/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150316.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 16, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 53 Headlines 500.COM LIMITED: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports AEROSPACE PRECISION: Faces "Mocza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT AK AUTO: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cabrera" Suit Claims ALL-IN-ONE SOLUTIONS: Sued in S.D. Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Class Action AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Suit ANCHOR TOWING: Faces "Gross" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ASAHI SHIMBUN: Faces Class Action Over Comfort Women Stories ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Clawson" Suit Says BACTES IMAGING: April 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Breach-of-Contract Class Action BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued in Mass. Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Sued in Tex. Over Gender Discrimination Policies BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Sunroof Defect Class Action COOPER VISION: Manipulates Contact Lens Prices, Suit Claims CORPORATE RESOURCE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports CVS PHARMACY: Falsely Marketed Soft Gel Supplements, Suit Claims DRIVETIME AUTOMOTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims EDISON INT'L: 401(k) Plan Participants File Class Suit Over Fees ENGLISH ENTERPRISES: "Colula" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT FPC COFFEES: Faces "Larrea" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours GIARDINO FRESCO: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GRAINERY RESTAURANT: Urged to Respond to Class Action GREEN AIR: Faces "Szabo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HORIZON SOLAR: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HUSTLER CLUB: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action HYUNDAI: U.S. Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Sonata 2011 Models INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages IRISH RUGBY: Concussion-Related Case Inevitable JACARANDA CLUB: Faces "Nutter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Ovetrtime JAMG RESTAURANT: "Cerezo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages JCS SECURITY: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces "Watsons" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LA TULIPE: Faces "Becerra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime LENOVO US: Faces "Hall" Over Harmful Preinstalled Spywares LIH PROPERTY: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LINKEDIN CORP: Settles Class Suit Over Password Leak for $1.25MM MARION COUNTY, IN: Ex-Offenders Claim Detention Problems Rampant MAXLINEAR INC: Faces "Mouw" Suit Over Unlawful Company Merger MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over MMR Trials NESTLE PURINA: Sued in D. Mass. Over Alleged Toxins in Dog Food NEW YORK: Police Dept. Sued Over Alleged Racial Discrimination NEW YORK: Occupy Wall Street Class Action Ruling Reversed NORDSTROM INC: Averts Class Action Over Bag-Check Policy NVIDIA CORP: Offers Refunds Following GTX 970 Memory Issue OGNIO GRADING: "Lucier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: Privacy Class Action Can Proceed PARK AVENUE: Faces "Bahena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PUERTO RICO: Electric Energy Authority Faces Class Action RBS CITIZENS: Illegally Collects Annual Fees, "Block" Suit Claims REGENETEK RESEARCH: MS Patients Mulls Class Action RITE AID: "Gioules" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ROSS TOWNSHIP, IN: June 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach SIMON PROPERTY: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Parking Spaces SLI LANDSCAPE: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages STARTING LINE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime STATE FARM: Sued Over Failure to Provide Consumer Reports SYNGENTA CORP: Arkansas Farmers Join GMO Class Action TCF FINANCIAL: "Schultz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages TCP INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Sohal" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports TCP INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Williams" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports TRUEBLUE INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims TYCOONS: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages TYCOONS: Faces "Doe" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages VIVINT INC: Settles TCPA Class Action for $6 Million VOLARIS AVIATION: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York VPC GREEKTOWN: Faces "Huitron" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WAL-MART STORES: Falsely Marketed Cranberry Juice, Suit Claims WALGREEN CO: Faces "Mobley" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding WB HOLDINGS: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Says WINNETKA, IL: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Utility Fee * Canadian Consumers Can Get Refunds From DRAM Settlement * Canadian Patients Mull Class Suit Over Excessive Medical Fees ********* 500.COM LIMITED: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Fragala, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 500.com Limited, Man San Law, Zhengming Pan, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01463 (C.D. Cal., February 27, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. 500.com Limited is a Cayman Islands corporation and headquartered in Shenzhen, People's Republic of China. It is an online sports lottery service provider. Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co. and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. own and operate an investment bank. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of 500.com Limited. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA 355 South Grand Avenue Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com AEROSPACE PRECISION: Faces "Mocza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos J. Mocza and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Aerospace Precision Metals, Inc., Tina D. Muldoon, Timothy J. Muldoon, Case No. 0:15-cv-60421 (S.D. Fla., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a metal service center in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM AK AUTO: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Cabrera" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Rafael Cabrera, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. A. K. Auto Service, Inc., and Ayub M. Khan, Case No. 1:15-cv-01916 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate an automotive repair shop in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com ALL-IN-ONE SOLUTIONS: Sued in S.D. Tex. Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Humphries, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated v. All-In-One Solutions Enterprise Inc., Case No. 4:15- cv-00548 (S.D. Tex., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. All-In-One Solutions Enterprise Inc. is in the business of selling smart phones, basic phone, phone and data plans as a franchise of Cricket. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN 20 N Orange Ave., Ste. 1600 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consumer Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lipkin, writing for Law360, reports that Amazon.com Inc. urged a California federal judge on Feb. 23 to toss a proposed class action alleging it misleads consumers by overstating list prices to makes its discounts appear larger, arguing the plaintiffs agreed to an arbitration pact when they used the site. Andrea Fagerstrom and Allen Wiseley alleged they bought a blender and an audio converter from Amazon, respectively, with discounts between $30 and $40. But the list price Amazon used to calculate the savings was the highest price the product ever sold for and not what they would have had to pay at other stores, according to the suit. But Amazon countered that by making those purchases, along with six previous purchases, the plaintiffs accepted the store's condition of use and agreed to individually arbitrate dispute with Amazon. They also allegedly agreed to not bring class actions over those claims. The final checkout page included a disclaimer with a link to Amazon's policy, saying that completing the order meant customers agreed to Amazon's terms, according to the retailer's motion to compel arbitration. "If Plaintiffs did not want to accept the [conditions of use] or the arbitration agreement, they could have canceled their purchases before accepting arbitration," Amazon said. "This court -- and the [Federal Arbitration Act] -- cannot allow plaintiffs to ignore their agreements now because they, or their counsel, want to pursue class claims." Ms. Fagerstrom also signed off on the agreement when she created an Amazon account, according to the motion. Ms. Fagersteom and Mr. Wisely filed their suit in December in San Diego Superior Court in December before Amazon removed the case to federal court in January. They claimed Amazon was liable for false advertising and negligent misrepresentation, among other claims, because California law only allowed companies to advertise old prices if they were the "prevailing market price" in the last three months. Amazon's purported discounts were actually similar to competitors' prices in physical stores, causing the plaintiffs to spend money on shipping that they could have saved if they didn't think Amazon had a better deal, according to the complaint. "Defendant cherry picks the highest price it can find for the item and uses it to create a significant price discrepancy and the impression of considerable savings for its customers," the plaintiffs said. Amazon pointed to the prominent placement of its conditions of use disclaimer, noting that it wasn't hidden in a "maze of fine print." No one forced the plaintiffs to buy the items either, it said. The arbitration agreements have also been upheld in at least three federal cases, according to Amazon, most recently in a decision earlier in February that dismissed a proposed class action accusing Amazon of not doing enough to stop the sale of diet supplements with dangerous ingredients. U.S. District Judge Sandra L. Townes ruled the hyperlinked "conditions of use" on the checkout page, complete with highlighted blue font, were enough to incorporate those terms into the plaintiffs' purchase agreement. The plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Mark L. Knutson, William R. Restis and Tenton R. Kashima of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP. Amazon is represented by James D. Nguyen -- jimmynguyen@dwt.com -- James C. Grant and Rebecca Francis -- rebeccafrancis@dwt.com -- of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. The case is Andrea Fagerstrom et al v. Amazon.com Inc., case number 3:15-cv-00096, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss TCPA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Lunsford, writing for insideARM.com, reports that credit card giant American Express saw a judge in Illinois deny its motion to dismiss a TCPA class action lawsuit that argues the financial services company is directly liable for damages under the statute even though it did not make the calls in question. American Express had contracted debt collection work to a third party collection agency. Plaintiff Jennifer Ossola filed a TCPA suit in 2013 arguing that AmEx was directly liable for debt collection calls made to her cell phone placed by the collection agency. The suit was expanded to a class action, Ossola, et. al. v. American Express. AmEx had previously conceded that it may be held vicariously liable under the TCPA for calls made on its behalf. But it filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that it could not be held directly liable for actions it did not take. District Judge John Z. Lee, in the Northern District of Illinois, disagreed in his opinion, writing "American Express, as the primary creditor, may be held directly liable under the TCPA, even if the calls were placed by a third-party collector acting on its behalf." Judge Lee relied on previous rulings, including Soppet, which found that "[c]alls placed by a third party collector on behalf of that creditor are treated as if the creditor itself placed the call." He also referenced a 2008 TCPA Order from the FCC that stated the same. "With respect to the debt collection phone calls, whether American Express itself actually placed the calls at issue is irrelevant," the judge wrote. The ruling was not on the merits of the case, merely a rejection of AmEx's motion for partial summary judgment. The case will proceed and AmEx will have more opportunity to defend the direct liability under the TCPA. The issue of vicarious liability under the TCPA has been a hot topic for original creditors for the past couple of years, as plaintiffs' attorneys began targeting larger companies with larger pocketbooks. ANCHOR TOWING: Faces "Gross" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Gross, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Anchor Towing & Marine Transport of Broward, Inc., d/b/a H.T.S. Tpwing & Recovery, Case No. 8:15-cv-00442 (M.D. Fla., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Anchor Towing & Marine Transport of Broward, Inc. is a privately held company in Broward County, Florida that provides towing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 14th Floor, 20 N. Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 425-3341 E-mail: cleach@forthepeople.com ASAHI SHIMBUN: Faces Class Action Over Comfort Women Stories ------------------------------------------------------------ The Korea Observer reports that this past August, the Asahi Shimbun retracted a number of articles it published about Japan's sexual enslavement of women during World War II. The articles were based on information provided by Seiji Yoshida. While his statements were long proven false, it wasn't until 2014 the paper retracted them and apologized. To those in Japan's right wing, revisionist circles, the retractions vindicated their claims that there was no organized recruitment or coercion. A group of 2,100 plaintiffs, including Japanese nationals living abroad in the United States, filed a class action suit in the Tokyo District Court. ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Clawson" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Lou Ann Clawson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Asset Acceptance LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00208 (W.D. Okla., March 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's abusive, deceptive and unfair debt collection practices. Asset Acceptance LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation that owns and operates a debt collection agency with its principal place of business in the State of Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: M Kathi Rawls, Esq. Minal Gahlot, Esq. RAWLS LAW OFFICE PLC 2404 S Broadway Moore, OK 73160 Telephone: (405) 912-3225 Facsimile: (405) 703-2769 E-mail: mkr@rawlslawoffice.com minal@rawlslawoffice.com BACTES IMAGING: April 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------- COMM OF MASS LEO S FAMA V BACTES IMAGING COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, SS. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT Leo S. Fama, II C.A. No. 2013-01435-BLS1 Attorney At Law, et al. consolidated with Plaintiff 2013-00681-BLS1, 2013-04165-BLSI, and 2014-00352-BLS1 v. Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc., Defendant. NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND HEARING ON PROPOSED SETTLEMENT To: All Individuals And Entities Who Requested Records from A Massachusetts Medical Facility For Use With A Claim Or Lawsuit And Paid An Invoice From Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc. For Fulfillment Services Between February 26, 2007 And June 1, 2014 The above-referenced action is the lead case in several consolidated class-action litigations (the Consolidated Actions) filed against Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc. (Bactes) on behalf of individuals and entities who submitted requests for medical records to Massachusetts medical facilities for use in connection with a claim or litigation and paid a Bactes invoice for fulfillment services between February 26, 2007 and June 1, 2014 without receiving reimbursement from another (Class Members and collectively the Class). The Consolidated Actions assert that Bactes violated Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 111, section 70 by (1) charging per-page copying fees (on average, $0.63 per page) for providing copies of non-medical documents, such as request letters and authorization forms, when fulfilling records requests; (2) assessing postage charges in excess of the actual cost of mailing or sending medical records to requestors (on average, $0.98), and (3) assessing electronic delivery charges in excess of the actual cost of electronically transmitting medical records to requestors (on average, $1.66). The parties have agreed to a settlement of the Consolidated Actions (the Settlement) whereby Bactes will pay $250,000 to resolve the claims of the plaintiffs and the Class Members and will institute measures to prevent the allegedly unauthorized charges from being assessed in the future. Because it is impractical to issue settlement checks to each Class Member for the nominal amounts at issue, the parties have agreed that Bactes will distribute the full $250,000 in settlement funds among the following non-profit entities: (1) Health Law Advocates, which provides assistance to low- income residents for health care access, (2) World Privacy Forum, which educates consumers about privacy rights, (3) The National Consumer Law Center, which focuses on consumer rights, (4) Greater Boston Legal Services, which provides legal assistance to low-income residents, and (5) the Massachusetts Legal Assistance Corp., which also provides legal assistance to low-income residents. Lastly, Bactes has agreed to pay plaintiffs attorneys fees and expenses approved by the court in an amount not to exceed $625,000. All such amounts will be paid by Bactes and not by the Class. The Massachusetts Superior Court preliminarily approved this settlement. A final hearing (the Fairness Hearing) will be held on April 30, at 2:00 p.m., before the Court in Courtroom 1309, Suffolk County Superior Court, Three Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02108, during which the parties will ask the Court to: (1) determine whether, for settlement