/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150126.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, January 26, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 18 Headlines ACB RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ACB RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ADAMS FLAVORS: Recalls Cumin Products Due to Undeclared Peanuts ANNING-JOHNSON CO: Removes "Orozco" Suit to C.D. California ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act BADDON SERVICE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages BARNES & NOBLE: Removes "Carag" Class Suit to E.D. California BARNES & NOBLE: Removes 2nd "Carag" Suit to Calif. District Court BARNES & NOBLE: Removes "Lina" Suit to California District Court BLEATING HEART: Expands Recall of Multiple Milk Cheese Products CHICAGO, IL: Sued for Overcharging Drivers Caught Using Phones CIGNA LIFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Disability Benefits Under ERISA COSTA DEL SOL: Faces "Cohan" Suit Alleging ADA Discrimination CR BARD: Judge Rejects Attempt to Halt Mesh Bellwether Trial CR BRANDS: Recalls Mean Green Cleaner and Degreaser Products DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Seeks Arbitration in No-Poach Class Action ELECTRONIC ARTS: 9th Circuit Frowns at "Incidental Use" Defense FULL TILT: Recalls Dairy Ice Cream Over Listeria Risk GENERAL MOTORS: "Frank" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GENERAL MOTORS: "Precht" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act I LOVE NINO'S: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act IKEA: Recalls Crib Mattresses Due to Risk of Entrapment INVENSENSE INC: Faces Securities Suits Over Apple Sweetheart Deal JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces Suit Over Alleged Xarelto-Related Injury JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Recalls Fisher 8 oz. Walnuts & Pecan Cookies JOHNSON HEALTH: Recalls Matrix Fitness Strength Training Machines JUMP YOUR BONES: Recalls Roo Bites Pet Treats Due to Salmonella LA-Z-BOY: Recalls Control Wands With Silver Luxury Lift Chairs MARICOPA, AZ: Court Bars Workplace Raid by Sheriff Arpaio MARTIN MARIETTA: Judge Rejects "Disclosure-Only" Settlement MEMPHIS, TN: Ex-City Atty. Can't Try Mishandled Rape Kits Suit MONTREAL MAINE: Settlement May Grow as Much as $500 Million MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Class Action NEW PACIFIC: Recalls Dining Chairs Due to Fall Hazard NEW YORK, NY: Supreme Court Won't Hear High Line Park Suit Appeal NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Judge Recommends Atty Fees in "Osborne" Suit OREGON, USA: Rigged Poker Games Cost Players $134-Mil., Suit Says PINK'S ICE: Recalls 2014 Ice Cream Due to Listeria Risk PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls SKLZ Resistance Trainers PRIMARY FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act PRO PERFORMANCE: Recalls SKLZ Resistance Trainers PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Remands Hygiene Wipes Suit to State Court PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Faces Class Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act RUSSELL GOLDMAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act SOBERLINK INC: Accused of Misrepresenting Alcohol Testing Devices SONY PICTURES: Files Motion to Consolidate Data Breach Suits STAR RIDE: Recalls Children's Pajama Sets STATE FARM: Majority of Wojcieszak Documents Protected SYNGENTA CORP: "Brockman" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL SYNGENTA CORP: "Brooks" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL SYNGENTA CORP: Clark Hill Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL SYNGENTA CORP: "D&C" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL SYNGENTA CORP: "Moore" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL SYNGENTA CORP: "Nixon" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Falwell" Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Poinsett Suit in Arkansas Over MIR162 Corn SYNGENTA CORP: "Quarles" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL SYNGENTA CORP: Triple Farms Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL TD BANK: Faces "Koshgarian" Suit in NY Over Overdraft Fees TD BANK: Faces "Klein" Suit in NJ Over Excessive Overdraft Fees TEN BC: Recalls 10 oz. Tommy's Santa Fe Rice Due to Peanuts TIBOR SZABO: Court Dismissed Class Suit Over Sale of Pianos UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Bombarding People With Spam Texts UNISYS TECHNICAL: "Renazco" Labor Suit Remanded to State Court VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls 100ml, 6g Vial Virazole(R) VALLEY SMOKERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says WALGREEN CO: Accused of Hiding Billion Dollar Profit Shortfall WELLPOINT INC: "Ray" Suit Transferred From Indiana to Alabama WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Bleating Heart Cheese Products WYNDHAM VACATION: Execs Retaliated v. Worker & Class Plaintiff ZILKS FOODS: Recalls 8oz. Hummus Products Due to Peanuts ********* ACB RECEIVABLES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Deena Lefkovits, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers v. ACB Receivables Management, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 00175 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com ACB RECEIVABLES: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Fortuna Manopla, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ACB Receivables Management, INC. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-00253-PGS-TJB (D.N.J., January 13, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com ADAMS FLAVORS: Recalls Cumin Products Due to Undeclared Peanuts --------------------------------------------------------------- Adams Flavors, Foods & Ingredients of Gonzales, Texas is voluntarily recalling cumin products because they may contain undeclared peanut proteins. "We were notified by one of our third party suppliers that one of the spice ingredients purchased contains peanut proteins, allergens that are not declared on the products' ingredient statements. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products," the Company said. This recall affects the following products: Consumer UPC # Size Description Best Buy Date -------------- ---- ----------- ------------- 1111085763 8 oz Private Selection 8/22/15 - (226g) Sweet Chipotle 12/23/15 Panko Bread Crumbs 1111078622 8 oz Private Selection 9/23/15 - (226g) Chipotle Lime 12/23/15 Tortilla Panko Breader The recalled products were distributed nationwide in retail stores. No illnesses have been reported to date. This recall was initiated after it was discovered that ingredients from a single supplier used in the affected products were contaminated with peanut allergens. Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 512-359-3059 from 9 am to 4 pm CST Monday-Friday, or visit www.AdamsExtract.com for additional information. Photo of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428668.htm ANNING-JOHNSON CO: Removes "Orozco" Suit to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Enrique Orozco v. Anning- Johnson Company, et al., Case No. BC 561957, was transferred 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-00262-DSF-JC to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts claims for employment discrimination. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Gregory E. Mauro, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com The Defendants are represented by: Theresa C. Tate, Esq. CRAWFORD AND BANGS LLP 1290 East Center Court Drive Covina, CA 91724 Telephone: (626) 915-1641 Facsimile: (626) 332-5604 E-mail: ttate@builderslaw.com ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Moshe R. Hackner, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated consumers v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00204 (E.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com BADDON SERVICE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Lopez Saenz and Juan Gonzalez v. Baddon Service Station Inc. d/b/a CITGO, Gurbinder Singh, and Rajinder Singh, Case No. 1:15- cv-00233-ALC (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2015) alleges that, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages, (b) unpaid overtime compensation, (c) liquidated damages, (d) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (e) attorneys' fees and costs. CITGO is a New York domestic business corporation with a principal place of business located in Bronx, New York. The Individual Defendants are the owners, shareholders, directors, supervisors, proprietors or managing agents of CITGO. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com BARNES & NOBLE: Removes "Carag" Class Suit to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Carag v. Barnes & Noble, Inc. et al., Case No. 34-2013-00155179, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv- 00115-KJM-CKD to the proceeding. The Plaintiff and the members of the putative class she seeks to represent are current or former California-based hourly or non- exempt employees of the Defendant. The complaint alleges nine causes of action: (1) unpaid overtime; (2) unpaid meal period premiums; (3) unpaid rest period premiums; (4) unpaid minimum wage; (5) final wages not timely paid; (6) wages not timely paid during employment; (7) non-compliant wage statements; (8) failure to keep requisite payroll records; and (9) violation of the California Business & Professions Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC 410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Heather M. Sager, Esq. Ayse Kuzucuoglu, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2464 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 749-9500 Facsimile: (415) 749-9502 E-mail: hsager@vedderprice.com akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com BARNES & NOBLE: Removes 2nd "Carag" Suit to Calif. District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Cassandra Carag; individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., a Delaware corporation, et al., Case No. 34-2013-00155179, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Sacramento to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-at- 00062 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. The Defendants are represented by: Heather M. Sager, Esq. Ayse Kuzucuoglu, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2464 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 749-9500 Facsimile: (415) 749-9502 E-mail: hsager@vedderprice.com akuzucuoglu@vedderprice.com BARNES & NOBLE: Removes "Lina" Suit to California District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., et al., Case No. BC466987, 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- 00281 to the proceeding. The Defendants are represented by: Shon Morgan, Esq. Viola Trebicka, Esq. John Baumann, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com jackbaumann@quinnemanuel.com BLEATING HEART: Expands Recall of Multiple Milk Cheese Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Bleating Heart Cheese (BHC) is expanding its voluntary recall notice of December 17, 2014 to cover all of its sheep milk, goat milk, water buffalo milk and cows milk cheese produced between February 14, 2014 (coded as 14-0214) and September 19, 2014 (coded as 14-0919) due to an abundance of caution concerning the possibility of Listeria monocytogenes being present in some cheese. The codes on the bottom label of all Bleating Heart cheese represent "Year-Month & Day of the Month" when the cheese was produced. At this time, no illnesses have been reported. Consumers that still have the recalled Bleating Heart cheese in their refrigerators should discard it in a manner so it is not consumed. * Buff Ewe Blue and Buff Blue - natural rind, blue-style cheese, aged 3 - 4 months * Double Down Blue - natural rind, blue-style cheese, aged 3 - 4 months with a double heart imprint on the rind * Ewelicious Blue - natural rind, blue-style cheese, aged 2 - 3 months * Fat Bottom Girl - natural rind, aged 2 - 3 months * Funky Beats - washed rind, aged 2-3 months. Note: this cheese has been sold out for some time and is not likely to be in the market place * Goldette Tommette - natural rind, aged 2 - 3 months * Mixtress - natural rind, aged 2 - 3 months * Moolicious Blue - natural rind blue-style cheese, aged 3 - 4 months * Shepherdista - natural rind, aged 2 - 3 months Listeria monocytogenes is a bacteria which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, pregnant women and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths and fetal infection among pregnant women. Consumers should contact their physician if they exhibit any of the listed symptoms. The cheeses listed were sold to distributors servicing the California as well as Pennsylvania areas who in-turn sold to retail food shops, restaurants and stores. Anyone that has distributed the cheese identified above needs to immediately notify their customers of the voluntary recall and encourage them to destroy any identified cheese based on instructions from Bleating Heart Cheese. Any of the above cheese still in a distributor's inventory needs to be isolated/quarantined and prepared for return to Bleating Heart Cheese, which will provide a full refund upon receipt of the cheese and verification of its identity. The recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the US Food and Drug Administration. If you have any questions or seek additional information, please call 858-472-1754 during our normal hours of operations (Monday-Friday 9:00am-4:00pm PST) or email us at dave@bleatingheart.com. Photo of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428500.htm CHICAGO, IL: Sued for Overcharging Drivers Caught Using Phones -------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that overcharging drivers caught using their cellphones while driving constitutes an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment, alleges a federal class action against the city of Chicago. CIGNA LIFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Disability Benefits Under ERISA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Glantz, an individual v. CIGNA Life Insurance Company; Life Insurance Company of North America; Omnicom Benefits Inc.; Omnicom Benefits Inc. Insurance Plan, Case No. 3:15-cv-00211 (N.D. Cal., January 14, 2015) asserts claims for relief pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Mr. Glantz is a resident of California. He was an employee of Access Communications and a participant in and beneficiary of Defendant Omnicom Benefits Inc.'s Insurance Plan. He seeks relief against the Defendants on behalf of the Plan and all similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, for the betterment of the Plan. While the Plan was in full force and effect, the Plaintiff says he became entitled to receive disability benefits under the Plan. After receiving those disability benefits for one year, the Plaintiff alleges that his benefits were improperly terminated as of March 1, 2014. The Plan is an employee welfare benefit plan. Omnicom Benefits Inc. is the Plan Administrator, Plan Sponsor and Policyholder of the LINA Group Policy No. LK-980036. CIGNA Life Insurance Company and Life Insurance Company of North America are the de facto Plan Administrators, the Claims Administrators and the fiduciaries responsible for making benefits determinations under the Plan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Grey, Esq. Lauren Curtis, Esq. THE GREY LAW FIRM, P.C. The Russ Building 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1101 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 262-9926 Facsimile: (415) 262-9981 E-mail: grey@greylaw-sf.com lauren@greylaw-sf.com COSTA DEL SOL: Faces "Cohan" Suit Alleging ADA Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- Howard Cohan v. Costa De Sol Resort Condominium Association, Inc. d/b/a Costa Del Sol, Case No. 0:15-cv-60065-KAM (S.D. Fla., January 13, 2015) alleges that the Defendant has discriminated and continues to discriminate against the Plaintiff and others who are similarly situated, by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations located at the Defendant's property located in Lauderdale, Florida. Mr. Cohan is a resident of Palm Beach County, Florida, and suffered from a "qualified disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act. He has numerous disabilities, including spinal stenosis, which causes a restriction to his spinal canal, resulting in a neurological deficit. Costa De Sol Resort Condominium Association, Inc., doing business as Costa Del Sol, is authorized to conduct and is conducting business within the state of Florida. The Company is the lessee, operator, owner and lessor of the Subject Facility. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark D. Cohen, Esq. MARK D. COHEN, P.A. Presidential Circle 4000 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 435 South Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 962-1166 Facsimile: (954) 962-1779 E-mail: mdcohenpa@yahoo.com CR BARD: Judge Rejects Attempt to Halt Mesh Bellwether Trial ------------------------------------------------------------ Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that a federal judge has rejected an attempt by C.R. Bard Inc. to halt a bellwether trial due to comments he made in court that were published in an online news article. Bard is one of seven manufacturers sued over pelvic mesh devices, which are implanted in women to treat pelvic organ prolapse and urinary incontinence. Bard, which faces 10,000 lawsuits, is set to go to trial on Feb. 18 against an Ohio woman who claims she suffered pain and urinary problems after having its Avaulta device implanted in 2007. Bard moved to continue the trial and suspend all future trials based on statements made by U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin on Dec. 9 that the company faced potentially "billions of dollars" in liability and should consider settling its cases. Those statements, Bard said in a Dec. 24 motion, were "distorted" by a Bloomberg.com news story and financial analysts. Judge Goodwin denied the motion on Jan. 9. The company's attorney, Lori Cohen, chairwoman of Greenberg Traurig's pharmaceutical, medical-device and health care litigation practice and of the trial practice in the firm's Atlanta office, declined to comment. Lead plaintiffs attorney Joseph Rice, co-founder of Motley Rice in Mount Pleasant, S.C., called Judge Goodwin's decision a "fairly straightforward ruling." "It requires a factual finding, and they don't give him factual support," he said. Bard, in a motion filed on Jan. 9 by Eric Alexander, a partner in Reed Smith's Washington office, immediately moved for summary judgment, claiming the plaintiff, Debra Wise, had a "longstanding history of pelvic issues" before having the device implanted in West Virginia. Bard also claimed her surgeon was aware of the device's risks and that claims for negligence, manufacturing defect, failure to warn and punitive damages fail under both Ohio and West Virginia laws. Mr. Rice called those arguments "general questions of fact for the jury, and based on what I've seen in the preparation for the case, there's disputes by the experts going both ways." Judge Goodwin is in the process of remanding large groups of cases in coming months for trial. On Jan. 9, Bard filed a separate motion to toss out claims for punitive damages in those cases, saying that its actions "lack the malice, intent to harm, and outrageous behavior required for exemplary damages." CR BRANDS: Recalls Mean Green Cleaner and Degreaser Products ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with CR Brands, Inc., West Chester, OH, announced a voluntary recall of about 83,800 Mean Green Super Strength Cleaner & Degreaser and Mean Green Industrial Strength Cleaner & Degreaser. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The products are labeled "Does not contain Ammonia." The products may contain ammonia. The mislabeling of the bottles can pose a chemical hazard to consumers. If ammonia is mixed with bleach or other household chemicals, irritating or toxic gases could be produced. The recalled cleaning products came in white plastic spray bottles and white or green plastic containers. The words "Mean Green Super Strength Cleaner & Degreaser" or "Mean Green Industrial Strength Cleaner & Degreaser" are on a label on the front and the UPC number is on the back. The recall involves products with date codes 4225, 4226, 4227, 4228, 4229 and 4230. The date code is printed on the back of the bottle near the QR code. The recalled units include: Size UPC ---- --- Mean Green Super Strength Spray 20oz 720547001208 Mean Green Super Strength Spray 40oz 720547001406 Mean Green Super Strength 128oz 720547001017 Mean Green Industrial Strength 128oz 720547001024 There were no incidents that were reported. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/LpIM7Q The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, Fred's, Walmart and small retailers nationwide from August 2014 to November 2014 for between $1 and $8. Consumers who have a product with the UPC and date code should immediately discontinue use of the product and return it to the retailer for a replacement. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Seeks Arbitration in No-Poach Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that if defendants have their way, round two of Silicon Valley's "no- poach" litigation will play out behind closed doors in arbitration instead of in high-profile courtroom battles. Lawyers for a group of California animation studios accused of entering antirecruitment pacts and conspiring to fix wages say plaintiffs are bound to arbitrate their claims because named plaintiff Robert Nitsch Jr. signed employment agreements with DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. that included arbitration provisions. DreamWorks is represented by lawyers with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Attorneys for the company's co-defendants, including The Walt Disney Co., Pixar, Lucasfilm Ltd. and Sony Pictures Animation Inc., say the DreamWorks arbitration agreement shields their clients by extension. "Despite having agreed to binding arbitration," the lawyers wrote on Jan. 9 in a joint motion to compel arbitration, "Nitsch filed the instant action pleading nothing but arbitrable claims." If U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh sides with the defense lawyers, it would be a significant departure from the path of similar litigation against Google Inc., Apple Inc., Adobe Systems Inc. and Intel Corp. In that case, Judge Koh's San Jose courtroom was often packed, even for routine hearings. Emails related to Apple's late founder and CEO Steve Jobs that surfaced in the litigation made national headlines. The parties agreed to a $324.5 million settlement last year, which Judge Koh rejected as too low, and the companies have appealed her ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Defendants in that case never tried to force the claims into arbitration. Two lawyers involved in the no-poach litigation wouldn't comment on the record. Attorneys familiar with the case speculated that the first set of defendants may simply not have had enforceable arbitration agreements with their employees. Plaintiffs firms including Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Susman Godfrey and Hogue & Belong filed suits last year accusing the animation executives of meeting regularly over dinner and drinks to set caps on industry salaries. The lawyers also claim the executives made pacts not to poach each other's employees. Fisher & Phillips partner John McLachlan -- jmclachlan@laborlawyers.com -- a San Francisco employment defense attorney, called the animation studios' argument for arbitration "creative." "I can certainly see that DreamWorks probably has a very good case to compel arbitration," he said. "But it's much more of a stretch to say, well you've got to compel arbitration vis-…-vis the other defendants. That's the big leap." Covington & Burling is representing Walt Disney, Lucasfilm and Pixar in the animation studio litigation. Pixar and Lucasfilm settled previous no-poach claims for $9 million. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe is representing Sony Pictures; and Williams & Connolly is representing Blue Sky Studios. The lawyers argue their clients are protected under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, because plaintiffs' claims rely on the DreamWorks agreement. There is no way to calculate lost wages without reference to Nitsch's employment agreements, the lawyers argue. They may be treading on uncertain ground. The courts have yet to make clear when an arbitration agreement must extend to a third party. Last year U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California denied a group of cellphone manufacturers' attempt to push a privacy case regarding Carrier IQ tracking software into arbitration. The manufacturers had tried to find shelter in arbitration agreements their customers signed with service providers, but Chen ruled plaintiffs' claims stood independent of those contracts. ELECTRONIC ARTS: 9th Circuit Frowns at "Incidental Use" Defense --------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts cannot use incidental use as a defense for its depictions of football players in video games, the 9th Circuit ruled on January 6, rejecting the company's claims that the athletes' images add little commercial value, according to Maria Dinzeo, reporting for Courthouse News Service. Retired NFL players Michael Davis, Vince Ferragamo and Billy Joe Dupree had brought the lawsuit against EA in 2010, objecting to the use of avatars that closely resembled them in "Madden 2009," a game that allowed players to pit "historical teams" against one another. EA had hoped to avoid paying licensing fees with some slight changes to all the retired players' characteristics. In one case, the company changed a player's weight by a few pounds. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg disagreed with EA that California's anti-SLAAP (Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) law required dismissal of the lawsuit, and a three- judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed January 6. "EA goes to substantial lengths to incorporate accurate likenesses of current and former players, including paying millions of dollars to license the likenesses of current players," Judge Raymond Fisher wrote for the court. "Having acknowledged the likenesses of current NFL players carry substantial commercial value, EA does not offer a persuasive reason to conclude otherwise as to the former players." Fisher also found no basis for EA's "sweeping statement" that the likeness of any individual player "has only a de minimis commercial value" since 'Madden NFL' depicts several thousand players. EA's transformative-use defense, which characterized the games as creative enough to fall under First Amendment protections, meanwhile remains precluded by the 9th Circuit's ruling in Keller v. EA. That case involved a class of former college athletes upset over the uncompensated use of their images in EA's NCAA-based video games. The court found in 2013 the games were not covered under the First Amendment's protections for artistic creations. That same reasoning applied in January 6's ruling. "Like 'NCAA Football,' 'Madden NFL' replicates players' physical characteristics and allows users to manipulate them in the performance of the same activity for which they are known in real life -- playing football for an NFL team," Fisher wrote. "Neither the individual players' likenesses nor the graphics and other background content are transformed more in 'Madden NFL' than they were in 'NCAA Football.' Indeed, EA does not attempt to distinguish 'Madden NFL' from 'NCAA Football.' Instead, EA contends the court erred in Keller by focusing on whether the individual avatars were transformed, rather than whether the work as a whole was transformative. Absent 'intervening higher authority,' however, we are bound by the factually indistinguishable holding in Keller." The panel also rejected EA's claim that the players' right of publicity was barred by public interest, another defense EA had tried in Keller. "In Keller, we rejected EA's reliance on these defenses, explaining that, unlike the cases on which EA relied, involving a documentary, a newspaper photograph and a game program, EA was 'not publishing or reporting factual data,'" Fisher wrote. Though EA's "Madden NFL" does contain some factual data about current and former football players, it is still a game like "NCAA Football," the court found. The appellate case is Michael E. Davis, et al. v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 12-15737, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The underlying case is Michael E. Davis, et al. v. Electronic Arts Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-03328-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. FULL TILT: Recalls Dairy Ice Cream Over Listeria Risk ----------------------------------------------------- Full Tilt Ice Cream of Seattle, Washington is voluntarily recalling all Dairy Based Ice Cream flavors (except the non-dairy frozen desserts), sold under brand Full Tilt, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The Full Tilt dairy base ice cream products distributed in Oregon and Washington through grocery stores and retail scoop shops. The ice cream was sold in 16oz paper containers with a 7 digit code ending in 14x (ie: 0219142), as well as 1.5 gallon and 3 gallon plastic gallon tubs produced before 12/19/2014. The following table summarizes the affected products: Name of product Size Production Dates Type of Packaging --------------- ---- ---------------- ----------------- Full Tilt Ice Cream 16 oz 01/01/2014-12/19/2014 paper containers Full Tilt Ice Cream 1.5 01/01/2014-12/19/2014 plastic gallon containers gallon Full Tilt Ice Cream 3 01/01/2014-12/19/2014 plastic gallon containers gallon No illnesses have been reported to date. These dairy base ice cream products contain ice cream base produced and recalled by Snoqualmie Gourmet Ice Cream, Inc. as an ingredient. Full Tilt has since performed a rigorous sanitation schedule to prevent further contamination. This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). Consumers who have purchased Full Tilt are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-206-963-5038 between 9am and 4pm PST Monday thru Friday Photo of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428770.htm. GENERAL MOTORS: "Frank" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Frank v. General Motors LLC, Case No. 1:14-cv-21652, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00263-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The case involves an alleged unprecedented failure to disclose, indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known dangerous defects in GM vehicles. Since 2002, GM has sold millions of vehicles throughout the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which the vehicle's ignition switch can unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy, according to the complaint. General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan. GM was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10, 2009, acquired substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation through a Section 363 sale under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward H. Zebersky, Esq. ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 2150 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 989-6333 Facsimile: (954) 989-7781 E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com - and - David Buckner, Esq. Seth Eric Miles, Esq. Brett Elliott von Borke, Esq. GROSSMAN ROTH, P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 11th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134-6036 Telephone: (305) 442-8666 Facsimile: (305) 285-1668 E-mail: dbu@grossmanroth.com sem@grossmanroth.com bvb@grossmanroth.com The Defendant is represented by: William L. Kirk, Jr., Esq. RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL 300 S Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 PO Box 1873 Orlando, FL 32802-1873 Telephone: (407) 872-7300 E-mail: bkirk@rumberger.com GENERAL MOTORS: "Precht" Suit Consolidated in Ignition Switch MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Precht v. General Motors Corporation, Case No. 1:14-cv-20971, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00264-JMF to the proceeding. The lawsuit is transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the multidistrict litigation captioned In Re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, MDL No. 1:14- md-02543-JMF. The case involves an alleged unprecedented failure to disclose, indeed, affirmatively to conceal, known dangerous defects in GM vehicles. Since 2002, GM has sold millions of vehicles throughout the United States and worldwide that have a safety defect in which the vehicle's ignition switch can unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position, resulting in a loss of power, vehicle speed control, and braking, as well as a failure of the vehicle's airbags to deploy, according to the complaint. General Motors LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business located in Detroit, Michigan. GM was incorporated in 2009 and on July 10, 2009, acquired substantially all assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation through a Section 363 sale under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. The Plaintiff is represented by: William H. Anderson, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C. Street, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: wanderson@cuneolaw.com - and - Jon Michael Herskowitz, Esq. BARON & HERSKOWITZ One Datran Center, Suite 1704 9100 S Dadeland Boulevard Miami, FL 33156-1619 Telephone: (305) 670-0101 Facsimile: (305) 670-2393 E-mail: jon@herskowitzlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: A. Erin Dwyer, Esq. Timothy A. Daniels, Esq. FIGARI & DAVENPORT LLP 901 Main Street Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 939-2000 E-mail: erin.dwyer@figdav.com tim.daniels@figdav.com - and - Laurie Michele Riley, Esq. JONES, WALKER, WAECHTER, POITEVENT, CARRERE & DENEGRE, LLP Miami Center, Suite 2600 201 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 679-5700 Facsimile: (305) 679-5816 E-mail: lchess@joneswalker.com GLOBAL CREDIT: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Eli Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00167 (E.D.N.Y., January 13, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com I LOVE NINO'S: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frelkiey Hurley, individually v. I Love Nino's Pizza of New York, Inc. d/b/a Nino's Pizza, a New York for profit corporation and Avenue A at St. Marks Associates, LLC a New York for profit limited liability company, Case No. 1:15-cv-00229-RJS (S.D.N.Y., January 13, 2015) is brought for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida Accessibility Code. Mr. Hurley is permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair. He contends that when he was visiting Nino's Pizza, he encountered architectural barriers at the Defendants' property precluding him from reasonably accessing the goods and services provided to non- disabled individuals. The property at issue is located in New York County, New York. Defendant Avenue A at St. Marks Associates, LLC is the documented owner of the Property. The Property is being operated as a food service establishment -- a "place of public accommodation -- by Defendant I Love Nino's Pizza of New York, Inc., doing business as Nino's Pizza, who is a tenant on the Property. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq. ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES 2076 Wolver Hollow Road Oyster Bay, NY 11771 Telephone: (516) 595-5009 E-mail: TDemetriades@Aol.com IKEA: Recalls Crib Mattresses Due to Risk of Entrapment ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of about 169,000 VYSSA crib mattress. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The crib mattresses could create a gap between the mattress and crib ends larger than allowed by federal regulations, posing an entrapment hazard to infants. The recall involves IKEA VYSSA style crib mattresses with the following five model names: VACKERT, VINKA, SPELEVINK, SLOA and SLUMMER. The involved mattresses were manufactured on May 4, 2014 or earlier. An identification label attached to the mattress cover has the date of manufacture in Month-DD-YYYY format and the VYSSA model name. A gap between the mattress and crib ends larger than two finger width is an indication of the defective mattress. The firm has received two reports of infants becoming entrapped between the mattress and an end of the crib. The children were removed from the gap without injury. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/wuymOh The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold exclusively at IKEA stores nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from August 2010 to May 2014 for about $100. Consumers should inspect the recalled mattress by making sure there is no gap larger than the width of two fingers between the ends of the crib and the mattress. If any gap is larger, customers should immediately stop using the recalled mattresses and return it to any IKEA store for an exchange or a full refund. INVENSENSE INC: Faces Securities Suits Over Apple Sweetheart Deal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that executives at San Jose-based InvenSense Inc. thought they'd found the holy grail when Apple Inc. agreed to use their sensors in its new iPhone 6. But profits from the partnership fell short of expectations, and now the company has a line of securities lawyers at its door. Lawyers with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd sued InvenSense on Jan. 7 in the Northern District of California, and a team from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg followed with a lawsuit on Jan. 12. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro lawyers also seem to be planning their move, and put out the call on Jan. 9 advertising for a potential plaintiff. In the Glancy Binkow complaint, plaintiffs lawyers allege InvenSense executives artificially drove up stock prices by touting the Apple deal to investors, while downplaying risks the company faced. InvenSense gave Apple a "sweetheart deal," the lawyers argue, which hurt InvenSense's bottom line. The company also faced manufacturing problems connected to the iPhone 6, and lost money when it was forced to write off a stockpile of old, unwanted inventory. When those factors forced the company to announce disappointing financial results in October, plaintiffs lawyers say stock prices plummeted more than 25 percent in a day. "Instead of revealing the true condition of the company and its prospects," the Glancy Binkow lawyers wrote, "defendants hid those facts from investors and chose to issue strong guidance and paint a picture of a bright future with a new mega-customer." InvenSense, which makes components such as sensors and microphones for smartphones, tables and video game systems, sent out a news release in July assuring investors of "market share increases" and "healthy growth drivers through the current fiscal year." Defendant Alan Krock, InvenSense's former vice president, did not mention Apple by name to investors, plaintiffs concede. He wasn't allowed to reveal the deal because of the "highly secretive nature of the way Apple does business," according to the complaint. Nevertheless, in a conference call following the release, he described a new, larger customer he said would account for 10 percent of InvenSense's revenue. Plaintiffs say the market correctly inferred the mystery party was Apple. A pending decision in a similar case argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit last month may have some bearing on plaintiffs' claims against InvenSense. In In re Yahoo, 12- 17080, plaintiffs claim Yahoo Inc. executives made misleading statements that hinted at their ownership of Alipay, a lucrative Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. company similar to PayPal. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of the Northern District of California tossed those claims in 2012 because defendants didn't mention Alipay by name. JANSSEN RESEARCH: Faces Suit Over Alleged Xarelto-Related Injury ---------------------------------------------------------------- Major Porterfield v. Janssen Research & Development, LLC, f/k/a Johnson and Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, LLC, Janseen Ortho LLC, Janseen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., f/k/a Ortho- McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bayer Pharma AG, Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare, LLC, Bayer Healthcare AG, and Bayer AG, Case No. 1:15- cv-00011 (E.D. Tenn., January 13, 2015) arises from alleged injuries suffered as a result of the Plaintiff's use of Xarelto. The Plaintiff was prescribed and used Xarelto, also known as rivaroxaban, for one or more of these conditions: to reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism associated with non-valvular atrial fibrulation; to treat or prevent potential deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism; to reduce the risk of recurrence of DVT or PE, and for prophylaxis of DVT. The Defendants designed, researched, manufactured, tested, advertised, promoted, marketed, sold, and distributed Xarelto. When warning of safety and risks of Xarelto, the Defendants negligently and fraudulently represented to the medical and healthcare community, the Food and Drug Administration, to the Plaintiff and the public in general, that Xarelto had been tested and was found to be safe and effective for its indicated use, according to the complaint. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants concealed their knowledge of Xarelto's defects from the Plaintiff, the FDA, the public in general and the medical community specifically. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jimmy F. Rodgers, Jr., Esq. SUMMERS, RUFOLO & RODGERS, P.C. 735 Broad Street, Suite 800 Chattanooga, TN 37402-2913 Telephone: (423) 265-2385 Facsimile: (423) 266-5211 E-mail: jrodgers@summersfirm.com - and - Joseph D. Lane, Esq. THE COCHRAN FIRM-DOTHAN 111 E. Main Street Dothan, AL 36301 Telephone: (334) 673-1555 Facsimile: (334) 699-7229 E-mail: JoeLane@CochranFirm.com JOHN B. SANFILIPPO: Recalls Fisher 8 oz. Walnuts & Pecan Cookies ---------------------------------------------------------------- John B. Sanfilippo & Son, Inc. (JBSS) announced that it is voluntarily recalling Fisher 8 oz. Chopped Walnuts and Fisher 8 oz. Pecan Cookie Pieces packaged in plastic bags because some of these products may be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Consumers who have recently purchased the items with the BEST BY DATES listed below at stores located in AR, AZ, CO, KS, LA, MO, NM, OK, and TX or online should not consume this product and should return it to the store of purchase for a full refund or replacement. The BEST BY DATES can be found on the back of the bags. Item Description: JBSS Item UPC# BRAND PRODUCT UNIT WT. UM BEST BY Code --------- ----- DESCRIPTION -------- -- DATE ---- ----------- ------- P02352 070690 Fisher Chopped 8 oz. 10/31/15 02360 3 Walnuts TQ2 P02352 070690 Fisher Chopped 8 oz. 11/01/15 02360 3 Walnuts TQ1 P02352 070690 Fisher Chopped 8 oz. 11/01/15 02360 3 Walnuts TQ2 P02352 070690 Fisher Chopped 8 oz. 11/03/15 02360 3 Walnuts TQ1 P02352 070690 Fisher Chopped 8 oz. 11/03/15 02360 3 Walnuts TQ2 P02351 070690 Fisher Peanut 8 oz. 11/03/15 02351 1 Cookies TQ1 Pieces P02351 070690 Fisher Pecan 8 oz. 11/03/15 02351 1 Cookie TQ2 Pieces To date, JBSS has not received any reports of illnesses in connection with the items listed above. This voluntary recall is the result of a routine sampling program conducted by the FDA in the retail marketplace which revealed that a package of Fisher Chopped Walnuts contained Salmonella. Contact for Consumers: Consumers or customers who have questions about the above recall may contact John B. Sanfilippo and Son, Inc. Customer Service toll-free at (800) 874-8734 Monday through Friday from 8:15 AM to 5:15 PM Central Time. Photo of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428490.htm JOHNSON HEALTH: Recalls Matrix Fitness Strength Training Machines ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with JHTNA Manufacturing LLC, of Milwaukee, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of about 400 Matrix Fitness Varsity series strength training machines. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The handle attachment on the strength training machines can detach during use and hit the user with force and/or cause the user to lose balance and fall. This poses a risk of impact injury, laceration and fall hazards. The recall involves five models of the Matrix Fitness series strength training machines with chrome frames, stacked weights, overhead pulleys, and some with black or blue vinyl seats and thigh supports. Models include VY-6021 Lat Pulldown, VY-6042 Bicep/Triceps Press, VY-6046 Lat Pulldown/Low Row, VY-6099 Total Body Trainer, and the J7021 Special Order Lat Pull. "Matrix" and the model number are printed on a white sticker at the base of the machines. They are used in commercial fitness facilities such as health clubs, hotels, apartment complexes and rehabilitation centers, schools and municipal facilities. Johnson Health Tech is aware of two injuries, including a man who was hit and cut on the head when the handle detached and another man who fell when the handle detached on his machine. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/WTDfCL The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Johnson Health Tech North America and its fitness equipment dealers nationwide from July 2013 through October 2014 for between $3,300 and $4,000. Owners should immediately prevent people from using the strength training machines and contact Johnson Health Tech North America to schedule a free repair. JUMP YOUR BONES: Recalls Roo Bites Pet Treats Due to Salmonella --------------------------------------------------------------- Jump Your Bones, Inc. of Boca Raton, Florida is voluntarily recalling Jump Your Bones brand name Roo Bites (Cubes) because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. No pet or consumer illnesses from this product have been reported to date. Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these products. Healthy people infected with Salmonella should monitor themselves for the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella can result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with this product should contact their healthcare providers. Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever, and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please contact your veterinarian. The affected lots of Jump Your Bones Pet Treats were distributed to retail pet food stores nationwide and through pet food retailers/distributors. The affected products are sold in Boutique Bags and online stores. The products affected by this recall are only identified with the following UPC codes: 63633010041 for 80g. / 2.82oz. including samples of .32 oz. This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Consumers who have purchased the above product of Jump Your Bones, Inc. pet treats are urged to stop feeding them and return product to place of purchase for a full refund or dispose of them immediately. For further information about the recall please call (888) 249-6755 from Monday - Friday 9am - 5PM EST. Photo of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428673.htm LA-Z-BOY: Recalls Control Wands With Silver Luxury Lift Chairs -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with La-Z-Boy Incorporated, of Monroe, Michigan, announced a voluntary recall of about 4,000 La-Z-Boy Control Wands sold with Silver Luxury Lift Chairs. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The wand that controls the chair's movements can overheat, posing a burn hazard. The recalled control wands were sold with the La-Z-Boy Silver Luxury Lift model chairs only. These electric wands allow the user to control the movement of the chair, i.e. to recline it and or to make entering or exiting the chair easier. The rectangular- shaped black plastic wands have a large round circle on the top of the wand with two circle-shaped graphics that read "LIFT" and "RECLINE" and the La-Z-Boy logo printed in white lettering at the bottom of the wand. The words "La-Z-Boy," "REV: 0" and S/N number 37205143800005310 are printed on a label on the back of the wand. The Silver Luxury Lift model chairs were sold in a variety of sizes, colors and fabrics including leather. La-Z-Boy has received three reports of the control wands on floor samples becoming warm. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/0nIlit The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at La-Z- Boy Furniture Galleries stores and independent furniture stores nationwide from August 2014 through November 2014 with the Silver Luxury Lift Chair for between $900 and $1700. Consumers should unplug the chair from the wall outlet and contact the local dealer from whom they purchased the chair who will schedule a time for a service technician to install a free replacement control wand. MARICOPA, AZ: Court Bars Workplace Raid by Sheriff Arpaio --------------------------------------------------------- Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a federal judge on January 5 barred Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio from ordering workplace raids to arrest undocumented immigrants using stolen identities to work under two Arizona identity theft laws. U.S. District Judge David Campbell found that the raids by Arpaio and his deputies were probably unconstitutional and prevented by federal law. Puente Arizona, a civil rights group, filed a class action challenging the constitutionality of the raids against Arpaio, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, and Robert Halliday, director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, in June 2014. Arpaio used the state laws, which criminally punish people who use another person's identity to secure a job, to conduct his workplace raids. Arizona House Bill 2779 in 2007 created a new offense of aggravated identity theft for people using false information or the information of another person. Arizona House Bill 2745 supplemented the act in 2008 by adding the intent to gain employment as part of the offense. Arpaio announced in December that he would disband his immigration investigation unit at the end of January or in early February, once they complete an ongoing theft investigation. Judge Campbell found that the class had standing to sue Arpaio, despite his decision to disband his unit. Other law enforcement agencies in Maricopa County could still enforce the laws, including Montgomery, placing members of the class at risk of prosecution. "First, many Puente members, including leaders, have reduced their participation in Puente's activities because the identity theft laws have caused financial difficulties and made them afraid of arrest and retaliation," Campbell wrote. "Second, Puente has diverted substantial resources to respond to the workplace raids through which the MCSO has enforced the identity theft laws." Plaintiff Noemi Romero, who was arrested in a raid in 2012, said she never thought she would see the day when Arpaio and Montgomery would be taken to court. "We lost our fear and made this lawsuit happen, and now others in our community won't have to suffer like we did," Romero said in a statement. Campbell also found that the laws were pre-empted by federal immigration law, and that the class would likely succeed in proving that regulation of identity theft by unauthorized immigrants is in the hands of the federal government. "The Arizona identity theft laws include only a criminal sanction. They make the use of false documents to obtain employment a felony offense punishable by a prison term that may exceed five years," Campbell wrote. "Under the federal scheme, federal authorities have a range of options," including penalties, immigration consequences, or prison terms less than five years. While the laws are facially neutral in that they apply to U.S. citizens and undocumented