/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150120.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 20, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 14 Headlines ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Jones" Suit Transferred to C.D. California ADOBE SYSTEMS: "Mahlum" Case Dismissed With Leave to Amend AETERNA ZENTARIS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over AGHD Drug AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Fine Over Failure to Report Warranty Claims APPLE INC: Settles "No Poaching" Class Action for $415 Million APPLE INC: Dist. Court Dismisses "Marcus" Class Action APPLE INC: Wants Plaintiffs to Include AT&T in Antitrust Suit ATRIA SENIOR: Case Management Conference Moved to Feb. 19 BANKAMERICA CORP: 8th Cir. Remands Securities Suit to Dist. Court BERJAC: Bankr. Court Remands Cox vs. Holcomb to State Court BRISTOL FARMS: Faces Class Action Over CDPA Violation BUILDING MATERIALS: "Warren" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Class Arbitration Ruling Reversed CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Pote" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CHESTER, PA: HA Exits Receivership Decades After Class Action CHICAGO: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss "Bartlett" Class Action CHINA BAK: Safeco Ins. Co. Product Liability Case Settled COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Murphy" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces "Speese" Shareholder Class Action DELTA AIR: Court Tosses "Opper" Action Over Best Fare Guarantee DELUXE CORP: Conference Nixed Pending Summary Judgment Ruling DIGNITY HEALTH: Cal. Appeals Court Revives "Sarun" Class Action DORIS INC: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Misleading Marketing Practices ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces Class Action Over Washing Machine Mold ENDO HEALTH: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of Generic Opana ER EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Lanigan" Suit FIAT CHRYSLER: Regulators Probe Cherokee Air Bag Complaints GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says HAIN CELESTIAL: Class Action Trial Scheduled for August 6 HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: March 9 Trial Set in "Covington" Action HONEST TEA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Labeling Class Action IMPAX LABORATORIES: Ordered to Submit Supplemental Briefing INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports IY CATERING: "Banegas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT JOHN WILEY: "Kunkel" Suit Moved From California to New Jersey JP MORGAN: Settles Bear Stearns Class Action for $500-Mil. JP MORGAN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Appeal of Denied Loan JUI LI ENTERPRISE: Court Denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss KANSAS POWER AND LIGHT: Order Denying Arbitration Bid Upheld LEXYCON LLC: Cited for Chemical Spill Environmental Violations LVI SERVICES: Removes "Ausencio" Class Suit to C.D. California MACY'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of False Labeling Class Action MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: April 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Yale" Suit Over False Financial Reports NIPATHAI RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages OREGON LOTTERY: Faces Class Action Over Auto-Hold Problems PFIZER INC: Zolof MDL Plaintiffs Can Present Another Witness PHILLIP MORRIS: Appeals Court Upholds $4.9-Mil. Jury Verdict POM WONDERFUL: Falsely Marketed Tea Products, "Alduey" Suit Says PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in "Machlan" Class Action PULASKI BANK: Court Denies Partial FLSA Settlement QUALITY RESOURCES: Must Correct Flaws in Affirmative Defenses RAPID RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims REVERE PLASTICS: Sued in Ind. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SAE ROACH: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SAXON MORTGAGE: Court Tosses Bid to Stay "Valdez" Case SEARS ROEBUCK: Judge Approves $1.6MM Calif. Labor Law Settlement SEAWORLD: Two Law Firms Named Co-Lead Counsel in Class Action SINGING RIVER: Defends Decision to End Employee Pension Plan SONY ELECTRONICS: Class Notice in "Flynn" Case Gets Partial OK SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING: Accused of Violating FDCPA STAR VIEW: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime STATE FARM: Main Paint Class Suit Included in Auto Body Shop MDL STATE FARM: Main Paint Suit Consolidated in Auto Body Shop MDL SUN CITY: Class Action Over Defective Stuco to Continue SYNGENTA CORP: "Hamilton" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL SYNGENTA CORP: "Houser" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL TAKATA CORP: Squire Pattons to Lobby on Air Bag Safety Issues TECK METALS: Industrial Pollution Class Action Can Proceed TRANSCANADA CORP: Landowners Sue Over Oil Pipeline in Nebraska TRI-STATE PETROLEUM: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Disabilities Act UTZ QUALITY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Labeling VALEANT PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Insider Trading WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Misleading Marketing Practices WICHCRAFT OPERATING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages WINDOW MART: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Batista" Suit Says X-CHEM LLC: Faces "Rollison" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages YUCA RESTAURANT: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT * China Environmental Groups Can Sue Polluters Via Class Actions * Hospitality Sector to Face Increased Wage Law Enforcement * Seyfarth Shaw Expects Increased Wage-and-Hour Filings in 2015 ********* ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: "Jones" Suit Transferred to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Samantha Jones v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Company, Case No. 3:14-cv-04631-WHA, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00105-PSG-E to the proceeding. The lawsuit seeks relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc H. Phelps, Esq. THE PHELPS LAW GROUP 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 260-4737 Facsimile: (949) 260-4754 E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com - and - Bianca A. Sofonio, Esq. Roger Richard Carter, Esq. THE CARTER LAW FIRM 2030 Main Street Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 260-4737 Facsimile: (949) 260-4754 E-mail: bianca@carterlawfirm.net roger@carterlawfirm.net - and - Scott B. Cooper, Esq. THE COOPER LAW FIRM PC 2030 Main Street Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 724-9200 Facsimile: (949) 724-9255 E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas R. Young, Esq. Christina R. Hollander, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN AND MARTEL LLP 235 Montgomery Street 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 E-mail: dyoung@fbm.com chollander@fbm.com - and - Thomas N. McCormick, Esq. VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE 52 East Gay Street PO Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Telephone: (614) 464-6433 E-mail: tnmccormick@vssp.com ADOBE SYSTEMS: "Mahlum" Case Dismissed With Leave to Amend ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh dismissed the case captioned SCOTTY MAHLUM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02988-LHK, (N.D. Cal.), in an order entered January 8, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/CgdSa1from Leagle.com. Scotty Mahlum alleges that Adobe committed violations of the California Civil Code and Business and Professions Code. The Court granted Adobe's motion to dismiss with leave to amend, for failure to state a claim for a violation of California Civil Code Section 1671(d). Should Plaintiff choose to file an amended complaint, he must do so within 14 days of the Order, said Judge Koh. Failure to file an amended complaint that cures the deficiencies identified in the Order will result in dismissal of Plaintiff's claims with prejudice. Plaintiff may not add new claims or parties without leave of the Court or stipulation by the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, he added. Scotty Mahlum, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Annick Marie Persinger, Bursor & Fisher, P.A. & Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Bursor Fisher, P.A. Adobe Systems Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Jonathan L. Koenig -- Jonathan.Koenig@aporter.comv -- Arnold and Porter LLP & Trenton Herbert Norris -- Trent.Norris@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP. AETERNA ZENTARIS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Over AGHD Drug --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that Canadian biopharmaceutical firm Aeterna Zentaris faces a putative class action by shareholders over a drop in its stock price after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected its application for approval of a key product. The suit said the company's stock price dropped 50 percent in one day following the FDA's Nov. 6, 2014, ruling denying approval of the new drug application for Macrilen, Aeterna Zentaris' adult growth hormone deficiency (AGHD) diagnostic drug. The application's rejection means the company will have to conduct a new clinical study to address problems in its Phase 3 trial, which did not meet objectives outlined in the company's special protocol assessment with the FDA, the suit says. Aeterna Zentaris made "false and misleading" statements as early as 2009 describing Macrilen as safe, effective and well tolerated, while it was aware the drug had serious and potentially fatal side effects, according to the suit. Investors relied on the assertions because two stock analysts issued reports characterizing Macrilen as safe, the suit claims. In addition, the company's misrepresentations regarding Macrilen allowed it to receive a steady stream of funding from investors, according to the suit. Among the misrepresentations was a November 2013 press release announcing the submission of the new drug application to the FDA, the suit claims. The press release said in part that the drug's Phase 3 trial "'demonstrated that the compound has the potential to become the first orally-approved product that induces growth hormone release to evaluate adult growth hormone deficiency with accuracy comparable to available intravenous and intramuscular testing procedures,'" according to the suit. But the press release was false and misleading because the Phase 3 trial "had not demonstrated that Macrilen was an effective diagnostic test for AGHD and the FDA expressed concern with respect to serious and potentially lethal side effects," the suit says. Aeterna Zentaris is based in Quebec City, Canada, and has subsidiaries in Germany and in Basking Ridge, N.J. Also named as defendants are six current and former officers of the company. Many of the individual defendants sold large shares of the company's stock before the FDA ruling became known, the suit claims. Juergen Engel, the company's CEO from 2008 to 2013, sold off 72 percent of his holdings in the company between March and December 2012, and Chief Financial Officer Dennis Turpin sold 84 percent of his holdings in the company in the same period, the suit claims. The company and its officers intended to deceive investors, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and the individual defendants are also accused of violating Section 20(a) of the act by controlling or influencing the content and dissemination of various statements that were allegedly false and misleading. The suit seeks compensatory damages on behalf of owners of the company's securities between April 2, 2012, and Nov. 6, 2014. The lawyer for the class, Laurence Rosen of South Orange, N.J., did not return a call seeking comment. A company spokesperson, Paul Burroughs, declined to comment on the case. AMERICAN HONDA: Faces Fine Over Failure to Report Warranty Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that American Honda Motor Co. Inc. will pay two fines totaling a record $70 million to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for failing to report deaths, injuries and certain warranty claims to the federal government. The automaker was hit with a $35 million fine because it did not notify NHTSA about 1,729 incidents between 2003 and 2014 in which one of its vehicles caused an injury or death. The second $35 million penalty stems from Honda's failure to report relevant warranty and customer satisfaction claims. The penalties are the maximum NHTSA can collect under a congressionally mandated cap. "The announcement sends a very clear message to the entire industry that manufacturers have responsibility for the complete and timely reporting of this critical safety information," NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind said in a news release. NHTSA relies on quarterly reports from automakers to investigate whether safety defects or defect trends exist and warrant further action, including possible recalls. Represented by Mayer Brown partner Erika Jones -- ejones@mayerbrown.com -- Honda also agreed to increased NHTSA oversight and third party audits to ensure that all required reporting is completed. "We have resolved this matter and will move forward to build on the important actions Honda has already taken to address our past shortcomings in early warning reporting," Rick Schostek, Honda North America Inc.'s executive vice president, said in a written statement. "We continue to fully cooperate with NHTSA to achieve greater transparency and to further enhance our reporting practices." After an internal audit, Honda discovered the under-reporting and disclosed it to NHTSA in November. The automaker blamed "errors related to data entry, computer coding, regulatory interpretation, and other errors in warranty and property damage claims reporting." For NHTSA, the fines follow a banner 2014, when the auto safety regulator collected a record $126 million in penalties. Among them: $35 million against General Motors Co. for failing to issue a recall in a timely manner and $17 million against Hyundai Motor America also for failing to issue a timely recall. APPLE INC: Settles "No Poaching" Class Action for $415 Million -------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Liedtke, writing for The Associated Press, reports that Apple, Google and two other Silicon Valley companies have agreed to pay $415 million in a second attempt to resolve a class-action lawsuit alleging they formed an illegal cartel to prevent their workers from leaving for better-paying jobs. The settlement filed on Jan. 15 in a San Jose, California, federal court revises a $324.5 million agreement that U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh rejected as inadequate five months ago. Judge Koh indicated that she believed the roughly 64,000 workers in the case should be paid at least $380 million, including attorney fees. The lawsuit, filed in 2011, sought $3 billion in damages that could have been tripled under U.S. antitrust law. Attorneys for the workers decided to settle after concluding it would have been difficult to prove the alleged conspiracy to a jury. If Judge Koh approves the latest settlement, it would avoid a potentially embarrassing trial over claims that Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corp. and Adobe Systems Inc. secretly agreed not to recruit each other's employees from 2005 to 2009. The alleged collusion stopped after the U.S. Justice Department opened an investigation that culminated with an antitrust complaint being filed against Apple, Google and the other participating companies in 2010. The Justice Department's case was settled without the companies admitting any guilt or paying any fines. The evidence gathered in the ensuing class-action lawsuit has exposed Apple and Google emails that have cast some of their top executives in an unflattering light. Apple's late CEO Steve Jobs is depicted as the conniving ringleader of a scheme designed to minimize the chances that the top computer programmers and other talented employees would defect to other technology companies. The lawsuit contends the secret "no-poaching" agreements orchestrated by Mr. Jobs suppressed the wages of the employees, many of whom were already making more than $100,000 annually. Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who was on Apple's board at the time that the alleged collusion began, sometimes took drastic actions to make sure his company didn't cross Mr. Jobs. In 2007, Schmidt, in a bid to keep Mr. Jobs happy, fired a Google recruiter for contacting an Apple engineer, according to internal emails. Both Apple and Google declined to comment on the new settlement. As they did in the Justice Department's investigation, they have denied wrongdoing. Intuit Inc., Pixar Animation Studios and Lucasfilm also participated in the no-poaching ring. Those three companies reached a $20 million settlement that Judge Koh approved last year. If Judge Koh approves the deal filed on Jan. 15, the eligible workers at Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe would receive an average of about $5,200 apiece. They could have received an average of more than $100,000 apiece had the case gone to trial and resulted in trebled damages of $9 billion. The workers' attorneys are seeking fees of up to $82.3 million in the settlement, the same amount they wanted in the previous agreement. APPLE INC: Dist. Court Dismisses "Marcus" Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge William Alsup granted a motion to dismiss the case captioned URIEL MARCUS and BENEDICT VERCELES, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC., Defendant, NO. C 14-03824 WHA, (N.D. Cal.) on January 8, 2015. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/n6ktttfrom Leagle.com. In this putative product-defect class action, the defendant moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs have until January 22, 2015 at noon, to file a motion, noticed on the normal 35-day calendar, for leave to amend their claims. A proposed amended complaint must be appended to this motion. Plaintiffs must plead their best case. The motion should clearly explain how the amended complaint cures the deficiencies identified, and should include as an exhibit a redlined or highlighted version identifying all changes. If such a motion is not filed by the deadline, the case will be closed, ruled Judge Alsup. Uriel Marcus, Plaintiff, represented by Omar Weaver Rosales -- omar@owrosales.com -- The Rosales Law Firm, LLC & Richard T. Bowles -- rbowles@bowlesverna.com -- Bowles & Verna LLP. Benedict Verceles, Plaintiff, represented by Omar Weaver Rosales, The Rosales Law Firm, LLC & Richard T. Bowles, Bowles & Verna LLP. Apple Inc, Defendant, represented by David Michael Walsh, Esq., Morrison & Foerster, David M. Walsh, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Edward Michael Rodriguez -- mrodriguez@atlashall.com -- Atlas Hall & Rodriguez LLP, Erin Hudson -- ehudson@atlashall.com -- Atlas, Hall & Rodriguez, LLP, Kai S Bartolomeo -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP, Rose S Lee -- RoseLee@mofo.com --- Morrison & Foerster LLP & William Michael Mills -- mkmills@atlashall.com -- Atlas Hall LLP. APPLE INC: Wants Plaintiffs to Include AT&T in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers for Apple Inc. were to make their case on Jan. 9 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that plaintiffs suing Apple for locking them into AT&T Mobility service on their early-model iPhones must sue the carrier as well. Plaintiffs lawyers, who have been pressing their case since 2007, are fighting back vehemently for an obvious reason -- AT&T Inc. has an iron-clad arbitration agreement, and their one hope of escaping its clutches is keeping AT&T out of the lawsuit. The legal maneuvering is part of the post-Concepcion two-step between plaintiffs lawyers trying to find creative ways around ubiquitous arbitration clauses and defense lawyers trying to make them stick. Ward v. Apple, 12-17805, tests one strategy used in telecom- related consumer cases -- suing anyone but the service provider. The same tactic was embraced by plaintiffs lawyers -- and overcame a motion to compel arbitration last year -- in privacy litigation over software installed on mobile phones. State courts have also confronted the question, with a San Jose appellate court in September allowing plaintiffs to proceed in a suit against Apple without naming AT&T. Rodger Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- chair of Fenwick & West's litigation group, says the Ninth Circuit's decision could help define when a carrier and a handset manufacturer must be lumped together in a lawsuit. Suing one but not the other ignores the carrier's vital role in the mobile phone ecosystem, he said. "The Ninth Circuit has not addressed this issue yet," he said. "So the Ward-Apple case is one that people are closely watching." Shortly after the iPhone launch in 2007, plaintiffs lawyers sued Apple and AT&T for antitrust violations, alleging the companies conspired to create a monopoly by forcing buyers of the first iPhone models to use AT&T service. A secret agreement made AT&T the exclusive provider of iPhone voice and data services, according to the complaint, and allowed Apple to share in AT&T's profits. Software locks on the iPhone prevented customers from switching carriers, the suit alleged. Plaintiffs lawyers scored several victories early on -- U.S. District Judge James Ware of the Northern District of California denied the defense's motion to compel arbitration and certified plaintiffs' class in 2008 and 2010, respectively. But after the Supreme Court upheld AT&T's arbitration agreement in the landmark AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, Ware reversed his original rulings, decertifying the class and forcing the case into arbitration. Plaintiffs filed a new suit less than a month later, without naming AT&T as a defendant. Initially, Judge Ware ruled plaintiffs could avoid arbitration because their claims against Apple weren't intertwined with AT&T's wireless service agreement. But in 2012, shortly before he retired, Judge Ware dismissed the case. He determined AT&T was a necessary party, as the court would have to evaluate AT&T's conduct in order to assess the claims against Apple. Plaintiffs lawyers filed an amended suit against Apple, but in order to propel the question more quickly to the Ninth Circuit, they stipulated to its dismissal. Mark Rifkin of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, who represents the would-be class of iPhone buyers, argues plaintiffs are not required under federal antitrust law to name every co-conspirator as a defendant. Apple was as active a participant in the monopoly as AT&T, he said, and therefore the trial court erred in ruling Apple couldn't stand alone. If the ruling is allowed to stand, Mr. Rifkin said, "it would be a departure from three-quarters of a century of settled law that an antitrust plaintiff can sue any one conspirator for all the damage caused by the conspiracy." Apple's lawyers, led by Daniel Wall -- dan.wall@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins, counter AT&T must be named under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, which dictates circumstances in which a third party is required to participate in a lawsuit. The court will have to interpret AT&T's wireless service agreement, and potentially reach conclusions that could harm AT&T. "Rule 19(a) makes clear that it is inappropriate and unfair to interpret a bilateral contract in the absence of one of the contracting parties," the lawyers wrote. Mr. Wall did not respond to phone messages and emails requesting comment. AT&T's arbitration contract is especially daunting to plaintiffs lawyers because it received express blessing from the U.S. Supreme Court. On the flip side, such contracts have become a refuge for defense lawyers who can successfully argue they extend to their clients. It's a tactic that Apple, as a close partner with AT&T, has embraced, with mixed success. In 2013, Apple tried to force plaintiffs to arbitrate a class action in the Central District of California over a defect that caused the power buttons on iPhones to stick. AT&T wasn't named as a defendant, but Apple argued the case involved AT&T's service agreement with its customers. U.S. District Judge Gary Feess denied Apple's bid, ruling plaintiffs' claims weren't intimately intertwined with the AT&T agreement. In litigation over Carrier IQ tracking software installed on mobile phones, manufacturers including LG Electronics Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America LLC tried the same strategy after plaintiffs strategically focused their suit away from the telecom service providers in hopes of avoiding arbitration. Last year, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California sided with plaintiffs lawyers, ruling their privacy claims stood independent of class members' contracts with the carriers. Defendants have appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit. Munger, Tolles & Olson partner Rosemarie Ring -- Rose.Ring@mto.com -- who represents HTC America Inc. in the multidistrict litigation, said plaintiffs lawyers originally named the carriers as defendants, but dropped them when the case was consolidated in the Northern District of California. If courts allow that gamesmanship, Ms. Ring said, cellphone makers might need to seek more protection in their business agreements with service providers. In September, the Sixth District Court of Appeal ruled for plaintiffs in a state court case raising similar issues. The panel resurrected a false advertising class action against Apple that the lower court had dismissed because plaintiffs didn't name AT&T as a party. The class action, which accused Apple of falsely claiming its iPhone 3G was "twice as fast" as the earlier model, doesn't need AT&T to proceed, the panel ruled. "Apple does not claim, and cannot claim, that findings or rulings in this action would have any preclusive effect on [AT&T]," Justice Miguel Marquez wrote. "The mere possibility of unfavorable evidentiary findings is insufficient to require joinder." ATRIA SENIOR: Case Management Conference Moved to Feb. 19 --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vince Chhabria signed on January 8, 2015, a stipulation continuing the case management conference as modified In the case captioned THOMAS CARNES, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, Juliana Christine Clegg, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ATRIA SENIOR LIVING, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02727- VC, (N.D. Cal.). The parties stipulated that the Case Management Conference previously set for January 20, 2015, will be continued to February 19, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. The Parties will file a Joint Case Management Conference Report on or before February 12, 2015. A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at http://is.gd/ElAnOPfrom Leagle.com. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP REUBEN B. JACOBSON -- Reuben.Jacobson@lewisbrisbois.com -- San Francisco, California, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP, JEFFREY S. RANEN -- Jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com -- KATHERINE DEN BLEYKER -- Katherine.DenBleyker@lewisbrisbois.com -- Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant, ATRIA SENIOR LIVING, INC. Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, THOMAS CARNES: Kathryn A. Stebner, Esq. STEBNER & ASSOCIATES 870 Market Street, Suite 1212 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: 415-362-9800 Facsimile: 415-362-9801 BANKAMERICA CORP: 8th Cir. Remands Securities Suit to Dist. Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Following the 1998 merger of NationsBank and BankAmerica to form Bank of America Corporation, shareholders filed multiple class actions around the country alleging violations of federal and state securities laws. The cases were transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Missouri. That court certified four plaintiff classes, two classes of NationsBank shareholders and two classes of BankAmerica shareholders. The transferred cases were resolved when the court approved a $490 million global settlement, overruling an objection by NationsBank class representative David P. Oetting that allocating $333.2 million to those classes was inadequate because their claims had greater merit than the claims of the BankAmerica Classes. After an initial December 2004 distribution, approximately $6.9 million remained in the NationsBank settlement fund. The district court ordered a second distribution of $4.75 million to NationsBank claimants in April 2009. After that distribution, $2,440,108.53 remained. In September 2012, class counsel for the NationsBank Classes, appellee Green Jacobson, P.C., filed a motion to terminate the case with respect to the NationsBank Classes, to award class counsel $98,114.34 in attorneys' fees for work done after the distribution in December 2004, and to distribute cy pres the remainder of the "surplus settlement funds" to three St. Louis area charities suggested by class counsel. The district court granted the motion over Oetting's objections and ordered "that the balance of the NationsBank Classes settlement fund shall be distributed cy pres to the Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, Inc." Oetting appeals the cy pres distribution and the award of attorneys' fees. As to the former, he argues the district court abused its discretion in ordering a cy pres distribution because a further distribution to the classes is feasible, and in any event LSEM is unrelated to the classes or the litigation and is therefore an inappropriate "next best" cy pres recipient. The United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, on January 8, 2015, agreed and therefore reversed. As the Eight Circuit's disposition results in the case not being terminated, it vacated the award of additional attorneys' fees as premature, leaving that issue to be resolved, consistent with this opinion, when administration of the NationsBank Classes settlement fund can be terminated. The Memorandum and Order of the district court dated June 24, 2013, is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with the Court's opinion. The pending F.R.A.P. 10(e) motion is denied. On remand, if any settlement funds remain after an additional distribution to the class, and if the district court concludes after proper inquiry that a cy pres award is appropriate, it must select next best cy pres recipient(s) more closely tailored to the interests of the class and the purposes of the underlying litigation, the Eight Circuit added. A copy of this ruling in In re: BankAmerica Corporation Securities Litigation. David P. Oetting, Class Representative, Plaintiff- Appellant, v. Green Jacobson, P.C. Appellee, National Legal Aid and Defender Association; Association of Pro Bono Counsel; Missouri Lawyer Trust Account Foundation, Amici on Behalf of Appellee, NO. 13-2620 is available at http://is.gd/PWP0OWfrom Leagle.com. BERJAC: Bankr. Court Remands Cox vs. Holcomb to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs in Cox et al., v. Holcomb Family Limited Partnership et al., ADV. NO. 14-3260, filed a class action complaint alleging violation of Oregon securities law arising from their purchase of securities issued by Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland, which subsequently merged. Defendants are an Oregon individual and Oregon entities that are alleged to have materially aided or otherwise played an essential role in the fraud relating to the sale of the Berjac securities. Berjac is a debtor in bankruptcy. Michael Holcomb and Gary Holcomb were general partners of Berjac. Involuntary petitions for bankruptcy relief were entered against both of them. The complaint alleges that Berjac, Michael Holcomb, and Gary Holcomb are not named as defendants in this action because they are debtors in bankruptcy. The complaint was filed in state court. Defendants removed the case to federal court, alleging federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2), and bankruptcy "related to" jurisdiction under Section 28 U.S.C. Section 1334(b). On motion by plaintiffs, the district court declined to exercise jurisdiction under the CAFA and referred the complaint to the bankruptcy court to decide plaintiffs' motion for remand to state court. Judge Elizabeth L. Perris of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District Oregon, on January 8, 2015, concluded that this complaint should be remanded to state court. According to her decision, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/FqQSxHfrom Leagle.com, "this is an Oregon law claim asserted by largely Oregon plaintiffs against Oregon defendants. The claim asserted is not closely connected to this bankruptcy case, the defendants acknowledge that trial of the claims against them asserted by the Berjac trustee should not be consolidated with trial of this complaint, and the Berjac trustee will oppose any consolidation. There is no indication that the state court cannot timely resolve this litigation. The effect of the outcome of this case will have on the bankruptcy estates of Berjac, Michael Holcomb, and Gary Holcomb can be easily dealt with by the bankruptcy court. The factors favoring remand heavily outweigh the factors that weigh in favor of retaining this adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court. Mr. Stephens should submit an order denying the motion for abstention and granting the motion for remand." Counsel involved in the adversary case are: John W. Stephens Esler, Esq. STEPHENS & BUCKLEY, LLP 121 SW Morrison St., Ste. 700 Portland, OR 97204-3183 E-mail: stephens@eslerstephens.com Laura J. Walker, Esq. 1001 SW 5th Ave. #2000 Portland, OR 97204 Thomas R. Johnson, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 1120 NW Couch St, 10th Floor Portland, OR 97209-4128 E-mail: TRJohnson@perkinscoie.com Timothy S. Dejong, Esq. STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER PC 209 SW Oak St. Ste. 500 Portland, OR 97204 E-mail: tdejong@stollberne.com Thomas A. Larkin, Esq. STEWART SOKOL & LARKIN LLC 2300 SW 1st Ave. #200 Portland, OR 97201-5047 E-mail: tlarkin@lawssl.com BRISTOL FARMS: Faces Class Action Over CDPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reports that Bristol Farms was hit on Jan. 2 with a proposed class action by a Los Angeles man alleging the high-end California grocery chain ran afoul of state law by failing to accommodate patrons in wheelchairs at its stores. Ten of Bristol Farms' locations present a litany of obstacles for the handicapped, such as clogged aisles and inaccessible restrooms, violating California's Disabled Persons Act and Unruh Civil Rights Act, plaintiff Michael DePillars alleged in a complaint filed in California Superior Court. "Despite an extended period of time in which to become compliant and despite the extensive publicity the CDPA and Unruh Act have received over the years, defendant continues to discriminate against people who are disabled, in ways that block them from equal access to and use of their stores," the complaint said. Mr. DePillars, who is a quadriplegic, allegedly stopped by a Bristol Farms location in Los Angeles for lunch in November and attempted to use the restroom but found that it could be only accessed by stairs. He then had difficulty navigating the aisles because they were blocked with merchandise, according to the suit. Immediately after his disappointing shopping experience, Mr. DePillars made a written demand on Bristol Farms to fix the problems at the store, but the company has yet to respond, the plaintiff alleged. A subsequent investigation by building experts whom Mr. DePillar's lawyers hired has unearthed a laundry list of similar violations at Bristol Farms locations throughout Southern California, according to the complaint, including a dearth of handicapped parking spaces, improper signage and bathroom amenities that can't be reached by the disabled. These problems -- which also, in some cases, violate the federal Americans with Disabilities Act -- can be easily corrected, but Bristol Farms has yet to bring its stores into compliance, the suit said. "The effect of the defendant's failure to comply with these standards or regulations is that defendant has discriminated against disabled persons by denying the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, programs, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of the defendant's stores," Mr. DePillars said. The plaintiff wants to represent a class of all wheelchair-using or mobility-impaired people in California who have frequented the 10 Bristol Farms stores identified in the complaint. Noting that more than 150,000 people in the state use wheelchairs, he estimated that the class numbers in the thousands. Mr. DePillars is seeking minimum statutory damages under the CDPA and Unruh Act, along with an injunction forcing the grocery chain to bring its stores into compliance with state law. Mr. DePillars is represented by Evan J. Smith -- esmith@brodsky- smith.com --of Brodsky & Smith LLC. The case is DePillars v. Bristol Farms, case number BC568250, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. BUILDING MATERIALS: "Warren" Suit Included in GAF Elk Cross MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Warren v. Building Materials Corporation of America, Case No. 8:14-cv-00316, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00093- JLL-JAD to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: GAF Elk Cross Timbers Decking Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2577 The litigation arises out of the design, manufacture, and sale of allegedly defective GAF Elk Cross Timbers decking by Defendant Building Materials Corporation of America, doing business as GAF Materials Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy J. O'Brien, Esq. HAUPTMAN, O'BRIEN, WOLF & LATHROP, P.C. 1005 South 107th Avenue, Suite 200 Omaha, NE 68114 Telephone: (402) 390-9000 Facsimile: (402) 397-7915 E-mail: tobrien@hauptman-obrien.net - and - Matthew E. Lee, Esq. WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP 900 W. Morgan St. Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5020 Facsimile: (919) 600-5035 E-mail: matt@wbmllp.com The Defendant is represented by: Andrew J. Rossman, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: andrewrossman@quinnemanuel.com CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL: Class Arbitration Ruling Reversed ------------------------------------------------------- In the case, NAKIA RIVERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CEDARS- SINAI MEDICAL CARE FOUNDATION, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B249979 (Cal. App.), Rivers seeks reversal of the trial court's judgment that compels her to arbitrate her individual wage and hour claims, and dismissed her class action claims alleging the same violations. Rivers asserts that the determination whether the parties agreed to arbitrate class claims is a procedural question for the arbitrator, not the court. On October 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed a putative class action against the Defendant seeking restitution, damages and attorney's fees in excess of $25,000 alleging several violations wage and hour violations and unfair and unlawful business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL). The trial court dismissed the class claims with prejudice and ordered the Plaintiff to submit her individual claims to binding arbitration. Plaintiff contested the decision citing that class claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. In the Order dated January 13, 2015 available at http://is.gd/y5jRbIfrom Leagle.com, the Division Seven of the Second District of Court of Appeals of California reversed the trial court's decision disposing that class arbitration is a subsidiary matter for the arbitrator and a gateway issue for judicial determination. The Court further ordered that the case be remanded to the trial court with directions to submit the question of class arbitration to the arbitrator. Each party is to bear her and its own costs on appeal. Plaintiff and Appellant is represented by: Matthew T. Theriault, Esq. Glenn A. Danas, Esq. Liana Carter, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW 840 Century Park East #450, Los Angeles, CA 90067 E-mail: Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com Glenn.Danas@CapstoneLawyers.com Liana.Carter@CapstoneLawyers.com Defendant and Respondent is represented by: Richard J. Simmons, Esq. Daniel J. McQueen, Esq. Marlene M. Nicolas, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON E-mail: rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com mnicolas@sheppardmullin.com CENTRAL CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Pote" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Pote, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Central Construction Management, LLC, BZ Construction Services, LLC, Michael Difonzo, Gregory Kalamaras, and Frank Madar, Case No. 1:15-cv-00144 (E.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York. 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 CHESTER, PA: HA Exits Receivership Decades After Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Laura McCrystal, writing for Philly.com, reports that decades after dilapidated buildings filled with crime and drugs drove tenants to file a class-action lawsuit against the Chester Housing Authority, the agency has been released from federal receivership. The move, announced on Jan. 5, marks the completion of an overhaul of the public housing agency, which had been under the oversight of a federal judge since 1994. While under the guidance of District Judge Norma L. Shapiro, the authority razed and rebuilt most of its buildings and started its own police force. Comparing the authority of the 1990s with today's is "literally night and day," said Steven Fischer, executive director. "You had properties that were in deplorable conditions, to the point where low-income families weren't even applying to live here," Mr. Fischer said. "And contrast that with, for the past 10 years at least, we've had waiting lists that have had to be closed because we've had so many families applying." Judge Shapiro noted the agency's improvements and released it from receivership in an order dated last Wednesday. "Significant progress has been made to transform CHA into a functioning housing authority providing decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings to families of low income," she wrote. Judge Shapiro said that in the latest round of inspections, authority properties averaged 95 percent in categories such as safety and sanitation. When the agency entered receivership, its overall score was 41 percent, according to a federal report. A group of tenants filed the lawsuit against the authority in 1990, alleging that officials had neglected hundreds of housing units to the point that they were uninhabitable. The lawsuit led to Judge Shapiro's lasting involvement, and required the authority to renovate its buildings and report frequently to the judge. Now, the agency is in the hands of a board of commissioners appointed by Judge Shapiro. As the five commissioners' terms expire, new commissioners will be appointed by the mayor of Chester. The agency is not controlled or funded by city government. It operates with federal funding to provide housing to low-income residents. Mr. Fischer said the authority has about 2,400 tenants, including those who live in its nine buildings and use its housing-choice voucher program, often referred to as Section 8. About one-third of Chester's population is below the federal poverty level, according to U.S. Census data. Chester's was the last remaining public housing agency in the country under the oversight of a federal judge. The housing agencies in Boston, Kansas City, and Washington completed receiverships. Several other housing authorities remain under administrative receiverships, controlled by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rather than the federal court system. In Chester, many authority residents can recall conditions in the old buildings. "People generally don't hesitate to make the comparison," Mr. Fischer said. "You get a general expression of satisfaction with how things have been turned around." CHICAGO: Court Tosses Motion to Dismiss "Bartlett" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- In ROBERT BARLETT, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated SWAT team members on the Chicago Police Department, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, NO. 14 C 7225, (N.D. Ill.), Mr. Bartlett filed his first amended complaint as a putative class action, seeking relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) (Count I), the Illinois Wage Payment Collection Act (the IWPCA), as amended, Section 820 ILCS 115/1, et seq. (Count II), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (the IMWL), 820 ILCS 105/4(a) (Count III) for unpaid compensation, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any such other relief the Court may deem appropriate. On November 14, 2014, the City moved to dismiss Count II of Bartlett's first amended complaint. In Count II, Bartlett alleges that over the past three years, the City has willfully violated the IWPCA by intentionally failing and refusing to pay Bartlett all compensation due to him under the IWPCA and implementing unlawful regulations. The City provided two reasons why the Court should dismiss Count II of Bartlett's first amended complaint: 1. the City insisted that Bartlett does not, and cannot, identify any promise or agreement by the City to pay for normal home to work travel time to support his claim under the IWPCA; and 2. the City argues that the IWPCA claim is preempted, and is not an independent state-created right. District Judge Charles P. Kocoras, in a memorandum opinion entered January 9, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/4Afoz0from Leagle.com, held that "the City's contention that its motion to dismiss should be granted because Bartlett and the City needed to have an agreement or contract that explicitly outlined that the City would pay him for his time spent traveling to and from home and work, whether as wages or overtime, is incorrect. Such specificity is not required to allege a claim under the IWPCA. Therefore, at this stage of the proceedings, Bartlett has sufficiently pleaded that there was a wage agreement, beyond a mere allegation that the employer is bound by overtime laws, by alleging that: (i) he was an employee covered by the protections of the IWPCA; (ii) the City had knowledge that Bartlett performed work that required payment of wages and/or overtime compensation; and (iii) that the parties entered into an agreement, which he attached, to pay Bartlett wages and/or overtime for hours worked. These allegations, collectively, create an inference that the City and Bartlett had a valid employment agreement." However, Judge Kocoras added that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act does not preempt Bartlett's IWPCA claim, and the City's motion to dismiss is denied. Robert Bartlett, Individually and on behalf of other similarly situated SWAT team members on the Chicago Police Department, Plaintiff, represented by Paul D. Geiger -- pgeiger@chicagofop.org -- Law Offices of Paul D. Geiger & Ronald C. Dahms -- rdahms81@yahoo.com City of Chicago, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Anne Naber -- jnaber@lanermuchin.com -- Laner Muchin, Ltd., Deja C. Nave -- dnave@cityofchicago.org -- City of Chicago & Joseph Michael Gagliardo -- jgagliardo@lanermuchin.com -- Laner Muchin, Ltd. CHINA BAK: Safeco Ins. Co. Product Liability Case Settled --------------------------------------------------------- China BAK Battery, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2014, that the Company was named as a second defendant in the case of Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hewlett-Packard Co. et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura. It was an action for negligence and strict product liability. The plaintiff alleged that a product manufactured by the Company was used in a Hewlett Packard laptop, which malfunctioned and caused fire damage in the home of a consumer (the Plaintiff's insured). The total damages sought were $126,978, plus interest and fees. On September 24, 2014, the plaintiff, Hewlett Packard Co. and China BAK Battery, Inc. agreed to release all claims against each other arising out of the incident. The plaintiff and Hewlett Packard dismissed their complaints against China BAK Battery, Inc. with prejudice. Pursuant to the settlement agreement reached among the parties, China BAK Battery, Inc. also dismissed with prejudice its cross-complaint against Hewlett Packard. Further, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the plaintiff has agreed to indemnify and defend China BAK Battery, Inc. for any future actions/claims against China BAK Battery, Inc. relating to this incident. COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Murphy" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy L. Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc. and Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, Case No. 3:15- cv-00031 (M.D. Tenn., January 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to protect patients' highly sensitive and confidential information and identification data. Community Health Systems, Inc. owns and operates 206 hospitals in 29 states with approximately 31,100 licensed beds. Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation provides management, consulting, and information technology services to independent community hospitals and health systems, as well as to certain clinics and physician practice operations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clinton H. Scott, Esq. GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC 101 North Highland Ave Jackson, TN 38301 Telephone: (731) 664-1340 Facsimile: (731) 664-1540 E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Evan Buxner, Esq. Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH LTD. 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com ebuxner@buxnerlaw.com ekilpela@carsonlynch.com jetzel@carsonlynch.com - and - J. Douglas Gramling, Esq. ESTES, GRAMBLING & ESTES PLC 19 East Dickson Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: (479) 439-4124 Facsimile: (479) 521-6730 E-mail: dgramling@egelaw.com - and - Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com DAWSON GEOPHYSICAL: Faces "Speese" Shareholder Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Dawson Geophysical Company said in its Form 8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2015, that Andrew Speese, through his attorney, filed on January 7, 2015, a purported shareholder class action and derivative action on behalf of himself and the other shareholders of Dawson Geophysical Company ("Dawson") in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (Midland/Odessa Division), against Dawson, its current directors, TGC Industries, Inc. ("TGC") and Riptide Acquisition Corp., a wholly owned subsidiary of TGC ("Merger Sub"). The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the members of Dawson's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed strategic business combination with TGC, and that TGC's registration statement dated November 6, 2014, as subsequently amended, and prospectus filed on December 31, 2014 contain material omissions and materially misleading statements. The complaint seeks to enjoin Dawson, TGC and Merger Sub from taking any actions that would allow the consummation of the proposed strategic business combination contemplated by that certain Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated October 8, 2014 by and among Dawson, TGC and Merger Sub (the "Merger Agreement") or, in the event that the proposed strategic business combination is consummated, seeks a judgment for damages. In addition, on January 8, 2015, Dawson received a letter dated January 7, 2015 from legal counsel for Andrew Speese with respect to the lawsuit demanding that the board of directors of Dawson take legal action to remedy alleged breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed strategic business combination and to recover damages caused by such alleged breaches. Dawson's board of directors has formed a Special Litigation Committee to investigate and determine whether any of the derivative claims should be pursued. Dawson intends to seek dismissal of the class action claims. DELTA AIR: Court Tosses "Opper" Action Over Best Fare Guarantee --------------------------------------------------------------- In the putative class action captioned CARLA OPPER, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 14-C-962, (E.D. Wis.), Ms. Opper claims that Delta Air Lines violated the terms of its "Best Fare Guarantee" with respect to Plaintiff and other, similarly-situated customers, and its violation of that guarantee constitutes breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of warranty, and fraud. Delta moved to dismiss on the grounds that the claim failed to state a claim and that other legal theories were preempted by federal law. Chief District Judge William C. Griesbach, in a decision and order entered January 7, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/SvvoGcfrom Leagle.com, granted the motion to dismiss. The complaint is dismissed with prejudice because it does not appear that the Plaintiff can state a claim, he says. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant. Darla Opper, Plaintiff, represented by Hassan A Zavareei -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jeffrey D Kaliel -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP & James C Shah -- jshah@classactioncounsel.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLC. Delta Airlines Inc, Defendant, represented by Gabor Balassa -- gabor.balassa@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Renee D Smith -- renee.smith@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP. DELUXE CORP: Conference Nixed Pending Summary Judgment Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER GRAVES, Plaintiff, v. DELUXE CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 4:14CV1823 RLW, (E.D. Mo.) is before the Court on the parties' Joint Proposed Scheduling Plan (JSP). This case is a putative class action where Plaintiff alleges that she and a proposed class of Missouri residents were charged "excessive, deceptive, unfair and unethical delivery fees for new and replacement personal checks by Defendant during the five-year period before the filing of the Complaint and continuing until the date of class certification.". In the JSP, the parties note that Defendant Deluxe Corporation has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties disagree regarding whether discovery should proceed. Plaintiff believes that discovery should proceed unless and until Defendant files a motion to stay discovery, which would be briefed by the parties and considered by the Court. In turn, Defendant asserts that discovery should not proceed until the Court rules on Defendant's summary judgment motion because the motion presents a pure question of law. Defendant further requests that the Court rule on Defendant's dispositive motion prior to resolving class certification issues. According to District Judge Ronniel L. White, in a memorandum and order dated January 8, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/dLsgJofrom Leagle.com, resources would be best utilized by ruling on Defendant's dispositive motion prior to class certification and prior to entering a case management order. Furthermore, the Court believes that entering a Case Management Order at this time would be futile because all of the dates would be dependent upon a ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the Court canceled the Rule 16 conference that was previously set for January 14, 2015. The Court will hold a Rule 16 conference with the parties after it rules on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, if necessary. Although the parties seem to agree that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment presents an issue of law only, Plaintiff can file a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d) if she believes any discovery is necessary to respond to Defendant's Motion. Jennifer Graves, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony S. Bruning, Jr. -- Abruningjr@gmail.com -- LERITZ AND PLUNKERT, P.C. & Richard S. Cornfeld -- rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com -- LAW OFFICE RICHARD S. CORNFELD. Deluxe Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Valeriote -- chris.valeriote@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP & Omri E. Praiss -- omri.praiss@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP. DIGNITY HEALTH: Cal. Appeals Court Revives "Sarun" Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Sarun filed a putative class action against Dignity Health alleging unfair and/or deceptive business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL) and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, Sec. 1750 et seq.). Dignity Health argued that the complaint lacked standing under the UCL and CLRA because it failed to adequately prove that he in fact suffered an economic injury, which the trial court sustained. Specifically, the trial court sustained Dignity's demurrer to Sarun's second amended complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the action. Sarun appealed. In the Order dated January 13, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Ae8zmMfrom Leagle.com, the Division Seven of the Second District of the Court of Appeals of California reversed the trial court's decision stating that the mere existence of an enforceable obligation constitutes actual injury or injury in fact to the Appellant. The Appeals Court further ordered that Mr. Sarun may recover his costs on appeal. Sarun is represented by: Barry L. Kramer, Esq. Brian R. Strange, Esq. Gretchen Carpenter, Esq. STRANGE & CARPENTER LAW OFFICE 12100 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 235-9980 Fax: (310) 235-9982 E-mail: gcarpenter@strangeandcarpenter.com Dignity Health is represented by: Darius Ogloza, Esq. David Fortney, Esq. Brian D. Berry, Esq. 535 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, CA 94133 Tel: (415) 912-1850 E-mail: dogloza@oglozafortney.com dfortney@oglozafortney.com bberry@oglozafortney.com DORIS INC: Faces "Wang" Suit Over Misleading Marketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Meng Wang and Jane Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Doris Inc., Doris International Inc., Gildan Activewear Inc. and Gildan Activewear USA Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 00147 (E.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' false and misleading marketing and advertising practices and promotional materials of their Kushyfoot socks, tights and hosiery with zigzag, massaging or 3-dimensional massaging soles. The Defendants develop and manufacture sock, tights and hosiery products for consumers and professional markets. 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 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Robbins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Electrical Distributors, Tim Cappelli, and Martin Martinez, Case No. 3:15-cv-00091 (N.D. Tex., January 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendant own and operate an electrical supply wholesaler located at 2301 Century Circle, Irving, TX 75062. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ditty Susan Bhatti, Esq. Vincent James Bhatti, Esq. THE BHATTI LAW FIRM PLLC 14785 Preston Road, Suite 550 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 253-2533 Facsimile: (214) 204-0033 E-mail: ditty.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com vincent.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces Class Action Over Washing Machine Mold ------------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida couple filed a putative class action on Jan. 2 against Electrolux Home Products Inc., claiming defective design of washing machines made by the company results in a buildup of mold and mildew that creates foul odors, ruins clothing and poses health risks. Plaintiffs Wendy and Nicholas Grasso claim in their suit, filed in state court in Miami, that they and other purchasers of front- loading automatic washing machines marketed under the Electrolux, Frigidaire and Kenmore brand names have overpaid as a result of the allegedly deceptive marketing, advertising, sales and servicing by the manufacturer, which they believe was aware of the claimed defects and has refused to provide an adequate remedy. Electrolux has failed and refused to warn its customers of the serious common defects inherent in the washing machines or to warn its customers of the common problems that they will likely encounter when the machines begin to accumulate mold as a result of the machines' defects," the complaint says. They are seeking compensatory damages, replacement or recall of the machines and attorneys' fees and legal costs for a class including anyone who purchased one of the company's washing machines for personal use in Florida -- a group they say numbers in the thousands. The suit brings counts for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, plus a count seeking declaration that the machines contain a common defect that results in the buildup of biofilm. The suit claims that the machines fail to drain properly or rinse away dirt, detergent and other substances, resulting in moisture and buildup of residues that contribute to the formation of mold and mildew. The resulting biofilm, which they define as a thin, usually resistant layer of microorganisms, on the inside of the machine is "unsightly and noxious," they say. It creates a bad smell in the user's home and in the clothing, towels and other items run through the machine, in some cases further damaging those items. Mold and mildew can also lead to health problems, such as allergies and complications due to asthma, they say. Electrolux's failure to disclose these defects or to take corrective action was negligent and violated state laws and express and implied warranties, the plaintiffs claim. In their case, the Grassos purchased a Frigidaire washing machine for about $570 in January 2010. About two years later, they began noticing bad smells on their clothing and later found black streaks on garments and towels, which led to their discovery of mold and mildew inside the machine, according to the suit. Attempts to clean the machine did not solve the problem. They made numerous complaints to Electrolux, but were told the biofilm resulted from misuse and was not covered by the warranty. The company recommended leaving the door open after washes and wiping around the gasket, they say. Those steps did not solve the problem, but instead led to cracks in the plastic around the door. The suit also notes that Electrolux's own instructions say not to leave the door open around young children. The suit also argues that Electrolux tolled the issue by concealing it from customers and the company should not be able to rely on any statutes of limitation in its defense. A spokeswoman for Electrolux said on Jan. 5 the company has not yet seen the lawsuit and cannot comment on it. The Grassos are represented by John A Yanchunis and Laura V. Yaeger of Morgan & Morgan PA and Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- and Amy E. Keller -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace LLP. The case is Grasso et al. v. Electrolux Home Products Inc., case number 2015-58-CA-01, in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. ENDO HEALTH: Sued Over Illegal Manipulation of Generic Opana ER --------------------------------------------------------------- Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, individually on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Endo Health Solutions Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax Laboratories Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-00269 (N.D. Ill., January 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' overarching anticompetitive scheme to allocate, and unreasonably delay competition in the market for extended release oxymorphone hydrochloride, a semi-synthetic opioid pain mediation sold under the brand name Opana ER. The Defendants own and operate a specialty healthcare company that manufactures pharmaceuticals, generic products and medical devices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Jerry Freed, Esq. Donald Lewis Sawyer, Esq. Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. Steven A. Kanner, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN, LLC 2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130 Bannockburn, IL 60015 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com dsawyer@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com skanner@fklmlaw.com - and - Lee Albert, Esq. Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920 New York, NY 10168 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com glinkh@glancylaw.com EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Court Denies Class Cert. Bid in "Lanigan" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Henry Edward Autrey denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in In re EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., PBM LITIGATION, CASE NO. 4:05MD01672HEA, (E.D. Mo.). The current posture of this Multi-District litigation stands at one action -- NPA-ERISA Track Cases Only Lanigan as Trustee on Behalf of Local 153 Health Fund v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al. Case No. 4:05CV862 -- which is pending. All other cases have been resolved either on the merits (Lynch v. NPA, et al., currently on appeal), or through voluntary dismissal. Since the filing of the motion for class certification, two of the three movants have voluntarily dismissed all of their claims. Richard Lanigan, as Trustee of the Local 153 Health Fund remains the sole Plaintiff and the sole proposed class representative of a proposed class against National Prescription Administrators, Inc. (NPA). Lanigan's individual suit is against Express Scripts, Inc., not NPA, the named Defendant in this subclass. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class consisting of all self- funded ERISA employee benefit plans ("ERISA Plans") for which NPA, at least initially, served as the ERISA Plans' PBM, and which utilized the NPASelect Formulary, at any time from January 1, 1996 through April 13, 2002. In his opinion, memorandum and order entered January 8, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/QFyRrdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Autrey held that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is denied. He said: (1) Plaintiff's claims fail to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2); (2) Plaintiff's claims fail to satisfy the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3); (3) Plaintiff's claims fail to satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a)(4); and (4) Plaintiffs' proposed "liability class" does not raise questions of law or fact that predominate over individual issues, and is not a superior method of adjudication as required Rule 23(b)(2). The Court ordered the parties to submit, within 14 days, a status of the individual case of Lanigan v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al., Case Number 4:05cv862, along with proposed trial dates. FIAT CHRYSLER: Regulators Probe Cherokee Air Bag Complaints ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that U.S. auto safety regulators are investigating engine compartment smoke or fire complaints in two Jeep Cherokees, and air bags that didn't inflate properly in two Nissan Rogues. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says in documents posted on its website on Jan. 16 that the Cherokee probe covers 50,000 of the SUVs from the 2015 model year. One owner in California told the agency he smelled oil from under the hood while driving on Jan. 4. Shortly after the Cherokee was parked at home, white smoke came from under the hood. "Within seconds the entire car was engulfed in fire, flames 20 feet high. Burning oil or fuel ran down the street over 50 yards," the owner said in the complaint. The other owner complained of smoke from under the hood while driving 60 mph, also on Jan. 4. Both Cherokees had less than 100 miles on them. No injuries were reported. A spokesman for Fiat Chrysler, which makes Jeeps, said the company is working with the agency. NHTSA opened the Rogue probe after two complaints that the air bags on 2013 models deployed up to a minute after crashes and either inflated slowly or didn't fully inflate. The investigation covers about 195,000 vehicles. No injuries were reported from the air bag problem. A Nissan spokesman says the air bags were not made by Japanese auto parts supplier Takata Corp., which has had problems with air bags inflating with too much force and spewing shrapnel into drivers. The company is working with NHTSA on the investigation, the spokesman says. GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Violates Fair Credit Reporting Act, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Doris Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genesis Healthcare, LLC and General Information Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00052-GAM (E.D. Pa., January 7, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Searles, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. James A. Francis, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. Land Title Building, 19th Floor 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Class Action Trial Scheduled for August 6 --------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Lexington Law Group regarding the Avalon Organics and JASON Brand Cosmetics Class Action Lawsuit. If you purchased Avalon Organics(R) or JASON(R) brand cosmetic products, this class action notice may affect your rights. A class action lawsuit is currently pending against The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. ("Hain Celestial") and includes Avalon Organics(R) and JASON(R) brand products. The lawsuit claims that Hain Celestial falsely sells, labels and/or represents certain cosmetic products as organic. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim these products violate California's Organic Products Act, which requires that cosmetic products advertised, marketed, sold, labeled, or represented as organic in California be made of at least 70 percent organic ingredients. The plaintiffs say that the packaging and advertising for these products mislead consumers to believe that the products were wholly or at least mostly organic, when, in fact, they were not. The defendant in the lawsuit denies all the plaintiffs' allegations. The Court has not decided who is right and who is wrong. Am I a Class Member? You are a Class Member if you bought Avalon Organics(R) brand cosmetic products between May 11, 2007 and January 6, 2015 other than those that were USDA certified as organic and/or JASON(R) brand cosmetic products between May 11, 2007 and January 31, 2011 other than those that were USDA certified as organic. What Am I Eligible to Receive? No money is available now and there's no guarantee that there will be. The Court has not decided whether Hain Celestial did anything wrong and the two sides have not settled the case. If a settlement is reached, or if the lawyers prove their claims in a trial, then Class Members will be notified about how to ask for benefits. If you are still not sure whether you are included as a Class Member, you can visit the Web site, www.HainOrganicCosmeticsLawsuit.com, call 1-800-481-7948, or write to Hain Celestial Organic Cosmetics Class Action, 1515 Market Street, Suite 1700, Philadelphia, PA 19102, for more information. What are My Options? Do Nothing -- If you do nothing, you keep the possibility of getting money that may come from a trial or a settlement, but, you give up any rights to sue Hain Celestial on your own about the same legal claims in this lawsuit. You will also be legally bound by all orders the Court issues and judgments the Court makes in this class action. Exclude Yourself -- If you exclude yourself from the Class -- you will not get money from this lawsuit, even if Plaintiffs obtain money as a result of the trial or from any settlement (that may or may not be reached) between Hain Celestial and Plaintiffs. However, you may then be able to sue or continue to sue Hain Celestial about the same legal claims that are involved in this case, now or in the future. If you exclude yourself, you will not be legally bound by the Court's judgments in this class action. If the case is not dismissed or settled, Class Counsel will have to prove Plaintiffs' claims at a trial. The Court has scheduled a trial to decide who is right in this case. The trial is currently set to begin on August 6, 2015 in Courtroom C - 15th Floor of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. The date may change so check the website to be kept informed of the trial schedule. During the trial, the Judge and/or a jury will hear all of the evidence, so that a decision can be reached about whether Plaintiffs are right about their claims in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs will have to prove their claims. There is no guarantee that Plaintiffs will win or that they will get money for the Class. This is only a summary. For more detailed information, please visit www.HainOrganicCosmeticsLawsuit.com or call 1-800-481-7948. HELENA-WEST HELENA, AR: March 9 Trial Set in "Covington" Action --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr., issued an order on January 7, 2015, in the case captioned GARY COVINGTON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULESS WALLACE, HERMAN HALL, and NEAL BYRD, all in their official capacities, Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-123-DPM, (E.D. Ark.). Mr. Wallace is the chief of police at Helena West Helena Police Department. The order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/BlqFkk from Leagle.com, states that: "1. The parties' jointly proposed changes to the draft notice are fine. The Court applauds the overall improvements in clarity. We still need to fill in the blanks and craft an exclusion form. The Court also needs to decide the particulars of notice. Joint report covering all this ground due by 23 January 2015. 2. The Court didn't intend to set a deadline for an interim fee petition. Covington can file one whenever he chooses. His motions to extend time, NQ 145 & 146, are denied without prejudice as moot. 3. The liability issues are set for trial the week of 9 March 2015. Any trial in the related excessive-force case will go first, then this case. The City Defendants' objection to bifurcating liability and damages is overruled. Bifurcation makes good sense. FED. R. CIV. P. 42(b). Pretrial disclosure sheets, motions in limine, proposed jury instructions, and all other pretrial filings are due by 6 February 2015. Motions, NQ 145 & 146, denied without prejudice as moot." Gary Covington, Plaintiff, represented by Luther Oneal Sutter -- luthersutter.law@gmail.com -- Sutter & Gillham, PLLC & Lucien Ramseur Gillham -- lucien.gillham@gmail.com -- Sutter & Gillham, PLLC. Uless Wallace, in his Official Capacity, Defendant, represented by Sara Teague -- steague@arml.org -- Arkansas Municipal League & Paul Gregory Charton -- pcharton@catlaw.com -- Catlett Law Firm. Neal Byrd, In his Official Capacity, Defendant, represented by Nicholas Rudolph Windle -- nick@hotspringslaw.net -- & C. Burt Newell -- burt@hotspringslaw.com -- C. Burt Newell, Attorney at Law. Herman Hall, in his Official Capacity, Defendant, represented by Sara Teague, Arkansas Municipal League. HONEST TEA: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss Labeling Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck and Juan Carlos Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge on Jan. 5 refused to toss a proposed class action accusing Honest Tea Inc. of dishonestly marketing its honey green tea as a source of antioxidants, finding sufficient evidence that the company's product labeling might violate federal regulations. Denying Honest Tea's motion to dismiss an amended version of the complaint, U.S. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller decided that statements appearing on the company's products may qualify as nutrient content claims that have to comply with U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulations. The statements allegedly describe the teas as being "packed" with a "potent" flavonoid antioxidant, among other claims. Lead plaintiff Sarah A. Salazar alleges Honest Tea's products are misbranded because there aren't any reference daily intakes for flavonoid antioxidants. Moreover, defendant's nutrient content claims don't include the nutrients at issue or use a symbol to link the term "antioxidant" to them, she argues. Honest Tea has contended the challenged statements that the company has allegedly made since 2008 only tell consumers that the flavonoid antioxidants are present in the teas and don't describe the levels of the antioxidants in the products. Additionally, the labels don't use any FDA-defined terms to characterize the levels, according to the defendant. Judge Mueller on Jan. 5 sided with Ms. Salazar, deciding that, "Assuming these statements are nutrient content claims, plaintiff has alleged the products have not met the requirements for making such claims." Ms. Salazar sued the beverage maker in November 2013, alleging she wouldn't have purchased honey green tea had she known the truth about the product's antioxidant content, and instead would have paid much less for tea leaves or tea bags of green tea. Ms. Salazar also claimed that the use of the word "honest" contributed to the deceptive nature of the company's advertising campaigns. In June, Judge Mueller tossed most of the claims in the suit. She said that, in order for Ms. Salazar's state law claims to be permitted, they must allege that the beverage's labels violate the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act's labeling requirements. However, the court refused to dismiss Ms. Salazar's claims that rely on Honest Tea's use of the word "honest," ruling that these claims are more than puffery because the company is attempting to paint itself as a "refreshingly" and "brutally" honest brand. The court also found that Salazar has standing to bring her claims against both the post-2011 beverage that she actually purchased and the pre-2011 beverage that she did not purchase. Later in June, Ms. Salazar amended her complaint to underscore that Honest Tea's labeling statements contravene the FDCA because they characterize flavonoid antioxidants and thus are unauthorized nutrient content claims that violate various California state laws. Honest Tea argued that Salazar had to allege that she was actually deceived and injured by a false or misleading representation, in order to pursue her misbranding claim. But Judge Mueller on Jan. 5 disagreed, saying another court had found a plaintiff's injury could be based on the allegation that she wouldn't have bought a product if she had known the label was unlawful. The judge also denied the defendant's argument that the First Amendment bars Salazar from trying to hold Honest Tea liable for conveying truthful information. Judge Mueller said that, for commercial speech to fall within the protected zone of the First Amendment, it can't be misleading. The judge gave Honest Tea up to 21 days to file an answer to the amended complaint. Honest Tea said in a statement provided to Law360 on Jan.6 that the company "stands by our brand name and marketing. We find the court's decision to be disappointing but will continue to vigorously defend the Honey Green Tea label." Ms. Salazar is represented by L. Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Annick M. Persinger and Yeremey Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- of Bursor & Fisher PA. Honest Tea is represented by Steven A. Zalesin -- sazalesin@pbwt.com -- and Travis J. Tu -- tjtu@pbwt.com -- of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, and Tammy B. Webb of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP. The case is Sarah A. Salazar et al. v. Honest Tea Inc., case number 2:13-cv-02318, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Ordered to Submit Supplemental Briefing ----------------------------------------------------------- In DENIS MULLIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants. HAVERHILL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants, NOS. C-13-1037 EMC, C-13- 1566 EMC, (N.D. Cal.), currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. District Judge Edward M. Chen issued an order on January 8, 2015, directing the parties to submit supplemental briefing and/or evidence on these issues: (1) Plaintiffs assert in their motion that the $8,000,000 Settlement Fund "represents a substantial portion of the total Class damages." Plaintiffs, however, have not provided any information as to the maximum value of the case if they had prevailed on the merits. The parties should therefore provide their estimates as to the maximum value of this case. The parties should also provide sufficient explanation of how they arrived at this estimate. (2) The Plaintiffs assert in their motion that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable given the risks of further litigation. Plaintiffs' discussion of the litigation risks, however, is highly general. The parties should provide a more detailed discussion of the relative merits and weaknesses of Plaintiffs' case, in light of the discovery that has occurred to date. A copy of the Court's order is available at http://is.gd/ctAGBH from Leagle.com. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lometti -- clometti@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Daniel S. Sommers -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers Toll PLLC, Steven J. Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll, P.L.L.C., Solomon B. Cera -- scera@gbcslaw.com -- Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP & Thomas C. Bright -- tbright@gbcslaw.com -- Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP. Haverhill Retirement System, Individually and on behalf of all Others Simiarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher T. Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio. Impax Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Marcy Christina Priedeman -- marcy.priedeman@lw.com -- Latham Watkins LLP, Patrick Edward Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP & Peter Allen Wald -- peter.wald@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins. Larry Hsu, Defendant, represented by Marcy Christina Priedeman, Latham Watkins LLP, Patrick Edward Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP & Peter Allen Wald, Latham & Watkins. Arthur A. Koch, Defendant, represented by Marcy Christina Priedeman, Latham Watkins LLP, Patrick Edward Gibbs, Latham & Watkins LLP & Peter Allen Wald, Latham & Watkins. City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, Movant, represented by Blair Allen Nicholas -- blairn@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. INVENSENSE INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- William Lendales, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Invensense, Inc., Behrooz Abdi and Alan Krock, Case No. 3:15-cv-00142 (N.D. Cal., January 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Invensense, Inc. designs, develops, markets and sells Micro- Electro- Mechanical Systems sensors, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes and microphones for consumer electronics. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Invensense, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Francis P. McConville, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue 20th FLoor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq. Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Michael M. Goldberg, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com info@glancylaw.com mmgoldberg@glancylaw.com IY CATERING: "Banegas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Joel Banegas, and other similarly situated individuals v. I. Y. Catering, Inc. d/b/a Etzel Itzik and Isaac Younis, Case No. 1:15- cv-20097 (S.D. Fla., January 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a Middle-Eastern Restaurant in Miami-Dade, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com JACOB TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Wright, an individual and resident of Nevada; on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals v. Jacob Transportation, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, D/B/A Executive Las Vegas, Case No. 2:15-cv-00056 (D. Nev., January 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Jacob Transportation, LLC is a transportation industry that provides local passenger transportation services. The Plaintiff is represented by: David H. Grounds, Esq. Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com jrusch@johnsonbecker.com - and - Don Springmeyer, Esq. WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN AND RABKIN, LLP 3556 E Russell Rd., Second Floor Las Vegas, NV 89120-2234 Telephone: (702) 341-5200 Facsimile: (702) 341-5300 E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 2000 Town Center Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com JOHN WILEY: "Kunkel" Suit Moved From California to New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Kunkel, et al. v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Case No. 4:14-cv-03180, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The New Jersey District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00094 to the proceeding. The case is a proposed class action for copyright infringement brought by the Plaintiffs alleging copyright infringement against Wiley for use of photographs provided to Wiley beyond the limits of any licenses the Plaintiffs or Visuals Unlimited, a stock photo company, granted Wiley, or without any original license at all. Wiley, a textbook publisher, obtains licenses to publish photographs in its textbooks from Visuals Unlimited. Visuals Unlimited, acting as an agent on behalf of the Plaintiffs, provides Wiley with limited licenses to use Plaintiffs' and Class Members' Photographs in print and electronic media. Instead of obtaining a "running royalty" license based on the number of books Wiley publishes, Wiley obtained a limited license to publish a fixed number of books based on a fixed license fee, the Plaintiffs contend. They add that Wiley, then, willfully exceeded that license, without permission or payment to them for this use. Wiley has been sued by numerous individual photographers and stock photo companies nationwide over the past several years for exceeding the limited licenses it obtained for photographs, according to the complaint. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric B. Fastiff, Esq. David T. Rudolph, Esq. Katherine C. Lubin, Esq. Patricia A. Dyck, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 Telephone: (415) 956-1000 Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 E-mail: efastiff@lchb.com drudolph@lchb.com klubin@lchb.com pdyck@lchb.com - and - Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Facsimile: (212) 355-9592 E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com - and - Christopher Seidman, Esq. HARMON & SEIDMAN LLC 101 South Third Street, Suite 265 Grand Junction, CO 81501 Telephone: (970) 245-9075 Facsimile: (970) 245-8086 E-mail: chris@harmonseidman.com - and - Maurice Harmon, Esq. HARMON & SEIDMAN LLC 11 Chestnut Street New Hope, PA 18938 Telephone: (215) 693-1953 Facsimile: (970) 245-8086 E-mail: maurice@harmonseidman.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert Penchina, Esq. LEVINE SULLIVAN KOCH & SCHULTZ LLP 321 W. 4th Street, Suite 510 New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 850-6100 E-mail: rpenchina@lskslaw.com JP MORGAN: Settles Bear Stearns Class Action for $500-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------- David Bario, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that JPMorgan Chase & Co. has bowed out of another mortgage-backed securities lawsuit, agreeing to pay about $500 million to resolve class action claims stemming from Bear Stearns' sale of nearly $17.6 billion of the investments in the lead-up to the 2008 financial crisis. Plaintiffs lawyers at Berstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll told U.S. District Judge Laura Swain in a letter on Jan. 8 that their pension fund clients have reached "an agreement in principle" with JPMorgan. A person familiar with the matter, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the settlement amount is roughly $500 million. The deal was first reported by Reuters, which also pegged the value at $500 million. "Following extensive negotiations, the parties have reached agreement and executed a binding term sheet containing the material terms of the settlement," the plaintiffs lawyers wrote in the Jan. 8 letter The plaintiffs asked Swain, who must sign off on the deal, to set a Feb. 2 deadline for the two sides to formally request preliminary court approval. The settlement would fully resolve a proposed class action alleging that Bear Stearns -- which JPMorgan acquired in 2008 -- misled investors about the quality of loans underpinning $17.58 billion in mortgage-backed securities sold in 14 offerings between May 2006 and April 2007. Since the litigation kicked off in 2008, JPMorgan has fought the allegations with an ever-changing lineup of defense lawyers. Morgan Lewis & Bockius was the first to lead the defense, before now-defunct Bingham McCutchen took over in 2009. Then, in 2012, on the heels of a decision from Swain refusing to dismiss most of the case, Cravath, Swain & Moore entered an appearance alongside Bingham. Both Cravath and Bingham eventually withdrew in October and November of 2013, handing the baton to Greenberg Traurig and Sullivan & Cromwell, which have served as defense counsel since. Greenberg Traurig's Richard Edlin -- edlinr@gtlaw.com -- and Sullivan & Cromwell's Richard Sacks -- sacksr@sullcrom.com -- represented JPMorgan in the settlement talks, according to recent court filings. The lead plaintiffs lawyers, Berstein Litowitz's David Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com -- and Cohen Milstein's Daniel Sommers -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- declined to comment on Jan. 9 on the details of the settlement, as did a spokesman for JPMorgan. In November 2013, federal and state regulators announced a $13 billion deal with JPMorgan to resolve claims stemming from the packaging, marketing and sale of mortgage-backed securities by JPMorgan, Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual. JP MORGAN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Appeal of Denied Loan ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stacie Lonaker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., a business entity; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-00157 (N.D. Cal., January 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to send a written notice which identified the amount of time from the date of the denial of the first lien loan modification application in which the Plaintiff may request an appeal and instructions regarding how to appeal the denial. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., is a diversified financial marketing and services company engaged primarily in residential mortgage banking and/or related businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew David Mellen, Esq. MELLEN LAW FIRM 411 Borel Ave., Suite 230 San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 638-0120 Facsimile: (650) 638-0125 E-mail: mellenlaw@yahoo.com JUI LI ENTERPRISE: Court Denies Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lynn Adelman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied the joint motion of the defendants to dismiss the putative class action filed by the plaintiffs in the consolidated case, FOND DU LAC BUMPER EXCHANGE, INC. v. JUI LI ENTERPRISE COMPANY, LTD., Case Nos. 09C0852, 13C0946, 13C0987, 13C0987 (E.D. Wis.). Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against the defendants for unjust enrichment, restraint of trade, fraudulent concealment and treble damages due to overpricing and price fixing for the products purchased from the company. The defendants contended that some of the claims of the plaintiffs are barred by statutes of limitation specifically the time constraint of the three-year rule upon the discovery of the injury and that plaintiffs are in constructive notice therefore case of fraudulent concealment can not survive. The Court ruled that (1) the discovery of the violation still fall under the three-year period since plaintiff still indirectly purchase from the defendant, and (2) fraudulent concealment is a fact issue as to precise time the plaintiffs actually discovered the injuries. In 2009, a group of direct purchasers of aftermarket sheet metal products filed a putative class action against defendants alleging a violation of the Sherman Act. Subsequently, various indirect purchasers including Fireman's Fund Insurance Company filed putative class actions alleging state law antitrust and unfair competition claims which the court consolidated with the direct purchasers' action. A copy of the Decision and Order dated January 12, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/fSQ1C5from Leagle.com. Fond du Lac Bumper Exchange Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew M Purdy -- apurdy@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Benjamin D Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, Bonny E Sweeney -- bsweeney@hausfeld.