/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150218.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, February 18, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 35
Headlines
95-97 HORATIO: Accused of Operating Property That Violates ADA
ABBA I REALTY: Suit Opposes Alleged Disability Discrimination
ABI PROPERTY: Suit Seeks to Redress Disability Discrimination
AETNA INC: Released Class Action Settlement Reserve in 2014
APEX ASSET: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
APPLE AMERICAN: Denial of Bid for PAGA Claim Arbitration Upheld
AUTOLIV INC: Court Approves Settlement of Antitrust Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Must Face Forex Antitrust Class Action
BIG CITY BURRITO: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
BREG INC: Removes "Lucas" Suit to California District Court
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: To Fund Class Action Deal in Feb. 2015
BRISTOL HARBOUR: Tip Class Action to Go Before Jury
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces "Strock" Injury Suit Over Plavix Use
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces "Sura" Injury Suit Over Use of Plavix
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces "Swindle" Injury Suit Over Plavix Use
CALIFORNIA: Suit vs. CDCR Officials Dismissed With Leave to Amend
CANADA: Veteran Class Action Defense Costs Nears $700,000
CARDINAL HEALTH: Recognized Income From Class Action Settlement
CBS CORP: Faces "Late Show" Intern Class Action in New York
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Removes "Logan" Suit to E.D. Missouri
CITIGROUP INC: Court Authorizes Distribution of Reserve Fund
COLONIAL FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Voluntarily Dismissed
COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Glah" Suit Moved From West Virginia to Alabama
COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Lawson" Suit Moved From Mississippi to Alabama
CROSSMARK INC: Dist. Court OKs Portions of "Bettger" Suit Accord
DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Plaintiffs Filed Motion for Class Certification
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
FLY LOW INC: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Loss of Power Issues
FRUITLAND PARK: Fails to Follow Court's Class Action Order
GENERAL ELECTRIC: N.J. Court Certifies FLSA Collection
GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Faces Background Check Class Action
GOODMAN NETWORKS: "Vassallo" Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Texas
GRUMA CORP: Removes "Torres" Suit to California District Court
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: No Hearing Set in Securities Suit Appeal
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Dist. Court Affirmed Ruling in Russell Case
HOGARTH WORLDWIDE: Terminates Worker Due to Age, Suit Claims
HOME LOAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
HSBC CARD: Dist. Court Denies Mennes' Motion to Amend FDCPA Case
ILLINOIS: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Sorrentino" Suit vs. SCC
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Nycomed Class Action
JEFFERIES GROUP: Defendants Inked Settlement in Delaware Action
JOHN OKOROCHA: Denial of Meal Period Class Certification Upheld
K12 INC: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
KEMET CORPORATION: Direct and Indirect Purchaser Suits Combined
KEMET CORPORATION: Defendants in Canadian Capacitor Class Actions
KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Faces Capacitor Suits in US, Canada
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: March 24 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
LEPRINO FOODS: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Actions
MAGYAR NEMZETI: Holocaust Victims' Claims Dismissal Upheld
MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: December 1 Jury Trial in Class Suit
MAPLEWOOD HOLDINGS: Suit by AMC Shareholder Goes to Trial
MARKETSTAR CORP: "Notscher" Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. Cal.
MATRAT LLC: Settles Wage Class Action
MCALPINE & CO: Court Narrows Claims in Product Liability Case
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Action Transferred to N.D. Cal.
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Updates in Israeli Class Action Claim
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Court Stayed "Weinberger" Case
MULTNOMAH COUNTY: Court Certifies 2 Subclasses in Cunningham Case
NAVISTAR INT'L: Sued Over Contract-Related Dispute in Alabama
NETFLIX INC: Lead Plaintiffs in Investors Suit Appeal to 9th Cir.
OAKLAND RAIDERS: Former Raiderette Files Wage Theft Class Action
OFFICE DEPOT: FUSD to Receive Money From Class Action Settlement
PANTRY INC: Shareholder Filed Putative Class Action
PANTRY INC: Received $4.2MM From Class Action Settlement
PEP BOYS-MANNY: Obtains Final Approval of Tokoshima Suit Deal
PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PERFORMANT TECHNOLOGIES: Motion to Seal Declarations Denied
PILLAR TO POST: Ontario Court Dismisses Franchise Class Action
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Accused of Violating FLSA in Missouri
POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To Defend Against Securities Action
PREMIER HEALTHCARE: Finalizing Settlement in TCPA Class Action
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PROTECTIVE LIFE: MOU Entered in Delaware Action
RAMS HEAD: Settles Class Action; March 10 Hearing Set
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New Jersey
REGENTS OF UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: "Lopez" Suit OK'd for Transfer
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Plumbers Union Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
SIGHTSEEING MIAMI: Removes "Salazar Garcia" Suit to S.D. Florida
SINO-FOREST: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action
STANLEY MORRIS: Appeal From Denial of Bid for New Trial Dismissed
STAR BAKERY: "Martinez" Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SYNGENTA CORP: Cantrell Farm Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
TETRA TECH: Financial Impact of BPR Class Action Unknown
TEXAS: 5th Cir. Vacates Ruling in Suit vs. DPS Director
TUESDAY MORNING: Court Granted Final Okay to Class Action Deal
TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settles Unlimited Data Class Action for $40MM
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Brown" Class Suit to C.D. California
UNITED STATES: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed
US SERVICO: Former Employees File Overtime Class Action
VISA INC: Class Administrator Received 1,179 Requests by Merchants
VISA INC: Notices of Appeal Filed in Consumer Interchange Suit
VISA INC: Reached Settlement With Merchants in Interchange Suit
VISA INC: Objectors in Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases Seek Review
VISA INC: Filed Motions to Dismiss in Data Pass Litigation
VISA INC: Plaintiffs Dismissed Claims Against Visa and Mastercard
VIVUS INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Ingram" Securities Suit
VVO MOBILE: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Nikmanesh" Suit to C.D. California
WALTER D. PALMER: Former Employees File Class Action
WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Bridge Toll Billing Process
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Reports $600,000 Class Action Legal Expense
XOOM CORP: Removes "Liu" Suit to Northern District of California
YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Declines to Approve 2nd Amended Settlement
*********
95-97 HORATIO: Accused of Operating Property That Violates ADA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dedra de la Rosa v. 95-97 Horatio L.L.C. and Intermix Holdco,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00962-KBF (S.D.N.Y., February 9, 2015)
alleges that the Defendants own, lease, lease to, operate and
control a place of public accommodation that violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act and other laws.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the City of New York and is a
wheelchair user.
95-97 Horatio L.L.C. owns the property located at 812 Washington
Street in New York County, New York. Intermix Holdco, Inc.
operates and leases the Property.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glen H. Parker, Esq.
Adam S. Hanski, Esq.
Robert G. Hanski, Esq.
PARKER HANSKI LLC
40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 248-7400
Facsimile: (212) 248-5600
E-mail: ash@parkerhanski.com
ghp@parkerhanski.com
rgh@parkerhanski.com
ABBA I REALTY: Suit Opposes Alleged Disability Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terrell Thomas v. Abba I Realty, L.L.C. and Crocs Retail, LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00960-PGG (S.D.N.Y., February 9, 2015) opposes
the alleged pervasive, ongoing and inexcusable disability
discrimination by the Defendants against the Plaintiff, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a resident of New York and has been a wheelchair
user due to medical conditions that inhibit walking and restrict
body motion range and movement.
Abba I Realty, L.L.C. owns the property located at 143 Spring
Street in New York County, New York. Abba and Crocs Retail, LLC
are licensed to do and do business in New York. Crocs operates
and leases the Property from Abba.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glen H. Parker, Esq.
Adam S. Hanski, Esq.
Robert G. Hanski, Esq.
PARKER HANSKI LLC
40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 248-7400
Facsimile: (212) 248-5600
E-mail: ash@parkerhanski.com
ghp@parkerhanski.com
rgh@parkerhanski.com
ABI PROPERTY: Suit Seeks to Redress Disability Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terrell Thomas v. ABI Property Partners L.P. XVII, Village Pointe
Condominium, The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf of New York LLC and CBTL
Franchising, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00961-WHP (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 9,
2015) seeks relief, as well as monetary damages and attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, to redress the Defendants' alleged
unlawful disability discrimination against the Plaintiff, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff is a resident of New York and has been a wheelchair
user due to medical conditions that inhibit walking and restrict
body motion range and movement.
The Defendants are licensed to do and do business in New York.
ABI Property Partners L.P. XVII and Village Pointe Condominium own
the property located at 350 W. 14th Street in New York County, New
York. Defendants The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf of New York LLC and
CBTL Franchising, LLC operate and lease the Property from ABI
Property Partners L.P. XVII and Village Pointe Condominium.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Glen H. Parker, Esq.
Adam S. Hanski, Esq.
Robert G. Hanski, Esq.
PARKER HANSKI LLC
40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10013
Telephone: (212) 248-7400
Facsimile: (212) 248-5600
E-mail: ash@parkerhanski.com
ghp@parkerhanski.com
rgh@parkerhanski.com
AETNA INC: Released Class Action Settlement Reserve in 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2015, that
in the fourth quarter of 2012, Aetna recorded a charge of $78.0
million ($120.0 million pretax) related to the settlement of
purported class action litigation regarding Aetna's payment
practices related to out-of-network health care providers. That
charge included the estimated cost of legal fees of plaintiffs'
counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In the
first quarter of 2014, Aetna exercised its right to terminate the
settlement agreement. As a result, Aetna released the reserve
established in connection with the settlement agreement, net of
amounts due to the settlement administrator, which reduced first
quarter 2014 general and administrative expenses by $67.0 million
($103.0 million pretax).
In the fourth quarter of 2013, Aetna increased its estimated
liability for unpaid life insurance claims with respect to
insureds who passed away on or before December 31, 2013, and
recorded in current and future benefits a charge of $35.7 million
($55.0 million pretax) as a result of changes during the fourth
quarter of 2013 in its life insurance claim payment practices
(including related escheatment practices) based on evolving
industry practices and regulatory expectations and
interpretations.
APEX ASSET: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joelle Safdieh, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and Steven Safdieh, father and natural guardian of J.S.,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Apex
Asset Management, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-00957-
PGS-LHG (D.N.J., February 6, 2015) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC
1669 East 12th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Telephone: (718) 339-0856
E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com
APPLE AMERICAN: Denial of Bid for PAGA Claim Arbitration Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
In FRANCISCO SALAZAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. APPLE AMERICAN
GROUP, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, NO. E059562, defendant and
appellant Apple American Group, LLC (Apple) challenges an order
denying its petition to compel plaintiff and respondent Francisco
Salazar to arbitrate his representative claim for penalties under
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).
According to Apple, the trial court erred because California's
public policy against the enforcement of class action waivers in
arbitration agreements is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA) as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (2011) 563 U.S. ___ [131 S.Ct. 1740]
(Concepcion).
"Because the enforcement of waivers of representative PAGA claims
in employment contracts violates California public policy, and our
Supreme Court has held the FAA does not preempt that public
policy, we must conclude the trial court correctly denied Apple's
petition to compel Salazar to arbitrate his PAGA claim . . . and
therefore we affirm," ruled the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division Two on January 26, 2015, in an opinion
a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/RrepZ4from
Leagle.com.
Melissa L. Griffin for Defendant and Appellant.
Kingsley & Kingsley, Eric B. Kingsley -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com
-- Darren M. Cohen -- dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com -- and Kelsey M.
Szamet --kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com -- for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
AUTOLIV INC: Court Approves Settlement of Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Current Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29,
2015, that in January 2015, the Company's settlement of the direct
purchaser U.S. antitrust class action litigation was approved by
the court. Some OEMs opted-out of the settlement, which reduced
the settlement by $4.5 million. The Company is in discussions with
certain OEMs regarding the possible resolution of potential claims
for purchases not covered by the U.S. direct purchaser settlement,
which could negatively impact its results in the period in which
they are resolved or become estimable. A copy of the filing is
available at http://is.gd/mbCv4U
BANK OF AMERICA: Must Face Forex Antitrust Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that a
Manhattan federal judge on Jan. 28 delivered an early-inning win
to plaintiffs lawyers at Hausfeld LLP and Scott & Scott in a suit
accusing a dozen major banks of widespread manipulation of the $5
trillion-a-day foreign exchange market.
Less than a month after JPMorgan Chase & Co. reached a settlement
in the case, U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield refused to
dismiss consolidated class action claims against a group of
financial industry giants including Bank of America Corp.,
Barclays PLC and Citigroup Inc. Judge Schofield held that the
plaintiffs plausibly alleged an antitrust conspiracy in which the
banks' top forex traders agreed to rig the market for more than a
decade.
The plaintiffs, represented by Hausfeld name partner Michael
Hausfeld, Scott & Scott's Christopher Burke and others, include
Philadelphia's city pension board, along with several public
pension funds, investment funds and hedge funds. They claim that
traders at the banks used instant messages, emails and online chat
rooms to rig foreign exchange rates, including the benchmark World
Markets/Reuters Closing Spot Rates, also referred to as "the fix."
"The U.S. complaint contains specific allegations of chat room
participants congratulating each other about the manipulation of
the fix," Judge Schofield wrote in the Jan. 28 order. "Even the
names the FX traders gave their chat rooms -- such as 'The
Cartel,' 'The Bandits' Club' and 'The Mafia' -- support the
inference that the chat rooms were used for anticompetitive
purposes."
The suit dates back to November 2013 and involves allegations
similar to those investigated by government regulators, who have
secured more than $1 billion in penalties from some of the banks.
The banks moved to dismiss the private action in May 2014. They
asserted at the time that the investors' antitrust claims were
threadbare, and that they'd failed to connect the alleged rate
rigging to the banks' efforts to secure more business in the forex
market.
Judge Schofield rejected those arguments on Jan. 28, allowing the
proposed class action to move forward. However, she agreed to
dismiss a pair of similar lawsuits brought by plaintiffs in South
Korea and Norway who traded foreign currency outside of the U.S.
The judge ruled that the foreign plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims
were barred by the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, and
found their New York state claims had "an insufficient nexus to
New York."
The Jan. 28 ruling keeps the U.S. plaintiffs' case intact against
all 12 banks named as defendants. The number is likely to shrink
to 11, however: JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its lawyers at Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom wrote to Schofield on Jan. 5,
indicating that they had reached a settlement.
The Litigation Daily contacted Scott & Scott's Christopher Burke
and lawyers for multiple defendants on Jan. 28 but didn't
immediately hear back.
The defense lineup for the banks includes Shearman & Sterling (for
Bank of America); Sullivan & Cromwell (for Barclays); Allen &
Overy (for BNP Paribas); Covington & Burling (for Citigroup);
Cahill Gordon & Reindel (for Credit Suisse Group AG); Kirkland &
Ellis (for Deutsche Bank AG); Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton
(for Goldman Sachs & Co.); Locke Lorde (for HSBC Holdings PLC);
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (for JPMorgan); Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz (for Morgan Stanley); Davis Polk & Wardwell
(for The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC); and Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher (for UBS AG).
BIG CITY BURRITO: Faces Class Suit Alleging Violations of TCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Big City Burrito, LLC, a Colorado limited liability
company, and Big City Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Big City Burrito, LLC,
a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00271-KMT (D. Colo.,
February 9, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
Steven Lezell Woodrow, Esq.
WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80210
Telephone: (720) 213-0675
Facsimile: (303) 927-0898
E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
BREG INC: Removes "Lucas" Suit to California District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Lucas, et al. v. Breg, Inc., et
al., Case No. 37-2011-00092818-CU-AT-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:15-cv-00258-BAS-KSC to the proceeding.
The plaintiffs seek to prosecute alleged economic injury claims on
behalf of a putative nationwide class of consumers and a subclass
of California consumers, who purchased or rented Breg's
prescription cold-therapy devices.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Will Lemkul, Esq.
Chase Stern, Esq.
MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL, LLP
9915 Mira Mesa Boulevard, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92131
Telephone: (858) 566-7600
Facsimile: (858) 566-6602
E-mail: Lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com
stern@morrissullivanlaw.com
- and -
Marc O. Stern, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARC O. STERN
8070 La Jolla Shores Drive, # 519
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (858) 677-9200
Facsimile: (858) 677-0735
E-mail: moslaw@san.rr.com
Defendant Gary Losse, M.D. is represented by:
Marilyn R. Moriarty, Esq.
C. Christopher Brown, Esq.
LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH
701 "B" Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-1006
Facsimile: (619) 233-8627
E-mail: Marilyn.Moriarty@lewisbrisbois.com
C.Christopher.Brown@lewisbrisbois.com
Defendants Breg, Inc. and Mark Howard are represented by:
Paul G. Cereghini, Esq.
Eden M. Darrell, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
402 West Broadway, Suite 1270
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 376-2500
Facsimile: (619) 376-2501
E-mail: paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com
eden.darrell@bowmanandbrooke.com
- and -
Marion V. Mauch, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
970 West 190th Street, Suite 700
Torrance, CA 90502
Telephone: (310) 768-3068
Facsimile: (310) 719-1019
E-mail: marion.mauch@bowmanandbrooke.com
- and -
Susan E. Burnett, Esq.
David J. Duke, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
2901 Via Fortuna Drive, Suite 500
Austin, TX 78746-7574
Telephone: (512) 874-3800
Facsimile: (512) 874-3801
E-mail: susan.burnett@bowmanandbrooke.com
david.duke@bowmanandbrooke.com
- and -
Mary T. Novacheck, Esq.
BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3000
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 339-8682
Facsimile: (612) 672-3200
E-mail: mary.novachek@bowmanandbrooke.com
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: To Fund Class Action Deal in Feb. 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brinker International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 24, 2014, that the Company
expects to fund the class action settlement in February 2015
subject to the validation of all submitted claims.
The Company said, "In August 2004, certain current and former
hourly restaurant team members filed a putative class action
lawsuit against us in California Superior Court alleging
violations of California labor laws with respect to meal periods
and rest breaks, styled as Hohnbaum, et al. v. Brinker Restaurant
Corp., et al. The lawsuit sought penalties and attorney's fees and
was certified as a class action by the trial court in July 2006.
In July 2008, the California Court of Appeal decertified the class
action on all claims with prejudice. In October 2008, the
California Supreme Court granted a writ to review the decision of
the Court of Appeal and oral arguments were heard by the
California Supreme Court on November 8, 2011. On April 12, 2012,
the California Supreme Court issued an opinion affirming in part,
reversing in part, and remanding in part for further proceedings.
The California Supreme Court's opinion resolved many of the legal
standards for meal periods and rest breaks in our California
restaurants. On September 26, 2013, the trial court granted
plaintiffs' motion to certify a meal period subclass and denied
our motion to decertify the rest period subclass."
