/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150224.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 39 Headlines AD DELIVERY: Faces "Sagardia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AEGON USA: Bailey & Glasser Files 401(k) Plan Class Action AGREE LIMITED: Sued in Pa. Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Facility ANTHEM INC: Faces "Heaton" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Ifversen" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Immerman" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Meer" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mitchel" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Napoleon" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Nicoll" Suit in N.Y. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Slater" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Weinberger" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Zand" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach APPLE INC: Accused of Illegal Streaming of Pre-1972 Recordings APPLE INC: Removes "Jacobson" Suit to California District Court ARS NATIONAL: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act AT&T CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wexler" Suit Claims AURORA LOAN: Gets Final Court Nod on "Chao" Class Settlement AUSNET: Faces Class Action Over Black Saturday Fire AUSTRALIA: Court Hearing in ASIC Class Action Set for May BIOSECURITY NZ: Group Posts Kiwifruit Class Action Claim BINCKBANK: Customer Class Action Likely BIRMINGHAM, AL: Trial Begins in Pepper Spray Class Action BLUE BELL: Removes "Mejia" Suit to Middle District of Florida BRAZOS ROCK: Fails to Give WARN Act Notice to Class, Suit Claims CALIFORNIA: "Thomas" Lawsuit Can't Proceed as Class Action CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Judge Seeks Explanation for High Jail Turnover CANADA: Merchant Law Firm Launches 60s Scoop Class Action CANADA: Aboriginal Elder Reacts to Suit v. Merchant Law Firm CAPSTONE CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages CROSSMARK INC: May 27 Final Hearing to Approve "Tripp" Settlement DIVERSIFIED SERVICES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act DRIVEN SPORTS: Judge Enters Order on Insurer Lawsuit DYCKMAN LIQUORS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery in Wallboard Antitrust Suit Ongoing ELECTRONIC ARTS: May 14 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Dismissal of Claims in Shareholder Action ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Further Review of Ruling in "Davis" Suit F&T MANAGEMENT: Faces "Zhao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FERGUSON, MO: Faces Class Action Over Municipal Court Practices FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Class Certified in "Cressy" Lawsuit FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Intern Class Suit FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Commenced Mailing of Settlement Notice FRIENDLY'S ICE CREAM: Faces "Zartman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Goes to ND Georgia GALION, OH: Customers Mull Suit Over Electricity Overcharges GENERAL MOTORS: 108 Class Actions Pending Through Jan. 30 GENERAL MOTORS: 156 Cases Consolidated as Part of MDL GENERAL MOTORS: Faces 2 Actions Over Diminished Value of Vehicles GENERAL MOTORS: NYSTRS File Consolidated Shareholder Action GENERAL MOTORS: Awaits Ontario Court Decision on Dealers' Claim GENERAL MOTORS: Estimates $511MM Loss in Korea Wage Litigation GENERAL MOTORS: Paid $93MM Related to Ignition Switch Recall GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Payment Fund to Exceed $400MM GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Accused of Violating Telecommunications Act HANBIT ENTERPRISES: Recalls Soybean Sprouts Due to Health Risks HANSEN NATURAL: Final Judgment Entered in "Cunha" Class Suit HOME DEPOT: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, "Albu" Suit Says HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Coss" Suit Over Subscription Services HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Coss" 2nd Suit Over Subscription Services ILLINOIS: "Brown" Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge for Pre-Trial IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Suit Fully Briefed INVENSENSE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif. JCAHO SURVEYOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Suit Says KEURIG GREEN: 2nd Cir. Heard Oral Argument in Fraud Suit Appeal KEURIG GREEN: JBR's Brief in Antitrust Suit Appeal Due March 3 KEURIG GREEN: Plaintiffs' Opposition Briefs Due April 10 KEURIG GREEN: Balks at Club Coffee's Statement of Claim KEURIG GREEN: Recorded $10MM Net Charge in 2014 on Product Recall KOHL'S CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Underwriters Can Sell Insurance in Arkansas LOVE HONEY: Faces Class Action Over Ineffective Lubricant MAPLEBEAR INC: Removes "Cobarruviaz" Suit to N.D. California MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MASSAGE ENVY: Not Liable for Wage Violations to T. Vann. MERCER CANYONS: Must Face Farmworkers' Class Action MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Teen Inmate Sexual Assault MICHIGAN: District Court Junks "Reed" Class Complaint vs. MDOC NAT'L COLLEGIATE: J. Rock Can File 3rd Amended Antitrust Suit NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Recuses Self in "Rock" Antitrust Suit NETHERLANDS INSURANCE: "Addison" Action Remanded to State Court MONARCH TRANSPORTATION: Judge Certifies "Colbert" Class Suit NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims OKLAHOMA: DHS to Close Emergency Shelters as Part of Settlement PASTA LA VISTA: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime PETROBRAS: Situation Gets Worse After Fraud Probe, Class Actions PIZANO'S PIZZA: Faces "Laplaca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PLANET BEAUTY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action PRIVATE LABEL: Falsely Marketed Green Coffee Products, Suit Says RE SPEC CORP: Class Works in Excess of 40 Hours w/o OT, Suit Says REAL FOODS: Recalls Strawberry Trays Due to Misbranding REXNORD CORPORATION: Paid Class Action Plaintiff Attorneys' Fees RIDGEBROOK INVESTMENTS: Minn. Landlords Can Bill Add-on Fees SAN DIEGO COUNTY: Sued Over Failure to Have Blind-Accessible ATM STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE: "Sewell" Class Deal Gets Court OK STRAUSS GROUP: Agrees to Change Label of Product Under settlement SYNGENTA CORP: "Hahn" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL T. MARZETTI CO: Recalls Garlic Dressing Due to Milk & Eggs TAKATA CORP: Faces "Boyd" Class Suit Over Defective Airbags TAKATA CORP: Former Engineer Talks to Plaintiffs' Attorneys TAURUS FLAVORS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages TIPP FLOOR: Faces "Palaguachi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime UTAH: Citizens Seek Class Action Status for DUI Arrest Suit VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Organic Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Shahrashian" Suit Over Misbranding WALGREEN CO: Faces "Cintron" Suit Over Product Misbranding WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Landfill Odor WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Cakes Due to Undeclared Eggs * Consumers Lose Class-Actions Due to Failure to Read Fine Print ********* AD DELIVERY: Faces "Sagardia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Sagardia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AD Delivery & Warehousing Inc., and Amrit Dabie, Case No. 1:15-cv-00677 (E.D.N.Y., February 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. AD Delivery & Warehousing Inc. is engaged in the business of storing and distributing automobile parts and accessories received from suppliers in several states across the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul Karim Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com AEGON USA: Bailey & Glasser Files 401(k) Plan Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- On February 6, 2015, Bailey & Glasser LLP filed a class action lawsuit against AEGON USA, the U.S. subsidiary of Dutch insurance giant AEGON NV. The class action complaint says that AEGON forced its employees' retirement savings accounts into high-priced AEGON investments and retirement programs. AEGON routinely charged its employees unnecessary and exorbitant fees in their 401(k) plan. AEGON's employees pay much higher average costs than employees of other billion-dollar retirement plans. Thus the class action complaint concludes that AEGON and its officers violated federal pension law by putting their profit motive ahead of the interests of their employees' retirement savings. The plaintiffs estimate that AEGON has taken millions of dollars in excessive fees from its employees' retirement savings. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Los Angeles, California, where many AEGON subsidiaries operate. Gregory Y. Porter -- gporter@baileyglasser.com -- a partner at Bailey & Glasser's Washington, D.C. office, leads the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Founded by Ben Bailey and Brian Glasser in 1999 in Charleston, West Virginia, Bailey & Glasser LLP -- http://www.baileyandglasser.com-- has grown to include nearly 50 lawyers, with offices in seven states and the District of Columbia. The firm's complex litigation practice focuses on high- stakes commercial litigation; class actions for consumers, insureds, investors, and retirement plan participants; catastrophic injury and defective product cases; antitrust; and whistleblower lawsuits. The firm has extensive experience in energy law, and litigates energy cases in trial courts, bankruptcy courts, regulatory agencies, and appellate courts. It has a major corporate practice, and handles business matters ranging from assisting Chinese investors in acquiring US assets, to IPOs, to the negotiation and execution of billions of dollars in commercial transactions. AGREE LIMITED: Sued in Pa. Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Facility ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Agree Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00186 (W.D. Pa., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to remove the excessive slopes in a parking space, and an excessively sloped curb ramp that projected into building entrance that makes the facilities not fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs. Agree Limited Partnership owns and operates a shopping mall located at 31850 Northwestern Highway, Farmington Hills, MI 48334. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Stephanie Goldin, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA LLP 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Heaton" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Heaton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00656 (N.D. Cal., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP One California Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 398-8700 Facsimile: (415) 398-8704 E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Ifversen" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- David Ifversen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00209 (S.D. Ind., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Hamish Cohen, Esq. Sean P. Burke, Esq. MATTINGLY BURKE COHEN BIDERMAN LLP 3646 N. Washington Blvd. Indianapolis, IN 46205 Telephone: (317) 614-7320 E-mail: Hamish.Cohen@MBCBLaw.com Sean.Burke@MBCBLaw.com - and - Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. Amy N. L. Hanson, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com ahanson@kellerrohrback.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Immerman" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard Immerman and Brian Weinstock, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 00208 (S.D. Ind., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Schuckit, Esq. SCHUCKIT & ASSOCLATES, PC 4545 Northwestern Drive Zionsville, IN 46077 Telephone: (317) 363-2400 Facsimile: (317) 363-2257 E-mail: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com - and - Vincent J. Esades, Esq. David Woodward, Esq. Renae D. Steiner, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Telephone: (612) 338-4605 Facsimile: (612) 338-4692 E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com dwoodward@heinsmills.com rsteiner@heinsmill.com - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. KARON, LLC 700 W. Saint Clair Avenue, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 441 13 Telephone: (216) 622-1 851 Facsimile: (216) 241-8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.c0m ANTHEM INC: Faces "Meer" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Jo Meer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00289 (S.D. Cal., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Casey Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. Wendy M. Behan, Esq. Jason C. Evans, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT &PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com wbehan@cglaw.com jevans@cglaw.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Mitchel" Suit in Ind. Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amy Mitchel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Anthem Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00207 (S.D. Ind., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan Charles Little, Esq. SAEED & LITTLE, LLP 1433 N. Meridian Street, Suite 202 Indianapolis, IN 46202 Telephone: (812) 320-3367 Facsimile: (888) 422-3151 E-mail: jon@sllawfirm.com - and - Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Ashlea G. Schwarz, Esq. PAUL McINNES LLP 601 Walnut, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com ashlea@paulmcinnes.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Napoleon" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Napoleon, for herself and all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00293 (S.D. Cal., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas E. Glynn, Esq. GLYNN LAW GROUP 10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 170 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (858) 271-1100 Facsimile: (858) 876-1530 E-mail: tom@glynnlawgroup.com - and - John G. Emerson, Esq. EMERSON POYNTER LLP 830 Apollo Lane Houston, TX 77058 Telephone: (281) 488-8854 Facsimile: (281) 488-8867 E-mail: jemerson@emersonpoynter.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Nicoll" Suit in N.Y. Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Nicoll, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. and Does 1- 25, Case No. 2:15-cv-00704 (E.D.N.Y., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul C. Whalen, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C. 768 Plandome Road 3 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (516) 426-6870 Facsimile: (212) 658-9685 E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Slater" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Slater, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00279 (S.D. Cal., February 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson Jr., Esq. Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@rcrsd.com drobinson@rcrsd.com wpolischuk@rcrsd.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Weinberger" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Michael S. Weinberger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00201 (S.D. Ind., February 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Danyel Struble, Esq. THE CROSS LAW FIRM, P.C. Historic Riley-Jones House 315 East Charles Street Muncie, IN 47305 Telephone: (765) 747-1953 Facsimile: (765) 747-1991 E-mail: dstruble@thecrosslawfirm.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Zand" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- Fazi Zand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00638 (N.D. Cal., February 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com toml@hbsslaw.com - and - Mark P. Robinson Jr., Esq. Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@rcrsd.com drobinson@rcrsd.com wpolischuk@rcrsd.com ANTHEM INC: Faces Class Action Over Customer Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- An Anthem customer has filed a class-action lawsuit against Anthem Inc. for allegedly failing to protect customer data and not immediately and accurately informing customers whose data was compromised in a recent massive data breach, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman. The recent hack compromised the personal information of about 80 million U.S. citizens presently or previously insured or employed by Anthem, the complaint states. The law firm's investigation also recently revealed that the nation's second largest insurer did not encrypt the data that was stolen. "Data encryption is the touchstone of any reasonable approach to protecting personal information," said Thomas Loeser, a former federal cyber-prosecutor and Hagens Berman partner. "We consider this the smoking gun of this investigation. Anthem knew the importance of encryption, as it encrypted data that was sent outside of its databases. But it did not take this basic step for data that it kept within its systems, leaving vulnerable a gold mine for cyber-criminals." The 32-page complaint states that named plaintiff and current Anthem customer under Blue Cross Blue Shield, David Liu of Tustin, California, was harmed in having his personal, health, and financial information associated with his health insurance compromised as a result of the Anthem data breach and Anthem's failure to provide timely and accurate notice. The complaint states that, "Plaintiff would not have given his personal health and financial information to Anthem for his health insurance had Anthem informed him that it lacked adequate computer network and data security to secure his and other Anthem customers' personal, health and financial information." "Anthem's lack of data encryption is not only alarming in its negligence but also means that hackers hit the jackpot," Mr. Loeser added. "Once they had infiltrated Anthem's systems, this sensitive personal information belonging to millions of Anthem customers was plainly visible and ready to use. On the 'dark-web,' where cyber-thieves trade the fruits of crime, credit card information routinely sells for $10-$25 per account. But Social Security numbers, especially when paired with name, address, emails and birthdates, are exponentially more valuable. Such 'complete identities' can sell for upwards of $250-$400. That makes the Anthem breach conservatively worth more than $20 billion to criminals." The data breach affects individuals' names, addresses, Social Security numbers, emails, employment information and income, causing what Loeser considers "likely irreversible damage" to those affected by the breach. "Moreover," Mr. Loeser said, "the harm could last for years because unlike credit card numbers which can be reissued, Social Security numbers are held for life and are extremely difficult to replace." Has Your Data Been Stolen? Here's What You Should Do Anthem has stated it may be weeks before it contacts all data breach victims. Since Anthem reports about 80 million records of past and present customers and employees were stolen, and Anthem has about 38 million current customers, you should assume that if you are or were an Anthem customer or employee, it is likely that your information was stolen. Hagens Berman suggests that concerned consumers who are or were insured by Anthem and Anthem employees take immediate steps to prevent identity theft. You can contact Hagens Berman by emailing Anthem@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292 to find out the steps you can take. Additional information about the investigation is available at www.hbsslaw.com/Anthem The proposed class-action seeks to represent all persons in the United States whose personal information was compromised as a result of the data breach first disclosed by Anthem on February 4, 2015. To protect your identity and personal information, Hagens Berman suggests individuals notify credit agencies, request credit alerts and take other precautions to keep damage to a minimum. More information on these best practices can be found here. Mr. Loeser said he is particularly concerned that Anthem customers and employees could be subject to tax return fraud due to the breadth of information stolen, including name, address, Social Security numbers, birthdates and employment information. "When personal information, along with Social Security numbers and birthdates are stolen, it can lead to false state and federal tax returns and result in millions of dollars in stolen, fraudulent tax refunds," Mr. Loeser said. Hagens Berman continues to investigate Anthem and seeks any anecdotes or information from those who believe they have been affected by the data breach. "We're continuing to closely monitor this massive breach of highly sensitive information and the sheer lack of data protection on the part of Anthem," said Steve Berman, managing partner at Hagens Berman. "With so much of customers' information now out in the open, we hope to move quickly to help remedy this widespread damage." About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine cities. The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List seven times. APPLE INC: Accused of Illegal Streaming of Pre-1972 Recordings -------------------------------------------------------------- Beach Road Music LLC, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Apple Inc., and Beats Electronics, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00700-MEJ (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2015) involves all musical performances that were originally "fixed" -- recorded -- prior to February 15, 1972, that are subject to California, New York, or Florida law. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants' streaming of Pre-1972 Recordings without a license violates the California Civil Code and California's Unfair Competition Law, and constitutes misappropriation and conversion under California, New York and Florida law. Beach Road is an El Segundo, California-based, international multimedia rights-management firm formed by Raphael Tisdale and Seth Berg, two former senior executives of a major record label. Beach Road manages over 3,000 musical copyrights, recorded music rights, name and likeness rights, trademarks, video assets, and life rights for the estates of Nat King Cole, Peggy Lee, and Bing Crosby. Apple is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California. In June of 2013, Apple introduced a streaming music service called iTunes Radio, which it makes available both in the United States and abroad. The service allows listeners to access many thousands of songs and permits the user to create customizable "radio stations." Beats is a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Cupertino, California. Beats offers a streaming service with over 20 million songs in its music catalog. Beats has been a subsidiary of Apple since August 1, 2014. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Bruce J. Wecker, Esq. Stephanie Y. Cho, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery St. San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com clebsock@hausfeld.com bsweeney@hausfeld.com bwecker@hausfeld.com scho@hausfeld.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, N.W., Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com ngiddings@hausfeld.com APPLE INC: Removes "Jacobson" Suit to California District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Jacobson v. Apple, Inc., et al., Case No. BC572077, 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-01099 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff purports to bring the action on behalf of all purchasers of Apple's iPhone, iPod or iPad devices with 16 GB or less of storage and on which Apple's iOS 8 operating system (which was made available starting September 17, 2014) came pre-installed or was later installed as an upgrade. The Plaintiff alleges that Apple "employs false, deceptive and misleading practices in connection with marketing, selling, and distributing the Device[s]" because (according to Plaintiff) iOS 8 consumes more storage space on the Devices than customers "reasonabl[y] expect[]." The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Kabateck, Esq. Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Peter Klausner, Esq. Jennifer Duffy, Esq. KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP 644 S. Figueroa Street Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 217-5000 Facsimile: (213) 217-5010 E-mail: bsk@kbklaywers.com jhh@kbklawyers.com pk@kbklawyers.com jld@kbklawyers.com Apple is represented by: Matthew D. Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 Facsimile: (415) 984-8701 E-mail: mpowers@omm.com ARS NATIONAL: Sued Over Violations of Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Sima Isaacson, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-00762 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com AT&T CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wexler" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Eve Wexler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AT&T Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00686 (E.D.N.Y., February 11, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making calls using an automatic telephone dialing system or to call cell phones with an artificial and prerecorded voice. AT&T Corp. is a New York Based Telecommunication company with headquarter located at 208 South Akard Street, Dallas, TX 75202. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shimshon Wexler, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF SHIMSHON WEXLER, PC 216 West 104th Street, #129 New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 760-2400 Facsimile: (917) 512-6132 E-mail: shimshonwexler@yahoo.com AURORA LOAN: Gets Final Court Nod on "Chao" Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong granted final approval of the $5,250,000 class settlement in the lawsuit MAUDER and ALICE CHAO; DEOGENESO and GLORINA PALUGOD; And MARITZA PINEL, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. C- 10-3118 SBA (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs Mauder and Alice Chao (husband and wife); Deogeneso and Glorina Palugod (husband and wife), and Maritza Pinel, are appointed as representatives of the Settlement Class. The Settlement Class is certified as: 1. The "Rosenthal Act Settlement Class," which consists of "all California residential mortgage customers to whom Aurora sent the "Workout Agreement," later called the "Foreclosure Alternative Agreement," or substantially identical correspondence on or after June 8, 2009." And 2. The "Restitution Settlement Class," which consists of "All California residential mortgage customers to whom Aurora sent the "Workout Agreement," later called the "Foreclosure Alternative Agreement," or substantively identical correspondence on or after June 8, 2006, who made the trial payments required by their final Workout Agreement, did not thereafter enter into a repayment plan or HAMP trial payment plan, were not thereafter offered a loan modification by Aurora, and were thereafter foreclosed upon." There is also the "Excess Payment Settlement Subclass" which contains: "All members of the Restitution Settlement Class who made additional payments to Aurora after the term of the Workout Agreement had expired." The Court approves incentive awards in the amount of $7,500 to Plaintiff Mauder Chao, $7,500 to Plaintiff Alice Chao, $7,500 to Plaintiff Deogeneso Palugod, $7,500 to Glorina Palugod, and $7,500 to Plaintiff Maritza Pinel, for their services as class representatives in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs' attorneys (a) Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, (b) the Law Office of Andrew Oldham, (c) Abtahi Thigpen, LLP and (d) Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC are approved and appointed as Class Counsel. Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees of 30% of the Gross Settlement Fund ($1,575,000) plus expense reimbursements of $185,833.00. The Court further approves the Claims Administrator's fees and costs not to exceed $85,000 to be paid promptly from the Gross Settlement Fund as they are incurred. A copy of the Court's Jan. 21, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/6yNe85from Leagle.com. Maritz Pinel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ali Abtahi -- aabtahi@abtahilaw.com -- Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Andrew Michael Oldham, Law Offices of Andrew Oldham, Idene Saam, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, T. Christopher Tuck -- ctuck@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman, LLC & Thomas Eric Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Alice Chao, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ali Abtahi, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Andrew Michael Oldham, Law Offices of Andrew Oldham, Idene Saam, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, T. Christopher Tuck, Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman, LLC & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Mauder Chao, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ali Abtahi, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Andrew Michael Oldham, Law Offices of Andrew Oldham, Idene Saam, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, T. Christopher Tuck, Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman, LLC & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Deogeneso Palugod, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ali Abtahi, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Andrew Michael Oldham, Law Offices of Andrew Oldham, Idene Saam, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, T. Christopher Tuck, Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman, LLC & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Glorina Palugod, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Ali Abtahi, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Andrew Michael Oldham, Law Offices of Andrew Oldham, Idene Saam, Abtahi Thigpen LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, T. Christopher Tuck, Richardson Patrick Westbrook & Brickman, LLC & Thomas Eric Loeser, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Aurora Loan Services LLC, Defendant, represented by David B. Bergman -- David.Bergman@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP, Ian S. Hoffman -- Ian.Hoffman@aporter.com, Arnold and Porter LLP & Tiffany M. Ikeda -- T.Ikeda@aporter.com -- Arnold and Porter LLP. AUSNET: Faces Class Action Over Black Saturday Fire --------------------------------------------------- Mark Russell, writing for The Age, reports that the alleged negligence of power company AusNet will be the focus of a class action for the victims of the devastating Black Saturday fire at Marysville which is due to begin in the Supreme Court on Jan. 28. The Marysville fire claimed 40 lives on Black Saturday in 2009. The lead plaintiff in the class action, 66-year-old Kathy Rowe, is suing power company AusNet Electricity Services, formerly known as SP AusNet, the Department of Environment and Primary Industries, the Country Fire Authority and the state government for damages over alleged negligence. Mrs. Rowe's husband, Dr Ken Rowe, 63, who led the national inquiry into the teaching of literacy, died after the fire swept through his family's holiday home on Hull Road, Marysville, on February 7, 2009. The fire is believed to have started in Murrindindi, behind the Murrindindi Saw Mill, about 2:45 p.m. on Black Saturday. It was threatening Marysville by 3:30 p.m., but the CFA allegedly failed to issue any warnings until 5:34 p.m. In a statement of claim, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers allege a break in an electrical conductor, which was the result of deficiencies in the construction and configuration of a power pole, sparked the fire. AusNet Electricity Services has denied its powerlines were to blame, saying a 'human act' may have contributed to the fire. The blaze spread rapidly, killing 40 people and destroying more than 500 homes. The class action was briefly mentioned before Justice John Dixon on Jan. 26 to determine how the case would be argued. Dr. Rowe left his Surry Hills home about 3:00 p.m. on February 6 bound for the family's Marysville timber cottage. He had wanted to make the cottage as "fire ready" as possible. "The fire plan of the plaintiff [Mrs Rowe] and her husband was dependent on the information available to them on the day," the statement of claim says. "The plan was to prepare the property, but leave early, if based on the information they received, they would not be able to manage." Mrs. Rowe phoned her husband about 5.20pm. He told her he had hosed down the house and had his backpack ready if he had to leave suddenly. The 63-year-old sounded calm and gave no hint that he was at risk of being caught in a bushfire, according to the claim. Mrs. Rowe tried calling her husband about an hour later, but there was no answer. The bushfire reached Hull Road at 6:46 p.m. The claim alleges the CFA failed to sufficiently warn people about the bushfire, which at one stage was "very, very intense", with flames up to 20 metres high. "From approximately 3:30 p.m. on February 7, 2009, the CFA was aware that Marysville was at serious risk of being impacted by the Murrindindi bushfire, but this was not communicated in any warnings until 5:34 p.m.," the claim reads. "At 4:07 p.m., the CFA caused an 'Awareness Warning' to be announced on ABC 774, which indicated that the Murrindindi bushfire was not currently posing a threat to communities, when it had information that Marysville was clearly under threat. "No warnings issued by the CFA conveyed the size, intensity, ferocity, speed or destructive capacity of the Murrindindi bushfire or, after 4pm, that it was completely out of control." The Murrindindi bushfire was the second most lethal blaze on Black Saturday and eventually merged with the Kilmore East-Kinglake fire, burning through 168,542 hectares. In December last year, the Supreme Court formally approved a record $494 million non-fault class action settlement for nearly 5000 Victorians over the Kilmore East fire, which claimed the lives of 119 people and destroyed or damaged 1772 homes and properties. AUSTRALIA: Court Hearing in ASIC Class Action Set for May --------------------------------------------------------- John Kavanagh at BankingDay reports that proceedings in a class action against the Australian Securities and Investments Commission over its involvement in the Storm Financial failure in 2008 have been held over after until May, to allow the plaintiffs to make Freedom of Information applications for ASIC files. The parties attended a directions hearing in the Federal Court in Sydney on Feb. 4, before Justice Lindsay Foster. The class action, which was launched in December, is being run by Levitt Robinson, which is also representing plaintiffs in several other class actions arising from the Storm failure. The case against ASIC is based on claims that, long before Storm went into administration in January 2009, ASIC officers were aware of "substantial risks" faced by Storm clients and that Storm's clients would not receive financial advice appropriate to their circumstances. "ASIC failed to have regard to the investors, notwithstanding their duty to do so," according to the amended statement of claim. The claimants also argue that ASIC has a policy of "improperly" preferring the interests of the Commonwealth Bank (and its wealth management subsidiary Colonial) ahead of consumer interests. This policy resulted in a delay in taking action against Storm and a failure to investigate the bank's involvement in the matter. According to the claim, if ASIC had exercised its powers "lawfully and in good faith" the plaintiffs and group members would have been made aware of the risks they faced much earlier and would have been in a position to take action. The plaintiffs' decision to undertake an FOI process rather than the usual legal discovery process was based on a view that FOI would result in a wider investigation of ASIC files. BIOSECURITY NZ: Group Posts Kiwifruit Class Action Claim -------------------------------------------------------- Elaine Fisher, writing for Sunmedia, reports that the group fronting the Kiwifruit Claim class action have posted its statement of claim on its website, together with explanatory material approved by the High Court at Wellington. The plaintiffs claim Biosecurity NZ, now part of the Ministry for Primary Industries, breached its duty of care when it "negligently allowed kiwifruit-vine-killing-disease Psa to be introduced into New Zealand, costing the country at least $885 million according to Biosecurity NZ's own independent study". The case will focus strongly on Biosecurity NZ allowing importation into New Zealand by Te Puke-based Kiwi Pollen Ltd of kiwifruit flowers sourced from China in June 2009. The claim states that a study by Otago University scientists, published in November 2013, confirms that the strain of Psa which spread "originated in the Shaanxi Province, China, from where the anthers were imported in June 2009". The claim's media spokesperson, Matthew Hooton, says the combined losses of those who have already signed up are approximately $250 million. Seeka Kiwifruit Industries estimates it sustained losses in the region of $53 million due to the reduction in supply of kiwifruit because of the impact of the disease. The class action, launched on September 29 last year and filed in the High Court at Wellington on November 28, is about "official accountability and just compensation for the destruction of so many kiwifruit growers' livelihoods" says its chairman, John Cameron. Only growers and post-harvest operators that sign up to the action can benefit from any settlement or award of damages. John says all kiwifruit growers are invited to become plaintiffs for a one-off fee of $500, $1000 or $1500 depending on the size of their orchard. Post-harvest operators have been invited to join the class action for a one-off fee of $10,000. Applications filed with the statement of claim have asked the High Court to approve the representative action and litigation funding arrangements and, amongst other things, to set a deadline for other growers and post-harvest operators to join the claim. The next step in the process is a first call of the proceedings on February 23. Mr. Hooton says the defendant (MPI) has been ordered to file a notice of opposition and/or a statement of defense or an application to strike out the claim together with an application for extension of time by March 6. Further information on The Kiwifruit Claim and a forum where growers can lodge their questions about the claim can be found at: www.thekiwifruitclaim.org Growers and post-harvest operators are strongly recommended to read the statement of claim together with the explanatory material approved by the High Court at Wellington, and to seek their own independent legal advice before signing up to the claim, Matthew says. BINCKBANK: Customer Class Action Likely --------------------------------------- Toby Sterling, writing for Reuters, reports that Dutch discount broker BinckBank has postponed a plan to return excess capital to shareholders after its asset management arm failed to meet targets, it said on Feb. 2, and also warned of potential lawsuits. BinckBank's Alex Asset Management business aims to profit from market rises and limit losses in a downturn, but it misread some large movements and underperformed in 2014, prompting the dividend rethink. "The policy pursued by Alex Asset Management in 2014 led to disappointing results for many customers," Chairman Vincent Germyns said on Feb. 2. In a statement of "risks and uncertainties", the bank also noted the possibility of class action by customers. Funds at Alex Asset Management dropped by more than 9 percent year on year to 1.95 billion euros ($2.21 billion) at the end of 2014 and Binck said it has pushed back its target for 3.5 billion euros by three years to 2018. "Based on an assessment of its business prospects, BinckBank does not consider it would be prudent to distribute the available capital in excess of 200 million euros at this time," the bank said, citing European economic weakness as a factor. Instead, the bank will continue to pay out 50 percent of net profit as a dividend, it said. ING analysts were caught off guard by the move. "We are negatively surprised by this decision, especially as Binck positioned itself as a capital-return story last year," ING's Albert Ploegh in a note, though it continues to rate the bank as a "hold". The company, which appointed Germyns as acting executive chairman after Koen Beentjes stepped down on Jan. 1, reported fourth- quarter adjusted net profit of 12.7 million euros. That compared with 22.7 million euros a year earlier and was in line with analysts' expectations. BIRMINGHAM, AL: Trial Begins in Pepper Spray Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Shelley Connor, writing for World Socialist Web, reports that a federal trial began on January 20 in Birmingham, Alabama over the widespread use of pepper spray in Birmingham City Schools by the Birmingham Police Department's School Resource Officers (SROs). The plaintiffs, represented by Southern Poverty Law Center's attorney Ebony Howard, assert that they were sprayed with pepper spray, and in some cases tear gas, as a means of controlling behavior that could have been handled otherwise. The SPLC contends that the SROs are essentially untrained police officers within the schools and that their practices amount to excessive force against students. Within a five-year period between 2006 and 2011, SROs used pepper spray or tear gas against Birmingham City Schools students some 300 times. While sobering, that number is even more staggering when contrasted with a single recorded use of the spray in a suburban school district in that same five-year span. The SPLC has identified several, varied instances of pepper spray being used against students who posed no threat to themselves or others. One of the pupils, identified as K.B. in the suit, was pregnant when she was sprayed. According to the SPLC's Motion for Class Certification, K.B. was handcuffed after being sprayed; she was then transported to Cooper Green Hospital (which serves indigent county residents) by the SRO who had sprayed her and was made to sign medical release forms despite being unable to read them due to the pepper spray's effects on her vision. Others had already been restrained by teachers when the SROs sprayed them. In addition, two students in the complaint were mere bystanders when they were sprayed. At least one of the plaintiffs dropped out of school after the spraying incident. The SPLC initially brought the suit in 2010. In August of 2012, the case gained significant impetus when federal Judge Abul Kallon declared that it could be filed as a class action lawsuit, as the Birmingham Police Department's policies and training for SROs affected all Birmingham City School students. As noted in the Memorandum Opinion and Order filed by the SPLC in 2012, the Birmingham Police Department has "no specific policy regarding SRO's use of chemical spray." The guidelines that they are given are general, without consideration given to the nature of an educational institution serving minors. The only policy put forth by the BPD is its general policy on "Chemical Spray Subject Restraint," which addresses the uses of pepper spray within crowds or against suspects. The SPLC contends that this policy is "constitutionally defective" in a school setting. For its part, the BPD defends its use of the spray in the schools, and upholds the presence of SROs as necessary to the safety of students and staff. A.C. Roper, chief of the Birmingham Police Department, has stated that, contrary to the SPLC's contentions, the SROs are trained daily on the use of pepper spray and other weapons during roll-call. He also contends that the spray was only used a handful of times during the timeframe given in the case, though he has not publicly given a figure. Mr. Roper states that his department has a force continuum within its policies, which gives officers a guideline for escalating through a number of suspect or crowd controlling methods, including the use of chemical spray. Importantly, he states that the use of any of the methods on the continuum is at the discretion of the officer. Mr. Roper's arguments hinge upon the fact that the use of pepper spray has not been deemed unconstitutional anywhere else in the country, though the use of pepper spray against students within a school has not been reported elsewhere in the country. The alarming use of pepper spray against students does not take place within a vacuum. This case is set against a backdrop of increasing poverty, joblessness and lack of economic growth within Birmingham. In 2011, within the timeframe of the suit, Birmingham City Schools could only boast a graduation rate of 55 percent, with some of its schools mustering only 47 percent. Woodlawn High School, attended by one of the plaintiffs, is flanked by housing projects. Birmingham City Schools serve primarily black, impoverished students, many living in housing projects or slums. Both Birmingham Mayor William Bell and Police Chief Roper are African American. Yet Mr. Bell has made no statements to the media regarding these events, while Chief Roper has offered nothing but unwavering support for the SROs and their use of chemical weapons against students. In the wake of the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner at the hands of police officers, Bell's silence and Roper's intransigence illustrate the point that these black, middle class leaders are the class enemies of working class youth and their communities. BLUE BELL: Removes "Mejia" Suit to Middle District of Florida ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Mejia v. Blue Bell Landscaping, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-2015-CA-012254, was removed from the Brevard County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-00225-GKS-KRS to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 W Flager St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 415-5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Andrew S. Hament, Esq. Louis Donlan Wilson, Esq. FORD & HARRISON, LLP 1901 S Harbor City Blvd., Suite 501 Melbourne, FL 32901 Telephone: (321) 724-5633 Facsimile: (321) 541-1468 E-mail: ahament@fordharrison.com ldwilson@fordharrison.com BRAZOS ROCK: Fails to Give WARN Act Notice to Class, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Don Brewster, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Brazos Rock, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00012 (W.D. Tex., February 13, 2015) is brought pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 for the Defendant's alleged failure to give the required WARN Act written notice to the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals in connection with a recent Plant Closing or Mass Layoff at its Kermit, Texas single site of employment/operational unit. Brazos Rock, Inc. is a Texas domestic corporation. The Defendant maintains multiple district offices/yards in Texas from which construction workers, support personnel, supplies and equipment are based and dispatched on a variety of work projects, including oil and gas exploration and production projects. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON & BUDD, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com CALIFORNIA: "Thomas" Lawsuit Can't Proceed as Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Jason Latrell Thomas filed a putative class action complaint, allegedly on behalf of himself and all inmates housed in the Psychiatric Security Housing Unit at the California State Prison, Sacramento. On Jan. 26, 2015, Magistrate Judge Kendall Newman entered an order holding that the action will not be construed as a class action and instead is construed as an individual civil suit brought by plaintiff. The judge notes that plaintiff is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel. It is well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the interests of a class. The case is JASON LATRELL THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. JEFF McCOMBER, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-2995 KJN P (E.D. Cal.). A copy of the judge's order is available at http://is.gd/tMddqVfrom Leagle.com. CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ: Judge Seeks Explanation for High Jail Turnover ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Walsh, Courier-Post, writing for Courier-Post, reports that a federal judge wants Camden County officials to explain high turnover in a key post at the county's overcrowded jail. Writing to attorneys in a lawsuit over jail conditions, U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle noted the corrections facility has run through five population managers in a four-year period and the post has been empty since November. The population manager works to reduce the number of inmates in a jail. Judge Simandle's Jan. 26 letter said he was "very concerned" over the county's failure to retain a full-time population manager "and I am requesting a special report from Camden County addressing these concerns." County officials must respond to his request within 10 days, Judge Simandle said. The issue has derailed, at least temporarily, an effort to settle a 10-year-old class-action lawsuit over conditions at the jail. A lawyer for the jail's inmates, Nicole Acchione of Cherry Hill, had submitted a motion for preliminary approval of a settlement, but she asked to withdraw it after learning the post was vacant. Judge Simandle granted that request. In a Jan. 26 letter to the judge, Ms. Acchione said she'd ask Judge Simandle to impose population caps on the jail and to find the county in contempt if the manager's position remained vacant. "Once an interim or full-time jail manager is hired by the county, the parties will reassess whether final settlement is appropriate," Ms. Acchione said. County spokesman Dan Keashen said a consulting firm, Luminosity, would provide an interim manager early next month "while we look for a permanent jail population manager." "This position is extremely unique," Mr. Keashen said. "They are few and far between, and they're needed all over the country." The county has been working with Florida-based Luminosity to improve conditions at the seven-story lockup, where overcrowding has many inmates sleeping on the floors. According to Judge Simandle's letter, the jail's population was 1,376 on Dec. 18, above its official capacity of 1,267 inmates. The jail's population was above 1,800 in 2009, but fell to 1,210 a year later in response to the class-action suit. The number of inmates then rose again because more police are on the streets of Camden and its suburbs, boosting arrests across the county. In his letter, Judge Simandle noted the jail has had "a succession of short appointees" in the population manager's position, including two interim managers and a part-timer. One permanent manager served from June 2012 until April 2013; another worked from November 2013 to November 2014. "The court is concerned for the lack of stability and experience in the jail population manager position that is essential for success," Judge Simandle wrote. CANADA: Merchant Law Firm Launches 60s Scoop Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Nichole Huck, writing for CBC News, reports that a Saskatchewan law firm is representing more than a thousand victims of the so- called '60s Scoop' who are seeking compensation from the federal government. The Merchant Law Group served the Federal Government the class- action lawsuit on January 30. From the 1960s to the 1980s, the government ran an Adopt Indian Metis program. That program saw thousands of aboriginal children taken from their homes and adopted into white families in Canada and the United States. Tony Merchant says the Adopt Indian Metis program was misguided and harmful to these children, and he alleges the children suffered physical, sexual and psychological abuse as a result of this program. "It was part of the paternalistic approach, that if we could get children out of the hands of aboriginal people, we could give them a better life in the future by taking away their culture and turning red children into white adults," said Merchant. Merchant alleges the children suffered physical, sexual, and psychological abuse as a result of this program. He said he has spoken with many of the children who were adopted into families in the United States who are now trying to reconnect with their cultural roots. Parallels to Residential School Survivors Merchant, who is known as the king of class-action lawsuits in Canada, also represented more than 7000 Indian Residential school survivors in a landmark case against the federal government. The federal government approved a multi-billion-dollar settlement agreement. A chunk would go to law firms, including the Merchant Law Group, while former students received a common experience payment of, on average, $24,000. Merchant was recently in the news after the federal government filed a $25-million statement of claim accusing Tony Merchant's law firm of overbilling for legal services and falsifying documents to cover it up, in a scheme to defraud Canada. In 2005, the Regina lawyer was expecting his law firm to make roughly $80 million for legal services on residential school claims. Merchant was widely criticized by First Nations groups for making millions of dollars off the pain of aboriginal people. Merchant defends saying his law firm has done good by aboriginal people and will continue to do so. "Aboriginal people have to move on. It's not easy to move on. But they are entitled over this wrong, Adopt Indian Metis, to have us try to obtain compensation for them and to try to obtain closure." CANADA: Aboriginal Elder Reacts to Suit v. Merchant Law Firm ------------------------------------------------------------ Sarah Kraus, writing for Global News, reports that a local Aboriginal elder spoke out for his community after learning a local law firm is being sued for allegedly committing fraud during Indian residential school litigation. The Canadian government filed a statement of claim accusing Merchant Law Group of falsely representing time spent working on that class action lawsuit. Noel Starblanket spent 11 years in residential school. He said, "I am not surprised the government of Canada is suing law firms for improper billing." Between 1997 and 2005, Tony Merchant and his law firm dealt with more than 7,000 claims from survivors. Mr. Starblanket wasn't represented by Merchant, but the allegations against Merchant Law Group still upset him. "There's still a lot of hurt, anger and grief out there," he said. "This scenario only serves to bring all of those emotions back. It's not nice for clients, for claimants, for survivors, for all of us that endured this hardship over the years. And to know that people are making millions of dollars off their misery does not sit well with me." CAPSTONE CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- James Kelley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capstone Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00061 (E.D. Va., February 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Capstone Corporation owns and operates a company providing IT solutions and problem solving with central office located in Alexandria, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Allen Schreiber, Esq. BURKE HARVEY, LLC 3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100 Birmingham, AL 35243 Telephone: (205) 930-9091 Facsimile: (205) 930-9054 E-mail: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com - and - Todd Michael Gaynor, Esq. GAYNOR LAW CENTER PC 440 Monticello Ave, Suite 1800 Norfolk, VA 23510 Telephone: (757) 625-7300 E-mail: tgaynor@gaynorlawcenter.com CROSSMARK INC: May 27 Final Hearing to Approve "Tripp" Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- A California district court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement in the lawsuit CLAY TRIPP, et al., Plaintiffs v. CROSSMARK, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-03480-WHO, Consolidated with Case No. 14-cv-4461-WHO (N.D. Cal.). District Judge William Orrick preliminarily approves the proposed settlement of the California Labor Code section 2698, et seq. claims alleged in the Lawsuit and the allocation of $15,000 to settle those claims. Should final approval be granted, of that amount, and in accordance with California Labor Code section 2699(i), 75%, or $11,250, will be paid to the State of California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the remaining 25%, or $3,750, will be allocated to the Net Settlement Fund and distributed in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. Two classes are be preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only: a. "Settlement Class 1 (Hourly Class) Members" or "Settlement Class 1 Members" means all hourly California employees of Defendants who worked in one or more of approximately 34 job codes covering the data collector, event specialist and retail representative job positions between June 4, 2009 and October 31, 2014, inclusive"; and b. "Settlement Class 2 (Labor Code Section 212 Paycheck Class) Members" or "Settlement Class 2 Members" means all California employees of Defendants who worked at any time between June 4, 2009 and March 25, 2013, inclusive, and who received at least one physical paycheck." Keller Grover LLP and Kawahito, Shraga & Westrick are appointed as class counsel. Plaintiffs Clay Tripp, Karen Solberg and Gayle Smith are approved as Settlement Class Representatives. CPT Group is named as Claims Administrator for purposes of the settlement. A final hearing on the matter will be convened on May 27, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. A copy of the District Court's Order dated Jan. 26, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/JeR4TZfrom Leagle.com. Clay Tripp, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Grover, Keller Grover LLP. Karen Solberg, Plaintiff, represented by Eric A. Grover, Keller Grover LLP. Crossmark, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lara Cardin de Leon, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart, P.C., Carolyn Blecha Hall, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Timothy L. Reed, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.. Chi Management Group, LP, Defendant, represented by Lara Cardin de Leon, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak and Stewart, P.C., Carolyn Blecha Hall, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Timothy L. Reed, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.. DIVERSIFIED SERVICES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kari Thompson, and all those similarly situated v. Diversified Services Enterprises, Inc., and Physicians Group, LLC, Case No. 0:15-cv-00505-JRT-JJK (D. Minn., February 13, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A. 367 Commerce Court Vadnais Heights, MN 55127 Telephone: (651) 770-9707 Facsimile: (651) 704-0907 E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com - and - Mark L. Vavreck, Esq. MARTINEAU, GONKO & VAVRECK, PLLC 401 N 3rd St., Suite 600 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 659-9500 Facsimile: (612) 659-9220 E-mail: mvavreck@mgvlawfirm.com DRIVEN SPORTS: Judge Enters Order on Insurer Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- A New York district court agrees with insurance carrier General Star Indemnity Company that its expenses in defending underlying lawsuits brought against Driven Sports, Inc., do reduce the limits of coverage of insurance policy General Star extended to Driven Sports. General Star is an insurer who issued a liability and litigation insurance policy Driven Sports, a producer and seller of a pre- workout energy supplement called "Craze." In 2013, Driven Sports in three separate actions ("the Craze Actions") alleging that Craze contains an illegal and potentially dangerous methamphetamine analog, and defendant sought coverage under the Policy. Both parties have moved for summary judgment, asking the Court to declare the extent of General Star's obligation to defend the underlying lawsuits. The case is GENERAL STAR INDEMNITY COMPANY v. DRIVEN SPORTS, INC. NO. 14-CV-3579 (JFB)(ARL) (E.D.N.Y.). In a Jan. 23, 2015 Memorandum and Order available at http://is.gd/ZCVLnmfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Joseph F. Bianco granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. Specifically: -- plaintiff's motion is granted to the extent it seeks a declaratory judgment that (1) General Star has no duty to defend or indemnify Driven Sports in the underlying Craze Actions, and (2) the limits of liability of the Policy are reduced by the amount of any defense payments for the Craze Actions not repaid to General Star. -- plaintiff's motion is denied to the extent it seeks a declaratory judgment that General Star is entitled to recoup all amounts paid for defense of the Craze Actions. The judge also ruled that Defendant's motion for partial summary judgment is granted to the extent that General Star has no right to recoup from Driven Sports all defense expenses for the Craze Actions. However, the defendant's motion is denied in all other respects. Plaintiff is represented by Cara T. Duffield -- cduffield@wileyrein.com -- and John Howell -- jhowell@wileyrein.com --of Wiley Rein LLP, Washington, DC, and Vincent Proto -- vproto@buddlarner.com -- of Budd Larner, Short Hills, NJ. Defendant is represented by David A. Gauntlett and James A. Lowe, Gauntlett & Associates, Irvine, CA -- info@gauntlettlaw.com -- and Eugene Killian, Jr. -- ekillian@tkfpc.com -- Killian & Salisbury, P.C., Iselin, NJ. DYCKMAN LIQUORS: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Sandra Ordonez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Nemisio Ordonez d/b/a Dyckman Liquors Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 01002 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendant owns and operates liquor stores in New York with a principal place of business located at 121 Dyckman Street, New York, New York, 10040. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Morrison, Esq. MORRISON TENENBAUM PLLC 87 Walker Street, Floor 2 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 620-0938 E-mail: info@m-t-law.com EAGLE MATERIALS: Discovery in Wallboard Antitrust Suit Ongoing -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery in the Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Litigation is ongoing, Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014. Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts, including the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade, including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America, Temple Inland Inc. and PABCO Building Products LLC. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred and consolidated all related cases to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims. On November 3, 2014 USG announced that it had entered into a binding memorandum of understanding with counsel representing the direct and indirect purchasers classes pursuant to which it agreed to settle all claims against it. Discovery in this litigation is ongoing. Due to the fact that the case is in the discovery phase, we are unable to estimate the amount of any reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses. American Gypsum denies the allegations in these lawsuits and will vigorously defend itself against these claims. ELECTRONIC ARTS: May 14 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval ------------------------------------------------------------ Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is a defendant in several actions that allege the Company misappropriated the likenesses of various college athletes in certain of the Company's college-themed sports games. In September 2013, the Company reached an agreement to settle all actions brought by college athletes against the Company. "We recognized a $30 million accrual during the three months ended September 30, 2013 associated with the anticipated settlement. On September 3, 2014, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval of the settlement and set a hearing for May 14, 2015, to determine whether to grant its final approval of the settlement," the Company said. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Dismissal of Claims in Shareholder Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims in a shareholder class action lawsuit. On December 17, 2013, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of its officers by an individual purporting to represent a class of purchasers of EA common stock. A second purported shareholder class action lawsuit alleging substantially similar claims was subsequently filed in the same court. These lawsuits have been consolidated into one action. The lawsuits, which assert claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of its officers issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the rollout of the Company's Battlefield 4 game. "On October 20, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss all claims with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. On November 18, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, and we filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims on January 15, 2015. The court has not yet ruled on our motion," the Company said. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Seeks Further Review of Ruling in "Davis" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to seek further court review of ruling in the class action by Michael Davis. On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March 2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the complaint on First Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trial court decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case was remanded back to the district court. The Company intends to seek further court review. F&T MANAGEMENT: Faces "Zhao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Guo Rong Zhao, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. F&T Management & Parking Corp., CP Parking Corp., Sunny Chiu, Thomas Chang, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-00681 (E.D.N.Y., February 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a parking garage located on 39th Avenue by the corner of Prince Street, in Flushing, New York 11354. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin Vorhis, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: kvorhis@hanglaw.com FERGUSON, MO: Faces Class Action Over Municipal Court Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Spencer S. Hsu, writing for The Washington Post, reports that civil rights lawyers filed federal lawsuits on Feb. 8 accusing authorities in Ferguson and Jennings, Mo., of running the equivalent of debtors' prisons by illegally jailing hundreds of mostly poor, black residents for unpaid debts, many of them from traffic tickets. Local plaintiffs represented by lawyers with Washington-based Equal Justice Under Law, Arch City Defenders of St. Louis and Saint Louis University School of Law sought class-action status in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, charging that the two cities' municipal court policies violate the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits jailing those too poor to pay and allows the punishment only for those with means who willfully refuse. The suits, reported by the New York Times and NPR, are part of an effort by legal advocates nationwide to target what they call racially and economically skewed practices by which the criminal- justice system has increasingly passed costs on to defendants. The practices criminalize poverty, civil liberties groups say, fueling the kind of frustrations that erupted after the fatal police shooting last August in Ferguson of unarmed black teenager Michael Brown. In a report last year, Arch City Defenders, a nonprofit legal clinic, traced tensions between many low-income black residents and mainly white local authorities in part to policies by many of the area's decentralized local courts. More than half the courts in St. Louis County engage in "illegal and harmful practices" of charging high fines and fees for nonviolent offenses and arresting people who do not pay, the group said. The group's co-founder, Thomas Harvey, cited as typical "poverty violations" driving with a suspended license or expired registration or no proof of insurance. An October study by the nonprofit group Better Together found that municipal courts in St. Louis and St. Louis County collected nearly half of the $132 million in fines paid statewide, despite being home to fewer than 1 in 4 Missourians. The county collected one-third of the statewide total, with just 1 out of 9 state residents. More than a dozen small towns reap more from traffic-court fees and fines than from sales or property taxes, each with large black populations, the study found. In Ferguson, population about 21,000, such revenue was the second- largest source of income, $2.6 million of $20 million collected. Overall, the city issued three arrest warrants per household, with traffic-fine revenue increasing 44 percent since 2011. "I understand the frustration from the defendants," John Adams, court administrator for Jennings's municipal division, said in an interview on Feb. 6 reported by the Times. "At the same time, the defendants should be responsible and take the step of at least showing up in court. It would resolve so many issues," he reportedly said. Authorities from Washington State to Colorado to Ohio have backed away from similar practices amid growing attention from public defenders, law professors and activists, including the American Civil Liberties Union. In December, the Missouri Supreme Court required local courts to allow installment plans, waive or reduce fines for the indigent, and hold "show cause" hearings before issuing warrants for failure to appear. State Attorney General Chris Koster (D) targeted 13 county municipal courts with a lawsuit over financial reporting requirements, while lawmakers have discussed measures that would consolidate courts that one said function as "little more than ATMs." Ferguson has capped court revenue at 15 percent of the city budget, abolished the "failure to appear" offense and related fines, forgiven warrants for nearly 600 defendants, and eliminated fees to tow vehicles and revoke warrants. "Debtors' prisons have no place in society that values equality and justice," said Alec Karakatsanis, co-founder of Equal Justice Under Law, after the group sued Montgomery, Ala., last year in coordination with the Southern Poverty Law Center. Mr. Karakatsanis's group alleged that Montgomery required plaintiffs to pay fines immediately or sit in jail to pay off debts at a rate of $50 a day, or $75 a day if they also agreed to perform janitorial tasks. The city agreed to reforms, provided attorneys to municipal court defendants, and created new community-service and hardship provisions for the indigent. FIDELITY & GUARANTY: Class Certified in "Cressy" Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Fidelity & Guaranty Life said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2014, that a California court entered the Final Order and Judgment, finally certifying the class for settlement purposes, and finally approving the class settlement in the case Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al. class action. On July 5, 2013, a putative class action Complaint was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles (the "Court"), captioned Eddie L. Cressy v. Fidelity Guaranty [sic] Life Insurance Company, et. al. Case No. BC-514340. The state court Complaint asserts, inter alia, that the Plaintiff and members of the putative class relied on Defendants' advice in purchasing unsuitable equity-indexed insurance policies. On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 million to settle the claims of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions, of all persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007 through March 31, 2014, inclusive. As part of the settlement, FGL Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for settlement purposes only. An amended Settlement Agreement was filed with the Court on June 5, 2014. On November 18, 2014, the Court granted final approval of the class settlement, subject to entry of a Final Order and Judgment. At December 31, 2014, the Company estimated the total cost for the settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action would be $9.0 million and established a liability for the unpaid portion of the estimate of $3.4 million. Based on the information currently available the Company does not expect the actual cost for settlement, legal fees and other related costs to differ materially from the amount accrued. The Company is seeking indemnification from OM Group (UK) Limited ("OMGUK") under the First Amended and Restated Stock Purchase Agreement, dated February 17, 2011 (the "F&G Stock Purchase Agreement") between HFG and OMGUK related to the settlement and the costs and fees in defending the Cressy litigation in both the federal and state courts. The Company has established an amount recoverable from OMGUK for the amount of $4.4 million, the collection of which the Company believes is probable. The actual amount recovered from OMGUK could be greater or less than the Company's estimate, but the Company anticipates that the amount recovered will not be materially different than its current estimate. The settlement, legal fees and other costs related to this class action and the amount recoverable from OMGUK is presented net in the income statement in the caption "Benefits and other changes in policy reserves." On January 2, 2015, the Court entered the Final Order and Judgment, finally certifying the class for settlement purposes, and finally approving the class settlement. According to the class settlement, the final settlement date means the date on which the Final Order and Judgment becomes final for all purposes, including appeal. FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Court Hears Oral Arguments in Intern Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marianne Levine, writing for Politico, reports that more than 30 cases have been filed on behalf of unpaid interns in the past four years. The two most prominent are Glatt v. Fox Searchlight, known familiarly as the "Black Swan" case, and Wang v. Hearst Corp. Both cases are on federal appeal before New York City's Second Circuit. Both involve interns who worked for communications companies that offered entree to a glamorous work environment -- a movie studio in one instance, glossy magazine offices in the other -- in lieu of wages. "I think this practice has gotten incredibly out of hand," said Eric Glatt, the lead plaintiff in the Black Swan case. "It's partly the fault of Washington by normalizing the practice, and the fact that there are very few mechanisms in the place . . . for people to push back." In September 2011, Mr. Glatt and Alexander Footman, production interns on the ballet film "Black Swan," sued Fox Searchlight, alleging that the company's unpaid internship violated minimum wage and overtime laws. Mr. Glatt and Footman said they were asked to perform menial tasks that should have been done by paid employees. In June 2013, a federal district court judge ruled in favor of Messrs. Glatt and Footman, finding Fox Searchlight failed to meet a six-part test that the Labor Department uses to determine whether unpaid internships comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act . . . At oral arguments on Jan. 30 in Manhattan's Foley Square for both the Black Swan and Hearst cases, much discussion turned on whether that test was the proper tool. The test was initially developed more than half a century ago to determine whether employees could be classified as "trainees" under an exception to the FLSA that the Supreme Court granted in 1947. But it wasn't until 2010 that the Obama Labor Department adapted the six-part test to apply it to internships without pay. Under the new rules, a for-profit company could refrain from paying an intern only if the internship were similar to training that would be given in an educational environment; if the internship existed for the benefit of the intern; and if the internship were not a substitute for hiring a paid employee. In addition, the employer could not derive an immediate advantage from the intern's activities; the intern would not necessarily be entitled to a job at the end of the internship; and the intern could not be