purposes only, the Courts preliminary certification of the non-opt-out Class, pursuant to Massachusetts Rule of Civil Procedure 23, should be made final; (2) determine whether the Court should grant final approval of the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Parties written settlement agreement as fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interest of the Class; (3) determine whether judgment should be entered dismissing the Consolidated Actions with prejudice; (4) consider the application of Plaintiffs Counsel for attorneys fees and reimbursement of expenses; and (5) hear and determine any other matters relating to the proposed Settlement. Any claims you might have against Bactes for non-compliance with Mass. Gen. Laws chapter 111, section 70 in connection with the fulfillment of records requests at any time from February 26, 2007 to June 1, 2014 will be forever released and dismissed as a result of this Settlement and the Courts approval of it. If you have any objection to this Settlement, you must deliver it in writing to plaintiffs counsel, John R. Yasi, Yasi & Yasi, P.C., Two Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970, who will provide copies to Bactess counsel and to the Court. Your written objection must include the following case name and civil action number: Leo S. Fama II Attorney at Law v. Bactes Imaging Solutions, Inc., 2013-10435- BLS1, and must state the details, including date of your medical records request that was processed by Bactes, the basis of your objection, whether you intend to appear at the hearing, the identity of your counsel if any, and a list of any witnesses or exhibits you wish to present at the Fairness Hearing. Class Members are invited to attend the Fairness Hearing; however, in order to be heard, you must timely submit a written objection as outlined immediately above. For full details about the Consolidated Actions, the claims that have been asserted by plaintiffs, and the terms and conditions of the Settlement, you may refer to the papers on file with the Court. You or your attorney may examine the Courts files during regular business hours of each business day at the office of the Clerk of Court, Civil Clerks Office, 12th Floor, Suffolk County Superior Court, Three Pemberton Square, Boston, MA 02103 BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Tosses Breach-of-Contract Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck, Evan Weinberger and Stewart Bishop, writing for Law360, report that a New York federal judge on Feb. 24 tossed a breach-of-contract class action accusing Bank of America NA of processing debits on its customers' bank accounts from payday lenders it allegedly knew were making unlawful online loans, finding the lead plaintiff failed to state a claim. Granting Bank of America's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge Arthur D. Spatt said the defendant wasn't required to unilaterally block or recredit payments that were authorized in connection with transactions that Jeanette Costoso -- who has deposit accounts with the bank -- alleged were unlawful. Costoso claimed the bank knew of the illegal payday loan activity it was processing on its customers' deposit accounts, after state officials urged more than 100 banks to block online lenders from such activities. She further alleged that individuals with ties to Bank of America sit on the boards of directors of at least three of the biggest payday lenders in the U.S. But Judge Spatt ruled that, while Costoso alleged the payday loan transactions at issue were illegal, she didn't sufficiently show that such illegality invalidated her authorization of the transactions. Since Bank of America wasn't required to block or recredit transactions, it can't be liable as a matter of contract for overdraft and returned item fees in connection with the transactions, according to the judge. "It is true that New York's high court has explained that 'from time immemorial, [governments have sought to] protect desperately poor people from the consequences of their own desperation,'" the Feb. 24 memorandum of decision and order said. "However, it does not follow that, on these allegations, the plaintiff has a cause of action against [receiving depository financial institutions] such as the defendant, either under New York statutory or common law, based on the alleged failure of the defendant to combat the practices of payday lenders." The Feb. 24 decision comes as consumer advocates and state regulators are pushing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to come up with strong regulations to protect payday loan borrowers, who currently have few places to turn for help. Prosecutors and regulators in New York and other states have taken a hard line on payday lending, particularly online loans that violate state laws. In August 2013, the New York State Department of Financial Services, which supervises banking and financial institutions in New York, sent letters to Bank of America other banks that identified 35 payday lenders that might try to use the banks as conduits for illegal conduct, according to court filings in the instant dispute. Judge Spatt on Feb. 24 ruled that, because Bank of America didn't violate any express terms of its account agreement when it honored debits that Costoso authorized the payday lenders to initiate, she couldn't pursue her claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The judge also tossed her unconscionability claim, saying the sole case she relied on didn't apply to New York state law. He further found that her conversion claim merely restated the breach of contract claim based on Bank of America's assessment of overdraft fees. Additionally, Judge Spatt said Costoso couldn't pursue an unjust enrichment claim, in light of an account agreement that defines the rights of the parties in the instant dispute. Lastly, the judge nixed Costoso's general business law claim, saying while she plausibly alleged consumer-oriented conduct based on an agreement Bank of America uses with all of its deposit account customers, the conduct at issue is basically that the defendant didn't satisfy its contractual duties -- not that it hid or misrepresented any contractual terms. A spokesman for Bank of America told Law360 on Feb. 24 that it was happy the suit has been resolved in the bank's favor. Costoso is represented by Darren T. Kaplan of Darren Kaplan Law Firm PC, Hassan Zavareei and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jason H. Alperstein of Kopelowitz Ostrow PA, Gosselin Sathya of Hausfeld LLP and Stephen N. Six of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP. Bank of America is represented by Maria B. Earley, James A. Huizinga and Benjamin R. Nagin of Sidley Austin LLP. The case is Jeanette Costoso v. Bank of America NA, case number 2:14-cv-04100, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. BANK OF NEW YORK: Sued in Mass. Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------------------- Ashby Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation; BNY Mellon National Association; The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, National Association, Case No. 1:15-cv-10599 (D. Mass., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of their fiduciary duties, specifically by, improperly placing the vast majority of the beneficiaries' trust assets into mutual funds, common and collective trust, hedge funds and other investment vehicles that they managed, issued, or sponsored, or to which they were otherwise financially related. The Defendants own financial investment banks that operate throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Roddy, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 99 High Street, Suite 304 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 439-6730 Facsimile: (617) 951-3954 E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 910 17th Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 543-0226 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com - and - Jack W. Lee, Esq. Derek G. Howard, Esq. Aron K. Liang, Esq. MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 788-9000 Facsimile: (415) 398-3887 E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com dhoward@minamitamaki.com aliang@minamitamaki.com BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Sued in Tex. Over Gender Discrimination Policies ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mike O. Salazar, An Individual, on behalf of himself and on all others similarly situated v. Bloomin' Brands, Inc., OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC, Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC, and OS Restaurant Services, LLC, f/k/a OS Restaurant Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00105 (S.D. Tex., March 2, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' gender discrimination practices, specifically by failing to provide a gender-neutral and fair workplace. The Defendants own and operate Outback Steakhouse, an Australian- themed casual dining restaurant chain in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mynor Eduardo Rodriguez, Esq. Michael Savan Prejean, Esq. LAW OFFICEOF MYNOR E. RODRIGUEZ, P.C. 4265 San Felipe, Ste 1100 Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 968-9828 E-mail: mynorlaw@gmail.com michael@rodrigueztrialfirm.com BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Glancy Binkow Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, representing investors of Bridgepoint Education, Inc., on Feb. 24 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of Bridgepoint securities between August 7, 2012 and May 30, 2014, inclusive. Please contact Casey Sadler at (888) 773-9224 or (310) 201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter. If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Bridgepoint is a for-profit provider of postsecondary education services. The Company's academic institutions include Ashford University and University of the Rockies, as well as online institutions. The Company's institutions deliver programs primarily online, as well as at their traditional campuses. The Complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company had applied an improper revenue recognition methodology to assess collectability of funds owed by students; (2) as a result, the Company's revenues and financial results were overstated; (3) the Company's financial statements were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (5), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On May 12, 2014, Bridgepoint revealed that it was unable to timely file its Quarterly Report for the 2014 fiscal first quarter because the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") had informed the Company that a reassessment of its revenue recognition policy was necessary. According to the Company, the SEC was requiring Bridgepoint to reassess whether collectability was reasonably assured on a student-by-student basis when recognizing revenue after a student's initial enrollment upon certain changes in circumstances, such as when a student loses financial aid eligibility. Following this news, shares of Bridgepoint declined nearly 9%, to close on May 12, 2014, at $14.51 per share, on unusually heavy volume. Furthermore, on May 30, 2014, Bridgepoint announced that its financial statements filed with the SEC for the years ended December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2012, as well as the financial statements issued for the quarters ended March 31, 2012, June 30, 2012 and September 30, 2012, should no longer be relied upon. According to the Company, these financial statements contained errors related to revenue recognition that resulted in material misstatements of revenue, bad debt expense and accounts receivable. If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the Court, no later than 60 days from the date of this Notice, to serve as lead plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. CHRYSLER GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Sunroof Defect Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that Chrysler's attorney has asked the U.S. District Court of New Jersey to dismiss a nationwide class action lawsuit alleging that a defect in their vehicles' sunroofs cause them to leak. Vehicles covered in the lawsuit include the Jeep Patriot, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep Commander, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Town and Country and Chrysler 300. "Plaintiffs seek to represent a class which encompasses not only the vehicles they own, but eight different models of vehicles manufactured during eleven model-years," Chrysler's attorney writes in court documents. "There are no allegations that the sunroofs in plaintiffs' vehicles are the same (e.g., single pane vs. panoramic). . . . There are no allegations that these sunroofs are all made by the same component supplier. Nor are there any allegations that the sunroofs are made of the same materials and parts. Likewise, there are no allegations supporting the notion that the sunroofs in the vehicles at issue all have the same allegedly defective 'drain tubes,'" Chrysler's attorney writes in court documents. The plaintiff's lawsuit "suffers from a host of pleading and legal insufficiencies. It should be dismissed," according to Chrysler's attorney. If the judge decides against dismissing the case, Chrysler's attorney has filed a motion to strike the plaintiffs' request for damages. The plaintiffs include David Cox of Ohio, Melissa Doherty of Massachusetts, Teresa Hughes of Texas, Anthony Lombardo of New York, Andrew Manesis of New Jersey and Michael Newcomb of Massachusetts. They seek to represent themselves and all others similarly situated. Their attorneys claim the alleged defect manifested during the warranty period for all plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are seeking contractual, restitutionary and statutory damages, in addition to injunctive and equitable relief and attorneys' fees. The judge had not made any decisions at press time. COOPER VISION: Manipulates Contact Lens Prices, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- John Machikawa, Bernadette Goodfellow, and Georgina Lepe, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and Abb Optical Group, Case No. 3:15-cv-01001 (N.D. Cal., March 3, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeldllp.com bsweeney@hausfeldllp.com clebsock@hausfeldllp.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Nathaniel C. Giddings, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K St. NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: 202-540-7200 Facsimile: 202-540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com ngiddings@hausfeldllp.com - and - Dennis Stewart, Esq. HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1350 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1133 Facsimile: (619) 338-1139 E-mail: dennis@hulettharper.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. TYCO & ZAVAREEI LLP 200 L St. NW, Suite 808 Washington DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 E-mail: jkaliel@tzlegal.com - and - Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq. Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. 200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Facsimile: (954) 525-4300 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com edelsberg@kolawyers.com - and - Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Paula M. Roach, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 701 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com proach@bholaw.com CORPORATE RESOURCE: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Weiyong Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. John P. Messina, Sr., Michael J. Golde, Joseph Cassera, Robert Cassera, James Altucher, James Foley, Karen Amato, Thomas J. Clarke, Jr., Larry Melby, Sylvan Holzer, and Corporate Resource Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01070 (E.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Corporate Resource Services, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation headquartered in New York, New York, which provides diversified technology, staffing, recruiting, and consulting services in the United States. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Corporate Resource Services, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com CVS PHARMACY: Falsely Marketed Soft Gel Supplements, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Alvandi, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01503 (C.D. Cal., March 2, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's claim that CVS Enhanced Absorption Formula CoQ-10 dietary supplements provides Enhanced Absorption, that it generally supports heart health and benefits statin users. However, an independent laboratory tests demonstrate that the softgels used for the product fail to timely rupture within 15 minutes, to exhibit reasonably effective bioavailability through absorption. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation that owns and operates pharmacy chain in the United States. Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation with its principal place of business at 20 Silva Lane, Middletown, Rhode Island 02842. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Fitzgerald, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. Tran Nguyen, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 4th Ave., Ste. 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Facsimile: (619) 362-9555 E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com - and - Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Skye Resendes, Esq. Alexis M. Wood, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com skye@consumersadvocates.com alexis@consumersadvocates.com DRIVETIME AUTOMOTIVE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Cecilia Liuberes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DriveTime Automotive Group Inc. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-00388 (D. Ariz., March 3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing an automated calls to the Plaintiff and class member's cellular phones. DriveTime Automotive Group Inc. is a used car dealer headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trinette G. Kent, Esq. KENT LAW OFFICES 10645 N Tatum Blvd., Ste. 200-192 Phoenix, AZ 85028 Telephone: (480) 247-9644 Facsimile: (480) 717-4781 E-mail: tkent@kentlawpc.com EDISON INT'L: 401(k) Plan Participants File Class Suit Over Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- CNNMoney reports that in the initial class-action lawsuit, Tibble v. Edison, participants in the 401(k) plan sponsored by California-based utility Edison International argued that they were being charged excessive fees. Under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, companies that sponsor 401(k) plans have a "fiduciary responsibility" to act in the best interest of their employees. The lawsuit claimed that Edison breached this duty in the case of six of its fund options, where almost identical offerings charging lower fees were available. Studies have shown that even a small difference in 401(k) investment fees can result in the difference of tens of thousands of dollars of savings. Lower courts have already sided with the plan's participants, ruling that the company didn't act in their best interest when it chose pricier "retail-class" shares of mutual funds when cheaper "institutional-class" shares were also available. "Warren Buffett doesn't pay retail and neither should an employee of a large company 401(k) plan," said Jerry Schlichter, the attorney representing Glenn Tibble and other participants in the Edison 401(k) plan. But Edison has argued that under the federal law's statute of limitations, plan participants can only sue based on funds that have been in the plan six years or less. As a result, it said that it couldn't be held liable for three of the six funds in question, since they had been in the plan since 1999 and the lawsuit wasn't filed until 2007. Both a district court and an appeals court agreed with Edison. The plan participants have since appealed those rulings. Now, the Supreme Court will consider whether 401(k) plan sponsors have an ongoing duty to monitor the plan's fund offerings, beyond the six-year statute of limitations. The case, which is part of a wave of 401(k)-related lawsuits filed against financial firms and other companies that allege mismanagement and inappropriately high fees, is the first to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. A ruling is expected in the next few months. Groups like the AARP, the Pension Rights Center and the U.S. Solicitor General have urged the court to rule in favor of the Edison 401(k) participants. They say a plan sponsor's responsibility to monitor the suitability of investment options is essential to a saver's retirement security, and should not simply stop after the funds have been in the plan for more than six years. While the case centers on a technical issue, a decision in favor of the 401(k) participants would reinforce the fact that employers must use their buying power to get the best possible 401(k) deal for their employees, said Fred Reish, an attorney and partner at Drinker Biddle and expert in federal retirement law. "The case itself is . . . about the statute of limitations, but it's going to have a lot of substantive consequences," he said. ENGLISH ENTERPRISES: "Colula" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Angel Colula and Jorge Arguello, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. English Enterprises, Inc., Olives NY LLC, and Todd English, Case No. 1:15-cv-01511 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate over 20 restaurants in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com FPC COFFEES: Faces "Larrea" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Hours ------------------------------------------------------------- German Larrea, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. FPC Coffees Realty Co., Inc. d/b/a Caffe Reggio, Fabrizio Prim Cavallacci and Elena A. Batyuk, Case No. 1:15-cv- 01515 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate an Italian Restaurant located at 119 MacDougal Street, New York, New York 10012. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio 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 GIARDINO FRESCO: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Pamela Jimenez, Jessica Garfias, Jannie Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Giardino Fresco, Inc. d/b/a Jelly Jam Restaurants and Jorge Jimenez, Case No. 1:15-cv-01914 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 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 Jelly Jam restaurant located at 6300 West Cermak Avenue, Berwyn, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Erik Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 307-0766 E-mail: Dave@StevensLawLLC.com GRAINERY RESTAURANT: Urged to Respond to Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- COURT OF COMMON PLEAS PHILADELPHIA, PANO. 1408-03277 COMPLAINT IN ARBITRATION Leonardo Arbelo, Britain Burgos, Ian Burke, William Campbell, Katie Cloonan, Kaitlyn Ernandes, LauraGable, Elizabeth Garvey Dean Griffin, Samantha Grinnan, Alexis Haase, Tyrone High, Adam Kanter, Charles Leamy, Robert Leyrer, Ross Maloof, Sophia Martin, Craig Moucha, Andrew Nugent, James Packer, Adriana Perez, Oscar Perez, Shaun Ruppert, Rigoberto Salas DelGado, Kevin Scullin, William Sederman, Daniel Simpson, Angela Smith, Brody Smythe, Brandon Szeker, Matthew Towson, Jessica Tramarin, Ryan Tulaney, Sydney Wilson, David Winward, Plaintiffs, vs. The Grainery Restaurant Group, LLC, Matthew Swartz, Colleen Swartz, Pete Antipas and MatthewScheller, Defendants TO: The Defendants, The Grainery Restaurant Group,LLC, 1111-1113 Walnut Street, Units 1 & 2,Philadelphia, PA 19107 and Matthew Swartz and Colleen Swartz, 5454 Landis Mill Road, Bethlehem, PA18015. TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiffs above have filed a COMPLAINT IN ARBITRATION -- Class Action Suit -- against you, The Defendants. Plaintiffs aver that they are owed, individually, various sums of Money with regard to wages earned. NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the above, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a Judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claims or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONETHE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATIONA BOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TOELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Lawyer Referral Service One Reading Center 11th Fl.,Phila., PA 19107, 215-238-6333 Henry Yampolsky, Esq. Atty. for Plaintiff Galfand Berger LLP1835 Market St. Ste. 2710 Philadelphia, PA 19103215-665-16002-26-1 Date of Notice: 02/26/2015 GREEN AIR: Faces "Szabo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Szabo, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. Green Air Care Group, Inc., a/k/a New York Air Duct Cleaning, Edward Babyev, and Valery Kichatay, Case No. 1:15-cv-01874 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Green Air Care Group, Inc. provides HVAC heating and air conditioning cleaning services in the Chicago. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meghan A. Vanleuwen, Esq. John William Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: mvanleuwen@billhornlaw.com jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com HORIZON SOLAR: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- David Weisberg, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Horizon Solar Power, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00361 (C.D. Cal., February 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Horizon Solar Power, Inc. is a California corporation that engaged in the sale and installation of solar panels for consumer use. The Plaintiff is represented by: G. Thomas Martin III, Esq. Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq. MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC 6565 W. Sunset Blvd, Ste. 410 Los Angeles, CA 90028 Telephone: (323) 940-1700 Facsimile: (323) 238-8095 E-mail: Tom@mblawapc.com Nick@mblawapc.com HUSTLER CLUB: Exotic Dancers File Wage Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Rich Calder, writing for New York Post, reports that the exotic dancers at Larry Flynt's Hustler Club have become the latest jiggle-joint workers to file a class-action lawsuit seeking rightful wages and tips. The new class-action suit alleges that the Hells Kitchen skin-and-sin mecca illegally classifies its strippers as "independent contractors" and not in-house employees to avoid paying them minimum wage. The club, named after the infamous porn king, also illegally takes a cut of the workers' lap-dance earnings by pushing customers to use pre-paid vouchers called "Beaver Bucks" instead of cash, according to the Manhattan Federal Court suit. The dancers' lawyer, Justin Swartz, told The Post that the club "has refused to clean up its act" -- even though other jiggle joints in the city have been forced to cough up multimillion- dollar payouts for similar violations. For example, Rick's Cabaret's was ordered to shell out $10.8 million in November to current and former dancers who were wrongfully misclassified as "independent contractors." And a month earlier, strippers at New York Dolls, FlashDancers and Private Eyes landed a combined $4.3 million settlement. The suit claims dancers are required to pay out-of-pocket "house fees" for the right to perform. They also must buy and maintain "club-approved uniforms" and pay "fines" to the club owners if they don't make a shift. Strippers are being screwed out of lap-dance money, too, because customers are encouraged to use their credit cards to pay for dances, the suit says. The customers -- usually the club's biggest spenders -- obtain vouchers called "Beaver Bucks" when they use their credit cards, and the club "retains a portion of the tip when the dancer later exchanges" the funny money "for cash," the suit says. "Consequently, customers who believe they are tipping entertainers a certain amount are actually tipping them less," the suit says. Although the suit doesn't specify money damages, Mr. Swartz said more than 1,000 current and former Hustler Club dancers could be eligible to join the class-action claim, potentially putting the club on the hook to "make it rain" millions of dollars in damages. Mr. Flynt is not listed in court records as an owner of the Hustler Club despite his named being slapped on its front entrance. Messages left with the club were not returned. The joint -- which reportedly is in talks to be razed and replaced by office condos -- is already involved in another high-profile legal fight. Its owners are contesting $2.1 million in taxes that the state claims it owes by trying to tap into a loophole that allows Broadway plays and other live-entertainment performances to skirt sales taxes. HYUNDAI: U.S. Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Sonata 2011 Models ----------------------------------------------------------------- Toronto Star reports that Hyundai generally hit all the marks with its Alabama-built Sonata: boffo styling inside and out, a long list of standard features, supreme comfort and everyday luxury made it easy to live with, say owners. The value proposition is strong. Reliability has been good for the most part -- until drivers rack up high mileage. Owners report engine bearing failure, oil consumption, piston ringland failure and connecting rod knock, leading to catastrophic engine failure usually after 110,000 kilometres (just beyond the warranty period). A U.S. law firm is investigating a class action lawsuit involving 2011 models. In addition, some Sonatas may exhibit a tendency to pull to the left or right, despite numerous fixes including wheel alignments, front subframe adjustments, added camber bolts, new struts and better tires. Other reported maladies include jerky automatic transmissions and seized shifters, short-lived starters, chipping paint, electrical snafus and faulty taillights. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- City of Sterling Heights Police & Fire Retirement System, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. International Business Machines Corporation, Virginia M. Rometty, Martin J. Schroeter and James J. Kavanaugh, Case No. 1:15-cv-01513 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants disseminated materially false and misleading financial statements that failed to record an impairment in the value of the Company's Microelectronics business in conformity with applicable accounting standards. International Business Machines Corporation is a multinational technology and consulting corporation that manufactures and markets computer hardware and software products and provides its customers with various information technology ("IT") related services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com INTERNATIONAL HOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephanie McGeshick, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. International House of Pancakes, LLC, IHOP Franchising, LLC, and Sam Soleimani, d/b/a IHOP, Case No. 3:15-cv-00132 (W.D. Wis., March 2, 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 IHOP restaurant located at 2008 N Mountain Rd., Wausau, WI 54401. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd St., Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (877) 561-0000 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com IRISH RUGBY: Concussion-Related Case Inevitable ----------------------------------------------- Gavin Cummiskey, writing for The Irish Times, reports that a concussion-related negligence action against the Irish Rugby Football Union is inevitable, a senior partner in a respected Dublin law firm has stated. Larry Fenelon of Leman solicitors, who are active in sports arbitration, told The Irish Times that an individual who sustains a brain injury arising from playing rugby in Ireland has a case. "Yes they do have a potential suit against clubs, against schools, against the IRFU," said Mr. Fenelon. "If it was known within the rugby community that, for instance, a player with a history of concussion was played or where guidelines or best practice wasn't adhered to, well, then they are going to face a potential suit. It's inevitable, in fact, that it's going to happen. "The knowledge around concussion within the general public started gaining traction probably around five years ago but it might well be the case that on discovery that the IRFU or indeed the IRB [re- branded World Rugby] were fully aware of the dangers of concussion and best practice guidelines weren't issued in sufficient time or that the authorities within the sport weren't doing anything about it. Question of knowledge "It's really a question of knowledge. When does the knowledge crystallize within the governing sport and the global governing body about the dangers of concussion and did they not do something about it during that period." Legal action, Mr. Fenelon believes, will occur when current or recently retired professional players are out of the game for a sustained period of time. "Well, in the professional game those under contract are not going to do it really as they would be biting the hand that feeds them," he said. "Perhaps when players hit their early 40s and their memory isn't the best or there is something badly wrong, the neurosurgeon then looks at his medical record and sees rugby and a history of concussion. "Then it's a matter of looking back to, say, 2003 and what was the best practice around concussion then and what were the authorities doing about it? If they were doing nothing, yet they knew about it, well, then you have to say a plucky lawyer will take that case up. Definitely. "The data retention of the governing bodies becomes very important . . . This information is never going to be given up voluntarily. I suspect they will put up a big fight against an application for discovery of documents. That's where I think the real confrontation is going to begin legally." Testimony The outcome of such a case may come down to the testimony of neurosurgeons, said Mr. Fenelon. "The neurosurgery community essentially are going to be the cornerstone of any claim in this regard. You may have to go abroad as the community is so small and may be reluctant to turn on the sport of its choice." The National Football League of America is in negotiation to agree a $1 billion (EUR880 million) deal to settle a class action suit by more than 4,500 former players who claimed the NFL hid the dangers of concussion-related trauma. "Personal injury lawyers, in particular, are going to look at the class action suits in America and what is required to bring it over the line," Mr. Fenelon continued. "To be fair, global sports are only getting to grips with this. "The medical community has been voicing their concern around this for some time now. There are certainly players that I know who have had brain injuries arising from playing too soon after concussion." Former St Michael's College student Lucas Neville received EUR2.75 million in damages from his former school and St Vincent's hospital after sustaining head injuries. Mr. Fenelon believes another schoolboy case is also inevitable. "At schools rugby now you have a doctor and physio so their professional ability is going to get sued or their insurer is going to get sued. The referee and his assistants are going to get sued. The board of management of the school is going to get sued. The coach is covered by the board of management. Probably the Leinster Branch are going to get sued and the IRFU are going to get sued. "They are all in the firing line." The IRFU and World Rugby both confirmed that no legal action with regards to brain injury has ever been taken against them. JACARANDA CLUB: Faces "Nutter" Suit Over Failure to Pay Ovetrtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kamilya Nutter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Jacaranda Club, LLC, d/b/a/ Sapphire New York, Jacaranda Holdings, LLC, Sapphire NY, LLC, Club at 60th St., Inc., David Michael Talla, Jeffrey Wasserman, and Glen Peter Bernardi, Case No. 1:15-cv-01555 (S.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club in New York City. The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank Rocco Schirripa, Esq. John Anthony Blyth, Esq. Michael A. Rose, Esq. HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP 185 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 779-0057 Facsimile: (212) 779-0028 E-mail: fs@hachroselaw.com jb@hachroselaw.com ss@hachroselaw.com - and - Steven Jay Harfenist, Esq. FREIDMAN, HARFENIST, LANGER & KRAUT 3000 Marcus Avenue Lake Success, NY 11042 Telephone: (516) 775-5800 Facsimile: (516) 775-4082 E-mail: sharfenist@hkplaw.com JAMG RESTAURANT: "Cerezo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Nicolas Cerezo and John Doe, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. JAMG Restaurant Corp., Eleftheria Rest Corp., Dimitrios Mitsios and Athanasios Mitsios, Case No. 1:15-cv-01512 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant with a principal place of business located at 905 White Plains Road, Bronx, New York 10463. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com JCS SECURITY: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Miriam Castillo and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. JCS Security Force Corporation, Juan C. Walters, Case No. 1:15-cv-20860 (S.D. Fla., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a guard and protection services company in Miami, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, PA 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM JIMMY JOHN'S: Faces "Watsons" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Watson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Jimmy John's, LLC, Jimmy John's Franchise, LLC, and Jimmy John's Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00768 (S.D. Ohio, March 2, 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 a franchised sandwich restaurant chain with its principal place of business at 2212 Fox Drive, Champaign, Illinois 61820. The Plaintiff is represented by: Drew T. Legando, Esq. Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER-GRIECO-MERRIMAN, LLC 1360 W. 9th, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com jack@lgmlegal.com LA TULIPE: Faces "Becerra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Guillermo Becerra, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. La Tulipe Desserts, Inc. (d/b/a La Tulipe Desserts), Frances Steenman and Maarten Steenman, Case No. 1:15-cv-01516 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a bakery located at 455 Lexington Avenue, Mount Kisco, New York 10549. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio 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 LENOVO US: Faces "Hall" Over Harmful Preinstalled Spywares ---------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Hall, Matthew Kelso, Michael Morici, Jayne Costanzo, Ryan Baumgartner, Laura Burns, Thomas Carney, Beatriz Davis, Dennis Hasty, Wendy Duran And Gabe Duran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United States), Inc., Lenovo Group Limited and Superfish, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv- 00964 (N.D. Cal., March 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of selling new computers with preinstalled harmful and offensive spyware and malware. Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a subsidiary of Lenovo Group Limited, a multinational computer technology company, which, through its subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufactures and sells personal computers, tablet computers, smartphones, workstations, servers, electronic storage devices and smart televisions. Superfish, Inc. is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, California. It is an advertising company that develops various advertising-supported software products based on a visual search engine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence D. King, Esq. Linda Fong, Esq. Mario Choi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com lfong@kaplanfox.com mchoi@kaplanfox.com - and - Frederic S. Fox, Esq. David A. Straite, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Ave., 14th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com dstraite@kaplanfox.com - and - Marc A. Wites, Esq. WITES & KAPETAN, P.A. 4400 North Federal Highway Lighthouse Point, FL 33064 Telephone: (954) 570-8989 Facsimile: (954) 354-0206 E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com * * * Gregg Keizer, writing for Computerworld, reports that Lenovo and adware maker Superfish came under more legal fire on Feb. 23 as two new lawsuits were filed in California federal courts taking the firms to task for putting consumers at risk of hacker spying and information theft. The two complaints -- the second and third since the China-based computer OEM (original equipment manufacturer) admitted it had pre-loaded adware on its consumer PCs in the second half of 2014 -- named both Lenovo and Superfish, and each lawsuit requested class-action status so that others could join the case. The first lawsuit covered much of the same ground as the two lodged on Feb. 23. David Hunter of North Carolina, the plaintiff in one of the lawsuits, alleged that Lenovo and Superfish violated the U.S. Electronic Communications Privacy Act and other laws, and asked that the court force the firms to surrender any revenue generated by the sale of consumers' browsing data and monies earned from the advertising produced by the adware. Hunter said he bought a Lenovo Y50 laptop -- one of dozens of models Lenovo said it had pre-installed Superfish on from September through December 2014 -- via the OEM's website in October. In the second complaint, filed by Sterling International Consulting Group (SICG) of Statesville, NC, Lenovo and Superfish were charged with breaking the U.S. Wiretapping Act, state and federal anti-fraud regulations and other laws. Of the two new complaints, Hunter's was the more interesting as it relied not only on press reports about Superfish's vulnerability and Lenovo's actions both before and after the explosion of information, but also dug a bit deeper and offered insights into the adware's operation. The complaint drew a line between Superfish and Komodia, the Israeli company whose technology the former used in its Visual Discovery adware to circumvent browser-to-server encryption, and whose self-signed certificate's password was easily cracked. Hunter's lawyers brought up Komodia Redirector, Komodia's flagship product that the firm boasts "intercepts traffic on the local machine based on rules that you [the developer] define." "Defendants' local proxy is their version of a product sold by non-party Komodia, which is marketed as a 'redirector product' ('Komodia Redirector')," stated Hunter's complaint. "The Komodia Redirector lets defendants 'redirect traffic' away from the user's intended recipient and 'to the proxy service. When a connection is made' by the user, the Komodia Redirector determines whether a specific communication 'should be intercepted' and then intercepts and reroutes the communications to the local proxy." Security researcher Marc Rogers of CloudFlare, one of several experts who has investigated Lenovo's use of Superfish and the latter's behavior, called out the Komodia-made proxy for not properly implementing SSL (secure socket layer) -- the Web's encryption standard -- leaving PCs with the software open to tampering or eavesdropping, even if the certificate hadn't been junk. "In one move, this software trashes the last decade of browser security and privacy work, and the last five years of SSL cipher management," Rogers argued in a Feb. 19 post to his personal blog. Lenovo on Feb. 24 declined to respond to the new lawsuits, with its head of corporate communications, Brion Tingler, saying, "We do not comment on pending legal matters," in an email. Superfish also declined comment on the lawsuits' specifics, like Lenovo citing the pending litigation . But in a statement, company CEO Adi Pinhas said, "Superfish takes these matters seriously and is reviewing the allegations in the complaints." LIH PROPERTY: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Quirieo Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. LIH Property Management Services LLC, and Franco Corniel, in his individual capacity, Case No. 1:15-cv-01522 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants manage an apartment building located at 1605 University Avenue, Bronx, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq. Michael John Borrelli, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com - and - Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (518) 321-7075 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: rifbecca@gmail.com LINKEDIN CORP: Settles Class Suit Over Password Leak for $1.25MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that professional networking website LinkedIn has agreed to compensate 800,000 premium subscribers whose passwords were leaked in 2012. Under a settlement tentatively approved by Judge Edward Davila for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California's San Jose Division in January, those users are eligible to make a claim on the settlement fund, worth $1.25 million. "Following the dismissal of every other claim associated with this lawsuit, LinkedIn has agreed to this settlement to avoid the distraction and expense of ongoing litigation," the company said in an emailed statement. In June 2012, LinkedIn announced that hackers had stolen and published nearly 6.5 million member passwords on a Russian hacker website. The stolen passwords had been "hashed," but not "salted." Salting is a way to randomize hashes. Soon after, plaintiff Katie Szpyrka brought a putative class action in the Northern District of California. She alleged claims for damages and injunctive relief against LinkedIn for failing to "properly safeguard" her personal information in accordance with industry standards and its own user agreements. Ms. Szpyrka later consolidated her action with three others. According to court documents, the class members never indicated they were damaged by the breach in some way, only deceived by LinkedIn. The company denies that it committed, threatened or attempted to commit any wrongdoing alleged in the action. However, it agreed that further defense of the action would be "protracted, risky, burdensome and expensive." Those users who paid a fee to LinkedIn for a premium subscription from March 15, 2006 and June 7, 2012 are eligible to make a claim for payment. The deadline to make a claim is May 2. Payments could range from $1 to $50 after the plaintiffs' lawyers' fees are paid and depending on the number of claims filed. A final approval hearing is scheduled for June 18. Kim Stone, president of the Civil Justice Association of California, which advocates for legal reforms to restrict tort recovery, said, generally speaking, the state's class action laws are tilted in favor of the plaintiff. "But we often see settlements where the lawyers get millions and the class members get pennies, or coupons -- or, in this case, a few dollars," she said in an email. According to a search of LinkedIn, only one of the attorneys listed as counsel for the plaintiff class, Ari Scharg of Edelson PC, had a public profile. Meanwhile, three of LinkedIn's attorneys, Michael Rhodes -- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Benjamin H. Kleine and Matthew D. Brown -- brownmd@cooley.com -- all of Cooley LLP, could be found on the website. MARION COUNTY, IN: Ex-Offenders Claim Detention Problems Rampant ---------------------------------------------------------------- Russ McQuaid, writing for FOX59, reports that more former inmates from the Marion County Jail are coming forward to claim they, too, were forced to serve several days of additional sentences due to jail computer and staffing problems. The ex-offenders called FOX59 News after learning of a federal lawsuit filed on behalf of four former inmates who claimed they were held for up 72 additional hours behind bars after judges ordered them freed. "It's a messed up system," said Brian Kaufman. "It's just really scary." Mr. Kaufman pleaded guilty last summer to a drunk driving charge. He was given time served plus 24 hours. When Mr. Kaufman turned himself in on a Friday morning, he expected to be home for lunch on Saturday. Mr. Kaufman was not released until the following Monday afternoon, some 54 hours after his sentence was completed. "I just remember them saying, 'Our computers are down.' That's not my problem. I can't help it that your system is down. The judge and the prosecutor signed that I was supposed to be in here 24 hours. I agreed to do 24 hours. I got work to do. I was hoping to go to church on Sunday. I wasn't able to do any of that." Mr. Kaufman was held at Jail II, a privately run facility affiliated with the Marion County Jail on East Washington Street. "They're moving me from area to area. My family is calling wanting to know what's going on. They're working on it. They don't know. I think at one point in time they told them I was already out, that I'd been released. I'm talking to them on the phone, 'I'm obviously not out. I'm calling you collect from jail. I should've been out of here.'" Mr. Kaufman was also sentenced to spend 365 days on probation. He said once the probation and sheriff's offices realized their mistake and his overdetention, the father-to-be was offered a break on his sentence. "I know they tried to take two days off my probation for it. I would take two years of probation over anytime in jail I'm not supposed to serve. I don't care about two days of my probation." It was a probation violation, failure to call a drug reporting line, that landed Kisha Buckner in the main jail just before Thanksgiving of last year. Ms. Buckner had been found guilty of forgery in 2013 and was given two years probation and no jail time. Instead, the grandmother spent the holiday in jail awaiting a Dec. 8 hearing, but her probation officer and public defender didn't appear in court, and Buckner was sent back to jail for another nine days. "On the 17th the judge released me out so I would be getting out," said Ms. Buckner, "so I thought I would be getting out that day." That Wednesday afternoon stretched into Wednesday night, all Thursday and finally Friday morning before the sheriff found the keys to Buckner's jailhouse door. "They kept telling me I wasn't going to get out because they didn't have enough workers," said Ms. Buckner. "'The computers are down.' I said, 'Can you tell me what step I am on now?' And they said, 'I'll go see. Well the computers are down.' I said, 'The computers are down?' Yeah, I heard that two or three times. I heard that on Wednesday and Thursday. 'The computers are down.'" The sheriff's department has struggled to master the Odyssey computer system, a new case tracking system endorsed by the Indiana Supreme Court for Marion County's court, jail, prosecutor, police, public defender and probation systems, and its own Offender Management System. FOX59 News has reported the system's multiple failures dating back to last summer when several inmates were mistakenly released from the Marion County Jail. Offenders and their families often called FOX59 News during the last half of 2014, complaining inmates were being held up to 72 hours beyond their court-ordered release. Sheriff's officials told FOX59 News the problem would be solved weeks before Sheriff John Layton successfully ran for re-election last November. Sheriff Layton's office has refused comment on the pending lawsuit which could lead to renewed inquiry or oversight by a federal judge. Richard Waples, an attorney representing four inmates in the class action lawsuit, told FOX59 News there is no state law that permits the jail to hold inmates for three days past their ordered release as several offenders claim they were told by corrections officers. "I thought, thank goodness somebody is actually doing something about this because this is a serious situation," said Mr. Kaufman after he learned of the federal lawsuit. "What happens if somebody in my particular scenario would've gotten killed? Would've gotten hurt? They were supposed to be out 48, 62 hours ago. That person gets hurt by another inmate. What if this person happens to commit suicide? What if somebody does something when they were supposed to be out? I mean, the jail's really going to be in trouble at that point. "When a judge or prosecutor or whomever signs off on something, that's what it should be. Their word's no good." MAXLINEAR INC: Faces "Mouw" Suit Over Unlawful Company Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Brad Mouw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated and derivatively on behalf of Entropic Communications, Inc. v. Maxlinear, Inc., Excalibur Acquisition Corporation, Excalibur Subsidiary, LLC, Umeshpadval, Theodore Tewksbury, William G. Bock, Kenneth A. Merchant, Keith E. Bechard and Robert L. Bailey, and Entropic Communications, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv- 00464 (S.D. Cal., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the sale of Entropic to MaxLinear, in an unfair process and to an unfair price. Maxlinear, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Carlsbad, California.is a leading provider of radio-frequency and mixedsignal semiconductor solutions for broadband communications applications. Entropic Communications is recognized for pioneering the MoCA(R) (Multimedia over Coax Alliance) home networking standard, inventing Direct Broadcast Satellite outdoor unit single-wire technology, and developing the industry's first set-top box SoC platform based on the ARM(R) processor with advanced OpenGL graphics. The Plaintiff is represented by: David T. Wissbroecker, Esq. Edward M. Gergosian, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com egergosian@rgrdlaw.com MERCK & CO: Faces Class Action Over MMR Trials ---------------------------------------------- Erin Barker, writing for Herald and News, reports that a whistleblower from the Centers for Disease Control has recently disclosed evidence that Merck knew of certain factors that increase a child's risk of autism following MMR. The study group was allegedly pruned to exclude children in the greatest risk group, to create a desired outcome. Approximately 1,000 documents have been handed over to Congress, and in January the Supreme Court ruled there is sufficient evidence to go to trial. Merck is also being sued in a class action suit for fraud by several doctors, competitors -- and the biggest purchaser of MMR, the federal government -- for manipulating data during their MMR trials to make the vaccine appear more effective. NESTLE PURINA: Sued in D. Mass. Over Alleged Toxins in Dog Food --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Malcolm, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Nestle Purina Petcare Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-10598 (D. Mass., February 27, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's Beneful brand dog food contains substances that are toxic to animals and that have reportedly resulted in the serious illness and death of thousands of dogs. Nestle Purina Petcare Company is a Missouri corporation with a principal place of business at Checkerboard Square, St. Louis, Missouri. It is one of the leading manufacturers of pet foods in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 742-9700 Facsimile: (617) 742-9701 E-mail: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com - and - Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq. GILMAN LAW LLP 8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite 525 Bonita Springs, FL 34135-4208 Telephone (781) 307-2526 E-mail: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com - and - Preston W. Leonard, Esq. LEONARD LAW OFFICE, P.C. 