"On April 8, 2014, the parties participated in mediation where
preliminary settlement discussions began, but a settlement was not
achieved and significant issues remained outstanding. On August
6, 2014, the parties reached a preliminary settlement agreement,
which remained subject to court approval, to resolve all claims in
exchange for a settlement payment not to exceed $56.5 million. On
December 12, 2014, the court granted final approval of the
settlement agreement. We expect the final settlement amount to be
approximately $44.3 million and have established a reserve for
this amount. We expect to fund the settlement in February 2015
subject to the validation of all submitted claims. We do not
expect any significant deviation from the established reserve."
BRISTOL HARBOUR: Tip Class Action to Go Before Jury
---------------------------------------------------
WHEC.com reports that a class action lawsuit against a popular
Finger Lakes resort will now go before a jury. This comes to us
from our news partners at the Messenger Post.
Staff at Bristol Harbour are suing their employer, saying it
pocketed tips for banquet services.
A judge also ruled in favor of claims that Bristol Harbour only
notified customers verbally that the 20-percent service charge did
not go to staff. WHEC.com was told that violates state labor law,
requiring a written notification. Bristol says it paid staff
generously in place of tips.
The trial will likely begin in a year.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces "Strock" Injury Suit Over Plavix Use
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah L. Strock, individually, and as Personal Representative on
behalf of the estate of Donald Strock, deceased v. Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company, Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc.,
formerly known as Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc., and Sanofi-Synthelabo
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00988-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., Feb. 6, 2015) is
brought for alleged injuries and damages suffered as a result of
ingesting the drug, Plavix.
Based in New York, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a
pharmaceutical manufacturing and marketing company that partners
with Sanofi-Aventis (now Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi-
Aventis U.S., Inc.) to manufacture and market Plavix in the United
States. The Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, distributed, labeled, and sold
Plavix.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barrett Beasley, Esq.
Robert L. Salim, Esq.
SALIM-BEASLEY, LLC
1901 Texas Street
Natchitoches, LA 71457
Telephone: (800) 491-1817
Facsimile: (318) 354-1227
E-mail: bbeasley@salim-beasley.com
robertsalim@cp-tel.net
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces "Sura" Injury Suit Over Use of Plavix
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Sura v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., formerly known as Sanofi-Aventis
U.S. Inc., and Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00989-FLW-
TJB (D.N.J., February 6, 2015) is brought for alleged injuries and
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a result of ingesting the
drug, Plavix.
Mr. Sura alleges that the Defendants misrepresented that Plavix is
a safe and effective treatment for the prevention of heart attacks
and strokes, when in fact the drug causes serious medical
problems, including life threatening events like hemorrhagic
bleeding.
Based in New York, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a
pharmaceutical manufacturing and marketing company that partners
with Sanofi-Aventis (now Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi-
Aventis U.S., Inc.) to manufacture and market Plavix in the United
States. The Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, distributed, labeled, and sold
Plavix.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barrett Beasley, Esq.
Robert L. Salim, Esq.
SALIM-BEASLEY, LLC
1901 Texas Street
Natchitoches, LA 71457
Telephone: (800) 491-1817
Facsimile: (318) 354-1227
E-mail: bbeasley@salim-beasley.com
robertsalim@cp-tel.net
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Faces "Swindle" Injury Suit Over Plavix Use
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Swindle v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Sanofi-Aventis U.S.
LLC, Sanofi US Services Inc., formerly known as Sanofi-Aventis
U.S. Inc., and Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00990-FLW-
TJB (D.N.J., February 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants -
- the manufacturers and marketers of Plavix -- for injuries
sustained by the Plaintiff from the drug.
Ms. Swindle alleges that she was hospitalized and treated for
gastrointestinal bleeding after ingesting Plavix.
Based in New York, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a
pharmaceutical manufacturing and marketing company that partners
with Sanofi-Aventis (now Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Sanofi-
Aventis U.S., Inc.) to manufacture and market Plavix in the United
States. The Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, tested,
packaged, promoted, marketed, distributed, labeled, and sold
Plavix.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Barrett Beasley, Esq.
Robert L. Salim, Esq.
SALIM-BEASLEY, LLC
1901 Texas Street
Natchitoches, LA 71457
Telephone: (800) 491-1817
Facsimile: (318) 354-1227
E-mail: bbeasley@salim-beasley.com
robertsalim@cp-tel.net
CALIFORNIA: Suit vs. CDCR Officials Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin issued an order dismissing the
complaint captioned RICARDO VERDUZCO, Plaintiff, v. CONNIE GIPSON,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14 CV 01083 AWI GSA PC, (E.D.
Cal.).
The Plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Corcoran
State Prison, brings this civil rights action against defendant
CDCR officials employed by the CDCR at Corcoran. The Plaintiff
brings this as a class action on behalf of other inmates and
himself, challenging the conditions of their confinement at
Corcoran. None of the other Plaintiffs have signed the complaint.
Magistrate Judge Austin's January 23, 2015 order, a copy of which
is available at http://is.gd/PBhHw8from Leagle.com, held that
Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed, with leave to amend. The
Clerk's Office will send to the Plaintiff a complaint form, and
within 30 days from the date of service of this order, the
Plaintiff must file an amended complaint. The Plaintiff may not
add any new, unrelated claims to this action via his amended
complaint and any attempt to do so will result in an order
striking the amended complaint. If the Plaintiff fails to file an
amended complaint, the Court will recommend that this action be
dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to obey a court order.
Ricardo Verduzco, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
CANADA: Veteran Class Action Defense Costs Nears $700,000
---------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the Harper government has spent
almost $700,000 fighting a class-action lawsuit by disgruntled,
wounded Afghan veterans. The figures are contained in a response
to a written question posed by the opposition Liberals and tabled
recently in Parliament.
The ex-soldiers are challenging the government's 2006 overhaul of
benefits, claiming the new veterans charter is discriminatory
under the charter of rights because it does not provide the same
level of benefits and support as the old pension system.
In the government's statement of defense, federal lawyers argue
Ottawa has no special obligation to those who've fought the
country's wars and that it is unfair to bind the current
government to promises made nearly a century ago by another prime
minister.
The assertion has given the governing Conservatives a black eye
among ex-soldiers, who are considered a natural constituency.
Mike Blais, president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, says the
legal bill is unconscionable and he called on the government to
drop the lawsuit and negotiate a settlement.
CARDINAL HEALTH: Recognized Income From Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. recognized income resulting from settlements
of class action antitrust claims in which the Company was a class
member of $16 million during both the three and six months ended
December 31, 2013, Cardinal Health said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014.
CBS CORP: Faces "Late Show" Intern Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Burchyns, Kat Greene, Aaron Vehling and Stewart Bishop,
writing for Law360, report that a former CBS Corp. intern has
filed a class action in New York state court alleging the media
giant cheated interns out of wages, five months after an ex-"Late
Show" intern represented by the same law firm dropped similar
claims against the broadcaster amid allegations the firm had
coerced her into suing.
The Jan. 26 suit against CBS and CBS Radio Inc. by former intern
Camille Demere was filed by attorneys at Virginia & Ambinder LLP,
the same firm that represented former "Late Show with David
Letterman" intern Mallory Musallam in a similar class action last
year against CBS and Letterman's production company, Worldwide
Pants Inc.
Ms. Musallam pulled the plug on the case days later, accusing her
attorneys at Virginia & Ambinder of coercing her into bringing
suit. The firm vigorously denied the allegation.
Ms. Demere worked as an intern for CBS Radio in New York from
December 2009 through August 2010, according to the complaint.
Ms. Demere says she managed the company's website, generated Web
content, cut and edited full-length radio features into shorter
clips, and created original content to include in online posts.
During that time, Ms. Demere worked about 40 hours per week
without proper minimum wage compensation while CBS failed to
provide academic or vocational training, she claims.
"CBS has derived a significant benefit from the work performed by
the named plaintiff and other members of the putative class," her
attorneys wrote in the complaint. "CBS would have hired
additional employees or required existing staff to work additional
hours had the named plaintiff and other members of the putative
class not performed work for CBS."
Ms. Demere alleges violations of New York's minimum wage law and
failure to pay wages.
The class action is just the latest in a long line of related
class actions accusing companies of not paying interns even though
the work consists of tasks regular employees would undertake.
On Jan. 27, former interns of Rolling Stone, retailer Lacoste and
fashion firm The House of X LLC kicked off wage-and-hour class
actions in New York state.
In July, interns sued Coach Inc., saying they were misclassified
as unpaid workers. In June, Def Jam Recordings interns sued
parent company Universal Music Group Inc., and in April, an ex-
Howard Stern intern filed a class action against Sirus XM Radio
Inc.
Ms. Demere is represented by Lloyd R. Ambinder and LaDonna Lusher
of Virginia & Ambinder LLP and Jeffrey K. Brown and Michael A.
Tompkins of Leeds Brown Law PC.
The case is Camille Demere v. CBS Corporation et al., case number
150782/2015, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of New York.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Removes "Logan" Suit to E.D. Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Logan v. Charter Communications,
LLC, Case No. 14SL-CC04035, was removed from the Circuit Court of
the County of St. Louis in the state of Missouri to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00246 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, recovery for alleged unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, quantum meruit, and unjust
enrichment pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregory Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON HENDERSON, LLC
7750 Clayton Road, Suite 102
St. Louis, MO 63117
Telephone: (314)266-5111
Facsimile: (314) 549-5702
E-mail: greg@andersonhenderson.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Laura M. Jordan, Esq.
Roy N. Williams, Esq.
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
One US Bank Plaza
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 552-6505
Facsimile: (314) 552-7505
E-mail: ljordan@thompsoncoburn.com
rwilliams@thompsoncoburn.com
CITIGROUP INC: Court Authorizes Distribution of Reserve Fund
------------------------------------------------------------
On August 1, 2013, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York approved a $590 million settlement
of the consolidated class action in IN RE CITIGROUP INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, NOS. 09-MD-2070 (SHS), 07-CV-9901 (SHS),
(S.D. N.Y.), resolving allegations that Citigroup Inc. and certain
of its directors, officers, and agents materially misled investors
regarding the value of assets backed by subprime mortgages. On
May 30, 2014, the Court granted lead counsel's motion to
distribute the Net Settlement Fund and to endorse the claims
administrator's rejection of fifteen disputed claims. On July 25,
2014, in accordance with the Distribution Order, the claims
administrator distributed payments to 258,524 authorized claimants
for total proceeds of $483,091,186.61, or 95% of the Net
Settlement Fund. As provided in the Distribution Order, 5% of the
Net Settlement Fund was "held in reserve to address any
contingencies that may arise, including the payment of any Claims-
in-Process that ultimately may be deemed eligible to participate
in the Settlement." Accordingly, on November 4, 2014, lead
plaintiffs, on behalf of the class, moved for an order authorizing
distribution of the reserve fund to pay those eligible and valid
claims that required additional processing as well as new claims
received on or before April 18, 2014 (the "Cut-Off Date"). Lead
plaintiffs also moved the Court to authorize the rejection of
ineligible claims, including those filed after the Cut-off Date,
and to direct that the claims administrator be paid the balance of
fees and expenses incurred in connection with administering the
settlement. One claimant disputes the rejection of his claim and
objects to lead counsel's motion.
District Judge Sidney H. Stein, in a memorandum opinion entered
December 29, 2014, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/yFKBhLfrom Leagle.com, found that the objection
lacks merit and granted the lead counsel's motion.
"This Court has reviewed the single objection to the distribution
of the reserve fund and agrees with the claims administrator's
rejection of that claim as well as that of the other ineligible
claims. The Court authorizes the claims administrator to
distribute the reserve fund as set forth in the motion and the
Stephen J. Cirami Net Settlement Fund Distribution Affidavit,
dated April 24, 2014. The Court also directs lead counsel to pay
the claims administrator $581,651.30 in fees and expenses incurred
in administering the settlement during the period from March 16,
2014 through October 15, 2014," Judge Stein concluded.
COLONIAL FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Colonial Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Current
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 29, 2015, that a Complaint seeking class action status was
filed against the Company and the members of its Board of
Directors (along with Cape Bancorp, Inc. and the respective banks)
in connection with the merger, alleging various breaches of duty
and inadequate disclosure claims. An Amended Complaint was filed
on or about December 23, 2014. After counsel for Colonial and
counsel for Plaintiff conferred, and effective January 28, 2015,
the Amended Complaint (and thus the lawsuit) was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.
COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Glah" Suit Moved From West Virginia to Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Glah, et al. v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-25783, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of West Virginia to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama (Southern). The Alabama District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00227-KOB to the proceeding.
The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James F. Humphreys, Esq.
JAMES F. HUMPHREYS & ASSOCIATES
10 Hale Street, Suite 400
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 881-0652
Facsimile: (304) 347-5055
- and -
Troy N. Giatras, Esq.
THE GIATRAS LAW FIRM
118 Capitol Street, Suite 400
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 343-2900
Facsimile: (304) 343-2942
COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Lawson" Suit Moved From Mississippi to Alabama
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lawson, et al. v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-00712, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Mississippi to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Alabama (Southern). The Alabama District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-00224-KOB to the proceeding.
The case is brought under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Bradley S. Clanton, Esq.
CLANTON LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
P.O. Box 4781
Jackson, MS 39296
Telephone: (601) 454-8794
- and -
Joe N. Tatum, Esq.
TATUM & WADE, PLLC
P.O. Box 22688
Jackson, MS 39225-2688
Telephone: (601) 948-7770
Defendant Community Health Systems Inc. is represented by:
Thomas L. Kirkland, Jr., Esq.
KIRKLAND & BARFIELD PA
PO Drawer 22989
Jackson, MS 39225-2989
Telephone: (601) 352-7500
- and -
Andy Lowry, Esq.
COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, PA
P. O. Box 6020
600 Concourse, Suite 100
1076 Highland Colony Parkway (39157)
Ridgeland, MS 39158-6020
Telephone: (601) 856-7200
Facsimile: (601) 856-8242
E-mail: alowry@cctb.com
Defendant Community Health Systems Professional Services
Corporation is represented by:
Daniel R. Warren, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
PNC Center, Suite 3200
1900 East 9th St.
Cleveland, OH 44114-3482
Telephone: (216) 621-0200
Facsimile: (216) 696-9740
E-mail: dwarren@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 861-0600
Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Walter H. Boone, Esq.
FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP
P.O. Box 22608
200 S. Lamar Street, Suite 100
Jackson, MS 39225-2608
Telephone: (601) 960-8616
Facsimile: (601) 960-8613
E-mail: whboone@fpwk.com
Defendants River Oaks Hospital, LLC, Vicksburg Healthcare, LLC,
Crossgates River Oaks Hospital, LLC, Madison River Oaks Medical
Center, Central Mississippi Medical Center and Natchez Community
Hospital, LLC are represented by:
Walter H. Boone, Esq.
H. Barber Boone, Esq.
FORMAN, PERRY, WATKINS, KRUTZ & TARDY, LLP
P.O. Box 22608
200 S. Lamar Street, Suite 100
Jackson, MS 39225-2608
Telephone: (601) 960-8616
Facsimile: (601) 960-8613
E-mail: whboone@fpwk.com
boonehb@fpwk.com
CROSSMARK INC: Dist. Court OKs Portions of "Bettger" Suit Accord
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Christopher C. Conner granted in part and
denied in part a joint motion for judicial approval of a
settlement, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, in the case
captioned PATRICIA BETTGER, Plaintiff. v. CROSSMARK, INC.,
Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13-CV-2030, (M.D. Penn.).
According to Judge Conner's January 22, 2015 memorandum, a copy of
which is available at http://is.gd/N0kxZzfrom Leagle.com, the
court approves only the provisions that release Crossmark from
claims that fall within the ambit of the FLSA and the Equal Pay
Act and arise from the facts of the instant litigation; the
parties are directed to strike all additional terms of the release
provisions from paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, and 5.2 of the agreement.
Crossmark is a provider of in-store marketing and retail
merchandising services for consumer products such as Frito-Lay,
General Mills, Fuji Film, Johnson & Johnson and Kraft Foods.
Patricia Bettger filed on February 9, 2011, a consent form to join
the putative collective action Postiglione et al. v. Crossmark,
Inc., Civ. A. No. 11-960, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiffs in that action sought to certify a nationwide class of
Crossmark Retail Representatives for violations of Section 216(b)
of the FLSA based on allegations of unpaid overtime. On November
15, 2012, the court denied the Postiglione plaintiffs' motion for
conditional collective action certification, holding that (1)
plaintiffs were not similarly situated and (2) plaintiffs failed
to establish an illegal company-wide policy on behalf of
Crossmark. The court also found that Bettger was improperly
joined to the action because plaintiffs' claims did not rise out
of a common transaction or occurrence. On January 24, 2013,
Bettger filed an individual complaint in this case in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. On June 27, 2013, the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania entered an order transferring Bettger's case to
the Middle District of Pennsylvania. After a period of discovery,
Crossmark filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion in
limine. The court granted Crossmark's motion for summary judgment
in part, limiting the scope of Bettger's claims for unpaid
overtime compensation to the unreported hours she allegedly spent
performing administrative tasks. The court granted Crossmark's
motion in limine in full, precluding Bettger from introducing
evidence relating to (1) other FLSA lawsuits against Crossmark and
(2) Crossmark's failure to maintain login and logout records from
SalesTrak.
Before proceeding to trial, the parties agreed to settle the case.
The court subsequently ordered the parties to file any proposed
settlement agreement for judicial approval. On November 30, 2014,
Bettger filed a motion for judicial approval of settlement, and on
December 12, 2014, the parties submitted the instant proposed
settlement agreement accompanied by a brief in support.
Patricia A. Bettger, Plaintiff, represented by Ralph A. Powell,
RALPH A POWELL ESQ PC & Richard P. Myers -- myersrpm@gmail.com --
Paul, Reich, & Myers, P.C.
Crossmark, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Roberts --
jroberts@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP & Stephen E. Fox
-- sfox@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC.
Crossmark, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua H. Roberts,
McCarter & English, LLP & Stephen E. Fox, Polsinelli PC.
DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal Aluia a/k/a Michael Aluia and Kaye Hamilton, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc.,
a Texas corporation, and Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L.,
Florida professional limited liability company, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00081-SPC-DNF (M.D. Fla., February 9, 2015) seeks relief from
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carmen Dellutri, Esq.
David W. Fineman, Esq.
THE DELLUTRI LAW GROUP, PA
1436 Royal Palm Square Blvd.
Ft. Myers, FL 33919-1049
Telephone: (239) 939-0900
Facsimile: (239) 939-0588
E-mail: cdellutri@dellutrilawgroup.com
dfineman@dellutrilawgroup.com
FACEBOOK INC: Plaintiffs Filed Motion for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Facebook, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiffs in the
consolidated securities class action filed their motion for class
certification.
