/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150127.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 19 Headlines AETNA LIFE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Insurance Contract AFFYMAX INC: Gets Final OK on "Bartelt" Class Suit Settlement AIMCO/BETHESDA HOLDINGS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ALL AMERICAN: Jones Gets Green Light to Amend Complaint ANADARKO E&P: A-W Land Can Amend Class Action Complaint APPLE INC: Settles "No-Poach" Class Action for $324.5 Million APPLE INC.: Court Narrows "Backhaut" Suit Over iMessages ARIZONA: Appeals Court to Hear Suit Over Ethnic Studies Ban ATTRACTION: Recalls Boys Hockey Sweatshirt with Drawstring BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Weiss" Suit in Pa. Over Alleged Kickbacks BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Motion to Compel Response BRIA HEALTH: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Vacation Pay CAPICUA CORPORATION: Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages CARNICERIA ARGENTINA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CHALAK-M&M ARl: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours,"Israsena" Suit Says CHOCOLAT HARMONIE: Recalls Orientale Chocolate Fondue Products COMCAST CORP: Bid to Compel Discovery in Martin Case Okayed CONOCOPHILLIPS: Agrees to Settle "Hot-Fuel" Litigation COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Consumers Get Favorable Ruling in Mortgage Suit DELICES DE: Recalls Artichoke Quarters Due to Presence of Tin DELTA AIR: Settlement in "Bell" Suit Has Final Approval DETROIT, MI: Court Rejects Class Decertification in "Brown" Suit DIGNITY HEALTH: App. Ct. Finds "Sarun" Adequately Alleged Injury DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Palmer" Suit Claims E & JERYG MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages FAMILY LIFE: "Hughes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES: Recalls Ceramic Baking Dish FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Dell" Suit Over Defective Engine Cradles FOODSTATE INC: Falsely Marketed Multivitamin Product, Suit Claims FORD MOTOR: "Sabol" Warranty Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. FRED DEELEY: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Former President Faces New Fraud Charge GENERAL NUTRITION: "Vigil" Case Transferred to S.D. Cal. GOURMET CAJUN: Faces "Guzman-Maya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HARRIS FARMS: Deadline to File Bid for Settlement Approval Moved HOME DEPOT: Faces Aneca Federal Suit Over Alleged Data Breach HONG KONG CHINA: Recalls Harbor Breeze Belleisle Bay Ceiling Fan HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Sued Over Inaccessible Hotel Vehicles HOULIHAN SMITH: Judge Won't Reverse Ruling on FLSA Atty Fee Award IMPRO SYNERGIES: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT INDIANA: Lawmaker Plans to File Bill to Require BMV Audits KIDCENTRAL SUPPLY: Recalls Textured Blocks 80pc by Edushape KILEY & KILEY: Sued in South Carolina Over Violations of TCPA KULA KLIPS: Recalls Comb-Style Snap Klips LENDY ELECTRIC: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MACH MINING: Supreme Court to Decide on Discrimination Suit MCDONALD'S CORP: Sued Over Race, Gender Bias in Franchised Outlet MASSAGE ENVY: Settles Massage Class Action for $177 Million MEXX CANADA: Recalls Children's Winter Jackets With Flashlight NATIONAL TAX: Faces "Franco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NATIONWIDE NATURAL: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk NISSAN: Recalls Pathfinder, Sentra and X-Trail Models NORDSTROM INC: Seeks Dismissal of False Marketing Class Action NORFOLK STATE: Male Teachers' Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Rules in Favor of Plaintiff in Boatright Suit PROGENE HEALTHCARE: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims RECKITT BENCKISER: Court Narrows Claims in Suboxone Litigation SA SAUSAGES: Recalls Serengeti Trading Ready-To-Eat Meat Products SEI YING: Recalls Beverage Powders Due to Undeclared Milk SEVENTH GENERATION: Accused of Misleading Marketing Practices SHELL OIL: Faces "Binder" Suit in La. Over Benzene-Related Injury SHELL OIL: Faces "Gaubert" Suit Over Benzene-Related Injury SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Plaintiff's Counsel to Re-Depose Frankel SPECIALTY TOYS: Recalls Lemur Plush Toy Due to Choking Hazard STAR MARKETING: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk STEPHEN YELVERTON: Case vs. Siblings Won't Proceed as Class Suit TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk UBC: Faces Class Action Over Damaged Sperm; April 27 Hearing Set UNITED STATES: Commerce Dep't Workers Win Discrimination Suit US SERVICO: Faces "Cody" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Cert. Order in "Salazar" Suit Altered VISEMAR DI NAVIGAZIONE: Giambrone to Launch Class Action VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Jetta Model Due to Defective Software VOXX International: Receives $5.2MM in Class Action Settlement WALTER LEE: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act WARRIOR ENERGY: Cannot Choose Presiding Judge in "Cerini" Suit * Australian Cos. Need to Counter Cyber-Attack to Avert Suits ********* AETNA LIFE: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Insurance Contract --------------------------------------------------------------- Jacqueline Fisher v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15- cv-00283 (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant purported to unilaterally alter the terms of the group health insurance contract to effectively eliminate its obligation to provide co-insurance for brand name prescription drugs for which a generic equivalent existed. Aetna Life Insurance Company is a provider of health care, dental, pharmacy, group life, disability and long-term care benefits The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Jean Scileppi, Esq. Richard Weiss, Esq. William Irvin Dunnegan, Esq. DUNNEGAN & SCILEPPI LLC 350 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10118 Telephone: (212) 332-8304 Facsimile: (212) 332-8301 E-mail: ls@dunnegan.com rw@dunnegan.com wd@dunnegan.com AFFYMAX INC: Gets Final OK on "Bartelt" Class Suit Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- A California district court granted final approval of the settlement negotiated in the lawsuit TRICIA M. BARTELT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AFFYMAX, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV- 01025-WHO (N.D. Cal.). The Defendants agree to pay $6,500,000 in cash for the benefit of the Class. Among other things, the recovery of individual Class Members depends on the number of shares of Affymax Securities those Class Members purchased and sold and the prices at which Class Members who filed claims purchased and sold those shares. The Class, for purposes of settlement only, refers to: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Affymax common stock during the Class Period, August 8, 2012 through February 22, 2013, both dates inclusive. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, all current and former directors and officers of Affymax during the Class Period, and any family member, trust company, entity or affiliate controlled or owned by any of the excluded persons and entities referenced above. Also excluded from the Class are those Persons who timely and validly requested exclusion from the Class. Tommy Jay Carter is certified as Class Plaintiff. The Court awards the Class Plaintiff a reimbursement award of $5,000. Pomerantz LLP is certified as class counsel on behalf of the Class. The Court also awards Class Counsel $1,625 in attorneys' fees and $71,079 in reimbursement of expenses. A copy of the District Court's Dec. 12, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/PiFbvxfrom Leagle.com. Tricia M. Bartelt, Plaintiff, represented by Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Jeremy A Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Leigh Handelman Smoller, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, Mark Bryan Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP. Tricia M. Bart, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Tommy Jay Carter, Lead Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Jeremy A Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Leigh Handelman Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Leigh H Smollar, Pomerantz LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, Mark Bryan Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, Michael M. Goldberg, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Affymax, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP & Ritesh Kumar Srivastava, Cooley LLP. John A. Orwin, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP & Ritesh Kumar Srivastava, Cooley LLP. Herbert C. Cross, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Cooley LLP, John C. Dwyer, Cooley LLP & Ritesh Kumar Srivastava, Cooley LLP. Anne-Marie Duliege, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Cooley LLP. Jeffrey H. Knapp, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Cooley LLP. Christopher Sprute, Movant, represented by Mark Punzalan, Punzalan Law, P.C.. Frank Estrada, Movant, represented by Kim Elaine Miller, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC. AIMCO/BETHESDA HOLDINGS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Karel Hernandez, and other similarly situated individuals v. AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-20146 (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. AIMCO/Bethesda Holdings Inc. is a Florida based real estate investment company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com ALL AMERICAN: Jones Gets Green Light to Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------------- In CHARLES A. JONES, Plaintiff, v. ALL AMERICAN AUTO PROTECTION, INC.; et al., Defendants, NO. 3:14-CV-0199-LRH-WGC, (D. Nev.), District Judge Larry R. Hicks granted Charles A. Jones' motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Judge Hicks held that there is no undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive on behalf of Jones in requesting leave to amend his complaint. Furthermore, the court found that the matter is early in discovery and that the defendants would not be prejudiced by allowing amendment. The defendants also did not oppose Jones' motion. This class action seeks to determine whether defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when they allegedly placed telemarketing calls to Jones' cellular telephone in an effort to sell extended auto service warranties. A copy of the Court's January 13, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/BPNDUF from Leagle.com. CHARLES A. JONES, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti, Righetti Law Firm, P.C., Michael C Righetti, Righetti, Glugoski, P.C. & Peter D Durney -- petedurney@gmail.com -- Durney, Brennan, Ltd. ALL AMERICAN AUTO PROTECTION, INC., Defendant, Pro Se. ANADARKO E&P: A-W Land Can Amend Class Action Complaint ------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe granted plaintiffs in the lawsuit A-W LAND CO. LLC v. ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC leave to file a second amended complaint. The class action complaint is A-W LAND CO. LLC, VERNON JESSER and MARY JESSER, KENT J. MCDANIEL and DEANNA R. MCDANIEL, and MARVIN BAY and MILDRED BAY, co-trustees of the Bay Family Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANADARKO E&P ONSHORE LLC, and ANADARKO LAND COMPANY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 09-CV-02293-MSK-MJW (S.D.N.Y.), whereby the Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants trespassed by exceeding the scope of their right to use Plaintiffs' surface estates while drilling Defendants' mineral estates. A copy of the judge's Dec. 12, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/SJAhSTfrom Leagle.com. A-W Land Co., LLC, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton, George A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C., Thomas R. Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C.. Vernon Jesser, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton, George A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C., Thomas R. Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C.. Mary Jesser, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton, George A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C., Thomas R. Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C.. Kent J. McDaniel, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton, George A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C., Thomas R. Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C.. Deanna R. McDaniel, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton, George A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C., Thomas R. Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C.. Marvin Bay, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton, George A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C., Thomas R. Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C.. Mildred Bay, Plaintiff, represented by George A. Barton, George A. Barton, P.C., Lance F. Astrella, Astrella Law P.C., Thomas R. Rice, Rice LLC & Stacy A. Burrows, George A. Barton, P.C.. Anadarko E&P Onshore LLC, Defendant, represented by Gail L. Wurtzler -- gail.wurtzler@dgslaw.com -- Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Michael John Gallagher -- mike.gallagher@dgslaw.com -- Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Kyle Wesley Brenton -- kyle.brenton@dgslaw.com -- Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP & Thomas P. Johnson -- tom.johnson@dgslaw.com -- Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP. Anadarko Land Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gail L. Wurtzler, Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Michael John Gallagher, Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP, Kyle Wesley Brenton, Davis Graham & Stubbs, LLP & Thomas P. Johnson, Davis Graham & Stubbs, LL. APPLE INC: Settles "No-Poach" Class Action for $324.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that parties in the Silicon Valley "no-poach" class action have reached a new settlement, five months after a federal judge rejected their proposed $324.5 million deal as too low. The new figure hasn't been made public, but a lawyer familiar with the deal indicated it's above the $380 million threshold set by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in August. The New York Times reported on Jan. 13 that Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Intel Corp. have offered $415 million to settle the case. Judge Koh had refused parties' first attempt to end litigation over claims that the companies conspired not to recruit each other's employees. She suggested an extra $50 million would bring the deal better in line with a prior settlement in the same case. The parties announced the new accord in a short letter filed on Jan. 13 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The dollar value was set to be disclosed in a filing on Jan. 14, said plaintiffs lawyer Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein. It's already clear the new settlement has one thing the last lacked -- support from an ex-lead plaintiff. Michael Devine, a former engineer for Adobe who had said $324.5 million was "grossly inadequate," is on board with the new deal, said his lawyer, Daniel Girard -- dcg@GirardGibbs.com -- of Girard Gibbs. Judge Koh had sided with Devine in rejecting the first settlement. Citing an earlier deal reached with defendants Pixar Animation Studios Inc., Lucasfilm and Intuit Inc. for $20 million, Judge Koh said she was concerned that Google, Apple, Adobe and Intel would be paying proportionately less than their codefendants. Lawyers for Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel challenged the ruling in an incendiary appeal to the Ninth Circuit, claiming Judge Koh had "committed clear legal error" that could make it harder to resolve class actions. A group of academic economists agreed, weighing in with an amicus brief in October. The Ninth Circuit accepted the case, and scheduled arguments for March. Lawyers involved in the case wouldn't discuss what made the parties change course. They are expected to file a brief with the Ninth Circuit after Jan. 14 on the status of the appeal. Joseph Saveri of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm represents plaintiffs along with Lieff Cabraser. Keker & Van Nest and Mayer Brown represent Google in the case, O'Melveny & Myers represents Apple, Jones Day represents Adobe, and Munger, Tolles & Olson represents Intel. APPLE INC.: Court Narrows "Backhaut" Suit Over iMessages -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh partly denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned ADAM BACKHAUT, BOUAKHAY JOY BACKHAUT, AND KENNETH MORRIS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. APPLE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02285-LHK (N.D. Cal.) Apple, Inc., is the "designer and seller" of the iPhone and other mobile devices that run "Apple's proprietary messaging service known as 'iMessage'" that runs on a client application called "Messages. Plaintiffs purchased iPhones and all used Apple's iMessage. Plaintiffs filed an action alleging that Apple continues to knowingly intercept and access text messages sent to former iPhone/iMessage Users and prevent their delivery. In addition, Plaintiffs contended that Apple wrongfully receives and stores these messages through the employment of a device, fraudulent conduct, and material misrepresentations and omissions to fraudulently induce consumers to purchase iPhones and iPads with the iMessage service. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the (1) Stored Communications Act ("SCA"); (2) the Wiretap Act; (3) California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and (4) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"). Apple filed a Motion to Dismiss and requested judicial notice. Defendant asked the court to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint on a number of grounds, including that (1) Plaintiff cannot assert a claim under the SCA or the Wiretap Act; (2) Apple's actions fall within the good faith exception to both federal Acts; (3) Plaintiffs lack standing under the UCL and CLRA; (4) Plaintiffs' UCL and CLRA allegations do not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard; and (5) Plaintiffs have otherwise failed to adequately plead claims under the UCL and CLRA. In his Order partly denying Defendant's motion, Judge Koh held that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege facts supporting a cause of action under the SCA. As to Wiretap Act claim, Judge Koh ruled that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that Apple's interception of messages to former Apple device users neither facilitates nor is incidental to the transmission of an electronic communication. A copy of the Order and Judgment dated November 19, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/hDA8g3from Leagle.com. Adam Backhaut, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet -- waudet@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann -- jmann@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners LLP, Joshua Caleb Ezrin -- jezrin@audetlaw.com -- Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Theodore H. Chase, Audet and Partners, LLP. Bouakhay Joy Backhaut, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet, Audet & Partners, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Joshua Caleb Ezrin, Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Theodore H. Chase, Audet and Partners, LLP. Kenneth Morris, Plaintiff, represented by William M. Audet, Audet & Partners, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Joshua Caleb Ezrin, Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners, LLP & Theodore H. Chase, Audet and Partners, LLP. Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by David Michael Walsh, Esq. -- dwalsh@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, Kai Shields Bartolomeo -- kbartolomeo@mofo.com -- Morrison Foerster LLP & Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. ARIZONA: Appeals Court to Hear Suit Over Ethnic Studies Ban ----------------------------------------------------------- Kate Sheehy, writing for Fronteras, reports that two court cases involving education in Arizona education was set to go before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Jan. 12. One case is the state's 2010 ban on ethnic studies. The court was also set to hear arguments on a decades-old civil rights lawsuit, addressing how Arizona teaches English Language Learners. Flores v. Arizona is a class action lawsuit brought by parents of English Language Learners in Nogales, Ariz., in 1992. They argue the state's four hour blocks to teach students English, put them behind their peers in mainstream classrooms, violating the Equal Educational Opportunities Act. In 2013 a federal district judge in Tucson ruled in favor of the state. Tim Hogan is the Executive Director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest. He is the attorney for the parents and filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. "I'm going to focus on the loss of academic content for these kids and how that's not equal participation that's required by the law and how the system in Arizona unduly segregates kids for a long period of time, to no apparent purpose," Mr. Hogan said. Mr. Hogan said testimony and exhibits show students who are in mainstream classrooms progress at a higher rate than those placed in English language instruction. He also said the state doesn't require schools to make up for the academic content these students miss. In December the Arizona State Board of Education approved optional adjustments to the four hour block which will go into effect for the 2015-2016 school year. Christine Thompson is the board's Executive Director. "It's about providing more flexibility so you can provide more individualized education and tailor a system a little bit better to the specific needs to students in your schools," Ms. Thompson said. She said schools can choose to place students whose English is at an intermediate level or higher in shorter blocks of two or three hours. The updates also allow for subjects such as writing and grammar to be more naturally integrated for ELL students. Mr. Hogan said because this is optional for schools, many children will remain in the four-hour model. ATTRACTION: Recalls Boys Hockey Sweatshirt with Drawstring ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 9, 2014 Posting date: December 9, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Strangulation Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42815 Affected products: Attraction boys hockey sweatshirt with hood, style number# K05 The recall involves the Attraction boys hockey sweatshirt with hood, style# K05. The drawstring is found at the front, in the neck area of the garment. Health Canada's evaluation program has determined that drawstrings on children's upper outerwear can become caught on playground equipment, fences or other objects and result in strangulation, or in the case of a vehicle, the child being dragged. Neither Attraction nor Health Canada has received reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. Approximately 1977 boys hockey sweatshirts were sold in Canada. The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold from January 2014 to November 17, 2014. Companies: Distributor Attraction Lac-Drolet Quebec Canada Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the sweatshirt to eliminate the hazard. BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Weiss" Suit in Pa. Over Alleged Kickbacks ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Weiss and Robert Lessman, and Ann Harrell and Eddie Harrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., and Bank of America Reinsurance Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00062 (W.D. Pa., January 14, 2015), alleges that the Defendants engaged in an intentional scheme to defraud borrowers into funding kickbacks flowing from the Private Mortgage Insurers to Defendants, which in turn inflated the premiums that borrowers had to pay for private mortgage insurance. Bank of America Corporation is one of the world's largest financial institutions, serving individual consumers, small and middle-market businesses, institutional investors, large corporations and governments with a full range of banking, investing, asset management and other financial and risk management products and services. Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking association which conducted business in Pennsylvania and throughout the United States. Bank of America Reinsurance Corporation is an active Vermont Corporation and captive reinsurer regulated by the Vermont Department of Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration and a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. O'Brien, Esq. STEPHEN J. O'BRIEN AND ASSOCIATES 650 Ridge Road, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15205 Telephone: (412) 788-7560 E-mail: steve-obrien2@hotmail.com BANK OF AMERICA: Court Grants Motion to Compel Response ------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney granted Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to interrogatories in the case captioned IVAN POINTER, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-0525 KJM CKD PS (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff is an employee of Defendant Bank of America as a Home Service Specialist. Plaintiff filed a wage and hour putative class action alleging that Defendant failed to pay him the appropriate rate for overtime pay including his non-discretionary bonus payments in calculating the regular rate of pay which served as the basis for overtime pay. Hence, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant violated the California Labor Code and California Unfair Business Practices Act. Moreover, Plaintiff asked to represent a sub-class comprising those members of the class whose employment with time penalties and a class composed of all non-exempt individuals that included commission and/or bonus pay at any time within the four years preceding the filing of the action. In this relation, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and motion to compel Defendant to identify each class member. In her Order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel, Magistrate Judge Delaney ruled that the discovery sought by Plaintiff is appropriate. Judge Delaney further stated that Plaintiff has demonstrated the need for discovery to substantiate the class allegations and that the privacy interests of the class members will be adequately protected by the production of responsive discovery being subject to the protective order previously entered in this action. A copy of the Order dated November 20, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/9u4CE0from Leagle.com. Ivan Dexter Pointer, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Law Firm PC, John James Glugoski -- jglugoski@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C. & Michael C. Righetti -- mike@righettilaw.com -- Righetti Glugoski, P.C.. Bank of America N.A., Defendant, represented by Michael David Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Matthew C. Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP, Regina A Musolino -- rmusolino@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Truc T. Nguyen -- tnguyen@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP. BRIA HEALTH: Sued in Illinois Over Failure to Pay Vacation Pay -------------------------------------------------------------- Ausencio Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bria Health Services LLC, and Healthcare Services Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00387 (N.D. Ill., January 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay earned vacation pay to employees as part of their final wages. The Defendants own and operate at least nine healthcare and rehabilitation facilities within Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alvar Ayala, Esq. WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C. 401 S. LaSalle, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60605 Telephone: (312) 795-9121 Facsimile: (312) 929-2207 E-mail: aayala@wagetheftlaw.com CAPICUA CORPORATION: Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Abdias Cuellar Garcia, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Capicua Corporation, Rigo Pizza Corporation, Rigoletto Pizza Corp., and Cristina Castaneda, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-00311 (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a limited-service restaurant in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: John M. Gurrieri, Esq. Brandon D. Sherr, Esq. Justin A. Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com jazeller@zellerlegal.com CARNICERIA ARGENTINA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Gustavo Mercery, and other similarly situated individuals v. Carniceria Argentina La Estancia, Inc. d/b/a Nahuen Doral, a Florida Profit Corporation, Andres Amorosi, and Maria Amorosi, Case No. 1:15-cv-20147 (S.D. Fla., January 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com CHALAK-M&M ARl: Fails to Pay Overtime Hours,"Israsena" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Israsena, Kayona Langston, Chauncey Durham, Jamuson Scott, Britt Any Goodwin and Barbara Blackford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chalak-M&M ARl, LLC, Chalak-M&M AR2, LLC, and Chalak-M&M, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00038 (E.D. Ark., January 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours. The Defendants own and operate a franchised restaurant chain with locations in 24 states. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Holleman, Esq. Maryna O. Jackson, Esq. Timothy A. Steadman, Esq. HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES, P.A. 1008 West 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 975-5040 E-mail: jholleman@johnholleman.net maryna@johnholleman.net tim@johnholleman.net CHOCOLAT HARMONIE: Recalls Orientale Chocolate Fondue Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 12, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Chocolat Harmonie Inc. Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9526 Chocolat Harmonie Inc. is recalling Orientale brand chocolate fondue products from the marketplace because they contain milk which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to milk should not consume the recalled products. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to milk, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. COMCAST CORP: Bid to Compel Discovery in Martin Case Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Before the court in NICHOLAS MARTIN, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO: 12 C 6421, (N.D. Ill.) is plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, all of which is aimed at proving his class- wide allegations that defendant Comcast has violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Plaintiff's allegations in his Amended Complaint center on eight autodialed telemarketing calls made to his cell phone during the week of October 8th to October 14th in 2011. Count One alleges that the calls were made to plaintiff without his prior express written consent in violation of the TCPA. Count Two alleges that defendant violated the "Do Not Call" portion of the TCPA when it made such calls after having received a demand from plaintiff not to call and that it failed to adequately record the demand. Count Three alleges that defendant violated the National Do Not Call Registry of the TCPA by calling plaintiff. Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox, in an order dated January 13, 2015, granted the plaintiff's motion to compel discovery. "However, defendant's production of the materials is stayed pending the District Judge [Coleman]'s ruling on defendant's motion for summary judgment. Should defendant's motion for summary judgment be denied, defendant will be required to produce the discovery materials within thirty days following entry of the District Judge's order," Judge Cox added. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/zolEc2 from Leagle.com. Nicholas M Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Beth Ellen Terrell -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC, Michael D. Daudt -- mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC & Alexander Holmes Burke -- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC. Comcast Corporation, Defendant, represented by Gordon B. Nash, Jr. -- gordon.nash@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle Gardner Carton, Justin O'Neill Kay -- justin.kay@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Michael W McTigue, Jr. -- Michael.McTigue@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath Llp & Seamus Duffy -- Seamus.Duffy@dbr.com -- Drinker, Biddle & Reath LLP. CONOCOPHILLIPS: Agrees to Settle "Hot-Fuel" Litigation ------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that 28 oil companies and retailers have agreed to settle litigation claiming customers were knowingly overcharged when gas station fuel temperatures rose. The plaintiffs' attorneys said in a news release on Jan. 23 that a federal judge in Kansas City, Kansas, has given preliminary approval to settlements in the so-called "hot fuel" litigation. As temperatures rise during warmer months, gasoline expands, meaning customers get less energy per gallon. But gas is price based on a standard of 60 degrees. Defendants include ConocoPhillips Company, ExxonMobil Corp., Sinclair Oil Corp. and Sam's Club. They've agreed to a take a variety of steps, including upgrading to equipment that corrects for the effects of temperature on fuel. Some of the companies also will help pay states for fuel oversight efforts. COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Consumers Get Favorable Ruling in Mortgage Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Mauro, writing for Supreme Court Brief, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of consumers on Jan. 13, interpreting a federal law to allow homeowners up to three years to give notice to their banks that they want to rescind their mortgage loans. The ruling in Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans was one of two decisions issued on Jan. 13 that had these common characteristics: unanimous, five pages long, interpreting federal statutes, and written by Justice Antonin Scalia, who is not always known for either coalition-building or brevity. Justice Scalia did not get to announce the cases from the bench, however. He was stuck in traffic, leaving the task to Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Scalia arrived in time to hear the day's oral arguments, which began after opinions were announced. In 2007, Minnesotans Larry and Cheryle Jesinoski refinanced their mortgage with Countrywide, and exactly three years later tried to rescind the loan in a letter to Bank of America Home Loans, which had acquired Countrywide during the housing finance crisis of the period. In doing so, the Jesinoskis relied on the Truth in Lending Act, which gives borrowers the right to rescind a loan by "notifying the creditor" within three years after the transaction is consummated. But the Bank of America tried to block the rescission, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled in the bank's favor, finding that the borrower must actually file a lawsuit within three years, not just give notice. The language of the law "leaves