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: 617-329-1295 E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com NEW YORK: Police Dept. Sued Over Alleged Racial Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Andy Gonzalez, Ritchie Baez, Adhyl Polanco, and Pedro Serrano, on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated v. The City Of New York, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01498 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), is brought on behalf of the African-American and Latino minority police officers who were denied of upgrades, promotions, overtime and accrued time earned, and for discrimination in their employment on the basis of race, as a result of the imposition of illegal quotas and illegal penalties. The City of New York is a municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, exercising governmental authority. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chukwuemeka Nwokoro, Esq. SMITH, MAZURE, DIRECTOR, WILKINS, YOUNG & YAGERMAN, PC 111 John Street New York City, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 964-7400 Facsimile: (212) 374-1935 - and - Serhiy Hoshovsky, Esq. GVOZD & HOSHOVSKY LAW FIRM 33 West 19th Street New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (646) 619-1123 Facsimile: (212) 620-8183 E-mail: shoshovsky@ghslegal.com NEW YORK: Occupy Wall Street Class Action Ruling Reversed --------------------------------------------------------- Tom Brown and Joseph Ax, writing for Reuters, report that a federal appeals court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by hundreds of Occupy Wall Street protesters who were arrested on New York's Brooklyn Bridge in 2011 at the height of the movement against income inequality and wealth distribution in the United States. In a ruling released late on Feb. 23, the 2nd U.S. Circuit of Appeals in New York reversed its own August 2014 decision allowing the class action over alleged police misconduct to proceed. The 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel was a rare example of the court choosing to vacate its own earlier ruling. The 2011 lawsuit was filed against New York City police officers involved in arresting some 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters three days earlier during a march over the Brooklyn Bridge. Many of the protesters claimed they were unlawfully arrested and tricked into believing the march, which blocked traffic, had been authorized since police initially blocking the thoroughfare had retreated and allowed the protesters to move forward. In its decision, the court said there was no evidence the protesters had been authorized to block traffic and create a public disturbance. "There was no explicit consultation between the leaders of the demonstration and the police about what conduct would be permitted," the court wrote. "Nor was there any express statement from any police official authorizing the protesters to cross the Bridge on the vehicular roadway, opining that doing so would be lawful, or waiving the enforcement of any traffic regulation." The court did not explain why it had originally let the class action proceed. Nick Paolucci, a spokesman for the New York City Law Department which defends the city against lawsuits, called the court's decision "proper." "As we have consistently maintained, the alleged facts and multiple videotapes of the events do not show that the plaintiffs were ever granted permission to march onto and block all vehicular traffic on the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge," Mr. Paolucci said in a statement. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, a lawyer for the class action plaintiffs, called the court's decision "extremely abrupt" and said it showed that "the judiciary is unwilling to hold the police accountable" for misconduct. The bridge protesters were "peaceful and compliant with all directives from the police," she said. NORDSTROM INC: Averts Class Action Over Bag-Check Policy -------------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that a California federal judge on Feb. 24 refused to grant class certification in a suit accusing Nordstrom Inc. of not paying its workers for time spent undergoing bag checks, finding employees had the option to not bring bags and thus skip the checks. In an order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification, U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II said Nordstrom's evidence overwhelmingly showed that the bag checks were conducted randomly. Moreover, Nordstrom can't be liable to employees who were never subject to the policy, the judge ruled. Lead plaintiff Shamea Ogiamien, a former non-exempt Nordstrom employee, had previously contended that the checks were "absolutely mandatory," court papers said. But Judge Wright noted that she admitted at her deposition that she could have avoided the inspections if she chose not to bring her bag. "This is not a case of lapses in enforcement," the Feb. 24 order said. "The actual language of Nordstrom's policy does not indicate that bag checks were a required ritual each time an employee leaves the store. At best, the language in the policy is ambiguous." The Feb. 24 decision comes as Apple Inc. is battling a similar California federal class action by retail workers claiming that company didn't pay them for time spent undergoing bag and gadget checks. The instant suit was originally filed in California state court in May 2013 but removed to federal court the following August. A third amended complaint was filed a year ago. Ms. Ogiamien sought to certify a class of every Nordstrom employee during the four years before the filing of the class action. Nordstrom argued that the class couldn't be certified because there would have to be individual inquiries as to which employees brought bags, which of those employees were subject to bag checks, whether they left the store for breaks and if they left for breaks with or without bags. Judge Wright on Feb. 24 sided with Nordstrom, saying the evidence showed that not every employee carried a bag and not every employee with a bag was checked. "Nordstrom even provided [a report from an expert] who analyzed more than 1,700 employees departing 12 different stores and found that more than a quarter of employees he observed left the store without any bags," it said. "Nordstrom's bag-check policy cannot create any liability for Nordstrom with respect to that employee -- there are simply no lost wages." While Judge Wright found a common question of whether Nordstrom's policy resulted in loss wages, he said the class didn't meet the predominance requirement needed for certification because it's possible a large percentage of the proposed members were never harmed by the policy. The judge noted that another California federal judge in August 2013 refused to certify a class of 84,000 workers for Macy's Corporate Services Inc. whose suit similarly claimed the department store chain didn't pay them for loss-control inspections of their belongings. Even though Macy's had a bag check policy that facially covered all employees, the inspection protocols only applied to workers who chose to travel with packages or baggage, that judge decided, according to court documents. Ms. Ogiamien is represented by Scott B. Cooper and Samantha Smith of the Cooper Law Firm PC, Kashif Haque, Samuel Wong and Jessica L. Campbell of Aegis Law Firm PC and Roger Carter of the Carter Law Firm. Nordstrom is represented by Julie A. Dunne -- jdunne@littler.com -- Joshua Levine and Dominic J. Messiha -- dmessiha@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson PC. The case is Shamea Ogiamien et al. v. Nordstrom Inc., case number 2:13-cv-05639, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. NVIDIA CORP: Offers Refunds Following GTX 970 Memory Issue ---------------------------------------------------------- Brad Chacos, writing for PCWorld, reports that Nvidia and their hardware partners have remained mum about the furor buzzing around the GeForce GTX 970, but it looks like at least some disgruntled customers are receiving refunds for their graphics cards, courtesy of point-of-sale e-tailers like Amazon and Newegg. Perhaps not coincidentally, Nvidia was also slapped with a class action lawsuit alleging false advertising of the GTX 970's capabilities. A quick catch-up: Nvidia's GTX 970 launched to universal acclaim for its stunning blend of power efficiency, pure performance, and a (comparatively cheap) $330 starting price point. In fact, the GTX 970 was so competitive that AMD was immediately forced to shave hundreds of dollars off its flagship Radeon graphics cards. But gamers soon started noticing something amiss. Whenever the 4GB GTX 970 inched past 3.5GB of memory use, games began stuttering in certain scenarios. Nvidia was eventually forced to admit that the card actually uses a -- let's say unconventional -- memory design that splits the memory into two pools: A full-speed 3.5GB segment and a far slower 512MB segment. More concerning, Nvidia also revealed that the GTX 970 technical specifications sent to reviewers were incorrect and exaggerated due to an internal communications error. These facts came to light four month's after the card's launch. Principle in processing The specification revelations didn't change the fact that the GTX 970 was still a beast of a card for the price, and subsequent testing by PC Perspective, Guru3D, and Hardware Canucks showed that negative effects are difficult to produce in the real world, at least in single card setups. To use more than 3.5GB in most games requires playing at very high resolutions (typically 4K or multi-monitor situations) at dismally low frame rates, with anti- aliasing settings cranked. But multi-card SLI setups could theoretically be more affected, as further PC Perspective testing suggested. And many GTX 970 buyers were upset at Nvidia in principle. Refunds were demanded. A Change.org petition circulated as Nvidia remained silent on that front, and is currently signed by nearly 9000 people. While Nvidia and its partners have yet to change their official stance, numerous user reports began to appear on Reddit claiming that Amazon and Newegg have begun offering refunds on GTX 970 purchases when asked. Some users claim to have been able to keep their cards while receiving 20 percent of the purchase price back, sometimes in store credit. Several user comments in a PC Perspective post covering the issue also appear to corroborate the information. Not all buyers report being successfully negotiating a refund, however, so your mileage may vary. In Europe, both Overclockers UK and Caseking will let upset buyers return their GTX 970s. AMD's pushing hard to convince GTX 970 buyers to join Team Red with that refund money, slashing prices and conducting an #IWant4GB campaign on social media. OGNIO GRADING: "Lucier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Don Lucier, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Ognio Grading, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00040 (N.D. Ga., March 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and obtain declaratory relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act. Ognio Grading, Inc. is a construction company with its principal place of business located in Fayette County, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com PETERBOROUGH REGIONAL: Privacy Class Action Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Naudie, Esq., Michael Watts, Esq., Adam Kardash, Esq., Jeffrey Murray, Esq., of Osler reports that in a significant decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Hopkins v. Kay that a private plaintiff may bring a class proceeding for damages in tort against Peterborough Regional Health Centre (PRHC or the Hospital) for the unauthorized access to personal health information, even in circumstances where the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario has closed his investigation. The Court rejected the argument that Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) was a comprehensive code that precluded tort claims, and in so doing, the Court has signalled that health information custodians may face significant civil exposure in damages for future incidents involving unauthorized access to personal health information by a rogue employee or third party. The decision also suggests that private plaintiffs might be able to pursue class proceedings for privacy breaches in other provinces that have comprehensive privacy statutes, as well in regulated sectors and industries where the legislature has created a separate regulatory and enforcement regime. The Breach at the Peterborough Regional Health Centre In 2011, the Peterborough Regional Health Centre discovered that a number of employees, including a supervising nurse, appeared to have accessed the personal health information of up to 280 patients without their advance knowledge or consent. Based on media reports, the breach included unauthorized access to the records of a victim of domestic violence who was in hiding and unauthorized access to hundreds of therapeutic abortion files by a records clerk that was an anti-abortion activist. The PRHC took prompt remedial action, including disciplinary action against the employees in question. As required by PHIPA, the PRHC also provided notice to the patients whose records appeared to have been improperly accessed. Based on public reports, the Commissioner commenced an investigation in May 2011 focused on the Hospital's conduct. However, the Commissioner did not take further action against the Hospital, on the basis that the Hospital "responded reasonably" to the incident by notifying the affected patients, firing the employees involved and conducting a Hospital-wide privacy campaign. As a result, the Commissioner determined that "no further action was warranted" against the Hospital and appears to have formally closed its file. The Class Action Against the PRHC A group of affected patients was not satisfied with the outcome of the Commissioner's investigation and determined to seek their own relief from the Court. In spite of the provisions of PHIPA that suggested that the legislature had adopted a comprehensive regulatory regime for addressing privacy issues in the health care system, the affected patients launched a class action against the Hospital that sought over $5 million in damages for breach of PHIPA, breach of contract, breach of confidentiality, negligence and the tort of intrusion upon seclusion. In response to this claim, the Hospital brought a motion that sought to strike the proposed class action on a preliminary basis, on the grounds that the legislature precluded the possibility of a private action for breach of privacy, or the possibility of a class proceeding, by adopting the regulatory regime in PHIPA. In so doing, the Hospital relied on a similar decision by the B.C. Court of Appeal from 2009 that suggested that there was no common law claim for breach of privacy in light of the legislature's adoption of a regulatory regime under the Privacy Act (B.C.). By the time that the motion was argued before Justice Edwards of the Ontario Superior Court in 2013, the affected patients had limited their claims for damages for the tort of the intrusion upon seclusion. At first instance, the Court dismissed the Hospital's motion in January 2014. Given the state of the law, the Court found that it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs could not succeed in their proposed class proceeding. The Court further indicated that given the Court of Appeal's decision in Jones, the Hospital would likely require direction from the Court of Appeal to succeed in its argument. In light of that direction, the Hospital appealed to the Court of Appeal. The appeal was argued in December 2014. In an interesting development, the Commissioner intervened on the appeal and argued that PHIPA does not prevent private plaintiffs (and class plaintiffs) from pursuing actions for damages in tort, even in cases where the Commissioner did not take regulatory action. The Court of Appeal's Decision The Court of Appeal unanimously found that PHIPA was not an exhaustive code, and did not preclude a private plaintiff (or a class plaintiff) from pursuing an action in tort against a health care institution for a privacy breach.3 In its decision, the Court placed considerable deference to the views of the Commissioner regarding the scope of the statute. The Court also noted that the Commissioner might not pursue an investigation for a number of reasons that should not impair the ability of a plaintiff to seek personal compensation. As the Court noted, "[the Commissioner's] primary objective in achieving an appropriate resolution will not be to provide an individual remedy to the complainant, but rather to address systemic issues." The Court also distinguished the law of Ontario from the law in B.C. -- in short, the Court reasoned that in B.C., the legislature appeared to have created a distinct statutory cause of action for breach of privacy, whereas in Ontario, the legislature had not gone that far. In light of that void in Ontario, the Court determined that the plaintiffs in the proposed class action were entitled to pursue their claims based on the "distinct common law tort" that had been recognized in Jones. PARK AVENUE: Faces "Bahena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Vicente Bahena, Jonas Bahena, Jose Cruz Ayala, and Rafael Rodriguez v. Park Avenue South Management LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01507 (S.D.N.Y., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Park Avenue South Management LLC owns and operates numerous other residential buildings in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Grace Cathryn Cretcher, Esq. BERANBAUM MENKEN BEN-ASHER & BIERMAN LLP 80 Pine Street-32nd Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 509-1616 Facsimile: (212) 509-8088 E-mail: gcretcher@nyemployeelaw.com PUERTO RICO: Electric Energy Authority Faces Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Puerto Rico's heavily indebted power company was slapped on Feb. 24 with a federal class-action lawsuit alleging the agency joined several international oil companies in overcharging customers in the U.S. territory by more than $1 billion. The lawsuit filed by Seattle-based Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP names 20 defendants, including Brazil's Petrobras, the Shell Trading Company and Puma Energy Caribe LLC. It alleges that Puerto Rico's Electric Energy Authority overpaid suppliers in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of kickbacks, and overpaid for millions of barrels of oil that did not meet U.S. environmental standards. The agency is considered one of the largest public power companies in the U.S. "The scheme has certainly contributed to the overall recession that Puerto Rico has been in," Beth Fegan -- beth@hbsslaw.com -- an attorney with Hagens Berman, said in a telephone interview. The Electric Energy Authority is accused of paying regular prices for subpar fuel oil and passing the cost to clients since January 2002, as well as allegedly falsifying thousands of lab reports that tested its quality. Jorge Concepcion, director of the power company's legal affairs, said he had not received a copy of the lawsuit and declined to comment. Ms. Fegan said attorneys are seeking a still undefined amount of money for the plaintiffs. A jury trial has been requested. The lawsuit comes as the island's government tries to reform the power company following complaints of corruption and electricity bills that average about twice those of the U.S. mainland. The company also holds some $9 billion in debt, and U.S. investors have grown increasingly concerned that it might soon go bankrupt. Legislators have already begun reviewing similar allegations as part of the reform, while government prosecutors have accused some power company officials of fraud in a case related to renewable energy contracts. The case is currently being heard in court, but no one has been arrested. Puerto Rico depends on petroleum to generate nearly 70 percent of its electricity, with the power company paying more than $3 billion a year for fuel oil. RBS CITIZENS: Illegally Collects Annual Fees, "Block" Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Block, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RBS Citizens, National Association, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 01524 (D.N.J., February 27, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unlawful practice of collecting $100 annual fees, in violation of the plain language of the printed, uniformly-worded form contract documents which promised no such fees would be charged. RBS Citizens, National Association, Inc. is a national bank headquartered at One Citizens Plaza, Providence, Rhode Island, 02903. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. Denittis, Esq. Joseph A. Osefchen, Esq. Shane T. Prince, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC 5 Greentree Centre 525 Route 73 North, Suite 410 Marlton, NJ 08053 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 Facsimile: (856) 797-9978 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com josefchen@denittislaw.com sprince@denittislaw.com REGENETEK RESEARCH: MS Patients Mulls Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Karen Pauls, writing for CBC News, reports that the RCMP and Health Canada are looking into complaints from patients against Winnipeg stem cell researcher Doug Broeska and his company, Regenetek Research, CBC News has learned. "To date, Health Canada has an open compliance verification file regarding the activities conducted by Regenetek," a Health Canada spokesperson confirmed in an email. "The necessary followup steps have been initiated by Health Canada and are ongoing, although Health Canada cannot comment on the details of ongoing compliance and enforcement activities until such time as all the facts are available to us. Further to our commitment to openness and transparency, should a risk to Canadians be identified, Health Canada will notify Canadians accordingly." The RCMP in Manitoba, too, confirms it's investigating "several complaints of fraud involving Regenetek." In an email statement, Mr. Broeska's public relations agency says Mr. Broeska "gladly welcomes addressing this matter openly with any public authority because he is absolutely confident that further investigation will not only exonerate Regenetek research and himself, but also prove that he has been deliberately victimized by false and malicious allegations made by former employee, Ms. Sherry Trudeau." Ms. Broeska is suing Ms. Trudeau, who worked for Regenetek Research between August 2014 and Dec. 30, 2014. Stem cell researcher defends against "inaccurate media reporting" Regenetek issues statement explaining role in MS study In a statement of claim, Ms. Broeska says Ms. Trudeau breached her conditions of employment by copying and keeping confidential patient information, and making unauthorized contact with participants of a clinical study "for the express purpose of causing damage to the plaintiffs, by making false, malicious and defamatory allegations." The statement claims she distributed confidential information to reporters at the Winnipeg Free Press and the CBC, former Regenetek employees, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, the Canada Revenue Agency and the RCMP. None of these allegations have been proven in court, and Trudeau says she has no comment on advice from her lawyer. She has until Feb. 26 to file a statement of defense. One of Regenetek's former patients has launched a GoFundMe fundraising campaign to help pay for Trudeau's legal fees. "As a former patient, hearing that Sherry had left her job and that she'd been sued, I thought she could use some financial support," Phoenix resident Kathleen Jaynes said in a Skype interview. "I wanted Sherry to know there were lots of people that believed in her and supported her." Ms. Jaynes is one of about 70 multiple sclerosis patients recruited by Regenetek to get combination stem cell therapy in Pune, India. It involves widening the veins of the neck, then injecting the person's own stem cells inside. She has provided documentation showing she paid $20,000 U.S. plus travel expenses to get the treatment in May 2014. Others have paid up to $45,000 U.S. Ms. Jaynes says she felt stronger for about a week, but within three months, she had regressed to her original condition. Many patients say they felt better after the procedure, but others saw little or no improvement. When Ms. Jaynes questioned the therapy and followup, she says Broeska and Dr. Susan Hauch suggested talking to her doctor about going off one of her blood-thinning medications, and also recommended a different supplement. In a previous statement, Mr. Broeska has denied providing any medical advice to patients. "I hope Doug Broeska will be out of business in any form and he will not be able to sell anything to anyone -- in particular, a medical procedure to a sick person," Ms. Jaynes said. "It's clearly medical tourism. I don't think there's anything more to say about it." Questions raised about qualifications Concerns surfaced in December after an independent ethics board ruled Mr. Broeska's involvement didn't meet international standards. The Indian research group replaced him as principal investigator for the study and later said it could no longer accept patients recruited by Regenetek. However, Ms. Broeska says the new principal investigator, Dr. Bill Brashier, is the former head of the ethics board that had him replaced. "I believe Dr. Brashier wrote the letter removing me as Principal Investigator, then he immediately resigned as head of the IECP, joined Genesis the same day and was appointed Principal Investigator of the Regenetek study, in my place," he writes in a five-page statement to CBC News. "It is not possible for this timing to be anything but a deliberate conspiracy to seize control of the study both operationally and financially." In the last few weeks, he and his public relations firm have provided numerous invoices, financial documents and emails detailing what Ms. Broeska claims is an effort by his Indian partners to "push me out and subsequently vilify me as part of a larger scheme to steal my stem cell research protocol and run with it." "Details of the conspiracy to discredit me are now emerging along with several inconsistencies and questions about the practices of Genesis Ltd and its newest directors and partners," Mr. Broeska writes in his statement. But Surjo Banerjee, the head of Genesis Ltd., rejects that. "They are coming up with BS to counter the attacks on them," he responded via email. "If they are so interested in providing information, please ask them to give you a list of all the patients that were treated, all the invoices that they received from Regentek Therapies India and all the invoices they received from Genesis Ltd. Total them up and tally the transactions." Patients are also raising questions about Mr. Broeska's qualifications, his research and his follow-up. In a LinkedIn profile, Mr. Broeska claimed to have a PhD from the University of Manitoba. The university says that is not true. Mr. Broeska has produced a PhD certificate from Brightland University as proof of his qualifications. That university is unaccredited in the United States and United Kingdom, and the University of Manitoba confirms it would not recognize a degree obtained from there. The University of Winnipeg's ethics board has also rejected a proposal to do follow-up rehabilitation with patients recruited through Regenetek. Some patients are now questioning the amount they paid for their treatment. Mr. Banerjee says the costs for the procedure are $16,050 U.S. Several patients tell CBC News they have filed complaints with the RCMP and other governing authorities, and are now trying to organize a class-action lawsuit against Broeska and Regenetek. Still others asking for their deposit money back, although there is some dispute about which entity should repay them -- Regenetek in Winnipeg or Genesis in India. Australian Kate Millar says she hasn't received a $20,000 U.S. refund for her daughter's treatment, even though she asked for one several weeks ago. "It's like we're forgotten," she said. RITE AID: "Gioules" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages -------------------------------------------------------------- Nick Gioules, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc. and Rite Aid Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-01099 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a drug store chain with a principal place of business located at 30 Hunter Lane, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Todd Coleman, Esq. Michael John Borrelli, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Blvd., St. 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com - and - Rebecca Solomon Predovan, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (518) 321-7075 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: rifbecca@gmail.com ROSS TOWNSHIP, IN: June 12 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF INDIANA COUNTY OF LAKE SS: IN THE LAKE CIRCUIT COURT AT CROWN POINT, INDIANA In Re: HIDDEN LAKE BRIDGE COLLAPSE AT MERRILLVILLE, INDIANA CAUSE NO.: 45C01-0907-CT-00127 NOTICE TO ALL CLASS MEMBERS OF A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT TO: ALL PERSONS HAVING CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE HIDDEN LAKE BRIDGE COLLAPSE AT MERRILLVILLE, INDIANA ON JULY 4, 2009 Pursuant to the Order dated February 5, 2015 and entered under Indiana Trial Rule 23 by the Lake Circuit Court in the above- captioned action, you are hereby notified that there is a proposed settlement of the class action lawsuit identified above. The class action lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the negligence of Defendants, Ross Township, Indiana and John Rooda in his capacity as Ross Township Trustee, proximately caused the bridge at Hidden Lake Park to collapse and the resulting injuries and damages to the class. Defendants have denied that they were negligent and have denied the nature and extent of the injuries and damages claimed. You are a member of the class if you suffered physical injury in the bridge collapse and your injuries are permanent, or if you suffered physical injury in the bridge collapse and your injuries are temporary, or if you suffered emotional distress due to direct involvement in the bridge collapse and are entitled to recover under the rule in Groves v. Taylor, 729 N.E.2d 568 (Ind. 2000). As a class member you will be bound by any Court approved settlement or other disposition of the class action lawsuit. The parties have now reached a tentative settlement agreement. However, because this case is a class action, we are required to inform the class members of the proposed settlement terms and give you an opportunity to comment on the proposed settlement before the Court approves the settlement. In settlement of this class action, the parties have agreed to the following terms: 1. Defendants will pay a total of $900,000.00 to the class and class counsel ("settlement amount"). 2. Class counsel will be paid reasonable attorney's fees of 331/3% of the settlement amount plus costs incurred or advanced in the litigation. 3. The remaining settlement proceeds, with the exception of the sum of $3,000.00, will be allocated based upon individual injury and damage among those class members who submitted signed interrogatory answers and responses to requests for production prior to the date of mediation, May 1, 2014. The sum of $3,000.00 will be allocated, based upon individual injury and damage, to those class members, if any, who provide answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production after May 1, 2014 and before April 30, 2015. The allocation of proceeds to class members will be made by the Honorable Richard F. McDevitt (ret.), a neutral party, applying his experience and expertise and based upon his independent review and analysis of the information provided in the interrogatory answers and documents produced in response to discovery requests. In the event that there are no class members who submit signed interrogatory answers and responses to requests for production after May 1, 2014 and before April 30, 2015, or based upon a determination of the neutral that the class member(s) who have submitted such materials are reasonably compensated by payments less than $3,000.00, the remaining funds, if any, shall be allocated to those class members who submitted signed interrogatory answers and responses to requests for production prior to May 1, 2014. 4. Once the settlement is approved by the Court, the class action lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice, with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement and to adjudicate any liens/subrogation claims. If you want to object to the settlement, you must file your objection in writing with the Court by April 30, 2015 and include your full name, address, telephone number, a statement you are a class member, a written statement of your objection, and any documents to support your objection. You must also serve a copy of your objection and any supporting documents on Class Counsel. A hearing will be held in the Lake Circuit Court, 2293 N. Main Street, Crown Point, IN 46307 on June 12, 2015 at 1:00 o'clock p.m., to determine whether the proposed settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate, and to consider the application of Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. You may appear at the hearing and speak about the fairness of the settlement only if you have filed a written objection by the deadline or if the Court permits you to speak. In order to share in the settlement you must complete and mail signed interrogatory answers and responses to requests for production to class counsel by no later than April 30, 2015. If you do not submit the signed interrogatory answers and responses to requests for production by the deadline, you will not share in the settlement, and you will be bound by the settlement and subsequent dismissal with prejudice of this class action. Interrogatories and requests for production may be requested from class counsel. If you have already submitted signed interrogatory answers and responses to requests for production to class counsel, you are not required to resubmit these documents in order to share in the settlement but you must provide proof of compliance with the request(s) of class counsel to provide such answers and responses. Class counsel: Kenneth J. Allen, Esq. Robert D. Brown, Esq. Sarah M. Cafiero, Esq. Kenneth J. Allen Law Group, LLC 1109 Glendale Boulevard Valparaiso, IN 46383 Tel: (219) 465-6292 Fax: (219) 477-5181 SHORTER UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Alan Riquelmy, writing for Rome News-Tribune, reports that a former Shorter University student who's filed suit against her alma mater is seeking class-action status over a security breach she claims led to the theft of hundreds of personal records. Erin Bishop, a Shorter cheerleader from 2008 to 2009, says in her lawsuit that she's one of several victims of a theft involving the records of potentially 900 former and current students. More than 30 people whose records were stolen have had fraudulent tax returns filed on their behalf -- a scheme that in Bishop's case has affected her mortgage, daughter's college fund and ability to pay down her Shorter student loans. Ms. Bishop, who filed suit on Feb. 20 in U.S. District Court, claims that Shorter was negligent in keeping sensitive records in an unlocked filing cabinet in an unlocked room. Additionally, the university made no, or inadequate, efforts to notify those affected by the theft. "Instead, on September 25, 2014, Shorter sent a letter to former student-athletes warning them to keep a close eye on their credit and financial records, but indicating that it was 'uncertain if any personal information was actually obtained during the unauthorized access,'" the suit states. The letter sent by Shorter advised students that the physical records taken likely included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and medical information. Ms. Bishop wants her suit to have class-action status, which would allow everyone potentially affected by the breach to pursue a remedy through court. It also seeks punitive and compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and court costs. No trial date has been set. Dawn Tolbert, spokeswoman for Shorter, declined comment when contacted on Feb. 23. Ms. Bishop claims she only learned about the theft after trying to file her tax return. That's when she found someone already had used personal information to file those returns and receive a refund, according to the suit and Rome police reports. Now living in North Carolina, Ms. Bishop then contacted local police and learned about last year's breach. "As a result of this breach, Plaintiff has not been able to receive her tax refund and has had to spend money on credit monitoring and protection services and will continue to pay a monthly fee for credit monitoring and protection services," the suit states. SIMON PROPERTY: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Parking Spaces ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Snyder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Simon Property Group, Inc. and Simon Property Group, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-00286 (W.D. Pa., February 27, 2015), arises out of the excessive slopes in the parking spaces, access aisles, and along accessible routes, that made it inaccessible to, and not independently usable by individuals who use wheelchairs. The Defendants own and operate Grove City Premium Outlets, located at 1911 Leesburg Grove City Road, Grove City, PA. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com SLI LANDSCAPE: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Gutierrez and all others similarly situated v. SLI Landscape, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00547 (S.D. Tex., February 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. SLI Landscape, Inc. owns and operates a landscaping company located at 17720 South Dr., Cypress, Texas 77433. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Micah Williams, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES 810 Highway 6 South, Ste 111 Houston, TX 77079 Telephone: (832) 230-4125 Facsimile: (832) 230-5310 E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com STARTING LINE: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Arturo Alvarez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Starting Line, Inc., Jimmy's Charhouse, Inc., and James Panagakis, Case No. 1:15-cv- 01851 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 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 Johnny's Kitchen and Tap restaurant located at 1740 Milwaukee Avenue in Glenview, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen Ann Salas, Esq. Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq. Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq. Douglas M. Werman, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington, Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com sarendt@flsalaw.com zflowerree@flsalaw.com dwerman@flsalaw.com STATE FARM: Sued Over Failure to Provide Consumer Reports --------------------------------------------------------- William J. Novak, on behalf of himself and a class of all others similarly v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Case No. 1:15- cv-00394 (N.D. Ohio, March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide consumer report information in connection with renewals of homeowners insurance policy. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is an Illinois corporation that is considered as the largest insurer of homes in the U.S. since 1964. The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Rosenthal, Esq. Joshua R. Cohen, Esq. Jason R. Bristol, Esq. COHEN ROSENTHAL & KRAMER LLP The Hoyt Block Building - Suite 400 700 West St. Clair Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 781-7956 Facsimile: (216) 781-8061 E-mail: jbr@crklaw.com jcohen@crklaw.com jbristol@crklaw.com SYNGENTA CORP: Arkansas Farmers Join GMO Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- Jan Cottingham, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that at least a dozen Arkansas farmers have joined hundreds of farmers in 19 other states in almost 800 lawsuits against Swiss seed maker Syngenta over genetically modified corn seed, a case that has been widely reported in the media. But one of the lawsuits, filed on behalf of two Newport farms, contains a previously unreported twist: an allegation that Syngenta, a global agribusiness, has engaged in a criminal conspiracy to contaminate the U.S. corn crop to force China, other nations that buy U.S. corn and U.S. farmers to accept genetically modified corn. The suit, filed by the Emerson Poynter law firm, which has offices in Little Rock and Houston, alleges that Syngenta violated the Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, which is usually used to fight organized crime. Emerson Poynter filed the class-action suit in January on behalf of Kenny Falwell and Eagle Lake Farms, farming operations in Newport. It, like at least eight other lawsuits against Syngenta over its genetically modified corn seed, was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. These lawsuits joined hundreds of other lawsuits filed by U.S. farmers since the fall against Syngenta, the Swiss developer and marketer of seeds and agricultural chemicals. The suits claim that Syngenta caused losses of between $1 billion and $2.9 billion to U.S. corn farmers after it sold genetically modified or bioengineered corn seed that had not been approved for use by China, a huge and growing importer of U.S. corn and corn byproducts. The seed in question is Agrisure Viptera, also known as MIR 162, which has been genetically modified to resist corn pests like earworms and cutworms. The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved the Viptera seed in 2010. China began refusing shipments of American corn in November 2013 after it detected the GMO (genetically modified organism) trait, and the price of corn and corn byproducts dropped. Even farmers who did not grow the GMO corn experienced losses, the suits say. Lawsuits have been filed in 20 states, representing 86 percent of the corn planted in the U.S. last year, according to plaintiffs' lawyers. China went on to approve Viptera in December, but plaintiffs' lawyers say the development has little, if any, effect on their case. Scott Powell -- scott@hwnn.com -- of Hare Wynn Newell & Newton of Birmingham, Alabama, is one of those lawyers. China, with its rapidly expanding middle class, has "a voracious appetite for corn," Powell said, and when it stopped buying U.S. corn, it found other vendors, like Brazil. And once a country finds a substitute vendor for a product, it rarely switches back. Cargill, ADM Sue Farmers weren't the only ones alleged to have suffered. Agribusiness giants Cargill Inc. and Archer Daniels Midland Co. sued Syngenta late last year over the sale of the GMO corn before it had received import approval from China. Cargill, a top U.S. grain exporter, filed suit in September alleging that it lost $90 million when China rejected corn shipments. "Unlike other seed companies, Syngenta has not practiced responsible stewardship by broadly commercializing a new product before receiving approval from a key export market like China," Mark Stonacek, president of Cargill Grain & Oilseed Supply Chain North America, said in a company statement. "Syngenta also put the ability of U.S. agriculture to serve global markets at risk, costing both Cargill and the entire U.S. agricultural industry significant damages." Seed companies, farmers, grain handlers, exporters and others "have a shared responsibility to maintain and preserve market access when introducing new technology," Cargill said. In November, ADM, one of the world's largest corn processors, also sued Syngenta, which reported sales of $15.1 billion in 2014. "Syngenta chose to sell a corn seed product with traits that were not approved in all major export markets, without undertaking reasonable stewardship practices to prevent the resulting crop from commingling with or otherwise tainting the rest of the U.S. corn supply," an ADM spokeswoman said. In response to the Cargill lawsuit, Syngenta said that it believed the lawsuit to be without merit and "strongly upholds the right of growers to have access to approved new technologies that can increase both their productivity and their profitability." Syngenta maintained that it had been "fully transparent in commercializing the trait over the last four years." The farmers' and grain handlers' lawsuits were consolidated in January in U.S. District Court in Kansas as a multidistrict litigation assigned to federal Judge John W. Lungstrum. A team of four lawyers has been named to lead the litigation: Powell; Don Downing of Gray Ritter & Graham of St. Louis; William Chaney -- wchaney@grayreed.com -- of Gray Reed & McGraw of Dallas; and Patrick Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- of Stueve Siegel Hanson of Kansas City. 'A Hobson's Choice' The lawsuit by Kenny Falwell and Eagle Lake Farms of Newport accuses Syngenta of violations of the RICO statute. Although approved by Congress in 1970 to fight organized crime, it's been cited in other cases against corporations. On Feb. 19, for example, more than 90 landowners and other royalty owners in Pennsylvania accused Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Williams Partners LP of violating RICO by conspiring to restrain trade and engaging in a scheme "to help Chesapeake solve financial problems associated with the massive amount of debt that it incurred in acquiring oil and gas leases at the expense of royalty interest owners." The Falwell suit says that trends against GMO products, particularly in regard to the growing Chinese market, threatened Syngenta's financial and competitive health. If farmers continued to balk at growing GMO corn, the suit says, "it would weaken Syngenta competitively, reversing its economic growth and momentum and potentially disabling it from recovering the approximately $200 million it had invested in Viptera's development over a span of five to seven years." Therefore, the suit alleges, Syngenta "embarked on a plan to purposely undermine U.S. non-GMO corn growers and those resistant to growing Syngenta's unapproved genetic corn traits. "To that end, Defendants engaged in a scheme designed to inevitably taint and contaminate the U.S. Corn supply, effectively causing its economic vitality to be held hostage to MIR-162 trait GMO corn, knowing that the continuous marketing and sale of Syngenta's MIR-162 trait corn seed would ultimately prejudice and disrupt the U.S. Corn export market and the U.S. Corn commodities market." Syngenta knew that it was "impossible" for farmers to keep Viptera corn separate from non-GMO corn, the suit says, and that the U.S. corn supply would inevitably become contaminated. This situation, the suit alleges, would then present China and other nations importing from the U.S. with "a Hobson's choice: reject U.S. corn tainted with MIR-162 genetic trait and take a chance on securing other viable trade partners, failing which that nation would risk lacking sufficient corn to feed its people and livestock, or, rather than accept such risk, feel compelled to accept delivery of U.S. Corn." There was another goal, according to the lawsuit: to force U.S. farmers to realize that resistance to GMO corn, including Syngenta's, was "futile and perhaps even economically disadvantageous in the long term." This "scheme," the suit alleges, was carried out by Syngenta and several of its subsidiaries, along with Syngenta CEO Michael Mack and David Morgan, at that time president of Syngenta Seeds Inc., and "a network of independent 'Syngenta Seed Advisors'" and Syngenta dealers and distributors. A "Syngenta GMO Corn Seed Enterprise" was formed that contaminated the U.S. corn supply with Viptera corn, the suit alleges. It alleges that the defendants engaged in mail fraud in the marketing of the GMO corn and wire fraud in the dissemination of "false and misleading information and material omissions in public conference calls, press releases, articles and statements published over the news wires and interviews." Asked to respond to the allegations of RICO violations, Syngenta spokesman Paul Minehart said: "Syngenta believes that the lawsuits are without merit and strongly upholds the right of growers to have access to approved new technologies that can increase both their productivity and their profitability. The Agrisure Viptera trait (MIR162) was approved for cultivation in the U.S. in 2010. Syngenta commercialized the trait in full compliance with regulatory and legal requirements. Syngenta also obtained import approval from major corn importing countries. Syngenta has been fully transparent in commercializing the trait over the last four years." Mr. Powell, who represents other farmers in their pursuit of Syngenta, said he knew of the RICO allegations in the Falwell suit but declined to comment on whether they were likely to be included in the master consolidated complaint, which is being drafted. That complaint is due March 13. TCF FINANCIAL: "Schultz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Amber Schultz and Erik Ortega, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TCF Financial Corp. and TCF National Bank, Case No. 1:15-cv-01865 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate approximately 380 bank branches in eight states that provide retail and commercial banking services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul William Mollica, Esq. Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN 203 N. LaSalle St., Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 924-4888 E-mail: pwmollica@outtengolden.com jms@outtengolden.com TCP INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Sohal" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Santokh Sohal, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Ellis Yan, Brian Catlett, Solomon Yan, Jurgen Borgt, Matthias Belz, and TCP International Holdings Ltd., Case No. 1:15- cv-00393 (N.D. Ohio, March 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. TCP International Holdings Ltd. is a Switzerland corporation that designs, develops, manufactures, and markets lighting products and accessories to the commercial, industrial, and retail markets worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 Facsimile: (216) 241-8175 E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com - and - Laurence M. Rosen Phillip Kim THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenleeal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com TCP INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Williams" Suit Over False Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ellis Yan, Brian Catlett, Solomon Yan, Jurgen Borgt, Matthias Belz, and TCP International Holdings Ltd., Case No. 1:15- cv-00398 (N.D. Ohio, March 2, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. TCP International Holdings Ltd. is a Switzerland corporation that designs, develops, manufactures, and markets lighting products and accessories to the commercial, industrial, and retail markets worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Landskroner, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN Ste. 200, 1360 West Ninth Street Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com - and - Darren J. Robbins, Esq. David C. Walton, Esq. Jack Reise, Esq. Robert J. Robbins, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD Ste. 1900, 655 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 E-mail: e_file_sd@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON BOTTINI Ste. 1400, 655 West Broadway San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 233-5355 TRUEBLUE INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Smalls, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trueblue, Inc., Labor Ready Midatlantic, Inc., and First Advantage Background Services Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv-05126 (W.D. Wash., March 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide a standalone up-front notice before that may procure consumer reports about their applicants and employees. Trueblue, Inc. is a Washington corporation with its corporate headquarters located at 1015 A Street, Tacoma, WA 98401, which is a provider of temporary staffing services. Labor Ready Midatlantic, Inc. is a Washington corporation with its corporate headquarters located at 1015 A Street, Tacoma, WA 98401, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TrueBlue Inc. First Advantage Background Services Corp. is a Florida corporation with its corporate headquarters located at 1 Concourse Pkwy NE #200, Atlanta, GA 30328, which provides employment background screening services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C. 627 208th Ave Se Sammamish, WA 98074-7033 Telephone: (425) 868-7813 Facsimile: (425) 868-7870 E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com TYCOONS: Faces "Doe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tycoons et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-10771 (E.D. Mich., March 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay a minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an adult nightclub in Detroit, Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan Bonanni, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS P.C. 