The Company said, "Beginning on May 22, 2012, multiple putative
class actions, derivative actions, and individual actions were
filed in state and federal courts in the United States and in
other jurisdictions against us, our directors, and/or certain of
our officers alleging violation of securities laws or breach of
fiduciary duties in connection with our initial public offering
(IPO) and seeking unspecified damages. We believe these lawsuits
are without merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend
them. The vast majority of the cases in the United States, along
with multiple cases filed against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc. and
The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC alleging technical and other trading-
related errors by NASDAQ in connection with our IPO, were ordered
centralized for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
In a series of rulings in 2013 and 2014, the court denied our
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action and
granted our motions to dismiss the derivative actions against our
directors and certain of our officers. The plaintiffs in four of
these derivative actions have filed notices of appeal. On December
23, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class
action filed their motion for class certification. In addition,
the events surrounding our IPO became the subject of various state
and federal government inquiries. In May 2014, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) notified us that it had terminated its
inquiry and that no enforcement action had been recommended by the
SEC."
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lea Gross, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00646 (E.D.N.Y., February 9, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Maxim Maximov, Esq.
MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
1701 Avenue P
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Telephone: (718) 395-3459
Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com
FLY LOW INC: Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loreal Wright and Dauvinee Stanfiled v. Fly Low, Inc., d/b/a King
of Diamonds, a Florida Corporation; AK "N" Eli, LLC d/b/a King of
Diamonds, a Florida Limited Liability Company; KODRENYC, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company; Elliot "Eli" Kunstlinger, an
individual; Brian Abraham, an individual; Akiva "AK" Feinsod, an
individual; and, Akinyele Adams, an individual; Case No. 1:15-cv-
20487-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 9, 2015) seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants owned and operated "King of Diamonds," a lounge and
adult entertainment club located in Miami.
Fly Low is a Florida Corporation having its main place of business
in Miami-Dade County, Florida. AK and KODRENYC are Florida
Limited Liability Companies having their main place of business in
Miami-Dade County. The Individual Defendants are corporate
officers, owners or managers of the King of Diamonds.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
Ria N. Chattergoon, Esq.
SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Telephone: (305) 503-5131
Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
ria@saenzanderson.com
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Loss of Power Issues
--------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed against
Ford Motor Company on Jan. 21 alleges that some its vehicles had
defects that resulted in the loss of power and other problems.
The suit filed by Eric Nolan Clark cites a breach of warranty and
negligent misrepresentation. The lawsuit alleged Ford cars and
passenger trucks manufactured between 2004 and 2008 have engine
problems that can lead to stalling, sudden deceleration, loss of
power at high rates of speed and acceleration hesitation. The
problems were caused by alleged defects in the electronic throttle
control, transmission control module, throttle body assembly and
powertrain control module.
Ford allegedly failed to notify vehicle owners of the defects in
the engines despite being made aware of the issues from consumer
complaints. The company allegedly only submitted Technical
Service Bulletins to tell dealerships how to fix the issues.
The lawsuit further alleged Ford didn't tell its dealerships that
the engine problems should have been covered by a warranty.
Mr. Clark, who purchased a 2005 Ford F150 in July 2005, alleged
his truck experienced a loss of power. He allegedly had to pay to
fix the vehicle even though the truck had less than 80,000 miles
on it and should have been covered by the warranty.
Mr. Clark is seeking class status and an unspecified amount in
punitive damages. He is represented by Sol H. Weiss --
sweiss@anapolschwartz.com -- of Anapol Schwartz in Philadelphia.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania case number 2:15-cv-00287
FRUITLAND PARK: Fails to Follow Court's Class Action Order
----------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Ritchie, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that a Lake
County judge at first said during a hearing on Jan. 26 that
Fruitland Park was in contempt of court for failing to follow his
order in a class-action lawsuit, then backed off when attorneys
for the city pounced on his remark.
Tallahassee lawyer Greg Stewart, widely considered among the
state's best class-action litigators, immediately agreed to follow
the original order to the last detail -- no problem, your honor!
-- but he sure didn't want the city shamed in public and opened to
liability for subverting a judge's order. No, no, no. Fruitland
Park, after all, has been a hot mess of controversy for the last
two years.
Mr. Stewart argued that the city merely interpreted the judge's
order differently than the plaintiffs in the case, former city
commissioner Jim Richardson and residents Michael and
Nancy Howard. The trio sued Fruitland Park in 2013 for improperly
charging police and fire fees on utility bills, and the city
agreed to stop collecting the fees and to set aside $530,000 for
refunds.
For now, Mr. Stewart got what he wanted. Circuit Judge Michael
Takac said he would "reserve a formal finding of contempt" and
also delay imposing any sanctions on Fruitland Park for ignoring
his order to mail all the people eligible for a refund of the
fees, not just the half who continue to be utility customers.
"Did the city comply? No. So to that extent, they're in contempt,"
Judge Takac said. "That didn't require any evidence other than
the reading of the order. But now the questions is, 'Was there
some ill will? Did they not comply on purpose?'"
In trying to convince Judge Takac that Fruitland Park wasn't
attempting on purpose to slither out of repaying up to $130,000,
City Attorney Scott Gerken filed a sworn document that made the
issue even murkier.
Mr. Gerken stated in his affidavit that he had attended a March 5
hearing in which he said the judge approved the city's plan to
contact about half of those eligible for refunds by putting
notices in their utility bills and the other half -- those who
were no longer customers -- by advertising in a local newspaper.
Unfortunately, no record was made of the hearing, and the
plaintiffs later objected when they figured out the city was
refusing to mail the former customers directly. The formal order
states that everyone elgible should be contacted by mail and the
plaintiffs thought that's how the city was proceeding.
Mr. Gerken billed the city $412.50 for attending that March
hearing. Richardson, however, said Mr. Gerken wasn't there, and
Mr. Gerken himself told his commissioners twice during an Oct. 9
meeting that he had not gone to the hearing, which was handled by
the Tallahassee firm.
So, which is it? Mr. Gerken said he believes he was at the
hearing. He said he asked Stewart, who recalls him being there,
and his paralegal, who keeps track of the miles he drives, said
she recorded a trip to the courthouse. Mr. Gerken speculated that
he "misspoke" in the meeting with commissioners.
"I recall being there. Everything I have says I was there," he
said. "I don't know what to say."
Oh, Fruitland Park. Does the bumbling ever end?
The original lawsuit listed the names and addresses of all the
people who paid the fees over the several years they were
collected . Those 3,439 folks got written notices in the mail that
the city would be contacting them about how to claim their refund.
But then, Fruitland Park didn't do it. It got directly in touch
only with those who were still utility customers, slightly more
than half of those eligible. The result of the Jan. 26 hearing is
that the city now must send letters to the other half of the
people who paid the fees, which were up to $8 a month on utility
bills. The city must do so within 30 days.
The 1,635 folks getting letters within the next month should have
about 90 days in all to apply for the refund, Judge Takac said.
So far, the city has refunded the fees to 903 customers who asked
for them. They denied refunds to seven people because the
applicants had not originally paid the fees.
Contacting everyone who paid these fees directly is what Fruitland
Park should have done in the first place. It was the only fair
solution, and it was what the judge ordered.
"They blew it," Judge Takac said of Fruitland Park.
Worse yet is this: Five lawyers sat at the table during the
Jan. 26 hearing in the judge's chambers, and they spent plenty of
time beforehand emailing one another, coming up with 30 pages of
case law to back their arguments and drawing up legal documents.
This little skirmish certainly racked up several thousand bucks in
legal fees.
The price to hire a service to end the dispute by mailing the
outstanding refund applications? About $900.
Nice go, Fruitland Park. You did the wrong thing, you got caught
and called to account, you lost the battle, you spent plenty of
money fighting it and you've got to send the applications anyway.
In addition, the city now has a contempt of court ruling hanging
over its municipal head, and its taxpayers might end up with the
bill for the plaintiffs' attorney, Derek Schroth.
Was that some brilliant strategy or what? Unfortunately, it's what
nearly always happens when commissioners and lawyers start taking
these things personally -- they can't stand not to fight to the
finish, and the taxpayers get to pony up the cash for their
pigheadedness.
GENERAL ELECTRIC: N.J. Court Certifies FLSA Collection
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Tabakman of Fox Rothschild LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
reports that in Maddy v General Electric Company, filed in federal
court in the District of New Jersey, the plaintiffs brought a
collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") to recover allegedly unpaid overtime compensation from
General Electric Company ("GE"). The theory was unpaid
preliminary and postliminary work. The plaintiffs were service
technicians for GE's Appliances Division; they made service calls
to customers' homes to repair GE appliances. There were 900
service technicians.
Despite the rule that service technicians' paid work did not begin
until they arrived at their first customer call, there were
certain tasks they had to be completed beforehand. The
plaintiffs generally logged onto their computers and checked their
list of calls for the day before they left their homes.
The service technicians asserted that it took 10-15 minutes to
boot up and log into their computers, and another 15-30 minutes to
check their call lists, read emails and call their first customers
prior to heading out for the day. They repeated some of this work
after hours in the afternoon/evening.
The Court certified the class, although GE claimed that there was
no policy in place requiring service technicians to do any pre-
shift work. To the Court, however, it was clear that some unpaid
work-related activity had to occur before service technicians
arrived at their first calls and that all service technicians were
similarly situated in this regard. The Court observed that
whether this activity actually satisfied the elements of a claim
under the FLSA was a merits question and therefore it was not for
consideration at the conditional certification stage. At this
step, the plaintiffs only had to allege a policy and present facts
showing that the alleged policy affected them and all other
service technicians similarly. Significantly, the Court observed
that policy need not be written.
GENESIS HEALTHCARE: Faces Background Check Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
David M. Gettings, Esq. -- david.gettings@troutmansanders.com --
Tim J. St. George, Esq. -- tim.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com -- and
Bryan M. Haynes, Esq., of Troutman Sanders report that on January
7, 2015, Genesis Healthcare became one of the most recent
companies to face a class action lawsuit under the FCRA based on
its background check practices. This lawsuit should serve as a
reminder to companies to verify that their procedures for
obtaining and using background checks comply with the FCRA's
disclosure and adverse action requirements.
According to the complaint, Genesis Healthcare obtains background
check reports from a consumer reporting agency, which are used in
making employment decisions. When the consumer reporting agency
generates the report, however, it does not simply transmit the
report to Genesis Healthcare. Like many employers, the complaint
alleges that the consumer reporting agency adjudicates the
consumer report using a predefined hiring criteria that Genesis
Healthcare provides.
The Plaintiff claims that the manner in which the consumer
reporting agency evaluates the consumer reports it generates for
Genesis Healthcare constitutes instantaneous adverse action under
the FCRA. According to the complaint, when the consumer reporting
agency adjudicates an applicant as "Does Not Meet Hiring
Criteria," this constitutes adverse action because Genesis
Healthcare accepts this recommendation "without any independent
investigation or exercise of discretion." Because the consumer
reporting agency and Genesis Healthcare allegedly fail to send
pre-adverse action letters and the accompanying documents prior to
this adjudication, the Plaintiff claims that Genesis Healthcare
violates the FCRA.
The theory Plaintiff advances in the Genesis Healthcare case has
become increasingly popular among plaintiffs' counsel in recent
years. Employers should verify that when using a consumer
reporting agency in connection with their background check
procedures, their processes comply with the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.
GOODMAN NETWORKS: "Vassallo" Suit Moved From W.D. to E.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Vassallo v. Goodman Networks,
Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-00743, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Sherman). The
Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00097-RC-
CMC to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay its Construction Managers,
including the Plaintiff, time and one-half for each hour worked in
excess of 40 per work week.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles M.R. Vethan, Esq.
THE VETHAN LAW FIRM, PC
3501 Allen Parkway
Houston, TX 77019
Telephone: (713) 526-2222
Facsimile: (713) 526-2230
The Defendant is represented by:
Dennis Alexander Clifford, Esq.
Ashley Michelle Hymel, Esq.
Esteban Shardonofsky, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
700 Milam, Suite 1400
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 225-2300
Facsimile: (713) 225-2340
E-mail: dclifford@seyfarth.com
ahymel@seyfarth.com
sshardonofsky@seyfarth.com
GRUMA CORP: Removes "Torres" Suit to California District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Torres v. Gruma Corporation was
removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California (Fresno). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-00217-GSA to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq.
KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY APC
16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1200
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 990-8300
Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Duane Herman Zobrist, Esq.
ZOBRIST LAW GROUP PLLC
1900 Arlington Blvd., Suite B
Charlottesville, VA 22905
Telephone: (434) 977-9666
Facsimile: (434) 977-0326
E-mail: dzobrist@zoblaw.com
- and -
Robert F. Kull, Esq.
KULL + HALL LLP
1337 Ocean Avenue, Suite B
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 451-6100
Facsimile: (310) 451-6033
E-mail: rkull@kullhall.com
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: No Hearing Set in Securities Suit Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2014, that the Lead Plaintiff in the In re Harman International
Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation has filed a notice of
appeal and the matter has been fully briefed but no hearing has
yet been set.
The Company said, "On October 1, 2007, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed by Cheolan Kim (the "Kim Plaintiff") against
Harman and certain of our officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia (the "Court") seeking
compensatory damages and costs on behalf of all persons who
purchased our common stock between April 26, 2007 and September
24, 2007 (the "Class Period"). The original complaint alleged
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder."
"The complaint alleged that the defendants omitted to disclose
material adverse facts about Harman's financial condition and
business prospects. The complaint contended that had these facts
not been concealed at the time the merger agreement with Kohlberg,
Kravis, Roberts & Co. and Goldman Sachs Capital Partners was
entered into, there would not have been a merger agreement, or it
would have been at a much lower price, and the price of our common
stock therefore would not have been artificially inflated during
the Class Period. The Kim Plaintiff alleged that, following the
reports that the proposed merger was not going to be completed,
the price of our common stock declined, causing the plaintiff
class significant losses.
"On November 30, 2007, the Boca Raton General Employees' Pension
Plan filed a purported class action lawsuit against Harman and
certain of our officers in the Court seeking compensatory damages
and costs on behalf of all persons who purchased our common stock
between April 26, 2007 and September 24, 2007. The allegations in
the Boca Raton complaint are essentially identical to the
allegations in the original Kim complaint, and like the original
Kim complaint, the Boca Raton complaint alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
"On January 16, 2008, the Kim Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint, which extended the Class Period
through January 11, 2008, contended that, in addition to the
violations alleged in the original complaint, Harman also violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by "knowingly failing to disclose
"significant problems" relating to its PND sales forecasts,
production, pricing, and inventory" prior to January 14, 2008. The
amended complaint claimed that when "Defendants revealed for the
first time on January 14, 2008 that shifts in PND sales would
adversely impact earnings per share by more than $1.00 per share
in fiscal 2008," that led to a further decline in our share value
and additional losses to the plaintiff class.
"On February 15, 2008, the Court ordered the consolidation of the
Kim action with the Boca Raton action, the administrative closing
of the Boca Raton action, and designated the short caption of the
consolidated action as In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (RWR). That
same day, the Court appointed the Arkansas Public Retirement
System as lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and approved the law
firm Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C. to serve as lead
counsel.
"On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation.
"On May 2, 2008, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated
Complaint, which extended the Class Period through February 5,
2008, contended that Harman and certain of our officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and
misleading disclosures regarding our financial condition in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. In particular, the Consolidated
Complaint alleged that defendants knowingly or recklessly failed
to disclose material adverse facts about MyGIG radios, personal
navigation devices and our capital expenditures. The Consolidated
Complaint alleged that when Harman's true financial condition
became known to the market, the price of our common stock declined
significantly, causing losses to the plaintiff class.
"On July 3, 2008, defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint in its entirety. Lead Plaintiff opposed the defendants'
motion to dismiss on September 2, 2008, and defendants filed a
reply in further support of their motion to dismiss on October 2,
2008.
"On April 12, 2012, In re Harman International Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, civil action no. 1:07-cv-01757 (D.D.C.) was
reassigned to Judge Rudolph Contreras while Patrick Russell v.
Harman International Industries, Incorporated, et al. remained
before Judge Richard W. Roberts.
"On September 5, 2012, the Court heard oral arguments on
defendants' motion to dismiss. At the request of the Court, on
September 24, 2012, each side submitted a supplemental briefing on
defendants' motion to dismiss. On January 17, 2014, the Court
granted a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. The Lead
Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal and the matter has been
fully briefed but no hearing has yet been set."
HARMAN INTERNATIONAL: Dist. Court Affirmed Ruling in Russell Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harman International Industries, Incorporated said in its Form 10-
Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 29, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2014, that the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the
District Court in the case Patrick Russell v. Harman International
Industries, Incorporated, et al.
The Company said, "Patrick Russell (the "Russell Plaintiff") filed
a complaint on December 7, 2007 in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and an amended purported
putative class action complaint on June 2, 2008 against Harman and
certain of our officers and directors alleging violations of ERISA
and seeking, on behalf of all participants in and beneficiaries of
the Savings Plan, compensatory damages for losses to the Savings
Plan as well as injunctive relief, imposition of a constructive
trust, restitution, and other monetary relief. The amended
complaint alleged that from April 26, 2007 to the present
defendants failed to prudently and loyally manage the Savings
Plan's assets, thereby breaching their fiduciary duties in
violation of ERISA by causing the Savings Plan to invest in our
common stock notwithstanding that the stock allegedly was "no
longer a prudent investment for the Participants' retirement
savings." The amended complaint further claimed that, during the
Class Period, defendants failed to monitor the Savings Plan's
fiduciaries, failed to provide the Savings Plan's fiduciaries
with, and to disclose to the Savings Plan's participants, adverse
facts regarding Harman and our businesses and prospects. The
Russell Plaintiff also contended that defendants breached their
duties to avoid conflicts of interest and to serve the interests
of participants in and beneficiaries of the Savings Plan with
undivided loyalty. As a result of these alleged fiduciary
breaches, the amended complaint asserted that the Savings Plan had
"suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of
millions of dollars of the retirement savings and anticipated
retirement income of the Savings Plan's Participants."
"On March 24, 2008, the Court ordered, for pretrial management
purposes only, the consolidation of Patrick Russell v. Harman
International Industries, Incorporated, et al. with In re Harman
International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation. Defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on August 5, 2008.
The Russell Plaintiff opposed the defendants' motion to dismiss on
September 19, 2008, and defendants filed a reply in further
support of their motion to dismiss on October 20, 2008. On May 22,
2013, the District Court converted the motion to dismiss into a
motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor
of Harman. The Russell Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and oral
arguments on the briefs submitted by the parties were heard on
September 30, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the ruling of the District Court."
HOGARTH WORLDWIDE: Terminates Worker Due to Age, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Hanna v. Hogarth Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00884-
JMF (S.D.N.Y., February 6, 2015) is being filed because the
Plaintiff was allegedly wrongfully terminated from her employment
with Hogarth due to her age and gender in violation of federal,
New York State, and New York City law.
Hogarth's corporate offices are located in New York City. Ms.
Hanna worked at a satellite office located in New York City.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David G. Gabor, Esq.