no doubt" that only notification and not litigation is required within three years, Justice Scalia said. "We're pleased that the court unanimously upheld consumers' statutory right to rescind certain home loans when lenders have violated the rules," said David Frederick -- dfrederick@khhte.com -- of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, who argued on behalf of the Jesinoskis. Representing Countrywide was former solicitor general Seth Waxman -- seth.waxman@wilmerhale.com -- of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, who made the 70th high court argument of his career in the case Nov. 4. In the other Scalia decision issued on Jan. 13, the court in Whitfield v. United States agreed with the government's view that bank robber Larry Whitfield could be prosecuted under a 1934 federal law that penalizes anyone who "forces any person to accompany him without the consent of such person" while avoiding apprehension for robbing a bank. After a botched robbery attempt in 2008 in North Carolina, Whitfield fled from the bank and tried to hide in the home of a 79-year-old woman. He guided the woman from a hallway to a room in the house, where she died of a heart attack. Whitfield's lawyers argued that the law only applies to "substantial" movement, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that "no more is required" by the law than the short distance Whitfield moved the woman. Justice Scalia agreed, invoking writings around the time of passage of the law, as well as works by Charles Dickens and Jane Austen, to show that the word "accompany" applies to short distances. Justice Scalia said that at the time Congress passed the law, it "may well have had most prominently in mind John Dillinger's driving off with hostages," but the wording it used encompasses just brief accompaniments as well. DELICES DE: Recalls Artichoke Quarters Due to Presence of Tin ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 10, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Notification Subcategory: Chemical Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Delices de la Foret Valli Distribution: British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9339 Affected products: 398 ml. Delicia Artichoke Quarters with 8 04228 05104 8 UPC DELTA AIR: Settlement in "Bell" Suit Has Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers unconditionally approved the Settlement Agreement in the case captioned ANDREW BELL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC.; and DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-01199-YGR (N.D. Cal.). The Court held that each of the requirements for certification of the class are met and certified the following settlement class: "All Ready Reserve Employees who were employed by Defendant, in California, beginning March 18, 2009 through March 17, 2014." Plaintiff asked for the confirmation of the appointment and designation of (1) Plaintiff Andrew Bell as Class Representative (2) Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP and the Law Offices of Deborah C. England as Class Counsel and (3) Dahl Administration, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator in this case. Subsequently, all appointment and designation were confirmed by the court. The court also approved: a. the Settlement Fund of $1,415,444 as provided for in the Stipulation of Settlement. b. the $10,000 of the Settlement Fund to be allocated to resolve PAGA claims, and that under Labor Code section 2699(i), 75% of that amount, or $7,500, will be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency; c. the Named Plaintiff and Class Representative Andrew Bell's requested service award of $7,500, which is justified by the time and effort expended by Plaintiff on behalf of the class and risk he assumed in bringing this action; d. Class Counsel's attorneys' fee request of $353,861 as 25% of the $1,415,444 common fund settlement amount, finding that this amount is below Class Counsel's lodestar without any multiplier, and finding no reason to depart from the 25% benchmark within the Ninth Circuit; e. Class Counsel's request for reimbursement of litigation expenses of $15,576.04; f. payment to Dahl Administration, Inc. of $13,367 as costs and expenses of settlement administration; g. payment from the settlement fund of amounts determined by the Settlement Administrator to be due to class members who did not opt out, as specified in the Joint Stipulation of Settlement. Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, adequate and fully complies with all applicable provisions of law. Further, Judge Rogers unconditionally approved such settlement and ordered a res judicata effect and bar each Plaintiff and each settlement class member from bringing any action asserting Released Claims. A copy of the Order and Judgment dated November 20, 2014, is available at http://is.gd/Xy5byofrom Leagle.com. Andrew Bell, Plaintiff, represented by Deborah Carol England -- dcengland@earthlink.net -- Law Offices of Deborah C. England & Monique Olivier, Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP. Delta Air Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Jon Hendricks -- rhendricks@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Andrew Paul Frederick -- afrederick@morganlewis.com -- One Market & Larry Manuel Lawrence, Morgan Lewis & Bockius. DETROIT, MI: Court Rejects Class Decertification in "Brown" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Thomas L. Ludington entered an order denying a Motion for Reconsideration and denying a request for class decertification in the lawsuit JOHNATHAN AARON BROWN, Plaintiff, v CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant, Case No. 10-CV-12162, (E.D. Mich.). The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on behalf of himself and others that, like him, were allegedly mistreated while in the City's custody upon arrest. In April 2011, the Court entered a default as to liability against the City of Detroit. The Court denied the City's subsequent motion to set aside the default as to liability because it determined the sanction remained necessary to advance the case. Subsequently, the Court also granted class certification to two classes: Class I consisted of those arrestees who had been detained "overnight" without a mattress/pillow/blanket and Class II consisted of those arrestees who had been detained for longer than 48 hours without a determination of probable cause. The Court however made clear that it was certifying for liability purposes only; that is, the Court bifurcated the issues of liability and damages as permitted by Civil Rule 23(c)(4). In May 2013, the City filed a motion for relief from the default order or for reconsideration of class certification. In its Dec. 12, 2014 ruling, the Michigan district court reiterates that "certifying Plaintiff's proposed liability classes will materially advance the litigation and make the proceedings more manageable. By litigating/defaulting these issues on a classwide basis, both the parties and the Court can avoid the extreme time and expense necessary to adjudicate each class member's claims individually." A copy of the district court's Dec. 12, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/t1BqDHfrom Leagle.com. Johnathan Aaron Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Cindy Tsai -- cindy@loevy.com -- Loevy & Loevy, David L. Haron -- dharon@foleymansfield.com -- Foley & Mansfield PLLP, Lawrence S. Charfoos, Charfoos Giovan & Birach LLP, Mercedes V. Dordeski -- mdordeski@foleymansfield.com --Foley & Mansfield PLLP & Michael I. Kanovitz -- mike@loevy.com -- Loevy & Loevy. City of Detroit, Defendant, represented by Charles N. Raimi, Detroit Medical Center, Cindy Tsai, James R. Acho -- jacho@cmda- law.com -- Cummings, McClorey, James D. Noseda, Detroit City Law Department, Karen M. Daley -- kdaley@cmda-law.com -- Cummings, McClorey & Ronald G. Acho -- racho@cmda-law.com -- Cummings, McClorey. DIGNITY HEALTH: App. Ct. Finds "Sarun" Adequately Alleged Injury ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tony Sarun was uninsured when he received emergency healthcare services from a hospital owned and operated by Dignity Health. Upon admission, Sarun signed an agreement to pay the hospital's "full charges, unless other discounts apply." The agreement explained uninsured patients might qualify for government aid programs or financial assistance from Dignity. After receiving an invoice for $23,487.90, which reflected a $7,871 "uninsured discount," and without applying for any other discount or financial assistance, Sarun filed a putative class action complaint asserting claims including unfair and/or deceptive business practices under Business and Professions Code section 17200 (UCL) and violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). The complaint alleged Dignity had failed to disclose uninsured patients would be required to pay several times more than other patients receiving the same services, the charges set forth on the invoice were not readily available or discernable from the agreement, and the invoiced charges exceeded the reasonable value of the services. The trial court sustained Dignity's demurrer to Sarun's second amended complaint without leave to amend and dismissed the action on the ground Sarun had not adequately alleged "actual injury," and, therefore, lacked standing. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, reversed the trial court's order in a Dec. 15, 2014 ruling available at http://is.gd/ZZq6W6from Leagle.com. The appellate court finds that the Second Amended Complaint adequately alleges injury in fact. The appellate court points out that Paragraph 36 of the second amended complaint alleged, "Plaintiff Sarun has already made a partial payment toward his account, and had a financial liability for the remaining balance of his account." The invoice even included instructions as to the proper payee of a check, provided space for payment by credit card and supplied information for payment online. "Although Dignity had not begun any collection activity, the existence of an enforceable obligation, without more, ordinarily constitutes actual injury or injury in fact," the appellate court opines. Accordingly, the appellate court reversed the trial court judgment and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Sarun is to recover his costs on appeal. The complaint is TONY SARUN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIGNITY HEALTH, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B251767. Law Offices of Barry L. Kramer, Barry L. Kramer - kramerlaw@aol.com ; Strange & Carpenter, Barry R. Strange -- lacounsel@earthlink.net -- and Gretchen Carpenter -- Strange & Carpenter -- for Plaintiff and Appellant. Ogloza Fortney, Darius Ogloza -- lacounsel@earthlink.net , David Fortney -- dfortney@oglozafortney.com -- and Brian D. Berry -- bberry@oglozafortney.com , for Defendant and Respondent. DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Palmer" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Ray Palmer, Jr., on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, a South Carolina limited liability company and Cascade Capital, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 6:15-cv-00059 (M.D. Fla., January 15, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' practice of sending letters seeking to collect time barred debt which did not disclose that the statute of limitations has expired. The Defendants own and operate a debt collection agency in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donald Edward Petersen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DONALD E. PETERSEN 801 N Magnolia Ave-Ste 221, PO Box 1948 Orlando, FL 32802-1948 Telephone: (407) 648-9050 E-mail: depecf@cfl.rr.com - and - O. Ronald Bragg, Esq. HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES 25 East Washington Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 372-8822 E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com E & JERYG MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Austin, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. E & Jeryg Management Corp., Emil Friedman, Dov Sandberg, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-00224 (E.D.N.Y., January 15, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and manage commercial and residential buildings in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Martin Dudelson, Esq. 26 Court Street, Suite 2306 Brooklyn, NY 11242 Telephone: (718) 855-5100 Facsimile: (718) 624-9552 E-mail: adesq@aol.com FAMILY LIFE: "Hughes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Darlene Hughes, own behalf and others similarly situated v. Family Life Care, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00007 (N.D. Fla., January 15, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Family Life Care, Inc. provides in-home care support services for all ages and abilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Owen Massey, Esq. MASSEY & DUFFY PLLC 855 E University Ave Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 505-8900 Facsimile: (352) 414-5488 E-mail: masseylaw@gmail.com FEDERATED CO-OPERATIVES: Recalls Ceramic Baking Dish ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 12, 2014 Posting date: December 12, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Product Safety Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42889 Affected products: Superior Ceramic Baking Dish with Silicone Handles and Glass lid The recall involves the Superior Ceramic Baking Dish with Silicone Handles. The white ceramic baking dish has red silicone handles and a clear glass lid with a white lid knob. The baking dish measures 42.5 centimetres in length by 28 centimetres in width by 11 centimetres in height. The recalled baking dishes have a UPC of 77144853159. Only the baking dishes that have a glass lid are subject to this recall. The plastic screw that attaches the white lid knob to the clear glass lid can melt during use in the oven. This can cause the white lid knob to separate from the glass lid, posing a burn hazard if the content is hot. Federated Co-operatives have received one report of the plastic screw on the lid melting. No injuries have been reported. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these baking dishes. Approximately 1,464 of the baking dishes were sold at Co-op stores across Canada. The recalled baking dishes were manufactured in China and sold from Sept. 30, 2014 to Dec. 1, 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Dragon Homeware Company Limited Guangdong CHINA Importer Federated Co-operatives Saskatoon Saskatchewan CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and return it to the Co-op store where it was purchased for a refund. FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces "Dell" Suit Over Defective Engine Cradles -------------------------------------------------------------- John Dell, Brenda Baldwin, Anthony Soto, Darrell Holland, Jr. and JAMES MORALES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. FCA US LLC Fiat Chrysler Automobiles U.S., LLC f/k/a Chrysler Group, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00103 (S.D. Ohio, January 15, 2015), arises out of the 2004-2008 Chrysler Pacificas manufactured by the Defendants with the Chrysler CS Platform engine cradles that prematurely rust, corrode and perforate creating a substantial risk of, or causing the engine to fall out of the vehicle. FCA US LLC Fiat Chrysler Automobiles U.S., LLC is among the leading manufacturers of automobiles in the world and throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES 85 Miles Avenue White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (212) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON & WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com FOODSTATE INC: Falsely Marketed Multivitamin Product, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Holt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Foodstate, Inc., d/b/a Megafood, d/b/a Innate Response Formulas, Case No. 3:15-cv-00078 (S.D. Cal., January 15, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false promotion of its One Daily Multivitamin product as, primarily consisting of and providing vitamins and nutrients from whole food, when in fact it contains synthetically created vitamins or processed extracts such as magnesium stearate. Foodstate, Inc. is a leading producer in the United States of health supplements purported to be created from whole foods. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costs Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108-3551 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com FORD MOTOR: "Sabol" Warranty Suit Transferred to E.D. Pa. --------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King granted Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue in the case captioned PATRICIA SABOL, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-543 (S.D. Ohio). Plaintiff Patricia Sabol purchased a 2013 Ford Escape Class Vehicle from the Defendant Garnet Ford, Inc., in Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. Later, Plaintiff filed an action on behalf of herself and classes of plaintiffs asserting product liability claims in connection with defendant's EcoBoost 1.6L and 2.0L engines. She asserted claims for breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and unfair trade practices in violation of Pennsylvania law. On the other hand, Ford filed its answer denying liability and asserting a counterclaim for breach of contract in connection with plaintiff's alleged failure to arbitrate warranty-related disputes. Ford also filed the Motion to Transfer seeking to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Ford argued that the forum has no connection with the matter in controversy which the Plaintiff seeks to represent and the factor favors transfer because the location of evidence, dealer records, and substantial part of the events that gives rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania including the residence of the numerous third-party witnesses. In his Opinion and Order in granting Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, Magistrate Judge McCann King ruled that venue would be proper in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania because the purchase of vehicle, the facts forming the basis of plaintiff's breach of warranty claim, and substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred in Pennsylvania. Moreover, Judge McCann King held that the convenience of the parties and Pennsylvania's greater interest in resolving the dispute favors transfer of the action. In addition, Defendant has met its burden of showing that the matter should be transferred. A copy of the Opinion and Order dated November 19, 2014, is available at bit.ly/1xDvcCT from Leagle.com. Patricia Sabol, Plaintiff, represented by James Edward Arnold -- jarnold@arnlaw.com -- James E Arnold & Associates Co., LPA, Bryan L Clobes -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel, LLP, Damion M Clifford -- dclifford@ag.state.oh.us -- James E. Arnold & Associates, LPA & Gerhardt A Gosnell, II, James E. Arnold & Associates, LPA. Ford Motor Company, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth B Wright -- Elizabeth.Wright@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine & Flory, David J. Carey -- David.Carey@ThompsonHine.com -- Thompson Hine LLP, David M. George, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Jennifer Mingus Mountcastle, Thompson Hine LLP, John M Thomas -- jthomas@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett PLLC & Krista L Lenart, Dykema Gossett PLLC. FRED DEELEY: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models -------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 15, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Motorcycle Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Brakes Units affected: 1475 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014569 TC ID number: 2014569 Manufacturer recall number: 0163 / 0164 On certain motorcycles, the front brake master cylinder line connection threads may corrode, which could cause a brake fluid leak and a reduction in braking performance. If operated in this condition, this could eventually result in a loss of front brake function. These issues could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will flush and replace brake fluid, as well as in inspect the master cylinder and replace as necessary. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected HARLEY-DAVIDSON DYNA WIDE GLIDE (FXDWG) 2012, 2012, 2012, 2012, 2012, 2012 HARLEY-DAVIDSON SOFTAIL DELUXE (FLSTN) 2012 HARLEY-DAVIDSON SOFTAIL STANDARD (FXST) 2012 HARLEY-DAVIDSON DYNA LOW RIDER (FXDL) 2012 HARLEY-DAVIDSON DYNA SUPER GLIDE CUSTOM (FXDC) 2012 HARLEY-DAVIDSON FAT BOY LO (FLSTFB) 2012 HARLEY-DAVIDSON HERITAGE SOFTAIL CLASSIC SHRINE (FLSTC) 2012 HARLEY-DAVIDSON HERITAGE SOFTAIL (FLST) 2012 HARLEY-DAVIDSON SOFTAIL SLIM 2012 FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Former President Faces New Fraud Charge ----------------------------------------------------------- Pam Ramsey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a former Freedom Industries executive charged in a West Virginia chemical spill is facing a new federal fraud charge stemming from the company's bankruptcy. A federal grand jury in Beckley handed up a superseding indictment on Jan. 21 against former Freedom President Gary Southern and three other former executives. The indictment charges Southern with a new count of fraud by interstate commercial carrier and restates the original indictment's charges against him and the others. The new count alleges that Southern sent a $6.5 million check from a personal bank account around Feb. 7, 2014, to an insurance company to be deposited in an annuity as part of a bankruptcy fraud scheme. Southern is accused of scheming to defraud Freedom's creditors and plaintiffs who sued the company and him following the Jan. 9, 2014, spill of a coal-cleaning chemical from a tank at the company's storage facility along the Elk River in Charleston. The alleged scheme included attempting to protect some of his assets from possible verdicts and judgments. Southern's lawyer, Robert Allen, didn't immediately return telephone and email messages on Jan. 22. The spill occurred just upstream of a West Virginia American Water plant and prompted a tap-water ban for 300,000 people for days. Freedom filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on Jan. 17, 2014. Southern and former Freedom executives William Tis, Charles Herzing and Dennis Farrell previously were charged with violating the federal Clean Water Act. They're accused of failing to ensure that the company operated the Charleston facility in a reasonable and environmentally sound manner. The former executives also are accused of ignoring or failing to fund repairs and maintenance needed for compliance with environmental regulations. Southern also previously was charged with bankruptcy fraud, wire fraud and lying in oath in relation to the bankruptcy case. Each former executive pleaded not guilty on Jan. 8, a day after the unsealing of an FBI affidavit that said Freedom knew about critical flaws at its Charleston plant but never dealt with them. GENERAL NUTRITION: "Vigil" Case Transferred to S.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jeffrey S. White transferred to the Southern District of California the case captioned RYAN VIGIL, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL NUTRITION CORPORATION, Defendant, NO. C 14-04866 JSW, (N.D. Cal.). GNC, a retailer of health and wellness products, is organized and has its principal place of business in Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is an individual who resides in San Diego County, California. He brings this putative class action, alleging that he purchased a GNC product -- Staminol -- in reliance on GNC's advertising that Staminol would enhance his sexual experience and enjoyment. The Plaintiff was exposed to GNC's advertising for Staminol, and purchased the product in La Jolla, California. GNC moved to transfer venue to the Southern District of California. According to Judge White's January 13, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/8Ry342from Leagle.com, GNC has met its burden to demonstrate that in the interests of justice, this action should be transferred to the Southern District. Ryan Vigil, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Patterson, Patterson Law Group, APC & Todd David Carpenter -- todd@carpenterlawyers.com -- Carpenter Law Group. General Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, represented by Allen Brooks Gresham, II -- bgresham@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP & Blake S. Olson -- bolson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP. GOURMET CAJUN: Faces "Guzman-Maya" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Guzman-Maya, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Gourmet Cajun Grill of Golf Mill, Inc. and Kevin S. Tang, Case No. 1:15-cv-00390 (N.D. Ill., January 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Lake County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com HARRIS FARMS: Deadline to File Bid for Settlement Approval Moved ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone signed on January 13, 2015, a stipulation and order continuing the filing deadline for, and hearing date, of the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case captioned JOSE GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARRIS FARMS, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00038-LJO-SAB, (E.D. Cal.). Due to a calendaring conflict, Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez and Defendant Harris Farms, Inc., agreed that the deadline for the filing the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement will be continued from January 14, 2015 to February 11, 2015, and the hearing on the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement will be continued from January 28, 2015 to February 25, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. A copy of the Court-approved stipulation is available at http://is.gd/oMBGaFfrom Leagle.com. DANIEL F. GAINES, ESQ. -- daniel@gaineslawfirm.com -- ALEX P. KATOFSKY, ESQ. -- alex@gaineslawfirm.com -- SEPIDEH HIRMAND, ESQ. -- sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com -- GAINES & GAINES, APLC, Calabasas, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff JOSE GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public. OLIVER W. WANGER, ESQ. -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com -- JAY A. CHRISTOFFERSON, ESQ. -- jchristofferson@wjhattorneys.com -- WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC, Fresno, California, Attorneys for Defendant HARRIS FARMS, INC. HOME DEPOT: Faces Aneca Federal Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Aneca Federal Credit Union, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00129 (N.D. Ga., January 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing customers' financial and personal data. The Home Depot, Inc. operates a chain of retail stores that sell a wide variety of merchandise, including tools, home goods, and construction supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Pitts Carrm, Esq. Alex D. Weatherby, Esq. W. PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES 10 North Parkway Square 4200 Northside Parkway NW Atlanta, GA 30327 Telephone: (404) 442-900 Facsimile: (404) 442-9700 E-mail: pcarr@wpcarr.com aweatherby@wpcarr.com - and - Charles S. Zimmerman Esq. Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com - and - Jonathan Kudulis, Esq. TRIMMIER, KUDULIS, REISINGER, LLC 2737 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 251-3151 Facsimile: (205) 322-6444 E-mail: jkudulis@trimmier.com - and - Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq. Francis J. Rondoni, Esq. Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-7300 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com frondoni@chestnutcambronne.com jbores@chestnutcambronne.com HONG KONG CHINA: Recalls Harbor Breeze Belleisle Bay Ceiling Fan ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 15, 2014 Posting date: December 15, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Physical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42891 Affected products: Harbor Breeze Belleisle Bay Brushed Nickel Finish Ceiling Fan The recall involves the Harbor Breeze Belleisle Bay 52-inch (132-centimetre) ceiling fan in a brushed nickel finish with three blades, which comes with a remote control. It can be identified by model number 40120, item number 0424485, and UPC 671961402105, which can be found on the product packaging. Affected products were sold prior to December 1, 2014. The product can also be identified by its model number listed on the certification label (Model: M52-3B/2LCR4E) found on the brushed nickel base of the product, that houses the motor. Blades from the fan can crack and break off during use, posing a potential impact hazard to consumers. Hong Kong China Electric Appliance Manufacture Co Ltd. has received six reports of blades breaking during use, however no injuries were reported. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries involving the fans. Approximately 4,626 units of the affected ceiling fans were sold at Lowe's stores across Canada and online at Lowes.ca. The affected ceiling fans were manufactured in China and sold from March 2013 to Dec. 1, 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Hong Kong China Electric Appliance Manufacture Co Ltd. Hong Kong China Importer Lowe's Companies Canada, ULC Toronto Ontario Canada Consumers should immediately stop using the affected ceiling fans and contact the manufacturer's Customer Service Line for free replacement blades. HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES: Sued Over Inaccessible Hotel Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------- The Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, on behalf of itself, and Ann Cupolo-Freeman, Ruthee Goldkorn, and Kenneth Kilgore, on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of similarly situated persons defined below v. Hospitality Properties Trust, Case No. 3:15-cv-00221 (N.D. Cal., January 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide wheelchair-accessible transportation in hotels that provide transportation to nondisabled guests. Hospitality Properties Trust is an investment trust incorporated in Maryland that owns and operates hotels throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy P. Fox, Esq. Sarah M. Morris, Esq. CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER 104 Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 757-7901 E-mail: tfox@creeclaw.org smorris@creeclaw.org - and - Julia Campins, Esq. Hillary Benham-Baker, Esq. CAMPINS BENHAM-BAKER, LLP 8 California #703 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-5333 E-mail: julia@cbbllp.com hillary@cbbllp.com - and - Bill Lann Lee, Esq. Julie Wilensky, Esq. Joshua Davidso, Esq. LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE, RENAKER & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th Street Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 839-6824 E-mail: blee@lewisfeinberg.com jwilensky@lewisfeinberg.com mcaesar@lewisfeinberg.com - and - Kevin W. Williams, Esq. COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION 655 Broadway #775 Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 839-1775 E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org HOULIHAN SMITH: Judge Won't Reverse Ruling on FLSA Atty Fee Award ----------------------------------------------------------------- An Illinois district court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) attorney fee award in the lawsuit HECTOR DE LA RIVA and ROSS PERLMUTTER, Plaintiffs, v. HOULIHAN SMITH & COMPANY, INC., RICHARD HOULIHAN, ANDREW D. SMITH, and CHARLES BOTCHWAY, Defendants, Case No. 10 C 8206 (N.D. Ill.). The Plaintiffs contended that the court erred in allowing them to recover only 20% of their attorneys' pre-remand hours. The District Court, however, held on to its conclusion that a $450 hourly rate is appropriate for Cotiguala's work in the case on the individual FLSA claims. A copy of the district court's Dec. 12, 2014 Order is available at http://is.gd/6Jn9vOfrom Leagle.com. Hector De La Riva, Plaintiff, represented by: Jac A. Cotiguala, Esq. JAC A. COTIGUALA & ASSOCIATES 431 South Dearborn Street, Suite 606 Chicago, IL 60605 Tel: (312) 939-2100 Ross Perlmutter, Plaintiff, represented by Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates. Brock Milligan, Plaintiff, represented by Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates. Charles J Bachmann, Plaintiff, represented by Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates. Robert Becker, Plaintiff, represented by Jac A. Cotiguala, Jac A. Cotiguala & Associates. Houlihan Smith & Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by: Howard J. Stein, Esq. 70 W. Madison, Ste. 2100 Chicago, IL 60602 Andrew D Smith, Defendant, represented by Howard J. Stein. Richard Houlihan, Defendant, represented by: Daniel C. Meenan, Jr., Esq. Joseph R. Lemersal, Esq. KRALOVEC MEENAN LLP 53 W Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1102 Chicago, IL 60604 Charles Botchway, Defendant, represented by Mark V. Chester -- mvchester@jocolaw.com -- Johnson & Colmar, Sean F Darke, Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C. & Nancy Lynn Martin -- nmartin@jocolaw.com -- Johnson and Colmar. IMPRO SYNERGIES: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Rodriguez and all others similarly situated v. Impro Synergies, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00022 (M.D. Fla., January 15, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Impro Synergies, LLC is a real estate investment company located at 5901 N. Ocean Blvd., Ocean Ridge, FL 33435. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maria Alaimo, Esq. VILES & BECKMAN, LLC Suite A, 6350 Presidential Ct Ft Myers, FL 33919 Telephone: (239) 334-3933 Facsimile: (239) 334-7105 E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com INDIANA: Lawmaker Plans to File Bill to Require BMV Audits ---------------------------------------------------------- Tony Cook, writing for Indy Star, reports that a state lawmaker plans to file a bill that would require beefed up audits of the troubled Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Rep. Dan Forestal, D-Indianapolis, is drafting legislation that would require independent audits of the BMV every other year in addition to annual audits by the State Board of Accounts. The measure comes after a series of financial blunders that have resulted in tens of millions of dollars in overcharges to Hoosier motorists. "Like most people, I've been watching what's unfolding over at the BMV and it's concerning stuff," Mr. Forestal said. "It's time for some added oversight." Josh Gillespie, a BMV spokesman, said the agency wouldn't comment on a bill it hasn't seen. He noted that the State Board of Accounts already audits the BMV annually and that the agency recently hired accounting firm BKD to review how the BMV calculates and charges taxes and fees. Mr. Forestal's legislation is a response to repeated problems at the BMV. In November, BMV officials acknowledged overpaying about $60,000 in refunds to 254 motorists. Those refunds were needed because of an earlier $29 million mistake in calculating motor vehicle excise taxes for about 180,000 customers. The excise tax problems came after the BMV agreed as part of a class-action lawsuit in August 2013 to refund $30 million to drivers it overcharged for operator's licenses. A second pending lawsuit seeks to refund millions more for earlier operator license overcharges and excessive fees for other services. In that case, a former deputy BMV director has testified that top agency officials knew they were improperly charging Hoosiers for years but secretly continued the practice to avoid budget troubles. Audits by the State Board of Accounts did not catch those problems and are clearly not sufficient, said Mr. Forestal, who is the ranking Democrat on the Republican-controlled House Transportation Committee. State Examiner Paul Joyce has said budget and staffing cuts have limited what the board of accounts can do. But he said the proposed budget Gov. Mike Pence recently submitted to state lawmakers would allow an additional 100 state examiners to be hired. That should allow for a deeper dive into the books of state agencies, he said. Mr. Forestal said he is still drafting the legislation, but plans to file it soon. KIDCENTRAL SUPPLY: Recalls Textured Blocks 80pc by Edushape ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 15, 2014 Posting date: December 15, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42939 Affected products: Textured Blocks 80pc by Edushape The recall involves the Edushape 80 Pieces Textured Blocks Set (SKU: EDU-716080). This set consists of 80 assorted, multi- colored, textured blocks in various shapes, sizes and colors foam blocks. This product is meant for ages 2+. This set can also be identified by the UPC number 729001042924 located on the flexible plastic storage case. The smallest semi-circular foam blocks in the set poses a choking hazard to young children. Neither Health Canada nor KidCentral Supply Inc has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this toy. Approximately 257 of the affected sets were sold in Canada. The affected sets have been manufactured in China and sold from January 2013 to December 2014. Companies: Manufacturer EduShape Ltd. Deer Park New York United States Importer Kidcentral Supply Inc. Toronto Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately remove and dispose the recalled semi- circular blocks from the set. There should be four differently colored semi-circles in each set. KILEY & KILEY: Sued in South Carolina Over Violations of TCPA ------------------------------------------------------------- Linda Kenzik, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Kiley & Kiley LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-00201-DCN (D.S.C., January 15, 2015) alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Gressette Felder, Jr., Esq. MCGOWAN HOOD AND FELDER 1517 Hampton Street Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 779-0100 E-mail: jfelder@mcgowanhood.com KULA KLIPS: Recalls Comb-Style Snap Klips ----------------------------------------- Starting date: December 10, 2014 Posting date: December 10, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Jewellery Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Chemical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42847 Affected products: Various Kula Klips comb-style snap hair clips The recall involves Kula Klips comb-style snap hair clips. The metal hair clips have a yellowish surface coating with various fabric type decorations attached to the clip. They were sold in a package of three hair clips. The product can be identified by the name Kula Klips and a New Comb Klips! sticker in the top left corner of the package. The package also has the statement Snap Klips With No-Slip Grip. The surface coating on the hair clips contains lead in excess of the allowable limit, posing a chemical hazard. Under the Surface Coating Materials Regulations of the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act, it is illegal to import, advertise or sell articles for children with a surface coating material containing more than 90mg/kg of lead. Lead is very toxic to children, even at low exposure levels. Children can ingest lead when they chew, suck or swallow jewellery items containing lead which can cause damage to their bodies. Potential health effects associated with exposure to high levels of lead include anemia, vomiting, diarrhea, serious brain injury, convulsions, coma as well as effects related to the liver, kidneys, heart and immune system. In extreme cases, there have been deaths. Neither Health Canada nor Kula Klips has received any consumer reports of incidents or illnesses related to the use of these products. For more information on the risks and symptoms of lead and cadmium exposure, visit the Government of Canada's website Lead and Cadmium in Children's Jewellery. Approximately 300 of the recalled products were sold at various retailers across Canada and sold online at www.kulaklips.com. The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold from April 2014 to December 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Kula Klips Edmonton Alberta Canada Consumers should immediately take the recalled hair clips away from children and contact Kula Klips for directions on obtaining a replacement. For more information, consumers can contact Kula Klips by email. LENDY ELECTRIC: "Zhang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Guo Mi Zhang, individually and on behalf of all other employees similiarly situated v. Lendy Electric Equipment & Supply Corp., Jackson Lew, Pak Lew, Henry Lew, Jimmy Lew, and Kit Lew, Case No. 1:15-cv-00270 (S.D.N.Y., January 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a company that is a supplier of electrical supplies, contractor supplies, and hardware supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com MACH MINING: Supreme Court to Decide on Discrimination Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Sam Hananel, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the Supreme Court could put the brakes on the Obama administration's growing crackdown against companies facing claims of discrimination against women, minorities and other protected groups. Justices were set to hear arguments on Jan. 13 in a case that considers whether employers can defend discrimination lawsuits by asserting that government lawyers did not try hard enough to settle claims before going to court. Companies are complaining increasingly about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's "systemic litigation" program, which turns individual complaints of bias into high-stakes class-action cases on behalf of dozens or even hundreds of workers. The enforcement strategy has netted over $100 million in legal judgments and settlements from more than 50 companies since 2011, including $20 million from Verizon Inc. to settle allegations that the company unfairly fired or disciplined hundreds of disabled workers for missing work. EEOC general counsel P. David Lopez has said the bigger cases send a stronger message to all employers about complying with the law. But employer groups deride the strategy as "sue first and negotiate later." They complain of government bullying tactics and unfair take-it-or-leave-it offers that do not allow for meaningful settlement talks. Many employers confronted with claims of workplace bias would rather negotiate a minimal settlement with the EEOC and pledge to fix the problems than mount a costly legal defense in court. The case before the high court involves an Illinois mining company sued by the EEOC in 2011 for failing to hire any female workers despite receiving applications from many qualified women. Mach Mining says the suit should be thrown out because the commission did not try in good faith to reach a settlement before taking the company to court. A federal judge agreed to look into whether the EEOC's attempt to settle the case was "sincere and reasonable." But the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago reversed that, saying a court has no business peering into the EEOC's private settlement talks. Federal law does require the EEOC to attempt to halt unlawful employment practices by "informal methods of conference, conciliation and persuasion." But the EEOC may choose to sue if it is unable to reach a settlement that is "acceptable to the commission." Lower courts have struggled to determine exactly what that means. Some courts have required a minimal showing of "good faith," while other courts probe more deeply. But the 7th Circuit is the first to reject the inquiry altogether. It said there was no clear standard of "how many offers, counteroffers, conferences or phone calls" would be needed to satisfy a court. Lawyers for Mach Mining argue that judicial review of the conciliation process is needed to find out whether the EEOC complied with basic steps such as giving an employer enough information about the charges or providing enough time to respond to settlement offers. In an unusual move, the EEOC also asked the Supreme Court to take up the case. The Justice Department argues that allowing employers to question the government's settlement efforts at all undermines law enforcement and only encourages companies to drag out settlement talks. If the high court affirms the decision, it would help the EEOC overturn nearly four decades of case law that has allowed courts outside the 7th Circuit to get a look at the settlement process and derail EEOC suits. Some federal judges have thrown out EEOC class-action cases after inspecting the settlement process. Last year, for example, a New York judge dismissed most of the EEOC's pregnancy bias charges against financial news company Bloomberg LP. The judge ruled that the EEOC did not adequately identify the class members or provide other important details to the company during settlement talks before suing. Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, say the EEOC is shortchanging the settlement process in favor of litigation to pursue a policy agenda. "The feeling among employers is that it's very unfair when the weight of the federal government comes down on you and says, 'We want millions of dollars,' but won't put its cards on the table and negotiate with you," said Gerald Maatman, a Chicago lawyer who filed a brief on behalf of the American Insurance Association. A brief filed on behalf of more than a dozen women's rights organizations, including the National Organization for Women, argues that letting a judge review informal and confidential settlement discussions will burden courts and make it easier for companies to avoid liability. Systemic cases now make up nearly 25 percent of the EEOC's litigation docket, up sharply from less than 5 percent before Obama took office, according to the agency and lawyers familiar with the caseload. In a recent case, JPMorgan Chase & Co. paid nearly $1.5 million last year to settle charges of sexual harassment against 16 female mortgage bankers at an Ohio office. Also in 2014, McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants Inc. paid $1.3 million to settle allegations that hundreds of African-Americans were denied jobs for "front of the house" positions at restaurants in Baltimore. Neither company admitted wrongdoing. MCDONALD'S CORP: Sued Over Race, Gender Bias in Franchised Outlet ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Murphy, writing for The Associated Press, reports that several fired McDonald's employees who say they were subject to racial discrimination and sexual harassment have sued the fast-food chain's corporate parent, which they say controls nearly every aspect of how franchisees operate. The workers say in a federal complaint filed on Jan. 22 that about 15 African-American employees of some southern Virginia restaurants run by Soweva Co. were fired last May. Many were told by Soweva owner Michael Simon that while they were good workers they "didn't fit the profile" he was trying to build for the company, according to the complaint. The employees said that when they called corporate offices to complain about the dismissals and "blatant racial discrimination," corporate officials did nothing. A statement from McDonald's Corp. said the company had not seen the lawsuit and couldn't comment on the allegations but that it and its franchisees "share a commitment to the well-being and fair treatment of all people who work in McDonald's restaurants." Representatives of Soweva and Simon did not immediately return calls from The Associated Press seeking comment. The workers said in the complaint that restaurant supervisors frequently demeaned African-American workers by using terms like "ghetto" to describe them and complaining that there were "too many black people in the store." The complaint also states that female employees were inappropriately touched by a supervisor who also solicited sex and sent lewd photos. Franchisees operate the vast majority of the chain's more than 14,000 U.S. restaurants, and the case reflects a growing point of contention for the Oak Brook, Illinois-based restaurant chain. The lawsuit comes a month after the National Labor Relations Board designated McDonald's Corp. as a "joint-employer" with franchisees. The NLRB, a federal agency that resolves employee- management disputes in the private sector, contends that the company and its franchisees are joint employers because the company wields extensive influence over how the franchisees operate. McDonald's has vowed to contest that designation. That decision centered on pay and working conditions. NLRB said it found dozens of cases of unlawful conduct by the company, including sanctions against workers who had sought job improvements, including by participating in nationwide fast food worker protests. The general counsel office of the agency ruled in December that the company violated the rights of employees openly seeking better pay and working conditions. Hearings are set for March on whether to pursue disciplinary steps. Over the past two years, workers at McDonald's and other fast-food outlets in many cities have been engaging in brief "strikes" while calling for an increase in the minimum wage from the current $7.25 to $15 an hour and the right to unionize. MASSAGE ENVY: Settles Massage Class Action for $177 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that tens of thousands of California customers of the Massage Envy Franchising chain of spas will have the opportunity to claim unused sessions for which they had prepaid, under a tentative class action settlement slated to go before a judge later this month, according to federal court documents. The proposed settlement, which the parties estimate to be worth $177 million, wouldn't put any money in the pockets of as many as 130,000 class members, according to the agreement in Hahn v. Massage Envy. Instead, they would be granted free massages to make up for the sessions they allege they were cheated out of after they cancelled their memberships with Massage Envy Spas. The lawyers, however, would reap as much as $7.8 million in attorney fees and costs for their work on the case since it was filed on Jan. 8, 2012, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Lead plaintiff Gail Hahn alleged she paid for 23 massages in advance, at $59 each, but used only two. She tried to cancel her membership, but says the company wouldn't do so, and refused as well to compensate her or allow her to partake of those paid-for massages, according to her complaint. The defendants argued that the membership agreement that every customer signs explicitly states that members must continue to purchase additional monthly massages as a condition of redeeming the prepaid services. The contract also states that when a member cancels or stops paying, all outstanding prepaid massages are "summarily and irreversibly forfeited," according to filings by the defense. But the plaintiffs alleged that the agreements were both procedurally and substantively unconscionable as consumer contracts, and should not stand. They also alleged Massage Envy violated the unlawful and unfair business practices provisions of California's Unfair Competition Law. Under the putative settlement, the aggrieved customers will be eligible for one or more 50-minute or 90-minute massage sessions, depending on the number of unused sessions they claim. The deal provides for a new, more explicit membership agreement, cancellation form and sales script designed to clarify the company's policy that "any unused monthly member massages will expire and will not be available for redemption or use if not redeemed within 60 days following cancellation, nonrenewal or termination for nonpayment," according to the documents. The parties are scheduled to present motions for preliminary approval and other matters to U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw on Jan. 30. Plaintiffs' counsel are with the firm Finkelstein & Krinsk. Defense counsel are attorneys with the firms Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton; Sacks Ricketts Case; Dillon & Gerardi; Quarles & Brady; Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. MEXX CANADA: Recalls Children's Winter Jackets With Flashlight -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 11, 2014 Posting date: December 11, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Chemical Hazard, Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42883 Affected products: Flashlight attached to MEXX Children's Winter Jackets The recall involves the flashlight that comes attached to the Mexx Winter Jackets sold in sizes 2 through 12. The winter jackets can be identified by styles codes: K1HCO015, K1HHO024, K1HHO019, K1HCO016, K1ICO008, K1HHO020, K1HCO017, K1ICO009, K1HHO021, K1HCO018, K1ICO010, K1ICO014, K1IHO015, K1JCO004, K1ICO016 and K1IHO017 The batteries of the flashlight can easily be removed by kids and present both a chemical hazard and choking hazard. MEXX has not received any incident report related to the use of these products. Health Canada has received one consumer report of a choking incident in Canada. The child had to be taken to the hospital for medical treatment. Approximately 15,092 units of the recalled product were sold in Canada at the retail stores and online. The affected products were manufactured in China and sold from July 28, 2014 until Dec. 4, 2014. Companies: Distributor Mexx Canada Co. Montreal Quebec CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the flashlight and remove it from the jackets. Mexx has identified that the Jackets without the flashlights, are still safe to wear. Consumers should discard the flashlights and safely dispose of the batteries at a battery recuperation center. NATIONAL TAX: Faces "Franco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Franco, individually and for all others similarly situated v. National Tax Search, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00386 (N.D. Ill., January 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. National Tax Search, LLC provides commercial and residential property tax management services to financial institutions all over North America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq. James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: aficzko@stephanzouras.com jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com NATIONWIDE NATURAL: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk ------------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 11, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Nationwide Natural Foods Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Yukon Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9512 NISSAN: Recalls Pathfinder, Sentra and X-Trail Models ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 12, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car, SUV Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Airbag Units affected: 13750 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014566 TC ID number: 2014566 On certain vehicles, the passenger (frontal) airbag inflator could produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment. Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants, increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Dealers will inspect and, if necessary, replace the passenger airbag inflator. Note: This is an expansion of recalls 2013117 and 2014272. Vehicles that were repaired under the previous campaign are not affected because that remedy would have corrected the subject condition. Affected products: Maker Model Model year(s) affected ----- ----- ---------------------- NISSAN SENTRA 2004 NISSAN PATHFINDER 2003, 2004 NISSAN X-TRAIL 2005 NORDSTROM INC: Seeks Dismissal of False Marketing Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Castro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the plaintiff in a proposed class action accusing Nordstrom Inc. and a luxury denim maker of falsely marketing jeans as "Made in the USA" is urging a California federal court to deny the defendants' request for an interlocutory appeal in the case. Defendants Nordstrom and A.G. Adriano Goldschmeid Inc. have failed to establish that any exceptional circumstances exist for an interlocutory appeal, claims plaintiff David Paz in a Jan. 5 memorandum filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Mr. Paz alleges A.G. manufactures jeans with domestic and foreign- made component parts and unlawfully labels and sells them in California as "Made in USA." Mr. Paz asserted he was deceived by the label when he purchased the jeans at a Nordstrom store in San Diego in May. He sued the defendants for violations of California law including the California "Made in USA" statute. In court documents, the defendants denied the plaintiff's main claims and filed a motion to dismiss claiming that the California statute was preempted by the federal "Made in USA" statute and federal fabric labeling rules and regulations. But California federal judge Dana Sabraw denied defendants' motion on Oct. 27, 2014, ruling the suit's claims are not preempted by federal law. Nordstrom and A.G. are now requesting that the court amend and certify its October order for interlocutory appeal. The plaintiff, in opposition to the defendants' motion, argues the companies have failed to establish the grounds for such an appeal, which include whether there is a controlling question of law. The defendants argue in their motion that there is a controlling question of law because the court's refusal to dismiss the case "turned on the Court's legal determination that federal law did not preempt California state law with respect to the use of 'Made in USA'." The defendants also argue that the court's legal determinations in this case are subject to de novo review by the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Paz counters that not all preemption questions are appropriate for such an appeal, particularly those that involve preemption exceptions of a fact-intensive nature. "In this case, Defendants' motion fails to consider what additional factual issues are necessary to the resolution of the preemption issue," he said. NORFOLK STATE: Male Teachers' Class Cert. Bid Granted in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Mark S. Davis partly granted Plaintiff's motion in the case captioned DR. ARCHIE EARL, Plaintiff, v. NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY, THE BOARD OF VISITORS OF NORFOLK STATE UNIVERSITY, and THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. Defendants, Civil No. 2:13cv148 (E.D. Pa.) Plaintiff Dr. Archie Earl alleged that Defendant Norfolk State University ("NSU") violated the Equal Pay Act ("EPA") by creating an inequity in pay as between female faculty at, for equal work on jobs requiring equal skill, effort and responsibility. Plaintiff asserted in his discovery that his own salary was "woefully inadequate" compared to "recent hires, and white faculty, and younger faculty, and female faculty," although Plaintiff alleges that "he was at least as qualified" and that "the responsibilities of the job[s] were essentially equivalent. Plaintiff moved for conditional class certification of all salaried male teaching faculty who worked for NSU for the past three years and sought an order directing NSU to provide Plaintiff a list in electronic database form with home addresses and contact information and to provide notice in conspicuous places in campus. Defendants responded to Plaintiff's motion for Conditional Class Certification by arguing that Plaintiff failed to present sufficient facts to warrant conditional certification of an EPA collective action because professors outside Plaintiff's department are not similarly situated to him. Defendants argued that the Court should deny Plaintiff's motion because the differences among NSU's departments render teaching faculty members outside Plaintiff's department not similarly situated to him. In his Opinion and Order partly granting Plaintiff's motion, Judge Davis held that Plaintiff has made the modest factual showing sufficient to demonstrate that he and all salaried male teaching faculty who worked for NSU at any time during the past three years were victims of a common policy or plan that violated the EPA law. Such allegations demonstrated that NSU was impermissibly discriminating against men and in favor of women, hence, in violation of the Equal Pay Act. However, Judge Davis denied in part Plaintiff's request to the extent of an order requiring Defendants to provide Plaintiff with the email addresses and telephone numbers of putative collective action members and to post notice in conspicuous locations on the NSU campus, including NSU's website. A copy of the Opinion and Order dated November 18, 2014, is available at bit.ly/1CdVUd4 from Leagle.com. PHILIP MORRIS: Jury Rules in Favor of Plaintiff in Boatright Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that the Schlesinger team wins a favorable verdict in Boatright case. Details: When he was boy, Richard Boatright loved cowboys and "The Magnificent Seven," a 1960 Western starring Yul Brynner, Eli Wallach and Steve McQueen. But attorneys say it was this love that would lead him to start smoking cigarettes at 12, launching a decades-long nicotine addiction and leading to chronic disease, two lung transplants and a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against two powerful cigarette manufacturers. Case: Richard Boatright and Deborah Boatright v. Philip Morris USA and Liggett Group Case no: 53-2011CA-000158-0000-WH Description: Products liability Filing date: Jan. 12, 2011 Trial dates: Oct. 14-Nov. 12, 2014 Judge: Polk Circuit Judge John Radabaugh Plaintiffs attorneys: Scott Schlesinger, Steven Hammer, Jonathan Gdanski and Brittany Chambers, Schlesinger Law Officers, Fort Lauderdale Defense attorneys: Kenneth Reilly, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, Miami, for Philip Morris and Ann St. Peter-Griffith, Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman, Miami, for Liggett Verdict amount: $35 million Plaintiffs case: His attorneys argued Mr. Boatright, now 61, was the victim of a calculated corporate marketing strategy that tied the theme song and imagery from the hit movie to an international campaign to rebrand fledgling Marlboro cigarettes into a global powerhouse. "We've all been brainwashed by the Marlboro man," said Mr. Schlesinger, a Fort Lauderdale attorney whose team helped win the award against Philip Morris USA Inc. and Liggett Group LLC. "The kids were watching Westerns. What could be more impressionable than that? Rich loved cowboys, but there was the major disconnect. He thought he was a cowboy when really he was a drug addict." Mr. Boatright grew up to be a professional dance instructor and smoked multiple packs of cigarettes daily for about three decades. He needed a second lung transplant in 2012 after his body rejected the first. "He was graceful on his feet, but he was also heavily addicted since childhood," Mr. Schlesinger said. Mr. Boatright's case is one of thousands filed in Florida after the state Supreme Court in 2006 decertified a $145 billion class action verdict against major tobacco companies, forcing smokers or their families to individually prove smoking caused injury or death. Miami Beach pediatrician Howard Engle was lead plaintiff in the class action, and Mr. Boatright is among thousands of Engle progeny litigants. The Schlesinger team built a case that argued the Engle verdict already answered all the questions of fault, holding cigarette companies culpable for making unreasonably dangerous products that caused cancer, emphysema and addiction. They accused Philip Morris and Liggett of fraud by concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and gross negligence, among other counts. The attorneys successfully argued Philip Morris and Liggett hid or omitted information when confronted by health agencies and kept selling a deadly and addictive product as part of a corporate conspiracy to boost sales despite injury to consumers. They said while the companies raked in massive profits, Mr. Boatright struggled with addiction, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and two major lung surgeries. Defense case: Philip Morris, the largest U.S. tobacco company, denied all claims and said Mr. Boatright did not qualify as a member of the decertified Engle class and was not entitled to benefits awarded to that group. Its attorneys argued Mr. Boatright chose to continue smoking even though he knew the risks. Liggett attorneys did not respond to a request for comment by deadline. Outcome: The jury sided with Mr. Boatright, handing down a $35 million verdict in his favor. Jurors concluded he was addicted to nicotine and Philip Morris and Liggett hid information about the health dangers of their products. The panel assigned 85 percent of the blame to Philip Morris and 15 percent to Liggett, awarding Mr. Boatright $19.7 million in punitive damages against Philip Morris and $300,000 against Liggett. They also awarded $12.5 million for lost earnings and pain and suffering. Comments: "They appeal everything," Mr. Schlesinger said. "Fighting cases in court is a very important part of their business. Litigation is part of their business. It's the back end." Post-settlement: Judge Radabaugh on Jan. 12 denied the tobacco companies' request for retrial, starting the clock on a 30-day window for filing a notice of appeal. PROGENE HEALTHCARE: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Swetlic Chiropractic & Rehabilitation Center, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Progene Healthcare, Inc., Proxi Market Solutions, Inc., Michael Lee and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-00291 (S.D.N.Y., January 15, 2015), seeks to redress the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles. The Defendants own and operate a company that manufactures all- natural solution to help support the naturally declining testosterone levels experienced by men over 20. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq. BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC 85 Miles Avenue White Plaines, NY10606 Telephone: (914) 358-5345 Facsimile: (212) 571-0284 E-mail: Avtan.Benin@beUinlaw.com - and - Brian J. Wanca, Esq. ANDERSON + WANCA 3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 Telephone: (847) 368-1500 Facsimile: (847) 368-1501 E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com RECKITT BENCKISER: Court Narrows Claims in Suboxone Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered an order in IN RE SUBOXONE (BUPRENORPHINE HYDROCHLORIDE AND NALOXONE) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CASE NO. 13-MD-2445 (E.D. Pa.), whereby: -- The motion to dismiss the Direct Purchasers' complaint is granted as to Count III. The motion is further granted in that the Direct Purchasers' claims against Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd. and Reckitt Benckiser Group plc are dismissed. The motion is denied in all other respects. -- The motion to dismiss the End Payors' complaint is granted as to the following claims: i. The antitrust claims under the laws of Arizona, District of Columbia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia; ii. The consumer protection claims under the laws of Arkansas, Arizona, District of Columbia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont and West Virginia; and iii. The unjust enrichment claims brought under the laws of Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and Wyoming. The motion is further granted in that the End Payors' claims against Reckitt Benckiser, Inc., Reckitt Benckiser LLC and Reckitt Benckiser Healthcare (UK) Ltd. are dismissed. The motion is denied in all other respects. A copy of the judge's Dec. 2, 2014 order is available at http://is.gd/eFtJS1from Leagle.com SA SAUSAGES: Recalls Serengeti Trading Ready-To-Eat Meat Products ----------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 12, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard, Allergen - Sulphites Hazard classification: Class 1 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: SA Sausages Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9527 SA Sausages is recalling Serengeti Trading brand ready-to-eat meat products from the marketplace because they contain mustard or sulphites which are not declared on the label. People with an allergy to mustard or a sensitivity to sulphites should not consume the recalled products described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. If you have an allergy to mustard or a sensitivity to sulphites, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction. There have been no reported reactions associated with the consumption of these products. The recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. SEI YING: Recalls Beverage Powders Due to Undeclared Milk --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 11, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Sei Ying Trading Company Ltd. Distribution: British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional CFIA reference number: 9519 SEVENTH GENERATION: Accused of Misleading Marketing Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- Maggie Tsan and Erica Wildstein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Seventh Generation, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00205 (N.D. Cal., January 14, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false misleading marketing practices of its cleaning and personal care products as natural, when in fact they contain non-natural ingredients. Seventh Generation, Inc. manufactures, markets, and sells natural cleaning supplies, paper products, and personal care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP 2000 L Street, N.W., Suite 808 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com - and - Michael Robert Reese, Esq. REESE RICHMAN LLP 875 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 E-mail: mreese@reeserichman.com SHELL OIL: Faces "Binder" Suit in La. Over Benzene-Related Injury ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Binder v. Shell Oil Company, Shell Chemical LP d/b/a Shell Chemical Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00097 (E.D. La., January 15, 2015) alleges injury due to exposure to benzene and benzene- containing products. Mr. Binder is a resident of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. worked as a contract tank cleaner for Rollins Environmental, Inc. at Shell Oil and Shell Chemical cleaning tanks with benzene and other chemicals from 1982-1986. He alleges that he was regularly exposed to benzene during this period. He contends that he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in August 2011 due to his exposure to benzene and benzene-containing products. Shell Oil Company is incorporated in Delaware with its principal office in Texas. Shell Chemical LP, doing business as Shell Chemical Company, incorporated in Delaware with its principal office in Texas. The Defendants are manufacturers, distributors, sellers, suppliers, or large industrial consumers of benzene or benzene-containing products. The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Eric Williams, Jr., Esq. WILLIAMS LAW OFFICE, LLC 433 Metairie Rd., Suite 401 Metairie, Louisiana 70005 Telephone: (504) 832-9898 Facsimile: (504) 832-9811 E-mail: eric@amlbenzene.net SHELL OIL: Faces "Gaubert" Suit Over Benzene-Related Injury ----------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Gaubert, Individually and Theresa Gaubert v. Shell Oil Company, Shell Chemical LP d/b/a Shell Chemical Company, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00099 (E.D. La., January 15, 2015) The Gauberts are residents of Lockport, Louisiana. Ms. Gaubert is Mr. Gaubert's wife. Mr. Gaubert worked as a contract welder/pipefitter for various companies including LouCon, Brown and Root and Turner Industries from 1968 through 1985 at Shell Oil, Shell Chemical in Norco, LA, ExxonMobil in Chalmette, LA, and Murphy Oil in Chalmette, LA. He alleges that he was regularly exposed to benzene during this period while performing new construction and turn arounds. Mr. Gaubert was diagnosed with multiple myeloma in May 2014 due to his alleged exposure to benzene and benzene-containing products. Shell Oil Company and Shell Chemical LP were incorporated in Delaware with their principal office in Texas. Exxon Mobil Corporation was incorporated in New Jersey with its principal place of business in Texas. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. was incorporated in Delaware with its principal office in Arkansas. The Defendants are manufacturers, distributors, sellers, suppliers, or large industrial consumers of benzene or benzene- containing products. The Plaintiffs are represented by: L. Eric Williams, Jr., Esq. WILLIAMS LAW OFFICE, LLC 433 Metairie Rd., Suite 401 Metairie, Louisiana 70005 Telephone: (504) 832-9898 Facsimile: (504) 832-9811 E-mail: eric@amlbenzene.net SKINNYGIRL MARGARITA: Plaintiff's Counsel to Re-Depose Frankel -------------------------------------------------------------- According to Showbiz Spy's Richard Head, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting that Bethenny Frankel is expected to be deposed again in her Skinnygirl Margarita lawsuit. The class action lawsuit alleges the liquor has been falsely advertised as "all natural," when it in fact contains preservatives. During a status conference, the judge ruled, "Plaintiff's counsel may re-depose Ms. Frankel. Discovery deadline remains as set." As Radar reported in July, the new Real Housewives of New York cast member, 44, refused to meet with the plaintiffs in an attempt to settle. SPECIALTY TOYS: Recalls Lemur Plush Toy Due to Choking Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 10, 2014 Posting date: December 10, 2014 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-42849 Affected products: Loki Lemur and Neon Loki Lemur Plush Toys The recall involves Loki Lemur and Neon Loki Lemur plush toys. Loki the Lemur plush toys are found in assorted colors: black, blue, turquoise, purple; Neon Loki the Lemur come in neon green, neon pink, violet, and blue. The plush toy can also be identified by their tags which states Specialty Toys Direct. The eyes and nose of the plush toys can become detached posing a choking hazard to young children. Specialty Toys Direct has not received any reports of incidents. Health Canada has received one report of the eye breaking off. No serious injury resulted. Consumers can find information on how to choose safe toys and protect their children when they play by visiting the General toy safety tips page on the Healthy Canadians website. Approximately 22,416 units were sold in Canada. The recalled plush toy was manufactured in China and sold from April 2014 to November 2014. Companies: Manufacturer Pinnacle Toy Corporation Beijing China Distributor Specialty Toys Direct Inc. Burnaby British Columbia Canada Consumers should immediately remove the recalled plush toys from children's reach and return to Specialty Toys Direct Inc. for a full refund. They can also discard the toy in such a way that it could be no longer used. STAR MARKETING: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 11, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Star Marketing Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9506 STEPHEN YELVERTON: Case vs. Siblings Won't Proceed as Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bankruptcy Judge S. Martin Teel, Jr. denied a motion by Yelverton for the certification of an adversary proceeding -- he filed against his sisters, Deborah Marm and Phyllis Edmundson, asserting various business law and tort causes of action -- as a class action on behalf of all creditors and to amend the amended complaint to bring class allegations. "Because the amended complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, there is no point in making such a certification. Moreover, Yelverton is not an attorney who is a member of the bar of the district court of which this court is a unit under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 151 and thus he is not authorized to represent any such creditors in this adversary proceeding," the judge held. The decision was handed down in In re STEPHEN THOMAS YELVERTON, Chapter 7 Debtor. STEPHEN THOMAS YELVERTON, Plaintiff, v. DEBORAH MARM and PHYLLIS EDMUNDSON, Defendants, CASE NO. 09-00414, ADVERSARY PROCEEDING NO. 14-10024, (Bankr. Columbia). A copy of the judge's Dec. 11, 2014 Memorandum Decision is available at http://is.gd/elDubefrom Leagle.com. TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Mayacamas Mixes Due to Undeclared Milk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: December 11, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen) Subcategory: Allergen - Milk Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Tree of Life Canada Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 9513 UBC: Faces Class Action Over Damaged Sperm; April 27 Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Nixon, writing for The Ubyssey, reports that the class action lawsuit alleging UBC's negligence led to the destruction of over 400 men's sperm when a circuit breaker tripped at a sperm bank in 2002 has won another victory towards proving UBC liable. UBC placed an exclusion clause in most contracts that would have exempted them from liability in the loss of frozen sperm, but a recent court decision ruled that sperm count as property and a different set of rules applies, making exclusion clauses irrelevant. "Because [sperm] was property, it fell within the Warehouse Receipt Act and therefore the exclusion clause was found to be invalid," said Art Grant, one of the lawyers representing the class-action suit. The act overrules any exclusion clauses by requiring the business storing property to be liable. "You can put all sorts of clauses in your contracts but you can't exclude your responsibility of a warehouser of the materials," said Mr. Grant. UBC had argued that they used the standard of care necessary and that all sperm donors signed agreements limiting liability. About 26 of the men said that they had never signed any agreement but the recent decision makes it irrelevant. The exclusion clause, signed or not, is no longer valid. The class action is seeking damages between $20,000 and $100,000 for each of the donors. The lawsuit has been progressing since 2002, when a circuit break tripped and cut off power to the freezer holding the sperm. The alarm system didn't kick in, and the sperm were damaged. The freezer that failed had been purchased in 1987 from Forma Scientific Inc. A representative from the company recommended that freezers be replaced around every 10 years. The class action must now attempt to prove UBC's negligence -- the next court date is April 27. "We'll be making a number of arguments about UBC's negligence," said Grant, "the system they used was inappropriate, the backup system was non-existent, the checks and balances nonexistent." UBC spokesperson Susan Danard released the following statement when asked for comment. "UBC recognizes this was an unfortunate situation and empathizes with those directly impacted. The university takes this matter very seriously and looks forward to an early resolution. As the matter is before the courts, we cannot comment any further at this time." UNITED STATES: Commerce Dep't Workers Win Discrimination Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- People's World reports that federal workers racked up a win on employment discrimination when the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals -- often called the nation's second-most-powerful court -- threw out the Commerce Department's attempt to limit workers' rights to file such discrimination cases. In a case that began in 1995, Commerce Department workers Janet Howard and Joyce Megginson sued for pay discrimination against them because they were African-Americans. The case bounced around the courts for years, under both Democratic and Republican administrations, with arguments over whether it should be a class-action suit on behalf of all Commerce workers or not. Finally, the two women decided to go ahead on their own, but a lower federal court accepted the latest administration argument. Commerce secretary Penny Pritzker, a wealthy former Chicago hotel magnate, contended the six-year statute of limitations on civil rights complaints outside the federal government should apply to federal workers, too. The appeals court judges found that Congress had explicitly said that's not correct. "In a novel attempt to reconfigure Congress's statutory scheme more than 40 years after its enactment, the Commerce Department would impose (the) six-year statute of limitations, regardless of the status of the administrative proceedings" which workers first must follow in employment discrimination cases, the 3-judge panel said. "Applying that time limit to truncate Title VII (of the Civil Rights Act)'s more lenient limitations period irreconcilably conflicts with Congress's comprehensive scheme. "Federal employees who, as here, have pursued administrative relief and, six years after their claim first accrued, had an administrative class action provisionally certified and remanded for further consideration would either have to abandon that process or surrender the right to file suit following final administrative action. That is not part of Congress's scheme and incorporating it would strike a different balance of interests than was chosen by Congress. "Accordingly, because the judicial role is to enforce the congressionally determined balance," the statute of limitations "does not apply to Title VII civil actions brought by federal employees, and we reverse the dismissal of appellants' complaint and remand the case to the district court" for trial, the panel added. US SERVICO: Faces "Cody" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnny Cody, Leeanne Snow, Alfred Sanders and Anthony Claiborne, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. U.S. Servico, Inc., a Michigan and Brian Rogers, an corporation, jointly and severally, Case No. 2:15-cv-10170 (E.D. Mich., January 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper overtime wages for all hours of work performed by their employees. The Defendants own and operate a company that specializes in commercial and janitorial cleaning services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, PC One Towne Square Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 936-2138 E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com kstoops@sommerspc.com VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT: Cert. Order in "Salazar" Suit Altered ------------------------------------------------------------ Stacy Salazar, an exotic dancer, sued Victory Entertainment, Inc. (doing business as VIP Showgirls), an adult entertainment club in North Hollywood, alleging wage and hour violations arising from the club's misclassification of dancers who performed at the club as independent contractors. Salazar appealed from the trial court's order denying her motion to certify a class of all dancers who have worked at VIP; the court ruled common issues did not predominate over individual issues. In a Dec. 15, 2014 ruling available at http://is.gd/x5Ul58from Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, reversed the trial court's order. The appellate court held that the trial court erred by applying the common law test for an employee relationship to claims falling within the scope of a wage order. The class action is STACY SALAZAR, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. VICTORY ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B249888. Murray M. Sinclair & Associates, Murray M. Sinclair, Ryan C. McKim; Manuwal & Manuwal, Robert I. Manuwal; Cohon & Pollack and Jeffrey M. Cohon, for Plaintiff and Appellant. VISEMAR DI NAVIGAZIONE: Giambrone to Launch Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Mondaq reports that Giambrone, the Italian law firm whose Maritime insurance lawyers have assisted the victims of the Costa Concordia disaster and successfully recovered several thousand euros in damages and compensation from the Italian cruise ship operator, on Jan. 12 announced that they will be launching a similar class action on behalf of the passengers on board the Italian-owned Norman Atlantic vessel against the Italian owner of the boat, Visemar Di Navigazione. "The Norman Atlantic passengers have clearly been through a terrifying and most traumatic experience and one which may have long-lasting effects for them," he said. "With over 500 passengers on board this huge vessel, the safety of passengers should have been the first and only priority. The ferry should have not been allowed to travel due to the deficiencies found by the Greek authorities" Under Italian law, the injured passengers on board of the Norman Atlantic are entitled to seek compensation for all personal injuries sustained on board and after disembarkation, material damages, compensation for ruined vacation, compensation for lost property and items, a refund for the transportation costs and compensation for any damages to their vehicles. The Athens Convention, which applies to international carriage by sea, states that compensation claims for personal injury and death can usually be brought in the country most favorable to the victims and this may contradict the legal provisions of the purchase of the transport ticket which specify that Italian law should apply to any disputes with the ship owners. For personal injuries, Italian law may actually provide for a more accurate remedy that the Greece General Maritime Law and statutory law, governed by a federal statute called the Death On The High Seas Act ("DOHSA"). Passengers are entitled to be compensated not only on the grounds of the shipowner's contractual liability but also in relation to failures or violations of international maritime safety rules which would increase the potential liability of the maritime company, and raise the level of compensation through the claim for "punitive damages". Piero Mastrosimone -- p.mastrosimone@giambronelaw.com -- head of Giambrone's Maritime Accidents team, said they were continuing to receive enquiries from a growing number of passengers from Italy and abroad: the majority of passengers and crew were Italians and Greeks but it is reported that other passengers were from various other European countries including France, Germany and England. The Italian car ferry Norman Atlantic was travelling from Patras, in Greece, to Ancona, in Italy with 422 passengers and 56 crew members on board when a fire broke out on its car deck, north-west of Corfu near Greece on Jan. 11. VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Jetta Model Due to Defective Software --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: December 11, 2014 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Car Notification type: Compliance Mfr System: Lights And Instruments Units affected: 9843 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2014562 TC ID number: 2014562 Manufacturer recall number: 57F6 Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices. The software within the control module of the halogen headlights can allow the low beam headlights to turn off when the high beam headlights are activated, which is contrary to the requirements of the standard. Reduced lighting at the front of the vehicle can affect the driver's vision, which could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property. Dealers will update the software of the control module. Affected products: 2015 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA VOXX International: Receives $5.2MM in Class Action Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- VOXX International Corporation on Jan. 11 announced financial results for its Fiscal 2015 third quarter and nine-months ended November 30, 2014. Pat Lavelle, President and CEO stated, "We saw significant gross margin improvements across all of our business segments, and lowered planned spending further, resulting in operating income that matched last year's third quarter, despite lower sales. There were some short-term factors that impacted sales, such as OEM programs and new product launches that were delayed. Holiday retail sales also came in better than anticipated but we had taken a cautious approach in our buying programs, and is one of the elements that will curtail top-line results in the Fiscal fourth quarter. We anticipate FY15 sales to be approximately $760-$770 million, but with gross margins tracking closer to 30% and operating expenses lower than anticipated. We are receiving positive responses to the products we debuted at CES and the ones that will be coming to market shortly, and remain optimistic, especially with new OEM programs on the horizon and the anticipated contributions from new products such as 360fly, myris, our Reference Series and Jamo Concert Series, new 808 Audio products, and more. Our balance sheet remains strong and we are getting ready for some exciting programs in 2015 that should drive