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher M Burke -- cburke@scott-scott.com -- Dean M Harvey -- dharvey@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Douglas A Millen -- dmillen@fklmlaw.com -- Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Eric B Fastiff -- efastiff@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Jason S Hartley -- hartley@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Jason A Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobal Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey A Leon, Quantum Legal LLC, Jessica N Servais -- jservais@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills & Olson PLC, Jon T King -- jonk@hbsslaw.com -- The Furth Firm LLP, Joseph M Barton -- joebartonesq@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Joseph M Barton, Joseph R Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, K Scott Wagner -- ksw@halewagner.com -- Hale & Wagner SC, Kevin E Rayhill -- krayhill@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Michael P Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Patrick J Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Robert G Eisler, Grant & Eisenhofer PA, Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Tiantian Chen, Joseph Saveri Law Firm & Vincent J Esades, Heins Mills & Olson PLC. Roberts Wholesale Body Parts Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Bonny E Sweeney, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christopher M Burke, Douglas A Millen, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Eric B Fastiff, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Jason S Hartley, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Jason A Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobal Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey A Leon, Quantum Legal LLC, Jon T King, The Furth Firm LLP, Joseph M Barton, Law Offices of Joseph M Barton, Joseph R Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, K Scott Wagner, Hale & Wagner SC, Michael P Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Patrick J Stueve, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Rachel L B Stoering, Susan G Kupfer, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Vincent J Esades, Heins Mills & Olson PLC. Dzidra Fuller, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Brad Yamauchi, Minami Tamaki LLP, Daniel J Mulligan, Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel LLP, Derek G Howard, Minami Tamaki LLP, Glicel E Sumagaysay, Minami Tamaki LLP, Jack W Lee, Minami Tamaki LLP & John C Cabaniss, Cabaniss Law. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P Caraher, Cozen O'Connor, Catherine R Reilly, Cozen O'Connor, Daniel R Karon, Goldman Scarlato Karon & Penny PC, Melissa H Maxman, Cozen O'Connor & Ronald F Wick, Cozen O'Connor. National Trucking Financial Reclamation Services, LLC, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Ben Barnow, Barnow and Associates PC & Michael L Roberts, Roberts Law Firm PA. Jui Li Enterprise Company Ltd, Defendant, represented by J Ric Gass, Gass Weber Mullins LLC, Michael B Brennan, Gass Weber Mullins LLC, Belinda S Lee -- belinda.lee@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson -- casandra.thomson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Joanna Rosen -- joanna.rosen@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Katherine M Larkin-Wong -- katherine.larkin- wong@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP & Yi Chin Ho -- yichin.ho@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP. Tong Yang Industry Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by Belinda S Lee, Latham & Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Joanna Rosen, Latham & Watkins LLP, Katherine M Larkin-Wong, Latham & Watkins LLP & Yi Chin Ho, Latham & Watkins LLP. Gordon Auto Body Parts, Defendant, represented by Belinda S Lee, Latham & Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Howard B Iwrey, Dykema Gossett PLLC, J Ric Gass, Gass Weber Mullins LLC, Joanna Rosen, Latham & Watkins LLP, Katherine M Larkin-Wong, Latham & Watkins LLP, Michael B Brennan, Gass Weber Mullins LLC & Yi Chin Ho, Latham & Watkins LLP. Auto Parts Industrial Ltd, Defendant, represented by Cindy D Hinkle, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Gretchen L Jankowski, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Joanna Rosen, Latham & Watkins LLP, Lynn J Alstadt, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC & Wendelynne J Newton, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC. Taiwan Kai Yih Industrial Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by Belinda S Lee, Latham & Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson, Latham & Watkins LLP & Katherine M Larkin-Wong, Latham & Watkins LLP. Cornerstone Auto Parts LLC, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Cindy D Hinkle, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Gretchen L Jankowski, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, Joanna Rosen, Latham & Watkins LLP, Lynn J Alstadt, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC & Wendelynne J Newton, Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC. TYG Products LP, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Belinda S Lee, Latham & Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Joanna Rosen, Latham & Watkins LLP, Katherine M Larkin-Wong, Latham & Watkins LLP & Yi Chin Ho, Latham & Watkins LLP. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co Ltd, Consolidated Defendant, represented by Belinda S Lee, Latham & Watkins LLP, Casandra L Thomson, Latham & Watkins LLP, J Ric Gass, Gass Weber Mullins LLC, Joanna Rosen, Latham & Watkins LLP, Katherine M Larkin-Wong, Latham & Watkins LLP, Michael B Brennan, Gass Weber Mullins LLC & Yi Chin Ho, Latham & Watkins LLP. Roberts Wholesale Body Parts Inc, Movant, represented by Jason S Hartley, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Jessica N Servais, Heins Mills & Olson PLC, K Scott Wagner, Hale & Wagner SC & Vincent J Esades, Heins Mills & Olson PLC. KANSAS POWER AND LIGHT: Order Denying Arbitration Bid Upheld ------------------------------------------------------------ Presiding Judge Karen King Mitchell with the concurrence of Justices Cynthia Martin and Gary D. Witt of the Court of Appeals of Missouri affirmed a lower court decision in the case, RICHARD SHARP, et al., Respondents, v. KANSAS CITY POWER and LIGHT COMPANY and KCP&L GREATER MISSOURI OPERATIONS COMPANY, Appelants, Case No. WD774444. Kansas City Power and Light Company and KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company filed an appeal from the decision of the lower court denying their motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration relative to the class suit by Richard sharp, et al. for breach of contract, negligence, violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and fraud/misrepresentationin the Solar Energy Rebate Program. Appellants claimed that the trial court erred in its findings for two reasons: (1) the consumers are bound by the provisions of the dispute resolution, and (2) the complaint is within the ambit of arbitration before the Missouri Public Service Commission (PSC). The Court said the dispute resolution provision does not constitute an arbitration agreement, and the trial court committed no error in denying the motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration. The Appellants failed to validate the prerequisites necessary to invoke authority under the dispute resolution provision. A copy of the Opinion dated January 13, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/MUJfWNfrom Leagle.com. Respondents are represented by: John Spencer, Esq. TIEMAN, SPENCER, HOLADAY & HICKS 702 Felix Street St. Joseph, MO 64501 Tel: (816)279-3000 Fax: (816)279-3066 E-mail: john.spencer@tshhlaw.com LEXYCON LLC: Cited for Chemical Spill Environmental Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Mattise, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a few towns over from the chemical plant that leaked a coal-cleaning mixture into the drinking water of 300,000 West Virginians last year, a new company run by some of the same people is being cited for similar environmental violations. State regulators have written up the new firm, Lexycon LLC, eight times since September for pouring chemicals without a permit, lacking proper "last-resort" walls to contain spills, and hosting tanker-trailers full of unknown chemicals, among other infractions, according to records reviewed by The Associated Press. Some of the infractions at Lexycon still haven't been addressed despite three site-wide inspections and dozens of smaller visits by regulators from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection since May, state reports show. Inspectors even found the same little-known chemical that leaked from a Freedom Industries Inc. facility and tainted the water supply for West Virginia's capital city, despite the Lexycon owner's promise to a federal judge that his company wouldn't touch the substance. The pollution at Freedom's Elk River operation triggered a tap water ban that brought the region to a standstill for days, with residents unable to shower or use their faucets and restaurants and other businesses shuttered for lack of clean water. The spill also sparked criticism in Congress that existing environmental rules aren't adequate, particularly in West Virginia, where the energy industry's heavy presence has always come with the risk of disaster. "I've noticed that when something goes wrong, you sell the company, you change the name," said Maya Nye of People Concerned About Chemical Safety, an advocacy group in the state. "Then suddenly, it looks like a shiny new package, but the way things operate is very similar. It's just kind of status quo." Two consultants who have worked with Lexycon are among six former Freedom officials charged last month over last January's massive spill. An FBI agent said in an affidavit that Freedom officials knew for a decade of the crack in the secondary containment wall that enabled the chemical to seep into the Elk River. They also didn't inspect leaky World War II-era tanks and shrugged off plans to decommission them, the agent said. Shortly after the spill, Freedom moved its chemicals away from its Elk River site to another company complex less than a half-mile from the Kanawha River in the town of Nitro, where a rusty water tower and plumes of white smoke from the nearby coal-fired power plant rise in the background. But state environmental inspectors soon recognized shoddy safeguards at the Nitro site, too: Containment walls filled with holes that could let materials seep into a stormwater ditch that drains into the Kanawha. Freedom filed for bankruptcy within days of the spill. Three months later, Lexycon was founded by David Carson, a chemical firm owner who had done business with Freedom and bought the Nitro location. Before he approved the transaction in May, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Ronald Pearson called it "a real positive in the case" that Lexycon was hiring former Freedom employees. Mr. Carson made an important promise to the bankruptcy judge in May: Lexycon wouldn't deal in the chemical known as MCHM, the main one that Freedom spilled. "It will not be on the site," Mr. Carson said in court, explaining why residents still raw over the spill a few months earlier shouldn't worry about the new company. "It's currently there. The day I take over is the last day it will be there." But when inspectors showed up at Lexycon in August, a tanker trailer of MCHM was sitting there without proper secondary containment, according to a state notice of violation. The chemical was gone when inspectors took an inventory in October. During another visit, state inspectors found another violation -- they couldn't figure out what was in two tanker trailers or to whom they belonged. The state has given the company 20 days to respond to the latest five violations. Any fines would be determined later, environmental department spokeswoman Kelley Gillenwater said. So far, the strongest action the state has taken against Lexycon came in September, when regulators ordered the company to stop storing certain chemicals until it obtained a permit, which it eventually did. LVI SERVICES: Removes "Ausencio" Class Suit to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Natividad Ausencio v. LVI Services, Inc., et al., Case No. BC558985, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00124-PA-PJW to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts claims for employment discrimination. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justian Jusuf, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIAN JUSUF APC 17011 Beach Boulevard Suite 900 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Telephone: (714) 274-9815 Facsimile: (714) 362-3148 E-mail: jjusuf@socal.rr.com The Defendants are represented by: Derrick Lam, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-0308 Facsimile: (310) 553-5583 E-mail: dlam@littler.com - and - Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 443-4300 Facsimile: (213) 443-4299 E-mail: estaggs-wilson@littler.com - and - Richard S. Falcone, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 2050 Main Street, Suite 900 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 705-3000 Facsimile: (949) 724-1201 E-mail: rfalcone@littler.com MACY'S INC: Seeks Dismissal of False Labeling Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Ryan, Lance Duroni and Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge was urged on Jan. 2 to nix Macy's Inc. and denim company Citizens of Humanity LLC's bid to toss a putative class action alleging they falsely market their jeans as being made entirely in the U.S., arguing the state's "Made in USA" statute is not preempted by federal law. The plaintiffs told U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino that the Federal Trade Commission Act, which was amended in 1994 to address "made in the USA" labels, does not override California law and shouldn't be the basis for tossing the suit claiming Citizens' "Boyfriend" jeans are deceptively labeled. "Citizens and Macy's [motion] asks this court to boldly go where no other court in California has ever gone in the 54 years since the California 'Made in USA' statute was enacted, the plaintiffs said. "Specifically, defendants ask this court to find that the . . . statute is preempted by federal law and violates the Dormant Commerce Clause." Plaintiffs Louise Clark and Robyn Marnell filed suit against the companies in June, claiming Citizens' Boyfriend jeans include several parts made outside the U.S., including fabric, thread, rivets and buttons, despite being labeled "made in the U.S.A." Other Citizens jeans also have zipper parts that are manufactured abroad, the suit says. But the defendants told the court in a Dec. 9 motion to dismiss that, in addition to the FTC Act, the California statute is also preempted by the Federal Textile Fiber Products Identification Act, which they say demands that they use the "made in the USA" label. Moreover, they said, the state law runs afoul of the U.S. Constitution, violating the dormant Commerce Clause. "[T]he California statute imposes a significant burden on interstate commerce, as sharply demonstrated by one of the defendants here -- a Wisconsin-based Internet retailer," the brief said, referring to BOP LLC, a third defendant in the suit. "That retailer must now either change its labeling for the whole country or set up procedures for identifying California-based customers and keep a supply on hand of specially labeled merchandise." And if other states decide on different requirements, manufacturers could end up being forced to produce numerous separately labeled garments, the defendants added. But the plaintiffs said on Jan. 2 that California enacted the statute to protect the "Made in USA" label in California. They also said that the very same federal court held in October that the statute is not preempted by federal law in Paz v. AG Adriano Goldschmeid. Ms. Clark is represented by John H. Donboli and J.L. Sean Slattery of Del Mar Law Group LLP. The defendants are represented by Michael A. Bowse -- mbowse@bgrfirm.com -- and Peter W. Ross -- pross@bgrfirm.com --of Browne George Ross LLP. The case is Louise Clark v. Citizens of Humanity LLC et al., case number 3:14-cv-01404, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL: April 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------- If you are a current or former Plan Administrator of a 401(k) or 401(a) ERISA plan that has contracted with Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., you should be aware of a class action settlement. What is this about? In a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts, the plaintiff, Golden Star, Inc., Plan Administrator of the Golden Star Administrative Associates' 401(k) Plan and Golden Star Bargaining Associates' 401(k) Plan alleged that Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company ("MassMutual") violated ERISA by receiving payments from mutual fund companies whose funds are offered as investment options to 401(k) and 401(a) retirement plans ("revenue sharing payments"). The Court has not made any rulings about whether MassMutual did anything wrong, and MassMutual denies all claims in the lawsuit. Plaintiff has agreed to settle the case because it believes that the settlement provides substantial and meaningful relief to the members of the settlement classes that relates directly to the allegations in Plaintiff's case, and in light of the potential risks of further litigation. MassMutual has agreed to settle to avoid the expense and distraction of further litigation. What does the settlement provide? Retirement plans that have contracts with MassMutual or have contracted with MassMutual from October 19, 2005 through December 8, 2014 can receive a payment from a settlement fund of $9,475,000 ("Settlement Fund"). MassMutual has also agreed to make a number of changes in their business practices. Who represents me? The Court has appointed lawyers to represent two classes of retirement plans at no cost to class members. These attorneys will ask the court to award up to $3,158,334 for their fees, plus up to $315,000 in expenses, and the Court will determine the fees and expenses to be paid. You may hire your own attorney if you wish, but at your own cost. What are my rights? To receive money, your plan must submit a completed Instruction Form by June 6, 2015 to the Settlement Administrator at the address below. If you do nothing, you will remain in the class but your plan will receive no money. If you still have an in- force contract with MassMutual, you do not need to do anything for your plan to receive the benefit of the new business practices. You may exclude yourself from the class that can receive money by sending a letter to the Lead Class Counsel and Settlement Administrator so that it is received no later than March 10, 2015 in the manner and form detailed in the full class notice. Your plan will not receive any money if you do so. You cannot exclude yourself from the Structural Changes Class that includes in-force contracts and contracts that are purchased in the future. You may object to the settlement by filing an objection with the Court, Lead Class Counsel, and Defendant's Counsel in the manner and form detailed in the full class notice received no later than March 10, 2015. If the Settlement is approved by the Court, class members who do not opt out will give up any claims covered by the Settlement and will be bound by the Court's orders in the case. The Court will hold a hearing on April 9, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. to consider whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate, to consider the motion for attorneys' fees and expenses and to consider all other matters. To request a copy of the full class notice or an Instruction Form, or for further information: Call: 1-866-274-4004 or Write: Strategic Claims Services Attn: GSI-MM Settlement 600 N Jackson Street - Suite 3 Media, PA 19063 METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Yale" Suit Over False Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Yale, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00199 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendant made false and misleading representation of the financial condition of the Company and the adequacy of the reserves and reserve system upon which Metropolitan Life operates. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company provides insurance, annuities, and employee benefit programs in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith W. Miller, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 22nd Floor New York, NY 10112 Telephone: (212) 262-6900 Facsimile: (212) 977-1649 E-mail: KeithMiller@perkinscoie.com - and - David J. Harth, Esq. Timothy W. Burns, Esq. Jeff J. Bowen, Esq. Eric G. Barber, Esq. Freya K. Bowen, Esq. Rhett P. Martin, Esq. Jesse J. Bair, Esq. PERKINS COIE LLP One East Main Street, Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 663-7460 Facsimile: (608) 663-7499 E-mail: DHarth@perkinscoie.com TBurns@perkinscoie.com JBowen@perkinscoie.com EBarber@perkinscoie.com FBowen@perkinscoie.com RMartin@perkinscoie.com JBak@perkinscoie.com - and - Shawn M. Raiter, Esq. LARSON KING LLP 30 East Seventh Street, Suite 2800 Saint Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 312-6518 Facsimile: (651) 312-6618 E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com NIPATHAI RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rafaela Alejandro Arriaga, and Leonides Eleuterio Jeronimo, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Nipathai Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Thai Seasons, Spice Chinese Restaurant Inc., Thai Season Corp., and Bi Yue Zou, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-00213 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and such other relief available by Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate full-service Chinese and Thai restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com OREGON LOTTERY: Faces Class Action Over Auto-Hold Problems ---------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Mapes, writing for The Oregonian, reports that a class-action lawsuit filed by Beaverton attorney Jay Zollinger in Multnomah County Circuit Court charges that Oregon Lottery's machines led video poker players to mistakenly believe they could maximize their chances of winning by allowing the machine to pick which cards to keep or discard. However, several of the lottery machines -- with such colorful names as "Jacks Or Better" and "Deuce's Wild" -- have worse odds if players use the "auto-hold" strategy instead of picking cards on their own, Mr. Zollinger alleges. The lawsuit charges that lottery officials were warned in 2009 that the auto-hold feature on some machines produced worse odds but did nothing to change the games or warn players. Joanie Stevens-Schwenger, the lottery's corporate communications director, declined to comment on the lawsuit, as is the usual practice for state agencies. The lottery's website does at least obliquely warn players they may not do as well if they let the machine pick which cards to draw. "Auto-hold strategies vary by game, based on the particular features of a game and do not necessarily result in theoretical payouts," the website says. Mr. Zollinger said the notice is too obscure to be of any use to players. And he said documents he obtained through a public records request showed that the lottery knew through research that players thought the auto-hold strategy produced the best possible results. "The lottery knows how the players perceive the auto-hold, and the lottery hasn't done anything affirmative to address that perception," he said. Using lottery documents, Mr. Zollinger said he calculated that the lower odds cost players $134 million in lower credits over the last five years. That doesn't mean players lost that much extra cash. The amount includes credits racked up but not necessarily paid out to players, who usually continue playing the fast-paced machines through a number of ups and downs. But with worse odds, they would tend to lose money more quickly. Lottery documents cited by Mr. Zollinger showed that eight different video poker machines used by the lottery had payouts between 1 percent and 5 percent less than the "theoretical payouts" listed for each of the machines on the lottery's website. Justin Curzi, a Portland consultant for business startups, is the listed plaintiff in the lawsuit and is the one who first discovered problems with the auto-hold strategies, Mr. Zollinger said. He said that Mr. Curz found while playing video poker with friends that the auto-hold strategy didn't always make the smartest play. In particular, he said, Mr. Curzi noticed times when the machine should have been steering players toward drawing for a flush instead of a lower-value straight. The lawsuit also highlights a little-known feature of the lottery. Officials for the lottery typically describe their games as based purely on chance. But that's not entirely the case with video poker, where the lottery's website says that "player choices affect the actual payout percentage of the game." PFIZER INC: Zolof MDL Plaintiffs Can Present Another Witness ------------------------------------------------------------ Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that hundreds of people who sued Pfizer alleging birth defects from its antidepressant Zoloft will be allowed to present another expert after the first one they offered to the court was tossed last summer. U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, who is handling the multidistrict litigation case, decided to allow the plaintiffs a second try in offering a key expert to testify as to Zoloft's causation of birth defects in babies born to mothers who took the drug while pregnant. Her decision came over the strong objections of Pfizer, which might have prevailed in barring the submission of a new expert in a less complex trial. Referring to the lawyers on the plaintiffs' steering committee, the PSC, Judge Rufe said, "The court fully appreciates Pfizer's argument that the PSC had every opportunity to select its expert witnesses and now seeks a 'Daubert do-over' after an unfavorable outcome. Had this issue arisen outside of the MDL context, this argument may have carried the day." The first Daubert hearing -- which allows parties in a case to challenge expert testimony before the start of trial and is named for the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals -- lasted for about a week last April and focused mostly on Dr. Anick Berard, who was the plaintiffs' initial key expert. In June, Judge Rufe barred her testimony, finding several problems with Dr. Berard's research and proffered testimony. Dr. Berard's research had linked Zoloft to a plethora of various birth defects, whereas the new expert, Nicholas Jewell, has proposed testimony on his research linking the use of Zoloft in pregnant women to only cardiac defects in their babies. About 60 percent of the more than 600 cases that are currently part of the MDL involve claims of cardiac defects, Michael Fishbein -- mfishbein@lfsblaw.com -- estimated. Mr. Fishbein is a lawyer at Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman and argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in front of Judge Rufe in November. Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, who argued on behalf of Pfizer at that hearing, had characterized the plaintiffs' motion to introduce a new expert as highly unusual, calling it a "Daubert do-over," using language adapted from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. During the hearing, Judge Rufe had fastened on the question of potential prejudice to Pfizer, saying to Mr. Cheffo, "I want to really know: How is Pfizer harmed and isn't it just as harmful not to grant the right to have Dr. Jewell come in?" In her opinion, Judge Rufe settled her question by acknowledging that allowing the plaintiffs to introduce a new expert may slightly prejudice Pfizer, but not enough to justify barring him at this stage. "Although there is some prejudice to Pfizer, in that it will be put to the additional expense required to litigate the admissibility of Dr. Jewell's proposed testimony, this prejudice is not of a character sufficient to warrant denial of the motion," the judge said. "Had the PSC presented Dr. Jewell earlier, as Pfizer contends the PSC should have done, Pfizer would be in the same position with regard to the question of the admissibility of Dr. Jewell's testimony," Judge Rufe said. "Although the PSC and Dr. Jewell have had the benefit of the court's prior Daubert rulings in the formulation of the new expert report, that does not create prejudice to Pfizer. Either Dr. Jewell's expert report and testimony will pass muster under Rule 702 or they will not." Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence governs admissability of expert testimony. Beyond that, Judge Rufe said, it is very likely that plaintiffs would present Jewell as an expert in other cases over Zoloft -- either those currently pending in state courts or in future actions yet to be filed -- so the company will have to address him at some point. "The court weighs heavily the indisputable fact that the evidence is of critical importance to plaintiffs, as 'the decision to admit or exclude scientific evidence and testimony . . . strongly affects the ability of a party to prevail,'" Judge Rufe said, quoting from the Manual for Complex Litigation. The judge emphasized that it is not to be considered an acceptable legal strategy to petition for a second expert after losing in a Daubert hearing, but, in this case the lawyers for the plaintiffs had acted in good faith. "The court in no way suggests seeking to present an additional expert only after an unfavorable Daubert ruling is an appropriate litigation strategy," she said. "However, the court has no reason to conclude that the PSC has acted in bad faith or that its present predicament is the result of deliberate strategy instead of a miscalculation as to the persuasiveness of Dr. Berard's testimony," Judge Rufe said. Pfizer issued a statement highlighting the fact that Judge Rufe's decision to allow the plaintiffs to present another expert doesn't weigh on the merits of the case. "The ruling is procedural and not a determination on the merits of the claims, which the plaintiffs still must prove. The decision only enables the plaintiffs to put forward a new causation expert as to alleged cardiac injuries that the company will be permitted to challenge. Pfizer remains confident that there is no reliable scientific evidence demonstrating that Zoloft causes the injuries alleged by the plaintiffs," according to the statement, which also noted that Zoloft is a U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved drug for treating depression in pregnant women. Mr. Fishbein said he had tried to emphasize during the argument in November that the nature of the case as an MDL, a complex litigation, changes its complexion and, he said, Judge Rufe properly considered that. "This is the right result," he said. PHILLIP MORRIS: Appeals Court Upholds $4.9-Mil. Jury Verdict ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a $4.9 million jury verdict against Phillip Morris for the widow of a man who died of lung cancer and claimed he started smoking before warning labels appeared on cigarette packs and in advertisements was upheld by a federal appeals court on Jan. 7. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the award in favor of Florence Mulholland, who with her husband, David Mulholland, filed suit in 2005 alleging he would never have started smoking as a teenager in the 1960s had there been effective warnings about the dangers of cigarettes. Mr. Mulholland died in 2006 after giving video testimony that was seen in 2013 by a jury before Southern District Judge Cathy Seibel. Attorneys for Phillip Morris argued that Seibel should have instructed the jury on but-for causation on Mulholland's claim for failure to warn. But Judges Rosemary Pooler, Debra Ann Livingston and Christopher Droney said the jury, in finding the failure to warn was a substantial factor in bringing about his injury, "would necessarily have had to reject the theory that Mr. Mulhollland would have smoked even if he had received adequate warning." The circuit also said the jury heard a significant amount of evidence that Mulholland would have heeded a warning had one been given. The court, however, rejected Mr. Mulholland's claim that Seibel erred when she denied punitive damages on the grounds that punitives were barred by the Master Settlement Agreement entered into by New York state with the nation's major tobacco companies. Jerome Block, partner at Levy Konigsberg argued for the plaintiff in Mulholland v. Phillip Morris USA, Inc. Mayer Brown partner Scott Chesin -- sachesin@mayerbrown.com -- argued for the defense. POM WONDERFUL: Falsely Marketed Tea Products, "Alduey" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carolina Alduey and John Does 1-100 on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Pom Wonderful, LLC, and Roll International Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00206 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendants engaged in a uniform marketing campaign using the product packaging and the website www.pomwonderfiil.com to mislead consumers about the antioxidant content of its Pom Tea beverages, specifically on the label on packaging the describes the Products as an Antioxidant Super Tea. Pom Wonderful, LLC promotes, markets, distributes, and sells POM Wonderful pomegranate products throughout the United States. Roll International Corporation is an international company focused on healthy brands for healthy lifestyles. 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 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in "Machlan" Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James Donato granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss the case captioned DAVID MACHLAN, Plaintiff, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV- 01982-JD, (N.D. Cal.). In this consumer class action, plaintiff David Machlan alleges that defendants Procter & Gamble Company ("P&G") and Nehemiah Manufacturing Company ("Nehemiah") deceptively marketed several lines of personal wipes as "flushable" when in fact they were not. The complaint asserts four claims against defendants: (1) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Code Section 1750 et seq.; (2) false advertising in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17500 et seq. ("FAL"); (3) fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation; and (4) unfair, unlawful and deceptive trade practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. ("UCL"). Mr. Maclan asked the Court to grant him restitution and injunctive relief for his CLRA, FAL and UCL claims, and compensatory and punitive damages for his common law fraud claim. After jointly removing the action, P&G and Nehemiah moved to dismiss the complaint. In an amended order entered January 7, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/GaDmUbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Donato held that the portions of plaintiff's claims under the UCL, FAL and CLRA that seek injunctive relief are remanded to the California Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco. For the remainder of plaintiff's action, P&G's motion is granted with respect to the Charmin Freshmates wipes, but defendants' motions are denied in all other respects. The dismissal of plaintiff's claims for the Charmin wipes is with prejudice as to Mr. Machlan, but without prejudice to renewal by a new named plaintiff who did purchase the Charmin wipes. In light of these rulings, the Court vacates the case management deadlines previously set in this case and sets a case management conference for January 28, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. At that time, the parties should be prepared to discuss with the Court, among other things, (1) whether this Court should stay this action in favor of the parallel state court action, especially in light of the fact that the "primary form of relief available under the UCL" is an injunction, to which restitution is merely "ancillary," see In re Tobacco II, 46 Cal. 4th at 319; (2) whether plaintiff intends to amend the complaint in this federal action to add a plaintiff who did purchase the Charmin wipes, among other things; and (3) any other suggestions for most efficiently resolving plaintiff's claims on their merits, with the minimum amount of duplication and possibility of conflict between the state and federal courts. A copy of the Court's initial order entered January 6, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/QeLnERfrom Leagle.com. David Machlan, Plaintiff, represented by Seth Adam Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Adam Gutride -- adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, Kristen Gelinas Simplicio -- kristen@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP & Marie Ann McCrary -- marie@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP. Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Cortlin Hall Lannin -- clannin@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP & Sonya Diane Winner, Covington & Burling LLP. Nehemiah Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by William Charles Wilka -- bwilka@ddrs.com -- Dudnick Detwiler Rivin & Stikker LLP & Donald J. Mooney, Jr. -- dmooney@ulmer.com -- Ulmer and Berne LLP. PULASKI BANK: Court Denies Partial FLSA Settlement -------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Greg Kays declined to approve the partial settlement in the case captioned TODD BRANSON, et al., Plaintiff v. PULASKI BANK, Defendant, Case No. 4:12-CV-01444-DGK. The case is an "opt-in" collective action arising out of Plaintiffs' employment as loan officers with Pulaski Bank. They allege that Pulaski violated the Fair Labor Standards Act, by willfully failing to pay them the minimum wage and overtime compensation due. Pulaski denies the allegations. As part of a settlement reached in an unrelated state court lawsuit, Plaintiffs Eric Eisenmenger, Derek Mannell, Cherrie Miller, Barry Priest, Christopher Resch, Curtis Schartz, Nathan Steele, Nikki Tygard, Kelly Whitwood, Charles Ziegler, and Jennifer Zillner -- Settling Plaintiffs -- move to dismiss their FLSA claims in this case. On September 23, 2013, Pulaski and the Settling Plaintiffs submitted a joint stipulation of dismissal in this lawsuit seeking to dismiss the Settling Plaintiffs' FLSA claims with prejudice without seeking Court approval. The Court interposed this joint stipulation since the settlement was still due for Court review and approval. Upon review, the Court denied the motion as the Settlement (1) does not demonstrate that a bona fide wage and hour dispute exists; (2) is not fair and equitable; and (3) does not provide for a mandatory award of attorney's fees and costs. A copy of Chief District Judge Kays' Order dated January 12, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/8UTdeRfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff R. Scurlock, Esq. George A. Hanson, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816)714-7100 Email: scurlock@stuevesiegel.com hanson@stuevesiegel.com Defendant Pulaski Bank is represented by: John Albert Vering, III, Esq. Robert A. Kaiser, Esq. Sheena Hamilton, Esq. ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP 7700 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Email: jvering@armstrongteasdale.com rkaiser@armstrongteasdale.com shamilton@armstrongteasdale.com QUALITY RESOURCES: Must Correct Flaws in Affirmative Defenses ------------------------------------------------------------- In SARAH TONEY on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. QUALITY RESOURCES, INC., SEMPRIS, LLC, d/b/a BUDGET SAVERS and PROVELL, INC, f/k/a BUDGET SAVERS, Defendants, CASE NO. 13 C 42, (N.D. Ill.), Quality Resources has filed its Answer and Affirmative Defenses to the Third Amended Complaint brought against it and other defendants by Ms. Toney in this putative class action invoking the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. District Judge Milton I. Shadur on January 6, 2015, issued a memorandum order sua sponte to address some problematic aspects of that responsive pleading. A copy of that Order is available at http://is.gd/U2juvxfrom Leagle.com. Judge Shadur wrote, "To begin with, Quality's counsel has repeatedly (see Answer Paragraphs 8, 9, 11-17, 30, 40, 62-64, 66, 70, 72-75, 78-80, 82-84, 102, 118 and 1191) coupled a Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(b)(5) disclaimer with the assertion 'and therefore denies same.' That is of course oxymoronic -- how can a litigant state that it lacks enough information even to form a belief as to the truth of an allegation, then go on to deny that allegation? That locution flouts the pleader's Rule 11(b) obligation to act in both objective and subjective good faith. Hence the quoted language is stricken from Quality's Answer wherever it appears. Next, Quality's counsel acts at odds with the fundamental notice- pleading purpose that should govern litigants on both sides of the "v." sign in federal practice -- it does so by engaging in a large set of purported denials (see Answer Paragraphs 19-22, 24, 51, 52, 55, 59, 60, 63-65, 67, 69, 70 and 80) that are really unresponsive to the corresponding allegations of the TAC. All of those Answer paragraphs must be rewritten to admit whatever allegations in those paragraphs are true, even though an Answer paragraph may then continue with appropriate (and not obfuscatory) hedges." Furthermore, Judge Shadur pointed out that: 1. Each of Affirmative Defense 1, 4 and 6 contains the telltale language "to the extent" -- a sure tipoff that at this time Quality has no knowledge of any matter that is the subject of speculation in those Affirmative Defenses. Each of those Affirmative Defenses is stricken, but without prejudice to their possible reassertion if, as and when the future discovery in the case may reveal that the situations referred to there are found to have occurred. 2. Affirmative Defense 2 needs to be fleshed out to state a viable defense, particularly in view of the statutory damages potential created by the Act. That Affirmative Defense is also stricken, and if Quality wishes to reassert it, that must be done in a manner that provides appropriate authority for the position taken in that Affirmative Defense. 3. Finally, the purported "Reservation" that follows the Affirmative Defenses adds nothing to the litigation. It merely recites an entitlement that will operate in Quality's favor only if the condition specified there arises in the future. For the present that paragraph is also stricken. The Court ordered Quality's counsel to file a self-contained Amended Answer curing the flaws. All other aspects of the case, including the next scheduled status hearing date, remain in effect. Sarah Toney, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC, Anthony Paronich -- anthony@broderick-law.com -- Broderick Law, P.c. & Matthew Mccue -- mmccue@massattorneys.net -- Law Office Of Matthew Mccue. Quality Resources, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brent M. Ryan -- bryan@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet Divito & Rothstein LLC, Jeffrey Backman -- jeffrey.backman@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Richard W. Epstein -- richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A. & Timothy A. Hudson -- thudson@tdrlawfirm.com -- Tabet DiVito Rothstein. Stompeez, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Backman, Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Richard W. Epstein, Greenspoon Marder, P.A. & Timothy A. Hudson, Tabet DiVito Rothstein. Infomercials, Inc., Defendant, represented by Richard W. Epstein, Greenspoon Marder, P.A.. Sempris, LLC, Defendant, represented by Craig Christopher Martin -- cmartin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Brienne M Letourneau -- bletourneau@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, David Eric Jimenez-Ekman -- djimenez-ekman@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Matthew R Devine -- mdevine@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP. RAPID RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Moshe Klein, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Rapid Recovery Solution, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00084 (E.D.N.Y., January 7, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com REVERE PLASTICS: Sued in Ind. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Logan C. Bazzell-Ferree, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Revere Plastics Systems, LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-00047 (S.D. Ind., January 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Revere Plastics Systems, LLC engages in the design, development, manufacture, and supply of custom plastic injection molded parts primarily to appliance and automotive components industries in North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Hunt, Esq. GIBBONS LEGAL GROUP, PC 3091 E. 98th Street, Suite 280 Indianapolis, IN 46280 Telephone: (317) 706-1100 Facsimile: (317) 623-8503 E-mail: rob@gibbonslegalgroup.com SAE ROACH: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Herme Abundio Rodriguez Garcia and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. S.A.E. Roach Busters Bug Killers of America, Inc., and Juan Lopez, 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 pest control company that regularly transacts business within 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 SAXON MORTGAGE: Court Tosses Bid to Stay "Valdez" Case ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Christina A. Snyder denied a motion to stay the case captioned SHANE VALDEZ, v. SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC. ET AL., CASE NO. 2:14-CV-03595-CAS(MANX), (C.D. Cal.). The motion to stay was filed by Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company with respect to claims against them. They asserted that a stay should be granted because Ocwen has reached a settlement in principle in another class action involving force placed insurance policies -- Lee v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Assurant, Inc. and American Security Insurance Co., Case No. 0:14-cv-60649-JAL (Lee) -- which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. "Because it appears that plaintiffs' action will proceed in this Court regardless of whether the Lee settlement is ultimately approved -- and because the only hardship proffered by moving defendants is the inconvenience of litigating two potentially duplicative actions the Court denies defendants' request for a stay," Judge Snyder wrote in her January 6, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/1OqAeyfrom Leagle.com. Shane Valdez, Individually and as a Representative of the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald S Kravitz, Law Offices of Ronald S. Kravitz, Rosemary F Luzon, Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah LLP, Valerie L Chang, Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah LLP, Raymond N Barto, Squitieri and Fearon LLP & Stephen J Fearon, Jr, Squitieri and Fearon LLP. Cecilia Valdez, on behalf of herself and as a representative of the Class, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald S Kravitz -- rkravitz@kravitzesq.com -- Law Offices of Ronald S. Kravitz, Rosemary F Luzon -- rluzon@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah LLP, Valerie L Chang -- vchang@sfmslaw.com -- Shepherd Finkelman Miller and Shah LLP, Raymond N Barto -- raymond@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri and Fearon LLP & Stephen J Fearon, Jr -- stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- Squitieri and Fearon LLP. Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary Gail Gearns -- marygail.gearns@bingham.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Matthew Minerva -- matthew.minerva@bingham.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Nicolette Leilani Young -- nicolette.young@bingham.