THE WAGNER LAW GROUP,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
99 Summer Street, 13th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 357-5200
Facsimile: (516) 248-2525
E-mail: dgabor@wagnerlawgroup.com
HOME LOAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights firm, disclosed
that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors
who purchased Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. common stock
between February 7, 2013 and January 23, 2015. The lawsuit seeks
to recover investors' losses by asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.
To join the Home Loan Servicing Solutions class action, visit the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-486.html or
call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free, at 866-767-
3653; you may also email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The
case is pending the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.
Home Loan Servicing Solutions acquires mortgage servicing assets
and engages Ocwen Financial Corporation to service the mortgage
loans underlying such assets. According to the lawsuit, the
Company made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company's business was dependent on Ocwen
and Ocwen conducting its business legally; (ii) the Company's
business faced material risks and uncertainties due to the
systemic internal control weaknesses at Ocwen; (iii) Ocwen was
under investigation for violating applicable federal and state
regulations and laws, including among other things, the New York
Department of Financial Services' and the state of California's
investigation of Ocwen; (iv) the Company was in breach of
provisions of its notes held by BlueMountain Capital Management,
LLC; and (v) the Company faced material risks if it defaults on
its notes. The suit claims that when the truth was revealed, it
caused the price of the Company's stock to drop, damaging
investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than March 30, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-486.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or
via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com
The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.
HSBC CARD: Dist. Court Denies Mennes' Motion to Amend FDCPA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD MENNES, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A. and HSBC CARD
SERVICES INC., Defendants, NO. 13-CV-822-BBC, (W.D. Wis.) is a
civil action wherein the plaintiff contends that defendant Capital
One, N.A. violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by
failing to inform him that a letter it sent him was an attempt to
collect a debt.
The plaintiff asked the court for leave to amend his complaint to
add allegations that defendant sent letters to a class of people
that violated the Act in similar ways. Defendant opposed this
amendment as unduly delayed, prejudicial and futile. Plaintiff has
asked the court to allow him to file a brief in reply.
According to District Judge Barbara B. Crabb, the plaintiff's
motion will be granted, but because plaintiff does not explain why
he waited so long to amend his complaint and because this untimely
amendment would burden defendant and the court, plaintiff's motion
will be denied and "I need not consider defendant's futility
argument." The plaintiff's motions for class certification, and
to stay that motion, are denied as moot.
A copy of the Court's January 22, 2015 opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/OBrzzbfrom Leagle.com.
Edward Mennes, Plaintiff, represented by Heidi N. Miller,
DeLadurantey Law Office, LLC, Nathan Edward DeLadurantey,
DeLadurantey Law Office, LLC & Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Consumer
Justice Center, P.A.
Capital One N.A., Defendant, represented by Angad Singh Nagra,
Pilgrim Christakis LLP & Anna-Katrina S. Christakis, Pilgrim
Christakis LLP.
HSBC Card Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Angad Singh
Nagra -- anagra@pilgrimchristakis.com -- Pilgrim Christakis LLP &
Anna-Katrina S. Christakis -- kchristakis@gradypilgrim.com --
Pilgrim Christakis LLP.
ILLINOIS: 7th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Sorrentino" Suit vs. SCC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Sorrentino and Labron C. Neal are inmates at Illinois's
Stateville Correctional Center. They purchased several items from
Stateville's commissary, but the prison later forbade inmates to
possess those items in their cells. Sorrentino and Neal were among
those whose property was removed, as the new rule required. They
responded by filing a proposed class action in the district court,
alleging that the confiscation of their property was an
unconstitutional taking and a breach of contract. The district
court dismissed the entire action saying Sorrentino and Neal
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
On January 23, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit concluded that the district court was correct to dismiss
the action, though the dismissal should have been without
prejudice.
In its opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/CdAl0Ofrom Leagle.com, the Seventh Circuit affirmed
the district court's dismissal of Sorrentino and Neal's Takings
Clause and breach of contract claims. The judgment was modified,
however, to be one without prejudice. While they may not refile
this action in federal court, Sorrentino and Neal may seek to
pursue their claims in the appropriate Illinois forum, says the
Court.
The case is JOSEPH SORRENTINO and LABRON C. NEAL, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all similarly situated people, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. SALVADOR A. GODINEZ, Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-3421.
IMMUNOMEDICS INC: N.J. Court Dismisses Nycomed Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc., on Jan. 29 disclosed that the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey in a putative class
action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc., has granted
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
The lawsuit alleged that the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors failed to disclose and/or made
material misstatements in the Company's public filings relating to
the termination of the Nycomed Agreement. In particular, the
complaint alleged that defendants failed to make timely disclosure
concerning a dispute concerning a delay in the development of
veltuzumab. The Court's opinion concluded that Immunomedics had
no duty to disclose issues raised with Takeda-Nycomed prior to the
termination of the Nycomed Agreement. Plaintiffs will, however, be
granted leave to file a further amended complaint to cure the
deficiencies identified in the opinion.
About Immunomedics
Immunomedics -- http://www.immunomedics.com-- is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company developing monoclonal antibody-based
products for the targeted treatment of cancer, autoimmune
disorders and other serious diseases.
JEFFERIES GROUP: Defendants Inked Settlement in Delaware Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jefferies Group LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended November 30, 2014, the remaining defendants in
the Delaware class action litigation on October 31, 2014, entered
into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the Delaware
litigation.
Seven class-action lawsuits had been filed in New York and
Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of Jefferies Group's
stockholders concerning the transaction through which Jefferies
Group LLC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Leucadia National
Corporation. The class actions named as defendants Leucadia,
Jefferies Group, certain members of our board of directors,
certain members of Leucadia's board of directors and, in certain
of the actions, certain transaction-related subsidiaries.
On October 31, 2014, the remaining defendants in the Delaware
litigation entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs
in the Delaware litigation. The terms of that agreement, which are
subject to court approval, provide for an aggregate payment of
$70.0 million by Leucadia, who will bear the costs of the
settlement, to certain former equity holders of Jefferies Group,
other than the defendants and certain of their affiliates, along
with attorneys' fees to be determined and approved by the court.
The agreement further provides that the settlement will be paid,
at Leucadia's option, in either cash or Leucadia common shares. If
approved by the court, the settlement will resolve all of the
class-action claims in Delaware, and release the claims brought in
New York.
JOHN OKOROCHA: Denial of Meal Period Class Certification Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly Baldomero, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, filed a putative class action complaint against her
former employer alleging wage and hour violations. Baldomero
appeals the denial of her motion for class certification,
contending the trial court erred in concluding that (1) common
issues of law and fact did not predominate with regard to
Baldomero's claim that she and others did not receive timely, off-
duty meal breaks, (2) Baldomero's claim that she was not paid for
unused vacation time is not typical of the claims of the proposed
class, and (3) Baldomero is not an adequate class representative.
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three, on January 26, 2015, ruled that with regard to the proposed
meal period class, substantial evidence supports the trial court's
conclusion that common issues of law and fact did not predominate,
and it, thus, affirms the denial of class certification of the
proposed meal period class. With regard to the proposed vacation
class, it concluded that the trial court erred in reaching the
merits of the vacation claim and in concluding on that basis that
Baldomero's claim was not typical of the claims of the proposed
class. However, because it concludes that substantial evidence
supported the trial court's finding that Baldomero is not an
adequate class representative, it does not reverse the order
denying certification of a vacation class. Instead, it affirms
with directions to the trial court to allow Baldomero an
opportunity to amend the complaint to add a new class
representative, should she wish to do so. If Baldomero amends to
add a new class representative, that representative is entitled to
file a new class certification motion with respect to the vacation
class claim.
A copy of the Appeals Court opinion is available at
http://is.gd/oW2Mmy from Leagle.com.
The case is BEVERLY BALDOMERO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JOHN
OKOROCHA et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. B248314.
Graham Hollis, Graham S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com --
and Vilmarie Cordero -- vcordero@grahamhollis.com -- for
Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Calderone Law Firm and Vincent Calderone --
Vcalderone@calemploymentattorney.com -- for Defendant and
Respondent.
K12 INC: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------
K12 Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that a securities class-action
lawsuit captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement
System v. K12 Inc., et al., was filed on January 30, 2014, against
the Company, four of its officers and directors, and a former
officer, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, In re K12 Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
No. 1:14-CV-108-AJT-JFA. On June 24, 2014 the Court appointed the
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System as lead
plaintiff, and on May 23, 2014 the lead plaintiff filed an amended
class action complaint ("Amended Complaint"). On November 5, 2014,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint and the deadline for the plaintiff to appeal the Court's
decision has expired.
KEMET CORPORATION: Direct and Indirect Purchaser Suits Combined
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that 13 purported
antitrust class actions (collectively, the "U.S. Complaints") have
been filed in United States district courts, alleging collusion
and restraint of trade in capacitors by the named defendants.
Seven of the suits were brought on behalf of direct purchasers and
allege a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, for which they
seek injunctive and equitable relief and money damages: Chip-Tech,
Ltd., v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed July 18, 2014 in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California;
Dependable Component Supply Corporation v. Panasonic Corporation,
et al., filed July 22, 2014 in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California; eIQ Energy, Inc. v. AVX
Corporation, et al., filed August 1, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and subsequently
dismissed and refiled in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California; Schuten Electronics Inc. v. AVX
Corporation, et al., filed August 14, 2014 in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California; In Home Tech
Solutions, Inc. v Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 8,
2014 in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California; Quathimatine Holdings, Inc. v. Elna Co., Ltd., et al.,
filed October 22, 2014 in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California; and Walker Component Group, Inc.
v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 28, 2014 in the
United States District Court, Northern District of California
(collectively, the "Direct Purchaser Complaints"). The other six
U.S. Complaints were brought on behalf of indirect purchasers
(collectively, the "Indirect Purchaser Complaints") and asserted
claims for damages under various antitrust and other state laws as
well as for injunctive and equitable relief under the Sherman Act.
One of the Indirect Purchaser Complaints asserted claims under
California law and sought equitable relief and money damages.
KEMET Corporation and KEC were named as defendants in each of the
U.S. Complaints, along with more than 20 other capacitor
manufacturers and subsidiaries.
The Direct Purchaser Complaints were consolidated into a single
amended complaint, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No.
3:14-cv-03264-JD, filed on December 4, 2014 with the United States
District Court, Northern District of California. The Indirect
Purchaser Complaints were consolidated into a single amended
complaint, In re: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation, No. 14-cv-
03264-JD, filed on December 4, 2014 with the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, for which KEMET
Corporation and KEC are no longer named as defendants.
KEMET CORPORATION: Defendants in Canadian Capacitor Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that KEMET Corporation
and KEC, along with other defendants, were named as defendants in
several additional suits that were filed in Canada (collectively,
the "Canadian Complaints"): Badashmin v. Panasonic Corporation, et
al., filed August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court, Province of
Quebec, District of Montreal; Herard v. Panasonic Corporation, et
al., filed August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court, Province of
Quebec, District of Montreal; Cygnus Electronics Corporation v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the
Superior Court of Justice, Province of Ontario; LeClaire v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the
Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Taylor v
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 11, 2014 in the
Superior Court of Justice, Province of Ontario; Ramsay v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 14, 2014 in the
Supreme Court, Province of British Columbia; Martin v. Panasonic
Corporation, et al., filed September 25, 2014 in the Superior
Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Parikh v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 3, 2014 in the
Superior Court of Justice, Province of Ontario; Fraser v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 3, 2014 in the Court
of Queen's Bench, Province of Saskatchewan; and Pickering v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 6, 2014 in the
Supreme Court, Province of British Columbia. A further Canadian
Complaint, McPherson v Panasonic Corporation et al., was filed on
November 6, 2014 in the Court of Queen's Bench, Province of
Manitoba. The Canadian Complaints generally allege the same
unlawful acts as in the U.S. Complaints, assert claims under
Canada's Competition Act as well as various civil and common law
causes of action, and seek injunctive and equitable relief and
money damages.
KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Faces Capacitor Suits in US, Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that NEC TOKIN and its
subsidiary, NEC TOKIN America, Inc., are defendants in the
consolidated U.S. Complaints and the Canadian Complaints.
In March and April 2014, NEC TOKIN and certain of its subsidiaries
received inquiries, requests for information and other
communications from government authorities in China, the United
States, the European Commission, Japan and South Korea concerning
alleged anti-competitive activities within the capacitor industry.
Subsequently, NEC TOKIN has also communicated with government
authorities regarding related investigations in Taiwan and
Singapore. The investigations are continuing at various stages.
In addition, beginning in July 2014, NEC TOKIN and its subsidiary,
NEC TOKIN America, Inc., have been named, along with more than 20
other capacitor manufacturers and subsidiaries, as defendants in
purported antitrust class action suits in the United States and
Canada. As of this date, except for legal expenses, NEC TOKIN has
not recorded an accrual as a result of the investigations and
civil litigation.
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: March 24 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed on January 23, 2015, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California against Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. The complaint
alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5,
including allegations of issuing a series of material or false
misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is May 5, 2014 through January 22, 2015.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Leapfrog
Enterprises, Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during
the Class Period and are therefore a member of the Class as
described above. You may move the Court no later than Tuesday,
March 24, 2015 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the entire Class.
However, in order to do so, you must meet certain legal
requirements pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.
If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:
Robin Hester
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Email to: rkh@federmanlaw.com
Or, visit the firm's website at www.federmanlaw.com
LEPRINO FOODS: Faces Wage-and-Hour Class Actions
------------------------------------------------
John Ellis, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that a
Pennsylvania law firm has filed nearly identical federal lawsuits
against two central San Joaquin Valley food processors, saying
they are violating wage-and-hour laws by not paying workers for
on-site preparation like donning and doffing required sanitary
gear.
Each lawsuit -- one against Leprino Foods in Lemoore, the other
against Wawona Frozen Foods in Clovis -- has a lead plaintiff, but
seeks class-action status. Jonathon Talavera, identified as a
Lemoore resident, is the sole listed lead plaintiff in the Leprino
suit. Luis Aguilar, identified as a Fresno County resident, is
the plaintiff in the Wawona suit. Both suits were filed recently
in U.S. District Court in Fresno.
According to the lawsuit, workers at the plants are required by
both state and federal regulations, and by company policy, to wear
sanitary gear such as plastic aprons, smock, arm sleeves,
hairnets, earplugs and other protective equipment and coverings.
The suit says it takes "substantial amounts of time" to don and
doff the gear at the start and end of each work day, as well as to
sanitize, get supplies and walk to the production line.
These types of lawsuits are not unusual, according to legal
experts. Lawsuits covering off-the-clock work have been filed by
workers in hotels, restaurants, call centers, banks and other
locations. Last year, National Beef, a Kansas slaughterhouse,
agreed to pay up to $350,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit with
480 employees who said the company only paid them when the
production line was running.
Both the Leprino and Wawona lawsuits have identical language
saying, "As a result of the various work activities which must be
performed prior to the start of paid time, employees are regularly
forced to arrive at the plant well before the start of their
shifts and are not credited for all time spent working on behalf
of defendants."
In addition, the suits say workers did not get a full 30-minute
meal break because of the need to don or doff sanitary gear, and
the Leprino suit says workers at the Lemoore plant also had to cut
short their lunch period because they had to wait in line to clock
back in. Both suits say workers also did not receive required 10-
minute breaks and did not offer a second 30-minute meal period
when a work shift exceeded 10 hours.
The Leprino suit additionally says the company deducted the cost
of uniforms and equipment, including the cost of work badges and
time cards, from wages without prior written authorization.
Both suits seek, among other things, money for the unpaid wages
and other employee benefits, with interest, as well as an
injunction prohibiting the practice to continue.
A scheduling conference has been set for April 21 before U.S.
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe in the Leprino suit, and a
similar hearing for April 23 before U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary S.
Austin in the Wawona suit.
MAGYAR NEMZETI: Holocaust Victims' Claims Dismissal Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
Two appeals -- PAUL CHAIM SHLOMO FISCHER, et al., Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. MAGYAR ALLAMVASUTAK ZRT., Defendant-Appellee.
MICHAEL J. ALBERT, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MAGYAR
NEMZETI BANK and ERSTE GROUP BANK, Defendants-Appellees, NOS. 13-
3073, 14-1319 -- arise from suits brought by Holocaust survivors
and the heirs of other Holocaust victims against the Hungarian
national railway, the Hungarian national bank, and several private
banks for the roles they or their predecessors played in carrying
out genocide against Hungarian Jews during World War II. These
claims for takings of property arise from events in Hungary 70
years ago. They are asserted against both foreign sovereign
entities and private banks with relatively few ties to the United
States. The cases bring to the United States courts aspects of the
horrific crimes of the Holocaust, but the cases have also posed
difficult questions about whether they might be heard in a United
States court.
In the earlier 2012 appeals in these cases, the United States
Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held that the national railway
and national bank -- both instrumentalities of the Hungarian
government -- could be sued on these claims in a United States
federal court, but only if the plaintiffs could demonstrate on
remand that they had exhausted any available Hungarian remedies or
had a legally compelling reason for their failure to do so. In
addition, while the Seventh Circuit mandated dismissal of claims
against two private banks for lack of personal jurisdiction,
Abelesz v. OTP Bank, 692 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2012), it denied
interlocutory requests by Erste Group Bank AG ("Erste Bank"), a
private Austrian bank that had acquired a Hungarian bank that
plaintiffs alleged had participated in the Holocaust, to review
the denial of its motion to dismiss on several grounds.
On remand, the national bank, national railway, and Erste Bank all
continued to seek dismissal. As to the national bank and railway,
the district court held that the plaintiffs had not exhausted
Hungarian remedies and had not provided a legally compelling
reason for not doing so. For that reason, the district court
concluded that it could no longer entertain plaintiffs'
international law claims and dismissed the claims against the
national defendants.
Following that dismissal, the district court also dismissed Erste
Bank from the suit on forum non conveniens grounds. Although the
district court had previously denied Erste Bank's motion to
dismiss based on forum non conveniens, it took a fresh look at the
issue once the national defendants were not subject to suit in the
United States. The court concluded that dismissal on these grounds
was appropriate. Plaintiffs have appealed.
The Seventh Circuit, on January 23, 2015, affirmed all the
dismissals saying, "First, as we held in 2012, international law
does not require exhaustion of domestic remedies before plaintiffs
can say that international law was violated. But principles of
international comity make clear that these plaintiffs must attempt
to exhaust domestic remedies before foreign courts can provide
remedies for those violations. These plaintiffs have not exhausted
available Hungarian remedies, and the district court did not abuse
its discretion when it found that plaintiffs should not be excused
from doing so. In addition, because the national bank was properly
dismissed from the case against the banks, the district court
properly granted Erste Bank's motion to reconsider dismissal for
forum non conveniens. Nevertheless, while the doors of United
States courts are closed to these claims for now, they are not
locked forever. All dismissals are without prejudice. If
plaintiffs find that future attempts to pursue remedies in Hungary
are frustrated unreasonably or arbitrarily, a United States court
could once again hear these claims."