hired without it being made clear that he or she would not be paid. "It sets a high bar for the type of training if the test is that all six points [must] be met," said Juno Turner, a lawyer for Outten & Golden LLP who is representing Glatt and Footman. Business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, would seem to agree about the six-part test's severity, and seek its elimination. In particular the Chamber objects to the component prohibiting businesses from deriving any immediate advantage from the work of unpaid interns." Prohibiting interns from performing any productive work is antithetical to a meaningful internship," said the Chamber's amicus brief in support of Fox Searchlight. "If unpaid interns are confined solely to unproductive tasks such as shadowing senior employees and participating in training, the benefits of the internship may be significantly diminished." In the Jan. 30 court hearing, Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing Fox, argued against the six-part test, saying courts should instead apply a "primary beneficiary test" to evaluate the "totality of circumstances." Under a primary beneficiary test, an intern must receive compensation if his or her work benefits the employer more than it benefits the intern. Rachel Bien, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, disagreed. She told the court that the question should not be about who benefits more, but rather about whether the internship qualifies as a "bona-fide training experience" under the DOL standards. A challenge for intern advocates has been that interns are often unaware of the six-part test, or are hesitant to invoke it against a former employer. In addition, the Labor Department's Wage & Hour Division, already strained for resources, has devoted few resources to policing unpaid internships, focusing instead on violations in industries that pose a higher known risk of exploitation, such as retail, construction, restaurants and hotels. Indeed, Wage & Hour has no formal procedure to track internships, because interns are not classified as employees, and it's received comparatively few complaints about unpaid internships. The Labor Department did file an amicus brief for the Jan. 30 hearing supporting the unpaid interns, and Labor Department attorney Maria Van Buren showed up to defend the six-part test. But that defense was somewhat qualified, with Van Buren conceding "there may be unusual circumstances" in which the test might not apply. From the judges' comments, it was not clear that the court would eventually uphold the test. The Labor Department is "horrendously outstretched," said Mikey Franklin, the co-founder of the Fair Pay Campaign, an advocacy group focused on ending unpaid internships. "I have sympathy for DOL, and in many respects they're doing the best they can. At the same time, they've written these guidelines; it would be nice to enforce them." Wang v. Hearst concerns unpaid interns for the magazines Harper's Bazaar, Cosmopolitan, Marie Claire, Esquire, Redbook and Seventeen. In that case, the lower court expressed strong skepticism about the six-part test's value, which it found confusing, and denied class certification. Ross Perlin, author of the 2011 book "Intern Nation," believes unpaid internships proliferated in years past for a variety of reasons that included the rise of an educational movement that favored applied forms of learning; enormous growth in temporary and other forms of contingent employment; and tight enforcement budgets at Wage & Hour. Colleges and universities may have played the largest role by granting academic credit for unpaid internships. That made it much easier for employers to argue that they were providing an educational rather than employment opportunity. At the Jan. 30 hearing, Hearst Corporation's in-house counsel, Jonathan Donnellan, said the court ought to give "very heavy weight" to the granting of college credits. "It's not like an educational environment," Mr. Donnellan said of the unpaid magazine internships. "It is an educational environment." Others view colleges' collaboration with employers over unpaid internships less favorably. "The most guilty party," Mr. Glatt said, "is the colleges and the universities that rubber stamp this practice, with zero oversight, with zero scrutiny." Financially, the arrangement is mutually beneficial; businesses acquire free labor, while colleges pocket some portion of tuition dollars without supplying any teaching in return. Mr. Perlin attributed growing activism around unpaid internships not only to the Black Swan case but also to the publication of his book, the rise of the Occupy movement, the growth in student loan debt and frustration with the difficult job market for recent college graduates. Previously, "there was quiet criticism," Mr. Perlin said, but "there was no public forum for discussing it, and there were no resources to sort of learn about what the situation was." Now, he said, "you have books, articles . . . labor rights groups." Quite apart from however the legal questions will eventually be settled, employers newly grappling with them are starting to question whether unpaid internships are worth the bother. Fox Searchlight now pays its interns, and in October NBC Universal agreed to pay $6.4 million to settle unpaid internship claims and started paying all its interns. The following month, Conde Nast paid $5.8 million to settle a class action lawsuit brought by thousands of former interns. The publisher had already shut down its internship program the year before, after the lawsuit was filed. A ruling for the interns would surely accelerate this process. "Is this the end of exploiting young people?" asks Ms. Turner. "Will this be the start of internships becoming more meaningful or becoming sources of meaningful employment?" But this is one public policy issue you won't likely hear discussed much in Congress. With Democrats and Republicans both talking about the need to expand economic opportunity for all, it's hard for politicians to defend a practice that gives so obvious a leg up to affluent young people at the expense of those with modest means. "We should get rid of unpaid internships," the conservative political scientist Charles Murray has written. "It amounts to career assistance for rich, smart children. Those from the middle and working class, struggling to pay for college, can't afford to work for free." But members of Congress won't likely be quick to criticize unpaid internships, either. "Congress uses so many unpaid interns itself that it sees the practice as largely beneficial," Mr. Glatt said. "I want to see a politician take this up and talk about the impact it has on economically distressed communities." FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Commenced Mailing of Settlement Notice -------------------------------------------------------- In connection with the stockholder derivative litigation captioned In Re: Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 8145-VCN, Freeport-McMoRan Inc. (the "Company") commenced a mailing of the Notice of Pendency of Derivative Action, Proposed Settlement of Derivative Action, Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear (the "Notice") to holders of the Company's common stock in accordance with the Scheduling Order dated January 22, 2015. The Scheduling Order requires that the Company also file a copy of the Notice with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Representative Counsel for Plaintiffs: Michael J. Barry, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Representative Counsel for the Settling Defendants: William M. Lafferty, Esq. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP 1201 N. Market Street, 18th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 - and - M. Duncan Grant, Esq. PEPPER HAMILTON LLP 1313 N. Market Street, Suite 5100 Wilmington, DE 19899 A copy of the Notice is available at http://1.usa.gov/1D5gDL3 FRIENDLY'S ICE CREAM: Faces "Zartman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- Lacey Zartman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Friendly's Ice Cream, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00298 (M.D. Pa., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Friendly's Ice Cream, LLC is a corporation headquartered in Wilbraham, MA, that owns and operates Friendly's restaurants. The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Cohen, Esq. KOLMAN ELY PC 414 Hulmeville Ave. Penndel, PA 19047 Telephone: (215) 750-3134 E-mail: dcohen@kolmanlaw.net GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Securities Suit Goes to ND Georgia --------------------------------------------------------- IN RE GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, NO. 3:14-CV-00399-RCJ-WGC, CASE NO. 3:14-3:14-CV-00402-RCJ-WGC, (D. Nev.) is a case that arose from Galectin Therapeutics, Inc.'s alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The case is a consolidation of multiple suits brought by Galectin shareholders claiming that Galectin engaged in securities fraud. In a Jan. 21, 2015 Amended Order available at http://is.gd/TuM9q5 from Leagle.com, District Judge Robert Jones ordered for the transfer of the Galectin securities lawsuit to the Northern District of Georgia. Galectin is a publicly-traded Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Norcross, Georgia. It is a development stage company engaged in researching and developing therapies for fibrotic disease and cancer. David L Hasbrouck, Plaintiff, represented by Frank J. Johnson -- FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP & Nathan Hamler -- NathanH@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP. Peter G. Traber, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. James C. Czirr, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. Jack W. Callicutt, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. Gilbert F. Amelio, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. Kevin D Freeman, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. Arthur R. Greenberg, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. Rod D Martin, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. John F Mauldin, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. Steven Prelack, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. Marc Rubin, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. Galectin Therapeutics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. Herman Paul Pressler, III, Defendant, represented by Michael R. Smith. GALION, OH: Customers Mull Suit Over Electricity Overcharges ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Carr Smyth, writing for The Associated Press, reports that high electric bills and environmental skepticism in towns across the Midwest are causing customers to wonder if they've been duped as power suppliers work to recoup investments in a financially troubled Illinois generating plant and coal mine. Rate increases and equipment breakdowns were the opposite of what dozens of municipalities that invested in the Prairie State Energy Campus were promised: low-cost, reliable energy for decades to come. Now, customers in Galion, Ohio, have threatened ballot action. They want the city to repay overcharges they allege were amassed to mask high electricity costs from the Washington County, Illinois, project. In Batavia, Illinois, another group of customers filed class- action litigation alleging city-paid consultants misrepresented financial risks associated with the complex, constructed by coal producer Peabody Energy. The municipal power provider in Paducah, Kentucky, contemplated bankruptcy after its customers blamed its decision to invest in Prairie State for some of the state's highest electricity rates. When Prairie State's 1,600-megawatt generating operation, mine and landfill went on line in 2012, its development had cost $4.9 billion -- more than twice the original estimate. That forced rate hikes and fees called power adjustments in many of the 217 municipalities and 17 electric cooperatives that invested in the project. Prairie State's defenders say it was expensive because it's one of the country's cleanest, most efficient power plants. As one of the few coal plants built in the U.S. in 30 years, it faced unanticipated costs in meeting tough, modern carbon emissions standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency that have vexed older coal-fired plants. Many of the 68 Ohio municipalities that belong to the American Municipal Power cooperative signed stringent "take or pay" contracts that obligate investors to pay for their full contracted share of power -- whether or not they receive it -- for 50 years. Many customers now feel duped. "For us, it absolutely makes no sense that we would place that kind of a gamble to the extent that we did. We've sold the family farm," said Roberta Wade, a former law director and city councilwoman behind the proposed ballot issue in Galion. She sat on the council when the Prairie State deal was signed but has said little information was available. Michael Childress, lead attorney in the Batavia suit, said Peabody and the Indiana Municipal Power Authority staged a "road show" across the Midwest in 2007 to sell the idea of investing in a plant. He alleges the project was conceived as a long-term vehicle for Peabody coal. "At the time, these towns are trying to figure out how they're going to get access to safe, cost-efficient, inexpensive, secure, theoretically environmentally clean power, and they're presented with this notion that they can have all of this through Prairie State," he said. "So you can understand why they'd investigate it." On Wall Street, the unbreakable nature of the take-or-pay contracts has been viewed as the strength of the Prairie State deal. However, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has been investigating the financing deal after complaints from members of Congress and local officials across the region. GENERAL MOTORS: 108 Class Actions Pending Through Jan. 30 --------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that through January 30, 2015, the Company is aware of 108 putative class actions that are pending against GM in various U.S. District Courts and state courts alleging that consumers who purchased or leased GM vehicles have been economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced this year and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with those recalls (economic-loss cases). Additionally, through January 30, 2015, 20 putative class actions have been filed in various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking similar relief as the U.S.-based cases. In the aggregate, these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, including alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, punitive damages, and injunctive and other relief. "In addition through January 30, 2015, we are aware of 104 actions pending against GM alleging injury or death as a result of defects that may be the subject of recalls announced in the year ended December 31, 2014, including faulty ignition switches and/or the failure of air bags to properly deploy due to faulty ignition switches (personal injury cases). In the aggregate these personal injury cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive damages and other relief," the Company said. In the three months ended March 31, 2014, GM announced recalls to repair ignition switches that under certain circumstances could unintentionally move from the "run" position to the "accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding loss of power, which in turn may prevent airbags from deploying in the event of a crash. Those recalls included Chevrolet Cobalt and HHR, Pontiac G5, Pursuit and Solstice and Saturn ION and Sky vehicles. Since those recalls, we have announced a number of additional recalls in the year ended December 31, 2014 relating to safety, customer satisfaction and other matters. GENERAL MOTORS: 156 Cases Consolidated as Part of MDL ----------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that through January 30, 2015, 156 cases have been transferred and consolidated as part of the multidistrict litigation. Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has issued orders from time to time directing that certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal lawsuits involving alleged faulty ignition switches or other defects that may be related to the recalls announced in 2014 be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal court, the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict litigation). Through January 30, 2015, 156 cases have been transferred and consolidated as part of the multidistrict litigation. "We have requested that various other recently filed federal lawsuits also be transferred and consolidated in the multidistrict litigation. The court in the multidistrict litigation has appointed lead counsel to prosecute the claims on behalf of all plaintiffs in the consolidated cases," the Company said. On October 14, 2014 lead counsel filed two amended consolidated complaints. "Because the majority of plaintiffs in these actions are suing over vehicles manufactured by pre-bankruptcy General Motors Corporation, we are seeking to enforce the terms of the federal Bankruptcy Court's July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction to preclude liability for any economic loss damages based on vehicles and parts manufactured prior to July 2009. These cases are in their early stages. In addition to the cases pending in the multidistrict litigation, other economic-loss and personal injury cases related to ignition-switch and other alleged defects that may be the subject of recalls in 2014 are pending in various other state and federal courts throughout the country. The cases pending in other state courts include a November 19, 2014 lawsuit filed by the Attorney General for Arizona against GM in Arizona state court alleging claims similar to those alleged in the economic-loss actions and seeking an injunction, civil penalties and other relief," the Company said. GENERAL MOTORS: Faces 2 Actions Over Diminished Value of Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that through January 30, 2015, the Company is aware of two actions that have been filed against GM alleging that GM's purported concealment of the ignition switch and other defects that have been the subject of recalls in 2014 has diminished the value of other GM vehicles and seeking economic damages under California consumer protection statutes. One of these actions is a putative class action that has been consolidated with the ignition switch putative class actions and transferred to the Southern District of New York. The other action was brought by the Orange County, California district attorney and is pending in California state court. In the aggregate, these actions seek recovery under California consumer protection statutes for economic damages as well as civil penalties, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs. GENERAL MOTORS: NYSTRS File Consolidated Shareholder Action ----------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the New York State Teachers' Retirement System filed a consolidated class action complaint against GM and several current and former officers and employees. On March 21, 2014 a putative shareholder class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan against GM and various current and former officers or employees of GM (Pio v. General Motors Company et al.) on behalf of purchasers of GM securities from November 17, 2010 through March 10, 2014. The complaint alleges that defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC filings. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The court appointed the New York State Teachers' Retirement System as the lead plaintiff. On January 15, 2015 New York State Teachers' Retirement System filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint against GM and several current and former officers and employees. The Consolidated Class Action Complaint supersedes the complaint filed March 21, 2014 in this same case. GENERAL MOTORS: Awaits Ontario Court Decision on Dealers' Claim --------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company is awaiting a decision from the Ontario Superior Court with respect to the GMCL Dealers' Claim, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against General Motors of Canada Limited (GMCL) on behalf of a purported class of over 200 former GMCL dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had entered into wind-down agreements with GMCL. In May 2009 in the context of the global restructuring of the business and the possibility that GMCL might be required to initiate insolvency proceedings, GMCL offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down agreements to assist with their exit from the GMCL dealer network and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly fashion by December 31, 2009 or such other date as GMCL approved but no later than on October 31, 2010. The Plaintiff Dealers allege that the Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to comply with certain disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes reference to a claim "not exceeding" CAD $750 million, without explanation of any specific measure of damages. On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association; (3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement and/or disclose more specific information regarding its restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down agreements; and (4) assuming liability, whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual damages). A number of former dealers have opted out of participation in the litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. Trial of the class issues was completed in the fourth quarter of 2014. "We are now awaiting a decision from the Ontario Superior Court. The current prospects for liability are uncertain, but because liability is not deemed probable we have no accrual relating to this litigation. We cannot estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in the event of liability as the case presents a variety of different legal theories, none of which GMCL believes are valid," the Company said. GENERAL MOTORS: Estimates $511MM Loss in Korea Wage Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company estimates its reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued to be 562 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $511 million) at December 31, 2014, related to the GM Korea Wage Litigation. Commencing on or about September 29, 2010 current and former hourly employees of GM Korea filed eight separate group actions in the Incheon District Court in Incheon, Korea. The cases, which in aggregate involve more than 10,000 employees, allege that GM Korea failed to include bonuses and certain allowances in its calculation of Ordinary Wages due under the Presidential Decree of the Korean Labor Standards Act. On November 23, 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate level appellate court) issued a decision affirming a decision of the Incheon District Court in a case involving five GM Korea employees which was contrary to GM Korea's position. GM Korea appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Supreme Court) and initiated a constitutional challenge to the adverse interpretation of the relevant statute. The Company said, "In December 2013 the Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case involving another company not affiliated with us which addressed many of the issues presented in the cases pending against GM Korea and resolved many of them in a manner which we believe is favorable to GM Korea. In particular, while the Supreme Court held that fixed bonuses should be included in the calculation of Ordinary Wages, it also held that claims for retroactive application of this rule would be barred under certain circumstances." On May 29, 2014 the Supreme Court rendered its decision with respect to the case involving the five GM Korea employees and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court consistent with its December 2013 ruling. In July 2014 GM Korea and its labor union agreed to include bonuses and certain allowances in ordinary wages retroactively to March 1, 2014. "Therefore our accrual related to these cases was reclassified from a contingent liability to the Pensions liability. We estimate our reasonably possible loss, as defined by ASC 450, "Contingencies," in excess of amounts accrued to be 562 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $511 million) at December 31, 2014, which relates to periods before March 1, 2014," the Company said. The Company added, "We are also party to litigation with current and former salaried employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation. At December 31, 2014 we have identified a reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount of our accrual of 164 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $149 million). Both the scope of claims asserted and GM Korea's assessment of any or all of the individual claim elements may change if new information becomes available. These cases are currently pending before various district courts in Korea and the Supreme Court." GENERAL MOTORS: Paid $93MM Related to Ignition Switch Recall ------------------------------------------------------------ General Motors Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that at January 30, 2015, the Company has paid $93 million to eligible claimants under the Ignition Switch Recall Compensation Program. The Company said, "In the three months ended June 30, 2014 we announced the creation of a