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian V Otero -- botero@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams LLP, Jason Jonathan Kim -- kimj@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams LLP, Ryan Becker -- sbecker@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams LLP & Stephen R Blacklocks -- sblacklocks@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams LLP. American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Dawn B Williams, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, Frank G Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, Mark A Neubauer, Mark A Neubauer, Meredith M Moss -- mmoss@cfjblaw.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, LLP & W Glenn Merten, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee for the Registered Holders of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital I Inc. Trust 2007-NC3 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-NC3, Defendant, represented by Brian V Otero, Hunton and Williams LLP, Jason Jonathan Kim, Hunton and Williams LLP, Ryan Becker, Hunton and Williams LLP & Stephen R Blacklocks, Hunton and Williams LLP. SEARS ROEBUCK: Judge Approves $1.6MM Calif. Labor Law Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a California labor law settlement that was previously rejected by a US District Court Judge in California has been revised and approved, marking an end to a legal battle for some 3,000 class members in a California labor lawsuit against Sears. The plaintiffs claimed that the giant retailer failed to pay minimum wage and overtime to Sears employees whose jobs entailed traveling to client homes and undertaking appliance repair, an affront to the California labor code, or so it was alleged. The amended settlement, approved by US District Judge Cormac J. Carney, is worth $1.6 million. Lead plaintiff Nikola Lovig filed the lawsuit in April 2011. An employee of Sears for a period of one year prior to filing his California labor lawsuit, Lovig was amongst Sears technicians who traveled to, from and between the homes of customers to undertake repairs to various Sears appliances and products. The employees would use company vans that were tricked out with the various parts and tools required to affect the repairs, as needed. In his California and labor law action, filed at US District Court for the Central District of California, Mr. Lovig accused Sears of failing to pay minimum wage and overtime, withholding payment for paid vacation days after employees quit, and failing to provide adequate meal and rest breaks in violation of the California Labor Code and California Business & Professions Code. Mr. Lovig also held Sears' feet to the fire for its alleged failure to reimburse employees for expenses. He also accused Sears of issuing incomplete wage statements. Judge Carney initially rejected the settlement, indicating that in his view the release terms were overly broad. However, less than a month after rejecting the initial settlement, Judge Carney granted preliminary approval to an amended settlement, noting that in his view the settlement was fair. "Having reviewed the negotiation process and substantive terms of the settlement agreement, the court finds no obvious deficiencies or grounds to doubt its fairness," the order noted. Judge Carney found that the previous settlement agreement had issues pertaining to the release of claims beyond the scope of the allegations of the operative, fourth amended complaint to include claims from other iterations of the original complaint. The amended terms of the settlement are said to have satisfied the judge's concerns. According to the terms of the settlement, mobile services technicians working for Sears from April 8, 2007 forward are to receive about $1.1 million based upon a typical class member's weeks of employment within the aforementioned window. Lead plaintiff Mr. Lovig may receive as much as $10,000 as an incentive award in the California labor employment law settlement. The California labor lawsuit is Lovig v. Sears Roebuck & Co., Case No. 5:11-cv-00756, in the US District Court for the Central District of California. SEAWORLD: Two Law Firms Named Co-Lead Counsel in Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two law firms have been named co-lead counsel in a class action lawsuit against SeaWorld over an attendance drop following the release of the documentary "Blackfish." Stockholders filed lawsuits in 2014 against the company that alleged the company failed to disclose adverse facts about its business, ultimately resulting in a $9 stock drop when those facts were finally released. The law firms named lead counsel by U.S. District Judge Michael Anello are Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check of Radnor, Pa., and San Francisco and Nix, Patterson & Roach of Austin and Texarkana, Texas. Also in Judge Anello's Dec. 10 order, he named Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge of San Diego as liaison counsel. On Jan. 19, 2013, Gabriela Cowperthwaite's documentary, "Blackfish," premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, and on Jan. 22, 2013, CNN Films and Magnolia Pictures acquired the rights to Blackfish. "Blackfish follows the 39 year tumultuous history of Tilikum, a SeaWorld Orca Whale, who has been involved in the death or serious injury of several SeaWorld trainers," a complaint filed by Lou Baker in September states. "Blackfish is comprised of interviews of former SeaWorld trainers, SeaWorld spectators and other experts such as Occupational Safety and Health Administration employees and scientists." Mr. Baker claims the film revealed for the first time that SeaWorld had improperly cared for and mistreated its Orca population causing mental distress to the company's Orca population affecting trainer and audience safety; continued to feature an Orca that had killed and injured numerous trainers; and consequently exposed the company to material and uncertainties that could adversely impact attendance at its family oriented parks. On July 19, 2013, "Blackfish" was released in theaters in New York, Los Angeles and Toronto. On Aug. 13, 2013, the company filed a press release on Form 8-K reporting the financial results for the first half of 2013 reporting a 9% drop in attendance. "SEAS falsely claimed that the drop in attendance was a product of the timing of Easter, when in reality, the bad publicity from the Blackfish film caused families to stay away from SEAS parks," the complaint states. CNN aired "Blackfish" on its network on Oct. 24, 2013. Nearly 21 million people watched "Blackfish" on CNN during that broadcast -- an unusually large audience for CNN programming, according to the suit. "Blackfish" was released on DVD in the United States on Nov. 12, 2013. Baker claims the dissemination of "Blackfish" sparked a nationwide debate about whales in captivity and the ethics of SeaWorld. On March 13, the company "filed a press release on Form 8-K reporting the financial results for the fourth quarter and full year of 2013," the complaint states. "To explain a 4.1% decline in attendance in 2013 . . . Atchison falsely stated that 'contributing to the decline in full year attendance was unexpected adverse weather conditions in the company's second quarter and July as well as the impact of an early Easter in 2013.'" Mr. Baker claims, in reality, the decline in attendance was the result of the mounting backlash from the "Blackfish" film. Two pension funds were appointed as lead plaintiffs after claiming they suffered approximately $4.3 million in losses. One of the funds is the Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System, and the other is Pensionskassen For Boerne -- Og Ungdomspaedagoger. SINGING RIVER: Defends Decision to End Employee Pension Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ Anita Lee, writing for Sun Herald, reports that Singing River Health System is in such bad shape financially that ending its employee pension plan was the best of all the bad options considered for survival, court documents say. In its latest U.S. District Court filing, Singing River argues lawsuits to stop pension termination belong in federal court rather than state court. The document also says the health system and a Biloxi law firm are about to file an agreement in federal court that will stave off pension termination for 90 days, making unnecessary state court restraining orders that prohibit the health system from ending the plan. Survival is the health system's goal, its court filing says: "Maintaining SRHS' financial viability is key because Jackson County relies on SRHS for health care. The financial position of SRHS is tenuous; full funding of the plan would only further challenge SRHS' ability to continue its mission of providing health care to the residents of Jackson County. "Due to a series of unexpected and unfortunate events, SRHS no longer has the means to fund the plan. After much research and due diligence, and reviewing every option (all of which were bad), SRHS determined that the only realistic option that could preserve SRHS and ensure continued care for the community was to terminate the plan and distribute its funds to the participants." Singing River filed the document in a lawsuit brought by retiree Cynthia Almond. Ms. Almond originally sued the health system in state Chancery Court, securing a temporary restraining order that prevents pension plan termination. The health system moved the case to federal court, arguing that federal laws, including tax codes, apply to the plan. Almond's restraining order expired after 10 days, but her attorneys lined up more retirees to file for restraining orders so one would remain in place. Singing River moved the fifth Chancery case, filed by retiree Ralph Drury, to federal court on Jan. 6. The restraining orders are unnecessary, the health system says, because it is finalizing an agreement to stop any action on pension termination for 90 days. The agreement is being worked out in another case filed in federal court on behalf of five current and former employees by the law firms Reeves & Meystayer in Biloxi and Cunningham Bounds in Mobile. The lawsuit accuses the health system, its board and executives of 20 counts of corporate and financial fraud, breach of contract and bad faith. The lawsuit also asks for class-action status to represent as a group current and former employees who qualify. Pension payments would continue under the agreement with Singing River, Reeves said, but it is still being negotiated. He said, "I think we will know in the next two or three days whether we will get the agreement done." The Singing River Board of Trustees voted in secret Nov. 20 to terminate the pension plan. Earlier in 2014, new CEO Kevin Holland announced the health system had an $88 million shortfall. More recently, he has said Singing River is losing more than $30 million a year. The health system operates county-owned hospitals in Pascagoula and Ocean Springs, employing 2,400 people. SONY ELECTRONICS: Class Notice in "Flynn" Case Gets Partial OK -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Cynthia Bashant granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for approval of class notice proposal in the case captioned RONALD FLYNN, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SONY ELECTRONICS, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 09-CV-2109-BAS(MDD), (S.D. Cal.). On September 25, 2009, Plaintiffs Ronald Flynn commenced this putative class action alleging that Defendant Sony Electronics, Inc. manufactured and sold defective notebook computers under the VAIO brand name from January 1, 2007 to the present. Plaintiffs Thad Nation, Christina Egner, and Rickey Glasco were later added to this lawsuit. In her ruling entered January 7, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/guYbXtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bashant held that notice approved by the Court will be provided to the class by: (1) Individualized email containing a summary of the litigation and a link to the case website; (2) Individualized mail containing the short-form notice; (3) A case-specific website with the long-form notice; (4) Four eighth-page short-form notices once a week for four consecutive weeks in the Los Angeles Daily News; (5) A Short-form notice the California and New Jersey editions of People; and (6) Internet banner ads and Facebook text ads geographically targeted to California and New Jersey that include the phrase "in CA & NJ." The Court also denied Plaintiffs' request for approval of notice using a case-specific Facebook page. Thad Nation, Plaintiff, represented by Alreen Haeggquist -- alreenh@zhlaw.com -- Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, Helen Irene Zeldes -- helenz@zhlaw.com -- Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, John A. Lowther -- john@doylelowther.com -- Doyle Lowther, LLP & William James Doyle, II -- bill@doylelowther.com -- Doyle Lowther LLP. Christina Egner, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Olsen -- aarono@zhlaw.com -- Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, Helen Irene Zeldes, Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, John A. Lowther, Doyle Lowther, LLP & Amber Lee Eck -- ambere@zhlaw.com -- Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP. Rickey Glasco, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Olsen, Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP, Helen Irene Zeldes, Zeldes Haeggquist & Eck, LLP & John A. Lowther, Doyle Lowther, LLP. Sony Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley A. Lebow, Cooley, LLP, Leo P Norton -- lnorton@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, Michael A Attanasio -- mattanasio@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish & Michelle C Doolin -- mdoolin@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING: Accused of Violating FDCPA ------------------------------------------------------ George Narvaez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC d/b/a SLS, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Case No. 8:15-cv-00019-SCB-TBM (M.D. Fla., January 7, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron M. Swift, Esq. Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq. J. Andrew Meyer, Esq. LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA 3900 First St. N, Suite 100 St. Petersburg, FL 33703-6109 Telephone: (727) 327-3328 Facsimile: (727) 327-3305 E-mail: aswift@leavenlaw.com ileavengood@leavenlaw.com ameyer@leavenlaw.com STAR VIEW: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Valentin Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Star View Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a The View Restaurant, Spiro Tzivas, individually, and George Zaharopolous, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-00266 (N.D. Ill., January 12, 2015), 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 in Bridgeview, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com STATE FARM: Main Paint Class Suit Included in Auto Body Shop MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Main Paint & Body, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:14- cv-02417, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-06021-GAP-TBS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In Re: Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2557, and Lead Case No. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS. Collectively, there are more than 80 insurers named as defendants in the actions. The Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy in the automobile insurance industry to suppress the reimbursement rates for automobile collision repairs, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state laws. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica L. Eversman, Esq. 846 N. Cleveland-Massillon Road Bath, OH 44333-2181 Telephone: (330) 668-2595 Facsimile: (330) 668-2627 E-mail: eeversman@vehicleinfo.com - and - Joshua R. Cohen, Esq. James B. Rosenthal, Esq. Jason R. Bristol, Esq. COHEN ROSENTHAL &KRAMER LLP The Hoyt Block Building, Suite 400 700 West St. Clair Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 781-7956 Facsimile: (216) 781-8061 E-mail: jcohen@crklaw.com - and - Dennis A. Becker, Esq. BECKER & CADE 526 Wards Comer Road, Suite A Loveland, OH 45140-9134 Telephone: (513) 683-2252 Facsimile: (513) 683-2257 E-mail: dabecker@fuse.net - and - Peter D. Traska, Esq. TRASKA LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 609306 Cleveland, OH 44109 Telephone: (216) 282-4738 Facsimile: (216) 342-7078 E-mail: ptraska@traskalawfirm.com Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company are represented by: Kevin M. Young, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-5577 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: kyoung@seyfarth.com STATE FARM: Main Paint Suit Consolidated in Auto Body Shop MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Main Paint & Body, Inc. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:14- cv-02417, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The Florida District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:14-cv-06021 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is included in the multidistrict litigation known as In Re: Auto Body Shop Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2557, and Lead Case No. 6:14-md-02557-GAP-TBS. Collectively, there are more than 80 insurers named as defendants in the actions. The Plaintiffs allege a conspiracy in the automobile insurance industry to suppress the reimbursement rates for automobile collision repairs, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state laws. The Plaintiff is represented by: Erica L. Eversman, Esq. 846 N. Cleveland-Massillon Road Bath, OH 44333-2181 Telephone: (330) 668-2595 Facsimile: (330) 668-2627 E-mail: eeversman@vehicleinfo.com - and - Joshua R. Cohen, Esq. James B. Rosenthal, Esq. Jason R. Bristol, Esq. COHEN ROSENTHAL &KRAMER LLP The Hoyt Block Building, Suite 400 700 West St. Clair Ave. Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 781-7956 Facsimile: (216) 781-8061 E-mail: jcohen@crklaw.com - and - Dennis A. Becker, Esq. BECKER & CADE 526 Wards Comer Road, Suite A Loveland, OH 45140-9134 Telephone: (513) 683-2252 Facsimile: (513) 683-2257 E-mail: dabecker@fuse.net - and - Peter D. Traska, Esq. TRASKA LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Box 609306 Cleveland, OH 44109 Telephone: (216) 282-4738 Facsimile: (216) 342-7078 E-mail: ptraska@traskalawfirm.com Defendants State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and State Farm Fire & Casualty Company are represented by: Kevin M. Young, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 131 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603-5577 Telephone: (312) 460-5000 Facsimile: (312) 460-7000 E-mail: kyoung@seyfarth.com Defendants Grange Mutual Casualty Company, Grange Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Trustgard Insurance Co. and Grange Indemnity Insurance Company are represented by: Joseph E. Ezzie, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER 65 East State Street, Suite 2100 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 462-4758 Facsimile: (614) 462-2616 E-mail: jezzie@bakerlaw.com Defendants Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, LM General Insurance Corporation, West American Insurance Company, LM Insurance Company, Peerless Indemnity Insurance Company, First Liberty Insurance Corporation, Mid American Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, American Fire and Casualty Company, Liberty Insurance Company, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Ohio Security Insurance Company and Safeco Insurance Company of America are represented by: Ernest E. Vargo, Esq. Michael E. Mumford, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP 3200 National City Center 1900 E 9th Street Cleveland, OH 44114-3485 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740 E-mail: evargo@bakerlaw.com mmumford@bakerlaw.com Defendants American Family Insurance Company, General Automobile Insurance Company, Inc., American Standard Insurance Company of Ohio, Permanent General Assurance Corporation of Ohio, Permanent General Assurance Corporation and American Family Mutual Insurance Company are represented by: Nathan F. Studeny, Esq. James L. McCrystal, Jr., Esq. BRZYTWA, QUICK & MCCRYSTAL 900 Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 664-6900 Facsimile: (216) 664-6901 E-mail: studeny@bqmlaw.com mccrystal@bqmlaw.com Defendant Erie Insurance Company is represented by: Jeffery D. Ubersax, Esq. Joseph R. Coburn, Esq. JONES DAY 901 Lakeside Ave. Cleveland, OH 44114-1190 Telephone: (216) 586-3939 Facsimile: (216) 579-0212 E-mail: jdubersax@jonesday.com jcoburn@jonesday.com SUN CITY: Class Action Over Defective Stuco to Continue ------------------------------------------------------- Sarita Chourey, writing for Bluffton Today, reports that while a faulty-stucco lawsuit involving thousands of homes in Sun City continues, the developer has asked environmental regulators for permission to add nearly a dozen new homes to the community. It is unclear whether the new buildings will follow the same format as the existing ones, or whether building techniques or materials will be modified in order to prevent the same structural complaints from surfacing. Del Webb Communities, Inc. wants to build 10 single-family homes northeast of the intersection of Del Webb Boulevard and Sergeant William Jasper Boulevard, according to documents filed for Coastal Zone Consistency certification with the state agency. An application for a construction/wastewater permit says it's part of a phased project and represents a revision to one that was approved in 2006. About four years ago, the S.C. Supreme Court said a lawsuit filed by Anthony and Barbara Grazia in 2007 could be a class action. That opened the door for thousands of other Sun City property owners to seek recourse for defective stucco. In court records, the Grazias alleged that "the stucco exteriors had common and typical problems inherent to their design and installation that would require identical remediation across the class, namely, stripping the homes of the existing stucco and recladding with a properly installed stucco system." In the fall of 2013, the parties took to the appeals court to spar over the outreach activities by the Sun City homeowners' legal team to the residents. South Carolina State Plastering was fighting a circuit court denial of an injunction that was intended to curtail communication from the Sun City attorneys to the homeowners who make up the class. On Jan. 6, Michael Seekings, an attorney for the residents, indicated the suit was continuing. He said class-action notices have been sent to 4,173 homes, and 200-300 additional notices should be going out in the next few months. The notices inform people they are part of the class action unless they opt out and also outline the process to come. SYNGENTA CORP: "Hamilton" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Hamilton v. Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00345, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02061-JWL-JPO to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md- 02591-JWL-JPO. The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait, known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. The Plaintiffs are corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Frederic Speer, Esq. SPEER LAW FIRM, PA 104 W. 9th Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 472-3560 Facsimile: (816) 421-2150 E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com - and - Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq. James A. O'Brien, III, Esq. Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. SEEGER, WEISS LAW FIRM 77 Water Street, 26th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 584-0700 Facsimile: (212) 584-0799 E-mail: dkekatos@seegerweiss.com jobrien@seegerweiss.com sweiss@seegerweiss.com - and - Paul D. Lundberg, Esq. LUNDBERG LAW PLC 600 Fourth Street, Suite 906 Sioux City, IA 51101 Telephone: (712) 234-3030 Facsimile: (712) 234-3034 E-mail: paul@lundberglawfirm.com SYNGENTA CORP: "Houser" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Houser, et al. v. Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04163, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02035-JWL- JPO to the proceeding. The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md- 02591-JWL-JPO. The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait, known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. The Plaintiffs are corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn. The Plaintiffs are represented by: William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq. HOPKINS LAW FIRM 12019 Ocean Highway PO Box 1885 Pawleys Island, SC 29585 Telephone: (843) 314-4202 E-mail: bill@hopkinsfirm.com - and - Roman A. Shaul, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Post Office Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 954-7555 E-mail: Roman.Shaul@BeasleyAllen.com The Defendants are represented by: Henry L. Parr, Jr., Esq. Wallace K. Lightsey, Esq. WYCHE LAW OFFICE 44 E Camperdown Way Greenville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 242-8209 Facsimile: (864) 235-8900 E-mail: hparr@wyche.com wlightsey@wyche.com TAKATA CORP: Squire Pattons to Lobby on Air Bag Safety Issues ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Ramonas, writing for Legal Times, reports that Squire Patton Boggs has signed up to lobby for Takata Corp. after the embattled Japanese air bag manufacturer enlisted one of the firm's partners, former U.S. Secretary of Transportation Rodney Slater, as a special counsel. The firm identified Mr. Slater, partner Jeffrey Turner and principal Norma Krayem as lobbyists for Takata in a filing with Congress on Jan. 8. Ms. Krayem was deputy chief of staff to Slater, who served under President Bill Clinton. Mr. Turner is the managing partner of the public policy practice at Squire Patton Boggs. Shigehisa Takada, Takata's chief executive officer, announced in December that Slater and another former U.S. transportation secretary, Norman Mineta, would serve as special counsel. The CEO said he tasked them with helping ensure Takata's responses to a deadly safety defect are "decisive and appropriate as we work to regain the public's trust." The lobbying registration report from Squire Patton Boggs says its lobbyists will advocate on "issues related to air bag safety," but the filing does not elaborate. None of the lobbyists were available immediately to comment. In November and December, members of Congress grilled Hiroshi Shimizu, Takata's senior vice president for global quality assurance, in hearings about the defect, which has been connected to at least five deaths and led to millions of U.S. car and truck recalls. The problem also has brought more than 30 lawsuits, mostly class actions on behalf of consumers. Mr. Slater, Mr. Turner and Ms. Krayem aren't the only lobbyists registered to lobby for Takata in Washington, according to congressional records. The company also uses the Washington Alliance Group to advocate for its Takata Protection Systems Inc. subsidiary. TECK METALS: Industrial Pollution Class Action Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Becky Kramer, writing for The Spokesman-Review, reports that six Washington residents who blame their chronic health problems on a Canadian smelter's industrial pollution can continue their lawsuit against the smelter's owner, a federal judge ruled this week. The plaintiffs are current or former residents of Northport, Washington, which is about 15 miles downwind and downriver of Teck Metals Ltd.'s smelter in Trail, British Columbia. The smelter dumped millions of tons of waste containing heavy metals into the Columbia River over nearly 100 years, and blew more pollutants out of its smokestacks. In the 2013 lawsuit, the residents said their illnesses -- stomach cancer, breast cancer and inflammatory bowel diseases -- are linked to high exposures of heavy metals released by the smelter, including cadmium, lead and mercury. A Harvard Medical School researcher reported a cluster of 17 cases of inflammatory bowel disease in a health survey of 119 current and former Northport residents. "That's about 10 to 15 times what we'd expect to see in a population the size of Northport," Dr. Josh Korzenik, director of the Crohn's and Colitis Center at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, told The Spokesman-Review in 2012. Teck Metals sought to have the potential class-action lawsuit dismissed. In court documents, Teck attorneys argued that the six plaintiffs couldn't show a direct link between their health problems and the smelter's pollution. The plaintiff's illnesses were diagnosed 20 to 30 years ago, which is beyond the statute of limitations for bringing a suit, the attorneys said. But in a Jan. 5 ruling, Senior U.S. District Judge Lonny Suko said the suit can continue, which will allow the plaintiffs to request company documents in an effort to support their claims. They must prove to the court that the case meets the requirements for class- action litigation. The plaintiffs are represented by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a Seattle law firm specializing in class-action suits, which previously challenged Idaho grass growers over field burning. Barbara Anderson, of Northport, was the original plaintiff in the Teck lawsuit. The case was later amended to include five others: Michael Buffan, Spokane Valley; Gail Leaden, Spokane; Travis Magers, Deer Park; and Rhett Weilep and Leigh Williams, both of Kettle Falls. TRANSCANADA CORP: Landowners Sue Over Oil Pipeline in Nebraska -------------------------------------------------------------- Grant Schulte, writing for The Associated Press, reports that opponents of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in Nebraska reignited a legal fight on Jan. 16 that could delay the entire 1,179-mile project, filing two new lawsuits over its proposed route. The lawsuits came from seven landowners in Holt and York counties who have received written warning that pipeline developer TransCanada plans to file eminent domain papers before Jan. 22 to gain access to their land. The landowners' attorney, Dave Domina, said that gives the plaintiffs clear legal standing to challenge the project. That issue is key because the Nebraska Supreme Court tossed an earlier, similar lawsuit, with three judges saying the plaintiffs in the case didn't have such standing. The lawsuits seek a court order to strike down a 2012 Nebraska law that allowed the project to move forward, and to prevent TransCanada from using eminent domain. Mr. Domina said the new lawsuit will likely take less time to resolve than the original claim, which wound its way through the courts in 16 months. A spokesman for Calgary-based TransCanada has said the company expected additional legal challenges. Spokesman Shawn Howard said the company will continue to discuss deals with landowners who are negotiating in good faith. When warning letters were sent in December, the company said it had voluntary agreements from 84 percent of landowners along the route. Jane Kleeb, the leader of the pipeline opposition group Bold Nebraska, said the lawsuits will allow landowners to bring the case back to the Nebraska Supreme Court. Mr. Kleeb called on President Barrack Obama to reject TransCanada's application for a presidential permit, and said landowners will continue to fight regardless. "It is only the president that can provide peace of mind to farmers and ranchers along the route," Mr. Kleeb said. When the Nebraska court threw out the original lawsuit last week, four of its judges sided with the landowners. Three declined to say whether the lawsuit was unconstitutional, arguing that the landowners lacked legal standing. The landowners needed a five- judge supermajority for their lawsuit to succeed because they were seeking to have a 2012 pipeline-sitting law declared unconstitutional, which would have invalidated the route through Nebraska. The Nebraska law allowed former Gov. Dave Heineman to approve the project's route. Gov. Heineman, a Republican, supported the project. Opponents say the decision should have been made by a small state commission that regulates grain bins and taxi cabs. The $8 billion pipeline would carry oil from Canada through Montana and South Dakota to Nebraska, where it would connect with existing pipelines to carry more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast. Environmentalists and other opponents argue that any leaks could contaminate water supplies and that the project would increase air pollution around refineries and harm wildlife. Supporters, including many Republicans and oil industry members, say that those fears are exaggerated, that the pipeline would create jobs and that it would ease American dependence on oil from the Middle East. TRI-STATE PETROLEUM: Faces "Heinzl" Suit Over Disabilities Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Sarah Heinzl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tri-State Petroleum Corporation and Convenience Realty LP, Case No. 2:15-cv-00042 (W.D. Pa., January 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendants' facilities are not fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs. The Defendants own and operate convenience stores and wholesale distributors of motor fuels in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Stephanie Goldin, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com www.carlsonlynch.com UTZ QUALITY: Faces Class Action Over "All Natural" Labeling ----------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed against a snack manufacturer on Dec. 30 alleged the company genetically modified its products but still advertised them as "all natural." Matt DiFrancesco and Angela Mizzoni filed the lawsuit against UTZ Quality Foods, Inc., alleging more than 40 products made by Utz are advertised as "all natural" when they are not. The products include tortilla chips, pretzels, pita squares, popcorn and potato chips. The lawsuit alleges the products contain genetically modified ingredients, including cottonseed oil, corn oil, vinegar, corn starch and corn syrup. The lawsuit stated that GM crops are manmade, not natural. It also stressed the controversies related to GM crops, including health risks and negative environmental effects. The plaintiffs also alleged the ingredients used are "heavily processed" by the company. Despite genetically modifying the products, Utz advertised the food as "all natural" in an attempt to win over consumers. As a result of the "all natural" labeling, Utz was able to charge more for its products, the lawsuit said. The plaintiffs are seeking an excess of $5 million. Mr. DiFrancesco and Ms. Mizzoni are represented by Erica C. Mirabella of Mirabella Law; Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC; and Nick Suciu III of Barabat, Mansour & Suciu, PLLC. U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts case number 1:14-cv-14744. VALEANT PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Insider Trading --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals and Pershing Square Capital Management on Dec. 16 alleging insider trading for stock in Allergan, Inc. The suit, filed by Anthony Basile, lists events beginning in February that allegedly led to Valeant's tender offer for Allergan in June. The events include allegations that Valeant formed a shell entity, called PS Fund, with Pershing Square to purchase a significant stake in Allergan. The suit also alleged that Valeant provided insider information to Pershing Square regarding Valeant's planned tender offer for Allergan. This allowed Pershing Square to use the shell entity to acquire Allergan stock. The reported profit from Pershing Square's investment in Allergan by November was $2.5 billion. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and seeks damages with interest awarded under the Securities Exchange Act. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California- Southern Division case no. 8:14-cv-02004 WAL-MART STORES: Accused of Misleading Marketing Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Roque Hernandez and John Does 1-100, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, and Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC., Case No. 2:15-cv-00201 (D.N.J., January 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendants purposefully misrepresented and continue to misrepresent to consumers that the Arm & Hammer Fresh-N-Natural Baking Soda, 1 lb. is a bundled package of three when buyers only receive one of the Product. The Defendants own and operate retail stores throughout the United States, totaling over 4,000 locations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Louis Kraselnik, Esq. LAW OFFICES ROBERT L. KRASELNIK, PLLC 271 Madison Avenue, Suite 1403 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 576-1857 Facsimile: (212) 576-1888 E-mail: robert@kraselnik.com WICHCRAFT OPERATING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Emma Rivera and Lourdes Rivera, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. Wichcraft Operating LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00207 (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a chain of restaurants in 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 WINDOW MART: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Batista" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Abel Danildo Gerez Batista and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Window Mart, Inc., Liliana Morales, and Luis A. Morales, Case No. 1:15-cv-20094 (S.D. Fla., January 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a company that manufacturers of vinyl windows and doors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM X-CHEM LLC: Faces "Rollison" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Rollison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. X-Chem, LLC, Terra Services, LLC d/b/a NCH Terra Services, LLC, and NCH Ecoservices, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00043 (W.D. Pa., January 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for worked in excess of 40 hours a week. The Defendants provide solutions for the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com YUCA RESTAURANT: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Walter Hernandez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Yuca Restaurant Company and Janet Suarez, Case No. 1:15-cv-20096 (S.D. Fla., January 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexis D. Martin, Esq. Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq. CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES Ltd. 224 S Michigan, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 763-6880 E-mail: amartin@caffarelli.com acaffarelli@caffarelli.com * China Environmental Groups Can Sue Polluters Via Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Li Jing, writing South China Morning Post, reports that about 700 domestic environmental groups are now eligible to sue polluters through class-action lawsuits, after the Supreme People's Court issued a new judicial interpretation on dealing with such cases on Jan. 6 -- less than a week after the country's revised environmental law took effect. The interpretation, effective from today, is aimed at clearing legal obstacles -- such as high litigation costs and difficulties in producing evidence -- for green groups to take on polluters, as well as overcoming local protectionism that has provided shelter for polluting factories, legal experts said. Zheng Xuelin, head of the environmental tribunal under the Supreme Court, told a press conference in Beijing that he expected the number of environmental class-action lawsuits to increase, following years of struggle by mainland environmental activists trying to sue polluters. The interpretation says such class-action lawsuits will be dealt with by intermediate people's courts, rather than local courts, as these courts may not have the capacity to handle such cases and may have a tendency to protect local enterprises, said the Supreme People's Court spokesman Sun Jungong. Plaintiffs are now allowed to apply for a delay or exemption of litigation payment to courts, while defendants will cover other litigation costs and other expenses such as fees for lawyers and testing of evidence. Experts say the interpretation will help to involve more legal professionals in the fight against pollution. The judicial interpretation also shifts the "burden of proof" in environmental class-action lawsuits to the defendants, who will now have to prove they did not cause environmental damage or health hazards, Mr. Zheng said. The interpretation also includes a provision that allows courts to order defendants to stop polluting, a concept new to the mainland legal system, noted Wang Canfa, an environmental law professor at China University of Political Science and Law. "This is similar to issuing an injunction in Western countries, which is new to China," said Professor Wang. Previously, local governments could issue administrative orders asking factories to stop polluting, but these did not have the same legal force, he explained. Organizations dedicated to environmental protection that have been registered with city-level governments and have been in operation for at least five years without any record of law-breaking are eligible to sue. They are also allowed to sue polluters outside their registered city, according to the judicial interpretation. * Hospitality Sector to Face Increased Wage Law Enforcement ----------------------------------------------------------- Fisher & Phillips LLP's Shayna Balch, in an article for Phoenix Business Journal, reports that the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hospitality sector added 321,000 additional jobs in 2014. With all those new employees, as well as the continued addition of jobs we expect to see in coming year, here are our top predictions for labor law issues that will play a vital role in the hospitality industry in 2015. 1. Increased wage and hour law enforcement for tipped employees As state and federal budget cuts tend to wane, the Department of Labor (DOL) is expected to step up enforcement against hospitality employers in the coming year. Because the DOL considers the hospitality industry as a "fissured" industry, owners, franchisors, franchisees and management companies should be prepared to deal with inquiries, particularly in the areas of tipped employees and the misclassification of employees. In order to keep litigation at bay, employers should use the New Year to make sure that all of their employees are classified correctly by using the guidelines offered on the DOL's website -- www.dol.gov. For tipped workers, employers must ensure that employees are being paid at least the state minimum wage during non-tipping times, as well as the hours they are receiving tips. 2. Scrutiny of background checks While background checks are a useful tool that employers can utilize to vet a potential employee, improper use of them can lead to a host of problems with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC advises employers to institute screening processes that permit an individualized assessment of applicants and discourages blanket exclusions from employment opportunities. If you plan on using background checks to screen employees, make sure your practices comply with the EEOC's guidance, as well as the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 3. Americans with Disabilities Act accommodations All employers, not just those in the hospitality sector, need to be concerned with increased enforcement and litigation over ADA accommodation issues. The EEOC has been actively pursuing hotels and restaurants, especially those with national presence on a class action basis, for failure to accommodate claims. Specifically, the EEOC has been hyper-focused on businesses who are imposing inflexible leave policies for their employees. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, employers are required to provide reasonable accommodation to qualifying employees with a disability. In some cases, additional leave may be appropriate as an accommodation, even when the employee has exhausted all the leave to which they are entitled under the FMLA and/or the employer's separate leave policies. Should you have an employee who requires extended leave, it is important to remember the ADA requires that you engage in the interactive process with the employee to determine whether and what accommodations are reasonable and appropriate. 4. Class-action waivers in arbitration agreements Over the last few years, a series of case issues approved the inclusion of class-action waivers in arbitration agreements. Arbitration agreements can provide valuable benefits for employers defending class-based claims. A prime example is in the case against D.R. Horton, Inc., where the NLRB maintained that such class-action waivers with regard to employment related disputes violate the National Labor Relations Act. However, the NLRB's position has been rejected by nearly every court and due to the Supreme Court's recent decision in NLRB v. Noel Canning, the NLRB's position is even less likely to survive challenge. The bottom line is that there are pros and cons to going through an arbitration process. * Seyfarth Shaw Expects Increased Wage-and-Hour Filings in 2015 --------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that wage- and-hour litigation continues to present the prime litigation risk in the workplace, and more of the same can be expected this year, says a law firm report issued on Jan. 6. "The 'crest' of the wage-and-hour litigation is not yet in sight," says Chicago-based law firm Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P. in its 11th annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report. "Employers can expect more of the same in terms of increased filings in 2015." According to the report, 8,068 lawsuits were filed in federal court under the Fair Labor Standards Act in 2014, a 23.3% increase from 2013's 7,882, according to the report. FLSA collective action litigation "far outpaced other types of employment-related class action filings," says the report. "Virtually all FLSA lawsuits are filed as collective actions, so these filings represent the most significant exposure to employers in terms of any workplace laws." Wage-and-hour claims were the most predominant type of workplace class action pursued against employers in 2013 as well. Among other trends discussed in the report, the U.S. Supreme Court's opinions in the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Comcast Corp. cases "have had profound influence in shaping settlement strategies," with employers "settling fewer employment discrimination class actions than at any time over the past decade, and at a fraction of the levels as in 2006 to 2013." Experts have said that the high court's 2013 ruling in Comcast Corp. et al. v. Caroline Behrend et al. and its 2011 ruling in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Betty Dukes et al. means plaintiffs must provide more proof of damages before they can win class certification. Among other trends discussed in the report, the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission "have continued their aggressive litigation approaches, albeit with mixed success," says the report. ********* 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 * * *