A copy of the 7th Circuit's opinion is available at
http://is.gd/gYffaNfrom Leagle.com.
MALLINCKRODT PUBLIC: December 1 Jury Trial in Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Mallinckrodt public limited company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended December 26, 2014, that
discovery is currently ongoing in the securities class action and
the court set a jury trial for December 1, 2015.
On September 26, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against Questcor and certain of its officers and directors in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, et al., No.
SACvl2-1623 DMG (FMOx). The complaint purports to be brought on
behalf of shareholders who purchased Questcor common stock between
April 26, 2011 and September 21, 2012. The complaint generally
alleges that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors
engaged in various acts to artificially inflate the price of
Questcor stock and enable insiders to profit through stock sales.
The complaint asserts that Questcor and certain of its officers
and directors violated sections l0(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act"),
by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning
the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications
other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale and use of
Acthar in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and nephrotic
syndrome, reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and
Questcor's outlook and potential market growth for Acthar. The
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and equitable
relief against the defendants. This lawsuit has been consolidated
with four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims
under the caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation, No. CV
12-01623 DMG (FMOx).
On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part Questcor's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint. On October 29, 2013, Questcor filed an answer to the
consolidated amended complaint. Discovery is currently ongoing.
The court set a jury trial for December 1, 2015.
MAPLEWOOD HOLDINGS: Suit by AMC Shareholder Goes to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
EUGENIA VI VENTURE HOLDINGS, LTD., ON BEHALF OF AMC INVESTORS, LLC
AND AMC INVESTORS II, LLC, Plaintiff, v. MAPLEWOOD HOLDINGS LLC,
MAPLEWOOD MANAGEMENT LP, MAPLEWOOD PARTNERS LP, ROVERT V. GLASER,
AND ROBERT J. REALE, Defendants, CASE NOS. 08-12264 (CSS), 08-
12265 (CSS), ADV. CASE NOS. 11-52317, 11-52318, ADV. DOCKET NOS.
145, 149, 101, 105, (Bankr. D. Del.), are adversary proceedings
alleging breach of fiduciary duty. The Plaintiff is Eugenia VI
Venture Holdings, Ltd., on behalf of AMC Investors, LLC and AMC
Investors II, LLC, debtors in Chapter 7 cases. At all relevant
times, the Debtors were shareholders of AMC Computer Corp.
Defendants MapleWood Holdings LLC, MapleWood Management LP,
MapleWood Partners LP, Robert V. Glaser, and Robert J. Reale were
officers, directors, and/or shareholders of Computer. Plaintiff's
claims stem from an Amended and Restated Credit Agreement between
Eugenia and Computer dated January 2003. Pursuant to the Credit
Agreement, Eugenia extended up to $16 million in credit, secured
by Computer's working capital. Each of the Debtors executed an
unconditional guaranty of Computer's obligations to Eugenia under
the Credit Agreement.
By May 2005, Computer was insolvent. Its board of directors voted
to cease operations and approved an assignment for the benefit of
creditors. In response, Eugenia notified Computer that it was in
default under the Credit Agreement, accelerated the outstanding
obligations, and demanded immediate payment. Eugenia also demanded
payment from the Debtors under their guarantees.
Eugenia filed suit against the Debtors in New York State court to
collect on the guarantees. In July 2007, the court entered
judgment in favor of Eugenia, awarding damages of approximately
$10.7 million. The Debtors appealed a portion of the award. Prior
to oral argument before the appellate court, Eugenia filed
involuntary petitions against the Debtors. In addition to the
state court case, Eugenia brought seven related suits in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. Suing both
directly and derivatively on behalf of Computer, Eugenia alleged
fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with AMC's
default under the Credit Agreement. Defendants in these actions
were officers, directors, and/or shareholders of AMC.
Two questions have been posted before the Court: 1) Whether, in
light of earlier federal litigation, Plaintiff is entitled to
summary judgment dismissing Defendants' affirmative defenses of
claim and issue preclusion, and 2) Whether Plaintiff is entitled
to summary judgment dismissing Defendants' timeliness defenses.
In a January 23, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/4CE94Tfrom Leagle.com, Judge Christopher J. Sontchi
found that Plaintiff's arguments fail as a matter of law, and
therefore will deny Plaintiff's motions for partial summary
judgment.
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT, & TUNNELL LLP, Curtis S. Miller --
cmiller@MNAT.com -- Wilmington, Delaware, AKERMAN LLP, Brian P.
Miller -- brian.miller@akerman.com -- Samantha J. Kavanaugh --
samantha.kavanaugh@akerman.com -- James A. Bombulie --
james.bombulie@akerman.com -- Miami, Florida, Counsel for
Defendants.
RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., Mark D. Collins --
collins@RLF.com -- Marcos A. Ramos -- ramos@rlf.com -- Cory D.
Kandstein, Wilmington, Delaware, GIBSON, DUNN, & CRUTCHER LLP,
Mitchell A. Karlan -- mkarlan@gibsondunn.com -- New York, New
York, Jeremy L. Graves, Denver, Colorado, Counsel for Plaintiff.
MARKETSTAR CORP: "Notscher" Suit Moved From C.D. to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Shianna Notscher v. MarketStar
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-09120, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
(Sacramento). The Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:15-cv-00328-TLN-DAD to the proceeding.
The lawsuit arose from labor-related disputes.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
RASTEGAR AND MATERN
15901 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 450
Lawndale, CA 90260
Telephone: (310) 371-7200
E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com
- and -
Justin Fort Marquez, Esq.
RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
1010 Crenshaw Blvd., Suite 100
Torrance, CA 90501
Telephone: (310) 961-9600
Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
E-mail: justin@rastegarlawgroup.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Melinda S. Riechert, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2 Palo Alto Square
3000 El Camino Real, Suite 700
Palo Alto, CA 94080
Telephone: (650) 843-7530
Facsimile: (650) 843-4001
E-mail: mriechert@morganlewis.com
- and -
Kathryn Nazarian, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
One Market, Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 442-1415
E-mail: knazarian@morganlewis.com
MATRAT LLC: Settles Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------
Tom Zanki and Natalie Rodriguez, writing for Law360, report that
delivery and cleaning employees of New York City deli chain Guy &
Gallard have reached a settlement in a class action suit lobbed
against owner Matrat LLC and affiliates, eight months after
alleging wage violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
according to a judge's Jan. 29 order.
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew J. Peck dismissed the case,
saying the court learned that the parties had reached an agreement
in principle and are finalizing settlement documents. Terms were
not immediately available.
Judge Peck added that any party may reinstate action within 20
days if the settlement is not effectuated.
The employees filed suit last April against Matrat, Shayan Holding
Corp. and Chairman and CEO Tareq Ahmed, alleging the chain
required workers delivering special corporate catering orders and
setting up food displays for those orders to split tips with
nontipped employees and management.
Workers also alleged the restaurant company failed to pay them
minimum wage and overtime and wrongfully claimed tip credits based
on an employee's compensation, according to the suit. Claims in
the suit include alleged violations of both the FLSA and New York
labor laws.
The proposed class sought an injunction against the deli chain and
an award of unpaid overtime, the accumulated difference between
paid wages and the minimum wage, and "spread of hours" premiums --
extra minimum-wage hours for days when employees worked over 10
hours -- as well as statutory penalties and damages.
Employees alleged Guy & Gallard's management failed to provide
proper wage-and-hour notices and never paid spread of hours
premiums, according to the complaint. The employees further
accused Ahmed of being directly complicit with the wage practices
of the chains, as he was a regular fixture at the sites.
Guy & Gallard operates seven restaurants in New York and provides
catering services, according to its website.
Defense is represented Shari A. Alexander --
salexander@mosessinger.com -- John Vincent Baranello and David B.
Feldman -- dfeldman@mosessinger.com -- of Moses & Singer LLP, as
well as Kenneth C. Henry and James L. Green.
The plaintiffs are represented by C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group
PLLC. Mr. Lee declined comment.
The case is Leonel Garcia et al. v. Matrat LLC et al., case number
1:14-cv-02847, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.
MCALPINE & CO: Court Narrows Claims in Product Liability Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donovan W. Frank granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss a first amended complaint in the case Rick
Hagen and Merhar's Ace Hardware, Inc. d/b/a Merhar Plumbing, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. McAlpine & Co. Ltd. and Mountain Accessories Inc.,
d/b/a Mountain Plumbing Products, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 14-1095
(DWF/LIB), (D. Minn.).
Defendants McAlpine & Co. Ltd. and Mountain Accessories Inc.,
d/b/a Mountain Plumbing Products are both in the business of
designing, manufacturing, and selling plumbing products.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants manufacture certain angle valves
that are defective. In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege
these causes of action: (1) Breach of Implied Warranty -
Merchantability; (2) Breach of Express Warranties; (3) Negligence;
(4) Negligent Failure to Warn; (5) Negligent Misrepresentation;
and (6) Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiffs also
purport to bring this lawsuit as a class action. Defendants moved
to dismiss all claims.
According to Judge Frank's January 26, 2015 memorandum opinion and
order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/aSh6pB from
Leagle.com, Counts Three, Four, Five, and Six of Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. Counts One and
Two remain.
Gordon C. Pineo, Esq., Deal & Pineo, PA,; and Paul A. Sand, Esq.,
Mark A. Solheim, Esq. -- msolheim@larsonking.com -- and Shawn M.
Raiter, Esq. -- sraiter@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP,
counsel for Plaintiffs.
Heidi A. O. Fisher, Esq. -- HFisher@oppenheimer.com -- Mary E.
Johnson, Esq. -- MJohnson@oppenheimer.com -- and Patrick M.
Fenlon, Esq. -- PFenlon@oppenheimer.com -- Oppenheimer Wolff &
Donnelly LLP, counsel for Defendants.
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Action Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013,
that the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York transferred the consolidated action, In re Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation, to the United States
District Court for Northern California.
On February 7, February 14 and February 22, 2013, Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President and CEO, former CFO
and CFO were sued in three separate legal complaints filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
naming the Company and them each as defendants and respectively
entitled, Patrick Barnicle, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman,
Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CIV 925, David R.
Ryan, Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., Eyal Waldman, Michael Gray and Jacob
Shulman, Case No. 13 CV 1047 and Valentin Petrov, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Mellanox Technologies,
Ltd., Eyal Waldman, Michael Gray and Jacob Shulman, Case No. 13 CV
1225. The complaints were filed by Patrick Barnacle, David R. Ryan
and Valentin Petrov, respectively, each for himself as a plaintiff
and, purportedly, on behalf of persons purchasing the Company's
ordinary shares between April 19, 2012 and January 2, 2013 (the
"Class Period").
On May 14, 2013, the Court consolidated the Barnicle, Ryan and
Petrov complaints and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
On July 12, 2013, an Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed
against the same defendants. The Amended Consolidated Complaint
alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The Amended Consolidated Complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, the defendants made false or misleading
statements (or failed to disclose certain facts) regarding the
Company's business and outlook.
In the amended complaint, plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable
attorney's fees, and any other relief deemed just and proper by
the court. On October 11, 2013, the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York transferred the consolidated
action to the United States District Court for Northern
California. The consolidated action is captioned, In re Mellanox
Technologies, Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:13-cv-04909-
JST.
The Company believes that the resolution of this proceeding is not
likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Updates in Israeli Class Action Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1)
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013,
provided updates in the Israeli Class Action Claim in re TASE
Delisting.
On June 6, 2013, a complaint was filed in the Tel-Aviv District
court (the "Israeli Court") in Tel Aviv, Israel (Mordechay
Turgeman v. Mellanox et. al. (Case No.: 13189-06-13)), in which
the plaintiff alleged that the Company's decision to delist from
the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange ("TASE") was a breach of the duty of
loyalty of the Company's board of directors (the "Board"), as well
as a breach of fiduciary duty and duty of care by the Company's
president and chief executive officer (the "Claim"). In addition,
the plaintiff filed a motion to certify the complaint as a class
action. The Company was served with the complaint on June 16,
2013. On December 22, 2013, the Company and the Board filed their
Response to the motion to certify the complaint as a class action
(the "Response").
On January 7, 2014 the plaintiff, with the consent of the Company,
filed a request to withdraw the Claim (and related class action
claim) against the Company and the Board (the "Withdrawal
Petition") after the plaintiff, in view of the facts and arguments
presented in the Response, reached the conclusion that it would be
difficult for the plaintiff to prove the Claim and have the
complaint approved as a class action. Neither the plaintiff nor
its attorneys have received or will receive any benefit in return
for their withdrawal.
On January 8, 2014, the Israeli Court ordered that a notice should
be published in two newspapers in Israel in which potential class
members, the Israeli attorney general, the director of Israeli
courts and the Israeli Securities Authority were notified that any
such party has 45 days from the date of the notice to present its
position to the Israeli Court objecting to or relating to the
Withdrawal Petition.
On January 9, 2014 the Israeli court approved the form of the
notice, and the notice was published on Sunday, January 12, 2014.
While any withdrawal of the Claim (and related class action claim)
is ultimately within the discretion of the Israeli Court, the
Company believes that the Israeli Court will approve such
withdrawal if none of such parties make a filing objecting to such
withdrawal. Based on currently available information, no such
objection has occurred and the Company believes that the
resolution of this claim is not likely to have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.
MELLANOX TECHNOLOGIES: Israeli Court Stayed "Weinberger" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
January 29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013,
that the Israeli court approved this procedural agreement and
stayed the Israeli proceedings in the Weinberger case.
On February 20, 2013, a request for approval of a class action was
filed in the Economic Division of the District Court of Tel Aviv-
Jaffa against Mellanox Technologies, Ltd., the Company's President
and CEO, former CFO, CFO and each of the members of the Company's
board of directors (the "Israeli Claim"). The Israeli Claim was
filed by Mr. Avigdor Weinberger (the "Claimant"). The Israeli
Claim alleges that the Company, the board members, the Company's
President and CEO, its former CFO and its current CFO are
responsible for making misleading statements (or failing to
disclose certain facts) and filings to the public, as a result of
which the shares of the Company were allegedly traded at a higher
price than their true value during a period commencing on April
19, 2012 and ending January 2, 2013 and, therefore, these parties
are responsible for damages caused to the purchasers of the
Company's shares on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange during this time.
The Claimant seeks an award of compensation to the relevant
shareholders for all damages caused to them, including attorney
fees and Claimant's fee and any other relief deemed just and
proper by the court.
On April 24, 2013, the Claimant and the Company filed a procedural
agreement with the court to stay the Israeli Claim pending the
completion of the Barnicle, Ryan and Petrov cases.
On April 24, 2013, the Israeli court approved this procedural
agreement and stayed the Israeli proceedings. Based on currently
available information, the Company believes that the resolution of
this proceeding is not likely to have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, financial position, results of operations
or cash flows.
MULTNOMAH COUNTY: Court Certifies 2 Subclasses in Cunningham Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stewart issued on September 11, 2014, her
Findings and Recommendation (F&R) in the case JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM,
individually, on behalf of a class of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY, and DAN STANTON, both individually
and in his official capacity as Sheriff, Defendants, NO. 3:12-CV-
01718-ST, (D. Ore.), recommending that Plaintiff Joseph
Cunningham's Motion for Class Certification should be granted as
to Subclasses 1 and 2, and should be conditionally granted as to
Subclass 3. She also recommended that Tonna K. Farrar and the law
firm of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Baling, P.C., and Leonard
Berman should be appointed as co-lead counsel for the class.
In an opinion and order dated January 20, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/bJGxqNfrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Michael W. Mosman adopted in part, and modified in part, Judge
Stewart's F&R. Tonna K. Farrar and the law firm of Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Baling, P.C., and Leonard Berman were
appointed as co-lead counsel for the class.
"I certify Subclasses 1 and 2 under FRCP 23(a) and FRCP 23(b)(3),"
ruled Judge Mosman. "I conditionally certify Subclass 3 under
FRCP 23(a) and FRCP(b)(1). According to the conditions in the F&R,
Subclasses 1, 2, and 3 are certified as issues classes covering
all the issues in Mr. Cunningham's claims other than consent and
damages. Finally, I modify the cutoff date for Subclass 1 from
November 8, 2011 to September 16, 2011."
Joseph Cunningham, Plaintiff, represented by Tonna K. Farrar --
tfarrar@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, P.C. &
Leonard Randolph Berman -- easyrabbi@yahoo.com -- Law Office of
Leonard R. Berman.
Multnomah County, Defendant, represented by B. Andrew Jones,
Multnomah County Attorneys Office & Susan M. Dunaway, Multnomah
County Attorney.
Dan Staton, Defendant, represented by B. Andrew Jones, Multnomah
County Attorneys Office & Susan M. Dunaway, Multnomah County
Attorney.
NAVISTAR INT'L: Sued Over Contract-Related Dispute in Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
Storey Trucking Company Inc. and Lakeside Leasing Inc., on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated persons and entities v.
Navistar International Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-00244-JEO
(N.D. Ala., February 9, 2015) arises from contract-related issues.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brannon J. Buck, Esq.
Brett Andrew Ialacci, Esq.
W. Percy Badham, III, Esq.
BADHAM & BUCK LLC
2001 Park Place North, Suite 500
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 521-0036
Facsimile: (205) 521-0037
E-mail: bbuck@badhambuck.com
kkarns@badhambuck.com
jhughes@badhambuck.com
- and -
E. Allen Dodd, Jr., Esq.
SCRUGGS DODD & BRISENDINE, ATTORNEYS, PA
207 Alabama Avenue S.W.
P.O. Box 681109
Fort Payne, AL 36968
Telephone: (256) 845-5932
Facsimile: (256) 845-4325
E-mail: eadscruggs@farmerstel.com
NETFLIX INC: Lead Plaintiffs in Investors Suit Appeal to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the
fiscal period ended December 31, 2014, that lead plaintiffs in a
consolidated shareholder class action appealed a decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012 alleging
substantially similar claims. These lawsuits were consolidated
into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-
00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs. On June 26,
2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint which alleged
violations of the federal securities laws. The Court dismissed the
consolidated complaint with leave to amend on February 13, 2013.
Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint on
March 22, 2013. The Court dismissed the first amended consolidated
complaint with prejudice on August 20, 2013, and judgment was
entered on September 27, 2013. Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to
alter or amend the judgment and requested leave to file a second
amended complaint on October 25, 2013.
On January 17, 2014, the Court denied that motion. On February
18, 2014, lead plaintiffs appealed that decision to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible
however, based on its current knowledge, management does not
believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of
potential loss is reasonably estimable.
OAKLAND RAIDERS: Former Raiderette Files Wage Theft Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Malaika Fraley, writing for San Jose Mercury News, reports that as
a proposed $1.25 million settlement for cheerleader wage theft
pending approval in an Alameda County court, another class action
lawsuit over pay and compensation has been filed against the
Oakland Raiders by a former Raiderette.
