for the same asbestos exposure alleged and
previously litigated against other defendants in a civil tort
action filed on December 15, 2011.
Ms. Griffin opposes the Motion, arguing that the claim-splitting
doctrine is not applicable to the facts in the case. According to
Ms. Griffin, the claim-splitting doctrine is intended to prevent a
plaintiff from filing a cause of action arising out of the same
facts against a defendant in different jurisdictions, such as
federal and state courts. Ms. Griffin notes that neither Union
Carbide nor UCC were defendants in the 2011 Action. Ms. Griffin
then argues that the claim-splitting doctrine does not apply to
the situation where the plaintiff does not assert claims against
defendants in a second suit that were, or should have been,
asserted in the first suit.
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, in a Dec. 5,
2014, opinion denied the motion, holding that the Court does not
hold that the claim-splitting doctrine prevents Ms. Griffin from
pursuing claims against Union Pacific. The Court also found that
the two basic principles of the claim-splitting doctrine are
implicated by the 2014 Action. The Court found that Union Pacific
has not shown that the case would have substantial overlap with
the 2011 case. Although Union Pacific argues that it was
mentioned in the 2011 Complaint, Union Pacific has not shown that
the issues litigated in the 2011 Action did or would
"substantially overlap" with those in the 2014 case.
The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION Limited to: ROBERT GRIFFIN,
C.A. NO. N14C-01-295 ASB (Del. Super.). A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/DLJd2Bfrom Leagle.com.
A. Dale Bowers, Esquire, Kenneth L. Wan, Esquire, Law Office of A.
Dale Bowers, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Somers S. Price, Esq. -- sprice@potteranderson.com -- Daniel F.
Wolcott, Jr., Esq. -- dwolcott@potteranderson.com -- James M.
Kron, Esq. -- jkron@potteranderson.com -- at Potter Anderson &
Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware Attorney for Defendant Union
Pacific Railroad Company.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM General's Bid to Junk "Pavlick" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Olga Pavlick filed a lawsuit against several defendants
on behalf of her deceased husband John Pavlick, Jr., who died in
2008 from mesothelioma. The Plaintiff originally filed her
complaint on January 4, 2010, in the Superior Court of Delaware,
New Castle County; it was removed thereafter to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware on March 4, 2010. The case was
then transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania for multidistrict litigation management.
Finally, the case was remanded back to Delaware for resolution of
the outstanding issues. Defendant AM General, LLC, which filed a
motion for summary judgment.
Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Delaware, in a memorandum dated Dec. 9, 2014, granted AM
General's motion, holding that the Court does not see how a party
could eliminate a genuine dispute of material fact by
supplementing the record with additional evidence. Thus, it is
the court's view that, aside from mere speculation and
possibility, the Plaintiff has adduced no affirmative evidence
that Pavlick's asbestos exposure was the result of his work with
AM General vehicles in Fulda. This showing does not amount to a
genuine dispute of material fact, Judge Sleet ruled. The
Plaintiff has therefore failed to carry her burden of production
such that a reasonable jury could find in her favor at trial,
Judge Sleet further ruled. The court, accordingly, granted AM
General's motion for summary judgment.
Olga Pavlick, Plaintiff, represented by David W. deBruin, The
deBruin Firm LLC, Jacqueline G. Badders & Jonathan Ruckdeschel.
Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Christian J.
Singewald, Esq. -- singewaldc@whiteandwilliams.com -- at White &
Williams.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Reargument in "Konstantin" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated Dec. 9, 2014, denied reargument in
the case styled IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating
to KONSTANTIN, v. 630 THIRD AVENUE ASSOCIATES -- TISHMAN
LIQUIDATING CORPORATION; DUMMITT, v. A.W. CHESTERTON -- CRANE CO.,
MOTION NOS. M-3876, M-3963, M-3964, M-4003, M-5886 (N.Y. App.
Div.). The Court granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal,
as indicated and leave to file briefs amicus curiae. A full-text
copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/werqqqfrom
Leagle.com.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY App. Div. Upholds Ruling in "DiSalvo" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated Dec. 11, 2014, affirmed the
Sept. 11, 2013, order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which
denied the motion of defendant Neles-Jamesbury, Inc. for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint styled IN RE NEW YORK CITY
ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to CARL A. DiSALVO, Plaintiff-
Respondent, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, ET AL., Defendants,
NELES-JAMESBURY, INC., Defendant-Appellant, 13746, 190109/10 (N.Y.
App.).
The Court ruled that the Defendant failed to meet its initial
burden of establishing prima facie that its product could not have
contributed to the causation of the plaintiff's asbestos-related
injury. While the defendant's representative proffered an
affidavit in which he states that it was impossible for the
plaintiff to have observed valves with the name Neles-Jamesbury,
the affidavit was conclusory and without specific factual basis,
and thus did not establish the prima facie burden of a proponent
of a motion for summary judgment.
