/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150113.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 9 Headlines 333 LAFAYETTE: Faces "Rosales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ADVANCED CALL: "Keokongchack" Class Action Dismissed AGL INDUSTRIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages AMERICAN HONDA: Accord in "Gutierrez" Case Okayed, Suit Dismissed AMERICAN REALTY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Action AMERICAN WEST: Sued Over Inaccessible ATMs for Blind People AMERLINK LTD: Bank. Court Won't Halt "Newton" & "Diorio" Actions ANZ BANK: Investors Sue Over Margin Loan Losses APPLE INC: Faces "Orshan" Suit Over Misleading Product Packaging ASSOCIATION FOR WOMEN'S: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Class Actions Over APL and Atlas Mergers AUTO CLUB: Class Plaintiffs Directed to Defend Suit Continuance BAC HOME: Court Stays Remand Order in "Fowler" Suit BECTON DICKINSON: Parties in Delaware Cases Enter Into MOU BURCH EQUIPMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages C & C MEATS: Faces "Salas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CANON SAFETY: "McCarty" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CENTURION PROPERTY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CHINA MOBILE: Miran Named Lead Plaintiff, Faruqi as Lead Counsel CHINA MOON: Faces "Zheng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CHOICE HOTEL: Judge Rules on Bids to Dismiss "Paternostro" Suit CITIBANK NA: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccessible ATMs for Blind People CITY BARN: "Fuentes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages COACH USA: Sightseers Have Until Jan. 18 to Claim Refund COBALT INT'L: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas COLUMBIA SUSSEX: Sued Over Illegal Use of Background Report CONEXIS CARGO: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CSK AUTO: Parties in "Melgar" Suit Directed to Agree on Schedules DANOS AND CUROLE: Faces "Bragg" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Priest" Suit Claims DELAWARE: Housing Agency May Have to Refund Lot Fees DIGNITY HEALTH: Sued for Withholding Employees' FICA Taxes DUCK WALK: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Feb. 20 Hearing on Bid to Nix Class Suit EASTERN REVENUE: Faces "Quatinetz" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA EXCLUSIVE DETAILING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages EXEL DIRECT: "Villalpando" Suit May Proceed as Class Action FAMILY DOLLAR: Stockholders' Preliminary Injunction Bid Denied FEDEX CORPORATION: Still a Defendant in Wage-and-Hour Cases FEDEX CORPORATION: Independent Contractor Cases on Appeal FEDEX CORPORATION: Defending Against Contractor-Model Cases FIFTH THIRD: Faces "Kampfer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages FLORIDA: Two Counties to Begin Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL: Prisoners' Class Certification Bid Okayed FORBES REGIONAL: Pa. Appellate Court Tosses "Cunningham" Appeal GENCOR NUTRIENTS: Falsely Marketed Testofen Products, Action Says GRACO CHILDREN: Loses Motion to Dismiss Long's 3rd Amended Suit GREEN & CLEAN: "Equite" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages GTA BUILDING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HOLLYWOOD AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cal. Action Claims INSTANT CHECKMATE: Sued in Cal. Over Deceptive Business Practices INTERSTATE HOTELS: Sued Over Illegal Use of Background Report JOHNSON CONTROLS: Faces "Evans" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime JP WHITE: Faces "Tang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages KRUNG THEP: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Vasquez" Suit Claims L-RAPHAEL FS: "Riedel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages LITTLE ANGELOS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Coronel" Suit Says LONG ISLAND BUSINESS: Faces "Hou" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MARECKI MASONRY: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Motion MLM CUISINE: "Hassane" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MONEY STORE: Seeger Weiss Obtains $54-Mil. Class Action Verdict MONTICELLO, MN: Court Authorizes Distribution of Settlement NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Narrows Claims in "Dent" Class Action NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued in Ill. Over Unsolicited Call Practices PENNSYLVANIA: Foreign Cars R Us Case Can't Proceed as Class Suit PORTOFINO GRILLE: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PUBLIC STORAGE: "Urenia" Plaintiffs Directed to Amend Complaint PVH CORPORATION: Bid to Intervene in "Chavez" Case Denied REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS: Court Tosses Slebodnik et al. Suit RITE AID: 2nd Cir. Denies Petition for Interlocutory Appeal RITE AID: Defendant in Several Wage & Hour Suits in Calif. RITE AID: Settles Pharmacists' Class Action for $9.7 Million RITE AID: Proceedings in "Hall" Case Stayed Pending Decision ROBERT HALF: Approval of Settlement in "Laffitte" Case Affirmed ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Feb. 23 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set SANOFI: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in New York SONNY'S FRANCHISE: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says SOUTH MIAMI PARTY: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ST. LOUIS, MO: Settles Two Suits Over Arrest Mistakes SUPERVALU INC: Facing Consumer Goods Manufacturers' Action SUPERVALU INC: Class Action Over C&S Deal Remanded to Dist. Court SUPERVALU INC: Settlement Payments to Continue Until Feb. 2015 SUPERVALU INC: Criminal Intrusion Cases Sent to Minnesota Court SUSHI CASTLE: "Dai" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TAJ GROCERS: Faces "Quiroz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Marino" Suit Over Defective Airbags TARGET CORP: Dist. Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Cases TATITLEK SUPPORT: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TD AUTO: E.D. Wis. Judge Denies Motion for Class Certification TEIKOKU PHARMA: Judge Narrows Claims in UFCW Local 1776 Suit TEMPUR-SEALY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Moved to June 16 THREE RABBITS: Faces "Oliva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TRAVEL SERVICES: Ill. Court Quashes Subpoena in "Charvat" Suit TRENDS KITCHEN: Faces "Nava" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT U.S. BANK: D. Minn. Judge Narrows Claims in "Adedipe" Case UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Produce Executive Emails in Class Action UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Must Face "Wit" ERISA Suit, Calif. Judge Says UNITED STATES: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Air Travel UTZ QUALITY: Falsely Marketed Snack Products, Action Claims VERSO PAPER: Maine Judge Dismisses Workers' Suit WALL'S COFFEE: Faces "Rosas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WARB CORPORATION: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages WASH MASTERS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime YELP INC: Defendants Must File Dismissal Bid by February 6 ZAAZOOM SOLUTIONS: Marsh and Jack Henry/FNBCT Deal Gets Final OK * Changes in Law Led to New Class Action Filings in 2014 * Supreme Court Set to Take Up 3 Major Class Actions This Year ********* 333 LAFAYETTE: Faces "Rosales" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Ismael Rosales, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 333 Lafayette LLC (d/b/a Pinche Taqueria), and Jeff Chartier, Case No. 1:14-cv-10205 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 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 Mexican Restaurant located at 333 Lafayette Street, New York, New York 10012. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com ADVANCED CALL: "Keokongchack" Class Action Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Allison Claire of the Eastern District of California granted the parties' stipulation and request to dismiss the case, DEVRA KEOKONGCHACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants., Case No. 13CV1385 TLN (AC) (E.D. Cal.) The plaintiff Devra Keokongchack and Defendant Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC want to dismiss the case with prejudice since the parties are all covered by the class action settlement in another case entitled Shelley Carl, et al. v. Advanced Call Center Technologies, LLC in Sacramento County Superior Court with case no. 34-2013-00148310; and Keokongchack opted to participate in the Carl case settlement. The Sacramento County Superior Court granted final approval of the Carl Settlement on November 13, 2014. As of the date of stipulation, no class has been certified in the Keokongchack action and no notice has been sent to the putative class members and other than the requirement to notify the Court once the Sacramento County Superior Court granted final approval of the Carl Settlement, no other deadlines or hearings are set in this matter. A copy of Magistrate Judge Claire's stipulation and order dated November 21, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/RiA9gIfrom Leagle.com. MICHAEL E. BREWER -- mbrewer@littler.com -- and MICHAEL G. LEGGIERI -- mleggieri@littler.com -- at LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Attorneys for Defendant, ADVANCED CALL CENTER TECHNOLOGIES, LLC MATTHEW RIGHETTI -- matt@righettilaw.com -- and JOHN GLUGOSKI -- at RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.; CHARLES A. JONES -- cosmo-89511@yahoo.com -- at JONES LAW FIRM, Reno, NV, Attorneys for Plaintiff, DEVRA KEOKONGCHACK. AGL INDUSTRIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Zhirzhan, Pedro Avila and Fausto Contreras, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. AGL Industries, Inc., Dominick Lofaso, Frank Lofaso and Santo Lofaso, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:14-cv-07567 (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a steel company located at 59-12 57th Street, Maspeth, NY 11378. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com AMERICAN HONDA: Accord in "Gutierrez" Case Okayed, Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jack Zouhary of the Central District of California, Eastern Division, approves the parties' settlement and dismissed the case, Heather Gutierrez, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Honda North America, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:09 CV 1517 J7 (C.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs Heather Gutierrez and Connie Kaupa, on behalf of themselves and a class of all other persons similarly situated, and Defendant American Honda Motor Co., Inc. (AHM) entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release to fully and finally resolve Plaintiffs' claims against AHM. The Court granted a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement and Class Notice. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorney Fees, Costs and Incentive Awards and a Motion for Final approval of Class Action Settlement. The court after careful consideration finally certified, solely for settlement purposes and defined the Settlement Classes as: The Injunctive Class: All Persons in the United States and the District of Columbia who purchased or leased a new or used 2008 Accord Sedan manufactured before June 12, 2008. Specifically excluded from the Injunctive Class are the following Persons: (i) Class Counsel; (ii) AHM; AHM's officers, directors and employees; the officers, directors and employees of AHM's affiliated companies; issuers of extended vehicle warranties; and (iii) The judges who have presided over this Litigation. The Deployment Class: All Persons in the United States and the District of Columbia who purchased or leased: (1) a 2003 Honda Accord Sedan or Coupe with Side Airbags for which the owner or lessee complained to AHM or an Authorized Honda Dealer about a Reimbursable Deployment of a Side Airbag and identified by VIN in an Exhibit that is to be filed with this Court prior to the Notice Date; (2) a 2004 Accord Sedan with Side Airbags manufactured before April 8, 2004 for which the owner or lessee complained to AHM or an Authorized Honda Dealer about a Reimbursable Deployment of a Side Airbag and identified by VIN in an Exhibit that is to be filed with this Court prior to the Notice Date; (3) a 2004 Accord Coupe with Side Airbags for which the owner or lessee complained to AHM or an Authorized Honda Dealer about a Reimbursable Deployment of a Side Airbag and identified by VIN in an Exhibit that is to be filed with this Court prior to the Notice Date; and (4) a 2008 Accord Sedan manufactured before June 12, 2008 with Side Airbags for which the owner or lessee complained to AHM or an Authorized Honda Dealer about a Reimbursable Deployment of a Side Airbag and identified by VIN in an Exhibit that is to be filed with this Court prior to the Notice Date. Specifically excluded from the Deployment Class are the following Persons: (i) Class Counsel ; (ii) AHM; AHM's officers, directors and employees; the officers, directors and employees of AHM's affiliated companies; issuers of extended vehicle warranties; and (iii) The judges who have presided over this Litigation. Solely for purposes of Settlement and based upon the conclusions above, the Court appoints the following attorneys as Class Counsel: Mike M. Arias, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90045 Tel: 310-670-1600 Ext: 111 Fax: 310-670-1231 E-mail: marias@aogllp.com atorrijos@aogllp.com - and - Jordan S. Esensten, Esq. WASSERMAN COMDEN CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, L.L.P. 5567 Reseda Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Tel: (818) 705-6800 E-mail: jesensten@wccelaw.com - and - Brian D. Chase, Esq. BISNAR CHASE One Newport Place 1301 Dove Street, Suite 120 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 752-2999 Fax: (949) 752-2777 E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com The Court approves the Settlement and finds the Settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate, and reasonable, and directs the Parties to effectuate the Settlement according to the terms outlined in the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds the compensation requested by plaintiffs is reasonable, and awards $10,000 to Ms. Kaupa and $5,000 to Ms. Gutierrez for acting as Class Representatives. The Court finds the attorney fees are fair and reasonable, given the results achieved, the complexities of the case and skill required of counsel, the contingent nature of the fee, the reaction of the Settlement Class, and the fact that the attorney fees are being paid by AHM separate and apart from any relief to the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class Members have conclusively compromised, settled, dismissed and released any and all Released Claims against AHM and the Released Persons. The case is dismissed on the merits with prejudice. A copy of Judge Zouhary's final order and judgment dated November 20, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/GCbr1Cfrom Leagle.com. Heather Gutierrez and Connie Kaupa, Plaintiffs, represented by Brian D Chase -- bchase@bisnarchase.com -- at Bisnar Chase; Gregory B Scarlett -- gscarlett@wccelaw.com -- at Wasserman Comden Casselman and Esensten LLP; Mark A Ozzello -- mozzello@aogllp.com -- Mike M Arias -- marias@aogllp.com -- Alfredo Torrijos -- atorrijos@aogllp.com -- Arias Ozzello and Gignac LLP; and Jordan S Esensten -- jesensten@esenstenlaw.com -- at Esensten Law American Honda Motor Co Inc, Defendant, represented by Derek S Whitefield -- dwhitefield@dykema.com -- Terri S Reiskin -- at Dykema Gossett LLP; Mark S Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- Kathleen P Lally -- kathleen.lally@lw.com -- at Latham & Watkins LLP AMERICAN REALTY: Enters Into MOU to Settle Merger Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 2, 2015, a Current Report on Form 8-K pursuant to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of certain litigation relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (as amended, the "Merger Agreement") dated as of June 1, 2014 by and among Ventas, Inc. ("Ventas"), Stripe Sub, LLC, Stripe OP, LP, American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("HCT") and American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust Operating Partnership, L.P. Between June 6, 2014 and July 9, 2014, ten putative class action lawsuits asserting claims relating to HCT's disclosures in the proxy statement filed with the SEC, some of which included derivative claims, were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (collectively, the "Baltimore Litigation"): Romano v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003534 (June 6, 2014); Holzer v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003553 (June 6, 2014); Brenner v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003540 (June 9, 2014); Hamill v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003636 (June 11, 2014); Stanley v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14- 003664 (June 12, 2014); Shine v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003707 (June 13, 2014); Uhl v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., 24-C-14-003710 (June 13, 2014); Kuo v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003765 (June 17, 2014); Flor v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14-003817 (June 19, 2014); Abbasi v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-14004104 (July 9, 2014). On August 26, 2014, the Baltimore Litigation was consolidated and is now styled: In re American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. Shareholder and Derivative Litigation, Case No. 24-C-14-003534 ("the Action"). On January 2, 2015, the parties to the Action agreed to a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of HCT stockholders. In connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of understanding, each action and all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval by each applicable court. The proposed settlement terms require HCT to make certain additional disclosures related to the merger, as set forth in this Current Report on Form 8-K. The memorandum of understanding further contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to HCT's stockholders. If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement, that the applicable court will approve any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of understanding. AMERICAN WEST: Sued Over Inaccessible ATMs for Blind People ----------------------------------------------------------- Brett Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American West Bank, Case No. 3:14-cv-03041 (S.D. Cal., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide ATMs that are accessible to sight-impaired individuals. American West Bank operates a bank in California, Idaho, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Sherry Maertz, Esq. Gerald D. Wells III, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS AND GRAY LLP 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: meghansherry@yahoo.com gwells@cwg-law.com AMERLINK LTD: Bank. Court Won't Halt "Newton" & "Diorio" Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JOHN M. BARTH, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SPOOR, Defendant, Adv. Proc. No. 14-00145-8-RDD (E.D.N.C.), which is related to the Chapter 7 bankruptcy case of AmerLink Ltd., Bankruptcy Judge Randy D. Doub ruled on: -- the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Richard Spoor, founder of AmerLink, and who, at various times, was the CEO, Treasurer, Chairman of the Board and majority shareholder of AmerLink; -- the response of John M. Barth in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Mr. Barth's son, John Jr., became President and CEO of AmerLink in 2006; -- the Motion for Injunctive Relief Barring Vexatious Litigation and the Memorandum in Support of Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by Barth. The Complaint sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief not only against Spoor in a state court action (Spoor v. Barth, 11 CVS 15178) but against two other classes of plaintiffs in Newton (Newton v. Barth, 14 CVS 6788) and Diorio (Diorio Forest Products, Inc. v. Barth 14 CVS 10215) to which Spoor is not a party. However, those classes of plaintiffs were not joined in this adversary proceeding. In his December 19, 2014 Order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/o7QdL4from Leagle.com, Judge Doub held that any judgment by the Court affecting the litigation in which these classes are parties would impair or impede the classes' ability to protect their interest. The Court cannot grant complete relief among the existing parties in the adversary proceeding. Spoor does not adequately represent the interests of the Newton and Diorio classes, and is further not a plaintiff in either of those proceedings. "This Court finds that the parties in Newton and Diorio are necessary parties and therefore this Court cannot enter a final judgment affecting the parties' rights in their absence," Judge Doub said. "Therefore, the Motion for Injunctive Relief Barring Vexatious Litigation is denied. The Motion to Dismiss filed by the Defendant, Richard Spoor is granted. The adversary proceeding is dismissed." AmerLink filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Case No. 09-01055-8-RDD) on February 11, 2009. On November 23, 2009, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order converting the Debtor's Chapter 11 case to a case under Chapter 7. Steven L. Beaman was appointed Chapter 11 Trustee in the case, and became the Chapter 7 trustee upon conversion of the case. ANZ BANK: Investors Sue Over Margin Loan Losses ----------------------------------------------- Leo Shanahan, writing for the Australian Business Review, reports that ANZ Bank is being pursued by hundreds of investors who lost tens of millions of dollars in margin loans they claim were negligently provided by breaching of the Banking Code of Conduct and the Trade Practices Act. The group of about 600 investors lost the money on margin loans provided by ANZ in a scheme structured by failed financial planner Steve Navra before the financial crisis in a bid to drive investment into his own managed fund. On behalf of the group, plaintiff lawyers Shine are seeking compensation through a mediated settlement or court action if necessary, estimating that the losses through margin loans would total $60 million. The action has again shone the spotlight on the behavior of the wealth management arms of the major banks in the lead-up to the financial crisis. Cases of fraud and misconduct inside the Commonwealth Bank became the subject of a Senate inquiry and has led to more than 4000 customers of its financial planning arm asking for their financial advice to be reviewed. Lead solicitor for the group, Sasha Ivanstoff, claims the alleged practices by ANZ are a "mirror image" of the practices major banks engaged in with financial planners in the lead-up to the Storm Financial collapse. They claim providing the loans was unconscionable, a breach of the banking code of practice and a breach of the TPA under the "linked credit provider" provision. "These are pretty average families who have been talked into mortgaging their houses and taking margin loans. The provider of the loans was ANZ and the financial adviser was Navra," he said. "It's a mirror image of the Storm Financial case. Navra had his own fund that he was tipping into from borrowed money. "All the Storm cases now have been settled on the basis that the bank behind the investment should not have been lending in the way it was." The major sticking point for the group is that the bulk of the claims date back to March 2008 and exceed the statute of limitations on bringing a claim to court. Mr. Ivanstoff is calling on ANZ to follow the steps of the Commonwealth Bank and other banks whose financial advisers or their subsidiaries were caught out giving bad financial advice, and waive the statute of limitations on the claims. "We've written to the ANZ saying this is the outline of what's happened. We're asking you to do the right thing and not rely on the limitation period," he said. "The Commonwealth Bank has waived its limitation period back to 2003. Macquarie Bank is in an enforceable undertaking with ASIC. They have waived their limitation rights. It is simply the right thing to do and ANZ does not seem to want to do it." A spokesman for ANZ told The Weekend Australian "we have received Shine's request and no decision on next steps have been made". As well as encouraging investors to sink cash into his own retail fund, the now bankrupt Mr. Navra also led hundreds of investors into the failed forestry managed investment scheme Great Southern. Rebecca Dillon, a western Sydney mother of three, estimates she has lost $1.8m in investments directly related to Mr. Navra's financial advice. This has included the refinancing of her home several times, the ANZ margin loans, loans into Great Southern and a separate investment in "claim warrants" in Navra Managed Funds provided by the Royal Bank of Scotland (Mrs. Dillon is the lead plaintiff in another class action being run against RBS on behalf of former Navra clients). In February 2007, Mrs Dillon invested $200,000 in Mr. Navra's "blue chip investment fund" from funds drawn from the refinancing of her home. She was then advised to use the retail fund equity to invest another $200,000 drawn from an ANZ margin loan. At the time the loan was approved Mrs. Dillon was a casual PE teacher at a local high school. Her husband had an income of just over $60,000. "He (Mr Navra) said they were safe and that they guaranteed a minimum 10 per cent on them. I wasn't working at the time, and we questioned him on it, and he said they would pay for themselves, saying the interest would capitalize," Mrs. Dillon told The Weekend Australian. "I thought that was a bit strange but it was my first investment." When they were told in early 2008 they were at risk of a margin call, Mrs. Dillon claims Mr. Navra then advised them to pull the money from the ANZ margin loan and reroute it into the RBS "claim warrants". "So we refinanced our homes to protect ourselves from that. He said you just need to ride out the storm, and it happens all the time," she said. "I did understand it was ANZ who were providing the margin loans. I found a one-page document that had their name on it when they doubled the money." When the financial crisis hit later that year and Mr. Navra's business and investments collapsed, the Dillon family's loans were called in across the board. Despite ASIC informing them that Mr. Navra had given them inappropriate and negligent advice, insurers have refused to pay and Mr. Navra has declared bankruptcy, meaning they are left with a debt of $1.8 million. Mrs. Dillon said recourse against ANZ would at least "give us the opportunity of compensation so that we can at least save our home". "We didn't really understand why we didn't have to pay back these loans," she said. "Of course, I understand we do now." APPLE INC: Faces "Orshan" Suit Over Misleading Product Packaging ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Orshan and Christopher Endara, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apple Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv- 05659 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2014), arises out of Apple's false and misleading product packaging and promotional materials regarding storage capacity of 8 GB and 16 GB iPhones, iPads and iPods with iOS 8 operating system. Apple Inc. is an American multinational corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer software, online services, and personal computers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael McShane, Esq. Jonas P. Mann, Esq. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP 221 Main St., Suite 1460 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 568-2555 Facsimile: (415) 568-2556 E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com jmann@audetlaw.com - and - Charles J. Laduca, Esq. Matthew E. Miller, Esq. William H. Anderson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP 507 C St., N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com mmiller@cuneolaw.com wanderson@cuneolaw.com - and - Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq. BARON & HERSKOWITZ 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 670-0101 Facsimile: (305) 670-2393 E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com ASSOCIATION FOR WOMEN'S: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Tish Corbine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Association for Women's Health Care, Ltd., Case No. 1:14-cv-10471 (N.D. Ill., December 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Association for Women's Health Care, Ltd. operates two medical offices in Illinois that provide comprehensive medical services to women. The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine P. Sons, Esq. James X. Bormes, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 Facsimile: (312) 332-0600 E-mail: cpsons@bormeslaw.com bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net ATLAS ENERGY: Faces Class Actions Over APL and Atlas Mergers ------------------------------------------------------------ Atlas Energy Group, LLC said in an exhibit to its Amendment No. 2 To FORM 10 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2015, that since the announcement on October 13, 2014 of the Atlas Merger and the APL Merger, Atlas Energy, APL and the other parties to the mergers have been named as defendants in putative stockholder class action complaints challenging the transactions. Although New Atlas has not been named as a defendant in these complaints, certain of our expected officers have been named as defendants, and the litigation could delay or impede the consummation of the separation and distribution. The Company said, "As of January 7, 2015, we are aware that Atlas Energy, Atlas Energy's general partner, Targa Resources, Trident GP Merger Sub LLC (a subsidiary of Targa Resources created in connection with the Atlas Merger), and the members of the Atlas Energy board, including Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, New Atlas's expected Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman, have been named as defendants in two putative stockholder class action complaint challenging the Atlas Merger filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. These cases are captioned: Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-019658 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 22, 2013) and Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020255 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Nov. 3, 2014)." "We are also aware that APL, APL's general partner, Atlas Energy, Targa Resources, Targa Resources Partners, Targa Resource Partners' general partner, Trident MLP Merger Sub LLC (a subsidiary of Targa Resources Partners created in connection with the APL Merger), and the members of the APL board, including Edward E. Cohen and Jonathan Z. Cohen, New Atlas's expected Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman, have been named as defendants in five putative stockholder class action complaints challenging the APL Merger, four filed in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and one filed in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma. These cases are captioned: Michael Envin v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-019245 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 17, 2013), Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020108 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Oct. 31, 2014), Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14-020729 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Nov. 10, 2014), Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. GD-14- 22208 (Pa. Ct. Comm. Pls. Dec. 5, 2014) and William B. Federman Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. CJ-2014-04087 (Okla. D. Ct. Oct. 28, 2014). "The lawsuits generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and/or contractual obligations by, among other things, failing to obtain sufficient value for the Atlas Energy and APL unitholders in, respectively, each of the Atlas Energy Merger and the APL Merger, agreeing to certain terms in each of the merger agreements that allegedly restrict the defendants' ability to obtain a more favorable offer, and omitting material information from the Proxy Statements. The lawsuits further allege that those breaches were aided and abetted by some combination of Atlas Energy, APL, Targa Resources, Targa Resources Partners, or various affiliates of those entities named above. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief, unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, attorney's fees, other expenses, and costs." AUTO CLUB: Class Plaintiffs Directed to Defend Suit Continuance --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge George Caram Steeh of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, directed the plaintiffs in the putative class action styled SUSAN BUSHWAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE AUTO CLUB GROUP, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-11417 (E.D. Mich.), to show cause in writing on or before Jan. 29, 2015, why their case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A full-text copy of Judge Steeh's Decision dated Jan. 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/ZwNXDsfrom Leagle.com. Susan Bushway, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Marino, Esq. -- amarino@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Sommers Schwartz, PC, Lance C. Young, Esq., in One Towne Square, Michael H. Fabian, Esq. -- mfabian@fabiansklar.com -- Fabian, Sklar & King, and Patrick A. King, Esq. -- pking@fabiansklar.com -- Fabian, Sklar & King, and Jason J. Thompson, Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- at Sommers Schwartz, P.C.. Terry Bushway, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Marino, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Kevin J. Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, PC, Lance C. Young, One Towne Square, Michael H. Fabian, Fabian, Sklar, Patrick A. King, Fabian, Sklar & Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.. Matthew Lacombe, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Marino, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Kevin J. Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, PC, Lance C. Young, One Towne Square, Michael H. Fabian, Fabian, Sklar, Patrick A. King, Fabian, Sklar & Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.. Christine Leszczynski, Plaintiff, represented by Amy L. Marino, Sommers Schwartz, P.C., Kevin J. Stoops, Sommers Schwartz, PC, Lance C. Young, One Towne Square, Michael H. Fabian, Fabian, Sklar, Patrick A. King, Fabian, Sklar & Jason J. Thompson, Sommers Schwartz, P.C.. The Auto Club Group, Defendant, represented by: Kevin M. Aoun, Esq. Morley Witus, Esq. BARRIS, SOTT, DENN & DRIKER, PLLC 211 W Fort Street, 15th Floor Detroit, MI 48226-3202 Tel: (313) 965-9725 Fax: (313) 965-2493 Memberselect Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin M. Aoun, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC & Morley Witus, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC. Auto Club Insurance Association, Defendant, represented by Kevin M. Aoun, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC & Morley Witus, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC. Auto Club Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin M. Aoun, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC & Morley Witus, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC. Auto Club Property-Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Kevin M. Aoun, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC & Morley Witus, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC. Auto Club Services, Defendant, represented by Kevin M. Aoun, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC & Morley Witus, Barris, Sott, Denn & Driker, PLLC. BAC HOME: Court Stays Remand Order in "Fowler" Suit --------------------------------------------------- Judge Ronnie L. White of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted a joint motion for stay of a remand order pending an appeal from that order in the lawsuit styled MIMI FOWLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, L.P., KOZENY & MCCUBBIN, L.C., and KOZENY LENDERS 1-100, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:14-CV-1127-RLW (E.D. Mo.). In November 2014, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for remand of their Class Action Fairness Act action to state court. The Defendants asked the Court to stay its remand order while they pursue an appeal of the November 2014 ruling. Judge White found that a stay is warranted. Although the Court remanded the action, the Defendants have demonstrated an adequate likelihood of success on the merits of the appeal, Judge White said. Judge White added: "There were no Eighth Circuit cases directly addressing the issue of whether Plaintiff satisfied the "no other class action within three years" requirement of the local controversy exception. Based upon this lack of authority from this Circuit, the Court concludes that Defendants adequately demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits to support their motion to stay. Second, the Court holds that Defendants have demonstrated that they would be irreparably harmed absent a stay based upon the burden of litigating the case in state court and the Eighth Circuit, "as well as the potential of inconsistent outcomes if the state court rules on any motions while the case is pending before the Eighth Circuit." Third, the Court finds that Plaintiff would not be unduly harmed by the stay, particularly because she also would not incur additional costs by conducting simultaneous litigation. Moreover, Plaintiff would not be subject to a lengthy delay because of the expedited review process under CAFA. Finally, the Court holds that public interest favors a stay because it would prevent duplicative litigation in the state and federal courts and conserve judicial resources and economy." A full-text copy of Judge White's Jan. 6, 2015, memorandum and order is available at http://is.gd/H4RAJhfrom Leagle.com. Mimi Fowler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan F. Andres, Esq. -- andres@stlouislaw.com -- at GREEN JACOBSON, P.C. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Russell, Esq. -- jsrussell@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, Michele R. Gardner, Esq. -- michele.gardner@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Amy J. Thompson, Esq. -- athompson@bryancave.com -- at BRYAN CAVE LLP. Kozeny & McCubbin, L.C., Defendant, represented by Ira L. Blank, Esq. -- Iblank@TheEnterpriseLawGroup.com -- THE ENTERPRISE LAW GROUP, LLC & Michele R. Gardner, BRYAN CAVE LLP. Kozeny Lenders 1-100, Defendant, represented by Michele R. Gardner, BRYAN CAVE LLP. BECTON DICKINSON: Parties in Delaware Cases Enter Into MOU ---------------------------------------------------------- Becton, Dickinson and Company said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2015, that the parties in the Delaware class actions entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the Delaware actions. As previously announced, on October 5, 2014, Becton, Dickinson and Company ("BD") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with CareFusion Corporation ("CareFusion") and Griffin Sub, Inc. ("Merger Corp"), a wholly owned subsidiary of BD, pursuant to which BD would acquire CareFusion in a stock and cash transaction. As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus dated December 19, 2014 and forming a part of the registration statement on Form S-4 filed with the SEC by BD and declared effective by the SEC on December 17, 2014, five putative stockholder class action lawsuits, which we refer to collectively as the Delaware actions, were filed against CareFusion, its directors, BD and Merger Corp in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the following captions: Cindy Algase Gradl v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10214 (October 8, 2014), Judy Nadler v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10239 (October 15, 2014), Helen Meinhardt v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10263 (October 21, 2014), Irene Dixon v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10266 (October 21, 2014), and Dorothy E. Dorn v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 10292 (October 28, 2014). Also as previously disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus, (i) two putative class action complaints (captioned Michael J. Henriques v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., No. 37-2014-00035379-CU-SL-CTL and Washtenaw Cnty. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., No. 37-2014-00037010-CU-SL-CTL.) were filed on October 17 and 29, 2014 against CareFusion, its directors, BD and Merger Corp in the California Superior Court of San Diego County, which, on December 1, 2014, granted the Defendants' motion to stay those two actions; and (ii) one putative class action complaint (captioned Stuart J. Levinson v. CareFusion Corporation, et al., No. 114CV272631) was filed against the same defendants on October 30, 2014 in the California Superior Court of Santa Clara County, which, on November 19, 2014, stayed all proceedings in that action until the case management conference scheduled for March 6, 2015. The complaints in these actions allege generally that the members of the board of directors of CareFusion breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by, among other things, carrying out a process that the plaintiffs allege did not ensure adequate and fair consideration to CareFusion stockholders. The complaints further allege that CareFusion, BD and Merger Corp aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs in these actions seek, among other things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. On December 31, 2014, the parties in the Delaware actions entered into a memorandum of understanding providing for the settlement of the Delaware actions. If the proposed settlement is finally approved by the Delaware Court of Chancery, it will release all claims in all actions, including the Delaware actions and California actions, that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed merger or the merger agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith (excluding any demand for appraisal under Section 262 of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware). The memorandum of understanding provides that the defendants will make certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed merger, which should be read in conjunction with the definitive proxy statement/prospectus. Defendants agreed to the memorandum of understanding solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting or denying that further supplemental disclosure is required under any applicable rule, statute, regulation or law. The proposed settlement will not affect the amount of the merger consideration that CareFusion stockholders are entitled to receive in the merger or the timing of the special meeting of CareFusion's stockholders, scheduled for January 21, 2015 in San Diego, California, to, among other things, consider and vote upon a proposal to adopt the Agreement and Plan of Merger by and among BD, Merger Corp and CareFusion. BURCH EQUIPMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Agustina Velazquez and Omar Segundo Urbina a/k/a one person named Roberto Carlos De Leon Ramos, Moises Segundo Urbina a/k/a Manuel Lopez, and Luis Fernando Velazquez a/k/a Alfonso Reynoso Gonzalez on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons v. Burch Equipment, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-00241 (E.D.N.C., December 31, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Burch Equipment, L.L.C. produces and markets tobacco, sweet potatoes and other agricultural products within and without North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Willis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A. P.O. Box 1269 Raleigh, NC 27602 Telephone: (919) 821-9031 Facsimile: (919) 821-1763 E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com C & C MEATS: Faces "Salas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Julian Salas, Angel Rodriguez and Edeudy Vargas Garcia, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. C & C Meats Corp., Ernest P. Conde and Kimberly M. Conde, Case No. 1:14- cv-10206 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 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 meat supply company located at 355 Food Center Drive, Bronx, New York 10474. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com CANON SAFETY: "McCarty" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Vestal A. McCarty, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Canon Safety Services, Ltd. d/b/a Canon Safety/RHI Group, Case No. 6:14-cv-00997 (E.D. Tex., December 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Canon Safety Services, Ltd. is a Texas-based oilfield service company providing H2S Safety Services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Andrew Josephson, Esq. FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com CENTURION PROPERTY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Mario Andrade and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Centurion Property Management, L.L.C. d/b/a America Service Industries, Case No. 1:14-cv-24902 (S.D. Fla., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Centurion Property Management, L.L.C. is a full service property management company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM CHINA MOBILE: Miran Named Lead Plaintiff, Faruqi as Lead Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kimba M. Wood of the Southern District of New York granted the motions in the case entitled DARRYL REITAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHINA MOBILE GAMES & ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LTD., KEN JIAN XIAO, YING SHULING, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., JEFFRIES LLC, BREAN CAPITAL, LLC and NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants. SOPHIA CHANG, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CHINA MOBILE GAMES & ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LTD, KEN JIAN XIAO, YING SHULING, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL, INC., JEFFRIES LLC, BREAN CAPITAL, LLC and NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 14-CV-4471 (KMW), 14-CV-4745 (KMW)(S.D.N.Y.) China Mobile Games and Entertainment Group, Ltd (CMGE), is the largest publisher and developer of mobile games in China. Plaintiff Darryl Reitan sued "on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than defendants and their affiliates, who purchased CMGE's American Depository Shares between September 20, 2012 and June 19, 2014." Reitan alleges that "Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that CMGE was engaged in a bribery scheme within the Company's game publishing business. That CMGE was engaged in undisclosed related party transactions, and that CMGE lacked internal controls." Following Reitan, Sophia Chang filed a lawsuit on behalf of the same individuals. Five parties filed motions seeking to be appointed as lead plaintiff: (1) a group consisting of Zhen Dong Company Limited Sun Bing, Tian Yu Ma, and Huang Shuainan (collectively "China Mobile Investors Group" or "CMIG"); (2) OP Investment Management Limited ("OPI"); (3) Ashok Sagar; (4) Miran; and (5) Dormier. Miran and Dormier seeks to consolidate the Reitan and Chang actions, and be appointed as lead plaintiffs and their counsels as lead counsels respectively. Judge Wood granted the motion to consolidate the actions and appoints Miran as lead plaintiff and Faruqi & Faruqi as lead counsel for the consolidated class. Dormier's lead plaintiff motion is denied. A copy of Judge Wood's opinion and order dated November 20, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/iqGZkJfrom Leagle.com. Darryl Reitan, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Koon-Pon Chan -- kchan@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA ASHOK SAGAR, Movant, represented by Gregory M. Egleston -- gegleston@gme-law.com -- at Gainey McKenna & Egleston Johnnie Dormier, Movant, represented by Gregory Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP OP Investment Management Ltd, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA Miran Segregated Portfolio Company Miran Long Short Equity Segregated Portfolio, Movant, represented by Richard William Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- at Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP The China Mobile Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP China Mobile Games & Entertainment Group, LTD, Defendant, represented by Andrew Brian Clubok, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam Thomas Humann, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Eric Scott Merin, Kirkland & Ellis LLP &Leopoldo Joaquin Yanez, Kirkland & Ellis LLP Ken Jian Xiao and Ying Suisse Securities, Defendants, represented by Andrew Brian Clubok -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- Adam Thomas Humann -- adam.humann@kirkland.com -- Eric Scott Merin -- eric.merin@kirkland.com -- Leopoldo Joaquin Yanez -- leopoldo.yanez@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Barclays Capital, Inc., Jeffries LLC, and Nomura Securities International, Inc., Defendants, represented by Adam Selim Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- Daniel Craig Lewis -- daniel.lewis@shearman.com -- Jeffrey D. Hoschander -- jeff.hoschander@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP. CHINA MOON: Faces "Zheng" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Rongyi Zheng, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. China Moon Hospitality Corp. d/b/a China Moon, Jack Doe, and Maggie Doe, Case No. 1:14-cv-10240 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate China Moon restaurant located at 7 East 47th Street, New York, NY 10017. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com CHOICE HOTEL: Judge Rules on Bids to Dismiss "Paternostro" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, ANGELA PATERNOSTRO, et al., v. CHOICE HOTEL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES CORP., D/B/A/ CLARION INN AND SUITES, et al., Section "L". Civil Action No. 13-0662 (E.D. La.), Plaintiffs alleged the presence of Legionella and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, the causative agent of Legionnaires disease at the Clarion Inn and Suites. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Choice Hotel International was the franchisor of the hotel and defendant Century Wilshire was the franchisee, owner, and operator of the hotel. Plaintiffs sued various insurers of Choice and Century Wilshire, pursuant to the Louisiana Direct Action Statute. Both primary and excess liability insurers have been made a part of this litigation. Four primary commercial liability insurance policies are subject to the litigation: (1) Merchants National Insurance Company , in effect from June 27, 2011 to June 27, 2012; (2) Century Surety Company, in effect from June 27, 2012 to June 27, 2013; (3) Scottsdale Insurance Company Policy -24999, in effect from June 1, 2011 to June 1, 2012 ("First Scottsdale Policy"); and (4) Scottsdale Insurance Company Policy -27996, in effect from June 1, 2012 to June 1, 2013 ("Second Scottsdale Policy"). Each primary policy is further covered by various layers of excess policies. The Merchants policy is covered, first, by an excess policy of Allied World National Assurance Company ("First Allied World Policy"), and second, by a higher layer excess policy of Lexington Insurance Company. The Century Surety policy is covered by an excess policy of Allied World National Assurance Company ("Second Allied World Policy"). The First Scottsdale Policy is covered, first, by an excess policy of Ace Property & Casualty Company; second, by a higher layer excess policy of American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company ("First American Guarantee Policy"); and third, by two higher layer excess policies: Policy of the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company ("First Ohio Casualty Policy") and Policy of the National Surety Corporation ("First National Surety Policy"). The Second Scottsdale Policy is covered, first, by an excess policy of Allied World National Assurance Company; second, by a higher layer excess policy of American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company ("Second American Guarantee Policy"); third, by two higher layer excess policies: Policy of the Ohio Casualty Insurance Company ("Second Ohio Casualty Policy") and Policy of the National Surety Corporation ("Second National Surety Policy"); and fourth, by an additional excess policy of AIG Specialty Insurance Company. Century Wilshire removed the case on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Thereafter the court consolidated the case with several other related cases that made similar factual allegations. In his November 14, 2014 decision available at http://is.gd/1NgfOT from Leagle.com, District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana ruled that: (1) Allied World's motion to dismiss and strike is granted in part insomuch as the First Allied Policy does not cover the injuries that allegedly occurred during its Policy Period, and is otherwise denied; (2) Choice's motion to dismiss is denied, its motion for partial summary judgment on prescription as well as its motion for partial summary judgment on class claims are also denied; (3) Century Wilshire's motion to dismiss is denied. The motion for partial summary judgment on indemnity is continued without date and the parties shall move to re-notice the motion for submission when appropriate; (4) Allied World's motion to dismiss cross-claims is denied; (5) Scottsdale's motion to dismiss is denied and its motion to strike is also likewise denied; (6) National Surety's motion to dismiss and strike is granted in part insomuch as the First National Surety Policy does not cover the injuries that allegedly occurred during its Policy Period, and is otherwise denied; (7) Century Surety's motion for judgment on the pleadings and to strike is denied; (8) ACE's motion to dismiss on grounds of prescription is denied but its' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted; (9) Merchant's motion to dismiss is denied; (10) Ohio Casualty's motion to dismiss is granted in part insomuch as the First Ohio Casualty Policy does not cover the injuries that allegedly occurred during its Policy Period, and is otherwise denied; (11) Guarantee Policy does not cover the injuries that allegedly occurred during its Policy Period, and is otherwise denied; (12) American Guarantee's motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted in part insomuch as the First American Guarantee Policy does not cover the injuries that allegedly occurred during its Policy Period, and is otherwise denied, and; (13) Lexington's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is granted. Angela Paternostro, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Reed, Howard & Reed, D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Howard & Reed, Gerald Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer, Jonathan C. Pedersen, Howard & Reed, Kyle T. Del Hierro, Howard & Reed, Rachel A. Sternlieb, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer & Ronnie Glynn Penton, Penton Law Firm Mercedes Paternostro, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Reed, Howard & Reed, D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Howard & Reed, Gerald Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer, Jonathan C. Pedersen, Howard & Reed, Kyle T. Del Hierro, Howard & Reed, Rachel A. Sternlieb, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer & Ronnie Glynn Penton, Penton Law Firm Robyn Ortego, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Reed, Howard & Reed, D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Howard & Reed, Gerald Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer, Jonathan C. Pedersen, Howard & Reed, Kyle T. Del Hierro, Howard & Reed, Rachel A. Sternlieb, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer & Ronnie Glynn Penton, Penton Law Firm Marie Hesser, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Paul A. Lea, Jr., Paul A. Lea, Jr., APLC & Shawn C. Reed, Howard & Reed Gwen Newberry, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Paul A. Lea, Jr., Paul A. Lea, Jr., APLC & Shawn C. Reed, Howard & Reed Robert Newberry, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Paul A. Lea, Jr., Paul A. Lea, Jr., APLC & Shawn C. Reed, Howard & Reed Jason Beleto, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Shawn C. Reed, Howard & Reed, D. Douglas Howard, Jr., Howard & Reed, Gerald Edward Meunier, Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier & Warshauer, Jonathan C. Pedersen, Howard & Reed, Kyle T. Del Hierro, Howard & Reed & Ronnie Glynn Penton, Penton Law Firm Century Wilshire, Inc., doing business as Clarion Inn and Suites, Defendant, represented by Leigh Fontenot Groves, Donohue, Patrick & Scott Century Wilshire, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Heath Savant, Donohue, Patrick & Scott &Thomas J. Cortazzo, Baldwin, Haspel, Burke & Mayer, LLC Century Surety Company, Defendant, represented by Celeste D. Elliott, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard & Anne Elizabeth Briard, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard Choice Hotels International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lottie Lynn Bash, Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell, Laura B Graham, Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell & Michael J. O'Shee, Gold, Weems, Bruser, Sues & Rundell Allied World National Assurance Company, Defendant, represented by Judy Y. Barrasso, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC, Sarah L. Rubin, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC & Steven W. Usdin, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC Lexington Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Robert I. Siegel, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Alistair Ward, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Andrew A. Braun, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Elizabeth A. Chickering, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC & William A. Barousse, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC Scottsdale Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by James K. Ordeneaux, Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP & Elizabeth Attie Babin Carville, Plauche, Maselli, Parkerson, LLP American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Richard E. King, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith, David Michael Moragas, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Olivia Y. Truong, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Maureen O'Connor Sullivan, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, Janet Whitters Nowakowski, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith & Karen M. Dicke, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith National Surety Corporation, Defendant, represented by Sidney W. Degan, III, Degan, Blanchard & Nash,Catherine N. Thigpen, Degan, Blanchard & Nash, Julia Ann Dietz, Degan, Blanchard & Nash & Karl Howard Schmid, Degan, Blanchard & Nash Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Judy Y. Barrasso, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC, Sarah L. Rubin, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC & Steven W. Usdin, Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC Merchants National Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John C. Turnage, Mayer, Smith & Roberts AIG Specialty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Robert I. Siegel, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Alistair Ward, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Andrew A. Braun, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC, Elizabeth A. Chickering, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC & William A. Barousse, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC CITIBANK NA: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccessible ATMs for Blind People ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Citibank, N.A., Case No. 3:14-cv-03042 (S.D. Cal., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide ATMs that are accessible to sight-impaired individuals. Citibank, N.A. is a subsidiary of Citigroup, the largest bank holding company in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Sherry Maertz, Esq. Gerald D. Wells III, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS AND GRAY LLP 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: meghansherry@yahoo.com gwells@cwg-law.com CITY BARN: "Fuentes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Antonio Fuentes and Martin Alvarez, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members v. City Barn Group LLC, Green Summit Group LLC, TM Management, LLC, Blue Radish 52, LLC, Philip M. Corhan, Paul Millman, Todd Millman and Daniel Millman, Case No. 1:14-cv-10211 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a retail food location doing web only business through online vendors. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com COACH USA: Sightseers Have Until Jan. 18 to Claim Refund -------------------------------------------------------- George Hesselberg, writing for Wisconsin State Journal, reports that Wisconsin visitors to New York City who toured the Big Apple in a double-decker, open-topped bus are part of an estimated 4 million sightseers who were taken for more than that ride. They were overcharged -- and they have until Jan. 18 to claim a refund. The refunds -- up to $20 per ticket -- were ordered in a $19 million class action price-fixing lawsuit settlement on behalf of sightseers who took the popular "hop-on, hop-off" bus tours in New York City from Feb. 1, 2009, through June 16, 2014. A lawsuit filed in 2012 claimed that Coach USA and CitySights -- which controlled 99 percent of that particular tourist market -- conspired to form Twin America. The joining and planning of that union goes back to 2008, and enabled them to fix ticket prices and reduce competition, resulting in higher ticket prices, according to the lawsuit. The anti-trust class action lawsuit was settled with no wrongdoing admitted. Another lawsuit, filed by state and federal prosecutors, is pending but was reported to be in line for a settlement soon, too, according to Law360, an online legal news website. The class action suit alleged that the illegal monopoly allowed the companies to fix prices as much as 17 percent above the prior market rate, overcharging passengers by $5 or more. A typical ticket costs about $50 for a day pass. Tourism officials estimate more than 2 million sightseers ride the buses annually. More information can be found online at www.TourBusSettlement.com A claim can be filed online or by printing a form and mailing it. A claim of three or more tickets requires proof of purchase. Coach USA and CitySights ran open-topped, double-decker buses that take tourists to more than 40 stops, including Times Square, the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center site. According to court documents, attorneys' fees of $6.27 million represent about a third of the settlement fund. The New York City tourist office said on Jan. 2 that of the 54.3 million visitors to the city in 2013, "domestic" visitors numbered 42.9 million. COBALT INT'L: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Cobalt International Energy, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, and docketed under 14-cv-03488, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Cobalt securities between February 21, 2012 and August 4, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased 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 an independent, oil-focused exploration and production company with operations offshore Angola and Gabon in West Africa. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company conducted certain business activities in its Angolan operations in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act; and (2) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 5, 2014, Cobalt disclosed in a filing with the SEC Form 8-K that it had received a notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating the agency will bring an enforcement action against the Company over its Angolan operations. On the news, shares in Cobalt fell $1.75 per share, or 10.96%, to close at $14.22 on August 5, 2014 on extremely heavy trading volume. 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. COLUMBIA SUSSEX: Sued Over Illegal Use of Background Report ----------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Toral, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Columbia Sussex Corporation, a foreign corporation doing business in California, and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 2:14-cv-09933 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to disclose intent to use a background report in their decision to hire, promote, reassign, or terminate employees. Columbia Sussex Corporation is a Kentucky corporation that owns and operates hotels. The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin H. Fok, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DEVIN H. FOK PO Box 7165 Alhambra, CA 98102-7165 Telephone: (310) 430-9933 Facsimile: (323) 563-3445 E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com CONEXIS CARGO: Faces "Moya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Moya, Fidel Valdes, and Jhonyer Marin v. Conexis Cargo, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and Nestor Raschia, individually and as Trustee of the Assets of Conexis Cargo, LLC, a dissolved Florida company, Case No. 1:14-cv-24901 (S.D. Fla., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an air cargo transport company in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Pelayo M. Duran, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PELAYO DURAN, PA 4640 NW 7th Street Miami, FL 33126 Telephone: (305) 266-9780 Facsimile: 269-8311 E-mail: Assistant@pelayoduran.com - and - Roderick Victor Hannah, Esq. RODERICK V. HANNAH, Esq., P.A. 1250 South Pine Island Road, Suite 375 Plantation, FL 33324-4454 Telephone: (954) 362-3800 Facsimile: (954) 362-3779 E-mail: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com CSK AUTO: Parties in "Melgar" Suit Directed to Agree on Schedules ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California directed the parties in the putative class action lawsuit styled OSMIN MELGAR, Plaintiff, v. CSK AUTO, INC., Defendant, NO. C-13-3769 EMC (N.D. Calif.), to meet and confer and arrive at an agreement on the following: (1) A schedule for the revised Belaire notice that will be distributed only to the Retail Service Specialists; (2) A schedule for the dissemination and return of the Plaintiff's survey; and (3) a briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's class certification motion. The parties are directed to file a stipulation that addresses these three schedules no later than January 14, 2015 at 5:00pm. A full-text copy of Judge Chen's order dated Jan. 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/cC1hhRfrom Leagle.com. Osmin Melgar, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Malk, Michael Malk, ESQ., APC. CSK Auto, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Michael Peterson, Esq. -- peterson@higgslaw.com -- Higgs Fletcher and Mack LLP, Edwin Mendelson Boniske, Esq. -- boniske@higgslaw.com -- Higgs Fletcher and Mack LLP & Jason Conroy Ross, Esq. -- rossj@higgslaw.com -- at Higgs Fletcher Mack. DANOS AND CUROLE: Faces "Bragg" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Bragg, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Danos and Curole Marine Contractors, L.L.C., a Louisiana Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-02976 (E.D. La., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Danos and Curole Marine Contractors, L.L.C. is a worldwide oilfield service company providing quality service in the areas of construction, fabrication, production personnel, painting and blasting and a wide range of highly skilled consultants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Virginia Lynn LoCoco, Esq. Joseph Anthony LoCoco, Esq. LOCOCO & LOCOCO, PA 10243 Central Ave., P. O. Box 6014 D'Iberville, MS 39540 Telephone: (228) 392-3799 Facsimile: (228) 392-3890 E-mail: virginia.lococo@lococolaw.com joe.lococo@lococolaw.com DARDEN RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay OT Hours, "Priest" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Shawna Priest and Christopher Burrows, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Darden Restaurants, Inc., and GMRI, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-02761 (S.D. Ohio, December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked above 40 in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a nationwide restaurant chain of over 460 steakhouses operated in 35 states. The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com jack@lgmlegal.com - and - Seth Lesser, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael Reed, Esq. KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com fran@klafterolsen.com michael.reed@klafterolsen.com DELAWARE: Housing Agency May Have to Refund Lot Fees ---------------------------------------------------- James Fisher, writing for The News Journal, reports that a Freedom of Information Act violation nine years ago might end up being a $400,000 mistake for the Delaware Manufactured Home Relocation Authority. The Authority may have to give back fees it collected from manufactured housing landlords and tenants, a judge ruled, because the fund's leadership made a hasty decision, in secret, not to revise the fees. Vice Chancellor John W. Noble raised the possibility of the refund in a Dec. 31 opinion on a lawsuit pitting a Smyrna manufactured home park, Ridgewood Manor, against the DMHRA. Ridgewood Manor filed the suit in May 2013, making the case that the Relocation Authority had been collecting the fee without proper legal authority for years. If the company wins class-action status for its complaint, Noble's ruling means as much as $400,000 of the $6.5 million in the DMHRA trust fund might be ordered given back as refunds, said Mitch Crane, chairman of the DMHRA board. He was not a member of the board in 2006. "That's why we've been fighting it so much," Mr. Crane said. "The Relocation Authority, through the Department of Justice, has challenged every single section of their lawsuit." The DMHRA, created by the Legislature in 2004, was from the start allowed to impose a $3 fee on each manufactured home lot in the state. That was meant to build up a fund to help homeowners -- who own the structures they live in, but pay rent on the land they're placed on -- defray the cost of moving if their parks are sold for redevelopment. The Authority's establishing statute ordered its board to "adopt an adjusted assessment on or before Jan. 31, 2006." If the board didn't do that, the statute said, "the board shall eliminate the fee in its entirety." As the lawsuit shows, the DMHRA's secretary emailed the board members on the afternoon of Jan. 31, 2006, asking them to "respond as a vote wether [sic] you approve the reinstatement of the fee." The nine unpaid members of the government-appointed board, without holding a public meeting and without public notice that they would take action on the statewide fee, one by one sent in "yes" replies. The Relocation Authority carried on charging the $3-a- lot fee. Ridgewood Manor alleged that decision-making process was so flawed -- in violation of open-meetings laws, and done without any "meaningful analysis" of whether continuing to charge $3 made sense -- that the fees the Authority collected from it after 2006 were "continuing, unlawful collections," according to the Dec. 31 order. Mr. Noble ruled there was no doubt DMHRA violated public records laws in voting through email with no public notice of the decision it was about to make, and no minutes kept or published of any meeting it held to take the vote. Above and beyond that, Mr. Noble said, the board's reply-all method of deciding to keep the fee at $3 failed to "effectively act to adopt an adjusted assessment" by its 2006 deadline. "There was no meaningful opportunity for the members of the Board to exchange opinions on the specific topic of whether each 'approve[d] the reinstatement of the fee' prior to the individual votes," Mr. Noble wrote. Mr. Noble's ruling, though, said the defendants can't ask for refunds of fees they paid before they filed their lawsuit on May 6, 2013. Only the fees collected between that date and April 2014 are potentially recoverable, Mr. Noble said. "The court recognized what our client has claimed all along: The Authority has been unlawfully collecting millions in dollars in fees," said John Paradee, the attorney representing Ridgewood Manor. "The remedy is still in question." Some key questions in the lawsuit are still unresolved. While Ridgewood Manor is seeking to get class-action status for its suit -- potentially making it apply to every manufactured home landlord in the state -- both sides agreed to ask the judge to put that question aside for now. Mr. Noble's ruling said he wanted to hear more from Ridgewood Manor and DMHRA on whether the Authority's limited immunity from lawsuits, written into its charter by the General Assembly, would protect it from this complaint. Attorneys with the Department of Justice who represent DMHRA in court did not respond to messages seeking comment. DIGNITY HEALTH: Sued for Withholding Employees' FICA Taxes ---------------------------------------------------------- Eric Joseph Rodriguez, M.D., Patrick Fredenberg, M.D., James Edward Gerace, Jr, M.D., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Dignity Health, a California corporation, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, a subsidiary of Dignity Health, Case No. 3:14-cv-05661 (N.D. Cal., December 30, 2014), alleges that the Defendants unlawfully withholding Federal Insurance Contribution Act tax from employees' earnings and by failing to timely pursue FICA refund claims. The Defendants own and operate healthcare facilities in California, Arizona, and Nevada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Schneider, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com - and - Michael C. McKay, Esq. Patrick J. Van Zanen, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP 8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270 Scottsdale, AZ 85253 Telephone: (480) 428-0143 Facsimile: (866) 505-8036 E-mail: mmckay@schneiderwallace.com pvanzanen@schneiderwallace.com DUCK WALK: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jairo Carrato Ramirez, and Angel Bamaca Sales, on behalf of themselves and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Duck Walk Inc., an Illinois corporation, d/b/a Duck Walk, and Worrachai Nusphayoon, an individual, Case No. 1:14-cv- 10510 (N.D. Ill., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate Duck Walk restaurant in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Michael Nolan, Esq. Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 West Jackson Boulevard, #1137 Chicago, IL 60604-3207 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 E-mail: tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Feb. 20 Hearing on Bid to Nix Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The hearing on the motions to dismiss the complaint in the putative class action lawsuit styled In re DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION relating to all actions, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-02796-CRB (N.D. Calif.), is continued to February 20, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to a stipulation agreed to by the parties in the case. A full-text copy of the stipulation approved by Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, on Jan. 7, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/fJIbg8from Leagle.com. Patrick D. Robbins, Esq. -- probbins@shearman.com -- and Emily V. Griffen, Esq. -- egriffen@shearman.com -- at SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, Attorneys for Defendants Symphony Capital Partners, L.P., Symphony Capital GP, L.P., Symphony GP, LLC, and Symphony Strategic Partners, LLC. SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, Emily V. Griffen, Attorneys for Defendants Symphony Capital Partners, L.P., Symphony Capital GP, L.P., Symphony GP, LLC, and Symphony Strategic Partners, LLC. COOLEY LLP, Jeffrey M. Kaban, Esq. -- jkaban@cooley.com -- Attorneys for Defendants Dynavax Technologies Corporation, Dino Dina, J. Tyler Martin and Mark Kessel. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP, Richard W. Gonnello, Esq. -- agonnelli@faruqilaw.com -- Attorneys for Lead Plaintiff Khaled Khalafallah. EASTERN REVENUE: Faces "Quatinetz" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA --------------------------------------------------------------- Mitchell Quatinetz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Eastern Revenue, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-10254 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Eastern Revenue, Inc. is a debt collection agency located at 998 Old Eagle School Rd. Suite 1204 in Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shimshon Wexler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SHIMSHON WEXLER, PC 216 W. 104th St., #129 New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212)760-2400 Facsimile: (917)512-6132 E-mail: swexleresq@gmail.com EXCLUSIVE DETAILING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Andres Hernandez v. Exclusive Detailing, Inc., and Michael Agolia, Case No. 2:14-cv-08094 (D.N.J., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in the automobile washing and detailing business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA Lawrence Office Park Building 2, Suite 220, 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com EXEL DIRECT: "Villalpando" Suit May Proceed as Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case DANIEL VILLALPANDO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EXEL DIRECT INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-04137-JCS (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs are drivers for Defendants Exel Direct Inc., DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. and Deutsche Post Beteiligungen Holding GmbH. Plaintiffs assert wage and hour claims under California law based on the allegation that Exel has misclassified its drivers as independent contractors. Exel is a federally authorized interstate motor carrier that provides transportation services to a variety of customers, including retailers. Prospective drivers must be personally interviewed by an Exel representative to determine the drivers' qualification, attitude and motivation. Upon hiring, Exel drivers must sign the Independent Truckman's Agreement (ITA) and the Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA). Exel requires its drivers to operate under certain procedures and mechanisms to ensure that Exel's obligations to its customers are being carried out in the expected fashion. Exel's site managers provide direction and oversight of the drivers, to help Exel meet whatever service metrics are in the contracts with the customers and thereby prevent Exel from incurring financial penalties. Magistrate Judge Spero granted the Plaintiffs' motion, and ruled that the class consists of: "All individuals who have personally provided delivery services for Defendant Exel Direct in California while being classified by Exel Direct as independent contractors, at any time beginning June 14, 2008 until resolution of this action. Any individual who has signed the Independent Truckman's Agreement with Exel Direct but has provided delivery services exclusively through the use of hired second drivers and who has never personally made deliveries for Exel is excluded from the Class." A copy of Magistrate Judge Spero's order dated November 20, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/k1dYDvfrom Leagle.com Daniel Villalpando, Plaintiff, represented by Guy Burton Wallace -- gwallace@schneiderwallace.com -- Todd Michael Schneider -- tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- and Joshua Geoffrey Konecky -- jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- at Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP. Tafiti Shekur, Plaintiff, represented by Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP; and Robert Ira Spiro -- ira@spirolawcorp.com -- and Denise Lissette Diaz -- at Spiro Law Corp. Exel Direct Inc., Defendant, represented by Angela S. Cash -- acash@scopelitis.com -- Christopher Chad McNatt, Jr. -- cmcnatt@scopelitis.com -- Andrew J Butcher -- abutcher@scopelitis.com -- James H. Hanson -- jhanson@scopelitis.com -- and Ryan Wayne Wright -- rwright@scopelitis.com -- at Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson & Feay, LLP Scopelitis Garvin Light Hanson also represents defendants DHL Express (USA), Inc., DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. and Deutsche Post Beteiligungen Holding GmbH. FAMILY DOLLAR: Stockholders' Preliminary Injunction Bid Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- IN RE FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, INC. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION, CONSOL. C.A. NO. 9985-CB involves a proposed merger between two of the three major players in the small-box discount retail market where the third major player has surfaced as a competing bidder. Given the concentrated nature of this market, a critical issue to the viability of a proposed combination of any of these companies is obtaining antitrust approval from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). On July 27, 2014, Family Dollar Stores, Inc. ("Family" or the "Company") and Dollar Tree, Inc. ("Tree") agreed to a merger transaction (the "Merger") in which Tree proposes to acquire Family for a combination of cash and Tree stock. As of the date of the merger agreement, the proposed Merger was valued at $74.50 per share of Family stock, for aggregate consideration of approximately $8.5 billion. Due to the subsequent increase in Tree's stock price, the proposal is now worth over $76 per share. A vote of Family's stockholders to consider the proposed Merger was scheduled for December 23, 2014. FTC approval of the deal is considered to be a formality because Tree has agreed to divest as many of its approximately 4,900 retail stores as necessary to receive antitrust approval. After Family and Tree agreed to the Merger, Dollar General, Inc. ("General"), the third major small-box discount retailer, made a bid to acquire Family for $78.50 per share in cash, which included a commitment to divest up to 700 of General's more than 11,300 retail stores to obtain antitrust approval. General later increased its bid to $80 per share in cash and a commitment to divest up to 1,500 of its stores. After Family refused to engage in discussions with General in the face of this bid, General went directly to Family's stockholders by commencing a tender offer to acquire their shares for $80 per share in cash. General's tender offer cannot close at this time, however, because it has not received antitrust approval. In this action, stockholders of Family seek to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the proposed Merger until: (1) the Family board of directors (the "Board") "has properly engaged" with General and "made a good faith effort to achieve a value- maximizing transaction" and (2) until Family makes a laundry list of corrective disclosures in its proxy statement. Plaintiffs challenge the sale process in several respects, but their core claim is that the Board breached its fiduciary duty to maximize the value of Family when it declined to engage in negotiations with General after it made its $80 offer. In a memorandum opinion dated December 19, 2014, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/qsLlvOfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Chancery of Delaware concluded that the Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a reasonable probability of success on any of their claims. Regarding Plaintiffs' core claim, the record shows that the Board was motivated to maximize Family's value and acted reasonably within the constraints of the fiduciary out provision in the merger agreement when it decided not to engage in negotiations with General because of the antitrust risks associated with that proposal. Of particular significance, the Board had been specifically advised that General's $80 offer had only an approximately 40% chance of obtaining antitrust approval, and further determined that the level of divestitures General had proposed (1,500 stores) was so far below the level necessary to sufficiently address the antitrust risk of a Family/General combination that it was not prudent or appropriate to open negotiations with General. The Delaware Chancery Court further concluded that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate the existence of irreparable harm or that the balance of the equities favors the relief they seek. Nothing prevents General, which has been undeterred from bidding to acquire Family since the Company agreed to the Merger, from making an improved offer to address the antitrust risks associated with a Family/General combination if it truly wants to acquire Family. On the other hand, entry of a preliminary injunction would deprive Family's stockholders of the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to approve a transaction that offers them a significant premium for their shares and apparent deal certainty. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction is denied. Seth D. Rigrodsky -- sdr@rl-legal.com -- Brian D. Long -- bdl@rl- legal.com -- Gina M. Serra -- gms@rl-legal.com -- and Jeremy J. Riley -- jjr@rl-legal.com -- of RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Peter B. Andrews -- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- and Craig J. Springer -- cspringer@andrewsspringer.com -- of ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC, Wilmington, Delaware; Donald J. Enright -- denright@zlk.com -- and Elizabeth K. Tripodi -- etripodi@zlk.com -- of LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP, Washington, DC; Kent A. Bronson -- kbronson@milberg.com -- and Gloria Kui Melwani -- gmelwani@milberg.com -- of MILBERG LLP, New York, New York; Counsel for Plaintiffs. William M. Lafferty -- wlafferty@mnat.com -- John P. DiTomo -- jditomo@mnat.com -- and Lauren K. Neal -- lneal@mnat.com -- of MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Mitchell A. Lowenthal -- mlowenthal@cgsh.com -- Meredith Kotler -- mkotler@cgsh.com -- and Matthew Gurgel -- mgurgel@cgsh.com -- of CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON, LLP, New York, New York; Counsel for Defendants Family Dollar Stores, Inc., Mark R. Bernstein, Pamela L. Davies, Sharon Allred Decker, Edward C. Dolby, Glenn A. Eisenberg, Edward P. Garden, Howard R. Levine, George R. Mahoney, Jr., James G. Martin, Harvey Morgan, Dale C. Pond. Gregory P. Williams -- williams@rlf.com -- A. Jacob Werrett -- werrett@rlf.com -- J. Scott Pritchard -- pritchard@rlf.com -- and Sarah A. Clark -- sclark@rlf.com -- of RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; William Savitt -- WDSavitt@wlrk.com -- Andrew J.H. Cheung -- AJHCheung@wlrk.com -- and A.J. Martinez -- AJMartinez@wlrk.com -- of WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ, New York, New York; Counsel for Defendants Dollar Tree, Inc. and Dime Merger Sub, Inc. FEDEX CORPORATION: Still a Defendant in Wage-and-Hour Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in a number of lawsuits containing various class-action allegations of wage-and- hour violations. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits allege, among other things, that they were forced to work "off the clock," were not paid overtime or were not provided work breaks or other benefits. The complaints generally seek unspecified monetary damages, injunctive relief, or both. "We do not believe that a material loss is reasonably possible with respect to any of these matters," the Company said. FEDEX CORPORATION: Independent Contractor Cases on Appeal --------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2015, that FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class- action lawsuits (including 26 that have been certified as class actions), individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative proceedings that claim that the company's owner- operators should be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors. Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs. employee). "In sum, the court has now ruled on our summary judgment motions and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20 of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states," the Company said. "The plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January 2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a determination with respect to the correctness of the district court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. The Kansas Supreme Court heard oral argument on November 5, 2013. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh Circuit remain stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme Court. "The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight certified class actions back to the district courts where they were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three of those cases are now on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and one is on appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The other four remain pending in their respective district courts, but three of these four matters have been settled for immaterial amounts. The courts have granted final approval of two of the three settlements, while the other settlement remains subject to court approval. "While the granting of summary judgment in favor of FedEx Ground by the multidistrict litigation court in 20 of the 28 cases that had been certified as class actions remains subject to appeal, we believe that it significantly improves the likelihood that our independent contractor model will be upheld. Adverse determinations in matters related to FedEx Ground's independent contractors, however, could, among other things, entitle certain of our owner-operators and their drivers to the reimbursement of certain expenses and to the benefit of wage-and-hour laws and result in employment and withholding tax and benefit liability for FedEx Ground, and could result in changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators in certain jurisdictions. "We believe that FedEx Ground's owner-operators are properly classified as independent contractors and that FedEx Ground is not an employer of the drivers of the company's independent contractors. While it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these lawsuits or such changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx Ground's owner-operators could be material, we cannot yet determine the amount or reasonable range of potential loss. A number of factors contribute to this. The number of plaintiffs in these lawsuits continues to change, with some being dismissed and others being added and, as to new plaintiffs, discovery is still ongoing. In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited discovery into damages, which could vary considerably from plaintiff to plaintiff. Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted considerably by future rulings on the merits of certain claims and FedEx Ground's various defenses, and on evidentiary issues. In any event, we do not believe that a material loss is probable in these matters." FEDEX CORPORATION: Defending Against Contractor-Model Cases ----------------------------------------------------------- FedEx Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2015, that the Company is defending contractor-model cases that are not or are no longer part of the multidistrict litigation, two of which have been certified as class actions. These certified class actions were settled for immaterial amounts in the first quarter of 2014 and have received final court approval. The other cases are in varying stages of litigation, and the Company does not expect to incur a material loss in any of these matters. FIFTH THIRD: Faces "Kampfer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Judith Kampfer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fifth Third Bank, Fifth Third Financial Corporation, and Fifth Third Bancorp, Case No. 3:14-cv-02849 (N.D. Ohio, December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a single workweek. The Defendants are financial services companies that provide banking and related products and services to clients through its 1,308 full service banking centers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew T. Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN Ste. 200, 1360 West Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com jack@lgmlegal.com - and - Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Seth R. Lesser, Esq. KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER Ste. 350, Two International Drive Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com slesser@klafterolsen.com - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. Susan H. Stern, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP Ste. 404, 1515 South Federal Highway Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com sstern@shavitzlaw.com FLORIDA: Two Counties to Begin Issuing Same-Sex Marriage Licenses ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Rossman, writing for Tallahassee Democrat, reports that Leon County Clerk of Court Bob Inzer and Wakulla County clerk Brent Thurmond confirmed on Jan. 2 that they would begin issuing the licenses at the start of business on Jan. 6, the day after a federal stay on the licenses ends. Efforts to reach Gadsden County Clerk of Court Nicholas Thomas and Jefferson County clerk Kirk Reams were unsuccessful on Jan. 2. Messrs. Inzer and Thurmond are one of many clerks across the state responding to a ruling made on Jan. 1 by U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle. It was a clarification of a ruling he made in August in favor of a Washington County couple who sued for the right to wed. In that ruling, Judge Hinkle ordered the clerk to issue the couple a marriage license but also ruled that the state's ban on same-sex marriage violated the constitution. Initially, Greenberg Traurig, who represents the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers, and clerks across the state were unsure whether Judge Hinkle's order only applied to Washington County or the whole state. Court clerks were advised by Greenberg Traurig not to issue licenses until it was clarified by Judge Hinkle. Following the Jan. 1 ruling, the firm advised clerks to follow Hinkle's guidance and begin issuing licenses. "Judge Hinkle's order states that any clerk refusing to issue a license could be subject to civil damages and liability for the plaintiffs' fees and costs," said Hilarie Bass, co-president of Greenberg Traurig. "Greenberg Traurig has advised the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptrollers that clerks should follow the judge's ruling for all marriage license applications or face the consequences identified by Judge Hinkle." Judge Hinkle had also placed a stay on the order through Jan. 5. Attorney General Pam Bondi attempted to extend the stay, but she was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, meaning the stay was expected to end after Jan. 5. But Judge Hinkle stopped short of ordering the state's clerks to start issuing licenses on Jan. 6. However, he said clerks have a legal duty to do so and could face lawsuits if they don't. Couples in both counties can fill out their applications beginning at 8:00 a.m. Leon couples can apply at the Leon County Clerk of Court office on South Monroe Street and at the clerk's Northeast Branch in the Keiser University Building on Metropolitan Boulevard. Wakulla couples can go to the Wakulla County Clerk of Court on Crawfordville Highway. Same-sex couples will have to fill out the normal one-page form, which requires information from a bride and groom. The gender specific information on the form will be changed as soon as the proper state authorities give guidance, Mr. Inzer said. FLUVANNA CORRECTIONAL: Prisoners' Class Certification Bid Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Norman K. Moon of the Western District of Virginia, Charlottesville Division granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case of CYNTHIA B. SCOTT, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, ET AL., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:12-CV- 00036 The plaintiffs are all prisoners residing at Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women, a facility of the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Corrections. Plaintiffs brought the action against defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging that defendants violated plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the Eight Amendment to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs assert that FCCW fails to provide adequate medical care and that Defendants are deliberately indifferent to this failure. Plaintiffs allege that FCCW inmates have suffered and continue to suffer the consequences of a host of serious, systematic failures in medical care, and that these failures have placed the Plaintiffs and other inmates who access FCCW medical care at risk of serious harm, deterioration in their health, and even death. Plaintiffs further allege that the deficiencies in medical care have caused serious harms and fatalities in the past. Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment and preliminary and permanent injunctions ordering FCCW to provide adequate medical care to Plaintiffs and all other similarly situated women residing at FCCW. Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a class consisting of themselves and all other women who currently reside or will in the future reside at FCCW and who have sought, are currently seeking, or will seek adequate, appropriate medical care for serious medical needs, as contemplated by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Judge Moon granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The proposed class of plaintiffs consists of approximately 1,200 female prisoners whose health concerns are allegedly subject to a flawed prison healthcare system. The case concerns allegations of a common course of conduct by Defendants reflecting deliberate indifference to the prisoners' serious medical needs. As a result, the principal factual and legal questions are common to the entire class, and the injuries that the named Plaintiffs claim to have suffered are typical of those suffered by the other women in the class. A copy of Judge Moon's memorandum opinion dated November 20, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/76nnKafrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs are represented by: Amy Elizabeth Walters, Esq. Erin Margaret Trodden, Esq. Ivy Ann Finkenstadt, Esq. Kimberly Anne Rolla, Esq. Mary Catherine Bauer, Esq. Mary Frances Charlton, Esq. Abigail Turner, Esq. Angela A. Ciolfi, Esq. Brenda Erin Castaneda, Esq. LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 1000 Preston Avenue, Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22903 Telephone: (434) 977-0553 Facsimile: (434) 977-0558 - and - Deborah Maxine Golden, Esq. WASHINGTON LAWYERS COMMITTEE 11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202-319-1000 Facsimile: 202-319-1010 E-mail: WLC@washlaw.org - and - Theodore Augustus Howard, Esq. WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Tel: 202-719-7120 E-mail: thoward@wileyrein.com Defendants are represented by: John Michael Parsons, Esq. James Milburn Isaacs, Jr., Esq. Kate Elizabeth Dwyre, Esq. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 900 East Main Street Richmond, VA, 23219 Telephone: (804) 786-0046 Facsimile: (804) 786-4239 FORBES REGIONAL: Pa. Appellate Court Tosses "Cunningham" Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John L. Musmanno of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment of the lower court in the appellate case DENNIS CUNNINGHAM, Appellant, v. FORBES REGIONAL HOSPITAL AND WEST PENN ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM, Appellees, Case No. 1961 WDA 2013 (Pa. Super. Ct.) Haluska v. Forbes Regional and West Penn Allegheny Health System, GD-05-009134, was a lawsuit instituted in the trial court as a class action on behalf of persons who underwent a colonoscopy at Forbes Regional during the period between October 28, 2004 and February 26, 2005. Cunningham was one of these persons. In his deposition testimony, Cunningham acknowledged that he sought damages for the mental anguish caused by his belief that he might have contracted a blood-borne illness as a result of the Hospital's actions. Based upon this testimony, the Hospital filed a Motion In Limine to exclude any testimony regarding mental anguish, which resulted from the fear of contracting a blood-borne illness. On September 5, 2013, the trial court granted the Hospital's Motion, relying on case law holding that a person may not raise a claim for fear of contracting a disease that the person never contracted. The trial court's Order directed that, at trial, the class action plaintiffs shall not (1) raise any claims for mental anguish from the fear of contracting any disease; and (2) offer any testimony that would be relevant only to a claim of mental anguish from the fear of contracting a disease. The trial court severed the claims of Cunningham from the remaining Haluska litigation. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a verdict against Cunningham and in favor of the Hospital. Cunningham filed Post-Trial Motions, which the trial court denied. The trial court entered judgment against Cunningham and in favor of the Hospital. Cunningham appealed. Judge Musmanno affirmed the decision of the lower court, expressing that as the record reflects, as a matter of law, Cunningham failed to establish the requisite causal nexus between the Hospital's negligence and his claimed injuries. By his Complaint and his deposition testimony, Cunningham avers that the Hospital's negligence in cleaning and disinfecting the colonoscope, potentially exposing him to blood-borne illnesses, caused his mental anguish. Cunningham has not averred or demonstrated actual exposure to AIDS, or another blood-borne illness, and such exposure cannot be inferred from the allegations in the Complaint, or Cunningham's deposition testimony. A copy of Judge Musmanno's decision dated November 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/6ouciEfrom Leagle.com. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania panel consists of Judges Christine L. Donohue, Cheryl Lynn Allen and John L. Musmanno. GENCOR NUTRIENTS: Falsely Marketed Testofen Products, Action Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Ryan, Marco Garza, Michael Aguero, Odell Cowans, Brett Erion, Russ Ruhnke, Thomas Korves, Luis Flores, Steven Berger, Eligio Torres, and Robert Baker, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Gencor Nutrients, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-05682 (N.D. Cal., December 31, 2014), arises out of the Defendants' false and misleading advertisement and product packaging of their nutritional supplement containing Testofen, an extract of the herb fenugreek, that it has been clinically proven to increase free testosterone levels. Gencor Nutrients, Inc. is a manufacturer of Testofen, a standardized fenugreek extract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Barry Himmelstein, Esq. HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK 2000 Powell St., Suite 1605 Emeryville, CA 94608-1861 Telephone: (510) 450-0782 Facsimile: (510) 924-0403 E-mail: barry@himmellaw.com GRACO CHILDREN: Loses Motion to Dismiss Long's 3rd Amended Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James Donato denied defendants' motion to dismiss and deferred the motion to strike class allegations in SETH LONG, Plaintiff, v. GRACO CHILDREN'S PRODUCTS INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-01257-JD, (N.D. Cal.). This putative class action for deceptive practices and other consumer claims arises out of the sale and distribution of car seats for infants and children with defective harness buckles. Although initiated in 2013, the case is still in the pleading stage after partial dismissal of the first amended complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff Seth Long is now on a third amended complaint (TAC), which defendants Graco Children's Products Inc. and Newell Rubbermaid Inc. (collectively "Graco") moved to dismiss on jurisdiction grounds under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Graco does not challenge the substance of Long's consumer claims. Instead, Graco argued that a pre-suit offer of a full refund to plaintiff and a post-suit national recall of seats with the defective buckles defeat subject matter jurisdiction in this action. Graco also moved to strike the class allegations in the TAC. Graco contended that the proposed class is overbroad and not reasonably ascertainable. The Court denied the motions without prejudice in favor of deciding these issues in the class certification context rather than at this stage of the case. A copy of the ruling issued on December 17, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/MGm5LAfrom Leagle.com. Seth Long, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan L. Lurie -- Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Robert Kenneth Friedl -- Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Cody Robert Padgett -- Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law, APC, Mark Samuel Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Tarek H. Zohdy -- Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Lawyers, APC. Graco Children's Products Inc., Defendant, represented by Rocky N. Unruh -- runruh@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP, John Alexander Vogt -- javogt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Joseph J. Krasovec, III -- jkrasovec@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP & Yakov Paul Wiegmann -- ywiegmann@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin LLP. Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rocky N. Unruh, Schiff Hardin LLP, Heidi Dalenberg, Schiff Hardin LLP, Joseph J. Krasovec, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Yakov Paul Wiegmann, Schiff Hardin LLP. Graco Children's Products Inc., plaintiff, represented by Rocky N. Unruh, Schiff Hardin LLP, Heidi Dalenberg, Schiff Hardin LLP, John Alexander Vogt, Jones Day, Joseph J. Krasovec, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Yakov Paul Wiegmann, Schiff Hardin LLP. Newell Rubbermaid, Inc., plaintiff, represented by Rocky N. Unruh, Schiff Hardin LLP, Heidi Dalenberg, Schiff Hardin LLP, Joseph J. Krasovec, III, Schiff Hardin LLP & Yakov Paul Wiegmann, Schiff Hardin LLP. AmSafe Commercial Products, Inc., defendant, represented by Nathaniel Peardon Garrett -- ngarrett@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Ann Theresa Rossum -- atrossum@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, John Alexander Vogt -- javogt@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Richard Joseph Bedell, Jr. -- rjbedell@jonesday.com -- Jones Day. AmSafe Partners, Inc., defendant, represented by Nathaniel Peardon Garrett, Jones Day, Ann Theresa Rossum, Jones Day, John Alexander Vogt, Jones Day & Richard Joseph Bedell, Jr., Jones Day. AmSafe, Inc., defendant, represented by Nathaniel Peardon Garrett, Jones Day, Ann Theresa Rossum, Jones Day, John Alexander Vogt, Jones Day & Richard Joseph Bedell, Jr., Jones Day. GREEN & CLEAN: "Equite" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Anibal Equite, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Green & Clean Property Solution, Inc., a foreign profit corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-00746 (M.D. Fla., December 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Green & Clean Property Solution, Inc. owns and operates a cleaning service company in Lee County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com GTA BUILDING: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Margarito Hernandez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. GTA Building Services, Inc., and Kenneth Numerowski, Case No. 1:14-cv-10445 (N.D. Ill., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours work in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com HOLLYWOOD AGENCY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Cal. Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peyman Zandifaez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hollywood Agency, LLC, d/b/a Hollywood Auditions, Case No. 8:14-cv-02057 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited phone calls to the cellular telephones with the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and pre-recorded voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Hollywood Agency, LLC is a casting service that helps models and actors find auditions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com INSTANT CHECKMATE: Sued in Cal. Over Deceptive Business Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Milo Illich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Instant Checkmate, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:14-cv-03026 (S.D. Cal., December 30, 2014), to redress the Defendant's deceptive practices of deceiving thousands of consumers throughout the United States into paying $22.86 or more for subscriptions to access reports that do not contain what was promised. Instant Checkmate, Inc. owns and operates the web site, www.instantcheckmate.com, which offers consumers the ability to obtain background reports to learn the truth about the history of your family and friends. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel M. Lasser, Esq. EDELSON PC 1934 Divisadero Street San Francisco, CA 94115 Telephone: (415) 994-9930 Facsimile: (4150 776-8047 E-mail: slasser@edelson.com - and - Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. Courtney Booth,Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com cbooth@edelson.com INTERSTATE HOTELS: Sued Over Illegal Use of Background Report ------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Toral, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv- 09922 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to disclose intent to use a background report in their decision to hire, promote, reassign, or terminate employees. Interstate Hotels & Resorts, Inc. is a Virginia corporation that owns and operates hotels throughout the country. The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin H. Fok, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DEVIN H. FOK PO Box 7165 Alhambra, CA 98102-7165 Telephone: (310) 430-9933 Facsimile: (323) 563-3445 E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com JOHNSON CONTROLS: Faces "Evans" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shawn Evans, Antonio Ruiz, Dale Herlan, Gaston Custer and Jillian Steinman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Johnson Controls, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-01095 (W.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours work in excess of 40 hours in a week. Johnson Controls, Inc. provides installations and service to electrical and control systems for public and private projects throughout New York and Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Edward Pelton, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com JP WHITE: Faces "Tang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Jun Tang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JP White Plains, Inc. d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro White Plains, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-10239 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. JP White Plains, Inc. owns and operates Haiku Asian Bistro at 149 Mamaroneck Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY LAW, PPLC 41-25 Kissena Boulevard, Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 KRUNG THEP: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours, "Vasquez" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Trinidad Vasquez and Miguel Godiness, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Krung Thep Rain Inc. (d/b/a Rain Thai), Sansanee Fricke, and Phikul Kumdang, Case No. 1:14-cv-10245 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant located at 220 East 53rd Street, New York, New York 10022. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com L-RAPHAEL FS: "Riedel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Vincent Riedel and Li Wei Jin, on behalf of themselves, and others similarly situated v. L-Raphael FS NYC, Inc., Ronit Raphael, Kimberley Matheson Shedrick and Monica Elbanowska, Case No. 1:14- cv-10212 (S.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime premium, unpaid compensation due to time shaving, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a luxury spa located within the Four Seasons New York Hotel at 57 East 57th Street, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com LITTLE ANGELOS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Coronel" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Coronel, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Little Angelos Pizza, Inc., and Angelo Pagni, Case No. 1:14-cv-10439 (N.D. Ill., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours work in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a pizza restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: 312) 624-8958 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com LONG ISLAND BUSINESS: Faces "Hou" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Bofeng Hou, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Long Island Business Institute, Inc. and Monica Foote, Case No. 1:14-cv-07587 (E.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Long Island Business Institute, Inc. is a 2-year, for-profit college of business and career college, offering certificate and associate degree programs. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Troy, Esq. TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119 Flushing, NY 11355 Telephone: (718) 762-1324 Facsimile: (718) 762-1342 E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com MARECKI MASONRY: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Lopez" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Lopez, Raul Lopez, and Alfredo Guerra, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated employees v. Marecki Masonry, Inc., and Marek Micek, Case No. 1:14-cv-10509 (N.D. Ill., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a construction business doing business within the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com MEDTRONIC INC: Minn. Court Denies Preliminary Injunction Motion --------------------------------------------------------------- Medtronic, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 5, 2015, that a state court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in a putative shareholder class action complaint. As previously disclosed in the Definitive Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by Medtronic, Inc. ("Medtronic") on November 21, 2014 (the "definitive proxy statement"), a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed on July 2, 2014, in the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, of Hennepin County, Minnesota (the "State Court"), by a purported shareholder of Medtronic under the caption Merenstein v. Medtronic, Inc., et al., 27-CV-14-11452, and on August 21, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in that same court by a purported shareholder of Medtronic under the caption Steiner v. Richard H. Anderson, et al., 27-CV-14-14420, which actions were later consolidated together with all cases subsequently filed or transferred into State Court into a single action under the caption In re Medtronic, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, 27-CV-14-11452. On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a consolidated amended class action complaint challenging certain transactions to be taken by Medtronic in connection with the proposed acquisition of Covidien plc ("Covidien") by Medtronic, and on October 10, 2014, the defendants moved to dismiss such complaint. On December 5, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated State Court action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to, among other things, enjoin the defendants from effectuating the acquisition in the absence of additional disclosure prior to the Medtronic shareholder vote. On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held in the State Court on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 2, 2015, the State Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion. MLM CUISINE: "Hassane" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Chafik Hassane and Masud Ahad, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. MLM Cuisine, LLC, d/b/a Mike's Bistro, Michael Gershkovich, and Leib Gershkovich, Case No. 1:14-cv-10225 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a Jewish Kosher restaurant and private-event catering and banquet business. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com MONEY STORE: Seeger Weiss Obtains $54-Mil. Class Action Verdict --------------------------------------------------------------- Counsel for the plaintiff in a class action case against the Money Store, led by Seeger Weiss LLP partner Moshe Horne with co-counsel Paul Grobman and Sharma and DeYoung firms, were able to secure a very rare $54 million verdict. The lawsuit, heard by Judge Koeltl in the Southern District of New York, was filed by Joseph Mazzei, who was charged monthly late fees after his mortgage went into default. This breach of contract involving post acceleration late fees dates back to 2001, when homeowners first acted to recoup $629 million for overcharges and interest. Seeger Weiss LLP -- http://www.seegerweiss.com-- is a trial law firm specializing in class action litigation on behalf of consumers, investors and injured persons. The firm, with offices in New York, Philadelphia and New Jersey, represents plaintiffs in a variety of practice areas, including qui tam, pharmaceutical injury, securities and investment fraud, consumer protection, environmental and asbestos exposures, personal injury and medical malpractice, product defect, antitrust, and commercial disputes. MONTICELLO, MN: Court Authorizes Distribution of Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Donovan W. Frank of the District of Minnesota authorized the distribution of the distributable settlement amount in the case entitled William Dean, individually, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of Monticello, Minnesota, Defendant, Civil Case No. 14-376 (DWF/JSM) (D. Minn.) Judge Frank approved the proposed settlement of $5,746,719.12 in cash from the City as fair and reasonable. In its final approval order, Judge Frank approved the payment of $1.34 million in attorneys' fees to Schiff Hardin LLP and Oppenheimer Wolff & Donnelly LLP, and the payment of an estimated $128,414.97 in litigation expenses as fair and reasonable. The court had directed the parties to consummate the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Plan Allocation and after submitting all the necessary documents and thorough deliberation, the court: (1) ordered the City to make the Settlement Payment of $5,746,719.12 in cash or by certified check or wire transfer to U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank) as escrowee, on or before 02/11/2015; (2) ordered the U.S. Bank immediately upon receipt of the Settlement Payment, pay $1,434,519.11 from the Settlement Payment to Schiff Hardin LLP, as follows: (a) $1,374,036.24 for the legal fees and expenses incurred by Class Counsel in prosecuting and settling this action; and (b) $60,482.87 for the fees and expenses incurred by ALCS in connection with giving notice to the Class, processing the proofs of claim, preparing the tax returns for the Settlement Fund and other services, and for the fees and expenses incurred by U.S. Bank in connection with the disbursement of the legal fees, litigation expenses and payments to holders of Approved Claims, and the establishment and disbursement of the Reserve Fund; (3) ordered U.S. Bank set aside $46,719.12 from the Settlement Payment for the establishment of a reserve fund to address any claim by a Class Member that such person was either entitled to a distribution from the Settlement and did not receive one, or received an incorrect amount; (4) ordered the U.S. Bank promptly pay $4,265,480.89 in the aggregate as distributions to the holders of the Approved Claims, as follows: (i) $1,057,800.00 to be paid to Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, to be paid to the beneficial owners of the Bonds as of a record date to be determined by the Trustee immediately prior to the date of distribution in an amount equal to 4% of the par amount of Bonds held by such Holder, and (ii) $3,207,680.89 in the aggregate by check directly to holders of the Approved Claims and; (5) all checks for distribution directly to the holders of Approved Claims shall bear the notation "CASH PROMPTLY, VOID AND SUBJECT TO RE-DISTRIBUTION 180 DAYS AFTER DISTRIBUTION DATE." ALCS and U.S. Bank are authorized to take appropriate action to locate and/or contact any holder of an Approved Claim who has not cashed his, her or its check within said time. A copy of Judge Frank's order dated November 14, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/IlB3f7from Leagle.com. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Court Narrows Claims in "Dent" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD DENT, JEREMY NEWBERRY, ROY GREEN, J.D. HILL, KEITH VAN HORNE, RON STONE, RON PRITCHARD, JAMES McMAHON, MARCELLUS WILEY, and JONATHAN REX HADNOT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, a New York unincorporated association, Defendant, NO. C 14-02324 WHA, (N.D. Cal.) is a putative class action alleging improper administration of pain medications to professional football players. Defendant has filed two sets of motions to dismiss the operative complaint, based on (1) preemption under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act; and (2) the statute of limitations and improper pleading. "In ruling against the novel claims asserted herein, this order does not minimize the underlying societal issue," District Judge William Alsup wrote in his December 17, 2014 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/6eJpOpfrom Leagle.com. "In such a rough-and-tumble sport as professional football, player injuries loom as a serious and inevitable evil. Proper care of these injuries is likewise a paramount need. The main point of this order is that the league has addressed these serious concerns in a serious way -- by imposing duties on the clubs via collective bargaining and placing a long line of health-and-safety duties on the team owners themselves. These benefits may not have been perfect but they have been uniform across all clubs and not left to the vagaries of state common law. They are backed up by the enforcement power of the union itself and the players' right to enforce these benefits. Given the regime in place after decades of collective bargaining over the scope of these duties, it would be impossible to fashion and to apply new and supplemental state common law duties on the league without taking into account the adequacy and scope of the CBA duties already set in place. That being so, plaintiffs' common law claims are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. The motion to dismiss all of plaintiffs' claims based on preemption grounds under Section 301 is granted. The NFL's other motion to dismiss is denied as moot." Plaintiffs were given until December 30, 2014, to file a motion for leave to amend their claims, noticed on the normal 35-day calendar. A proposed amended complaint must be appended to any such motion, Judge Alsup said. Plaintiffs must plead their best case. Any such motion should clearly explain how the amended complaint cures the deficiencies identified herein, and should include as an exhibit a redlined or highlighted version identifying all changes. If counsel prefer to stand on the present pleading for appeal purposes, judgment will be entered, the case will be closed, and an appeal may proceed, he added. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Sued in Ill. Over Unsolicited Call Practices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Wright, Carole Stewart and Michael Doyle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:14-cv-10457 (N.D. Ill., December 30, 2014), seeks to redress the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited debt collection and other phone calls to the cellular and landline telephones of consumers nationwide without consent and with the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and pre-recorded voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Nationstar Mortgage LLC is a mortgage lender and servicer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Edelson, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. Benjamin H. Richman, Esq. J. Dominic Larry, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 589-6380 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com brichman@edelson.com nlarry@edelson.com - and - Paul O. Paradis, Esq. Gina M. Tufaro, Esq. PARADIS LAW GROUP, PLLC 570 Seventh Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 986-4500 Facsimile: (212) 986-4501 - and - Jack Landskroner, Esq. Drew Legando, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 - and - Brant C. Martin, Esq. WICK PHILLIPS GOULD & MARTIN, LLP 100 Throckmorton Street, Suite 500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 332-7788 Facsimile: (817) 332-7789 - and - Stefan Coleman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC 201 S Biscayne Blvd, 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (877) 333-9427 Facsimile: (888) 498-8946 E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com - and - Michael P. Sousa, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL P. SOUSA, APC 3232 Governor Dr., Suite A San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 453-6122, ext. 15 Facsimile: (858) 453-2155 E-mail: sousam@sbcglobal.net - and - Matthew G. English, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW G. ENGLISH 941 Orange Ave. #344 Coronado, CA 92118 Telephone: 619.944.8568 E-mail: mgelaw@gmail.com - and - Douglas J. Campion, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC 409 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 303 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 299-2901 Facsimile: (619) 858-0034 E-mail: doug@djcampion.com PENNSYLVANIA: Foreign Cars R Us Case Can't Proceed as Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge C. Conner of the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and remanded the case of JOHN E. STULL and FOREIGN CARS R US PLUS, Plaintiffs, v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA and DEPARTMENT OF STATE, BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL AFFAIRs, Defendants, Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-1469 (M.D. Pa.). Upon recommendation of the report of Magistrate Judge Susan E. Schwab, recommending the court to deny the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and dismiss plaintiff Foreign Cars R Us Plus because Foreign Cars is a fictitious entity which cannot represent itself. Judge Conner adopted Magistrate Judge Schwab's report in its entirety, denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification and dismissed Foreign Cars R Us Plus for failure to obtain counsel. The case is remanded to Magistrate Judge Schwab for further proceedings A copy of Judge Conner's order dated November 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/fFj0pbfrom Leagle.com. John E. Stull, Plaintiff, Pro Se The State of Pennsylvania Bureau of Professional & Occupational Affairs, Defendant, represented by: Jonathan D Koltash Office of the Attorney General Litigation Section Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Telephone: 717-787-3391 PORTOFINO GRILLE: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Marvin Ramirez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Portofino Grille, Inc. (d/b/a Lunetta Pizza & Restaurant), and Laurence Cresci, Case No. 1:14-cv-10510 (N.D. Ill., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant located at 1162 First Avenue, New York, New York 10065. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Michael Nolan, Esq. Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 West Jackson Boulevard, #1137 Chicago, IL 60604-3207 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 E-mail: tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net PUBLIC STORAGE: "Urenia" Plaintiffs Directed to Amend Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to strike in its entirety the second amended complaint (SAC) filed in the class action lawsuit 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. CV 13-01934 DDP (AJWX) (C.D. Calif.), and directed the Plaintiffs to file a Third Amended Complaint omitting references to facts pertaining only to the Dismissed Plaintiffs and their individual claims. This includes references to the behavior of former defendant Mike Anz, unless the allegation is specifically relevant to some claim against the remaining Defendants, Judge Preferson said. The Plaintiffs filed the class action lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, Bank of America, and Public Storage alleging civil rights violations and unfair business practices stemming from foreclosure and property seizure practices. Initially, the suit was being prosecuted by Dismissed Plaintiffs Urenia and Corona. In the First Amended Complaint, Dismissed Plaintiff Hughes and current Plaintiffs Javier and Brenda Hernandez were added to the action. On September 29, 2014, the Court dismissed Urenia, Corona, and Hughes from the action and allowed Lenore Albert to withdraw as their attorney. Ms. Albert remains as counsel for the Hernandezes. On November 21, 2014, the remaining Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint, renaming the Dismissed Plaintiffs "third parties," but retaining specific factual allegations relating to the Dismissed Plaintiffs, as well as those relating to Defendant Michael Anz, who was only personally implicated in allegations regarding Urenia and Coronoa and was therefore dismissed as well. A full-text copy of Judge Pregerson's order dated Jan. 6, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/o4yGvNfrom Leagle.com. Roes, Plaintiff, represented by: Lenore L Albert, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LENORE L ALBERT 7755 Center Avenue, Suite #1100 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Tel: (714) 372-2264 Fax: (419) 831-3376 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, Defendant, represented by Mathew M Wrenshall, Esq. -- mwrenshall@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP, Peter J Kennedy, Esq. -- pkennedy@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP & Tuan Van Uong, Esq. -- tuong@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP. City of Los Angeles, 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 Mathew M Wrenshall, Reed Smith LLP, Peter J Kennedy, Reed Smith LLP & Tuan Van Uong, Reed Smith LLP. PVH CORPORATION: Bid to Intervene in "Chavez" Case Denied --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California denied the proposed intervenors' motion to intervene in the case entitled JESSIE CHAVEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PVH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, TOMMY HILFIGER RETAIL, LLC, and PVH RETAIL STORES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-01797 LHK (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiff Chavez's putative class action asserts that PVH Corporation, Tommy Hilfiger Retail, LLC, and PVH Retail Stores violated provisions of the California Labor Code and Government Code based on Defendants' alleged pattern and practice of issuing ATM cards as payment of wages and other wrongful acts directed solely at Plaintiff. In Plaintiff's original Complaint, she alleged violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, and 226. After removal, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint alleging the same labor code violations and additional violations of California Labor Code Section 2698 and California Government Code Sections 12940 et seq. and 12945. On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint, which is the operative complaint in the case. The Second Amended Complaint added additional claims for alleged violations of California Labor Code Section 204 and California Business and Professions Code Section 17200. On August 18, 2014, Proposed Intervenors Jodi Scott-George and Melissa Wiggs filed a notice of pendency of other action in the case. The following day, they filed their motion to intervene. On September 15, 2014, Jeffrey Lapan and Ashwin Chandra filed a joinder to Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene. Both plaintiff and defendants filed their respective oppositions. On October 30, 2014, Dakkar Hunter, an objector to a settlement agreement, filed a joinder to Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene. The next day, Danah Lapan also filed a joinder to the motion to intervene. Judge Koh held that the Proposed Intervenors have failed to meet the less restrictive timeliness requirement under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 24(a), as such they cannot meet the stricter timeliness requirement under Rube 24(b). As Proposed Intervenors have failed to meet an essential "threshold requirement" of permissive intervention under Rule 24(b), the Court denied Proposed Intervenors request to intervene in the action. A copy of Judge Koh's order dated November 20, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/fIviFdfrom Leagle.com. Jessie Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Larry W Lee -- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- Daniel Hyo-Shik Chang -- at Diversity Law Group, P.C.; and William Lucas Marder -- bill@polarislawgroup.com -- at Polaris Law Group, LLP PVH Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dean Hansell -- dean.hansell@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells US LLP, Asheley Greshaune Dean - at Hogan and Hartson LLP; and Rachel A Patta -- rachel.patta@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP PVH Retail Stores, LLC and Tommy Hilfiger Retail, LLC, Defendants, represented by Dean Hansell -- dean.hansell@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP Melissa Wiggs and Jodi Scott-George, Movants, represented by Ronald H Bae -- rbae@aequitaslawgroup.com -- Joseph Cho -- jcho@aequitaslawgroup.com -- Olivia D Scharrer -- oscharrer@aequitaslawgroup.com -- at Aequitas Law Group Jeffrey Lapan and Ashwin Chandra, Interested Parties, represented by Edward Joseph Wynne -- ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- at Wynne Law Firm REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS: Court Tosses Slebodnik et al. Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Freeda L. Wolfson of the District of New Jersey granted a motion to dismiss the case, MICHAEL SLEBODNIK, DAVID YOUSHOCK, AND CLAUDIA METCALF, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THE PUTATIVE CLASS, Plaintiffs, v. THE REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS COMPANY, Defendant, CIV. ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-03772 (FLW) (D.N.J.) The Reynolds and Reynolds Company is a national automobile dealer support company that designs, manufactures, markets, advertises, and sells dealership software, business forms and supplies, and importantly, license plate frames. Plaintiffs Michael Slebodnik, David Youshock and Claudia Metcalf have purchased or leased their vehicles from the New Jersey based Flemington Car and Truck Company Family of Dealerships. They alleged that the Flemington Dealerships installed a Reynolds' front and rear license plate frame made by Reynolds on Plaintiffs' vehicles. Youshock and Metcalf were each issued a citation for "unclear plates" by municipal police officers. Plaintiffs filed their two-count complaint in the Hunterdon County Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division. In Count I, plaintiffs assert that defendant violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"). In Count II, plaintiffs assert that defendant breached its implied warranty of merchantability. Defendant removed the putative class action to the District Court under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Plaintiffs did not object to the removal. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, and in the alternative, the motion to strike all class allegations. Defendant argues that plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the NJCFA and New Jersey's implied warranty of merchantability. In the motion to strike, Defendant, alternatively, argues that Plaintiffs cannot allege a permissible nationwide class. Judge Wolfson granted defendant's motion to dismiss and denied the motion to strike as being moot. Judge Wolfson held that the Plaintiffs neither state a claim for a violation of the NJCFA nor a claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. A copy of Judge Wolfson's opinion dated November 20, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/nrKRYRfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the punitive classes, represented by: William J. Metcalf, Esq. WILLIAM J. METCALF, LLC 14 Commerce Street, Suite 105 Flemington, NJ, 08822 Telephone: (908) 782-0479 Facsimile: (908) 782-1176 THE REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS COMPANY, Defendant, represented by ALFRED J. LECHNER, JR. -- jlechner@whitecase.com -- at WHITE & CASE LLP RITE AID: 2nd Cir. Denies Petition for Interlocutory Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied the Company's petition for an interlocutory appeal related to the class action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation. The Company has been named in a collective and class action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store managers working in the Company's stores at various locations around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state and federal claims for overtime pay. On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action. Discovery as to certification issues has been completed. On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims. The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014. The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied in September 2014. Once approved by the Court, notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to liability only will be sent to approximately 1,750 current and former store managers in the state of New York. At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes, however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously defending this lawsuit. RITE AID: Defendant in Several Wage & Hour Suits in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------- Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company is currently a defendant in several putative class action lawsuits filed in state Courts in California alleging violations of California wage and hour laws, rules and regulations pertaining primarily to failure to pay overtime, pay for missed meals and rest periods, failure to reimburse business expenses and failure to provide employee seating (the "California Cases"). These suits purport to be class actions and seek substantial damages. The Company has aggressively challenged both the merits of the lawsuits and the allegations that the cases should be certified as class or representative actions. RITE AID: Settles Pharmacists' Class Action for $9.7 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that with respect to cases involving pharmacist meal and rest periods (Chase and Scherwin v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court and Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Sacramento County Superior Court), during the period ended March 1, 2014, the Company recorded a legal accrual with respect to these matters. The Company and the attorneys representing the putative class of pharmacists have agreed to a class wide settlement of the case of $9.7 million subject to final Court approval. The parties are in the process of obtaining Court approval. RITE AID: Proceedings in "Hall" Case Stayed Pending Decision ------------------------------------------------------------ Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that in the employee seating case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego County Superior Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. The Company filed its motion for decertification, which motion was granted in November 2012. Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which appeal was granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition for review of the appellate court's decision with the California Supreme Court, which petition was denied in August 2014. Proceedings in the Hall case are stayed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court in two similar cases. With respect to the California Cases (other than Chase and Scherwin and Kyle), the Company, at this time, is not able to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits or estimate a potential range of loss with respect to said lawsuits. ROBERT HALF: Approval of Settlement in "Laffitte" Case Affirmed --------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, affirmed the decision of the trial court in the appellate case entitled, MARK LAFFITTE et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC. et al., Defendants and Respondents, DAVID BRENNAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, No. B249253 (Cal. App.). Mark Laffite filed a complaint against the defendants for wage and hour class action suit, alleging misclassification of staffing professionals as exempt and failure to pay statutorily mandated wages, failure to provide adequate meal periods (premium wages), failure to provide rest periods, failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statements, and "waiting time" penalties. The complaint also alleged unfair business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The parties participated in mediation. After a second session of the mediation, Laffitte and the class representatives in two other class actions against Robert Half involving similar claims and allegations reached a settlement of the three class actions The parties, except David Brennan, settled the class action suit for $19 million. Brenan, a member of the class objected to the settlement relying in part on rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Brennan made the following objections: (1) the attorneys' fee request was excessive; (2) "[m]oney to charity should not be a part of the Court's attorneys' fee award calculation"; (3) information necessary for class members to intelligently object to or comment on the proposed settlement was missing from the notice and the pleadings; (4) the clear sailing provision warranted the appointment of a class guardian; (5) the notice to the class was deceptive regarding the responsibility for payment of attorneys' fees; (6) class counsel and counsel for Robert Half had not filed a report, as required by the amended settlement agreement; (7) the notice did not disclose that unclaimed funds would be donated to a charity of the Robert Half defendants' choice; and (8) certain other provisions of the settlement were improper. The class representatives also filed a motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative enhancements. The motion requested $6,333,333.33 in attorneys' fees for class counsel, $127,304.08 in costs, $79,000 in settlement administrator expenses, and $80,000 in class representative enhancement payments. The trial court granted final approval of class action settlement and awarded $6,333,333.33 in attorneys' fees, $127,304.08 in costs, $79,000 in settlement administrator expenses, and $80,000 in class representative enhancement payments. Brennan timely filed a notice of appeal. The Court affirmed the trial court's final judgment in a decision dated November 21, 2014, available at http://bit.ly/14LavOOfrom Leagle.com. For Plaintiff and Appellant: Lawrence W. Schonbrun, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE W. SCHONBRUN 86 Eucalyptus Rd. Berkeley, CA 94705 Telephone: (510) 547-8070 Facsimile: (510) 923-0627 For Plaintiffs and Respondents: Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. Gregg Lander, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES 5670 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1460 Los Angeles, CA 90036-5614 Telephone: (323) 549-9100 Facsimile: (323) 549-0101 For Defendants and Respondents: Judith M. Kline, Esq. M. Kirby C. Wilcox, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS 515 S Flower St 25FL Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228 Telephone: (213) 683-6000 Facsimile: (213) 627-0705 E-mail: judykline@paulhastings.com The Court of Appeals of California, Second District for Division VII panel consists of Acting Presiding Laurie D. Zelon and Justices Fred Woods and Segal. ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Feb. 23 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky on Jan. 2 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of investors who purchased shares of Roka Bioscience, Inc. securities between July 17, 2014 and November 6, 2014. For more information, visit: http://zlk.9nl.com/roka-bioscience-roka The complaint alleges that Roka's initial public offering documents failed to disclose known trends and uncertainties about the decline in demand for its Atlas instruments. On November 6, 2014, Roka announced a net loss of $0.64 per share in the third quarter of 2014. The Company also acknowledged it had not placed any Atlas instruments in that quarter. If you suffered a loss in Roka you have until February 23, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit http://zlk.9nl.com/roka-bioscience-roka Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. SANOFI: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Action in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Jan. 2 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Sanofi and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 14-cv-9624, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Sanofi securities between February 7, 2013 and December 3, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Sanofi 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. Sanofi is a global pharmaceutical company that researches, develops and manufactures prescription pharmaceuticals and vaccines. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Sanofi was making improper payments to healthcare professionals in connection with the sale of pharmaceutical products in violation of federal law; (2) Sanofi lacked adequate internal controls over financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Sanofi's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On October 6, 2014, the Company's media relations department issued a statement announcing that the Company was investigating allegations related to improper payments to healthcare workers. On October 29, 2014, the Company issued a press release and filed a Form 6-K with the SEC, announcing that its Board of Directors had decided to terminate Christopher A. Viehbacher from his position as Chief Executive Officer of Sanofi. As a result of this news, shares of Sanofi fell as much as $2.85 or almost 6%, in unusually heavy volume, to close at $45.22 on October 29, 2014. On December 3, 2014, it was reported by Bloomberg and other media outlets that a whistleblower lawsuit against Sanofi has been filed in New Jersey by former Sanofi paralegal Diane Ponte. The suit alleges that Christopher Viehbacher, the recently ousted CEO of Sanofi, and other executives at the Company conducted a scheme in violation of federal law to funnel tens of millions of dollars in kickbacks and other incentives to get the company's diabetes drugs prescribed and sold. The lawsuit also claims that Viehbacher was fired by the company's board in October "in part, because Defendant Viehbacher was involved in the aforesaid illegal and/or fraudulent activity," which allegedly went on "over the course of many years." Lastly, the suit alleges that Ponte was fired as a result of whistleblowing activity in retaliation for bringing the scheme to light. These allegations come two years after the drug company reached an agreement with the Justice Department and several states to pay $109 million to settle claims that it engaged in kickbacks by giving doctors free samples of an arthritis drug as a means of encouraging them to buy and prescribe the medication. 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. SONNY'S FRANCHISE: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen F. Albee, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Sonny's Franchise Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-01538 (M.D. Fla., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for negligently, knowingly and willfully sending commercial text messages to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and putative Class Members for non-emergency purposes using an automatic telephone-dialing system without their prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Sonny's Franchise Company operates a chain of restaurants under the name Sonny's Real Pit Bar-B-Q. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan B. Cohen, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 222-2434 E-mail: jcohen@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com SOUTH MIAMI PARTY: Faces "Ramos" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Asdrubal Rafael Ramos and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. South Miami Party Rental, Inc., Rubby S. Manotas, Jose V. Vidal Manotas, Case No. 1:14-cv-24914 (S.D. Fla., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a full service party rental company in South Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J. H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM ST. LOUIS, MO: Settles Two Suits Over Arrest Mistakes ----------------------------------------------------- Robert Patrick, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that city officials here have settled two lawsuits filed by those who said they had been held in jail because of officials' mistakes. Checks arrived Dec. 31 for Cedric Wright, of St. Louis, and Shannon Renee McNeal, of unincorporated St. Louis County, lawyer James Hacking III said on Jan. 2. Various city agencies paid a total of $18,750 to Mr. Wright and $5,000 to Ms. McNeal. Both settlements style it as a "compromise" and say there is no admission of legal liability by the agencies. The cases represent the third and fourth civil settlements involving those who were mistakenly jailed since the Post-Dispatch first began reporting on the issue. Mrs. Wright and Ms. McNeal were among those profiled in a 2013 Post-Dispatch investigation that found, using only a partial measure, that roughly 100 people had been mistakenly arrested in St. Louis in recent years and collectively spent at least 2,000 days in jail. Officials disputed some of the newspaper's findings without providing any supporting documentation and said the mistakes represented a tiny fraction of the arrests each year. City Counselor Winston Calvert said on Jan. 2 that St. Louis had "an accurate and effective system of suspect identification." "Mistakes are exceedingly rare," an emailed statement from Calvert said. "The system has grown even stronger over the five years since these two cases occurred. The City denied liability and believe the city would not have been found liable in these two cases. But, we are satisfied because these small settlements are an efficient use of tax dollars, and we are glad the other parties are satisfied with the settlements." Mr. Wright was arrested for stealing beer and a bag of chips in August 2011 but was also jailed on charges for another man, Corey Leonard. Although a judge recognized the error and released him on one of Mr. Leonard's cases, a sheriff's deputy returned him to jail on two other Mr. Leonard cases. Mr. Wright spent more than eight weeks there before being released. In August, a federal judge tossed out the bulk of Mr. Wright's lawsuit, saying that no "reasonable" police officer would know that failing to check Wright's fingerprints against Leonard's or investigate further "would violate the Fourth Amendment." U.S. District Court Judge Audrey Fleissig also said that while it was a "close question" whether the police board should be dismissed from the suit, she decided that there was no evidence of a "widespread pattern of similar unconstitutional misconduct" by police or "deliberate indifference" by the board. Mr. Hacking and a former associate, Jennifer Shoulberg, unsuccessfully sought class-action status in Mr. Wright's case, claiming to have found 82 mistaken arrests resulting in 1,397 days in jail from 2007 through mid-2013. Shannon Renee McNeal was arrested by Ferguson police in 2009 on a warrant for a Shannon Raquel McNeal -- a woman roughly 15 years younger who had died months before the mistaken arrest. A deputy clerk in St. Louis triggered the error by selecting the wrong Shannon McNeal on a computer menu in 2007 when setting up the criminal file, the newspaper's investigation found. Authorities in Ferguson and St. Louis failed to catch the error -- until Ms. McNeal's mother hired a lawyer to sort out the mess. Ms. McNeal spent more than a day in custody, lost her job as a Metro bus driver for months and also lost her apartment and her car. Mr. Hacking said that Ms. McNeal's case was weakened by the relatively small amount of time she spent behind bars -- and an old appeals court case that essentially established a minimum number of days for police to "sort things out." In March 2013, officials paid $21,666.66 to settle a lawsuit filed by Dwayne A. Jackson, including $5,000 from the jail's medical provider, Mr. Hacking said. Mr. Jackson spent about three months in jail on charges against a different man with the same name. In February, police and City Hall agreed to pay $62,500 to settle a federal lawsuit filed by Travis S. Jones an unemployed man on disability. Mr. Jones was mistakenly jailed for more than two months, despite police and jailers' discovering the mistake within nine days of his arrest. Still pending is a lawsuit on behalf of Jeffery A. Smith, who says that although a judge ordered officials to compare his fingerprints to those of the real defendant in the case, the judge's order was never carried out. Hacking said that there had been "no real explanation as to why it happened." SUPERVALU INC: Facing Consumer Goods Manufacturers' Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. continues to defend a class action complaint by consumer goods manufacturers, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 29, 2014. In September 2008, a class action complaint was filed against the Company, as well as International Outsourcing Services, LLC ("IOS"); Inmar, Inc.; Carolina Manufacturer's Services, Inc.; Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. and Carolina Services in the United States District Court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The plaintiffs in the case are a consumer goods manufacturer, a grocery co-operative and a retailer marketing services company who allege on behalf of a purported class that the Company and the other defendants (i) conspired to restrict the markets for coupon processing services under the Sherman Act and (ii) were part of an illegal enterprise to defraud the plaintiffs under the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit, however all proceedings have been stayed in the case pending the result of the criminal prosecution of certain former officers of IOS. SUPERVALU INC: Class Action Over C&S Deal Remanded to Dist. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that the class action complaint related to a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. is now remanded to the District Court for further proceedings to be determined by the District Court. In December 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Company alleging that a 2003 transaction between the Company and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc. ("C&S") was a conspiracy to restrain trade and allocate markets. In the 2003 transaction, the Company purchased certain assets of the Fleming Corporation as part of Fleming Corporation's bankruptcy proceedings and sold certain assets of the Company to C&S which were located in New England. Since December 2008, three other retailers have filed similar complaints in other jurisdictions. The cases have been consolidated and are proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaints allege that the conspiracy was concealed and continued through the use of non- compete and non-solicitation agreements and the closing down of the distribution facilities that the Company and C&S purchased from each other. Plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees. On July 5, 2011, the District Court granted the Company's Motion to Compel Arbitration for those plaintiffs with arbitration agreements and plaintiffs appealed. On July 16, 2012, the District Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and on January 11, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case regarding the non- arbitration plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions. On February 12, 2013, the 8th Circuit reversed the District Court decision requiring plaintiffs with arbitration agreements to arbitrate and the Company filed a Petition with the 8th Circuit for an En Banc Rehearing. On June 7, 2013, the 8th Circuit denied the Petition for Rehearing and remanded the case to the District Court. On October 30, 2013, the parties attended a District Court ordered mandatory mediation which was not successful in resolving the matter. On May 21, 2014, a panel of the 8th Circuit (1) reversed the District Court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Company, and (2) affirmed the District Court's decision denying class certification of a class consisting of all retailers located in the States of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio and Wisconsin that purchased wholesale grocery products from the Company between December 31, 2004 and September 13, 2008, but remanded the case for the District Court to consider whether to certify a narrower class of purchasers supplied from the Company's Champaign, Illinois distribution center. On August 19, 2014, the 8th Circuit denied the Company's petition for en banc review by the 8th Circuit on the reversal of the summary judgment decision and specific issues raised thereunder. The case is now remanded to the District Court for further proceedings to be determined by the District Court. SUPERVALU INC: Settlement Payments to Continue Until Feb. 2015 -------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that payments to class members in a class action settlement began in mid-November 2014 and are expected to continue until February 2015. In May 2012, Kiefer, a former Assistant Store Manager at Save-A- Lot, filed a class action against Save-A-Lot seeking to represent current and former Assistant Store Managers alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act related to the fluctuating work week method of pay ("FWW") in the United States District Court in the District of Connecticut. FWW is a method of compensation whereby employees are paid a fixed salary for all hours worked during a week plus additional compensation at one-half the regular rate for overtime hours. Kiefer claimed that the FWW practice is unlawful or, if lawful, that Save-A-Lot improperly applied the FWW method of pay, including in situations involving paid time off, holiday pay and bonus payments. In March 2013, the United States District Court granted conditional certification in favor of Kiefer on the issue of whether Save-A-Lot properly applied the FWW. In May 2013, the United States District Court denied Save-A-Lot's motion for summary judgment on the same issue. This FWW practice is permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act and other state laws, and Save-A-Lot denied all allegations in the case. The same plaintiffs' attorneys representing Kiefer filed two additional FWW actions against Save-A-Lot and SUPERVALU. Shortly before filing of the Kiefer lawsuit, in one of these cases filed by a former Assistant Store Manager (Roach) in March 2011, the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford granted summary judgment in favor of Save-A-Lot determining FWW was a legal practice in Connecticut. In March 2013, another Save-A-Lot Assistant Store Manager (Pagano) filed an FWW class claim against SUPERVALU under Pennsylvania state law in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas relating to overtime payment. In all three cases, which the Company was defending vigorously, plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees. On August 20, 2013, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the matters on a nationwide basis in a settlement that will cap the Company's aggregate obligation, including with respect to settlement funds, plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs and settlement administration costs. The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on March 13, 2014 and final approval on July 30, 2014. Payments to class members began in mid-November 2014 and are expected to continue until February 2015. The Company recorded a litigation settlement charge of $5 million before tax ($3 million after-tax) in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 in connection with the expected settlement of this matter. The Company funded $5 million into a qualified settlement fund on February 28, 2014. SUPERVALU INC: Criminal Intrusion Cases Sent to Minnesota Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Supervalu Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended November 29, 2014, that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the Criminal Intrusion cases transferred to the District Court in Minnesota. In August and November 2014, four class action complaints were filed against the Company relating to the criminal intrusions into its computer network announced by the Company on August 14, 2014 and September 29, 2014 (the "Criminal Intrusion"). Kenneth Hanff, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, negligence and invasion of privacy. Steve McPeak, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois alleging violations of the Federal Stored Communications Act and Illinois Personal Information Protection Act and negligence. Gary Mertz, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC. and AB Acquisition LLC, was filed in the United States District Court of Minnesota alleging negligence, violations of consumer protection laws and bailment. Alyssa Rocke, et. al. v. SUPERVALU INC., AB Acquisition LLC, and New Albertson's, Inc. d/b/a Jewel-Osco was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho alleging negligence, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, violations of consumer protection acts, invasion of privacy, breach of confidentiality and assumpsit. Plaintiffs in each action seek the recovery of an unspecified amount of damages. On September 18, 2014, the Company filed a motion before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking an order transferring, coordinating and consolidating the cases to the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. On December 16, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the cases transferred to the District Court in Minnesota. SUSHI CASTLE: "Dai" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ru Bin Dai, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Sushi Castle Inc., d/b/a Sushi Castle, Ya Chen, John Lin, John Does and Jane Does #1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv- 10227 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 36 Mill Road, Eastchester, NY 10709. 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 TAJ GROCERS: Faces "Quiroz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Francisco Javier Quiroz, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b) v. Taj Grocers Inc., Taj Grocers of Plano, LLC, Bhupendra Shah and Ritesh B. Shah, Case No. 3:14-cv-04553 (N.D. Tex., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an Indian grocery store in Dallas County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq. Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq. J. H. ZIDELL, PC 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com josh.a.petersen@gmail.com rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net TAKATA CORPORATION: Faces "Marino" Suit Over Defective Airbags -------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Marino, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Takata Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01756 (W.D. Pa., December 30, 2014), alleges that the Defective Vehicles contain airbags manufactured by the Defendant that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants with lethal amounts of metal debris and shrapnel. Takata Corporation is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela Jr., Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com TARGET CORP: Dist. Court Narrows Claims in Consumer Cases --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss consumer plaintiffs' first amended consolidated class action complaint in the consumer cases in In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL NO. 14-2522 (PAM/JJK), (D. Minn.). This case arises out of one of the largest breaches of payment- card security in United States retail history: over a period of more than three weeks during the 2013 holiday shopping season, computer hackers stole credit- and debit-card information and other personal information for approximately 110 million customers of Target's retail stores. Plaintiffs are a putative class of consumers who used their credit or debit cards at Target stores during the period of the security breach, and whose personal financial information was compromised as a result of the breach. Indeed, many of the 114 named Plaintiffs allege that they actually incurred unauthorized charges; lost access to their accounts; and/or were forced to pay sums such as late fees, card-replacement fees, and credit monitoring costs because the hackers misused their personal financial information. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all federal litigation into this case, which is divided into two tracks: one for cases brought by financial institutions and one for cases brought by consumers. According to Judge Magnuson's December 18, 2014 memorandum and order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/nPJrwXfrom Leagle.com, the majority of Plaintiffs' claims survive Target's Motion. Specifically: 1. Plaintiffs' claims under the Delaware Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Oklahoma Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act in Count I are dismissed with prejudice. In addition, Plaintiffs may not maintain a class action as to their claims under the consumer-protection statutes in Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah. 2. Plaintiffs have withdrawn their Count II data-breach notice statutory claims under Florida, Oklahoma, and Utah law, and their claims under Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Texas law are dismissed with prejudice. 3. Plaintiffs' Count III negligence claims under Alaska, California, Illinois, Iowa, and Massachusetts law are barred by the economic loss rule and are dismissed with prejudice. 4. Count V, alleging breach of contract, is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs have 30 days from the date of the Order to file an Amended Complaint sufficiently alleging the required elements of their breach-of-contract claim, should they wish to do so. 5. Count VI, alleging bailment, is dismissed with prejudice. 6. Count VII, alleging unjust enrichment, is granted as to Plaintiffs' "overcharge" theory and denied as to Plaintiffs' "would not have shopped" theory. Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Charles S Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Felipe J Arroyo -- farroyo@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, Karl L Cambronne -- kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Vincent J Esades -- vesades@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, Brian C Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Bryan L Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne, PA, James J Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Jennifer J Sosa -- jsosa@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP. Plaintiff's Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher R Walsh -- walshlawfirm@comcast.net -- Walsh Law Firm, E Michelle Drake -- drake@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr -- g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Karen Hanson Riebel -- khriebel@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Amanda R Cefalu -- arc@andersonhelgen.com -- Anderson, Helgen, Davis & Nissen, LLC & Jennifer J Sosa -- jsosa@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP. Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal -- Douglas.Meal@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP, Michael A Ponto -- michael.ponto@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Wendy J Wildung -- wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, David F McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, David Frank McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Fred B Burnside -- fredburnside@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Harold J McElhinny -- hmcelhinny@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Jack W Londen -- jlonden@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michael John Agoglia -- magoglia@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, Michelle L Visser -- Michelle.Visser@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP, Nancy R Thomas -- nthomas@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Patrick J. Kenny -- pkenny@armstrongteasdale.com -- ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Rebekah Kaufman -- rkaufman@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Robert G. Flanders,Jr, Jr. -- rflanders@hinckleyallen.com -- Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Samuel James Boone Lunier -- slunier@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Sterling Arthur Brennan -- sbrennan@mabr.com -- MASHOFF BRENNAN. Target.com, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michael John Agoglia, Morrison & Foerster, Michael A Ponto, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, David F McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harold J McElhinny, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Jack W Londen, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP. Target Corporation of Minnesota, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michael A Ponto, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, David F McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP, Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Seth A. Schmeeckle -- sschmeeckle@lawla.com -- Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard. Target Corporation of Minnesota, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP, Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. Target.com, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP, Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. TATITLEK SUPPORT: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mortaza Mohammad Noorzay, Mohammad Omar Khamosh, Mohammad Ayub Noorzay, Mina Ghafoorzai, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc., an Alaska corporation, Case No. 2:14-cv-09923 (C.D. Cal., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper overtime compensation. Tatitlek Support Services, Inc. provides the United States Marine Corps in Twentynine Palms, California, with personnel to interact with Marine Corps troops in realistic pre-deployment training exercises. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxwell M. Blecher, Esq. Donald R. Pepperman, Esq. Howard K. Alperin, Esq. BLECHER COLLINS PEPPERMAN & JOYE, P.C. 515 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 622-4222 Facsimile: (213) 622-1656 E-mail: mblecher@blechercollins.com dpepperman@blechercollins.com halperin@blechercollins.com - and - Lawrence J. Hanna, Esq. Daphne M. Stegman, Esq. Mirren L. Stegman-Wise, Esq. FULLERTON & HANNA, LLP 6311 Columbus Avenue Van Nuys, CA 91411 Telephone: (818) 902-1454 Facsimile: (818) 901-0472 E-mail: fullertonhanna@sbcglobal.net TD AUTO: E.D. Wis. Judge Denies Motion for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge J.P. Stadtmueller of the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case AMANDA BALSCHMITER, Plaintiff, v. TD AUTO FINANCE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-1186-JPS (E.D. Wis.) Plaintiff's boyfriend Viktor Loshek purchased a used car. TD Auto Finance LLC or TDAF serviced Loshek's loan on which he was the only signatory on the loan. Loshek went into default and plaintiff Amanda Balschmiter called TDAF on Loshek's behalf to make payments on the loan. After making calls to TDAF, plaintiff began to receive autodialed debt-collection calls from TDAF regarding Loshek's loan. Plaintiff filed a putative class action complaint against TDAF, alleging that, as a non-customer of TDAF, the auto- dialed debt-collection calls TDAF placed to her cell phone and, presumably, to the cell phones of other noncustomers violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. The plaintiff requests for certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or certifying the equitable portion of the case under Rule 23(b)(2) and the damages portion of the case under Rule 23(b)(3). The plaintiff requests in the alternative if certification under Rule 23(b) is inappropriate, that an issues class be certified under Rule 23(c)(4). TDAF filed a brief in opposition, in which plaintiff filed a reply to TDAF's brief in opposition and her objections to the expert testimony of Dr. Debra J. Aron. Dr. Aron's testimony, in summary, asserts that the plaintiff's procedure for ascertaining class members would lead to substantial errors of both over-inclusion and exclusion that could significantly exceed the number of correctly-identified class members according to Plaintiff's theory of liability. Judge Stadtmueller denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, reasoning that the putative class is not ascertainable and the individual issues of consent would predominate over issues common to the class. Further, because prior express consent is an individualized issue unfit for classwide resolution, certification under Rule 23(c)(4) must be denied as well. The plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Aron is also denied. A copy of Judge Stadtmueller's order dated November 20, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/BmbqKvfrom Leagle.com. Amanda Balschmiter, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M Hutchinson -- dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Douglas I Cuthbertson -- dcuthbertson@lchb.com -- and Jonathan D Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Nicole D Reynolds -- at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP; Lester A Pines -- Tamara B Packard -- at Cullen Weston Pines & Bach LLP; and Matthew R Wilson -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- and Michael J Boyle, Jr -- mboyle@meyerwilson.com -- at Meyer Wilson Co LPA TD Auto Finance LLC, Defendant, represented by David S Reidy -- dreidy@reedsmith.com -- and Andrew Amoroso -- aamoroso@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith LLP; and Joshua J Brady -- jbrady@gpjlaw.com -- at Galanis Pollack Jacobs & Johnson SC. TEIKOKU PHARMA: Judge Narrows Claims in UFCW Local 1776 Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of California denied in part and granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss in the case UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 1776 & PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TEIKOKU PHARMA USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-MD-02521-WHO (N.D. Cal.). Endo is a Delaware corporation that markets and sells Lidoderm throughout the United States. Teikoku Seiyaku Co. is a Japanese company that manufactures Lidoderm for Endo pursuant to a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement. It owns one of the patents for Lidoderm that Watson allegedly infringed. Teikoku Pharma USA is a California corporation that is wholly owned by Teikoku Seiyaku Co., and is the holder of the New Drug Application for Lidoderm. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. was a Nevada corporation that marketed, produced, and distributed generic pharmaceutical products, including Lidoderm, starting in September 15, 2013. The plaintiffs allegedly purchased generic and brand-name Lidoderm at supracompetitive prices. They are grouped into three categories based on their claims and relationship to the defendants; the direct purchaser plaintiffs ("DPPs"), entities that purchased Lidoderm directly from the defendants; the end-purchaser plaintiffs ("EPPs"), employee health and welfare benefit plans, municipal corporations, employee unions, and two individuals who purchased Lidoderm from third parties; and the Government Employees Health Association ("GEHA"), a not-for-profit corporation that provides health and dental plans to federal employees and retirees and their families that, like the EPPs, purchased Lidoderm from third parties. The DPPs bring two claims for violations of Section 1 and three claims for violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2. The EPPs and GEHA assert a total of 10 claims for violations of state antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws, and common law unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs allege that when Endo and Teikoku agreed to drop their ongoing patent litigation against Watson, they offered consideration of $96 million in free product and deferred competition with Watson's generic product worth $170 million in exchange for Watson's agreement to delay introduction of its generic drug. As a result of this settlement, plaintiffs were allegedly unable to purchase the cheaper generic version of Lidoderm. Defendants filed a consolidated motion to dismiss. The central issue in defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss is whether plaintiffs have plausibly pleaded that the settlement involved large and unjustified reverse payments that caused antitrust injury under the rule of reason analysis described in F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S.Ct 2223. Judge Orrick, in his order dated November 17, 2014, which is available at http://is.gd/vD8MElfrom Leagle.com, held that: (1) Defendants' motion to dismiss the DPPs' Section 1 Sherman Act claims is denied as to claim one and granted with prejudice as to claim two. The motion to dismiss the DPPs' Section 2 Sherman Act claims is granted with leave to amend; (2) Defendants' motion to dismiss the EPP and GEHA claims regarding monopoly are dismissed with leave to amend. Defendants' motion to dismiss the EPP state law claims for states where they have not alleged a sufficient connection (Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming) is granted with leave to amend. The EPP state law antitrust claims under the laws of Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island are dismissed with prejudice. Defendants' motion to dismiss the EPP state law antitrust claims based on insufficient allegations is denied; (3) Defendants' motion to dismiss the EPP unjust enrichment claims under Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming is granted and those claims are dismissed with prejudice; (4) The motion to dismiss the EPP unjust enrichment claims for the remaining states is denied without prejudice and; (5) The motion to dismiss GEHA's claims as to states other than Missouri is granted with leave to amend. GEHA's consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims under Missouri law are dismissed with prejudice. A further Case Management Conference was set for January 6, 2015. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP,J. Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson, Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office,Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Karen M. Leser- Grenon, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP, Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP,Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC. Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law & Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.. Steven Roller, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Marie Friedman, Krause Kalfayan Benink and Slavens LLP, Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens & Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.. Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented byChristina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP & Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP. NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson, Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm,Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office,Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC,Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP,William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC. Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., On Behalf of Itself and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Russell Kohn, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Archana Tamoshunas, Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP, Caitlin Goldwater Coslett, Berger Montague PC, DAVID F. SORENSEN, BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., ELIZABETH SILVA, FARUQI & FARUQI LLP, Joseph T. Lukens, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, SARAH SCHALMAN-BERGEN, BERGER & MONTAGUE PC, Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. DROGUERIA BETANCES, INC., On Behalf of Itself and all others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E Gerstein, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, Elena K Chan, Garwin Gerstein Fisher, Erin R Leger, Smith Segura Raphael LLP, Jonathan Gerstein, Garwin Gerstein etal, Joseph Opper, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, Keith J Verrier, Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman, Noah H Silverman, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, Peter Russell Kohn, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, David Coleman Raphael, Jr., Smith Segura Raphael, LLP, Ephraim R. Gerstein, GARWIN GERSTEIN FISHER LLP, Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. City of Providence, Rhode Island, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC,Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson, Derek Yeats Brandt, Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides Barnerd LLC, Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan,Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Mitchell M. Breit, Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes LLP,Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC,Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Sarah S. Burns, Simmons Hanly Conroy, Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC. Roofers Local 96 Health and Welfare Fund, on their behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by David Richard Woodward, Heins Mills and Olson, P.L.C., Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David Richard Woodward, Heins Mills and Olson, P.L.C., Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Minnesota Cement Masons Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David Richard Woodward, Heins Mills and Olson, P.L.C., Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Painters District Council No.30 Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by William J. O'Brien, Attorney at Law, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC. PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by STEWART L. COHEN, COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK & WAGNER LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, MICHAEL COREN, COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH, Michael D. Donovan, Donovan Searles, LLC & Noah I. Axler, Donovan Searles and Axler. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 22 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 115 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by MINDEE J. REUBEN, WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC, Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. IRENE KAMPANIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C. & William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC. Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operation Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Frank R. Schirripa, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP, Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, James Gerard Stranch, III, Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Meghan Boone, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michael A. Rose, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP,Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson,Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP,John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC &William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC. Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC, Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC,Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David Baylis Franco, The Dugan Law Firm, APLC, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson, Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office,Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC,Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP,William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC. TWIN CITY IRON WORKERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Cesar Castillo, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Steinfeld, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Bradley Demuth, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Brent William Landau, Hausfeld LLP, Charles F. Barrett, Charles Barrett, P.C.,Juan R. Rivera Font, Juan R. Rivera Font LLC, Linda P. Nussbaum, Supreme Court, State of New York,Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. American Sales Company, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented byDavid S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John Radice, Radice Law Firm, Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Charles F. Barrett, Charles Barrett, P.C.. Government Employees Health Association, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio, Barbara J. Hart, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart PC, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Noelle Ruggiero, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen and Hart P.C., Peter St. Phillip, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen and Hart P.C. & Uriel Rabinovitz, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen and Hart PC. Iron Workers District Council of New England Welfare Fund, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.,Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP,Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson, Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C.,Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan,Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Health and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented byBrian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, David Richard Woodward, Heins Mills and Olson, P.L.C., Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Heidi M Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., J. Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC,Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Kristen G. Marttila, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson, Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP,Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC, William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC & Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented byBrian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.,Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson, Domenico Minerva, Morgan & Morgan, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob A. Goldberg, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Michael M. Buchman, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard & Shadowen LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC, William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC & Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,Joseph Anthony Meckes, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Nathan Lane, III, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,Noriyuki Shimoda, Squire Patton Boggs US LLP, Amy L. Brown, Squire Sanders, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,Joseph Anthony Meckes, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Nathan Lane, III, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,Noriyuki Shimoda, Squire Patton Boggs US LLP, Amy L. Brown, Squire Sanders, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brigid M. Carpenter, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, John A. Tarantino, Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C., David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Emily H. Wood, Arnold & Porter LLP,Jonathan L. Stern, Arnold & Porter LLP, MAHNU V. DAVAR, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Ryan Z. Watts, Arnold and Porter LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Patrick Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Patrick Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. Actavis Plc., Defendant, represented by James Patrick Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. Anda, Inc, Defendant, represented by James Patrick Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP,Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. ANDA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Patrick Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. Valmed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Patrick Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP. All Parties, Miscellaneous, represented by Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. TEMPUR-SEALY: Deadline to File Class Cert. Bid Moved to June 16 --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on an amended joint stipulation and order to modify the October 20, 2014 scheduling order in the case, MICHAEL DODSON, ALVIN TODD, and HENRY and MARY THOMPSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., formerly known as TEMPUR-PEDIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. and TEMPUR-PEDIC NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-04984-JST, (N.D. Cal.). The parties' court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Qu999qfrom Leagle.com, modified certain deadlines in the case. The Stipulation, among others, provide that: -- the deadline to file a motion for class certification is moved from February 16, 2015 to June 16, 2015; -- the deadline to file opposition to the motion for class certification is moved from April 6, 2015 to August 6, 2015; -- the class certification hearing is moved from July 2, 2015, to November 2, 2015. CALL & JENSEN Mark L. Eisenhut, Matthew R. Orr, Aaron L. Renfro, A Professional Corporation, Newport Beach, CA. RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A. Douglas B. Brown, Esq., Daniel J. Gerber, Esq., Darren McCartney, Esq., Samantha C. Duke, Esq., Orlando, FL, Attorneys for Defendants Tempur-Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC. ALLEN STEWART, P.C. Allen M. Stewart, Esq., Steve B. Jensen, Esq., Stephanie B. Sherman, Esq., Dallas, Texas. AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP, Michael McShane, Esq., Jonas P. Mann, Esq., Dana M. Isaac, Esq. San Francisco, CA. THE SIMON LAW FIRM, PC., John G. Simon, Esq., Ryan Keane, Esq., St. Louis, MO. SHIPMAN & WRIGHT, L.L.P. Gary K. Shipman, Esq., William G. Wright, Esq., Angelique Adams, Esq., Wilmingron, NC, Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class. THREE RABBITS: Faces "Oliva" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Elieser Cuba Oliva, Carlos L. Marquez and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. The Three Rabbits, Inc. d/b/a Los Tres Conejitos, Inc., Ernesto J. Tarre, Cristina E. Sosa, Case No. 1:14-cv-24913 (S.D. Fla., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate Los Tres Conejitos bakery in Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J. H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM TRAVEL SERVICES: Ill. Court Quashes Subpoena in "Charvat" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Mary M. Rowland of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, denied for lack of standing a motion for protective order and to quash subpoena filed in the class action lawsuit styled PHILIP CHARVAT, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRAVEL SERVICES, et al., Defendants, NO. 12 CV 5746 (N.D. Ill.). The Court on its own motion quashes the subpoena issued to non- party AB Data Group, requesting various documents and a deposition related to the administration of the class action settlement in Desai v. ADT Security Services, Inc., No. 11 CV 1925 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 21, 2011). Desai was a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action in which Philip Charvat, serving as a named Plaintiff, was represented by the same counsel representing him in the present action. Judge Rowland found that because the requested information is available from public sources, the Subpoena imposes an undue burden on nonparty AB Data Group. Judge Rowland directed the Plaintiff to provide language for a proposed stipulation to the Defendants regarding Desai v. ADT Security Services, Inc., No. 11 CV 1925 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 21, 2011) as follows: (1) the final number of valid claims filed; (2) the amount paid per claim; (3) the amount paid to Named Plaintiffs; and (4) the total amount paid to Class Counsel. The Plaintiff is also directed to provide a copy of the Desai Claim Form to the Defendants. The Plaintiff shall provide the proposed stipulation and the Claim Form to the Defendants by January 16, 2015. A full-text copy of Judge Rowland's Jan. 5, 2015, memorandum opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/OK6CTQfrom Leagle.com. Philip Charvat, Plaintiff, represented by: Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave. Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 729-5288 Fax: (312) 729-5289 -- and -- Edward A. Broderick, Esq. BRODERICK LAW, P.C. 727 Atlantic Avenue Boston, MA 02111 Tel: (617) 738-7080 -- and -- Matthew P McCue, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE 1 South Avenue, Third Floor Natick, MA 01760 Tel: (508) 655-1415 Fax: (508) 319-3077 Travel Services, Defendant, Pro Se. Carnival Corporation & PLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Scott Becker, Esq. -- jbecker@smbtrials.com -- Swanson Martin & Bell, LLP, Darren Brett Watts, Esq. -- dwatts@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell, Joseph Paul Kincaid, Esq. -- jkincaid@smbtrials.com -- Swanson, Martin & Bell, and Joshua Erik Bidzinski, Esq. -- jbidzinski@smbtrials.com -- at Swanson, Martin & Bell, Llp. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Elliot Scott Wiczer, Esq. -- ewiczer@fflegal.com -- Foreman Friedman, PA, Jeffrey Eric Foreman, Esq. -- jforeman@fflegal.com -- Foreman Friedman, PA, John M Sheldon, Esq., Wiczer & Sheldon, LLC & Catherine J. MacIvor, Esq. -- cmacivor@fflegal.com -- Foreman Friedman, PA. Elizabeth Valente, Defendant, represented by Michael James Zink, Michael J. Zink. Resort Marketing Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael James Zink, Michael J. Zink. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., Defendant, represented by Elliot Scott Wiczer, Foreman Friedman, PA, Jeffrey Eric Foreman, Foreman Friedman, PA, John M Sheldon, Wiczer & Sheldon, LLC & Catherine J. MacIvor, Foreman Friedman, PA. Resort Marketing Group, Inc., Counter Claimant, represented by Michael James Zink, Michael J. Zink. Philip Charvat, Counter Defendant, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke, Burke Law Offices, LLC, Edward A. Broderick, Broderick Law, P.C., Matthew P McCue, Law Office of Matthew P. McCue & Matthew Mccue, Law Office Of Matthew Mccue. TRENDS KITCHEN: Faces "Nava" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jose Nava, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Trends Kitchen & Bath, Inc., and Mark Mercado, Case No. 1:14-cv-10447 (N.D. Ill., December 30, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours work in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants are engaged in the business of home remodeling and commercial renovations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com U.S. BANK: D. Minn. Judge Narrows Claims in "Adedipe" Case ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Joan N. Ericksen of the District Court of Minnesota ruled on the motions filed in the case Adetayo Adedipe et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. Bank, National Association et al., Defendants, No. 13-CV-2687 (JNE/JJK) (D. Minn.). The Plaintiffs are former employees of U.S. Bank and vested participants in the U.S. Bancorp pension plan. They sued U.S. Bancorp, U.S. Bank, National Association and Nuveen Asset Management LLC, alleging in their consolidated amended complaint, that the plan's fiduciaries breached their fiduciary obligation and caused the plan to engage in prohibited transactions. They are pursuing the action through the Employment Retirement Income Security Act or ERISA under the provisions governing fiduciary responsibility that are codified at 29 U.S.C. Sections 1104, 1005, and 1006. Defendant Nuveen filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint while U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint or for partial summary judgment. The Defendants argue that the consolidated amended complaint should be dismissed in its entirety on various grounds, including that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring this suit, their ERISA claims are time- barred or have been released, and their pleading otherwise fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and motion for leave to file reply in support of motion for relief. Judge Ericksen granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss while denying plaintiff's motion for relief Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Reply in Support of Motion for Relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). A copy of Judge Ericksen's order dated November 21, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/vZOWf8from Leagle.com. Adetayo Adedipe, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce F Rinaldi, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, June Pineda Hoidal, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Karen L Handorf, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Mary J. Bortscheller, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michelle C Yau, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, Brian C Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Patricia A Bloodgood, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & Carolyn G Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP Sherry Smith, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce F Rinaldi, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, June Pineda Hoidal, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Karen L Handorf, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michelle C Yau, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, Patricia A Bloodgood, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & Carolyn G Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP James J. Thole, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce F Rinaldi, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, June Pineda Hoidal, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Karen L Handorf, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michelle C Yau, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, Patricia A Bloodgood, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & Carolyn G Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP Marlene Jackson, on behalf of herself individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce F Rinaldi, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll, PLLC, June Pineda Hoidal, Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Karen L Handorf, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michelle C Yau, COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, Patricia A Bloodgood, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP & Carolyn G Anderson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP U.S. Bank, National Association, individually and as successor in interest to FAF Advisors, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Nuveen Asset Management LLC, as successor in interest to FAF Advisors, Inc., Defendant, represented byAaron D Van Oort, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Amanda S Amert, Jenner & Block, Brienne M Letourneau, Jenner & Block, Craig C Martin, Jenner & Block & Elsa M Bullard, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP Richard K. Davis, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Douglas M Baker, Jr, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Y. Marc Belton, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Peter H. Coors, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Joel W. Johnson, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Olivia F. Kirtley, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP O'Dell M. Owens, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Craig D. Schnuck, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Arthur D. Collins, Jr., Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Victoria Buyniski Gluckman, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Jerry W. Levin, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP David B. O'Maley, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Patrick T. Stokes, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Richard G. Reiten, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP Warren R. Staley, Defendant, represented by Stephen P Lucke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Lincoln Loehrke, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP, Michael P. Weinbeck, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Thomas P Swigert, Dorsey & Whitney LLP U.S. Bancorp, Defendant, represented by Andrew J Holly, Dorsey & Whitney LLP & Matthew G Woleske, Dorsey & Whitney LLP UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Action Over Spam Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- Tracey Kaplan, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that Uber is facing a class action over spam texts. James Lathrop used to look forward to getting text messages -- until Uber got his cellphone number. The San Francisco-based ride-sharing company has allegedly bombarded him with at least 19 texts in the past two months, urging him to sign up as a driver. Fed up, he joined a lawsuit aimed at stopping the incessant texts. The suit, filed Dec. 31 in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, is one of many claims lodged recently against a wide variety of businesses that have been allegedly pelting consumers with unsolicited texts in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act. "A lot of businesses are abusing text messages as a way of direct marketing," said Hassan A. Zavareei, the lawyer representing four named plaintiffs from three states in the spam-text case against Uber, including Mr. Lathrop of Gresham, Oregon. "It has become a real nuisance." A class action could force the company to compensate any consumer who received the text messages even if they were not named as plaintiffs, potentially increasing company costs. The company, which offers an alternative to taxicab services by allowing people to provide rides for a fee in their personal vehicles, has also been on the hot seat lately for other reasons. The Uber suit was filed by the Washington, D.C.-based firm of Tycko & Zavareei. It seeks $500 for each negligent violation over the past four years, $1,500 for each knowing violation, punitive damages and an injunction prohibiting Uber from sending texts via the use of an automatic dialer or without recipients' prior express consent. The suit claims that the four plaintiffs and unnamed members of the as-yet uncertified class suffered more than $5 million in damages. It will be up to a judge to allow the suit to proceed as a class action. According to the lawsuit, the ride-hailing company has been aggressively seeking new drivers as it rapidly expands. Founded in 2009, Uber provides services in more than 200 cities in 45 countries. "With millions of riders and ever-increasing demand for more rides in even more cities," Uber's website states, according to the lawsuit, "we are always working hard to recruit new drivers onto the platform." The texts have prompted complaints to the FCC, including from someone who claimed Uber texted them at 1:44 a.m. and 4:10 a.m. Mr. Lathrop was initially interested in becoming an Uber driver, but stopped applying after he realized his car did not meet the company's requirements. At that point, however, the company had his personal information and continued relentlessly to try to sign him up, according to the lawsuit. Another plaintiff, Julie McKinney of Lees Summit, Missouri, has never been an Uber member, driver or user, but the lawsuit alleges that in December she received at least three text messages from the company about working as a driver. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Must Produce Executive Emails in Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Y. Peter Kang and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge on Dec. 31 denied a motion by Uber Technologies Inc. to withhold tens of thousands of emails from its CEO and other top-level executives for the ride-sharing company in a putative class action that alleges it misled customers by pocketing part of a 20 percent gratuity fee. U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen said producing emails from chief executive Travis Kalanick and vice president of operations Ryan Graves would not be "unduly burdensome" for the company, backing a Nov. 26 order by U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. "The court finds that Judge Ryu's decision is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law," Judge Chen said in the ruling. "That Judge Ryu's order may require Defendant to review approximately 21,000 documents does not represent an improper burden given the potential role of defendant's CEO and Vice President of Operations in defendant's challenged conduct." An attorney for the plaintiff told Law360 that he is happy with the judge's ruling. "Uber was representing to consumers that it would charge them an additional 20 percent of the metered fare as a gratuity for the driver when, in fact, it was keeping a portion of that as a hidden fee," said Jacie C. Zolna of Myron M. Cherry and Associates. "Uber ceased this practice shortly after the lawsuit was filed. The emails that were ordered to be turned over should shed light on that decision, as well as the reasoning for Uber's decision not to disclose the fee in the first place." The ruling is just the latest setback for Uber, which is facing various legal actions in several states regarding its gratuity fees, airport surcharges and screening of drivers. Customer Caren Ehret sued Uber in January 2014, claiming that she used the company's mobile app to hire a car in Chicago in September 2012 and was charged the mandatory 20 percent tip on top of the cost of the metered fare. She believed that the money would go to the driver, but that turned out not to be the case, her complaint said. "Instead, Uber keeps a substantial portion of this additional charge for itself as its own additional revenue and profit on each ride arranged and paid for by consumers, including plaintiff and the class," she said. In September, Judge Chen dismissed Ms. Ehret's allegation that Uber breached its contract with passengers, but let stand her claims that the ride-share company violated California's unfair competition law and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, according to court documents. Magistrate Judge Ryu's November ruling also applies to emails for Uber's general manager in Chicago, Andrew MacDonald. The emails in question span from April 2011 to June 2013. Uber's motion for relief from the nondispositive pretrial order of the magistrate judge was denied in its entirety by Judge Chen on Dec. 31. Plaintiffs are represented by Hall Adams III -- Hall@adamslegal.net -- of Law Offices of Hall Adams LLC, Jacie Campbell Zolna and Myron Milton Cherry -- mcherry@cherry-law.com -- of Myron M. Cherry and Associates, and Michael Francis Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- and Karl Olson -- kolson@rocklawcal.com -- of Ram Olson Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP. Uber is represented by Amit B. Patel -- amitbpatel@quinnemanuel.com -- Arthur M. Roberts -- arthurroberts@quinnemanuel.com -- and Stephen A. Swedlow -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP. The case is Caren Ehret v. Uber Technologies, Inc., case number 3:14-cv-00113, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs Kerry Reardon, James Lathrop, Julie McKinney, and Jonathan Grindell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv- 05678 (N.D. Cal., December 31, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's illegal actions of sending text messages to the Plaintiffs on their cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Uber Technologies, Inc. is a nationwide passenger transportation service that connects riders and drivers through a cellular telephone application. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Must Face "Wit" ERISA Suit, Calif. Judge Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero of the Northern District of California denied defendant's motion to dismiss the case entitled DAVID WIT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02346-JCS (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs and their family members were insured by employee- sponsored health insurance plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). That each of these Plans covers, among other things, treatment for mental illness and substance use disorders, including residential care. Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against United Behavioral Health (UBH), alleging that UBH has wrongfully denied their claims and improperly limited the scope of their insurance coverage for mental health and substance abuse-related residential treatment. Plaintiffs claims that UBH committed a (i) Violation of Fiduciary Obligations pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B); (ii) Improper Denial of Benefits pursuant to ERISA Section 502 (a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B); (iii) Equitable Relief pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)(A), seeking equitable relief only to the extent that the Court finds that the injunctive relief sought to remedy, on claims 1 and 2, are unavailable pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B),] 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B) and; (iv) Other Appropriate Equitable Relief pursuant to ERISA Section 502(a)(3)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3)(B), seeking equitable relief only to the extent that the Court finds that the injunctive relief sought to remedy on claims 1 and 2 are unavailable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B). A copy of Judge Spero's order dated November 20, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/dNM5oufrom Leagle.com. David Wit, Natasha Wit and Brian Muir, Plaintiffs, represented by Meiram Bendat -- info@psych-appeal.com -- at Psych-Appeal Inc.; Andrew Caridas -- acaridas@zuckerman.com -- Caroline E Reynolds -- creynolds@zuckerman.com -- D. Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Jason S. Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP; Anthony F. Maul -- AFMAUL@MAULFIRM.COM -- at The Maul Firm P.C. Brandt Pfeifer, Lori Flanzraich and Cecilia Holdnak, Plaintiffs, represented by D. Brian Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Andrew Caridas -- acaridas@zuckerman.com -- Caroline E Reynolds -- creynolds@zuckerman.com -- at Zuckerman Spaeder LLP; -- AFMAUL@MAULFIRM.COM - at The Maul Firm P.C.; Meiram Bendat -- info@psych-appeal.com -- at Psych-Appeal Inc. United Behavioral Health, Defendant, represented by Christopher Flynn - cflynn@crowell.com -- Jennifer Salzman Romano -- jromano@crowell.com -- Nathaniel Philip Bualat -- nbualat@crowell.com -- at Crowell & Moring LLP UNITED STATES: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Air Travel ----------------------------------------------------------------- In a 50-page complaint, Gerald Dix purported to bring a class action on behalf of all airline passengers who (since September 11, 2001) flew on, or were dissuaded from flying on, commercial airlines because of the actions of the defendants (a scattered collection of government employees, cities, and private entities). His claims assert violations of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c). He alleges, for example, a vast, nationwide conspiracy to rig the security equipment used at airports to screen passengers so that the equipment falsely detects a forbidden object and gives federal agents an opportunity to grope passengers. He also asserts that the Department of Justice and FBI have conspired to enable terrorists to kill Americans. He uses racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic, and other offensive language to inflame his allegations. The district court characterized the complaint as frivolous and dismissed Dix's lawsuit. Dix appealed the dismissal of a similar frivolous suit just months ago. In that earlier lawsuit, Dix sued on behalf of a putative class of Metra commuters during the NATO Summit in Chicago, as well all persons who flew on, or were dissuaded from flying on, commercial airplanes since September 11, 2001. Invoking his trademark offensive language, and just as he does in the current suit, he accused defendants of supporting jihadist attacks against America. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit summarily affirmed the district court's dismissal. On appeal, Dix largely reiterates his gripes with the defendants, but he develops no reasoned basis for disturbing the district court's ruling that his allegations are frivolous. The Seventh Circuit found that the complaint indeed reflects paranoid and delusional fears and is frivolous. Thus, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. Because Dix has filed two frivolous appeals within the last few months, the Seventh Circuit warned him that further frivolous appeals may result in sanctions. The appeals case is GERALD DIX, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNKNOWN TSA AGENT #1, et al., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-3015 (7th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's order dated Jan. 7, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/udpy5Qfrom Leagle.com. UTZ QUALITY: Falsely Marketed Snack Products, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Matt Difrancesco and Angela Mizzoni, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-14744 (D. Mass., December 30, 2014), arises out of the Defendant's deceptive, false, and misleading advertisement of its various snack foods that the Products are all natural, when in fact they contain unnatural genetically-modified ingredients. UTZ Quality Foods, Inc. manufactures, markets, and distributes various snack foods to consumers in Massachusetts and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica C. Mirabella, Esq. MIRABELLA LAW 132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 580-8270 Facsimile: (617) 583-1905 E-mail: emirabella@gnemlaw.com VERSO PAPER: Maine Judge Dismisses Workers' Suit ------------------------------------------------ No earlier than January 16, 2015, Verso Paper Corp. and Verso Paper LLC (Verso) anticipate selling the Bucksport, Maine Paper Mill to AIM Development USA, LLC and in anticipation of the sale, Verso ceased paper mill operations in Bucksport. Former or soon to be former Verso employees of the Bucksport Paper Mill and their union have sued the Company, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Verso concerning their right to timely payment of severance pay and final wages, including accrued 2015 vacation pay, in accordance with time frames they say are established under state law. In a January 6 Order available at http://bit.ly/1xY8P0Yfrom Leagle.com, District Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr. dismisses the Plaintiffs' claims for severance pay because Maine law precludes them from proceeding once the state of Maine Director of Bureau of Labor Standards brought suit in state court against the Defendants. The Court also dismisses Plaintiffs' claims for vacation pay because state rather than federal court, is a better venue for adjudicating that claim. The Court also dismisses Plaintiffs' motion for attachment and trustee process because the motion is related to enforcement of their severance and vacation pay claims only, and dismisses the United Steelworkers' motion for joinder as it relates to Plaintiffs' severance and vacation pay claims because its motion is now moot. The case is, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL LODGE, Plaintiffs, v. VERSO PAPER CORP., et al., Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-00530-JAW (D. Maine). WALL'S COFFEE: Faces "Rosas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Rosas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wall's Coffee Shop Inc. d/b/a Hollywood Diner, George Bouzalas and Dionisios Kaloudis, Case No. 1:14-cv-10222 (S.D.N.Y., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 574 Avenue of The Americas, New York, NY 10011. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 WARB CORPORATION: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jayson Cortes and Luis J. Ventura, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Jose Rosado and Warb Corporation d/b/a La Vega Grocery, Case No. 1:14-cv-07562 (E.D.N.Y., December 30, 2014), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate La Vega Grocery store located at 880 Glenmore Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Gastman, Esq. BORRELLI AND ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Blvd, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: alg@employmentlawyernewyork.com WASH MASTERS: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Reyes Cruz, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b) v. Wash Masters Management, L.L.C., Wash Masters, L.P., Fayez Rezk, and Ali Sharaf, Case No. 3:14-cv-04569 (N.D. Tex., December 31, 2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq. Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq. Joshua Aaron Petersen, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL PC 6310 LBJ Freeway, Suite 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net zabogado@aol.com josh.a.petersen@gmail.com YELP INC: Defendants Must File Dismissal Bid by February 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Shawn A. Williams of the Northern District of California approved the stipulation made by the parties in the case JOSEPH CURRY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. YELP INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:14-CV-03547-JST (N.D. Cal.). On August 6, 2014, plaintiff Joseph Curry filed a putative class action complaint against defendants Yelp Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman, Robert J. Krolik and Geoffrey Donaker for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On August 25, 2014, plaintiff Mary Adams filed a similar putative class action complaint in a separate action against defendants, asserting the same or substantially similar violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On November 17, 2014, the Court entered an Order (1) Consolidating Cases (2) Appointing Lead Plaintiff (3) Appointing lead counsel, which consolidated the two complaints, appointed City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust as lead plaintiff and appointed Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd as lead counsel. The parties have met and conferred and asked the court to approve these terms: (1) Plaintiffs shall file their consolidated amended complaint on or before January 5, 2015; (2) Defendants shall file and serve their motion to dismiss on or before February 6, 2015; (3) Plaintiffs shall file and serve their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss on or before March 6, 2015; (4) Defendants shall file and serve their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on or before March 20, 2015. Judge Williams approved the parties' stipulation. A copy of his order dated November 21, 2014 is available at http://is.gd/vhN4Vp from Leagle.com. Shawn Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- and Kenneth J. Black -- kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- at ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP SHAWN, Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff Stephen H. Cyphen -- scypen@cypen.com -- at CYPEN & CYPEN, Additional Counsel for Plaintiff Gilbert R. Serota -- Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- at ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Attorney for Defendants Yelp Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman, Robert J. Krolik and Geoffrey Donaker ZAAZOOM SOLUTIONS: Marsh and Jack Henry/FNBCT Deal Gets Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER KRISTI MARSH and EVANS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. ZAAZOOM SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 3:11-CV-05226-WHO, (N.D. Cal.) came for a hearing on December 17, 2014, before the Honorable William H. Orrick upon the motion of Plaintiff Amber Kristi Marsh and the Class she represents, for final approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release last signed by a party on August 5, 2014. Defendants Jack Henry & Associates, Inc. (Jack Henry) and First National Bank of Central Texas (FNBCT) did not oppose. In an order signed by District Judge William H. Orrick, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Qbv9iLfrom Leagle.com, the granted final approval of the Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects to the Class Members pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and orders the parties to consummate the settlement in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Court approved the payment of reasonable Settlement Administration Costs to the Settlement Administrator, KCC Class Action Services (KCC), not to exceed $28,832. In the event that the Settlement Administrator's reasonable costs of administering the Settlement exceed $28,832, the Settlement Administrator will file a declaration with the Court explaining the basis for the costs above $28,832 and seeking approval for payment of the additional reasonable Settlement Administration Costs out of the amount remaining from the Net Settlement Amount. The Court approved an award of attorneys' fees of $28,750 and costs and expenses of $607.95 to Class Counsel, which will be paid from, and not in addition to, the Settlement Fund. The Court approved an award to Named Plaintiff Amber Kristi Marsh, on account of her service to the Class, in the amount of $1,000, which will be paid from, and not in addition to, the Settlement Fund. The Court approved the payment of any unclaimed settlement proceeds to be remitted under the cy pres doctrine to the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall). The Court dismissed the Action as against FNBCT and Jack Henry only. Amber Kristi Marsh, Plaintiff, represented by Denis M. Delja -- dmdelja@aogllp.com -- Arias Ozello Gignac LLP, Jeffrey Michael Rosenfeld -- jeff@KRInternetLaw.com -- Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP, Karl Stephen Kronenberger -- karl@KRInternetLaw.com -- Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP & Mike M Arias -- marias@aogllp.com -- Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP. Stacie Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Denis M. Delja, Arias Ozello Gignac LLP, Jeffrey Michael Rosenfeld, Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP, Karl Stephen Kronenberger, Kronenberger Rosenfeld, LLP & Mike M Arias, Arias Ozzello & Gignac LLP. First National Bank of Central Texas, Defendant, represented by Richard Martin Williams -- rwilliams@grayduffylaw.com -- Gray Duffy, LLP & Caitlin R Maurer, Gray Duffy LLP. Jack Henry & Associates, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caitlin R Maurer, Gray Duffy LLP & Richard Martin Williams, Gray Duffy, LLP. Data Processing Systems, LLC, Defendant, represented by Neil A. Friedman Popovic -- npopovic@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Lai Lam Yip -- lyip@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton & Meredith Anne Jones-McKeown -- mjonesmckeown@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Interested Party, represented by Neil A. Friedman Popovic, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP. * Changes in Law Led to New Class Action Filings in 2014 -------------------------------------------------------- Wystan Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- of Robinson & Cole LLP shared his thoughts on key trends in insurance class actions (and class actions more broadly) over the last year. Mr. Ackerman said "Changes in the law have frequently led to new class action filings. Most insurers are large organizations, and changing daily practice across a claim or underwriting department can be challenging, and take time. When a state supreme court changes the law, or makes new law in an area where there was none, or when an insurance department issues a new regulation, and the insurer does not conform to the new law quickly, or arguably makes the change incorrectly, or fails to make changes retroactively (if required), that has frequently led to new class action filings. These are difficult (in some cases impossible) events to anticipate (unless you are following other insurers' key cases closely), and difficult to react to. But if I were running an insurance company's law department, I'd make that a priority." "Class action settlements are becoming more difficult. Judges are scrutinizing them more carefully. Especially the attorneys' fees. If you're in the Seventh Circuit, Judge Posner seems to hardly ever find a fee award he likes. And plaintiffs' lawyers may try to drive up the overall settlement cost to the defendant in order to garner more fees. The options going forward, as I see them, are two-fold. First, defendants can agree to a settlement that provides reasonable and fair relief to the class, and leave the fee award to the judge. If you trust the judge. Second, make a fair deal for the class and negotiate very aggressively on the fees. Good plaintiffs' lawyers probably know that they will not get the same fee in a federal court they might have gotten ten years ago. And if their chances of class certification are not very strong, they probably do not want to invest all of the time and effort that will be required to get the chance to roll those dice. "Creativity matters. The old, "tried and true" method of defending these cases -- throwing in the kitchen sink of potential individualized issues and variations -- may not be the best strategy in 2014 or 2015. Not all variations necessarily make a difference. But don't be afraid to make arguments that have not been made before. You need to know the case law inside and out and dig deeply into the facts to demonstrate how the case will be tried. It's not quite as hard for courts to envision how these cases will be tried because more of them (although still a very small number) are actually being tried, including some prominent, high-stakes ones." * Supreme Court Set to Take Up 3 Major Class Actions This Year -------------------------------------------------------------- Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, reports that class action lawyers are waiting with bated breath to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take up three major cases that threaten to change the way they do business, including an appeal in a California suit said to be an attempted "end run" around 2011's landmark Concepcion decision. December was a big month for class action rulings in its own right, with major rulings in BP v. Lake Eugenie and Dart Cherokee v. Owens. In the former, the high court refused to review BP PLC's challenge of its $9.2 billion Deepwater Horizon settlement, a deal the energy giant claims allows people who weren't injured by the spill to collect payments. And in the latter, a 5-4 majority concluded that the Tenth Circuit abused its discretion in refusing to review a district court's conclusion that Dart hadn't provided enough evidence to support its bid to transfer a class action to federal court and couldn't cure the defect by submitting evidence later on. Now, the Supreme Court will turn its attention to requests that it take up questions on standing, ascertainability and waivers in 2015. SPOKEO V. ROBINS First on the most-watched list is a case with broad implications for standing requirements under federal consumer protection laws, and lawyers say the Supreme Court's request of a brief from the solicitor general makes it likely the court will take it. In the litigation, people-search engine Spokeo Inc. is challenging a Fair Credit Reporting Act suit accusing it of publishing false information about a Virginia man. The Supreme Court invited the solicitor general in October to file a brief outlining the government's stance on Spokeo's bid to overturn a Ninth Circuit decision that revived plaintiff Thomas Robins' proposed class action alleging the company compiles false information from various online and offline sources into reports and sells them to subscribers. The Ninth Circuit had ruled in February 2014 that the alleged violations of Robins' statutory rights under the FCRA sufficiently satisfied Article III's injury-in-fact requirement for standing. But Spokeo countered that there is a circuit split on the issue and that Robins must show actual harm. "I think the Supreme Court needs to discuss this issue," Richard Gottlieb -- rgottlieb@buckleysandler.com -- of BuckleySandler LLP said. "In my area, truth in lending, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, [Telephone Consumer Protection Act], [Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act], it'd be very, very useful for courts to say, you know what, in those circumstances where no one's actually been injured, that's not a lawsuit . . . If they don't [grant cert] in Spokeo, it would be a bad result." Pasadena, California-based Spokeo's May petition for certiorari has garnered support from some of its more prominent Internet brethren, including Facebook Inc., eBay Inc., Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc., which lodged an amicus brief in June. "There are other statutes that would have the same statutory damages provisions and may not have a cap in class actions. And there's huge exposure at issue in those type of cases," Bruce Allensworth of K&L Gates LLP said. "I'm guessing the Supreme Court is actually going to hear it this time around in that it's asked the solicitor general to brief the issue." The case is Spokeo Inc. v. Thomas Robins et al., case number 13- 1339, in the U.S. Supreme Court. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING V. INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES In what's likely to be the first item on this list to be settled, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in January in a suit that will better define the limits of disparate-impact claims, a question with possible ramifications under multiple statutes. In the suit, Inclusive Communities Project Inc. v. Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, homebuilding, insurance and financial services industry groups have urged the high court to find that the law does not allow disparate-impact discrimination claims to be heard under the Fair Housing Act. The case centers around the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs' allegedly disproportionate allocation of property tax credits to minorities in Texas. The groups also took issue with a rule by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development purporting to establish burden-of-proof standards in disparate-impact claims. "The real question, the hard question, in discrimination cases is whether you have to prove actual discrimination or whether you can prove indirect discrimination simply by showing statistically different outcomes that stratify along racial or other suspect grounds," said William Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster LLP. "It's hugely controversial." During the Texas department's Fifth Circuit appeal, HUD issued a regulation that purports to establish standards for proving disparate-impact claims under the FHA. Under the HUD regulations, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the challenged practice has a discriminatory effect. If that burden is met, the defendant must then prove that the challenged practice is necessary to achieve legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests. If the defendant meets that burden of proof, the plaintiff must finally prove that those interests could be served by another less-discriminatory practice. "Depending on what the Supreme Court decides, this is a case that's going to have a significant impact for class actions under the FHA, and probably under related statutes like the Equal Credit Opportunity Act," Mr. Allensworth said. The case is Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project Inc., case number 13- 1371, in the U.S. Supreme Court. CLS TRANSPORTATION V. ISKANIAN A second pending request for cert in the Supreme Court concerns a suit that lawyers say is an attempted "end run" around the arbitration-related guidelines that Concepcion memorably laid out in 2011 -- and it's being appealed from a state that carries a lot of weight in the class-action world. In CLS v. Iskanian, the California Supreme Court held that Private Attorneys General Act claims can't be waived in employment arbitration deals, saying the decision undermines federal precedent. The petition for certiorari in Iskanian will be considered in an early-January conference. Four legal and employer advocacy groups have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC's appeal. The groups include the Pacific Legal Foundation and the California Employment Law Council. They're asking the high court to determine whether an arbitration agreement's waiver of collective or representative actions under PAGA is meaningfully distinguishable from a class action waiver. If it is, it could undermine the broad sweep of Concepcion. "This California decision creates an exception [to arbitration]," Stern said. "It's more fallout, if you will, from the Concepcion arbitration decision . . . In California, we've been very resistant to arbitration, reluctantly so, and this is yet another example where California's not quite ready to accept that there can be class action waivers." In the 2011 AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion decision, the nation's high court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts state laws invalidating class action arbitration waivers. The June Iskanian ruling strengthened the enforceability of class waivers in arbitration agreements in the wake of Concepcion, but carved out an exception for PAGA claims. It "just strikes me as an end run around Title 9, because the PAGA is nothing more than a statutory form of representative action just like a class action. California is a magnet for class action cases. It's a huge economic state with what's generally perceived to be a very liberal court system," Mr. Allensworth said. The case is CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC v. Arshavir Iskanian, case number 14-341, in the U.S. Supreme Court. ATHENA V. ALLERGAN In yet another pending bid for cert, the Supreme Court is being asked to review a Federal Circuit ruling and decide whether private plaintiffs have the power to override the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's enforcement choices and obtain court rulings on matters that Congress delegated to the FDA. If taken up, the ruling could affect all class actions regarding food or drugs -- any product subject to FDA oversight, lawyers say. And it's a second case in which the solicitor general has been asked to file a brief giving the U.S.' stance. In August, Athena Cosmetics Inc. told the Supreme Court that Allergan's claim that it violated a California unfair competition law by selling its eyelash conditioner without regulatory approval is preempted by federal law, countering Allergan's argument that its claim relies only on state law. The high court is being asked to decide whether the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act "impliedly preempts a private state-law claim for unfair competition premised on a party's purported failure to obtain FDA approval, where the FDA itself has not imposed any such requirement," Stern said. The Venture, California-based cosmetics company argued in its Aug. 5 reply brief that although Allergan argued in its opposition brief that its UCL claim "depends entirely on state law," the claim "borrows," as its predicate act, a violation of California's Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, which requires new drugs to be approved by the FDA "under . . . the federal act." "By layering the UCL and the Sherman Law on top of one another, Allergan constructed a state-law claim indistinguishable in effect from a lack-of-approval claim under the [federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] itself," Athena said. Athena filed its petition to the high court in May, kicking off the next round in a dispute between the two companies that dates back to 2009. At that time, Allergan, which sells an FDA-approved eyelash enhancement product called Latisse, added a claim under California's unfair competition law to a patent suit against Athena, contending that its rival violated the state law by selling RevitaLash without drug approval from the FDA. In its appeal to the Federal Circuit, Athena argued that the California law simply incorporates provisions of the federal law and that Allergan's suit interferes with the FDA's authority to regulate products. But the Federal Circuit was unconvinced, ruling in December that the FDCA does not preempt state law claims involving prescription drugs, which is what it held RevitaLash to be. In its petition to the Supreme Court, Athena again claimed the record "strongly indicates" that the FDA does not consider RevitaLash to be a drug, even though the product contains an ingredient similar to the bimatoprost in Latisse. The case is Athena Cosmetics Inc. v. Allergan, case number 13- 1379, in the U.S. Supreme Court. O'BANNON V. NCAA A fifth closely watched case concerns one major front in NCAA players' war to win more rights for themselves as they play under the umbrella of the college system. The Ninth Circuit is set to consider an appeal of a finding that the National Collegiate Athletic Association broke antitrust law by barring compensation for college athletes for the use of their names, images and likenesses. In November, antitrust professors from law schools at 13 universities urged the Ninth Circuit to reverse, saying the ruling turns courts into regulators. The professors argued in their amicus brief that the California federal court's injunction against the NCAA's system for preserving student-athletes' amateur status centered on how the court judged how the NCAA's restraints were enacted and not the restraints themselves -- which they say the court deemed to have procompetitive justifications. Earlier in November, the NCAA kicked off appellate briefing with its opening salvo in the long-running class action, which accuses the college athletics organization of using its decades-old amateurism rules to illegally deprive student-athletes of a share of the billions of dollars made by licensing their names and likenesses for television broadcasts and merchandise. The litigation stretches back to 2009, when former student- athletes Edward O'Bannon Jr. and Sam Keller filed separate suits against the NCAA, Electronic Arts Inc. and Collegiate Licensing Co. over the use of their likenesses. Electronic Arts and Collegiate Licensing settled with both plaintiff groups for $40 million in September 2013. The NCAA reached a separate $20 million settlement over the use of athletes' likenesses in video games in June. The athletes have argued that the NCAA and its member conferences and colleges formed a cartel that agreed to fix their compensation at zero for the use of their likenesses. The case is Edward O'Bannon Jr. v. NCAA et al., case number 14- 16601, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. ********* 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 2015. 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 * * *