The latest lawsuit, filed on Jan. 26 against the Raiders and the
NFL on behalf of San Benito County resident Susie Sanchez and
Raiderettes from the last four years, goes further than the
previous lawsuit by alleging cheerleaders were denied media
exposure opportunities promised to them in employment agreements.
Ms. Sanchez was a 37-year-old rookie on the 2011-2012 squad when
she was dubbed the grandmother cheerleader because she was, in
fact, a grandmother. She was in talks with Lifetime that year for
a program on being a cheerleading grandmother but the Raiders shut
it down because it wasn't going to benefit its organization, said
Ms. Sanchez's attorney Drexel, Bradshaw said.
In September, the Raiders reached a proposed settlement $1.25
million settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed by two former
cheerleaders to compensate unpaid wages and overtime.
Before the Raiders raised Raiderette salaries last summer, the
cheerleaders were paid $125 a home game, and were unpaid for post
regular season games and the numerous practices and events they
are required to attend. Their pay worked out to less than $6.50
an hour at most, Bradshaw said. Minimum wage in California was
raised to $8 an hour on Jan. 1, 2008, and to $9 an hour on July 1,
2014.
Raiders cheerleaders also spend $3,000 to $4,000 a season out of
pocket on tans, hair styles, manicures, and makeup and other
beauty-related services to maintain an appearance demanded of
them, Sanchez's lawsuit says.
State Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, on Jan. 29
introduced a bill that would require professional sports teams to
recognize their cheerleaders as employees to protect them from
workplace abuse.
"NFL teams and their billionaire owners have used professional
cheerleaders as part of the game day experience for decades. They
have capitalized on their talents without providing even the most
basic workplace protections like minimum wage," Gonzalez said in a
news release.
Bradshaw says the proposed $1.25 million settlement, which would
pay out about $6,000 per season to each cheerleader in the class,
leaves another $2 million in owed unpaid wages and overtime.
If it's approved by a judge, one of the cheerleaders in the class
will be filing an appeal with a higher court to have it thrown out
so they can seek higher compensations, Bradshaw said.
The Oakland Raiders did not respond to requests for comment on
Jan. 29.
OFFICE DEPOT: FUSD to Receive Money From Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Peres, writing for KFSN, reports that an extra $450,000 is
on its way to Fresno Unified School District and the school board
has decided to put it towards school supplies. The money stems
from a whistleblower case where a former Office Depot employee
accused the big office supply chain of overcharging school
districts and government agencies. Fresno Unified wasn't
necessarily an active part of the class action lawsuit but they
were determined to be a beneficiary.
Kindergarten teacher Gloria Ruiz divides a dry eraser in half to
make it last longer. She says the frugal effort is common among
teachers who often use their own money to buy supplies. The
kindergarten teacher explained, "Whether it's additional books,
certain types of books to go with whatever theme you're working
on, you're going to go out and purchase those for your students."
Ms. Ruiz is thrilled after hearing Fresno Unified School District
will benefit from a $68.5 million class action settlement with
Office Depot. The whistleblower lawsuit stemmed from a former
employee's accusations that the large chain wasn't honest when it
said they were giving school districts, cities and other agencies
a discount on supplies.
"I am absolutely thrilled to be getting $150 dollars," said
Ms. Ruiz. "That's money I won't have to spend out of my pocket
and teachers won't have to do that."
Fresno Unified School Board member Christopher De La Cerda said
now, all of Fresno Unified's teachers -- more than 3,000 -- will
benefit by getting $150 to spend online at Office Depot.
Mr. De La Cerda added, "Recognizing that we are going to have this
substantial sum come back to us and because we use it for teacher
supplies through the store itself we thought what better way to
give it back then to give it to our teachers."
PANTRY INC: Shareholder Filed Putative Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc. on December 18, 2014, entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger with Couche-Tard U.S. Inc. and CT-US
Acquisition Corp.
The Pantry, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 25, 2014, that a purported
shareholder of The Pantry, Dennis J. Krystek, filed on January 22,
2015, a putative class action complaint challenging the Merger in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaint
names as defendants The Pantry, Couche-Tard, Merger Sub and the
members of the board of directors of The Pantry. The complaint
seeks, among other relief, an order enjoining the Merger,
compensatory damages, and an award of attorney's fees and costs on
the grounds that, among other things, the board of directors of
The Pantry breached their fiduciary duty in connection with
entering into the Merger Agreement and approving the Merger as
well as failing to disclose material information relating to the
process leading to the execution of the Merger Agreement. The
complaint further alleges that Couche-Tard and Merger Sub aided
and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. It is
possible that these complaints will be amended to make additional
claims and/or that additional lawsuits making similar or
additional claims relating to the Merger will be brought.
PANTRY INC: Received $4.2MM From Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
The Pantry, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 25, 2014, that in the first
quarter of fiscal 2015, the Company received proceeds of $4.2
million from a class action settlement fund related to a lawsuit
regarding percentage-based transaction fees charged to truck stops
and other retail fueling facilities. These proceeds are included
as a reduction in general and administrative expenses for the
three months ended December 25, 2014.
PEP BOYS-MANNY: Obtains Final Approval of Tokoshima Suit Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles R. Breyer granted final approval of the
settlement, and grants the motion for attorney's fees and
reimbursement of expenses in STEVE TOKOSHIMA, LUIS FLORES, and
JAMES FABER, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE PEP BOYS-MANNY MOE & JACK OF
CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; THE PEP BOYS-MANNY MOE &
JACK, a Pennsylvania Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Defendant, CASE
NO. C12-4810 CRB, (N.D. Cal.).
The Court entered final judgment in this case in accordance with
the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Order Granting
Preliminary Approval, the Order Granting Final Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Granting Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Expenses, and this Order Granting Final Judgment,
subject to the Court's retention of jurisdiction to oversee the
Settlement.
Neither this Final Judgment nor the Settlement will constitute an
admission by Defendants of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever,
nor is this Final Judgment a finding of the validity or invalidity
of any claims in the action or a finding of wrongdoing by
Defendants.
The Court dismissed all claims in the action with prejudice, with
each Party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs, except as
provided in the Settlement Agreement and the Order Granting Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement, and Granting Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses.
A copy of the Court's January 23, 2015 order granting final
judgment is available at http://is.gd/m0AHnMfrom Leagle.com.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP JOHN BATTENFELD --
jbattenfeld@morganlewis.com -- KATHY GAO -- kgao@morganlewis.com
-- HIEN NGUYEN -- hnguyen@morganlewis.com -- Attorneys for
Defendants THE PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE AND JACK AND THE PEP BOYS-
MANNY, MOE AND JACK OF CALIFORNIA.
PERFORMANT RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bridges, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Performant Recovery Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00038-CAR
(M.D. Ga., February 6, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marques Jamil Carter
P.O. Box 366373
Atlanta, GA 30336
Telephone: (404) 593-7456
E-mail: mjclawllc@comcast.net
PERFORMANT TECHNOLOGIES: Motion to Seal Declarations Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
LENNETT GENSEL, Plaintiff, v. PERFORMANT TECHNOLOGIES, Inc.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 13-C-1196, (E.D. Wis.) came before the Court
on Performant Technologies, Inc.'s motion to seal the Declarations
of David Lubets and Rashid Nasim, in addition to Performant's
memorandum in opposition to the plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment.
In a decision and order entered on December 2, 2014, District
Judge Rudolph T. Randa held that Performant's motion refers to the
protective order entered in this case, but a protective order is
not "a virtual carte blanche to either party to seal whatever
portions of the record the party want[s] to seal. . . . The
parties to a lawsuit are not the only people who have a legitimate
interest in the record compiled in a legal proceeding." Moreover,
he said, Performant's request is not narrowly tailored in the
sense that it requests whole documents be placed under seal, as
opposed to a particular line, page, or paragraph that contains
confidential or proprietary information.
Therefore, Performant's motion to seal is denied without prejudice
to its renewal, ruled Judge Randa. "The Clerk of Court is
directed to publicly file these documents if Performant does not
timely renew its motion," he added.
A copy of the Court's ruling is available at http://is.gd/5om6xf
from Leagle.com.
Lennett Gensel, Plaintiff, represented by:
Heidi N Miller, Esq.
Nathan E DeLadurantey, Esq.
DeLadurantey Law Office LLC
735 W Wisconsin Ave Ste 720
Milwaukee, WI 53233
Telephone: (414) 377-0515
Performant Technologies Inc, Defendant, represented by Jessica L
Klander -- jklander@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele PA & Michael A
Klutho -- mklutho@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele PA.
PILLAR TO POST: Ontario Court Dismisses Franchise Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carly Cohen and Geoffrey B. Shaw of Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP,
in an article for Lexology, report that a recent decision of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice has turned on the language of
arbitration clauses, emphasizing the need for franchisors to
meaningfully contemplate their inclusion and their terms in future
franchise agreements.
In a remarkable case for franchisors, 1146845 Ontario Inc v Pillar
to Post Inc., 2014 ONSC 7400 ("Pillar to Post"), a proposed
franchise class action was dismissed on the basis that the
language of an arbitration clause precluded class proceedings.
The case emphasizes the need for franchisors to thoughtfully
contemplate arbitration clauses at the drafting stage as the
language may be a deciding factor in whether to dismiss or stay
future claims. In light of the case summary below, franchisors
should take away the following drafting tips:
To preclude potential class proceedings, franchisors should
include arbitration clauses containing language prohibiting the
initiation or participation in class proceedings against the
franchisor; and
To preclude submission to the courts, if arbitration is the
preferred dispute resolution mechanism, franchisors should use
broad language to ensure that the terms of the arbitration clause
capture all potential disputes that may arise between any
potential parties.
In Pillar to Post, the Court granted the defendant franchisor's
motion to stay a proposed class action brought by three (3)
franchisees claiming $25 million in general damages. The Court
relied on the arbitration clause in the Franchise Agreements,
which contained language that precluded the initiation or
participation in class proceedings, and dismissed the action
against the franchisor. It was held that the franchisees should
be held to their agreement to arbitrate and that the
enforceability of the arbitration clause was to be determined by
the Arbitrator, not the court.
Franchisors are encouraged to include arbitration clauses going
forward and can rely on the following principles in contemplating
the language at the drafting stage:
Arbitration clauses that preclude the initiation and participation
in class proceedings are sufficient to warrant a stay or dismissal
in court proceedings;
Class actions cannot function to circumvent an arbitration clause
as the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure) (the "Wishart
Act") does not expressly protect the right to bring a class
action;
the Wishart Act does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the
courts to resolve franchisor-franchisee disputes; rather, the
Wishart Act envisions that parties may arbitrate their disputes if
expressly provided for;
At first instance, it is for an arbitrator to determine whether
disputes between parties are arbitrable and not the court (known
as the competence-competence principle);
To determine whether a court proceeding should be stayed on the
basis of an arbitration clause, the court must interpret the
arbitration clause and analyze whether the claim falls within the
scope its terms. Where the dispute is contemplated by the
arbitration clause, the court shall defer to the arbitrator and,
on motion of another party to the arbitration clause, stay the
proceeding;
Conversely, where the dispute is outside the terms of the
arbitration clause or a party to the dispute is not a party to the
arbitration clause, the competence-competence principle does not
apply;
Absent legislation to the contrary, courts must give effect to the
terms of an arbitration clause;
Where parties have agreed to arbitrate their claims, they should
be held to their bargain and not resort to the court; and
The issue of whether a class proceeding should be stayed on the
basis of an arbitration clause is a matter of statutory
interpretation independent of the motives of the parties in
seeking arbitration or class proceeding.
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT: Accused of Violating FLSA in Missouri
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albert J. Astarita, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., and Ameristar
Casino Kansas City, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00095 (W.D. Mo.,
February 6, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To Defend Against Securities Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Powersecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Amendment
No. 1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31,
2014, that the Company intends to vigorously defend against all
such allegations in a securities class action.
The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and in July 2014,
two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the
other in the Western District of North Carolina. On October 10,
2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and a
lead plaintiff was appointed. As consolidated, the lawsuit was
filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased our
common stock during a purported class period from August 8, 2013
through May 7, 2014, which is the longer of the two different
purported class periods used in the pre-consolidation lawsuits."
A consolidated amended complaint was due to be filed on or before
December 9, 2014. The action alleges that certain statements made
by the defendants during the applicable class period violated
federal securities laws. The lawsuit seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, and no determination has been made on the
status of the lawsuits proposed as class actions.
"We believe that the claims asserted in this class action
litigation are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend
against all such allegations," the Company said.
PREMIER HEALTHCARE: Finalizing Settlement in TCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Performant Financial Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 29, 2015, that two lawsuits against Premier
Healthcare Exchange, Inc. were filed in January 2014 and March
2014, by an Illinois physician and an Illinois corporation both
alleging that a fax they received from the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act. The two complaints were consolidated and
framed as a class action. The TCPA, among other provisions,
prohibits the facsimile transmission of unsolicited advertising
material. The Company and the Plaintiffs are in the process of
finalizing a Settlement Agreement for preliminary Court approval
of the settlement. The Company estimates the net financial impact
after insurance reimbursement to be approximately $500,000.
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Devora Gottlib, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00633 (E.D.N.Y., February 9, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
483 Chestnut Street
Cedarhurst, NY 11516
Telephone: (516) 791-4400
Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com
PROTECTIVE LIFE: MOU Entered in Delaware Action
-----------------------------------------------
Protective Life Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 3, 2015, that on June 3, 2014, the Company entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with The
Dai-ichi Life Insurance Company, Limited, a kabushiki kaisha
organized under the laws of Japan ("Dai-ichi") and DL Investment
(Delaware), Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Dai-ichi which provides for the merger of DL
Investment (Delaware), Inc. with and into the Company (the
"Merger"), with the Company surviving the Merger as a wholly owned
subsidiary of Dai-ichi.
The Company said, "Since the entry into the Merger Agreement on
June 3, 2014, four lawsuits have been filed against the Company,
our directors, Dai-ichi and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. on
behalf of alleged Company shareowners. On June 11, 2014, a
putative class action lawsuit styled Edelman, et al. v. Protective
Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-2014-902474.00,
was filed in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama. On
July 30, 2014, the plaintiff in Edelman filed an amended
complaint. Three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Martin, et al. v.
Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9794-CB,
filed June 19, 2014, Leyendecker, et al. v. Protective Life
Corporation, et al., Civil Action No. 9931-CB, filed July 22, 2014
and Hilburn, et al. v. Protective Life Corporation, et al., Civil
Action No. 9937-CB, filed July 23, 2014. The Delaware Court of
Chancery consolidated the Martin, Leyendecker, and Hilburn actions
under the caption In re Protective Life Corp. Stockholders
Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 9794-CB, designated the
Hilburn complaint as the operative consolidated complaint (the
"Delaware Action") and appointed Charlotte Martin, Samuel J.
Leyendecker, Jr., and Deborah J. Hilburn to serve as co-lead
plaintiffs. These lawsuits allege that our Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties to our shareowners, that the Merger
involves an unfair price, an inadequate sales process, and
unreasonable deal protection devices that purportedly preclude
competing offers, and that the preliminary proxy statement filed
with the SEC on July 10, 2014 failed to disclose purportedly
material information. The complaints also alleged that the
Company, Dai-ichi and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints seek injunctive relief, including enjoining or
rescinding the Merger, and attorneys' and other fees and costs, in
addition to other relief. The Delaware Action also seeks an award
of unspecified damages."
With respect to the Edelman lawsuit, on September 5, 2014, the
court held a hearing to address motions to dismiss the lawsuit
filed on behalf of the Company, the members of the Company's
Board, and DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. On September 19, 2014,
the court granted those motions and dismissed the Edelman lawsuit
in its entirety and with prejudice, pending a possible appeal by
the plaintiff.
With respect to the Delaware Action, on September 24, 2014, the
Company, each of the members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi, and
DL Investment (Delaware), Inc. entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in that case, which
sets forth the parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of
the Delaware Action. As set forth in the MOU, the Company, the
members of the Company's Board, Dai-ichi, and DL Investment
(Delaware), Inc. agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the
burden, expense, distraction, and uncertainties inherent in
further litigation, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing. The MOU contemplates that the parties will seek to
enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the
certification of a mandatory non opt-out class, for settlement
purposes only, to include any and all record and beneficial owners
of shares (excluding the members of the Company's Board and their
immediate family members, any entity in which any member of the
Company's Board has a controlling interest, and any successors in
interest thereto) that held shares at any time during the period
beginning on June 3, 2014, through the date of consummation or
termination of the proposed Merger, including any and all of their
respective successors in interest, successors, predecessors in
interest, representatives, trustees, executors, administrators,
heirs, assigns, or transferees, immediate and remote, and any
person or entity acting for or on behalf of, or claiming under,
any of them, together with their predecessors, successors and
assigns, and a global release of claims relating to the Merger as
set forth in the MOU. As part of the settlement, the Company
agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the
Merger which are set forth in the Company's Form 8-K filed on
September 25, 2014 and which supplement the information contained
in the Company's definitive proxy statement filed with the SEC on
August 25, 2014, as amended on August 27, 2014.
Nothing in the Form 8-K or any stipulation of settlement shall be
deemed an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any
of the disclosures set forth in the Form 8-K. The claims in the
Delaware Action will not be released until the stipulation of
settlement is approved by the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The settlement will not affect the consideration to be
received by the Company stockholders in connection with the
Merger. There can be no assurance that the parties to the
Delaware Action will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the court will approve such settlement even if
the parties were to enter into such stipulation, or the extent to
which attorneys' fees and expenses will be awarded to the
plaintiffs' counsel. The Company cannot provide assurances as to
the ultimate settlement of the Delaware Action or with respect to
any lawsuits regarding the Merger that may be filed in the future.
RAMS HEAD: Settles Class Action; March 10 Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------
Rick Seltzer, writing for Baltimore Business Journal, reports that
if you bought tickets at Rams Head Live! or Pier 6 Pavilion in
Baltimore a few years ago, you just might end up with some
unexpected $5 vouchers courtesy of a class-action settlement.
A lawsuit moving toward completion in Baltimore City Circuit Court
would provide certificates worth $5 to customers who bought
tickets to either Rams Head Live! or Pier 6 Pavilion in Baltimore
between March 14, 2011, and March 14, 2013. Customers wouldn't
necessarily be limited to a single certificate -- they'd be
entitled to one for every ticket purchase transaction during the
time in question.
Certificates wouldn't be worth cash, though. Each one would be
good toward new ticket purchases at Rams Head Live!, Pier Six
Pavilion, Rams Head Shore House, Rams Head Annapolis, Rams Head
Savage Mills, Rams Head Roadhouse or Rams Head On Stage. More
than one could be used at a time.
The certificates aren't a sure thing yet. They're part of a
settlement scheduled to be approved at a hearing on March 10.