The Court declined to consider the defendant's argument that it
did not have a duty to warn of asbestos in the insulation used on
its valves, a product that it did not manufacture, as the argument
was made for the first time on appeal.
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/xuxXtWfrom Leagle.com.
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Florham Park, NJ (Stephen R. Long,
Esq. -- Stephen.Long@dbr.com -- of the bar of the State of New
Jersey, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for appellant.
Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York (Pierre A. Ratzki, Esq., of
counsel), for respondent.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Sowa" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant American
Biltrite, Inc., moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment
dismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against it
on the ground that there is no evidence to show that it
contributed to plaintiff Eugene Sowa's injuries.
Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,
in a decision and order dated Dec. 1, 2014, denied the motion,
holding that the defendant has failed to "unequivocally establish
that its product could not have contributed to the causation of
plaintiff's injury."
The case is EUGENE SOWA and MARY LOUIS SOWA, Plaintiffs, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190405/13, MOTION SEQ. 002 (N.Y. Sup.). A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/S0yjAgfrom Leagle.com.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kentucky Court Flips Ruling in "Fuqua" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
James and Sandra Fuqua appeal from the Daviess Circuit Court's
order dismissing their claim with prejudice. The Fuquas filed a
number of tort claims against eleven defendants in September of
2004, claiming James had developed lung disease as a result of
repeated exposure to asbestos during his 33 years of employment as
an insulator. The Fuquas contend that dismissal was
inappropriate, but argue only that it should have been entered
without prejudice.
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in an opinion rendered on
Dec. 12, 2014, affirmed in part and reversed in part the Daviess
Circuit Court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
circuit court's dismissal with prejudice of the Fuquas' claims
against General Electric Company, Fluor-Daniel Illinois, Inc., and
MeadWestvaco Corporation. However, the Court of Appeals reversed
that portion of the order which dismisses the claims against the
remaining, non-moving defendants with prejudice and remanded for
entry of an order which makes the distinction.
The case is JAMES W. FUQUA AND SANDRA L. FUQUA, Appellants, v.
FLUOR-DANIEL ILLINOIS, INC., MEADWESTVACO CORPORATION; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; CBS CORPORATION; RAPID-AMERICAN CORPORATION AND
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellees, NO. 2012-CA-
002179-MR (Ky. App.). A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/NjWAp8from Leagle.com.
Joseph D. Satterley, Paul J. Kelley, Paul J. Ivie, Louisville,
Kentucky, Briefs for Appellants.
Scott T. Dickens, Gregory Scott Gowen, Laura M. Brymer, Rebecca F.
Schupbach, Sara Veeneman, Brief for Appellee, Fluor-Daniel
Illinois, Inc. Meadwestvaco Corporation; General Electric Company;
CBS Corporation.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Flips Ruling in Utica Reinsurance Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff-Appellant Utica Mutual Insurance Company appeals from an
order of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of New York, granting summary judgment to Defendant-
Appellee Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., on Utica's claims for
breach of contract and declaratory judgment.
Munich is Utica's reinsurer under a facultative reinsurance
certificate covering an umbrella policy issued by Utica to Goulds
Pumps Inc. in 1973, under which Utica has been exposed to millions
of dollars in losses arising from asbestos lawsuits against
Goulds. The Certificate contains a $5 million limit of liability,
and it obligates Munich to reimburse Utica for expense payments in
addition to losses. Munich has already paid $5 million under the
Certificate, but Utica contends that Munich's liability for
expenses is not subject to the Certificate's liability limit.
Utica filed an action seeking recovery for unpaid expenses and a
declaration that Munich is obligated to continue reimbursing it
for expense payments. Munich's position is that the Certificate's
$5 million limit includes expenses, and that its liability under
the Certificate has therefore been exhausted.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a
summary order dated Dec. 4, 2014, ruled that Munich is not
entitled to summary judgment on the grounds relied upon by the
district court. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the
judgment of the district court and remanded the case for further
proceedings.
The appeals case is UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. MUNICH REINSURANCE AMERICA, INC., Defendant-
Appellee, NO. 13-4170-CV (2d Cir.). A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/Fpuizsfrom Leagle.com.