organic growth and improved profitability over the coming year." Third Quarter Results (three months ended November 30, 2014 and November 30, 2013) Net sales for the Fiscal 2015 third quarter were $223.4 million compared to $245.8 million reported in the comparable year-ago period, a decline of 9.1%. Within this: Automotive sales were $110.2 million as compared to $117.6 million. The Automotive segment was impacted by the temporary suspension of an OEM program for one customer as it works through revised safety requirements, lower comparable OEM sales as a result of programs that launched in the FY14 third quarter, suspended sales in Venezuela, and the impact of the Euro conversion, offset by higher sales of remote starts. Premium Audio sales were $54.4 million as compared to $65.6 million. This segment was impacted by lower sales of soundbars and music centers, primarily driven by lower average selling prices, and the impact of the Euro conversion, offset by higher sales of high-end separates and commercial and custom installations. Consumer Accessories sales were $58.2 million as compared to $62.2 million. This segment was impacted by lower sales of digital voice recorders, clock radios and hook-up and power products, lower sales in Mexico resulting from the transition in the Company's distribution model, and the impact of the Euro conversion, offset by higher sales of wireless and Bluetooth speakers, and sales increases in Europe. The gross margin for the Fiscal 2015 third quarter was 30.9%, an increase of 290 basis points as compared to 28.0% for the same period last year. All three business segments posted increases in gross margin due to product mix shifts and better margins associated with new product launches and programs (Automotive - 31.3% vs. 28.6%; Premium Audio - 33.7% vs. 30.8%; Consumer Accessories - 26.7% vs. 23.5%). Operating expenses for the Fiscal 2015 third quarter were $52.3 million, roughly in line with $52.2 million reported in the comparable year-ago period. The Company experienced a decline of $3.2 million in its selling, general and administrative expenses for the comparable third quarter periods, offset by a $3.4 million increase in engineering and technical support as the Company continues to bring on engineers and increase its R&D spend in support of new and potential OEM programs. The Company reported operating income of $16.6 million for both the Fiscal 2015 and Fiscal 2014 third quarters. For the comparable three-month periods, there was a variance in other income (expense) of $5.7 million, as the FY14 third quarter included $4.3 million related to an unanticipated OEM customer settlement. There were other offsetting factors for the comparable periods. This resulted in net income of $15.6 million or income per diluted share of $0.64 for the Fiscal 2015 third quarter as compared to net income of $15.4 million or net income per diluted share of $0.63 for the comparable year ago period. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") for the Fiscal 2015 third quarter was $22.2 million as compared to EBITDA of $27.7 million reported in the Fiscal 2014 third quarter. Adjusted EBITDA was $22.4 million as compared to $23.5 million for the comparable Fiscal 2015 and 2014 periods. Mr. Lavelle continued, "The safety recall at an OEM customer, lack of business in Venezuela, normal run rates for OEM programs and the Euro conversion impacted year-to-date sales by over $18 million. Within Premium Audio, the delayed launch of our new Reference Series impacted our top-line as well, but we expect to see improvements in gross margins and profitability. We continue to expand distribution and our Consumer Accessories business should be aided by new sales of action cameras, Singtrix and biometrics products next Fiscal year. We have a number of exciting products coming to market and have been awarded contracts or are participating in, several large-scale RFQs in our Automotive segment as well. While this may not have immediate returns, we are growing our pipeline and positioning the Company for growth." Nine-Month Results (periods ended November 30, 2014 and November 30, 2013) Net sales for the nine months ended November 30, 2014 were $587.6 million compared to $622.6 million reported in the comparable year-ago period, a decline 5.6%. Within this: Automotive sales were $305.6 million as compared to $318.6 million. The Automotive segment experienced decreases in its OEM manufacturing lines as a result of the temporary suspension of programs from one OEM customer, and lower OEM sales given the volume of new product and program launches in the Fiscal 2014 nine month period as compared to Fiscal 2015. Additionally, lower satellite radio sales due to credit concerns, and lower sales in Venezuela led to the decline, offset by higher sales of remote starts and Car Connection devices domestically, and higher European sales. Premium Audio sales were $128.5 million as compared to $146.5 million. The segment decline was primarily due to the transition of inventory in anticipation of new product launches, which took place in the Fiscal 2015 second and third quarters, a decline in industry-wide pricing for soundbars, music centers and Bluetooth wireless speakers, as well as lower international sales. Offsetting this were higher sales of high-end separates, and gains in the Commercial and Custom Installation business. Consumer Accessories sales were $152.6 million as compared to $156.2 million. This segment was impacted by lower sales of digital voice recorders, clock radios, and hook-up and power products, and lower comparable sales in Mexico, offset by higher sales of wireless and Bluetooth speakers, and higher sales throughout Europe. The gross margin for the nine-month period ended November 30, 2014 was 29.7%, an increase of 120 basis points as compared to 28.5% for the same period last year. This increase was driven by improved margins in the Automotive and Consumer Accessories segment, up 290 basis points and 60 basis points, respectively, offset by a 60 basis point decline in the Premium Audio segment. Operating expenses for the nine month period ended November 30, 2014 were $157.1 million, an increase of 1.2% compared to operating expenses of $155.2 million reported in the comparable year-ago period. The modest increase is primarily related to a $3.9 million increase in engineering and technical support and a $0.5 million increase in selling expenses, both related to new personnel brought on-board to support various customer and prospective programs. This was offset by a $1.3 million reduction in restructuring expense and lower general and administrative expenses of $1.1 million. The Company reported operating income of $17.3 million for the nine-month period ended November 30, 2014 as compared to operating income of $22.2 million reported in the comparable period last year. Lower sales volumes and higher expenses contributed to the variance for the year-over-year periods, and were partially offset by gross margin improvements. The Company reported total other expenses for the nine month period ended November 30, 2014 of $5.2 million as compared to total other income of $10.5 million in the comparable period last year. In Fiscal 2015, the Company recorded a $6.7 million charge representing the devaluation loss related to its Venezuelan bonds that were remeasured at August 31, 2014, resulting in a net Venezuela currency devaluation and translation loss for the nine months ended November 30, 2014 of $6.2 million. Additionally, Other, net, decreased by $9.9 million, primarily as a result of $5.2 million received in a class action settlement, $4.3 million from an unanticipated customer contract settlement, and $0.9 million related to Klipsch recoveries. This was offset by an accrual of $1.2 million for estimated patent settlements with certain third parties, among other factors. The net result was a $15.7 million decline in total other income (expense) for the comparable periods. The Company reported net income of $13.4 million or income per diluted share of $0.55 as compared to net income of $22.4 million or net income per diluted share of $0.93 for the nine-months ended November 30, 2014 and November 30, 2013, respectively. EBITDA for the Fiscal 2015 nine-month period was $29.3 million as compared to EBITDA of $50.3 million reported in the comparable Fiscal 2014 period. Adjusted EBITDA for the Fiscal 2015 nine- month period was $36.3 million as compared to Adjusted EBITDA of $42.7 million for the comparable year-ago period. WALTER LEE: Sued in N.Y. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Alexander Gregory, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Walter Lee & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00243 (E.D.N.Y., January 15, 2015) is brought for alleged 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 WARRIOR ENERGY: Cannot Choose Presiding Judge in "Cerini" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Mark R. Hornak entered a Memorandum Opinion in the lawsuit CERINI v. WARRIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-00637 (W.D. Pa.), telling parties in the case that they don't get to pick their judge. The court adopts a random case assignment order. The Defendants have filed a motion, wanting the case randomly reassigned to a judge of the Pennsylvania district court. They say that the Plaintiff missed the mark when he designated this case "related" to civil action 13-695, the "Dunkel" case, Dunkel v. Superior Energy Services, Inc., which like this one, is a hybrid FLSA collective action/state law purported class action seeking the payment of allegedly unpaid overtime wages. Judge Hornak opined, "To grant Defendants' Motion now, no matter their actual motivation for making it, would in the Court's judgment create an impermissible appearance of authorizing 'Judge shopping.'. A copy of Judge Hornak's Dec. 11, 2014 Memorandum and Opinion is available at http://is.gd/EC8F6Cfrom Leagle.com. MARK CERINI, Plaintiff, represented by: John R. Linkosky, Esq. Joseph H. Chivers, Esq. THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP 100 First Avenue, Suite 1010 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Tel: 412-227-0763 Toll Free: 888-357-0380 WARRIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, represented by Andrew P. Burnside -- drew.burnside@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, James F. Glunt -- james.glunt@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Philip K. Kontul -- philip.kontul@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Jennifer G. Betts -- jennifer.betts@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart. IPS, INC., Defendant, represented by Andrew P. Burnside, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC, James F. Glunt, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Philip K. Kontul, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Jennifer G. Betts, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart. * Australian Cos. Need to Counter Cyber-Attack to Avert Suits ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Gregory, writing for CSO, reports that the cyber-attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment in late November is not the first time that Sony Corporation has been a target for cyber-criminals and if anything can be learned from the attacks, it is that corporations are not taking cyber-security seriously. Sony, which appears to be the current target of a major cyber-attack by forces the FBI claims are operating on behalf of the North Koreans, has had its corporate and game networks attacked several times over the past decade. The 2011 attack on the Sony game network resulted in more than 77 million users' personal information being stolen and released on the Internet and in the most recent attack on December 8 the game network was taken down for about three hours. Between August 10 and September 16 the US retailer Staples Inc. was subject to a broad cyber-attack that infected machines at 113 stores across the US resulting personal information from more than 1.16 million payment cards being stolen. What is a concern here is not just that so many customers were compromised, but that the cyber-attack went on for so long before it was identified. Other US retail chains that have been subjected to successful cyber-attacks include Home Depot Inc. (56 million card accounts) and Target Corporation (40 million card accounts) which were attacked with variants of the same malware. Consequences for data breaches locally have been almost non- existent and governments have taken a step back from forcing business to meet minimum privacy and security standards when operating electronic systems connected to the Internet. But there are signs that the times are changing because earlier this year Target Corporation removed chairman and CEO Greg Steinhafel in a move aimed to restore consumer confidence that had fallen as a result of the Target data breach, and Sony has now found itself subjected to a number of class action lawsuits barely months after finalizing a $15 million settlement of a class action brought against Sony over the 2011 Sony PlayStation network data breach. In a similar context, it appears that only through the courts will Australians be able to force business to take privacy and security seriously. Successive Australian governments have put mandatory data breach reporting -- by business that have been subjected to a cyber-attack -- on the back burner and it is only a matter of time before the courts are inundated with class actions if current practice is not over-turned. Telstra's Cyber Security Report 2014 found that a major security incident has been experienced in the past three years by 41 per cent of local organizations surveyed. Forty five per cent of the security incidents were the result of staff accidentally clicking on links to malware or opening mail attachments that contained links to malware. Of the organizations surveyed 43 per cent indicated they were prepared for cyber-incidents and less than 30 per cent plan to increase cyber-security spending in 2015. The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has published an updated guide for handling personal information security breaches, and a guide to information security but without any legislated powers to act against business the toothless Australian Privacy Commissioner has been given a poison chalice of responsibility by the government. Business looking at the limited ability of the OAIC to take action against companies that fail to secure personal information and report data breaches, may be tempted to put information privacy and security into the too hard basket and carry on as normal, but this would be tempting fate just a little. And it is not just US companies that are being attacked by cyber- criminals. As the world looks to connect everything to the network it is timely to look back at how US security firm Cylance attacked and gained entry to the Internet connected building management system for Google Australia's office in Sydney. In 2015 Australian business will need to take information privacy and security seriously, the rate of cyber-crime is continuing to increase and the sophistication of the attacks and malware used to breach company defenses has increased faster than the defensive systems. Add to this the trend towards the Internet of Things and mobile device growth and we have an environment that will provide cyber- criminals with new targets offering easy pickings unless business takes the threat seriously. Kaspersky Lab Global Research and Analysis Team recently published its predictions for advance persistent threats (APT) in 2015 that include: -- The merger of cyber-crime and APT -- Fragmentation of bigger APT groups that will increase the attack base -- Evolving malware techniques -- New methods of data exfiltration -- New APTs from unusual places as more countries join the cyber arms race -- Use of false flags in attacks to mislead about the attackers origin -- Threat actors add mobile attacks to their arsenal -- APT+Botnet: precise attack+mass surveillance -- Targeting of hotel networks -- Commercialization of APT and the private sector - legal spyware Consumers have been coming to terms with the fact that every device they own irrespective of the brand is subject to cyber- attack. The malware used to attack the iPhone 6 when the phone is connected to an Apple Mac demonstrates clearly that cyber- criminals are evolving their methods of attacking consumer devices. Australian business needs to move beyond using a passive defense to cyber-attack and start to look at systems that proactively target possible sources of malware and data breaches. It is only by actively seeking anything unusual on corporate networks and devices that business will be able to fight the increasing sophistication of cyber-crime. Intelligent systems that seek device malware and intrusions into corporate networks have been in development for more than ten years and it is time that Australian business develops a best practice guide on how to implement cyber-security systems. It is also a time when Australian business should consider proactive defensive measures including the capability to defend against cyber-attack by targeting and counter-attacking the source of an attack against the company's devices, systems or network. Cost has long been an issue when fighting against cyber-crime and to minimize cost, Australian business should consider utilizing common secure infrastructure and gateways when connecting to the Internet. While some companies offer security systems of this kind, there is still scope for more development of common or industry wide defenses. Sony's travails and the long list of major corporations subjected to major cyber-attacks over the past couple of years provide a warning signal that must not be underestimated by Australian boardrooms. ********* 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 * * *