Notices of the settlement are hitting many consumers covered by
the class-action suit now.
The lawsuit in question was filed in March of 2014 by John Bogdan
Jr. of Baltimore. It alleges Rams Head and Pier 6 Pavilion broke
Baltimore City Code by adding charges onto the face value of
tickets.
Rams Head is denying it did anything wrong, according to notices
of the pending settlement. But it's agreed to settle the suit.
Customers covered in the suit should receive notices if Rams Head
has their email address or mailing address on file. Others can
register for benefits if they provide information proving they
made a ticket purchase during the time in question. Rams Head has
told the court that it believes about 364,000 transactions would
be covered under the settlement.
As is standard with class-action lawsuits, customers can object to
the settlement or opt out of it to preserve their right to take
future legal action. Not opting out means essentially waiving the
right to sue over the overcharging issue in the future.
More information on opting out or registering for benefits is
available at a website set up for the class action,
ramsheadsettlement.com
Rams Head marketing director Samantha Silverman provided a
statement on the pending settlement.
"Rams Head is committed to providing numerous options for the
ticket-buying process: online, phone, or box office," it said.
"Years prior to this settlement, Rams Head elected to make all
ticket purchases at the box office surcharge-free 100 percent of
the time."
It's also worth noting that the lawsuit and settlement reference a
specific part of Baltimore City Code that was repealed and
replaced in 2013. The attorneys and named plaintiff involved
would get paid under the settlement, too. Rams Head would pay
$200,000 in attorney's fees and expenses. It would pay Bogdan
$5,000.
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shimon Seror, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Receivables Performance Management and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:15-cv-01060-AET-DEA (D.N.J., February 9, 2015) accuses
the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
MARCUS LAW LLC
1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
Ocean, NJ 07712
Telephone: (732) 660-8169
E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com
REGENTS OF UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: "Lopez" Suit OK'd for Transfer
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
granted the stipulation between Federated University Police
Officers' Association, on behalf of itself and its members, Andrew
Lopez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals, and The Regents of the University of California, to
transfer the venue of a class action to the Central District of
California, Southern Division, for the convenience of parties and
witnesses and in the interests of justice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1404(a).
The Action arises from the Plaintiffs' allegations that they were
subject to non-consensual video and audio recording of
confidential communications within and without the University of
California Irvine Police Department Building located in Irvine
California. The Plaintiffs allege that they were deprived of
their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search
and seizure and informational privacy by the Defendants in
violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and that the Defendants
violated their right to be free from audio recording without their
consent in violation of the Federal Wire and Electronic
Communications Interception and Interception of Oral
Communications Law, 18 U.S.C. Section 2520 et seq.
The case is FEDERATED UNIVERSITY POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, on
behalf of itself and its members, ANDREW LOPEZ, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs/
Petitioners, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, THE
UC IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF JEFFREY
HUTCHISON, POLICE CHIEF PAUL HENISEY, in both his individual and
official capacity JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC. and DOES 1 through 500,
inclusive, Defendants/Respondents, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-05523-JD (N.D.
Calif.). A full-text copy of the order dated
Jan. 28, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/PiDD8Ofrom
Leagle.com.
Daphne M. Anneet, Esq. -- danneet@bwslaw.com -- Susan E. Coleman,
Esq. -- scoleman@bwslaw.com -- Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq. --
mwrosch@bwslaw.com -- BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP, Los
Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Defendants/Respondents, THE REGENTS OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, (also erroneously sued herein as THE
UC IRVINE POLICE DEPARTMENT), POLICE CHIEF PAUL HENISEY and
ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF JEFFREY HUTCHISON.
MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT, Kevin A. Flautt, Esq. -- kflautt@mastagni.com
-- Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Petitioners, FEDERATED UNIVERSITY
POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION, on behalf of itself and its members,
ANDREW LOPEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Joseph C. Liburt, Esq. --
jliburt@orrick.com -- Attorneys for Defendant/Respondent, JOHNSON
CONTROLS, INC.
SANOFI-AVENTIS US: Plumbers Union Suit Removed to D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Plumbers' Local Union No. 690
Health Plan v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc., et al., Case No. ESX-L-
008909-14, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Essex County-Law Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00956-KM-MAH to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
HAVILAND HUGHES
112 Haddontowne Court, Suite 202
Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
Telephone: (215) 609-4661
Facsimile: (215) 392-4400
E-mail: haviland@havilandhughes.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Liza M. Walsh, Esq.
CONNELL FOLEY, LLP
85 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 535-0500
E-mail: lwalsh@connellfoley.com
SIGHTSEEING MIAMI: Removes "Salazar Garcia" Suit to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Salazar Garcia v. Sightseeing
Miami, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-030691 CA 01, was removed from the
County Court in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-20474-UU to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought to recover allegedly unpaid minimum wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
Court House Tower, Suite 2200
44 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com
bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David Alan Chonin, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID CHONIN
5820 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 125
Miami, FL 33126
Telephone: (305) 444-3000
Facsimile: (305) 448-7788
E-mail: davidchonin@yahoo.com
SINO-FOREST: Ontario Superior Court Certifies Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP and Koskie Minsky LLP on Jan. 28 disclosed that leave
was granted to commence an action under section 138.3 of the
Ontario Securities Act and the claims advanced in the Sino-Forest
class action have been certified by the Ontario Superior Court.
The class action alleges that Sino-Forest, certain of its
directors and officers and its auditor misled investors concerning
the business and accounting at the collapsed timber trader. The
plaintiffs include the trustees of the Labourers' Pension Fund of
Central and Eastern Canada and the trustees of the International
Union of Operating Engineers Local 793 Pension Plan for Operating
Engineers in Ontario.
"We are very pleased to now be in a position to finally determine
this case on its merits," says Jonathan Ptak -- jptak@kmlaw.ca --
a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP, counsel to the plaintiffs. "We
look forward to vigorously advancing this action and pursuing all
remaining defendants."
To date, the claims in this action against the defendants Ernst &
Young, Poeyry (Beijing) Consulting Company Limited, and David J.
Horsley have been settled and these settlements have been approved
by the Ontario Superior Court. In addition, the plaintiffs
recently reached a $32.5 million settlement agreement with certain
financial institutions that assisted Sino-Forest with the
offerings of Sino-Forest's securities to the public, for which
court approval is being sought. The recovery from the settled
defendants is among the largest recoveries in a securities class
action in Canada.
Koskie Minsky LLP, based in Toronto, is one of Canada's leading
firms in the areas of class actions, trade union labur law,
employment law, civil litigation and pension & benefits. Its
class actions team, led by Mr. Kirk Baert, has been a leader in
class actions since 1992 and has prosecuted many of the leading
cases in the area.
The Siskinds securities class actions team has offices in London,
Toronto, Montreal and Quebec City. The team, comprised of 15
lawyers admitted to practice in Ontario, Quebec, New York State,
and the states of Queensland and Victoria in Australia, acts
exclusively for investors. Siskinds' securities class actions
team is complemented by lawyers in Siskinds' affiliate, Siskinds,
Desmeules, based in Quebec City.
STANLEY MORRIS: Appeal From Denial of Bid for New Trial Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In B. DAHLENBURG BONAR, P.S.C, AND BARBARA D. BONAR, APPELLANTS,
v. STANLEY MORRIS CHESLEY; ROBERT STEINBERG; WAITE, SCHNEIDER,
BAYLESS & CHESLEY CO., L.P.A. APPELLEES, NO. 2009-CA-001819-MR.,
Barbara Bonar and B. Dahlenburg Bonar, P.S.C. (Bonar) appeals an
order of the Boone Circuit Court denying its motion for a new
trial. The Appellees, Stanley Morris Chesley (Chesley), Robert
Steinberg (Steinberg), and Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co.
L.P.A. (WSBC), have filed a renewed motion to dismiss the Bonar
appeal. The Appellees argue that the appeal is not within the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, that two of the
Appellees have already been dismissed from the underlying case
prior to the notice of appeal being filed, and that this appeal
has not been prosecuted in conformity with the rules.
After carefully reviewing the parties' briefs and oral arguments,
the Kentucky Appeals Court denied the motion to dismiss but
affirmed the trial court's order denying Bonar's motion for a new
trial saying "the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
denying her motions for relief under CR 60.02(d) and (f). Judge
McGinnis had jurisdiction to rule at the April 2, 2009, hearing.
Thereafter, Judge Mershon properly denied Bonar's motion and that
ruling stands."
A copy of the Appeals Court's corrected January 30, 2015 opinion
and order is available at http://is.gd/3ylZGU from Leagle.com.
Thomas E. Clay, Louisville, Kentucky, BRIEFS AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLANT.
James M. Gary, Lexington, Kentucky, BRIEF FOR APPELLEES.
James M. Gary, Lexington, Kentucky, ORAL ARGUMENT FOR APPELLEE,
ROBERT STEINBERG.
STAR BAKERY: "Martinez" Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Martinez and other similarly situated individuals v. Star
Bakery, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, Manuel Sendina,
individually, Ana Gloria Sendina, individually, Gabriel Sendina,
individually, and Christina S. Garbati, individually, Case No.
1:15-cv-20483-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 6, 2015) is brought for
alleged unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Star Bakery, Inc., is a Florida Profit Corporation with its main
place of business located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The
Individual Defendants are officers, managers or agents of the
Company.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq.
REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
Court House Tower, Suite 2200
44 West Flagler Street
Miami, FL 33130
Telephone: (305) 416-5000
Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
SYNGENTA CORP: Cantrell Farm Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Cantrell Farm Partnership v. Syngenta Seeds
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00014, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02327-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.
The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation known
as In re: Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-
02591-JWL-JPO.
The cases concern the Syngenta defendants' alleged decision to
commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically modified trait,
known as "MIR162," that reportedly controls certain insects. Corn
with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been
approved for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a
complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. The Plaintiffs are
corn growers and grain exporters, who allegedly suffered economic
losses resulting from China's refusal to accept MIR162 corn.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam K. Pulaski, Esq.
PULASKI & MIDDLEMAN PLLC
4615 Southwest Freeway, Suite 850
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: (713) 664-4555
Facsimile: (713) 664-7543
E-mail: adam@pulaskilawfirm.com
- and -
Martin J. Phipps, Esq.
PHIPPS CAVAZOS ANDERSON, LLP
The Phipps, 102 9th Street
San Antonio, TX 78215
Telephone: (210) 340-9877
Facsimile: (210) 340-9899
E-mail: mphipps@phippscavazos.com
- and -
Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 436-1800
Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
TETRA TECH: Financial Impact of BPR Class Action Unknown
--------------------------------------------------------
Tetra Tech, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on January 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended December 28, 2014, that the financial
impact to the Company of the class action involving BPR Inc. is
unknown at this time.
The Company said, "We acquired BPR Inc. ("BPR"), a Quebec-based
engineering firm on October 4, 2010. Subsequently, we have been
informed of the following with respect to pre-acquisition
activities at BPR:
"On April 17, 2012, authorities in the province of Quebec, Canada
charged two former employees of BPR Triax, a subsidiary of BPR,
and BPR Triax, under the Canadian Criminal Code with allegations
of corruption. Discovery procedures associated with the charges
are currently ongoing, and the legal process is expected to
continue into 2016. We have conducted an internal investigation
concerning this matter and, based on the results of our
investigation, we believe these allegations are limited to
activities at BPR Triax prior to our acquisition of BPR.
"On April 19, 2013, a class action proceeding was filed in
Montreal in which BPR, BPR's former president, and other Quebec-
based engineering firms and individuals are named as defendants.
The plaintiff class includes all individuals and entities that
have paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city of Montreal.
The allegations include participation in collusion to share
contracts awarded by the City of Montreal, conspiracy to reduce
competition and fix prices, payment of bribes to officials, making
illegal political contributions, and bid rigging. A class
certification hearing was held in March 2014, and on May 7, 2014,
the court dismissed the action. On June 5, 2014, the plaintiff
filed an appeal, and the defendants then filed a motion to
dismiss. On November 3, 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff's
appeal. The plaintiff has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court
of Canada.
"The financial impact to us of the matters discussed above is
unknown at this time."
TEXAS: 5th Cir. Vacates Ruling in Suit vs. DPS Director
-------------------------------------------------------
The claims in a proposed class action arose from the wrongful
assessment of surcharges under the Texas Driver Responsibility
Program. The City of Houston misreported the charges against
plaintiffs (and members of the class they seek to represent) to
the State, and the State overcharged them as a result. Defendant-
Appellant Steve McCraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public
Safety, appeals the district court's partial denial of his motion
to dismiss the case against him for want of jurisdiction.
"Because this case suffers from a number of jurisdictional
defects, we vacate the order of the district court and remand with
instructions to dismiss," wrote Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones of
the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit in an opinion
dated January 23, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/JNeo4pfrom Leagle.com.
The case is BERTHA M. FONTENOT, Individually and on Behalf of
Those Similarly Situated; DAVID MILLER; SANTA ZAMARRON,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. STEVE McCRAW, in his official capacity as
Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety; SUSAN COMBS, in
her official capacity as Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts,
Defendants-Appellants, NO. 13-20611.
TUESDAY MORNING: Court Granted Final Okay to Class Action Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday Morning Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company
has been defending against a class action lawsuit filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County, on December 5, 2008
-- Julia Randell, et. al., v. Tuesday Morning, Inc., No. BC403298
(Cal. Super. Ct.) -- in which the original complaint alleged
violations of California's meal and rest period laws. The two
named plaintiffs, who were former employees of the Company,
subsequently amended the complaint three times. Narrowing their
class allegations, the plaintiffs moved on March 14, 2012 to
certify a class on the issue of whether the Company's alleged
practice of providing "on-duty" meal periods to Senior Sales
Associates violates the California Labor Code. The Court granted
that motion on June 20, 2012, certifying a class comprised of
current and former Senior Sales Associates who worked for the
Company in California, and who were required to take meal breaks
"on duty" at any point from April 1, 2005 to the present. The
Company filed motions to decertify the class and for summary
judgment on January 4, 2013, which the Court denied on March 29,
2013. On March 20, 2014, the parties executed a settlement
agreement and release which, subject to Court approval, resolved
the matter on a class basis. On April 16, 2014, the Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement and authorized the parties
to provide notice of the settlement and its terms to class
members. On October 9, 2014, the Court granted final approval of
the settlement. The terms of the settlement did not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition or
results of operations.
TRACFONE WIRELESS: Settles Unlimited Data Class Action for $40MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael W. Sobol, the chair of the consumer practice group at the
national plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, on Jan. 28 disclosed that consumers who purchased service
plans with "Unlimited data" from TracFone Wireless, Inc., sold
under its brands Straight Talk, Net10, Telcel America, or Simple
Mobile, may be eligible to receive payments under an anticipated
$40 million settlement in a nationwide class action lawsuit.
The binding term sheet for the class action settlement was reached
in coordination with a Consent Order which the Federal Trade
Commission authorized, and which will be filed with the same Judge
presiding over the previously-filed consumer class action. "The
FTC states that it files a complaint when it has 'reason to
believe' that the law has been or is being violated, and here, the
class action complaint alleging violations of law appears to have
pre-dated the FTC action," Mr. Sobol said. Plaintiffs in the
class action will now promptly seek Court-approval of the class
action settlement.
"We are delighted that the Federal Trade Commission has joined
with consumers to help achieve a comprehensive resolution of the
case," stated Mr. Sobol, class counsel for the consumers, who in
July 2013 initiated the litigation over TracFone's representations
of "Unlimited" data plans. "The settlement will offer
compensation for customers who had the speed of their data service
significantly reduced by a practice called 'throttling,' despite
being promised 'Unlimited data.' The settlement will also improve
future disclosures and notifications of data limits and throttling
practices," Mr. Sobol remarked.
Consumers that purchased Straight Talk, Net10, Telcel America, or
Simple Mobile wireless service plans with "Unlimited data" during
the period of July 24, 2009 through December 31, 2014, and who, at
any time during this period, had the speed of their data
"throttled," suspended, or terminated at TracFone's request will
either receive a direct payment, or are eligible to participate in
the settlement's claim process. "Customers who can be identified
may receive a payment without having to make a claim, but all
eligible customers are strongly encouraged to make a claim to best
ensure participation in the settlement," Lieff Cabraser's co-
counsel, Daniel M. Hattis, stated.
Consumers should visit www.PrePaidPhoneRefund.com to learn more
about the possible class action settlement and submit their claim.
If the settlement is approved, all payments to consumers through
the settlement will be made by a Court-appointed claims
administrator, as will be specified in the class action settlement
agreement, subject to approval by the Court.
One of the nation's largest wireless carriers, TracFone uses the
brands Straight Talk, Net10, Telcel America, and Simple Mobile to
sell mobile phones with prepaid wireless plans at Walmart and
other retail stores nationwide. The class action alleges that
TracFone falsely advertised its wireless mobile phone plans as
providing "unlimited" data while actually maintaining monthly data
usage limits that were not disclosed to customers. It further
alleged that TracFone regularly throttled, suspended, and in
certain cases terminated customers' data plans pursuant to the
secret limits.
The settlement would permanently enjoin TracFone from making any
advertisement or other representation about amount of data its
cell phone plans offer without disclosing clearly and
conspicuously, and in close proximity to the representation, all
material restrictions on the amount and speed of the data plan.
Further, TracFone and its brands may not state in their
advertisements and marketing materials that any plan provides
"unlimited data" unless there is also clear, prominent, and
adjoining disclosure of any applicable throttling caps or limits,
the lower speeds to which consumers will be throttled or slowed,
and any other terms regarding data usage suspension or services
terminated.
The Consent Order filed by the FTC was filed in the same federal
court, the Northern District Court of California, where the class
action was already pending. The class action settlement is
subject to review for fairness by the Court. No payments to class
members will be made under the settlement unless and until the
Court approves the settlement. As noted above, eligible TracFone
customers may submit their claims now for possible compensation at
www.PrePaidPhoneRefund.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Brown" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Cy R. Brown v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., Case No. YC070330, was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:15-cv-00880-DDP-AGR to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff challenges Uber's alleged practice of charging
riders a "LAX Airport Fee" of $4 per trip to Los Angeles
International Airport, and seeks the return of all such fees paid.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com
- and -
John Roddy, Esq.
Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
125 Summer Street, Suite 1030
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 439-6730
Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com
eryan@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Pedro Jaile, Esq.
JAILE & TRIFILO LLC
188 Summer Street
East Boston, MA 02128
Telephone: (617) 561-3777
Facsimile: (617) 561-0300
E-mail: pjaile@jaileandtrifilo.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Laurence F. Pulgram, Esq.
Tyler G. Newby, Esq.