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, Esq. -- mvyskocil@stblaw.com -- at Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
BRUCE M. FRIEDMAN, Esq. -- bfriedman@rubinfiorella.com -- at
Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-
Appellee.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Remands "Whatley" Suit to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lex Whatley, Jr., now deceased, was diagnosed with mesothelioma on
November 11, 2010. Five days later, he filed suit in state court
against several defendants for state law claims of negligence,
strict liability, intentional tort, premise liability, and loss of
consortium due to Whatley's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-
containing products. Whatley died on December 3, 2010. His wife
and children filed survival and wrongful death actions. Before
removal, the case had been litigated in state court for almost
four years and had an expedited trial date of December 1, 2014.
The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the Veteran's
Administration Medical Center for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and remand, or, in the alternative, to sever and
remand all state law claims. Third-party defendants Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 141 and Somdal Associates also filed separate
motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
Judge Martin C. Feldman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss
the VAMC and the case is remanded to the o the Civil District
Court, Orleans Parish, State of Louisiana, for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Judge Feldman noted that since VAMC, which
removed the case to the federal court, joins the plaintiffs'
motion to dismiss and remand, no party has persuaded the Court
that it has proper removal jurisdiction over the case. Judge
Feldman thus does not reach Local 141's and Somdal's motions to
dismiss.
The case is LEX WHATLEY, JR. ET AL., v. EAGLE, INC. ET AL.,
SECTION "F," CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2277 (E.D. La.). A full-text
copy of Judge Feldman's order and reasons dated Dec. 10, 2014, is
available at http://is.gd/Fkm7x4from Leagle.com.
Lex Whatley, Jr., and Frances Russell-Whatley, Plaintiffs,
represented by J. Burton LeBlanc, IV, Esq. --
bleblanc@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Christopher C.
Colley, Esq. -- ccolley@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C.,
Denyse Finn Clancy, Esq. -- dclancy@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd,
P.C. & Jo Ann Lea, Esq., at Baron & Budd, P.C..
Commercial Union Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Esq. -- srosamond@twpdlaw.com --
Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Adam Devlin deMahy, Esq. --
ademahy@twpdlaw.com -- Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC &
Angela J. O'Brien, Esq. -- aobrien@twpdlaw.com -- at Taylor,
Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.
J. Graves Insulation Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Lawrence G. Pugh, III, Esq. -- lpugh@pugh-law.com -- Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey, H. Philip Radecker, Jr., Esq. --
hpradecker@pugh-law.com -- Pugh, Accardo, Haas, Radecker & Carey &
Shelley L. Thompson, Esq. -- sthompson@pugh-law.com -- at Pugh,
Accardo, Haas, Radecker &Carey.
J.A. Sexauer, Inc., Defendant, represented by J. Warren Gardner,
Jr., Esq. -- jwgardner@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney,
LLP & Christopher J. Alfieri, Esq. -- cjalfieri@christovich.com --
at Christovich & Kearney, LLP.
Bird, Incorporated, Defendant, Third Party Plaintiff and Cross
Claimant, represented by Kay Barnes Baxter, Esq. -- kbaxter@sbm-
legal.com -- Swetman Baxter Massenburg, LLC & Glenn L.M. Swetman,
Esq. -- mswetman@sbm-legal.com -- at Swetman Baxter Massenburg,
LLC.
AT&T Corp., Defendant, represented by Christopher O. Massenburg,
Esq. -- cmassenburg@sbm-legal.com -- at Swetman Baxter Massenburg,
LLC, Kay Barnes Baxter, Swetman Baxter Massenburg, LLC & Glenn
L.M. Swetman, Swetman Baxter Massenburg, LLC.
Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 141, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Louis Leo Robein, III, Robein, Urann, Spencer,
Picard & Cangemi, APLC.
Christus Schumpert Health System Foundation, Third Party
Defendant, represented by Dwight C. Paulsen, III, Esq. --
tpaulsen@bradleyfirm.com -- Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC,
David Edmund Redmann, Jr., Esq. -- dredmann@bradleyfirm.com --
Bradley, Murchison, Kelly & Shea, LLC & Jay M. Mattappally, Esq. -
- jmattappally@bradleyfirm.com -- at Bradley, Murchison, Kelly &
Shea, LLC.
Willis-Knighton Medical Center, Third Party Defendant, represented
by Robert W. Robison, Jr., Esq. -- rrobison@wbwplaw.com -- Watson,
Blanche, Wilson & Posner & Craig James Sabottke, Esq. --
cjsabottke@wbwplaw.com -- at Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner.
UOP LLC, Third Party Defendant, represented by Sidney Jay Hardy,
Esq. -- shardy@mcsalaw.com -- McCranie, Sistrunk & Keith W.
McDaniel, Esq. -- kmcdaniel@mcsalaw.com -- at McCranie, Sistrunk.
Somdal Associations, LLC, Cross Defendant, represented by J.
Ashley Inabnet, Inabnet & Jones, LLC & Lawrence Jude Boasso,
Inabnet & Jones, LLC.
*********
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 * * *