immigrants, the "titles of H.B. 2779 and H.B. 2745 -- the 'Legal Arizona Workers' Act' and 'Employment of Unauthorized Aliens' -- reflect a clear intent to regulate employment of unauthorized aliens" by the Arizona Legislature, Campbell found. "This is an enormous victory for our community," Carlos Garcia, executive director of Puente, said in a statement. "Arpaio and Montgomery are being stripped of the tools they use to illegally terrorize immigrant workers and families. We hope that justice will continue to prevail, that not one more worker is arrested for providing for his or her family and that the racist, anti- immigrant machine for which Arizona is known is dismantled completely." The case is Puente Arizona, et al. v. Joseph M. Arpaio, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-01356-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. MARTIN MARIETTA: Judge Rejects "Disclosure-Only" Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Susan Beck, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that for the second time in recent weeks, a New York state judge has rejected a "disclosure-only" shareholder settlement of litigation over a merger deal. In a Jan. 7 ruling, Judge Shirley Kornreich lashed out at the tactics of a plaintiffs firm and rejected a proposed agreement to resolve claims over Martin Marietta Materials Inc.'s $2.7 billion acquisition of Texas Industries Inc. The decision come less than a month after Judge Melvin Schweitzer refused to approve a settlement that would have ended litigation over Verizon Communication Inc.'s $130 billion purchase of Vodaphone Group plc's interest in Verizon Wireless. In the Martin Marietta case, the plaintiffs -- represented by New York's Brualdi Law Firm -- claimed that proxy materials explaining the deal to shareholders were inadequate. The firm's clients are an investment partnership called City Trading Fund and its two individual investors, who held just $1,200 of Martin Marietta stock as of last April. The settlement required the companies to add more disclosures to their proxies. The plaintiffs lawyers would have received $500,000 in the deal. In her 37-page ruling tossing the settlement, Judge Kornreich wrote that the case stood out for its "downright frivolity." She called the additional disclosures "grossly immaterial," citing, for example, one added passage stating that the compensation of Martin Marietta's CEO might increase after the merger due to his additional responsibilities. Judge Korneich's decision follows an unusual filing by Martin Marietta and TI, which blasted the lawsuit even after agreeing not to oppose the settlement. After the parties announced their settlement in June, Judge Kornreich raised concerns about it and asked the defendants to outline their position on the deal. In an August court filing, they accused the plaintiffs of filing "meritless, eleventh-hour claims brought on behalf of plaintiff entities whose sole purpose is to extract attorney fees." They only agreed to settle the "pernicious" litigation, they explained, because of the enormous harm that would have resulted if the merger were delayed. Sandra Goldstein -- sgoldstein@cravath.com -- of Cravath, Swaine & Moore represents Martin Marietta. Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz's Rachelle Silverberg -- RSilverberg@wlrk.com -- represents Texas Industries. Using information from the defendants' filing, Judge Kornreich pointed out that since 2010 the Brualdi firm has filed at least 13 suits in New York state court on behalf of different investment partnerships that appear to exist only to pursue litigation. She also noted that the Delaware Chancery Court had sanctioned the firm $25,000 in 2008 in another shareholder case for unethical conduct, including making false statements to the court. Judge Kornreich stressed the importance of judges scrutinizing shareholder settlements. "Without the court serving as a gatekeeper, plaintiffs who file such litigation will continue to unjustifiably extract money from shareholders, who get no benefit from litigation but nonetheless end up paying two sets of attorneys, plaintiffs and defendants. This is a perverse result," she wrote. Martin Marietta sent us this statement: "Martin Marietta is very pleased that the court recognizes just how costly meritless merger litigation is to companies and their shareholders. We expect that going forward, plaintiffs lawyers who are primarily looking for a quick and easy payoff will think twice before bringing frivolous lawsuits challenging transactions, particularly where they purport to represent a class of shareholders of the acquirer." Plaintiffs lawyer Richard Brualdi told The Litigation Daily he respectfully disagreed with Judge Kornreich's ruling. "Plaintiffs believe that the court's decision that the disclosures were not material is flatly inconsistent with many other decisions by courts in both New York and Delaware," he said. "Plaintiffs are considering their options, including an appeal." In the Verizon case, Schweitzer refused on Dec. 19 to approve a deal negotiated by plaintiffs firm Faruqi & Faruqi. Like Judge Kornreich, he found that the language added in the settlement wasn't material. MEMPHIS, TN: Ex-City Atty. Can't Try Mishandled Rape Kits Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- A federal magistrate ruled on January 5 that a former Memphis city attorney can't represent a group suing the city for the alleged mishandling of rape evidence kits, reports Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service. Robert L. J. Spence had "substantial involvement" in policymaking and leadership with the City of Memphis, U.S. Magistrate Judge Charmiane Claxton found, but his firm can still handle the case. The Jane Doe class action was filed in December 2013. Doe says she was raped by a home intruder in March 2001, and provided bodily fluid samples at a rape crisis center, but the Memphis Police Department ignored the evidence. The lawsuit alleges that the city didn't test more than 15,000 evidence kits for reported sexual assaults and caused spoliation of the evidence. The City of Memphis claims that Spence not only had access to confidential information, he was actually part of a group that "turned a blind eye" to the allegations in the class action lawsuit. "The city argues that Mr. Spence acquired confidential information about it that would be highly relevant to the claims of systematic wrongs alleged by plaintiffs," the ruling states, citing Memphis' motion to disqualify counsel. "The city further argues that plaintiffs' allegations call Mr. Spence's own conduct directly into question, as he was one of the 'persons with final policymaking authority with the City of Memphis.'" But Spence said in his affidavit that he never dealt with rape evidence kit issues while working as a city attorney. "The issue of testing sexual assault evidence kits was never discussed or made known to Mr. Spence in any context whatsoever while he served as city attorney," his affidavit states. "Mr. Spence never received any confidential information, or participated personally or substantially, in the MPD's policies pertaining to criminal investigations." Claxton granted the city's motion to disqualify for Spence himself but denied it in regard to The Spence Law Firm. She ruled that his former city leadership role disqualifies him, regardless of his alleged lack of knowledge about the rape evidence matter. "The scope of Mr. Spence's role as city attorney was exceptionally broad, and its relationship to the former matter is closely intertwined because of his role in policymaking and leadership -- both of which are at issue in plaintiff's case," Claxton wrote. "Thus, simply because Mr. Spence did not have specific knowledge of the failure to test the sexual assault evidence kits or was not involved in other ways with this issue does not suffice to permit him to represent plaintiffs when he previously had such a broad policymaking and leadership role with the city. Attorney Ricky Wilkins, who also represents the class, told Courthouse News that the legal team plans to appeal the disqualification ruling. The case is Jane Doe, Individually and as Class Representative of All Others Similarly Situated v. City of Memphis, Case No. 2:13- cv-03002-JTF-cgc, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western Division. MONTREAL MAINE: Settlement May Grow as Much as $500 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that bankrupt railroad operator Montreal Maine and Atlantic Canada Co. and others tied to a 2013 derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, have agreed to pay $200 million to compensate victims, including 48 people who died. The settlement, announced on Jan. 9, could grow to as much as $500 million if additional defendants come on board. Peter Flowers -- pjf@meyers-flowers.com -- a partner at Chicago's Meyers & Flowers who represented the families of those who died, talked to The National Law Journal about how he used Illinois law to obtain more money for his clients. NLJ: Tell me about this disaster. What happened? Flowers: It was in July of 2013. Some oil was fracked out of North Dakota and the oil was going to be brought down into Maine and delivered to an Irving Oil refinery. So 72 rail cars make their way through Canada, and they eventually reach the town of Lac-Megantic. And in Lac-Megantic, the cars -- and there's a lot potential reasons why -- in the middle of the night actually come into town, flip over and blow up. It looks like someone dropped a nuclear bomb in the middle of the town. Forty-seven people died out of that. There was a 48th death of a fireman who committed suicide after seeing this disaster. NLJ: Your firm represents the families of the people who died. How many lawsuits did you file? Flowers: We filed 19. And we subsequently ended up filing suit in Illinois because one of the main railroads involved was located in Illinois. The oil . . . gets transported into Canada through Canadian Pacific Railway, which hands it off to MMAC -- Montreal Maine and Atlantic -- and that company is associated with another company called Rail World. And it's owned by a gentleman by the name of Edward Burkhardt. Rail World is located in Illinois, and a lot of what was happening was being directed out of Illinois. Burkhardt lives in Illinois. NLJ: Why file in Illinois? Flowers: Canadian damage law is pretty tough. It's got caps on it, somewhere in the range of $500,000 to $600,000. NLJ: Where does the $200 million come from and who gets it? Flowers: There are essentially five classes of people who are entitled to recover from this. The 48 wrongful-death victims are one class. There are property damage people in another class, and then people with PTSD [posttraumatic stress disorder] from this, which is another class. And then two government classes: the [Canadian] government, which had a large outlay of money for environmental repairs . . . and the province itself. The proceeds are coming from a variety of sources, some of which is not public. Part of it is from the railroad that no longer exists because it filed for bankruptcy, part from insurance carriers, part from some other players and defendants involved in this. NLJ: You sued at least three additional companies over the disaster that aren't part of this settlement. What's your case against them? Flowers: The three main responsible players are a company called World Fuel Services, which is involved in the actual removal of the oil from the ground; Canadian Pacific; and Irving Oil. The case is extremely strong against all three remaining defendants, from what their conduct was to what happened. Simply put, each of them knew or should have known of the combustibility of this crude and should have known that you cannot transport this in the method that they did. NLJ: The trustee in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of MMAC's parent company in the United States hopes to obtain a total of $500 million for victims. What do you think? Flowers: If this proceeds in the U.S., it will be well in excess of this. You have 48 families who lost loved ones. The numbers that the trustee is throwing out there are very large numbers, but they're numbers properly under the law and easily obtainable in the United States. MORGAN STANLEY: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the dismissal of a securities fraud class action alleging Morgan Stanley concealed its exposure to and losses during the subprime mortgage market meltdown has been upheld by a federal appeals court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit made new law as it said a lower court was right to dismiss the case against Morgan Stanley and six of its officers because plaintiffs alleging fraud failed to adequately plead scienter. The court decided a case of first impression on the disclosure requirements of Item 303 of Regulation S-K, which include the obligation to disclose "any known trends or uncertainties" in Securities and Exchange Commission mandated quarterly Form 10-Q reports that the filer believes will have an "unfavorable impact" on revenues or income. Judges Jose Cabranes, Richard Wesley and Debra Ann Livingston held that the failure to make a required Item 303 disclosure in a 10-Q filing is an omission that can serve as a basis for a securities fraud claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs in Fjarde AP-Fonden v. Morgan Stanley, 13-0627-cv, alleged Morgan Stanley made misstatements and omissions in filings between June 20, 2007 and Nov. 19, 2007 that concealed their exposure to billions of dollars in losses in the subprime mortgage market. Morgan Stanley had made huge bets in 2006 that were backed by subprime mortgages -- the first was a $2 billion short position and the second was a $13.5 billion long position. Morgan Stanley lost billions on the long position and lead plaintiffs State- Boston Retirement System and AP-Fonden said they suffered because the value of Morgan Stanley stock was artificially inflated due to the misrepresentations and omissions about both the exposure to credit risk and the amount of losses. Southern Judge Deborah Batts dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed to the Second Circuit in 2013. Writing for the circuit on Jan. 12, Judge Livingston said, "This court and our sister circuits have long recognized that a duty to disclose under Section 10(b) can derive from statutes or regulations that obligate a party to speak." Citing the regulation, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 229.303(a)(3)(ii), Judge Livingston said "a reasonable investor would interpret the absence of an Item 303 disclosure to imply the nonexistence of 'known trends or uncertainties'" that could effect revenues. "It follows that Item 303 imposes the type of duty to speak that can, in appropriate cases, give rise to liability under Section 10(b)," she said. The judge said the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded Morgan Stanley had an Item 303 duty to disclose it faced a deteriorating subprime mortgage market that could affect its financial condition. But the plaintiffs failed to properly allege scienter -- a connection between the omission and the purchase or sale of a security, reliance on that omission by the purchaser and a resulting economic loss. To succeed, Judge Livingston said, they had to allege defendants "were at least consciously reckless regarding whether their failure to provide adequate Item 3003 disclosures during the second and third quarters of 2007 would mislead investors about material facts." Instead, Judge Livingston said the complaint itself showed that a top official ordered employees to cut Morgan Stanley's long position and that an internal task force "discussed strategies to reduce the Long Position while also developing a better sense of the 'range' of losses the company could face." "Given the rigidity of the Form 10-Q filing deadlines, we find no basis to infer anything more than 'a heightened form of negligence' (if that) about whether Morgan Stanley's 10-Qs would mislead investors about these internal deliberations, especially after taking into account that Morgan Stanley was also 'profiting' from the declining market through its short position," she said. And, as the court decided in an accompanying summary order also issued on Jan. 12, Judge Livingston said, "Morgan Stanley's affirmative statements about its exposure to the mortgage securities market during the relevant time period were not misleading." David Kessler -- dkessler@ktmc.com -- of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is lead counsel for plaintiff Fjarde AP-Fonden and for the class. Partner Jonathan Plasse -- jplasse@labaton.com -- of Labaton Sucharow is lead counsel for plaintiff Boston Retirement System and the class. Robert Wise -- robert.wise@davispolk.com -- senior counsel at Davis Polk & Wardwell, argued for the defendants. NEW PACIFIC: Recalls Dining Chairs Due to Fall Hazard ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with New Pacific Direct, Inc., of Newark, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 250 Abby Dining Chair. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Chair legs can break unexpectedly, posing a fall hazard. The recall involves The Abby Dining Chair has dark brown wooden legs with seat and back upholstery in either gray or green fabric with black or white edge piping. The chair is approximately 20 inches wide, 24 inches deep and 36 inches tall. The SKU number 428136-CS-C or 428136-GS-C is printed on the product packaging. There are no identifying labels on the product itself. The company has received four reports of a chair leg breaking. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/1k55SY The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at various home furnishing retailers nationwide between July 2014 and November 2014 for about $200. Consumers should immediately stop using the product and contact NPD Furniture for a full refund. NEW YORK, NY: Supreme Court Won't Hear High Line Park Suit Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will not hear the appeal of eight Manhattan property owners who claimed an unconstitutional taking when their lots were rendered less valuable due to the preservation of an elevated railroad track above the lots that eventually became the High Line park. The high court on Jan. 12 declined without comment to disturb the ruling of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in West Chelsea Buildings, LLC v. United States, 109 Fed. Cl. 5, 28 (2013), aff'd, 554 F. App'x 942 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The case stemmed from the 2005 decision of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to transform the elevated line into a public park under a federal statute allowing conversions of "rails to trails." Federal authorities reclaimed the property from the railroad, which originally had been the New York Central Railroad Company, and conveyed it to New York City. West Chelsea and other property owners consented to the High Line and executed covenants not to sue in favor of both the U.S. and New York City. The developers in their lawsuit, however, asserted they never intended to release the U.S. from a takings claim. They also argued that under New York law, the federal government could not be a third-party beneficiary to such an agreement, and that Supreme Court precedent precludes enforcement of such waivers of constitutional rights to bring takings claims under the Fifth Amendment. The trial court ruled against them. Court of Federal Claims Judge Nancy Firestone held that the plaintiffs received valuable development rights for granting the covenants not to sue, as well as releases from environmental claims and indemnifications and guarantees regarding the High Line development plans. Judge Firestone also said the plaintiffs, who were sophisticated property developers, had adequate legal representation when they signed the covenants, and noted they had waited nearly six years after the High Line had been built to bring their claim. The High Line is a 1.4 mile-long park built on the elevated former rail bed that winds from Gansevoort Street to West 34th Street between 10th and 12th avenues. According to the plaintiff's briefs, since the High Line opened in 2009, more than 2,500 new residential units, 1,000 hotel rooms, and 500,000 square feet of new office and art gallery space sprung up in the surrounding neighborhood. Between 2003 and 2011, the value of nearby properties not directly under the park climbed by 103 percent, they said, claiming their properties were stymied by the physical presence of the overhead viaduct and did not appreciate in value. But, Judge Firestone said, "The express language of the agreements demonstrates the parties' clear intent that plaintiffs would not sue the United States in connection with the High Line. Under New York law, this clear language conveys third-party beneficiary status on the United States." Judge Firestone's ruling was affirmed without comment by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The developers had argued in their certiorari petition that Firestone should have certified the issue of whether the U.S. could be a third-party beneficiary to the covenant not to sue to the New York Court of Appeals. The developers, who were represented on appeal by Mark "Thor" Hearne, a partner at Arent Fox, also argued that the covenant not to sue was an unenforceable extraction of the constitutional right to bring a takings claim under a Supreme Court case, Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013), decided after the lower court ruling. Not all of the plaintiffs agreed to the covenant, however. Romanoff Equities, the owner of a lot under the High Line, preserved its takings claim after the West Chelsea group's claim was dismissed. Judge Firestone also dismissed the Romanoff claim last November in Romanoff Equities, Inc. v. United States, 2014 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1354, asserting that the original easement granted by the property owners to the railroad in 1932 was broad enough to permit construction of a public park. "We have appealed the ruling," said Mr. Hearne, who also represents Romanoff, "which we think is very much an anomaly." "What's really at stake here is that while the property owners around the High Line have seen their values skyrocket," Mr. Hearne said, "those who are underneath or adjacent to it and cannot build upwards and have had many millions taken from them. Basically, those properties are used as parking lots." Mr. Hearne would not provide precise detail as to the effect of the High Line on the properties' actual values. In dismissing Romanoff's claim, Firestone noted that Romanoff had sold the lot at issue for $81 million. Romanoff argued that the price would have been higher but for the encumbrance granting the air rights to the High Line. Firestone rejected the claim and credited the government's arguments that Romanoff had received valuable development rights in the West Chelsea neighborhood in return for acceding to the High Line, and that those rights were what accounted for the lot's value. Emily Meeker, of the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment & Natural Resources Division, represented the government in both cases. Beginning in the 1960s, trucks replaced trains bringing animals into lower Manhattan's meatpacking district, according to court papers. Rail traffic fell substantially. The last train, pulling three boxcars of frozen turkeys, ran in 1980. NICHOLAS FINANCIAL: Judge Recommends Atty Fees in "Osborne" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the action BOBBY OSBORNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NICHOLAS FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:12-00185 (M.D. Tenn.), Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant recommends that the plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs be granted in part and denied in part in a Dec. 5, 2014 Report and Recommendation available at http://is.gd/QuV4zt from Leagle.com. The action was filed in February 2012 under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The parties agreed to settle the dispute, but were unable to agree upon the attendant attorney's fees. In September 2014, the matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge for a recommendation. Accordingly, in its Dec 5, 2014 report, the Magistrate Judge recommends: (1) a reduction to $395 as a reasonable rate for senior counsel; (2) a reduction of $30 for the less senior counsel; and (3) a reduction to $75 for the paralegal and law clerk work, with the exception of Ms. Pardee's calculation of damages and back wages. Therefore, the judge recommends: (1) $234,059.50 for the work of counsel at Dickinson Wright PLLC; (2) $53,103.75 for the work of counsel at the Higgins Firm; (3) $2,319.48 for costs of Dickinson Wright; and (4) $350.00 for costs of the Higgins Firm. Bobby Osborne, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Higgins, The Higgins Firm, PLLC, Jonathan A. Street, The Higgins Firm, PLLC, Martin D. Holmes -- mdholmes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC, Morris Reid Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC & Scott A. Petz -- spetz@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC. Nicholas Financial, Inc., Defendant, represented by Keith D. Frazier -- keith.frazier@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Luther Wright, Jr. -- luther.wright@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.. OREGON, USA: Rigged Poker Games Cost Players $134-Mil., Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Oregon State Lottery's rigged video poker games have cost players $134 million, a man claims in a class action lawsuit, reports Nick McCann at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Justin Curzi claims the video poker machines' "auto-hold" feature misleads players about how to increase their odds of winning a hand. The auto-hold feature recommends playing strategies, and allows players to automatically discard and draw new cards with a single button, according to the complaint. "Thus, relying on the auto-hold feature is the easiest and fastest way to play video poker, and the player must actively elect not to rely on the auto-hold feature in order to avoid following its recommended strategies," Curzi says in the complaint. He claims that the auto-hold feature sometimes recommends strategies "that materially decrease a player's chances of playing a winning hand when compared against the best possible strategy." The state lottery was audited by Gaming Laboratories International in 2009, and the audit found that "there is virtually no difference between actual payouts and the payouts achieved by following the recommendations made by the auto-hold feature," the complaint states. "These payouts, however, are more than 3 percent less (on average) than the payouts that would be achieved if the auto-hold feature actually did recommend the best playing strategies." Curzi claims the State Lottery knows that video poker players believe that the auto-hold feature offers the best playing strategy, but has not informed them that it is not the case. "Instead, the Lottery publicly advertises the theoretical payouts for each video game, including on its website, without disclosing the fact that the auto-hold feature is programmed to pay out at less than those odds," the complaint states. Curzi claims that poker players "lost an estimated $134 million as a result of defendants' wrongful conduct." Also named as defendants are IGT Inc., GTech USA, and WMS Gaming Inc. Curzi seeks class certification and at least $134 million in damages for fraud, misrepresentation, negligence and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jay Zollinger, Esq. OUTSIDE GENERAL COUNSEL SERVICES, P.C. 10975 SW Avocet Ct. Beaverton, OR 97007 Telephone: (503) 464-6787 PINK'S ICE: Recalls 2014 Ice Cream Due to Listeria Risk ------------------------------------------------------- Pink's Ice Cream LLC of Seattle, WA is recalling all ice cream flavors produced in 2014 with the exception of Coconut Non-Dairy Frozen Dessert, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Pink's Ice Cream was distributed through grocery stores and restaurants around the Puget Sound Area including Uwajimaya and Metropolitan Market in Washington. The 16 oz. pints of ice cream are sold with a six-digit numerical product code between on the bottom of the product. That six digit code will start with two numbers between 00**** and 52****. The recall includes all codes within that range with the exclusion of 01**** and 41****. The table below summarizes the affected products. Name of Product Flavors Size Production Date Type of --------------- ------- ---- --------------- Packaging --------- Pink's Ice Cream Black 16 oz 1/1/14-12/21/14 Paper Sesame, Carton Durian, Green Tea, Mango, Red Bean, Spicy Ginger, Taro, Thai Tea Pink's Ice Cream Black 1 gal 1/1/14-12/21/14 Plastic Sesame, Gallon Durian, Green Tea, Mango, Red Bean, Spicy Ginger, Taro, Thai Tea The recall is the result of contamination found at Snoqualmie Gourmet Ice Cream, Pink's dairy supplier. A routine sampling revealed traces of Listeria in the finished product and on nearby surfaces at the supplier's plant. Pink's Ice Cream has recalled all products made with potentially contaminated dairy ingredient, sterilized all production surfaces and equipment, and has begun sourcing dairy from an alternative source. No illnesses related to the consumption of Pink's Ice Cream products have been reported to date. Thisrecall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Consumers who have purchased Pink's Ice Cream, except the non- dairy Coconut, are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 206-861-9098 during regular business hours (Monday - Friday 9am-5:00 PST). Photo of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428526.htm PRIMAL VANTAGE: Recalls SKLZ Resistance Trainers ------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Primal Vantage Co., of Bernardsville, N.J., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000 Ameristep Hyde Cliff Hanger and Sky Walker Tree Stands. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The cast aluminum platform can break, causing the user to fall to the ground and suffer serious injuries. The recall involves two 2014 models of hang-on tree stands used by hunters. They include the Ameristep Hyde Cliff Hanger with model number 2RX1H008C and date code JH-2014-3-6 and the Ameristep Hyde Sky Walker with model number 2RX1H009C and date code JH-2014-3-6. The date code is stamped on the back of the tree stand's aluminum seat frame. The model number is printed on the packaging and in the instruction manual. "Hyde" is printed in red on the vertical aluminum bar between the seat and the foot platform. Primal Vantage has received six reports of the tree stand's aluminum platform breaking. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/Yjy1ZR The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bass Pro Shops and other sporting goods stores nationwide from July 2014 through November 2014 for between $220 and $250. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and contact Primal Vantage for a full refund. PRIMARY FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chaya F. Posen, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Primary Financial Services, L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-00205 (E.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015) accuses the Company of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com PRO PERFORMANCE: Recalls SKLZ Resistance Trainers ------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Pro Performance Sports LLC, of Carlsbad, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 52,000 SKLZ Recoil 360 All-Position Resistance Trainers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. A weld on a ring on the resistance trainer's belt can break during use and cause the resistance trainer's flexible cord to quickly and unexpectedly retract and hit an exercise partner who is holding the other end. The recall involves the SKLZ Recoil 360 All-Position Resistance Trainers, which is a leash-type device that provides resistance during exercise. The resistance trainer consists of a belt, an 8- foot flexible cord attachment leash, a safety handle and a storage bag. "SKLZ" followed by an arrow is printed on the belt. Users wear the belt, which is connected to the flexible cord. The safety handle, connected to the flexible cord, is held by a coach or partner to provide resistance while the user runs, jumps or shuffles. In lieu of a coach or partners, the safety handle can be connected to a sturdy stationary object like a fence or post. Belts with the arrow before the "SKLZ" are not included in this recall. The firm has received three reports of the weld on the resistance trainer breaking and resulting in serious injuries, including blunt trauma to a lower leg, a puncture wound and a laceration. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/IVIgrY The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Academy LTD, Dick's Sporting Goods and other sporting goods and fitness stores; sporting goods and fitness catalogs; and online at SKLZ.com and Amazon.com from January 2013 through December 2014 for about $40. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled resistance trainers and contact SKLZ to return them for a free replacement resistance trainer, including free shipping. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Judge Remands Hygiene Wipes Suit to State Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that Procter & Gamble Co. has failed to dispose of a proposed class action alleging the company misrepresents its hygiene wipes as flushable, courtesy of a California federal judge who gave the plaintiffs alternative routes to press their case. In an unusual order, U.S. District Judge James Donato partially remanded Machlan v. Procter & Gamble to California state court, where the judge said San Francisco plaintiff David Machlan would have a chance to win injunctive relief against the company for alleged fraudulent marketing of the premoistened wipes as appropriate for flushing, when municipal sewer pumps and septic systems are allegedly becoming clogged by them. Mr. Machlan's suit, which reached federal court in April from San Francisco County Superior Court, alleges that Procter & Gamble fraudulently touts Charmin Freshmates Flushable Wipes as safe for flushing. It makes the same claims against co-defendant Nehemiah Manufacturing Co. and its Pampers Kandoo Flushable Wipes. Nehemiah is a small manufacturer designated by P&G as a licensee for the Kandoo wipes. Similar putative actions have been lodged against Target Corp., Kimberly-Clark Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. over their brands of wipes. In a Jan. 7 order in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Judge Donato agreed with the defendants that Mr. Machlan lacked standing to ask for an injunction because he did not allege that he intended to again purchase the wipes in question. Judge Donato said that to qualify for an injunction in federal court, a plaintiff must demonstrate "a sufficient likelihood that he will again be wronged in a similar way." The judge added that the nature of Mr. Machlan's alleged injury -- deception -- is such that he personally cannot be harmed in the same way again. Rather than dismiss Mr. Machlan's claims for lack of standing or remand the full action, the judge ordered an uncommon "partial remand" of just the portions of the claim that seek injunctive relief under California consumer protection laws. Unlike in federal court, a state court can imposed an injunction even if the plaintiff does not argue that he intends to buy the product again. "A California state court ought to decide whether injunctive relief is appropriate for plaintiff's claim," Judge Donato wrote, in ordering the partial remand. "Respect for comity and federalism compel that conclusion, and just tossing aside the state's injunction remedy because of this court's limited jurisdiction is an unwarranted federal intrusion into California's interests and laws." The judge also suggested an end-run around Mr. Machlan's federal claims about the Charmin wipes, which Mr. Machlan acknowledged he never purchased. Judge Donato dismissed those claims, with prejudice, for lack of standing, but said the allegations could be renewed with a new named plaintiff who did purchase the Charmin product. Defense counsel are attorneys with Covington & Burling and Dudnick Detwiler Rivin & Stikker. Mr. Machlan is represented by attorneys with Gutride Safier. PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Faces Class Suit Alleging FDCPA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Chaya Felberbaum, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Professional Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00193 (E.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015) seeks relief for alleged 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 RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Toby Feig d/b/a American Medical Collectoin Agency, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 1:15-cv-00196 (E.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com RUSSELL GOLDMAN: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian P. Carney and William C. Gumpper, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Russell P. Goldman, P.C. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-00260-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., January 13, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com SOBERLINK INC: Accused of Misrepresenting Alcohol Testing Devices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Soberlink advertises its alcohol breath-testing devices as "admissible and certified by the courts," but they are not, a class action claims in California Federal Court. SONY PICTURES: Files Motion to Consolidate Data Breach Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers from Keller Rohrback, Girard Gibbs and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the seven proposed class actions filed in federal court so far on behalf of current and former Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.'s employees whose personal information allegedly was compromised in the cyberattack. The unopposed motion, which is subject to approval from U.S. District Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California, also proposes to have the three firms named interim colead class counsel. The lawyers "are uniquely qualified to represent the putative class in this case because of their extensive expertise and experience in consumer class actions, data breach litigation, and employee representation, which will be applied in this case to maximize the recovery for class members and move the litigation forward efficiently," they wrote. Keller Rohrback filed the first proposed class action stemming from the Sony data breach on Dec. 16. Separate lawsuits from Girard Gibbs, and Lieff Cabraser followed a day later. According to the Jan. 12 filing, the law firms behind four proposed class actions subsequently filed in federal court have consented to consolidating the cases and having Keller Rohrback, Girard Gibbs and Lieff Cabraser act as interim colead counsel. Sony, which has hired Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr to handle the litigation fallout from the data breach, didn't take a position on the Jan. 12 motion, according to the filing. STAR RIDE: Recalls Children's Pajama Sets ----------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Star Ride Kids, of New York. N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about 7,000 Children's Pajama Sets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The pajamas fail to meet federal flammability standards for children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children. The recall involves Star Ride Kids girl's pajama sets. The recalled pajamas are made of polyester and sold in sizes 4 through 14. The pajama sets consist of polar fleece pants with a bow and elastic at the waist and a jersey two-piece long-sleeve shirt. Style reference number 5217 or 5250 is on a label in the side seam of each shirt. "Star Ride Taking It To The Next Level" is on a label in the waistband of each pair of pants. The logo "Star Ride" is printed on the inside back of the neck of each shirt. Some shirts have a hangtag on the wrist with the words "flame resistant sleepwear." The sets were sold in these combinations: Style Reference No. 5217 Black and white zebra printed pants paired with a blue top with a zebra printed heart on the center front. Pink and black zebra printed pants paired with a white top with pink, heart-shaped peace signs and the word "Peace" printed on the center front. Style Reference No. 5250 Blue pants with the words "Happy, Love, Dreams" in a multicolored print paired with a white and blue top with the word "Hope" printed on the center front. Pink pants with the words "Happy, Love, Dreams" in a multicolored print paired with a white and pink top with multicolored stars on the lower left side. There were no incidents that were reported. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/VlNjnK The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at children's boutiques and department stores nationwide from August 2013 through November 2013 for between $10 and $13. Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajamas away from children, stop using them and return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. STATE FARM: Majority of Wojcieszak Documents Protected ------------------------------------------------------ The lawsuit MARK HALE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV- 660-DRH-SCW (N.D. Ill.) is a class action complaint alleging two Racketeer-influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims against the Defendants. Plaintiffs allege that State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company devised a scheme to elect Judge Lloyd Karmeier to the Illinois Supreme Court, conceal its involvement in the financing and management of the campaign from Plaintiffs and the Illinois Supreme Court so that Judge Karmeier could preside over the Avery case which was then pending before the supreme court, and concealed their involvement by misrepresenting their involvement in two written briefs submitted to the Illinois Supreme Court in 2005 and 2011. As part of the Avery case, Doug Wojcieszak provided three affidavits in 2005 and 2011 in which he made factual assertions regarding State Farm's role in the Karmeier campaign. Tactical Investigations is Wojcieszak's former firm. State Farm sought documents regarding Wojcieszak's and Tactical Investigation's investigations into the Karmeier election campaign. They sought all documents that Wojcieszak relied on or collected in forming his affidavits in the Avery case. Korein Tillery, Randall Bono, Brad Lakin, Jeff Cooper, and John Simmons -- referred to as "the Tillery Group" -- objected to the production of 413 documents they claim to be privileged under a prior agreement with Wojcieszak and Tactical Investigations. In a Dec. 5, 2014 Memorandum and Order available at http://is.gd/zLBCUnfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Williams granted in part and denied in part State Farm's Motion to Overrule the Tillery Group's privilege assertions as to 413 documents. The Illinois District Court held that the majority of the 431 documents submitted for in-camera review are protected by First Amendment or work product privileges. However, the Court said certain documents essential to the heart of State Farm's defense and those public relation documents which were exposed to the public domain must be produced to State Farm. Tactical Investigations and Wojcieszak had until Dec. 19, 2014 to produce those documents with the directed redactions. Mark Hale, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Barrett, Charles Barrett, PC, Patrick W. Pendley, Pendley Law Firm, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott, Brent W. Landau, Hausfeld LLP, Colin H. Dunn, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., David T. Brown, Much, Shelist et al., David Alan Eisenberg, Much, Shelist et al., Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser et al. - San Francisco, CA, George S. Bellas, Clifford Law Offices P.C., Jessica A. Perez, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., John W. Barrett, Barrett Law Office, Kevin Reid Budner, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Kristofer S. Riddle, Clifford Law Offices PC, Lance K. Baker, Gordon Ball PLLC, Michael S. Krzak, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Nicholas R. Rockforte, Pendley, Baudin & Coffin, L.L.P., Richard R. Barrett, Barrett Law Office - MS, Richard M Heimann, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Richard H Taylor, Taylor Martino P.C., Robert J Nelson, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Robert P Sheridan, Clifford Law Offices , Shannon M McNulty, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Sidney W. Jackson, III, Jackson Foster, et al., Steven P Blonder, Much, Shelist et al., Steven A. Martino, Taylor Martino P.C., Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm PA & W Lloyd Copeland, Taylor Martino P.C.. Todd Shadle, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Barrett, Charles Barrett, PC, Patrick W. Pendley, Pendley Law Firm, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott, Brent W. Landau, Hausfeld LLP, Colin H. Dunn, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., David Alan Eisenberg, Much, Shelist et al., Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser et al. , George S. Bellas, Clifford Law Offices P.C., John W. Barrett, Barrett Law Office, Kevin Reid Budner, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Kristofer S. Riddle, Clifford Law Offices PC, Lance K. Baker, Gordon Ball PLLC, Michael S. Krzak, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Richard R. Barrett, Barrett Law Office, Richard M Heimann, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Richard H Taylor, Taylor Martino P.C., Robert J Nelson, Lieff, Cabraser et al., Robert P Sheridan, Clifford Law Offices, Shannon M McNulty, Clifford Law Offices. P.C., Sidney W. Jackson, III, Jackson Foster, et al., Steven P Blonder, Much, Shelist et al., Steven A. Martino, Taylor Martino P.C., Thomas P. Thrash, Thrash Law Firm PA & W Lloyd Copeland, Taylor Martino P.C.. Laurie Loger, Plaintiff, represented by George S. Bellas, Clifford Law Offices P.C. & W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott. Mark Covington, Plaintiff, represented by George S. Bellas, Clifford Law Offices P.C. & W. Gordon Ball, Ball & Scott. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Schiff Hardin LLP, Patrick D. Cloud, Heyl, Royster et al., Ronald S. Safer, Schiff Hardin LLP, Harnaik Kahlon, Schiff Hardin LLP, J. Timothy Eaton, Shefsky & Froelich Ltd. & James P. Gaughan, Schiff Hardin LLP. Edward Murnane, Defendant, represented by Richard J. O'Brien, Sidley Austin LLP, David Gavin Jorgensen, Sidley Austin LLP, Karim Basaria, Sidley Austin LLP & Patrick Edward Croke, Sidley Austin LLP. William G Shepherd, Defendant, represented by Russell K. Scott, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC & Andrew J. Tessman, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale PC. Illinois State Bar Association, Movant, represented by Michael J. Nester, Donovan Rose Nester PC. Stanley Tucker, Movant, represented by Michael J. Nester, Donovan Rose Nester PC. April Troemper, Movant, represented by Michael J. Nester, Donovan Rose Nester PC. Lloyd A Karmeier, Interested Party, represented by A. Courtney Cox, Sandberg, Phoenix et al. & Anthony L. Martin, Sandberg, Phoenix et al.. Tillery Group, Interested Party, represented by J. William Lucco, Lucco, Brown et al. & Joseph R. Brown, Jr., Lucco, Brown et al.. SYNGENTA CORP: "Brockman" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Brockman v. Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:14-cv-04879, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02218-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: Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Esq. Mark A. Wendorf, Esq. REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com m.wendorf@rwblawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Douglas W. Peters, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP The Omaha Building 1650 Farnam Street Omaha, NE 68102-2186 Telephone: (402) 346-6000 Facsimile: (402) 346-1148 E-mail: Douglas.Peters@KutakRock.com - and - Thomas Klosowski, Esq. KUTAK ROCK LLP 220 South 6th Street, Suite 1750 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 334-5017 Facsimile: (612) 334-5050 E-mail: Thomas.Klosowski@KutakRock.com SYNGENTA CORP: "Brooks" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Brooks v. Syngenta AG, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00162, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02189-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: Jonathan C. Little, Esq. Jessica A. Moland, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE LLP 1433 N. Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 721-9214 E-mail: Jon@sllawfirm.com jessica@sllawfirm.com - and - Patrick Pendley, Esq. Nick Rockforte, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN AND COFFIN, L.L.P. 1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: (504) 355-0086 Facsimile: (504) 523-0699 E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com SYNGENTA CORP: Clark Hill Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Clark Hill Farms, et al. v. Syngenta AG, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03482, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to the U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02182-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: George M. Snellings, IV, Esq. David H. Nelson, Esq. Fred W. Sartor, Jr., Esq. Thomas G. Zentner, Jr., Esq. NELSON, ZENTNER, SARTOR & SNELLINGS, LLC PO Box 14420 Monroe, LA 71207-4420 Telephone: (318) 388-4454 Facsimile: (318) 388-4447 - and - Andrew K. York, Esq. Hugh A. Fuller, Esq. William B. Chaney, Esq. GRAY REED & MCGRAW, P.C. 1601 Elm St., Suite 4600 Houston, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 954-4135 Facsimile: (214) 953-1332 E-mail: dyork@grayreed.com afuller@grayreed.com wchaney@grayreed.com - and - Don M. Downing, Esq. Gretchen Garrison, Esq. Jason D. Sapp, Esq. GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, PC 701 Market St., Suite 800 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 241-5620 Facsimile: (314) 241-4140 E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com ggarrison@grgpc.com jsapp@grgpc.com - and - Jason Earley, Esq. HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON 2226 Cottondale Lane, Suite 210 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 225-5500 Facsimile: (501) 225-5501 E-mail: jason@hwnn.com - and - Scott A. Powell, Esq. HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP 2025 3rd Avenue, Suite 800 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 328-5330 Facsimile: (205) 324-2165 E-mail: scott@hwnn.com SYNGENTA CORP: "D&C" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled D&C Thornton Farms, et al. v. Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01997, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv- 02192-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: Roman A. Shaul, Esq. W. "Dee" Daniel Miles, III, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, PC 218 Commerce Street PO Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 951-7555 E-mail: roman.shaul@beasleyallen.com dee.miles@beasleyallen.com The Defendants are represented by: John Edward Goodman, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP One Federal Place 1819 Fifth Ave. North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 521-8000 Facsimile: (205) 521-8800 E-mail: jgoodman@babc.com SYNGENTA CORP: "Moore" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Moore, et al. v. Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00127, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa to the U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02187-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: David E. Sykes, Esq. DAVID E SYKES, P.C. 60 S. Main Street Fairfield, IA 52556 Telephone: (641) 472-5141 Facsimile: (641) 472-6800 E-mail: davidsykes@davidsykeslaw.com - and - Charles F. Speer, Esq. SPEER LAW FIRM, P.A. 104 West 9th Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 472-3560 Facsimile: (816) 421-2150 E-mail: cspeer@speerlawfirm.com - and - Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. Diogenes P. Kekatos, Esq. James A. O'Brien III, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 77 Water St., 26th Floor New York, NY 10005 E-mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com dkekatos@seegerweiss.com jobrien@seegerweiss.com SYNGENTA CORP: "Nixon" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Nixon v. Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-00397, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi to the U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02196-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: Roman A. Shaul, Esq. BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES, PC 218 Commerce Street PO Box 4160 Montgomery, AL 36103-4160 Telephone: (334) 269-2343 Facsimile: (334) 951-7555 E-mail: roman.shaul@beasleyallen.com The Defendants are represented by: Stephen Lee Thomas, Esq. BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP P.O. Box 1789 Jackson, MS 39215-1789 Telephone: (601) 592-9912 Facsimile: (601) 592-1412 E-mail: sthomas@babc.com SYNGENTA CORP: Faces "Falwell" Suit Alleging RICO Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kenny Falwell and Eagle Lake Farms, individually and on behalf of a Class of others similarly situated v. Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection LLC, Syngenta Seeds Inc., Michael Mack and David Morgan, Case No. 3:15-cv-00012-DPM (E.D. Ark., Jan. 14, 2015) is brought pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Corey Darnell McGaha, Esq. Scott E. Poynter, Esq. William Thomas Crowder, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP The Rozelle-Murphy House 1301 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 Facsimile: (501) 907-2556 E-mail: cmcgaha@emersonpoynter.com scott@emersonpoynter.com wcrowder@emersonpoynter.com - and - John G. Emerson, Jr., Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (501) 907-2555 E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com - and - Daniel Bacine, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com - and - Stephen R. Basser, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com SYNGENTA CORP: Faces Poinsett Suit in Arkansas Over MIR162 Corn --------------------------------------------------------------- Poinsett Rice - Osceola Division, LLC v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta Crop Protection AG, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00013- JM (E.D. Ark., January 14, 2015) arises from the Defendants' alleged premature release of a genetically modified corn trait, Agrisure VIPTERA (TM). The Plaintiff is an Arkansas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Osceola, Mississippi County, Arkansas. The Defendants are foreign corporations actively doing business in the state of Arkansas. Beginning in 2009, Syngenta prematurely released a genetically modified com trait, Agrisure VIPTERA (TM), into the U.S. market, according to the complaint. Syngenta's actions in turn caused the contamination of the entire U.S. com supply with a genetic trait called MIR162, which during all times relevant to this action, was prohibited from import in countries, including China, that had not approved it. As a result of the Defendants' conduct, the Plaintiffs contends that sales of U.S. corn to China and other export markets stalled, and China and other export markets have refused to accept and import U.S. com marketed and handled by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin J. Phipps, Esq. PHIPPS ANDERSON LLP 102 9th Street San Antonio, TX 78215 Telephone: (210) 340-9877 Facsimile: (210) 340-9899 E-mail: mphipps@phippscavazos.com - and - Barry Deacon, Esq. DEACON LAW FIRM, P.A 2524 Alexander Drive, Suite B Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 336-9300 Facsimile: (870) 336-9301 E-mail: bdeacon@deaconlawfirm.com - and - Lynn Johnson, Esq. SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN 2600 Grand, Suite 550 Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 399-5596 Facsimile: (816) 474-0003 E-mail: ljohnson@sjblaw.com SYNGENTA CORP: "Quarles" Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Quarles v. Syngenta Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00433, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky to the U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02183-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: Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 22 West 9th, 2nd Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 721-1178 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com - and - Nathan Dale Williams, Esq. BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER, PLC Marion E. Taylor Building, 6th Floor 312 S. Fourth Street Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 587-2002 Facsimile: (502) 587-2006 E-mail: nathan@bccnlaw.com - and - Yvonne M. Flaherty, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN, PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2179 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: flaheym@locklaw.com SYNGENTA CORP: Triple Farms Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Triple Farms of Indiana, LLC v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02014, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv- 02188-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: Irwin Levin, Esq. Richard Shevitz, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. Vess Miller, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com TD BANK: Faces "Koshgarian" Suit in NY Over Overdraft Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that despite recently paying $62 million to settle multidistrict litigation over its overdraft practices, TD Bank's "egregious" scheme to maximize such revenue continues, a New York federal class action alleges. John Koshgarian filed the 34-page federal complaint against New Jersey-based TD Bank and its Canadian parent, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, on Dec. 31. A New Yorker, Koshgarian filed as his first exhibit the March 2013 settlement that TD Bank reached in Miami regarding its overdraft practices. Though that settlement covered a class period from 2003 to 2010, Koshgarian says the collection of excessive overdraft fees by TD Bank has continued. "Significantly, defendants continue to assess overdraft fees based on the improper reordering of debit card transactions from highest to lowest amount and to assess fees even at times when customers would, but for the reordering, have sufficient funds in their account to cover all merchant requests for payment," the complaint states. Many other banks were involved in the multidistrict litigation, which was captioned In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, but Koshgarian says TD Bank stands out as one of the few to "continue[] these practices even after it settled claims of wrongdoing based on these very same practices." "In the era of electronic banking and the ubiquitous use of debit cards, the assessment of overdraft fees has become a major profit center for United States banks, including defendants," the complaint states. Though banks used to waive the charge when their customers occasionally bounced checks, the era of overdraft-protection plans has for the last 20 years changed that protocol, according to the complaint. Koshgarian says overdraft fees brought banks more than $17 billion in 2007. "The number nearly doubled in 2008, as more and more consumers struggled to maintain positive checking account balances," the complaint states. "In 2009, banks brought in $37.1 billion in overdraft charges alone. TD Bank has over $200 billion in assets and over 1300 branches, and has been a notable beneficiary of these staggering overdraft charges." Since those most likely to maintain low balances are often poor, Koshgarian says the effect on this class is disproportionate. "Moebs Services, a research company that has conducted studies for the government as well as banks, estimates that 90 percent of overdraft fees are paid by the poorest 10 percent of banks' customer base," the complaint states. "Moreover, these fees have the tendency to create a domino effect, because the imposition of a fee on an account with a negative balance will make it less likely that the account holder's balance will reach positive territory, resulting in more fees." Banks have the power to decline debit transactions when there are insufficient funds, or warn customers that an overdraft fee will be assessed if they proceed with the transaction, but they instead process the transactions to then charge an overdraft, Koshgarian says. "Thus, defendants' automatic, fee-based overdraft scheme was and is intentionally designed to maximize overdraft fee revenue," the complaint states. Koshgarian notes that overdraft fees can cost customers "hundreds of dollars in a matter of days, or even hours." "Even more egregious, customer accounts may not actually be overdrawn at the time the overdraft fees are charged, or at the time of the debit transaction," the complaint states. "In these instances, defendants manipulate and alters the timing of the customer's transactions, in a manner inconsistent with Defendants' contractual obligations, in order to maximize overdraft fees imposed on the customer. Thus, it is through manipulation and alteration of customers' transaction records in a manner inconsistent with defendants' contractual obligations that defendants maximizes overdraft fees imposed on customers." It was such "rampant abuse of overdraft charges by banks" that led the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to institute notice requirements for banks concerning overdraft charges, according to the complaint. Koshgarian says any overdraft fees TD Bank assessed on debit card transactions after Aug. 16, 2010, thus violated federal law, since the newly amended Regulation E (12 C.F.R. Section 205.17) under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, obligated banks "to obtain customers' affirmative consent before assessing overdraft fees on debit card transactions." Katony, N.Y.-based attorney James Batson represents the class, which seeks an injunction and damages for bad faith, breach of contract, violation of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and other wrongs. The complaint notes that TD Bank has 1,300 branches in the United States. TD BANK: Faces "Klein" Suit in NJ Over Excessive Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that TD Bank is facing a half-dozen suits challenging its overdraft fees as excessive, even after it agreed in 2013 to a $62 million settlement of multidistrict litigation challenging its overdraft fee practices. TD Bank continued many of the practices that were challenged in the prior litigation, even after agreeing to the settlement, according to the six newly filed cases, which are all putative class actions. The latest case, filed Jan. 9 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Camden, N.J., comes on the heels of another Camden suit filed in December 2014 against TD Bank. Additional overdraft fee suits were filed against TD Bank on Jan. 8 in Tampa federal court, on Dec. 31, 2014, in the Southern District of New York, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in March 2014 and in the District of South Carolina in August 2013. The suits claim TD Bank account holders pay the $35 overdraft fee more frequently than customers of other banks because the bank posts point-of-sale transactions to customers' accounts based on the amount -- larger ones before small ones -- instead of posting them chronologically. The latest complaint filed in Camden, Klein v. TD Bank, provides the example of a customer with a $10 account balance who uses his debit card to make a $3.50 purchase at 9 a.m. and a $12 purchase at noon. If the transactions are posted chronologically, the customer will pay the $35 overdraft fee once, when the second transaction is posted. But if the transactions are posted from largest to smallest, the bank charges two overdraft fees -- one for each transaction, the complaint alleges. The dispute stems from the bank's practice of approving debit card transactions that exceed the customer's balance, according to the suits. Banks collect billions of dollars each year in overdraft fees, which disproportionately impact the poor, the suits claim. The complaints cite a study that says 90 percent of overdraft fees are paid by the poorest 10 percent of the banks' customer base. TD Bank's $62 million settlement in 2013 was part of a multidistrict litigation in which similar claims were made against 30 banks. In that settlement, TD Bank account holders received credits in their accounts if they had paid overdraft fees based on the reordering of transactions. After the 2013 settlement, TD Bank said in public statements that it would begin posting transactions chronologically, but it never made that change, the suits claim. Klein seeks to recover on a different basis than the other second- round overdraft fee suits -- it focuses on the bank's imposition of overdraft fees on the account's "available balance" rather than the actual or ledger balance. The available balance represents the money in the account minus transactions that TD Bank anticipates will or might occur in the future, according to the complaint. At least 10 percent of the time an overdraft fee is assessed, there is enough money in the account to cover the transaction, the suit claims. Basing the decision to charge overdraft fees on the available balance is contrary to TD Bank's contracts with its customers, the suit claims. The suit seeks to recover for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act. Of the 30 banks that were defendants in the previous multidistrict litigation, TD Bank is the only one that did not change its practices after the settlement was reached, said Richard McCune of McCuneWright in Redlands, Calif., who represents the plaintiffs in Klein. Local counsel is Joseph Sauder -- JosephSauder@chimicles.com -- of Chimicles & Tikellis in Haverford, Pa. TEN BC: Recalls 10 oz. Tommy's Santa Fe Rice Due to Peanuts ----------------------------------------------------------- TEN BC LLC of Austin, TX is recalling its 10 ounce packages of "Tommy's Superfoods Santa Fe Rice" because they may contain undeclared peanuts. People who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The recalled "Tommy's Superfoods Santa Fe Rice" were distributed nationwide in retail stores. The product comes in a 10 ounce, white plastic package marked with Best by 11/17/2015. Lot # C091X4K17 on the bottom and is sold in the frozen foods section of the store. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the peanut- containing product was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of peanuts. Production of the product has been suspended until the FDA and TEN BC LLC are certain that the problem has been corrected. Consumers who have purchased 10 ounce packages of "Tommy's Superfoods Santa Fe Rice" marked with Best By 11/17/2015. Lot # C091X4K17 on the bottom are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at info@tommysfoods.com TIBOR SZABO: Court Dismissed Class Suit Over Sale of Pianos ----------------------------------------------------------- A federal judge on January 7 dismissed a class action accusing the owner of a chic San Francisco music and event space of defrauding clients of hundreds of thousands of dollars, reports Arvin Temkar at Courthouse News Service. Tibor Szabo, owner of Hayes Valley's Salle Piano & Events, was sued last October by Matthew Figures and Colleen Devlin in a class action that claimed Szabo solicited deposits for pianos that did not exist or never were delivered, and did not issue refunds. U.S. District Judge James Donato dismissed the complaint in its entirety on Jan. 7 hearing, according to the court reporter's notes on the hearing. Donato found the complaint "wholly lacking in explaining the 'who, what when, where and how' details required" in a fraud case, according to the court minutes. The judge was also concerned about whether the case adequately argued its racketeering claims Timothy Rumberger, the attorney who filed the complaint for the plaintiffs, did not appear at the hearing, according to the court reporter's minutes. Donato ordered Rumberger on Jan. 8 to "show cause in writing why the court should not impose monetary sanctions . . . for counsel's failure to appear." Szabo emphasized this development in an interview January 8. "They didn't even show up," Szabo said. "Clearly none of these things are founded, and they're accusing me of all these horrid things." Szabo called the lawsuit "deeply personal," tying the case to one he filed nearly three years ago in San Francisco Superior Court. Rumberger had represented the target of Szabo's previous lawsuit, Henry Laughlin, and that individual was also mentioned in, but not a party to, the more recent complaint Rumberger's clients filed against Szabo. Rumberger has not returned phone calls seeking comment. Salle Piano & Events has a glowing 4.5 stars on Yelp, though there are some scathing reviews. Szabo has been sued several times, according to Courthouse News and San Francisco Superior Court records. Judge Donato gave the plaintiffs until Jan. 21 to file an amended complaint. The case is Figures, et al. v. Szabo, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv- 04684-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued for Bombarding People With Spam Texts ------------------------------------------------------------- Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Uber bombards people with spam text messages to cellphones to try to recruit them as drivers, a class action claims in Federal Court. Four named plaintiffs from three states, from Oregon to New Hampshire, claim Uber violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and invades their privacy on a massive scale. Citing a Dec. 11 article in Vice, called "Uber's Text Message Spam is Driving People Crazy," the plaintiffs say: "People have been unable to get Uber to stop sending them text messages even after telling Uber multiple times to stop doing so." One person complained of getting 42 text messages from Uber in two weeks. Another says Uber texted her at 1:44 a.m. and 4:10 a.m. on Christmas Eve. Fourteen of 53 complaints filed against Uber with the FTC were for unsolicited text messages and calls, the complaint states, citing the Vice article. Plaintiff Julie McKinney says in the lawsuit that she has never been an Uber member, driver or user, but that in December she received at least three text messages from the company about working as a driver. Such prerecorded, automated phone calls are illegal under the TCPA, McKinney says. Lead plaintiff Kerry Reardon says she applied to be a driver, but decided against it. She says she has received dozens of automated text messages from a welter of Uber numbers, for which she has to pay, and which she cannot make them stop. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages of $500 for each negligent violation of the TCPA and statutory damages of $1,500 for each willful violation. They also seek punitive damages and an injunction. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hassan Zavareei, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREII LLP 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com UNISYS TECHNICAL: "Renazco" Labor Suit Remanded to State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Edgar Renazco sought and obtained a district court order for the remand of his labor class action against Unisys Technical Services, L.L.C., to state court in a Dec. 5, 2014 order available at http://is.gd/27SRnPfrom Leagle.com. The lawsuit is EDGAR RENAZCO, Plaintiff, v. UNISYS TECHNICAL SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. C-14-4204 EMC, (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiff sued Unisys, an information technology company, alleging violations of various wage and hour provisions of the California Labor Code and corresponding violations of California's unfair competition law. On behalf of a putative class of Unisys' current and former non-exempt hourly employees, Plaintiff seeks back wages with interest, equitable relief, statutory damages, and attorney's fees. The action was originally filed in San Francisco County Superior Court. Defendants removed the case to federal court on September 17, 2014. In his Dec. 5 order, District Judge Edward M. Cohen concluded that the Defendant has not met its burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff's motion to remand this matter to state court is thus GRANTED, the Court ruled. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees incurred in connection with its motion to remand is DENIED, the Court further ordered. Edgar Renazco, Plaintiff, represented by Norman B. Blumenthal, Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Aparajit Bhowmik, Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; Kyle Roald Nordrehaug, Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik; & Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik. Unisys Technical Services, L.L.C., a Limited Liability Company, Defendant, represented by Julie Anne Vogelzang -- jvogelzang@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP & Allegra Aine Jones -- AAJones@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP. VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls 100ml, 6g Vial Virazole(R) ----------------------------------------------------------- Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC (VPNA) is issuing a voluntarily recall of one lot of Virazole(R) (ribavirin powder for solution), 100 mL, 6g Vial, 4-pack to the user level. Inhalation of a non-sterile product with microbial contamination into the airways could increase the risk of respiratory infection. The risk is higher in patients who are immuno-compromised (because of underlying disease), and are more susceptible. Virazole is indicated for the treatment of hospitalized infants and young children with severe lower respiratory tract infections due to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Valeant has not received reports of adverse events or injuries, related to this recall. Virazole is packaged in 100 mL, 6 g Vial, 4-pack NDC 00187-0007-14 which is to be reconstituted with 300 mL Sterile Water for Injection or Sterile Water for Inhalation (no preservatives added) and administered only by a small particle aerosol generator (SPAG- 2). The affected Virazole lot is Lot No. 340353F with an expiration date of Oct-2018. Virazole was distributed in the U.S. and Australia. VPNA is notifying its distributors and customers by mail and is arranging for return of all recalled product of this lot. This recall only affects this lot of Virazole; all other lots are not affected and are not involved in this recall. Customers with questions regarding this recall can contact VPNA by phone at 800-321-4576 Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm (Eastern) or by e-mail address at pharmcs@valeant.com. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider for questions regarding this product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to VPNA at 877-361-2719 or to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program as follows: About Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC: Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC, is a specialty pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets a broad range of pharmaceutical products primarily in the areas of dermatology, eye health, consumer healthcare and other pharmaceutical products. More information about Valeant can be found at www.valeant.com. VALLEY SMOKERS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Stroh v. Valley Smokers, LLC, an Arizona company; Carsten Heyer and Jane Doe Heyer, husband and wife; Hans-Peter Lehmann and Jane Doe Lehmann, husband and wife, Case No. 2:15-cv-00059-DJH (D. Ariz., January 13, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Valley Smokers, LLC was incorporated in the state of Arizona. The Individual Defendants are residents of Arizona and are the owners of Valley Smokers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trey Dayes, Esq. Sean Davis, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 288-1610 E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com WALGREEN CO: Accused of Hiding Billion Dollar Profit Shortfall -------------------------------------------------------------- Walgreen's board and other top officials have been sued for allegedly failing to tell shareholders of an alleged multi-billion dollar profit shortfall, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service. In a derivative action filed in Chicago Federal Court, Walgreen shareholder Anne Cutler says company CEO Gregory Wasson, Chairman James Skinner, and 13 other corporate officers hid dire news about the pharmacy chain's performance until an August 6, 2014 announcement that caused its share price to plummet nearly 15 percent. Walgreens operates the largest pharmacy chain in America, with 8,309 locations. Pharmacy sales have accounted for approximately 75 percent of the chain's total sales for the past three years. In her complaint, Cutler says that with its announcement, Walgreen's board slashed its 2016 EBIT [earnings before interest & tax] goal by $2 billion, and reduced expected 2016 pharmacy earnings by $1.1 billion. A short time later, former Walgreen CFO Wade Miquelon claimed in court that he was wrongly made the scapegoat for a "shocking" calculation error leading to the reduction. In his defamation suit, Miquelon claims company directors were well aware that market forces would make Walgreens unable to meet its fiscal year 2016 earnings forecast, but that activist investors pressured the board not to revise the forecast. Cutler's derivative complaint relies on Miquelon's insider information, and also points to the "skyrocket[ing]" cost of essential generic drugs, which increased as much as 600 to 1,000 percent in 2013. "As generic drug prices continued to soar, the Company's internal EBIT forecast continued to decrease," the complaint says. "The Company's executives initially lowered EBIT forecast to $8.7 billion in July 2013, and continued to spiral downward thereafter, plummeting to an internal estimate of $7.2-7.5 billion by late May 2014." Cutler claims the board's August 2014 disclosures erased almost 49.5 billion in market capitalization. "Further, as a direct result of this unlawful course of conduct, the company is now the subject of numerous federal securities class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of investors who purchased Walgreens' shares," she says. Cutler seeks disgorgement and damages for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, as well as a shareholder vote on proposals to improve Walgreens' disclosure procedures. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman Rifkind, Esq. LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD. 351 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 634-0057 E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com WELLPOINT INC: "Ray" Suit Transferred From Indiana to Alabama ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Ray, et al. v. Wellpoint Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-02026, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern). The Alabama District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00052-RDP to the proceeding. The action is brought on behalf of subscribers of WellPoint, Inc., doing business as Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., for damages and restitution. Specifically, the action seeks to recover damages in the form of a refund of inflated premiums that WellPoint has charged Indiana subscribers as a result of an alleged ongoing conspiracy between WellPoint and 37 other Blue Cross Blue Shield Association member health plans in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and as a result of anti-competitive conduct WellPoint has engaged in to establish and maintain monopoly power throughout Indiana. WellPoint is the largest health insurance company operating in Indiana, and currently exercises market power in the commercial health insurance market throughout Indiana. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan C. Little, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE, LLP 1433 North Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 721-9214 E-mail: jon@sllawfirm.com - and - David Miller, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE, LLP 1433 N. Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (317) 371-5535 E-mail: david@sllawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Paul A. Wolfla, Esq. FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP 300 North Meridian Street, Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 237-0300 Facsimile: (317) 237-1000 E-mail: paul.wolfla@FaegreBD.com WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Bleating Heart Cheese Products --------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods Market is recalling cheese sold in Arizona, California and Hawaii that came from its supplier Bleating Heart Cheeses because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. Consumers should seek immediate medical care if they develop these symptoms. The recalled cheese was cut and packaged in clear plastic wrap and sold with Whole Foods Market scale labels. Whole Foods Market decided to recall the cheeses after its supplier, Bleating Heart Cheese, issued a recall due to possible Listeria monocytogenes. The following Bleating Heart Cheese products are included in this recall: * Shepardista, PLU# 254704, all sell by dates up to and including Jan 20st, 2015 * Goldette Tommette, PLU# 250302, all sell by dates up to and including Jan 20st, 2015 * Fat Bottom girl, PLU# 254705, all sell by dates up to and including Jan 20st, 2015 * Ewelicious, PLU# 299784, all sell by dates up to and including Jan 20st, 2015 * Mixtress, PLU# 299785, all sell by dates up to and including Jan 20st, 2015 * Moolicious, PLU# 299648, all sell by dates up to and including Jan 20st, 2015 No illnesses or infections have been reported to date. Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all affected product has been removed from shelves. Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market stores may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund. Consumers with questions should contact their local store or call 512-477-5566 ext. 20060 between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. EST. Photo of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428679.htm WYNDHAM VACATION: Execs Retaliated v. Worker & Class Plaintiff -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service reports that executives with the Wyndham hotel and resorts chain retaliated against an employee who sued them over unpaid wages, deeming him the "Anti-Christ" before they fired him, a lawsuit claims. Jesse Pierce filed his wrongful termination lawsuit against Wyndham Vacation Resorts Inc. and Wyndham Vacation Ownership Inc. in Federal Court on January 6. In his complaint, Pierce says his problems began after he filed a class action against the timeshare companies for unpaid overtime compensation. "Shortly after defendants were served with and became aware of Mr. Pierce's FLSA lawsuit, they retaliated against him," the complaint states. "For example, on or about February 1, 2014, they involuntarily removed him from the sales team and the experienced manager that he had been working with for several years and transferred him to another team at a different work site with a different, inexperienced manager who had supported defendants in the FLSA lawsuit." Wyndham also allegedly wrote him up for poor performance when he was a top salesman and suspended him without pay even though an investigation found he had done nothing wrong. Then, in June 2014, "Regional Vice President Dave Labelle stated to Mr. Pierce, 'Corporate HR and corporate legal view you as the Anti-Christ,' that 'you have rocked the boat' and 'cost the company millions' and that 'there is nothing I can do to protect you' from defendants' illegal conduct, among other admissions and statements evidencing defendants' retaliatory motives," the lawsuit says. Pierce was fired the next month for alleged company policy violations and Wyndham denied him an appeals process usually given to discharged employees, the complaint states. He says he was fired for both filing the overtime pay lawsuit and for taking FMLA leave for a heart condition that was made worse by stress at work. "Defendants perceived and feared that Mr. Pierce would need further medical treatment, reasonable accommodation, and FMLA leave or short or long term disability leave and pay and willfully acted to avoid the requirements of applicable laws and implementing regulations," according to the complaint. Pierce seeks compensatory and punitive damages, back pay and lost benefits. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Janney III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DOUGLAS B. JANNEY III 2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 742-5900 Facsimile: (615) 742-5958 E-mail: doug@janneylaw.com ZILKS FOODS: Recalls 8oz. Hummus Products Due to Peanuts -------------------------------------------------------- Zilks Foods, LLC of Austin, TX is recalling all of its 8 ounce hummus products because they may contain undeclared peanuts. People who have allergies to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. This recall affects the following products: Product Size Consumer UPC Use by Dates ------- ---- ------------ ------------ Bacon Hummus 8oz 817719010097 01/06/15 - 02/09/15 Balsamic & Garlic 8oz 817719010073 01/05/15 - 02/09/15 Hummus Hatch Green Chile 8oz 817719010035 01/05/15 - 02/09/15 Hummus Jalapeno & 8oz 817719010042 01/05/15 - 02/09/15 Cilantro Hummus Original Hummus 8oz 817719010011 01/05/15 - 02/09/15 Roasted Red 8oz 817719010028 01/05/15 - 02/09/15 Pepper Hummus Spinach & 8oz 817719010059 01/05/15 - 02/09/15 Artichoke Hummus The recalled hummus was distributed nationwide in retail stores. The containers are clear plastic tubs with white lids. The brand name "Zilks" can be found on each tub on both the top and side labels. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem. This recall was initiated after it was discovered that a spice ingredient from a single supplier used in the affected products was contaminated with peanut allergens. Consumers who have purchased the recalled products are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at info@zilksfoods.com or call 512-633-8904 Monday through Friday from 9am - 4pm CST. Photo of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm428761.htm. ********* 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 * * *