Annasara G. Purcell, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 875-2300
Facsimile: (415) 281-1350
E-mail: lpulgram@fenwick.com
tnewby@fenwick.com
apurcell@fenwick.com
UNITED STATES: Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seavon Pierce is a state prisoner confined in California State
Prison, Corcoran, and proceeding pro se with a petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to the authority of 28 U.S.C. Section
2254. On January 22, 2015, the Court issued an order dismissing
the petition as duplicative and closing the action. Prior to the
order being docketed, Petitioner's first amended petition for writ
of habeas corpus was docketed. As these documents crossed one
another for docketing, the Court issued an amended order, which
reflects the Court's consideration of Petitioner's first amended
petition filed on January 22, 2015.
The Court takes judicial notice of a document which was filed by
Petitioner and treated as a prisoner civil rights complaint in the
Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California on
November 12, 2014. That complaint has been assigned case number
2:14-CV-02644-AC. On December 15, 2014, Petitioner filed his
second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus in the
Sacramento Division of the Eastern District of California in case
number 2:14-CV-02644-AC, and is presently awaiting screening.
On December 15, 2014, Petitioner filed in the Court a duplicate of
his second amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, which he
titled, "HABEAS Petition 1st AMEND RIGHT TO PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES". This petition has been
assigned case number 1:14-CV-01992-GSA HC. On January 20, 2015,
Petitioner filed a document stating that 28 U.S.C. 2254 does not
apply to his petition, and that he has filed a class action
petition under the 1st Amendment in case number 1:14-CV-01992-GSA
HC.
Against this backdrop, Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on January
23, 2015, dismissed without prejudice the petition for writ of
habeas corpus as duplicative. The Clerk of Court was directed to
close this action. The Court declined to issue a certificate of
appealability.
A copy of the Court's January 23 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/FnwI4Iand January 22 ruling is available at
http://is.gd/0ip4xFfrom Leagle.com.
The case is SEAVON PIERCE, Petitioner, v. BARACK OBAMA, et. al.,
Respondents, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01992-GSA-HC, (E.D. Cal.)
Seavon Pierce, Petitioner, Pro Se.
US SERVICO: Former Employees File Overtime Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that former employees of a janitorial
cleaning service company filed a lawsuit on Jan. 15 against the
business alleging they were owed overtime pay.
Johnny Cody, Leeanne Snow, Alfred Sanders and Anthony Claiborne
filed the class action suit against Michigan-based U.S. Servico,
Inc. and its owner Brian Rogers in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan. The plaintiffs said they served as
operations manager, supervisors, crew leaders and janitors, but
were all exempt from overtime pay based on U.S. Servico's policy.
Their job title, however, meant little in terms of their
responsibilities, according to the lawsuit. The suit alleged the
former employees spent the majority of their time in non-exempt
activities related to commercial cleaning and janitorial services.
The plaintiffs alleged the company purposely paid the employees a
salary in order to avoid overtime costs and even refused to pay
overtime for non-exempt employees who were paid by the hour. The
suit also alleged the company failed to pay the employees for
filing required reports after they had completed their janitorial
work. According to the lawsuit, the report had to be filed after
an employee had clocked-out, usually taking 30 minutes to an hour
to complete. Additional reports that took three to five minutes
were required mid-shift, and employees allegedly were told they
had to fill them out while off the clock.
The company allegedly also refused to pay employees when they
traveled between locations.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin J. Stoops and Jesse L.
Young of Sommers Schwartz, P.C. and Marshall Lasser of Marshall
Lasser, P.C.
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
case number 2:15-cv-10170
VISA INC: Class Administrator Received 1,179 Requests by Merchants
------------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that in the Interchange
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) on January 14, 2015, following a
Court-approved process to give class members who previously opted
out of the damages portion of the class settlement an option to
rejoin it, the class administrator submitted a report stating that
it had received 1,179 requests by merchants to rejoin the cash
settlement class, some of which may include multiple merchants.
VISA INC: Notices of Appeal Filed in Consumer Interchange Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that in the Consumer Interchange
Litigation on November 26, 2014, in the putative class action
filed on behalf of an alleged class of Visa and MasterCard payment
cardholders, the court dismissed plaintiffs' federal law claim and
declined to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law
claim. Both sides have asked the court to reconsider aspects of
its decision, and have filed notices of appeal.
VISA INC: Reached Settlement With Merchants in Interchange Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that Visa has reached settlement
agreements with a number of merchants representing approximately
21% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of merchants who
opted out in the Interchange Opt-out Litigation.
Beginning in May 2013, more than 40 opt-out cases have been filed
by hundreds of merchants in various federal district courts,
generally pursuing damages claims on allegations similar to those
raised in MDL 1720. A number of the cases also include allegations
that Visa has monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and/or
conspired to monopolize debit card-related market segments, and
one of the cases seeks an injunction against the fixed acquirer
network fee. The cases name as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A.,
Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated, and MasterCard
International Incorporated, although some also include certain
U.S. financial institutions as defendants.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and its subsidiaries filed an opt-out
complaint that also added Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe
Services Inc. as defendants. Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe
Services Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Wal-Mart's claims against
them.
As of the date of filing this quarterly report, Visa has reached
settlement agreements with a number of merchants representing
approximately 21% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of
merchants who opted out.
On December 23, 2014, a similar case was filed in New Mexico state
court by New Mexico's attorney general on behalf of the state,
state agencies, and citizens of the state, generally pursuing
claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. If this
case is transferred to or otherwise included in MDL 1720, it will
be covered litigation for purposes of the retrospective
responsibility plan.
VISA INC: Objectors in Credit/Debit Card Tying Cases Seek Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that in early December 2014,
objectors to the settlement in the consolidated Credit/Debit Card
Tying Cases petitioned for review by the California Supreme Court.
VISA INC: Filed Motions to Dismiss in Data Pass Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that on January 9, 2015,
Webloyalty.com, GameStop, and Visa each filed motions to dismiss
the second amended class action complaint in the Data Pass
Litigation.
VISA INC: Plaintiffs Dismissed Claims Against Visa and Mastercard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2014, that the court on December 30,
2014, granted plaintiffs' notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice of all claims against Visa and MasterCard in the Target
Data Breach case.
VIVUS INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Ingram" Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a Jan. 29,
2015, opinion affirmed a lower court's decision granting Vivus,
Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action filed by John Ingram,
asserting claims under the Securities Exchane Act of 1934.
The Ninth Circuit held that in the present case, the district
court concluded that the complaint did not satisfy the
requirements under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9 and
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Section
78u-4(b) because it did not adequately allege that the defendants
made materially misleading statements or omissions and did not
adequately state facts giving rise to a strong inference of
scienter.
The appeals case is JOHN INGRAM, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VIVUS, INC.,
LELAND F. WILSON, and WESLEY W. DAY, Ph. D., Defendants-Appellees,
NO. 12-17398 (9th Cir.). A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/PfW3cSfrom Leagle.com.
VVO MOBILE: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fredkiey Hurley, individually v. VVO Mobile LLC d/b/a Vinny
Vincenz Pizza, a New York for business entity, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00922-RA (S.D.N.Y., February 9, 2015) is brought for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Florida Accessibility
Code.
Mr. Hurley is permanently disabled and confined to a wheelchair.
He alleges that when he was visiting Vinny Vincenz Pizza, he
encountered architectural barriers at the Defendant's property in
New York City precluding him from reasonably accessing the goods
and services provided to non-disabled individuals.
VVO Mobile LLC, doing business as Vinny Vincenz Pizza, operates
the Property as a food service establishment.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tara Anne Demetriades, Esq.
ADA ACCESSIBILITY ASSOCIATES
2076 Wolver Hollow Road
Oyster Bay, NY 11771
Telephone: (516) 595-5009
E-mail: tdemetriades@aol.com
WAL-MART STORES: Removes "Nikmanesh" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Nikmanesh v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2014-00760054-CU-OE-CXC, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-
00202 to the proceeding.
The Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Defendants
failed to pay minimum and overtime wages, in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric M. Epstein, Esq.
ERIC M. EPSTEIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6002
Telephone: (310) 552-5366
Facsimile: (310) 556-8021
E-mail: emepstein@aol.com
- and -
Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
THIERMAN LAW FIRM
7287 Lakeside Dr.
Reno, NV 89511-76520
Telephone: (775) 284-1500
- and -
Dayton B. Parcells, III, Esq.
PARCELLS LAW FIRM
1901 Ave of the Stars, 11FL
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9882
Facsimile: (310) 201-9855
E-mail: dbparcells@parcellslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
John Yslas, Esq.
Jennifer A. Awrey, Esq.
Jennifer J. Wiegley, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
555 South Flower Street, 41st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 892-9200
Facsimile: (213) 892-9494
E-mail: john.yslas@nortonrosefulbright.com
jennifer.awrey@nortonrosefulbright.com
jennifer.wiegley@nortonrosefulbright.com
WALTER D. PALMER: Former Employees File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
A group of former employees of the Walter D. Palmer Leadership
Learning Partners Charter School has filed a class-action lawsuit
against the school, its founder and others for unpaid
compensation, the Daily News has learned.
Regina Medina, writing for the Daily News, reports that about 75
to 150 ex-Palmer staffers are expected to be represented in the
suit and are seeking several thousand to $14,000 each in damages,
said their lawyer, Joshua Rubinsky, with the law firm Brodie &
Rubinsky, PC. The complaint was filed on Jan. 26 in Common Pleas
Court.
The suit states that Palmer did not pay for work performed during
Nov. 1, 2014, to Jan. 15.
"People didn't get paid a month's pay," Mr. Rubinsky said on
Jan. 29. "There are benefit days [sick days, summer pay, etc.]
that have accrued but have not been paid out."
According to the complaint, obtained by the Daily News, the sole
named plaintiff, David Hardwick, and the others "similarly
situated," "seek immediate payment of wages owed to the Class,
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and any
other relief that the Court may deem just and proper."
Palmer shut down operations Dec. 31 at its K-8 school in Northern
Liberties. In October, the school eliminated grades nine through
12 at its Frankford campus after it was forced to reduce
enrollment from more than 1,200 pupils to 675, following a series
of court rulings.
David Weathington, who's in charge of liquidating Palmer's assets
and is identified in court papers as Palmer's chief administrative
officer, and Jack Pund, a financial overseer, are both named in
the class-action suit. Six unidentified individuals, referred to
as Jane and John Does, were also named as defendants.
"It's unfortunate. People who run organizations -- schools,
unions, businesses -- they have a responsibility to ensure people
get paid," Mr. Rubinsky said.
Reached on Jan. 29, Walter D. Palmer, the school's founder and
CEO, declined to comment on the suit, saying he had not seen it.
WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Bridge Toll Billing Process
----------------------------------------------------------
Elisa Hahn, writing for KING 5 News, reports that a group of
attorneys has filed a class action lawsuit against the Washington
State Department of Transportation, claiming the billing process
for bridge tolls violates due process.
For all the times a week she's driven across the 520 bridge,
Amy Funchess never guessed how much she would end up owing WSDOT.
Before she got her Good To Go pass, Ms. Funchess says she traveled
across the bridge many times but only received two tolling bills
in the mail. When she called Good To Go a couple months ago to
ask about her balance, she was stunned with what she learned.
"Lo and behold, they told me about all these civil penalties I
had. And I said 'How much would those be?' And they said 'Oh,
you're up around $900.' And I about fell over in my chair,"
Ms. Funchess said.
Ms. Funchess, an attorney, consulted a friend, attorney
Catherine Clark of Seattle, who had heard the same story from
other lawyers.
"I honestly think it's people who aren't thinking the process
through," Ms. Clark said.
So Ms. Clark and her colleagues, attorney Mary Anderson of
Bellevue, and attorney Laurie Shiratori of Seattle, filed a class
action lawsuit claiming WSDOT and Electronic Transaction
Consultants are violating a driver's right to due process, by
failing to notify her of her bills and the penalties owed for not
paying them.
"It's sporadic. Some things get sent, some do not," said
Ms. Clark. "The civil penalty do not refer to the toll bill that
was issued. The toll bill doesn't include dates on which they are
allegedly sent. It's very confusing for people and it should be
that hard."
KING 5 has aired a series of stories exposing the confusion and
the billing problems with Good To Go.
Ms. Clark accuses WSDOT of using a specific Washington
Administrative Code as a crutch, which says "a toll bill MAY be
sent to the registered owner of the vehicle."
But there is no requirement.
"The position that they take is a WAC that says we may send you a
bill," said Ms. Clark. "Which suggests it's a discretionary idea.
We don't think it's discretionary. We think it's a constitutional
right that I'm entitled to notice or anyone is entitled to
notice."
KING 5 reached out to WSDOT to comment on the lawsuit. A
spokesperson said WSDOT had not yet been served.
The whole process makes Ms. Funchess reluctant to take the 520
bridge at all.
"Untrusting, to be quite honest, a little bit violated," she said.
"They stole from me."
Ms. Funchess said Good To Go offered no appeals process, no
payment plan, and that if she didn't pay up, Department of
Licensing would not renew her tabs.
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Reports $600,000 Class Action Legal Expense
-------------------------------------------------------------
World Acceptance Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Current Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on January 29, 2015, that the Company incurred an additional $600
thousand of legal expense in the current quarter compared to the
prior year quarter.
The Company said, "General and administrative expenses amounted to
$80.6 million in the third fiscal quarter, a 4.2% increase over
the $77.3 million in the same quarter of the prior fiscal year. As
a percentage of revenues, our G&A increased from 48.2% during the
third quarter of fiscal 2014 to 52.4% during the current quarter.
This increase was partially due to the reversal of long term
equity incentive accruals of $2.9 million in the prior year
quarter resulting from the resignation of the President / COO
during that quarter. The Company also incurred an additional $600
thousand of legal expense in the current quarter compared to the
prior year quarter. The additional legal expense primarily related
to our response to a class action complaint filed in April of
2014. We do not expect to incur significant additional legal
expense related to this complaint, as we have met our deductible
under the related insurance policy. Our average G&A per open
office decreased by 1.2% when comparing the two fiscal quarters."
XOOM CORP: Removes "Liu" Suit to Northern District of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Liu v. Xoom Corporation, et al.,
Case No. CGC-15-543531, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Francisco to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00602-LHK to
the proceeding.
The Complaint alleges that Xoom's February 14, 2013 Registration
Statement and Prospectus contained material misstatements and
omissions, and seeks to assert claims under the Securities Act of
1933.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 785-2610
Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
The New York Times Building
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 813-8800
Facsimile: (212) 355-3333
E-mail: bpastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com
- and -
Nicole L. Chessari, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
135 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 752-3100
Facsimile: (650) 853-1038
E-mail: nchessari@goodwinprocter.com
YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Declines to Approve 2nd Amended Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Better and YRC Investors Group brought a securities class
action on behalf of all who purchased common stock of YRC
Worldwide Inc. ("YRC") between April 24, 2008 and November 2,
2009. They brought suit against YRC and former YRC executives
William D. Zollars, Michael Smid, Timothy A. Wicks and Stephen L.
Bruffet. Plaintiffs allege that all defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section
78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.10b-5 (Count I).
They also allege that individual defendants violated Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78t(a)
(Count II). Plaintiffs assert that by disseminating materially
false and misleading statements and/or concealing materially
adverse facts, defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme and
course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit on
purchasers of YRC common stock. The matter is now before the Court
on plaintiffs' Second Amended Unopposed Motion For Preliminary
Approval Of Class Action Settlement ("Third Motion For Preliminary
Approval") filed February 18, 2014.
District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil, in a ruling dated February 11,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/I0oSRAfrom
Leagle.com, held that Plaintiffs do not provide an amended
agreement which adopts the changes or adds new class
representatives as parties to the settlement. Moreover, even if
the parties have executed a new or amended agreement, plaintiffs
have not provided sufficient details of a proposed notice plan.
According to Judge Vratil, "This case has been pending for more
than four years, and the parties have conducted little to no
discovery. Since December of 2012, progress in the case has been
delayed pending the parties' amateurish efforts to settle class
action claims. During this time, plaintiffs have wasted precious
judicial resources in filing three unsuccessful motions to obtain
preliminary approval of different class action settlements.
Plaintiffs appear to be represented by counsel who are otherwise
generally competent. For unexplained reasons, however -- perhaps
laziness or lack of experience in class action practice -- they
have been unable to meet the requirements of Rule 23 to obtain
conditional certification and preliminary approval of their
proposed class settlements. Under these circumstances, the Court
is forced to question whether counsel are adequately and capably
representing the proposed class at this time, and are willing and
able to do so in the future."
Accordingly, the plaintiffs' Second Amended Unopposed Motion For
Preliminary Approval Of Class Action Settlement is overruled. On
or before February 20, 2015, plaintiffs must show cause in writing
why plaintiffs' individual claims should not be set for trial
beginning July 13, 2015, Judge Vratil concluded.
The case is STAN BETTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YRC WORLDWIDE
INC., et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-2072-KHV, (D. Kan.).
Stan Better, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley L. Ricket, Dollar,
Burns & Becker, LC, J. Ryan Lopatka -- j.lopatka@ksfcounsel.com --
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, John M. Parisi -- jparisi@sjblaw.com --
Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd., Lynn R. Johnson --
ljohnson@sjblaw.com -- Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd., Frank
J. Johnson -- FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP
& Shawn E. Fields -- ShawnF@johnsonandweaver.com -- Johnson &
Weaver, LLP.
YRC Investors Group, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce W. Dona --
bruce.dona@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, J. Ryan
Lopatka, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, John M. Parisi, Shamberg, Johnson
& Bergman, Chtd., Lynn R. Johnson, Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman,
Chtd., Kim E. Miller -- kim.miller@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick &
Foti, LLC & Lewis S. Kahn -- Lewis.Kahn@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC.
YRC Worldwide Inc., Defendant, represented by J. Emmett Logan --
emmett.logan@stinsonleonard.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP,
Kristin L. Farnen -- kfarnen@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street
LLP, Jill M. Baisinger -- jbaisinger@morganlewis.com -- Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Karen Pieslak Pohlmann --
kpohlmann@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Marc
J. Sonnenfeld -- msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP.
William D. Zollars, Defendant, represented by J. Emmett Logan,
Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Kristin L. Farnen, Stinson Leonard
Street LLP, Jill M. Baisinger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Karen
Pieslak Pohlmann, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Marc J.
Sonnenfeld, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.
Michael Smid, Defendant, represented by J. Emmett Logan, Stinson
Leonard Street LLP, Kristin L. Farnen, Stinson Leonard Street LLP,
Jill M. Baisinger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Karen Pieslak
Pohlmann, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Marc J. Sonnenfeld,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.
Timothy A. Wicks, Defendant, represented by J. Emmett Logan,
Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Kristin L. Farnen, Stinson Leonard
Street LLP, Jill M. Baisinger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Karen
Pieslak Pohlmann, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Marc J.
Sonnenfeld, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.
Stephen L. Bruffet, Defendant, represented by J. Emmett Logan,
Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Kristin L. Farnen, Stinson Leonard
Street LLP, Jill M. Baisinger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Karen
Pieslak Pohlmann, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Marc J.
Sonnenfeld, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.
*********
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 * * *