compensation program (the Program) to compensate accident victims who died or suffered physical injury (or their families) as a result of a faulty ignition switch related to the 2.6 million vehicles recalled. It is important to our company that we reach everyone through this Program who has been impacted. The Program is being administered by an independent program administrator. The independent administrator has established a protocol that defines the eligibility requirements to participate in the Program. There is no cap on the amount of payments that can be made to claimants under the Program." "At December 31, 2014 we have an accrual of $315 million recorded in Corporate which represents our best estimate of remaining amounts that may be paid under the Program. However, it is reasonably possible that the liability could exceed our recorded amount by approximately $200 million. The most significant estimates affecting the amount recorded include the number of participants that have eligible claims related to death and physical injury, which also contemplates the severity of injury, the length of hospital stays and related compensation amounts and the number of people who actually elect to participate in the Program. Our estimate is subject to significant uncertainties, as programs of this nature are highly unusual and each eligible claim will have a unique underlying fact pattern. While we do not anticipate material changes to our current estimate, it is possible that material changes could occur should actual eligible claims and the related compensation amounts differ from this estimate. The Program accepted claims from August 1, 2014 through January 31, 2015. Payments to eligible claimants began in the fourth quarter 2014 and will continue through the first half of 2015. Accident victims (or their families) could choose not to participate in the Program and pursue litigation against us. At January 30, 2015 the Program had received 3,810 claims and the independent program administrator has determined 128 claims to be eligible for payment under the Program. Remaining claims are either under review, deficient awaiting further documentation or deemed ineligible. Based on currently available information we believe our accrual at December 31, 2014 is adequate to cover the estimated costs under the Program. At January 30, 2015 we have paid $93 million to eligible claimants under the Program. Accident victims that accept a payment under the Program agree to settle all claims against GM related to the accident." GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition-Switch Payment Fund to Exceed $400MM ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Bennett and Mike Spector, writing for The Wall Street Journal, report that the cost of General Motors Co.'s victims- compensation fund isn't expected to exceed the $400 million to $600 million the auto maker set aside to pay those killed or injured on account of faulty ignition switches, but it will take weeks for the fund to sort through a late rush of claims filed before the deadline passed. GM's victims-compensation fund, administered by Washington attorney Kenneth Feinberg, stopped taking new claims on Feb. 1 after thousands poured in from consumers seeking redress. The fund, started in August, is one of the several steps being taken by GM in an attempt to restore credibility and limit legal liability amid a record pace of safety recalls. Mr. Feinberg's work, however, will do little to stanch widespread concern about vehicle safety and leave unanswered many questions about victim compensation. Intended to compensate those killed or injured in a batch of small cars built with faulty ignition switches that prevented air-bag deployment, the fund received more than 3,350 claims as of Jan. 29 and roughly quadrupled the death toll from GM's initial estimate of 13, to 50. Serious injuries receiving compensation totaled at least 75. The death-toll and injury figures are expected to climb further as Mr. Feinberg and his lieutenants continue sifting through claims. Many are wondering if the actions go far enough. GM, for instance, covered in its fund only a fraction of consumers affected by ignition-switch problems ultimately spanning millions of vehicles and an array of models. Vehicles equipped with the defective switch can inadvertently jostle from the "on" to "accessory" or "off" position and cut power to air bags and electronic steering. The company faces class-action lawsuits related to alleged safety lapses, and continuing probes by the Justice Department and others could cost GM billions of dollars in fines. In an interview, Mr. Feinberg and his associate, Camille Biros, said their work should help restore GM's credibility and head off future lawsuits. Claimants accepting payouts must waive their right to sue GM. It could take Mr. Feinberg's team weeks to finish going through petitions related to a batch of roughly 2.6 million recalled vehicles. "We are bending over backward to help these individuals by giving them more than one or two opportunities to provide the information to us," Ms. Biros said. Payments span $20,000 to $1 million, but the final tab won't be disclosed until every claim has been reviewed. Most of the claims received have lacked required evidence, such as a police report, or include cars not covered by the fund. Importantly, said Mr. Feinberg, "of those who have been eligible for compensation, not one, so far, has rejected a payout offer." As for GM's role, the auto company has been "cooperative," he said. In determining compensation, Mr. Feinberg's team greatly widened the definition of victim. "GM took the approach of a strict engineering standard," Ms. Biros said. "We looked at everything and we were more flexible. We looked at photographs, police reports and historical maintenance records. So if there was a history of problems and in the accident the air bags didn't deploy, we leaned toward paying the claims." Most claimants are in their early 20s because many of the affected vehicles -- older Saturn Ions and Chevrolet Cobalts -- were sold to young people. Many accidents included other potential causes, such as speeding, drinking or distraction, according to Ms. Biros. Under GM's earlier parameters, most of these victims wouldn't have been offered a settlement. Still, Mr. Feinberg's work omits anyone involved in crashes tied to more than eight million vehicles recalled in June with similarly problematic ignition switches. GM has identified three deaths tied to two crashes involving older Chevrolet Impalas that are among those recalled vehicles. GM says there isn't conclusive evidence linking the three deaths, all the result of high-speed crashes, to the defect. "I was hopeful early on Mr. Feinberg and others would convince GM . . . to broaden the compensation plan to include these other vehicles. It appears they will not do it," said Lance Cooper, the Georgia lawyer influential in discovering the root cause of the ignition-switch problem in smaller vehicles. Ms. Biros referred any questions about expanding the scope of the compensation fund to GM. "The facility has no authority to add other GM model vehicles to the list of eligible vehicles under the protocol," she said. "The specific fact patterns are substantively different between the various recalls," a spokesman for GM said. With the second large round of recalls in June, "it isn't clear" whether the switches caused accidents, said David Cole, chairman emeritus of the Center for Automotive Research, a group that gets some funding from auto makers. "You can't automatically infer this is the same thing that went on there," he said. But he added that GM has to "step up" if the causes of the crashes are directly linked to the other faulty switches. GLOBAL TEL*LINK: Accused of Violating Telecommunications Act ------------------------------------------------------------ Dustin Murilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Global Tel*Link Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-05048- PKH (W.D. Ark., February 13, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy C. Martin, Esq. EVERETT, WALES & COMSTOCK 1944 East Joyce Blvd. P.O. Box 8370 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 443-0292 Facsimile: (479) 443-0564 E-mail: amy@everettfirm.com HANBIT ENTERPRISES: Recalls Soybean Sprouts Due to Health Risks --------------------------------------------------------------- Hanbit Enterprises, Inc. dba Jack and the Beanstalk is recalling Soybean Sprouts in 1lb, 1.5lb, 10 lb, and Natto plastic bags distributed up to and including February 12, 2015 with Best if Used by dates up to February 19, 2015, because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer long-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. The soybean sprouts were distributed to Bay Area stores and restaurants. --- 1LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12366-9 --- 1.5LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12365-2 --- 10LB SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12351-5 --- NATTO SOYBEAN SPROUT BAR CODE - 7-27580-12367-6 No illnesses that have been reported to date. The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the FDA which revealed that the finished products contained the Listeria bacteria. The company has ceased the production and distribution of the product as FDA and the company continues their investigation as to what caused the problem. Consumers who have purchased Hanbit Enterprises, Inc. soybean sprouts in 1lb, 1.5lb, 10lb, and Natto plastic bags are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 831-422-8028 during office hours: Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434408.htm HANSEN NATURAL: Final Judgment Entered in "Cunha" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge George H. Wu entered a final judgment and order of dismissal, with prejudice, in the lawsuit MARCELO CUNHA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. HANSEN NATURAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. EDCV 08-01249-GW(JCX) (C.D. Cal.). A copy of the judge's Jan. 29, 2015 Final Judgment is available at http://is.gd/2kffBZfrom Leagle.com. On July 24, 2014, the Court entered an Amended Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement in the lawsuit. Subsequently, on further review, the Court entered a final approval of the Settlement in all respects. All Settlement Class Members are forever barred and enjoined from prosecuting any of the Released Claims against any of the Released Persons. Any Plan of Distribution submitted by Lead Counsel or any order entered regarding any attorneys' fee and expense application will no way disturb or affect the Jan. 29, 2015 Judgment and will be considered separate from that Judgment, the Court added. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, DOUGLAS R. BRITTON -- dougb@rgrdlaw.com ; JEFFREY D. LIGHT -- jeffl@rgrdlaw.com ; X. JAY ALVAREZ -- jaya@rgrdlaw.com -- San Diego, CA, and DANIEL J. PFEFFERBAUM -- dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com -- San Francisco, CA, Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs. HOME DEPOT: Illegally Procures Consumer Reports, "Albu" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Romulus Albu, individually and as a representative of the class, v. The Home Depot Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00412 (N.D. Ga., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide the stand-alone disclosure required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, before procuring a consumer report. The Home Depot Inc. is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia and is considered as the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Michelle Drake, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: drake@nka.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Coss" Suit Over Subscription Services ----------------------------------------------------------- Guy Coss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor America, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-00974 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose the fact that the Blue Link Telematics System would be rendered inoperable if Hyundai owners opted not to enroll in the Blue Link subscription service. Hyundai Motor America is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in Fountain Valley, California. It is subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company is a South Korean multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com jkk@mccunewright.com HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces "Coss" 2nd Suit Over Subscription Services --------------------------------------------------------------- Guy Coss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor America, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-00237 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to disclose the fact that the Blue Link Telematics System would be rendered inoperable if Hyundai owners opted not to enroll in the Blue Link subscription service. Hyundai Motor America is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in Fountain Valley, California. It is subsidiary of Hyundai Motor Company is a South Korean multinational automotive manufacturer headquartered in Seoul, South Korea. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, Esq. MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP 2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216 Redlands, CA 92374 Telephone: (909) 557-1250 Facsimile: (909) 557-1275 E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com dcw@mccunewright.com jkk@mccunewright.com ILLINOIS: "Brown" Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge for Pre-Trial ----------------------------------------------------------------- The action MAURICE BROWN, #K-7247, and STEVEN RUTLEDGE, #N-87582, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN DUNCAN, SALVADOR GODINEZ, MRS. WEAVER, MRS. HOPPER, RODNEY HUGHES, GALEN DELLINGER, and COUNSELOR RAY Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-1266-SMY (S.D. Ill), is a civil rights action alleging that the Plaintiffs have been denied protective custody by officials at the Lawrence Correctional Center. The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint requests leave to certify the cause as a class action in the future. Plaintiffs are advised that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit class actions to be maintained only if the class representative "will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class," and "[e]very court that has considered the issue has held that a prisoner proceeding pro se is inadequate to represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action." Plaintiffs have filed a motion for recruitment of counsel, which shall be addressed in a separate order. Until that motion is addressed, a ruling on class certification is premature. District Judge Staci Yandle entered a memorandum and order on Jan. 26, 2015, ruling that: -- Each Plaintiff was to advise the Court in writing by January 29, 2015, if he wishes to pursue his claims individually in a separate lawsuit; -- Plaintiff Brown's claim for damages (Count 1) against Defendants DUNCAN, WEAVER, HOPPER, DELLINGER, and GODINEZ in their individual capacities and Plaintiff Rutledge's claim for damages (Count 2) against Defendants DUNCAN, WEAVER, HOPPER, RAY, and GODINEZ in their individual capacities shall proceed. Plaintiffs may also proceed on their request for injunctive relief against Defendant DUNCAN in his official capacity as WARDEN OF LAWRENCE. -- Defendant HUGHES is DISMISSED from this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. -- The action is REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Frazier for further pre-trial proceedings. A copy of the Judge's order is available at http://is.gd/8hwZlR from Leagle.com. IMMUNOMEDICS INC: Motion to Dismiss Nasyrova Suit Fully Briefed --------------------------------------------------------------- Immunomedics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2014, that defendants moved to dismiss a class action complaint, and the motion has been fully briefed by the parties. A putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova v. Immunomedics, Inc., was filed on February 27, 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit alleges 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 alleges that defendants failed to make timely disclosure concerning a dispute concerning a delay in the development of veltuzumab. On October 9, 2013, the Company announced that the Nycomed Agreement was terminated. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 24, 2014 the District Court entered an order appointing John Neff as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as lead counsel. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel thereafter filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on August 8, 2014. The defendants believe that the allegations in the class action complaint are without merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on September 22, 2014, and the motion has been fully briefed by the parties. INVENSENSE INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Class Action in Calif. --------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on Feb. 8 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against InvenSense, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 15-cv-00142, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased InvenSense securities between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased InvenSense securities during the Class Period, you have until March 8, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. InvenSense designs, develops, markets and sells Micro-Electro- Mechanical Systems ("MEMS") sensors, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes and microphones for consumer electronics. The Company targets sales of its products to manufacturers of smartphones and tablets, console and portable video gaming devices, and other types of consumer electronics. The Complaint alleges that defendants concealed the adverse effects the Company would experience as a result of its agreement with Apple to supply sensors for the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus at heavily discounted prices. The low prices charged had negatively impacted, and would continue to negatively impact, InvenSense's margins. Instead of revealing the Company's true financial condition and prospects, defendants concealed these adverse facts from investors and chose to issue strong guidance. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements and/or omissions, InvenSense common stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $25.85 per share, allowing certain of the Company's insiders to sell their personally held stock at artificially inflated prices for aggregate proceeds of over $5.3 million. On October 28, 2014, the Company announced disappointing financial results for the second quarter of fiscal year 2015, ended Sept. 28, 2014. Net revenue for the second quarter fiscal 2015 was $90.2 million, up 35 percent from $66.7 million for the first quarter fiscal 2015. Gross margin determined in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the second quarter of fiscal 2015 was 35 percent, compared with 47 percent for the first quarter of fiscal 2015 including stock-based compensation and related payroll taxes, and amortization of acquisition intangibles. On this news, shares of InvenSense fell $5.10 per share, or more than 23.74%, to $16.08 per share on October 29, 2014. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. JCAHO SURVEYOR: Fails to Pay Overtime Wage Under FLSA, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Billie Klesch-Sheeran, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. JCAHO Surveyor and QHR Consultant Corp d/b/a The Joint Commission and d/b/a Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, a foreign corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv- 00530-M (N.D. Tex., February 13, 2015) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay overtime pay for the actual hours its Field Representatives, including the Plaintiff, were working in excess of 40 each week when those Field Representatives were misclassified as exempt. JCAHO Surveyor and QHR Consultant Corp., doing business as The Joint Commission and doing business as Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations is a foreign not-for- profit corporation that does and is doing business in the state of Texas. The Defendant is a not-for-profit corporation that accredits and certifies health organizations and programs throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com forester@l-b-law.com KEURIG GREEN: 2nd Cir. Heard Oral Argument in Fraud Suit Appeal --------------------------------------------------------------- Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the thirteen weeks ended December 27, 2014, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal in the securities fraud class action. The putative securities fraud class action, captioned Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System ("LAMPERS") v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 2:11-cv-00289, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Vermont before the Honorable William K. Sessions, III. Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleged violations of the federal securities laws in connection with the Company's disclosures relating to its revenues and its inventory accounting practices. The amended complaint sought class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the court should deem just and proper. Plaintiffs sought to represent all purchasers of the Company's securities between February 2, 2011 and November 9, 2011. The initial complaint filed in the action on November 29, 2011 included counts for alleged violations of (1) Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's underwriters in connection with a May 2011 secondary common stock offering; and (2) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 against the Company and the officer defendants, and for violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the officer defendants. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(3), plaintiffs had until January 30, 2012 to move the court to serve as lead plaintiff of the putative class. Competing applications were filed and the Court appointed Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, Sjunde AP-Fonden, Board of Trustees of the City of Fort Lauderdale General Employees' Retirement System, Employees' Retirement System of the Government of the Virgin Islands, and Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi as lead plaintiffs' counsel on April 27, 2012. Pursuant to a schedule approved by the court, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on October 22, 2012, and plaintiffs filed a corrected amended complaint on November 5, 2012. Plaintiffs' amended complaint did not allege any claims under the Securities Act against the Company, its officers and directors, or the Company's underwriters in connection with the May 2011 secondary common stock offering. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on March 1, 2013 and on December 20, 2013, the court issued an order dismissing the amended complaint with prejudice. On January 21, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of intent to appeal the court's December 20, 2013 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Pursuant to a schedule entered by the appeals court, briefing on the appeal was completed on June 23, 2014. The Second Circuit heard oral argument on the appeal on December 1, 2014. The underwriters previously named as defendants notified the Company of their intent to seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to their underwriting agreement dated May 5, 2011 in regard to the claims asserted in this action. KEURIG GREEN: JBR's Brief in Antitrust Suit Appeal Due March 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the thirteen weeks ended December 27, 2014, that the Company's brief in an appeal related to an antitrust litigation was due February 17, 2015; and JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company)'s reply brief will be due March 3, 2015. On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv- 00905-VSB). The TreeHouse complaint asserts claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee portion packs, including through its contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection with the launch of its next generation coffee brewer. The TreeHouse complaint seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD). The claims asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint are substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse complaint. Additionally, beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief have been filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of the Company's products in various federal district courts. On June 3, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The actions are now pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern District of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB). On June 23, 2014, TreeHouse and JBR filed a joint motion to expedite discovery, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on July 23, 2014. On August 11, 2014, JBR filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the Company opposed. The Court held a hearing on September 3-4, 2014, and by order dated September 19, 2014, denied JBR's motion for a preliminary injunction. On September 24, 2014, JBR filed a notice of appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction. On October 28, 2014, JBR moved to expedite its appeal, which the Company opposed, and on November 13, 2014, the Court of Appeals denied the motion for expedited treatment. JBR filed its opening appeal brief on November 17, 2014. The Company's brief is due February 17, 2015, and JBR's reply brief will be due March 3, 2015. KEURIG GREEN: Plaintiffs' Opposition Briefs Due April 10 -------------------------------------------------------- Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the thirteen weeks ended December 27, 2014, that consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014. The Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints and the complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions on October 6, 2014. On October 27, 2014, all plaintiffs informed the Company of their decision to amend their complaints rather than oppose the Company's motions to dismiss. Plaintiffs' amended complaints were filed November 25, 2014. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaints on February 2, 2015. Under the current briefing schedule, plaintiffs' opposition briefs will be due April 10, 2015, and the Company's reply briefs will be due May 11, 2015. KEURIG GREEN: Balks at Club Coffee's Statement of Claim ------------------------------------------------------- Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. and Keurig Canada Inc. served Club Coffee with notice of motion for a motion to strike the claims made by Coffee Club for failure to state a reasonable cause of action, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the thirteen weeks ended December 27, 2014. On September 30, 2014, a statement of claim was filed against the Company and Keurig Canada Inc. in Ontario, Canada by Club Coffee L.P. ("Club Coffee"), a Canadian manufacturer of single-serve beverage packs, claiming damages of $600 million and asserting a breach of competition law and false and misleading statements by the Company. On October 21, 2014, Club Coffee filed an amended statement of claim against the Company and Keurig Canada Inc. claiming the same amount of damages as in the original statement of claim and asserting essentially the same breaches of competition law and false and misleading statements by the Company. On January 12, 2015, the Company and Keurig Canada Inc. served Club Coffee with notice of motion for a motion to strike the claims made by Coffee Club for failure to state a reasonable cause of action. KEURIG GREEN: Recorded $10MM Net Charge in 2014 on Product Recall ----------------------------------------------------------------- Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the thirteen weeks ended December 27, 2014, that the Company recorded a net charge in fiscal 2014 of approximately $10.0 million related to product recall. In November 2014, the Company informed the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada that it identified a potential issue involving certain Keurig MINI Plus (non-reservoir) brewers (K10 and B31 models), where on very rare occasions, hot liquid could escape the brewer. As a result, the Company recorded a net charge in fiscal 2014 of approximately $10.0 million in its statement of operations which represented the Company's best estimate, based on a number of assumptions, of the cost to remediate this issue and related expenses. Included in this charge is the recovery that the Company expects to receive from its insurance carriers where the Company has a legally enforceable contract that stipulates the terms of the insurance coverage and where the terms are not in or expected to be in dispute. On December 23, 2014 the Company issued a recall for its Keurig MINI Plus brewers. "This action did not change our estimate for the reserve or the anticipated insurance recovery; however, as such charge is based on estimates, the Company's ultimate liability and recovery may exceed or be less than the amounts recorded. Based on current information known to the Company, the Company believes that this issue will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company," the Company said. KOHL'S CORPORATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Ankcorn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kohl's Corporation, a Wisconsin corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01303 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of contacting consumers on the cellular telephone using a pre-recorded message with an artificial or computerized voice. Kohl's Corporation owns and operates 66 department stores in the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto Carlos Robledo, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ROBLEDO 9845 Erma Road, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (619) 500-6683 E-mail: roberto@robertorobledo.com LLOYD'S OF LONDON: Underwriters Can Sell Insurance in Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------------- Arkansas Business reports that a Saline County Circuit Court judge agreed with former Arkansas Insurance Commissioner Jay Bradford that Lloyd's of London underwriters are approved to sell insurance in the state. If you recall, the case stemmed from a lawsuit filed in 2013 by Little Rock attorney Gene Ludwig, who was seeking a class-action certification. He argued that thousands of policies should be invalidated because, under his reading of the law, the Lloyd's of London underwriters weren't approved by the Arkansas Insurance Department. Mr. Ludwig represented more than a dozen named plaintiffs against several brokers who sold surplus lines of insurance through the Lloyd's of London marketplace. But Saline County Circuit Judge Gary Arnold tossed the case on a summary judgment order, meaning the case never made it to a jury. "Each of the Plaintiffs' claims is predicated on the assumption their policies were placed with unapproved insurers," Judge Arnold wrote. "From the undisputed record, each of the subject policies was actually placed with approved insurers." Even though Bradford and the Insurance Department weren't named as a defendant in the lawsuit, Bradford vigorously disagreed with the allegations and maintained the Lloyd's underwriters were approved. He even issued a bulletin in July that reiterated his point. Mr. Ludwig said in a statement to Whispers that "if we end up losing this case, perhaps we will have at least succeeded in raising public awareness about the inability of a policy holder to identify, sue, and execute a judgment against the actual alien insurers of 'Lloyds of London' surplus lines policies." One of the attorneys for the insurance brokers, David Wilson of Little Rock, told Arkansas Business that he is pleased with the ruling. LOVE HONEY: Faces Class Action Over Ineffective Lubricant --------------------------------------------------------- Austin Siegemund-Broka at The Hollywood Report reports that a California woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against author EL James and a British erotic toy company over Fifty Shades of Grey sex lubricant. In a complaint filed on Feb. 5, Tania Warchol claims that she purchased Fifty Shades of Grey Come Alive Pleasure Gel for Her, part of Lovehoney's Official Pleasure Collection Approved by James, "on at least two occasions" from an Adam & Eve store near her home. The store's parent company, PHE, is named as a defendant. The complaint notes that the product's packaging promises users will "experience enhanced orgasms and stimulation as every tingle, touch and vibration intensifies." It includes the lines from James' second Fifty Shades novel printed on the box -- "I surrender, exploding around him -- a draining, soul-grabbing orgasm that leaves me spent and exhausted." It was a bit of a letdown, Ms. Warchol claims. "Based on Defendants' representations, Plaintiff believed the Product has powerful aphrodisiac qualities and would increase her sexual pleasure as advertised," reads the complaint, a copy of which was obtained by The Hollywood Reporter. "The Product did not deliver the purported benefits." The suit contains other allegations about the gel's legal classification, including that it's improperly unregistered with the Federal Drug Administration. Federal law requires that any substance marketed over the counter as an "aphrodisiac" and its label receive approval from the FDA. Ms. Warchol claims "the adequacy of the labeled instructions for its 'aphrodisiac' uses" has not received FDA approval and the product is therefore a mislabeled drug. The complaint contains similar allegations regarding the product's "latex compatible" label. In order for the gel to have that designation, it needs to be registered with the FDA as either a Class I Medical Device or, if it's meant for use with a condom, a Class II Medical Device, according to the filing. The Fifty Shades of Grey Come Alive Pleasure Gel is registered as neither and therefore is being "illegally marketed." Ms. Warchol has sued on behalf of everyone who has purchased the lubricant in the last four years. She's claiming violations of California's unfair competition and false advertising laws and of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. She wants the defendants to refund every plaintiff's purchase of the product in addition to paying punitive damages. She's represented by attorney Ronald Marron. The defendants are Love Honey, Inc., LoveHoney, LTD, LoveHoney Group, LTD, PHE, Inc. and Erica Mitchell. MAPLEBEAR INC: Removes "Cobarruviaz" Suit to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit titled Cobarruviaz v. Maplebear, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-543583, 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 Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv- 00697 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues. The Defendant is represented by: Shon Morgan, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 624-7707 Facsimile: (213) 624-0643 E-mail: shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Donald Smith, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Marriott International Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00130 (W.D. Tex., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay its fire inspectors overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Marriott International Inc. is a hospitality company with more than 3,900 properties worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM, PC 115 E. Travis St., Suite 1530 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 225-0811 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 E-mail: ahartry@themoralesfirm.com MASSAGE ENVY: Not Liable for Wage Violations to T. Vann. -------------------------------------------------------- A California district court opined that Terrance Allan Vann's claims against Massage Envy Franchising LLC (MEF) cannot proceed as a matter of law. MEF was not an employer or joint employer of Mr. Vann, and therefore, cannot be liabile for any wage violations committed by Charis Group, the court held. MEF is a "business format franchisor" headquartered in Scottsdale, Arizona. MEF grants licenses to independently owned and operated entities to use the Massage Envy name, trademark, and standardized business operations in exchange for paying a franchise fee. Mr. Vann, a massage therapist who worked at various Massage Envy spa locations, filed a class action complaint against Defendants MEF, Charis Group, LLC, and OC Wellness Group, Inc., alleging violations of California's minimum-wage laws. Defendant MEF is the franchisor, and Defendants Charis Group, LLC and OC Wellness Group, Inc. are franchisees. On March 3, 2014, the Parties agreed to dismiss all claims against OC Wellness Group, Inc. The action against Defendant Charis Group, LLC was stayed in light of its recent filing for bankruptcy. The action is TERRANCE ALLAN VANN, an Individual, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MASSAGE ENVY FRANCHISING LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Corporation, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-2221-BEN (WVG) (S.D. Cal.). The judge's Jan. 5, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/OMCCYe from Leagle.com. MERCER CANYONS: Must Face Farmworkers' Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Kristi Pihl, writing for Tri-City Herald, reports that Mercer Canyons has failed to get a federal judge to dismiss a class- action lawsuit filed by farmworkers over the Horse Heaven Hills farm's use of the federal H-2A guest worker program. Judge Stanley Bastian said he found the farm's arguments and interpretation of state law unconvincing in a recent written opinion denying the farm's request for a summary judgment in its favor. "Mercer Canyons' effort to break this claim down into just a few discrete and isolated incidents is uncompelling," he wrote. Columbia Legal Services and Schroeter Goldmark & Bender of Seattle brought the lawsuit on behalf of Jose Amador and Bacilio Ruiz. They claim they have identified at least 600 job seekers who were affected by the farm's alleged failure to comply with the recruitment efforts required by the guest worker program. Farmers that use the H-2A program can only hire foreign workers if they can't find enough domestic workers to complete the needed work. The H-2A program is the only legal way for farms to employ foreign workers to help harvest Washington's labor-intensive crops. More farmers have been using the costly, cumbersome program because of statewide labor shortages. Mercer Canyons hired 22 foreign workers through the H-2A program for specific tasks between May and September 2013. The farm contends it met all obligations, including paying seasonal domestic workers the higher $12 per hour wage for all the hours they spent on the exact same work as the foreign workers, according to court documents. Mercer Canyons argued that the H-2A regulations lack a private right of action and state law and the federal Agricultural Worker Protection Act don't apply. The farm says the farmworker claims are mostly related to alleged non-compliance with the H-2A program requirements. But Judge Bastian wrote that seasonal farmworkers can use the federal act to enforce a required H-2A wage rate. Mr. Amador, of Grandview, claims he and two family members were told no work was available when they went to Mercer Canyon's main office in Alderdale in March of last year, according to court documents. He contends jobs on the farm should have gone to area residents, instead of workers imported from other countries as part of the federal guest worker program. Mr. Ruiz, who worked as a vineyard laborer for Mercer Canyons in 2012, claims he should have been paid $12 an hour for some work that he wasn't, according to court documents. Mr. Ruiz also contends he was not asked back in 2013, as required by the guest worker program, but did end up working for the farm. The farm said in court documents that Mr. Ruiz was paid all he was owed and the farm wasn't required to pay him the higher wage for the work he did on tasks the foreign workers weren't doing. The farm also claims that Amador wasn't a seasonal farmworker since he'd been working at Safeway for 12 years before he supposedly asked about work available at the farm. But Judge Bastian wrote that nothing in the Agricultural Worker Protection Act requires someone to be currently employed as a seasonal farm worker or to have a specific amount of farm work experience in order to be protected by the act. The lawsuit asks for triple damages of up to $25,000 for each farmworker. It also asks the court to award any unpaid wages as well as twice the amount of unpaid wages as damages. MICHIGAN: Faces Class Action Over Teen Inmate Sexual Assault ------------------------------------------------------------ The Associated Press reports that Michigan's prison system is the target of a class-action lawsuit alleging that guards and other workers failed to prevent the sexual assault of male teen inmates who were locked up with adults. Inmates under 18 were forced to engage in sex acts with adult prisoners and staff, according to the lawsuit, with some abuse "open and obvious." The Corrections Department disputes the allegations, and state attorneys have argued that employees shouldn't be held liable. But after more than a year of litigation, the inmates have some important victories. Judge Carol Kuhnke agreed to make the case a class-action and declared that Michigan's civil rights protections apply. More than 200 potential victims have contacted the lawyers, who also plan to hold meetings at prisons. The case in Washtenaw County court is led by a legal team that negotiated a $100 million settlement in 2009 for hundreds of female prisoners who said they were assaulted or harassed by male guards. MICHIGAN: District Court Junks "Reed" Class Complaint vs. MDOC -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge R. Allan Edgar dismissed a civil rights action brought by Mark Anthony Reed against the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) and the Keefe Company for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff entitled his complaint as a class action, purporting to represent all similarly situated prisoners. Plaintiff is currently confined at the Chippewa Correctional Facility. Among other things, Plaintiff complained that the procedure for handling misconducts among prisoners by prison staff is unfair; the MDOC lowered the nutritional standards in the prisons; and the MDOC does not provide adequate clothing for its prisoners. The action is MARK ANTHONY REED, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-cv-211 (W.D. Mich.). A copy of the judge's Jan. 23, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/Damx9Nfrom Leagle.com. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: J. Rock Can File 3rd Amended Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Richard L. Young granted John Rock leave to file a third amended version of his antitrust class action complaint against National Collegiate Athletic Association in a Jan. 23, 2015 order available at http://is.gd/5HsiuOfrom Leagle.com. The complaint is JOHN ROCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:12-CV-01019-JMS-DKL. It challenges certain regulations instituted by the NCAA, which include (1) the NCAA's prohibition on multi-year Division 1 football scholarships, and (2) the caps on the number of Division 1 football scholarships that can be awarded by Division 1 member institutions. Mr. Rock notes that the only difference between previous version of his complaint is the definition of the class. The Court further orders that the NCAA may move to reopen discovery for the limited purpose of obtaining the information necessary to effectively examine the opinions and assumptions of Plaintiff's expert, Daniel A. Rascher. If it does so, Plaintiff shall assist the NCAA in obtaining that discovery, and all briefing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall remain stayed. JOHN ROCK, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Kurowski -- dank@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Elizabeth A. Fegan -- jenniferc@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP, James Piatt -- jpiatt@price-law.com -- PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, Jeff D. Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Jon T. King -- jonk@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph N. Williams -- jwilliams@price-law.com -- PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, Sara Willingham, The Paynter LawFirm, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart McKinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC & William N. Riley -- wriley@price-law.com -- PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by Gregory L. Curtner -- gcurtner@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Jacob K. Danziger -- jdanziger@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Jessica A. Sprovstoff -- jsprovstoff@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Kathy Lynn Osborn, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Kimberly K. Kefalas -- kkefalas@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Paul E. Bateman, Jr. -- pbateman@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN LLP, Robert James Wierenga -- rwierenga@chiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP & Suzanne L. Wahl -- swahl@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP. NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Recuses Self in "Rock" Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson said there would have been no basis for her to recuse herself from presiding over John Rock's claims as set forth in Rock's Second Amended Class Complaint against the National Collegiate Athletic Association. But because Mr. Rock has been granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint, and because the parties dispute whether any Butler University football players are members of the newly proposed putative classes and whether Butler University would be substantially affected by the requested injunctive relief, Judge Magnus-Stinson recused herself from the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a). The judge directed the action to be returned to the Office of the Clerk for random reassignment to another District Judge. The judge's order came upon John Rock's Motion to Disqualify the assigned District Judge. Mr. Rock sought to disqualify Judge Magnus-Stinson as the presiding judge because the judge joined Butler University's Board of Trustees in June 2013. Mr. Rock claimed that this has resulted in a conflict requiring disqualification pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455(a), (b)(1), and (b)(4) because Butler University is a Division I football program with the NCAA. The NCAA opposed Mr. Rock's request. A copy of Judge Magnus-Stinson's Jan. 29, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/HPx4dMfrom Leagle.com. The complaint is JOHN ROCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:12-CV-01019-JMS-DKL. It challenges certain regulations instituted by the NCAA, which include (1) the NCAA's prohibition on multi-year Division 1 football scholarships, and (2) the caps on the number of Division 1 football scholarships that can be awarded by Division 1 member institutions. JOHN ROCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J. Kurowski, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Elizabeth A. Fegan, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP, James Piatt, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, Jeff D. Friedman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Jon T. King, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Joseph N. Williams, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, Sara Willingham, The Paynter LawFirm, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Stuart McKinley Paynter, The Paynter Law Firm PLLC & William N. Riley, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, represented by Gregory L. Curtner, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Jacob K. Danziger, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Jessica A. Sprovstoff, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Kathy Lynn Osborn, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Kimberly K. Kefalas, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP, Paul E. Bateman, Jr., SCHIFF HARDIN LLP, Robert James Wierenga, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP & Suzanne L. Wahl, SCHIFF HARDIN, LLP. NETHERLANDS INSURANCE: "Addison" Action Remanded to State Court --------------------------------------------------------------- A Massachussetts district court entered a memorandum and order on plaintiff's motion to remand in the lawsuit ADDISON AUTOMATICS, INC., Plaintiff, v. THE NETHERLANDS INSURANCE COMPANY, EXCELSIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, PRECISION ELECTRONIC GLASS, INC., and PHILLIP ROSSI, Defendants, CIVIL NO. 14-13710-FDS (D. Mass.). The action is for declaratory judgment, in which plaintiff Addison Automatics, Inc. seeks a declaration that defendant Netherlands Insurance Company has a duty to defend and indemnify defendant Precision Electronic Glass Company in an action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Plaintiff originally brought the action in Suffolk Superior Court. On September 25, 2014, defendants removed the case to the Massachusetts district court. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court on October 27, 2014, contending that defendants did not timely remove the action and the action is not a class action. Plaintiff also requested fees and costs. For reasons noted in his order dated Jan. 29, 2015, District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV granted the motion to remand. Addison Automatics, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alan L. Cantor, Swartz & Swartz, David M. Oppenheim, Jeffrey A. Berman & Phillip A. Bock, Bock & Hatch, LLC. The Netherlands Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ryan B. MacDonald -- rmacdonald@sloanewalsh.com -- of Sloane & Walsh. Excelsior Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Ryan B. MacDonald, Sloane & Walsh. Precision Electronic Glass, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lane N. Goldberg, Goldberg Law. Phillip Rossi, Defendant, represented by Lane N. Goldberg, Goldberg Law. MONARCH TRANSPORTATION: Judge Certifies "Colbert" Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Veronica Colbert sought and obtained conditional certification of the class action complaint she filed, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, against Monarch Transportation LLC for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Monarch Transportation is a Kansas limited liability company that provides transportation services for various health and nursing care facilities in and around Topeka, Kansas. Plaintiff worked as a Transportation Aide for Monarch. She alleged unpaid overtime pay, among other things. In a Jan. 23, 2015 memorandum and order available at http://is.gd/bEztXNfrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge J. Thomas Marten ruled that: (a) plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification of Class Claims under Sec. 216(b) of the FLSA is GRANTED, and a plaintiff opt-in class is certified. Plaintiff is authorized to send out a notice to each potential member of the class; (b) Defendant, without delay, provide to plaintiff a list of all employees constituting the class, with their last known addresses, phone numbers, and dates of employment in an agreeable format for mailing; (c) plaintiff Veronica Colbert is designated class representative and her counsel, Rowdy Meeks Legal Group LLC and Davis George LLC, is designated as class counsel; and (d) plaintiff's request that defendant conspicuously post the notice by the time clock used by each currently employed putative class member until the opt-in period closes is DENIED. The lawsuit is VERONICA COLBERT v. MONARCH TRANSPORTATION, LLC, CASE NO. 5:13-CV-4126-JTM-JPO (Kansas). Veronica Colbert, Plaintiff, represented by Rowdy B. Meeks, Rowdy Meeks Legal Group, LLC & Tracey F. George, Davis George Mook, LLC. Monarch Transportation, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alan V. Johnson -- ajohnson@sloanlawfirm.com -- Sloan, Eisenbarth, Glassman, McEntire & Jarboe, LLC & Stephen Douglas Lanterman -- slanterman@sloanlawfirm.com -- Sloan, Eisenbarth, Glassman, McEntire & Jarboe, LLC. NORTHLAND GROUP: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Shaya Bodansky, of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Northland Group Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00774 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com OKLAHOMA: DHS to Close Emergency Shelters as Part of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Oklahoma Department of Human Services plans to close a pair of emergency shelters for abused and neglected children within six to nine months. Director Ed Lake said the number of children entering foster care is down. He says foster-home certifications are up and placements into homes are happening quickly. "It's encouraging," Mr. Lake said. "It is not a time to dance on tables, but it is encouraging." Officials plan to shutter Tulsa's Laura Dester Shelter and Oklahoma City's Pauline E. Mayer Shelter. The closures will make the state compliant with a goal to eliminate shelter use as part of a settlement in a 2008 federal class-action lawsuit. The shelters served as temporary housing until child-welfare workers could locate suitable foster homes. The lawsuit alleged children were left there for too long and was settled three years ago. The department eliminated shelter use for infants and toddlers in 2012. The exact time of the shelter closures depends on how soon the remaining children can be placed into foster or group homes. About 115 staff members work in the shelters. Mr. Lake said employees wishing to remain with the department will be able to transition to other child-welfare jobs. Mr. Lake said he will convene meetings in Tulsa with the shelter's supporters and stakeholder to discuss future plans. The campus could be transformed into transitional living, homes for young mothers or other community needs. "This is a community decision," Mr. Lake said. "We are totally open to any and all ideas and what happens moving forward." PASTA LA VISTA: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oscar Alvarado and Caleb Vivar, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Pasta La Vista, Inc. d/b/a Pazza Notte, Tove Hansen-Nord, and David Walsh, Case No. 1:15-cv-00998 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1375 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino (Justin) Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com PETROBRAS: Situation Gets Worse After Fraud Probe, Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth Rapoza, writing for Forbes, reports that the situation at Brazilian oil major Petrobras is getting worse. As shareholders now know, on Jan. 29, Moody's downgraded Petrobras' credit rating to Baa3, one notch above speculative grade. That is the least of Petrobras' problems. Petrobras' president Maria Gracas Foster said the ongoing fraud investigation into the state controlled oil company could worsen before it gets better. "New information from the investigations could cause new adjustments, like changing the scope of contracts . . .and long range forecasts," Ms. Foster told Brazilian reporters. She noted that Petrobras has already rifled through R$150 million -- or roughly $70 million -- to pay for legal counsel and other internal costs associated with the investigation. Of course, for Petrobras, this is a drop in the bucket. But that is not what investors are worried about. Three class action lawsuits in the U.S., plus changes to Petrobras' long term development goals all point to deteriorating momentum for PBR. Brazil's Federal Police and courts are investigating a massive corruption scandal that led to money laundering and political bribery within the government and with Petrobras construction partners. A handful of senior executives from Petrobras have been arrested and conglomerates like Andrade Gutierrez have been banned from new construction deals with the company, according to the Financial Times. Other construction companies working with Petrobras on its national refinery projects were arrested last year, including executives from OAS. The investigation is akin to a total self-destruction of Petrobras, long seen as the flagship enterprise of the Brazilian state, and a source of political if not national pride. Petrobras, a deep sea exploration and production firm, joined the A-list of celebrity oil corporations in 2007 when it found large oil reserves deep under the ocean bedrock off the coasts of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro states. The discovery led to a gold rush in foreign direct investment in Brazil. If God is a Brazilian, as the popular saying goes, then Petrobras was His archangel's corporate office on terra firma. PIZANO'S PIZZA: Faces "Laplaca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Carolyn Laplaca, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. Rudy Malnati, Pizano's Pizza & Pasta, Inc., 61 Madison, Inc. d/b/a Pizano's Pizza & Pasta, Case No. 1:15-cv- 01312 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate Pizano's Pizza & Pasta restaurant in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robin B. Potter, Esq. Maria De Las Nieves Bolanos, Esq. Patrick James Cowlin, Esq. ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES P.C. 111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 861-1800 Facsimile: (312) 861-3009 E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org nieves@potterlaw.org patrick@potterlaw.org - and - Catherine P. Sons, Esq. James X. Bormes, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 201-0575 Facsimile: (312) 332-0600 E-mail: cpsons@bormeslaw.com bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net PLANET BEAUTY: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik on Feb. 1 disclosed that on December 9, 2014 the Los Angeles employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action complaint alleging that Planet Beauty, Inc. and Beena Beauty Holding, Inc. failed to pay their California retail store employees the proper amount of overtime wages and allegedly failed to provide these employees with meal and rest periods in accordance with California law. The Planet Beauty, Inc. class action, Case No. BC566065 is currently pending in the Los Angeles County Superior Court for the State of California. According to the class action complaint the beauty supply company paid their hourly employees commission wages based on their sales for the company. The Complaint further claims that as a matter of law the commission wages received by Planet Beauty's employees should have been included in the employees' hourly rates, before the company calculated their employees' correct overtime rates of pay. As a result of the alleged illegal overtime calculations conducted by Planet Beauty, the lawsuit claims other non-exempt employees working for Planet Beauty were also not correctly paid all their overtime pay. The Complaint also seeks penalties for missed meal breaks because allegedly Planet Beauty did not have a policy to provide a thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal break prior to their employees' fifth (5th) hour of work. If you are a current or former employee of Planet Beauty, Inc. and would like to know more about your rights, please contact an experienced California labor lawyer today by calling (858) 568- 8020. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a San Diego labor law firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in collecting unpaid overtime wages, contact one of their attorneys today by clicking here. PRIVATE LABEL: Falsely Marketed Green Coffee Products, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Heather Schourup, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Private Label Nutraceuticals LLC d/b/a Maritzmayer Laboratories, a Georgia limited liability company, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-01026 (C.D. Cal., February 11, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's misrepresentation of its Green Coffee Extract products as a weight-loss supplement. When in fact, they contain little to no chlorogenic acid, the effective ingredient in green coffee extract, contain a sugar compound similar to Maltose and do not contain green coffee extract. Private Label Nutraceuticals LLC is a limited liability company with its principal places of business in Roswell, Georgia that manufactures nutritional vitamin, supplements and skincare products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus J. Bradley, Esq. Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818) 991-8080 Facsimile: (818) 991-8081 E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com RE SPEC CORP: Class Works in Excess of 40 Hours w/o OT, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edgar Juarez and Ray Mundo Vasquez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. RE Spec Corp. (d/b/a Jackson Hole and Soup Stop), 3 K Foods Inc.(d/b/a Jackson Hole and Soup Stop), George Kalogera, Thomas Kalogera, Dimitri Kalogera, Liliana Kalogera, and Stelio Kalogera, Case No. 1:15-cv-01057-UA (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiffs have worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that they worked. The Defendants own, operate, or control a chain of fast food restaurants located in New York City. The Individual Defendants are owners, managers, principals, or agents of the Defendant Corporations. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com REAL FOODS: Recalls Strawberry Trays Due to Misbranding ------------------------------------------------------- Real Foods in Kent, WA is initiating a voluntary recall of 356 cases (712 units) of Small Heart Strawberry Tray with Devonshire Dip, due to misbranding and undeclared allergens. The company was alerted to the issue by a retail operation selling the product, that the strawberry trays were incorrectly packaged with Buttermilk Ranch Dressing in place of Devonshire Dip. The Buttermilk Ranch Dressing contains egg and soy, two known allergens, which are not declared on the product label. People who have an allergy or sensitivity to egg and/or soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The products subject to the recall: STORE ITEM DESCRIPTION UPC NUMBER BEST BY ----- ---------------- ---------- ------- Quality Food 1.5# rigid plastic red 0 45009 06411 0 02/16/15 Centers heart shaped container strawberries and dip Top Foods/ 1.5# rigid plastic red 0 45009 06411 0 02/16/15 Haggen heart shaped container of strawberries and dip Independent 1.5# rigid plastic red 0 45009 06411 0 02/16/15 Grocers heart shaped container Alliance of strawberries and dip (IGA) Mckay's 1.5# rigid plastic red 0 45009 06411 0 02/16/15 heart shaped container of strawberries and dip Thriftway 1.5# rigid plastic red 0 45009 06411 0 02/16/15 including: heart shaped container Harvest of strawberries and dip Market, Pick Rite Food Market At 1.5# rigid plastic red 0 45009 06411 0 02/16/15 Lea Hill heart shaped container of strawberries and dip A total of 175 cases (350 units) of Small Heart Strawberry Tray with Devonshire Dip were produced on 02/09/15 and 02/10/15 and were shipped to a limited number of Quality Food Centers in the Washington and Oregon areas only. This product was distributed by Charlie's Produce and sold to Quality Food Centers in the following cities: Bellevue, WA; Bothell, WA; Edmonds, WA; Everett, WA; Gig Harbor, WA; Issaquah, WA; Kent, WA; Kirkland, WA; Lynnwood, WA; Mt. Lake Terrace, WA; Maple Valley, WA; Mercer Island, WA; Mill Creek, WA; Mukilteo, WA; Newcastle, WA; North Bend, WA; Pt. Hadlock, WA; Portland, OR; Redmond, WA; Seattle, WA; Stanwood, WA; and Tacoma, WA. A total of 163 cases (326 units) of Small Heart Strawberry Tray with Devonshire Dip were produced on 02/09/15 and 02/10/15 and were shipped to a limited number of Top Foods and Haggen stores in the Washington and Oregon areas only. This product was distributed by Charlie's Produce and sold to Top Foods and Haggen stores in the following cities: Aberdeen, WA; Auburn, WA; Bellingham, WA; Burlington, WA; Ferndale, WA; Lake Stevens, WA; Marysville, WA; Mount Vernon, WA; Puyallup, WA Olympia, WA; Oregon City, OR; Snohomish WA; Stanwood, WA; Tualatin, OR; and Woodinville, WA. The remaining 18 cases (36 units) of Small Heart Strawberry Tray with Devonshire Dip were produced on 02/09/15 and 02/10/15 and were distributed and sold by Charlie's produce to the following stores in the following locations: The IGA in Darrington, WA (2 case); The IGA-Orcas Island in Eastsound, WA (2 cases); Mckay's in Gold Beach and Lincoln City, OR (4 cases), Thriftway on Vashon, WA (2 cases), Thriftway-Harvest Market in White Salmon, WA (2 cases), Thriftway-Pick Rite in Montesano, WA (5 cases); Food Market at Lea Hill in Auburn, WA (1 case). No other products or code dates are affected by this recall. This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. There have been no adverse reactions or illnesses attributed to the recalled item to date. Customers who have purchased this product and are sensitive to soy and/or egg products or have soy and/or egg allergies should not consume the above-mentioned product. This product may be returned to the store where purchased for a full refund. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434177.htm REXNORD CORPORATION: Paid Class Action Plaintiff Attorneys' Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rexnord Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2015, for the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2014, that the Company's subsidiaries, Zurn PEX, Inc. and Zurn Industries, LLC ("Zurn Industries"), were named as defendants in a number of individual and class action lawsuits in various United States courts. The plaintiffs in these suits claimed damages due to the alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on the PEX plumbing systems in homes and other structures. In July 2012, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the liability underlying this litigation. The settlement is designed to resolve, on a national basis, the Company's overall exposure for both known and unknown claims related to the alleged failure or anticipated failure of Zurn brass fittings on PEX plumbing systems, subject to the right of eligible class members to opt-out of the settlement and pursue their claims independently. The settlement received final court approval in February 2013, and utilizes a seven year claims fund, which is capped at $20 million, and is funded in installments over the seven year period based on claim activity and minimum funding criteria. The settlement also covers class action plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses totaling $8.5 million, which were paid in the first quarter of fiscal 2014. Historically, the Company's insurance carrier had funded the Company's defense in the proceedings. The Company, however, reached a settlement agreement with its insurer, whereby the insurer paid the Company a lump sum in exchange for a release of future exposure related to this liability. The Company has recorded an accrual related to this brass fittings liability, which takes into account, in pertinent part, the insurance carrier contribution, as well as exposure from the claims fund, opt-outs and the waiver of future insurance coverage. RIDGEBROOK INVESTMENTS: Minn. Landlords Can Bill Add-on Fees ------------------------------------------------------------ In July 2013, Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley filed a class action complaint questioning the legality of add-on fees relating to their rented apartment spaces. The tenants resided in aparment complexes owned separately by Ridgebrook Investments Limited Partnership and MNS Investors, LLP. Both complexes are managed by Steven Scott Management, Inc. (SSM). SSM contracts with American Utility Management, Inc. (AUM) to provide utility billing services for both complexes. Because both apartment complexes are served by a single meter, AUM pays the total cost of the utility, apportions the utility costs among the tenants, and then bills each tenant for his or her share of the utility. Included in each tenant's lease is a Water/Sewer Utilities and Trash Addendum in which the tenant agrees to pay AUM these "Add-on Fees": a new-account activation fee, a monthly administrative fee, a late-payment fee, and a convenience fee if the tenant pays by credit card. Under Count 1 of the Complaint, tenants allege alternative claims. First, they assert that Minn. Stat. Sec. 504B.215 prohibits landlords from billing tenants for add-on fees. Second, tenants allege that, if Minn. Stat. Sec. 504B.215 permits landlords to bill tenants for add-on fees, the fees billed by AUM violate Minn. Stat. Sec. 504B.215, subd. 2a, which, tenants allege, requires that add-on fees be equitable and reasonable compared to the actual cost of the utility service. In Count 2, tenants assert a claim of unjust enrichment against AUM. The district court denied the motion to dismiss count one, and granted the motion to dismiss count two. The district court also granted tenants' motion for entry of partial judgment on the unjust-enrichment claim. Landlords filed a notice of appeal from the order denying the motion to dismiss count one. Tenants filed a notice of related appeal from the same order, challenging the district court's conclusion that Minn. Stat. Sec. 504B.215 does not prohibit landlords from billing tenants for add-on fees. Tenants also filed a separate notice of appeal from the district court's partial judgment dismissing count two of the complaint. The Court of Appeals of Minnesota subsequently consolidated the appeals. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota considers whether Minn. Stat. Sec. 504B.215 prohibits a landlord from billing tenants for fees in connection with a tenant's utility bill; whether the statute imposes a requirement that those fees be equitable in comparison to the cost of the utility service itself; and whether the district court erred in dismissing an unjust- enrichment claim against the utility administrator who billed tenants for the fees. In a Feb. 2, 2015 Opinion available at http://is.gd/7ERC8Lfrom Leagle.com, the Court of Appeals of Minnesota: -- concluded that the certified question is important and doubtful and that the statute does not prohibit landlords from billing tenants for the fees at issue here; -- answered the certified question in the negative; and -- affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the unjust-enrichment claim. The appeals case is Jeff Persigehl and Samone Bodley, individually and on behalf of the putative classes, Respondents (A14-0027), Appellants (A14-0123), v. Ridgebrook Investments Limited Partnership, Appellant (A14-0027), Respondent (A14-0123), MNS Investors, LLP d/b/a Bar-Ett Investment Company, et al., Appellants (A14-0027), Respondents (A14-0123), American Utility Management, Inc., Appellant (A14-0027), Respondent (A14-0123), Case Nos. A14-0027, A14-0123. E. Michelle Drake -- drake@nka.com , Anna P. Prakash -- aprakash@nka.com , Joseph Hashmall -- jhashmall@nka.com , of Nichols Kaster PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Persigehl and Bodley. Richard T. Ostlund -- rostlund@anthonyostlund.com , Brooke D. Anthony -- banthony@anthonyostlund.com of Anthony, Ostlund, Baer & Louwagie P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Ridgebrook Investment Limited Partnership. Mark A. Jacobson -- mjacobson@lindquist.com , Karla M. Vehrs -- kvehrs@lindquist.com of Lindquist & Vennum LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for MNS Investors LLP, et al. Bradley M. Jones -- bjones@meagher.com , Jeffrey M. Thompson -- jthompson@meagher.com , George H. Norris -- gnorris@meagher.com of Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for American Utility Management. SAN DIEGO COUNTY: Sued Over Failure to Have Blind-Accessible ATM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Brett Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. San Diego County Credit Union, Case No. 3:15-cv-00288 (S.D. Cal., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide ATMs are fully accessible to, and independently usable by, sight-impaired individuals. San Diego County Credit Union is a credit union headquartered at 6545 Sequence Drive, San Diego, California 92121. It is San Diego's largest locally-owned financial institution, and owns and operates over thirty-six branches in Southern California, including several in the San Diego-San Marcos area. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan Sherry Maertz, Esq. Gerald D. Wells III, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS AND GRAY LLP 2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Telephone: (610) 822-3700 Facsimile: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: meghansherry@yahoo.com gwells@cwg-law.com STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE: "Sewell" Class Deal Gets Court OK --------------------------------------------------------------- A California district judge granted final approval of a class action settlement in the lawsuit ANDREA SEWELL, CONRAD SILVA, and EDITH VIERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-CV-00588-THE (N.D. Cal.). In a Jan. 26, 2015 Order available at http://is.gd/SmxirXfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Thelton E. Henderson certified two classes for purposes of effectuating the Settlement. The classes are: The "California Settlement Class" refers to "all persons employed as a "Payroll Auditor" or "Senior Payroll Auditor" by Defendant and who regularly performed officially assigned duties outside of an assigned office at any time during the period on or after February 11, 2009 through August 27, 2014, and who has not validly opted-out." The "FLSA Settlement Class" consists of "all persons employed as a "Payroll Auditor" or "Senior Payroll Auditor" by Defendant and who regularly performed officially assigned duties outside of an assigned office at any time during the period on or after April 4, 2010 through August 27, 2014, who have submitted an opt-in claim form in this Action." The Court approves a payment to the Class Representatives in the amount of $7,500 to Andrea Sewell and Conrad Silva, each, and $5,000 to Edith Viera, as an enhancement for the initiation and pursuit of the action, work performed, and risks undertaken, as more fully set forth in the moving papers and Class Representative Declarations. These amounts are separate and apart from any other recovery to which these Class Representatives might be entitled to under other provisions of the Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel is entitled to a fee and accordingly, the Court approves the application of Class Counsel, (1) Law Offices of Sohnen & Kelly; and (2) Law Office of Mary-Alice Coleman, in the total amount of $293,750, which is 25 per cent of the gross settlement fund, for their attorney's fees and $10,150.35 for their litigation expenses. The Court further approves and directs Simpluris, Inc., the appointed Settlement Administrator, to disburse to: A. Participating Settlement Class Members, by check, his/her individual Settlement Payment as calculated by the Settlement Administrator within 25 days of the "Settlement Effective Date" as defined in paragraph 42 of the Settlement Agreement; B. Class Representatives, the sums of $7,500 to Andrea Sewell and Conrad Silva, each, and $5,000 to Edith Viera, by check, in addition to any Settlement distribution to which he/she is entitled within 15 days of the Settlement Effective Date; C. The Law Offices of Sohnen & Kelly and Law Office of Mary- Alice Coleman, jointly, by check, the total amount of $293,750, for their attorney's fees and $10,150.35 for their litigation expenses within 15 days of the Settlement Effective Date; and, D. Simpluris, Inc. the total amount of $14,000 for administration costs and expenses within 15 days of the Settlement Effective Date. E. Second round Settlement share checks to all participating Settlement Class Members from the Settlement Fund who cashed first round checks within the 90-day period, within 45 days of date of expiration of first round Settlement Class Member settlement checks. F. Residual funds in the Settlement Fund to the cy pres beneficiary no later than 30 days after the end of the 90 day period for cashing checks in the second round distribution. LAW OFFICE OF MARY-ALICE COLEMAN MARY-ALICE COLEMAN, MICHAEL S. AHMAD, Davis, CA, LAW OFFICES OF SOHNEN & KELLY HARVEY SOHNEN, PATRICIA KELLY, Orinda, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs ANDREA SEWELL, CONRAD SILVA, and EDITH VIERA individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated. MEDINA MCKELVEY LLP Brandon R. McKelvey -- Brandon@medinamckelvey.com -- Attorneys for Defendant STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Mark P. Grajski -- mgrajski@seyfarth.com , Julie G. Yap -- jyap@seyfarth.com -- Attorneys for Defendant STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND. STRAUSS GROUP: Agrees to Change Label of Product Under settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Yonah Jeremy Bob, writing for The Jerusalem Post, reports that a Haifa District Court ruled on Sunday that some of the chocolate products made by the Strauss Group are just not chocolaty enough. The court's decision said several of the dairy products produced by the conglomerate did not contain enough chocolate to be labeled chocolate -- instead of "chocolate flavored" -- on the packaging. The most famous of those products was Strauss's Milky chocolate pudding, which will now have to be labeled "chocolate flavored" pudding. The decision came out of a compromise settlement from two class action cases against Strauss filed by Nadav Avidor and Edward Gerber. The plaintiffs alleged that a range of Strauss products labeled as chocolate -- or having pictures on the packaging implying they contained chocolate -- were misleading to the public as the products did not contain any chocolate. Strauss agreed as part of the settlement that in the future it will label such products "chocolate flavored" to clarify to the consumer that the product does not actually contain chocolate. Strauss also committed to donating NIS 300,000 in dairy products to Emek Medical Center in Afula for the benefit of the medical center's patients. The parties involved agreed to the donation as a form of reparation, since identifying consumers who had been "harmed" or fooled by Strauss's advertising was not considered possible. The parties, rather than the court, agreed together on the organization that would receive the donation. SYNGENTA CORP: "Hahn" Class Suit Consolidated in MIR162 Corn MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Hahn v. Syngenta AG, et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-00013, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02589-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: Jason Earley, Esq. HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON 2025 3rd Avenue, Suite 800 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (501) 225-5500 Facsimile: (501) 225-5501 E-mail: jason@hwnn.com - and - William B. Chaney, Esq. Hugh A. Fuller, Esq. GRAY REED & MCGRAW 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 954-4135 Facsimile: (214) 953-1332 E-mail: wchaney@grayreed.com afuller@grayreed.com T. MARZETTI CO: Recalls Garlic Dressing Due to Milk & Eggs ---------------------------------------------------------- The T. Marzetti Co of Columbus, OH is voluntarily recalling 627 cases of LaRosa's Creamy Garlic Dressing in 1.5 oz packets because the product contains milk and egg allergens that are not declared on the packet label. The dressing was manufactured correctly and has always contained milk and egg; however there was an error in labeling. People who have an allergy to milk and eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. LaRosa's Creamy Garlic Dressing in packets was distributed primarily in the greater Cincinnati, OH area with limited distribution Columbus, OH, Northern KY, and Southeast Indiana. Product was distributed exclusively through LaRosa's Pizzeria Restaurants. The product is labeled LaRosa's Pizzeria Creamy Garlic Dressing in a single serve 1.5oz packet with the UPC code 70200 80109. Restaurant Item UPC Number on Packet Use By Date --------- Description ------------------- ----------- ----------- LaRosa's Creamy Garlic 70200 80109 UB051615C 1.5 oz packet LaRosa's Creamy Garlic 70200 80109 UB052915C 1.5 oz packet This recall was initiated after incorrect packaging was discovered at a LaRosa's Restaurant. No illnesses have been reported to date. The product in question has been removed from the restaurants. Consumers with questions may contact the T. Marzetti Co at: 1-800- 999-1835. Hours: Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5pm. EST Saturday/Sunday 11:00am - 11:00pm EST Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434475.htm TAKATA CORP: Faces "Boyd" Class Suit Over Defective Airbags ----------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Boyd, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Takata Corporation, TK Holding, Inc., Highland Industries, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd; American Honda Motor Co., Ltd.; Case No. 3:15-cv-00079-JJB-RLB (M.D. La., February 13, 2015) alleges that Takata designed, manufactured, tested, marketed millions of defective airbags, which were distributed and sold to the Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants. Takata Corporation is a foreign for-profit corporation headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. Takata is a specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags. TK Holdings Inc. is a subsidiary of Takata Corporation headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan. TK Holdings sells, designs, manufactures, tests, marks, and distributes airbags in the United States. Highland Industries, Inc. is a subsidiary of Takata Corporation and is headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina. Highland manufactures industrial and automotive textile product solutions, including airbag fabrics for the automotive airbag industry. Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is a foreign for profit corporation headquartered in Tokyo, Japan. Honda Motor manufactures and sells motorcycles, automobiles, and power products through independent retail dealers, outlets, and authorized dealerships primarily in Japan, North America, Europe, and Asia. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is a subsidiary of Honda Motor headquartered in Torrance, California. American Honda conducts the sale, marketing, and operational activities for Honda cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles automobile parts in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Becnel, Jr., Esq. Matthew Moreland, Esq. Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq. BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC P.O. Drawer H Reserve, LA 70084 Telephone: (985) 536-1186 Facsimile: (985) 536-6446 E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com mmoreland@becnellaw.com schristina@becnellaw.com - and - Camilo K. Salas III, Esq. SALAS & CO., L.C. 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2000 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 799-3080 Facsimile: (504) 799-3085 E-mail: csalas@salaslaw.com TAKATA CORP: Former Engineer Talks to Plaintiffs' Attorneys ----------------------------------------------------------- Hans Greimel, writing for Automotive News, reports that a former Takata Corp. engineer plans to work with plaintiffs' attorneys against the embattled supplier, arguing that its recalled airbag inflators suffer a key chemistry flaw. Turning whistleblower against his former employer, Mark Lillie said he has been approached by attorneys now trying to assemble a potential U.S. class action suit against the Japanese supplier. Mr. Lillie plans to act as a plaintiff witness. "There's no question that I'll testify. The question is: Do I come as an expert, or do I come as someone with knowledge of Takata in particular?" he said in a telephone interview. He also said that he is willing to testify on Takata in possible congressional hearings. Mr. Lillie left the company in 1999 in a dispute over Takata's decision to switch to cheaper ammonium nitrate chemistry in its inflators, a formula he warned was dangerously unstable. That chemistry has become a central question mark in the recall of some 24 million vehicles worldwide by 10 carmakers to replace airbags with Takata-made inflators. The airbags, which can explode and spray the cabin with metal shards, have been linked to five deaths in the United States and one in Malaysia. Takata maintains that the basic inflator chemistry is safe, even as automakers conduct millions of safety-improvement recalls of suspect airbags. Carmakers say the root cause for some of their malfunctioning remains unclear. At Takata, Lillie served as engineering manager at its Moses Lake, Wash., site, where Takata made propellant tablets and loaded them into inflators for use in Takata and rival airbags. The propellant produces the gas that inflates the bags. Takata spokeswoman Akiko Watanabe confirmed that Mr. Lillie worked for the company, but she declined to comment on possible lawsuits. Takata has acknowledged manufacturing lapses that led to quality problems. But Ms. Watanabe said the design is sound: "As long as they are properly manufactured, they are safe." An inherent flaw with the propellant, however, could have wide ramifications. That is because automakers are replacing recalled inflators with inflators constructed of similar base chemistry. Indeed, Ms. Watanabe said Takata's replacement inflators also use ammonium nitrate and are essentially the same as those being recalled. Mr. Lillie said: "They're trying to replace ammonium nitrate-based inflators with more ammonium nitrate-based inflators. "You're multiplying your problem. We need to pull all the ammonium nitrate-based inflators out, and they need to be replaced with a design that doesn't have this flaw." Mr. Lillie said he protested Takata's adoption of ammonium nitrate-based inflators to his supervisors because the chemical is inherently unstable. The reason: It has five states of solidity that expand and contract as temperatures change. "It's like ice in a road in the winter time. It ends up breaking the propellant tablet down into a powder," Mr. Lillie said. "The powder then burns much, much faster than the tablet." That run-away combustion, he said, triggers the explosions. While conducting a design review of the technology in the spring of 1999, he said, his team was not convinced that Takata had engineered a reliable way to keep the chemical stable long term. Despite his plans to testify, possibly as a paid expert witness, against Takata, Lillie said he's not motivated by money. "For me, it's an ethical issue," he said. "If they offered to pay me, my thinking right now is that I'd take the majority of whatever they paid me and put it in some fund to help the family of somebody who was killed or something." TAURUS FLAVORS: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Ramirez-Rojas, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Taurus Flavors, Inc., Kecia Perkins, Case No. 1:15-cv-01295 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked more than 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com TIPP FLOOR: Faces "Palaguachi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Palaguachi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Tipp Floor Covering, Inc., Thomas Stapleton, and Michael Stapleton, Case No. 1:15-cv-01008 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Tipp Floor Covering, Inc. is a New York corporation that offers supply and installation of commercial flooring, including carpet, resilient, cork, epoxy, concrete finishing, rubber, wood, laminate, wood refinishing, porcelain, subfloor preparation and self-level. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Charles Joseph, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10279 Facsimile: (212) 688-2548 Telephone: (212) 688-5640 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com charles@jhllp.com UTAH: Citizens Seek Class Action Status for DUI Arrest Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Ali Monsen, writing for ABC 4 Utah, reports that the attorney representing a large group of people suing the State of Utah was preparing to make oral arguments in court. The State of Utah could lose loads of money if the citizens have their way. They claim former Utah Highway Patrol Trooper Lisa Steed made bogus DUI arrests and that her supervisors disregarded her illegal behavior. The group filed as a class action case but is still waiting for certification from the court. Ms. Steed was once a 'Utah State Highway Patrol Trooper of the Year," a rising star in the law enforcement world. Ms. Steed made about 400 DUI arrests in just a year, and that is apparently why her superior nominated her for a national award. "In his nomination letter, he stated that in that one year, she had more DUI's than most troopers have in a 20- to 30-year career!" said Robert Sykes, an attorney who has been working on the case since January, 2013. Mr. Sykes says those numbers should have made someone suspicious. He represents many of the people Steed pulled over for traffic violations and allegedly accused them of drug and alcohol use, without 'legitimate, reasonable suspicion.' "Either the stop was expanded, she falsely failed them on the FST -- the field sobriety test -- and then she arrested them without probable cause because she had no basis for it," Mr. Sykes explained. Mike Tilt suffers from epilepsy and cerebral palsy. He says his medications make him a little shaky. Mr. Tilt was riding his bicycle when Ms. Steed stopped him for failing to give a hand signal, but the situation quickly turned into a DUI investigation, and Steed pulled out a light. "She kept turning it -- flipping it -- like this," he gestured. "I guess to make your pupils dilate even more . . ." Mr. Tilt said. Mr. Tilt was taken to jail and later released when his DUI charges were dropped. It is people like him who deserve monetary compensation, according to Sykes. "This is a trooper who knows what to do and what not to do. How does it happen?" he asked. The Utah Highway Patrol fired Steed in 2012, but Mr. Sykes says that is not enough. "This matters because the rule of law matters, because the constitution of Utah matters. It matters, and in order to protect that, we have to allow suits like this -- when you have this type of egregious abuse by a fundamentally dishonest trooper, who is lying and cheating to get DUI arrests," he explained. Sykes also says the trooper's body cams were almost always tilted so they were not fully capturing the field sobriety tests. He claims Steed purposefully did that to hide her behavior. The attorney was set to make his oral arguments in court on Feb. 9. VITAMIN COTTAGE: Recalls Organic Garlic Powder Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets, Inc., a Lakewood, Colorado- based natural grocery chain, is recalling two lots of Natural Grocers brand Organic Garlic Powder as the product has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Consumption of products containing Salmonella can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms) endocarditic and arthritis. This recall was initiated after being notified of positive Salmonella findings in product sampled by the FDA. The recalled product is packaged in clear plastic bags with Natural Grocers label notating Julian pack on dates and pricing per pound. The product was produced in size ranges of 0.25 pound to 0.30 pound. The lots being recalled are identified by Julian packed on date and include: 351-14 and 006-15 The product was distributed to Natural Grocers' 92 stores located in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Consumers can find the specific locations of Natural Grocers stores at: http://www.naturalgrocers.com/store-locations. Only packages bearing the Julian packed on dates listed above are subject to recall. To date the company has received no reports of illness. Consumers who may have purchased this product should return it to the store for credit or refund. WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Shahrashian" Suit Over Misbranding ---------------------------------------------------------- Victoria Shahrashian, Individually and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Walgreen Co., Target Corporation, GNC Holdings, Inc., and Does 1- 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-00978 (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2015), alleges that the Defendants falsely, unlawfully, unfairly, and deceptively manufacture, market, distribute and sell to consumers their herbal dietary supplement products that do not contain the primary herbal supplement identified on the product labeling and instead contain other ingredients not identified on the labeling. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and warehouse stores. Walgreen Co. owns and operates a pharmacy and drug retail chain with more than 8,000 locations across the country. Target Corporation owns and operates a retailing company with its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota doing business in the State of Arkansas. GNC Holdings, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that operates the world's leading nutritional-supplements retail chain devoted to items such as vitamins, supplements, minerals, and dietary products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond P. Boucher, Esq. Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq. Maria L. Weitz, Esq. BOUCHER LLP 21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903 Telephone: (818) 340-5400 Facsimile: (818) 340-5401 E-mail: ray@boucher.la bhujwala@boucher.la weitz@boucher.la - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 E-mail: sahagii@aol.com WALGREEN CO: Faces "Cintron" Suit Over Product Misbranding ---------------------------------------------------------- Nilsa Cintron, on Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly Situated v. Walgreen Co., an Illinois Corporation, Case No. 1:15- cv-01314 (N.D. Ill., February 11, 2015), alleges that the Defendants' Finest Nutrition Gingko Biloba, Finest Nutrition St. John's Wort, Finest Nutrition Ginseng and Finest Nutrition Echinacea are mislabeled products because they lacks the integral ingredient listed on the product label. Instead, each contains contaminants, substitutes and fillers that are not identified on the product label. Walgreen Co. owns and operates a pharmacy and drug retail chain with more than 8,000 locations across the country. The Plaintiff is represented by: Katrina Carroll, Esq. Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC Chicago Office 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com kshamberg@litedepalma.com - and - Andrei V. Rado, Esq. Henry J. Kelston, Esq. MILBERG LLP One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10119 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 Facsimile: (212) 868-1229 E-mail: arado@milberg.com hkelston@milberg.com - and - Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Facsimile: (973) 877-3845 E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com WASTE MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Landfill Odor ------------------------------------------------------- Elise Young, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that the reign of olfactory assault, though, is approaching its end, and with it the consolation prize of dumping fees from two of the busiest landfills in the eastern U.S. One dump is expected to reach capacity well before its certification lapses in 2019. The permit for the other expires in May, and though the state is considering renewal, an "ongoing odor issue is a factor being considered as part of our review," said Eric Shirk, a spokesman for the Environmental Protection Department. Waste Management Inc., the sites' Houston-based operator, estimates it has three years to closing, according to John Hambrose, a company spokesman based in Taylor, Pa. Left for Tullytown to decide is how a town where the average homeowner pays $380 in annual property taxes will sustain itself minus the revenue from 650 garbage trucks arriving daily from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York City and beyond. "The people who run the borough right now are not going to worry about that until there's no money," Wilhelmina Conca, a 67-year- old Tullytown native, said in an interview in her Main Street antiques shop. "The landfill has done the town a lot of good, but I think they have to stop spending money and start thinking about the future." When the wind blows from the west, residents in Florence, N.J., across the Delaware, are hit with stink that forces some to stay indoors, according to Trenton-based attorney Kevin Riechelson. He filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in December on behalf of five clients, seeking to alter how the landfills operate, and is seeking class-action status. "There are methods they can use to keep the odors down, to try not to be a nuisance to the surrounding community," Mr. Riechelson said by telephone. Mr. Hambrose declined to comment because the company doesn't discuss litigation, he said. WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches ----------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods Market is recalling "Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches" sold at the Glastonbury, Connecticut location due to an undeclared peanut allergen. The product was sold in the Glastonbury store through February 11, 2015 and includes any Divine Treasures 1000000 Smooches with "Sell By" dates through May 6, 2015. The vegan chocolate candy labeled as "Divine Treasures 100000 Smooches" contained peanuts, a known allergen, which is not declared due to incomplete wording on the label. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all affected product has been removed from shelves. One allergic reaction has been reported. Consumers who have purchased this product from Whole Foods Market Glastonbury may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund. Consumers with questions should contact their local store or call 617-492-5500 between the hours of 9am and 5pm EST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434482.htm WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Chocolate Cakes Due to Undeclared Eggs ----------------------------------------------------------- Whole Foods Market is recalling chocolate cake for two produced and sold in retail stores in the Southwest Region, which includes TX, OK, LA, AR, due to undeclared egg. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to egg run the risk of serious or life- threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. The product was sold as whole cakes packaged in clear plastic containers, UPC code 24635700000 with best by dates of 2/3/15 to 2/18/15. The chocolate cake for two contains egg as an ingredient, which was not declared on the label. Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all affected product has been removed from shelves. The error was discovered during routine product review. No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported to date. Consumers who have purchased this product from any Whole Foods Market Southwest stores in TX, OK, LA, and AR may bring their receipt to the store for a full refund. Consumers with questions should contact their local store between the hours of 9am and 5pm CST any day of the week. Customers may find their nearest Whole Foods Market at www.wholefoodsmarket.com Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm434431.htm * Consumers Lose Class-Actions Due to Failure to Read Fine Print ---------------------------------------------------------------- Today's online shoppers aren't bothering to read the fine print when they shop, and could be giving many of their legal rights if something goes wrong. That's the finding of a new survey from FindLaw.com, a legal information website. The majority of online shoppers -- 54 percent -- say they either quickly skim or ignore any user agreements, terms of service, or other legal language that are agreeing to. Read every word and understand it thoroughly 22% Read most agreements and try to understand most of it 24% Quickly read or skim it 34% Ignore it and don't read it at all 20% Many e-commerce websites have terms & conditions that limit a customer's ability to sue in the event of a dispute. Customers are instead required to use arbitration. Some attempts to sue websites -- either through individual or class-action lawsuits -- have been dismissed by the courts because the customer agreed to the website's conditions. "Most people don't realize that they are often giving away some,of their legal rights when they click 'Agree,'" said Stephanie Rahlfs, attorney-editor at FindLaw.com. "Many websites require that customers scroll through and review legal language and click a button stating that they agree with the terms before completing their purchase. But that's largely meaningless if the person doesn't actually read the agreement. Courts have tended to uphold such agreements whether the person actually read them or not, leaving little or no resource for filing a suit in the event of a dispute." The numbers are similar to results from the last time FindLaw.com conducted this survey in 2011, even though online shopping has exploded during the same time frame from $200 billion to $300 billion. But despite buying and spending more, online shoppers have not learned to pay more attention to what they're agreeing to when they buy. ********* 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 * * *