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 Facsimile: (248) 398-9804 E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com - and - Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq. DIB AND FAGAN PC 25892 Woodward Ave Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@dibandfagan.com TYCOONS: Faces "Doe" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tycoons et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-10772 (E.D. Mich., March 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay a minimum wage as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an adult nightclub in Detroit, Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Megan Bonanni, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS P.C. 117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 Facsimile: (248) 398-9804 E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com - and - Jennifer Lossia McManus, Esq. DIB AND FAGAN PC 25892 Woodward Ave Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@dibandfagan.com VIVINT INC: Settles TCPA Class Action for $6 Million ---------------------------------------------------- Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that a Florida federal judge on Feb. 23 finally approved a $6 million settlement and certified a nationwide class of consumers who received autodialed or pre-recorded calls from Vivint Inc. or affiliate marketers, ending a suit that accused the home automation and security company of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. U.S. District Judge William J. Zloch certified a nationwide class of consumers who, beginning in September 2008, had received a telemarketing call from Vivint or its marketing affiliates that used a pre-recorded message or was made with the help of an autodialer. Consumers who had placed themselves on the Do Not Call Registry or who were on Vivint's internal "do not call" list are also included in the class. The judge, who dismissed the suit with prejudice, noted that certifying the class was the most practical way to resolve the suit. "The court further finds that (A) the members of the class have a limited interest in individually prosecuting the claims at issue; (B) it is desirable to concentrate the claims in this forum; and (C) it is unlikely that there will be difficulties encountered in administering this settlement," he said. Judge Zloch approved attorneys' fees and costs totaling $1.8 million, along with a $20,000 incentive payment for class representative Matthew Benzion. Vivint is not admitting wrongdoing in the settlement, which bars class members from bringing additional claims related to the allegations contained in the suit against the company, and it denies all the claims asserted against it in the suit. A magistrate judge had ordered additional briefing on a class certification motion in 2013 after both parties agreed that they needed additional time to gather facts. Under the claims process outlined in the settlement, class members will be entitled to make one claim regardless of the number of calls he or she received. Though the amount each class member will receive depends on the number of claims, under no circumstances will that amount exceed $500, according to the deal. The settlement additionally requires Vivint to not make telemarketing calls using pre-recorded messages for at least two years. If the claims and settlement costs total less than $6 million, the remainder will go toward cy pres recipient EPIC.org, the Electronic Privacy Information Center. Mr. Benzion had originally asked the court to approve the settlement in an unopposed motion in May. Mr. Benzion's 2012 complaint accused the company of calling consumer's cellphones without their permission. The suit accused Vivint of repeatedly calling Mr. Benzion's cellphone -- sometimes multiple times per day -- to play a pre-recorded message advertising a "free" wireless security system in exchange for putting the company's sign in his yard. In an amended complaint filed in 2013, the plaintiff said that the calls were unsolicited cold calls made for the purpose of generating leads for sales of the company's products or services. Several consumers had complained to the Federal Communications Commission about the practice, according to the suit. The suit included various claims for violations of the TCPA. A mediator had advised the court that the case was settled in March 2014. The plaintiffs are represented by Scott D. Owens of Scott D. Owens PA, Edward A. Broderick and Anthony I. Paronich of Broderick Law PC, Matthew P. McCue of Law Office of Matthew P. McCue, Alexander H. Burke of Burke Law Offices LLC, and Daniel J. Marovitch of Marovitch Law Firm LLC. Vivint is represented by Bruce E. Reinhart -- breinhart@mcdonaldhopkins.com -- of McDonald Hopkins LLC and Thomas J. Cunningham -- tcunningham@lockelord.com -- and Martin W. Jaszczuk -- mjaszczuk@lockelord.com -- of Locke Lord LLP. The case is Benzion et al v. Vivint, Inc., case number 0:12-cv- 61826 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. VOLARIS AVIATION: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Feb. 24 disclosed that a class action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Volaris Aviation Holding Company Ordinary Participation Certificates in the form of American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") in and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") on or about September 18, 2013. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from February 24, 2015. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/volaris Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges Volaris and certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Volaris provides air transportation services for passengers, cargo, and mail in Mexico and internationally. The complaint alleges that on June 6, 2013, Volaris filed a Registration Statement on Form F-1 with the SEC, which would later be utilized for the IPO following several amendments in response to comments by the SEC. On September 17, 2013, the SEC declared the Company's Registration Statement effective and the Company sold 226,469,000 ADSs for $12.00 each. The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement negligently contained financial statements that were presented in violation of applicable accounting standards and the Company's publicly disclosed accounting policies. In addition, the Registration Statement failed to disclose certain material events known to defendants that caused the financial information reported in the Registration Statement not to be indicative of Volaris's future operating results. These material events included: (i) the financial effects ensuing from a change in the Company's airline reservation system; and (ii) an expansion of competition in the Tijuana and Guadalajara, Mexico markets, which was having a material adverse effect on the Company's revenues and profit margins at the time of the IPO. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Volaris ADSs in and/or traceable to the Company's IPO on or about September 18, 2013. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. with 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action judgment. VPC GREEKTOWN: Faces "Huitron" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jesus Huitron, Miguel Angel Zuleta, Ruben Ruan, and Adolfo Garcia, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. VPC Greektown Pizza, LLC, VPC Belmont Pizza, LLC, and VPC Prudential Pizza, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01823 (N.D. Ill., March 2, 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 Giordano's pizza franchises located in the City of Chicago. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Piers, Esq. Christopher Wilmes, Esq. HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM LTD. 70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 580-0100 Facsimile: (312) 580-1994 E-mail: mpiers@hsplegal.com cwilmes@hsplegal.com WAL-MART STORES: Falsely Marketed Cranberry Juice, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Cheryl Hulse, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00233 (M.D. Fla., February 27, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading labeling of its Great Value 100% Cranberry Pomegranate Juice as primarily consists of cranberry and pomegranate juice, when in fact the juice is actually a flavored juice blend from concentrate, primarily consisting of water and cheap white grape juice concentrate, apple juice concentrate, and plum juice concentrate. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and warehouse stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq. Michael J. Pascucci, Esq. EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP 5400 S. University Drive, Ste. 413 Davie, FL 33328 Telephone: (954) 889-3359 Facsimile: (954) 889-5913 E-mail: jeggnatz@eggnatzlaw.com mpascucci@EggnatzLaw.com WALGREEN CO: Faces "Mobley" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding ----------------------------------------------------------------- William P. Mobley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01798 (N.D. Ill., February 27, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's mislabeling and improper marketing of its Finest Nutrition St. John's Wort, Ginseng, Garlic, and Echinacea herbal supplements that they contain the primary herb listed on the label. However, supplements do not contain any of the ingredients listed on the product label. Walgreens Co. is a Chicago corporation that owns and operates a drug retailing chain throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ben Barnow, Esq. Erich P. Schork, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. One North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com e.schork@barnowlaw.com - and - Aron D. Robinson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ARON D. ROBINSON 180 W. Washington St., Suite 700 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 857-9050 E-mail: adroblaw@aol.com - and - Cyrus Dashtaki, Esq. DASHTAKI LAW FIRM, LLC 5205 Hampton Avenue St. Louis, MO 63109 Telephone: (314) 932-7671 Facsimile: (314) 932-7672 E-mail: cyrus@dashtaki.com - and - John S. Steward, Esq. STEWARD LAW FIRM, LLC 1717 Park Avenue St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 571-7134 Facsimile: (314) 594-5950 E-mail: Glaw123@aol.com WB HOLDINGS: Has Sent Unsolicited Advertisements, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------- Mark Wasvary, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. WB Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-10750 (E.D. Mich., March 2, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited advertisements to consumers via text message. WB Holdings, LLC owns and operates an investment holding companies with its principal place of business in Troy, Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip A. Bock, Esq. BOCK & HATCH, LLC 134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1000 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 658-5500 Facsimile: (312) 658-5555 E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com WINNETKA, IL: Faces Class Action Over Stormwater Utility Fee ------------------------------------------------------------ Emily Spectre, writing for Daily North Shore, reports that Winnetka resident Mark Green has filed a lawsuit against the Village of Winnetka, alleging that residents should not be compelled to pay a stormwater utility fee to support a proposed $42 million dollar stormwater management plan that includes a Willow Road stormwater tunnel and improvements to Winnetka's existing stormwater infrastructure. The lawsuit was filed in Cook County Chancery Court on February 13. While Mr. Green is the only named plaintiff in the case, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of all Winnetka residents paying the stormwater utility fee and seeks class action status. In a conversation with Daily North Shore, Green explained that he was surprised to find a stormwater fee in a bill from the Village. According to Green, he immediately contacted the Village to cancel the service but was told it was "non-cancelable." Mr. Green questioned: "How can I have a non-cancelable service? That sounds like a tax to me." Mr. Green said that he asked the Village to measure the water that flows from his property, but was told the Village was not equipped with meters to measure the water flow. Mr. Green questioned how the Village could charge a fee on a service that cannot be measured. "I am not against paying taxes. I am not against the idea of fixing the volume of water that the storm water system can handle," Mr. Green said. While Mr. Green does not have problems with flooding on his own property, he is sympathetic to residents who face this problem and supports paying for an environmentally sound solution through taxes. Mr. Green is simply against the utility fee. "The Village now has the power to create any type of service they want and to force me to unilaterally pay for it." Mr. Green noted that unlike other service fees, the Village can place a lean on his house if he doesn't pay the stormwater fee. The Village's Stormwater Management Plan website states that "the stormwater utility fee is not a tax. It is a fee generated to maintain the stormwater utility system and necessary capital improvements." The site further states that "[a] property's value does not affect runoff, so property taxes are not the most equitable way to pay for stormwater services." In a press release Village Attorney Peter Friedman stated in response to Green's lawsuit: "while the Village Council and our office continue to thoroughly review the complaint, the Village is confident that its stormwater utility and fee fully comply with all applicable law and that the Village Council properly exercised its authority under the Illinois Municipal Code and the Illinois Constitution." The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the stormwater utility fee is an unconstitutional and invalid tax. * Canadian Consumers Can Get Refunds From DRAM Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- If you bought an electronic device between 1999 and 2002, then you almost certainly paid too much for it. Now Canadians can get their money back simply by filling in a form on themoneyismine.ca No receipt or proof of purchase is required to claim the minimum $20 compensation. Consumers, businesses and other entities are finally getting a fair deal following a multimillion-dollar settlement of many class action lawsuits against several manufacturers who were allegedly fixing the price of dynamic random access memory (DRAM, pronounced "dee-ram") used in nearly all electronics, including computers, printers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), MP3 players and video game consoles. The Canadian lawsuits alleged that the defendants were fixing the price of DRAM between April 1, 1999 and June 30, 2002, thereby inflating the cost of DRAM and most electronic devices. The class action lawsuits were settled out of court: nearly $80 million in settlement funds were obtained for the benefit of all Canadians who bought electronics during this period. To make sure Canadians know about the money they are owed and how easy it is to collect, the four law firms leading these class actions are launching themoneyismine.ca campaign. Its objective is to ensure as many Canadians as possible claim what they are owed. "It's a great outcome for Canadian consumers," said J.J. Camp Q.C. -- jjcamp@cfmlawyers.ca -- partner at Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman. "We've made it easy for them to get their money back. I also think it's an opportunity for all Canadians to show that they want healthy competition between consumer product companies." This is the first competition class action awareness campaign of this magnitude in Canada. Who is eligible for compensation? Canadians and Canadian entities who purchased DRAM or electronic devices with DRAM between April 1, 1999 and June 30, 2002 are eligible. Canadians 18 and older can fill in the form to request money. Households must file as a unit. Which products qualify? Most electronic devices use DRAM, including: Computers and servers Printers Personal digital assistants Graphics cards Video recorders and digital decoders Video game consoles MP3 players Computer based point-of-sale systems Compensation will also be paid respecting purchases of DRAM chips or modules for personal use, for manufacturing purposes or for resale. How do I request money? All households, businesses and other entities who bought DRAM or electronics with DRAM during the time period in question are entitled to $20 without receipts. Just sign up at themoneyismine.ca If you bought several electronic devices, you might be entitled to recover more money. Some documents might be required depending on the size of your claim. Just sign up at themoneyismine.ca and identify the products you purchased. Any documents that show your purchases or that we can use to calculate your purchases are enough. Some examples are copies of accounting records, credit card statements, or computer purchase budgets. A calculator is available on the website to help you work out the value of your claim. How much can I get back? The minimum amount you can get back is $20. If you bought several electronic devices containing DRAM, you could get more back. For example: a small business with 25 employees could have a claim worth several hundred dollars. For more information Visit themoneyismine.ca About themoneyismine.ca campaign Themoneyismine.ca campaign is the first national awareness campaign of this magnitude tied to a class action settlement in the area of competition law. It stems from class action lawsuits brought against several manufacturers who, between 1999 and 2002, were allegedly fixing the price of dynamic random access memory (DRAM), a component used in most electronic devices. Out-of-court settlements were negotiated to recover nearly $80 million for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. These class actions were led by four law firms: Belleau Lapointe, Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman, Harrison Pensa and Sutts Strosberg. * Canadian Patients Mull Class Suit Over Excessive Medical Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- Charlie Fidelman, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that obviously, extra medical fees hit a nerve. Angry patients called and emailed their own tales of over-billing after the Montreal Gazette ran a story about the fees charged by some doctors and clinics. No one would agree to have their name published for fear of losing their pediatrician, family doctor or specialist. But many also requested information on how to officially complain to health authorities or join a class-action suit that seeks to recover excess fees. While user fees for insured medical services are illegal, there's a grey zone where medical practitioners regularly bill for certain services. Critics and patients say the practice threatens the universality of care, and the confusion over what constitute excessive fees can lead to abusive billing. Medically necessary services such as colonoscopies are supposed to be free whether provided in a hospital or doctor's office. However, side agreements between the provincial health insurance board and doctors on "accessory fees" or charges for materials, medications, storage and administration services easily get around the concept of free. Doctors say they need accessory fees to boost their income to cover legitimate costs in an underfunded health system. Others see it as doctors bilking patients. It's an ongoing, growing concern, especially since medical students are seeing the practice as normal, said Isabelle Leblanc, president of Medecins quebecois pour un regime public (MQRP). The organization is calling on the provincial insurance board (RAMQ) to crack down and apply the law without asking patients to rat out their doctors. "It's clear it's illegal, yet it's still happening," Ms. Leblanc said. For example, a colonoscopy in a clinic (in the public regime) costs $500 because the patient is billed for medication used during the procedure, Ms. Leblanc said, which is about $10 at the pharmacy. The wait time for a hospital colonoscopy can be a year or longer. So patients turn to clinics Not all physicians who ask for extra fees are evil, or want a two-tiered health system, Ms. Leblanc said. "One problem that causes them to charge supplemental fees is that they are paid a certain amount to provide services in a clinic or office. Specialists are saying they cannot run a mini-hospital without extra pay." Another example is the government's schedule of free vaccines for children and adults. Community health clinics do not bill for vaccines. But pediatric centers and adult clinics can charge for storage and materials -- swabs, syringes, alcohol and refrigeration. One Montreal clinic charges $55 for every round of vaccine given babies starting at two months of age, then at four, six, and 12 months, while another clinic bills $150 for the same set of shots. "I'm a doctor and I am confused, so imagine the patient," said Leblanc, whose organization has documented the rise of over- billing over the past five years. Doctors caught double-dipping -- charging the patient and medicare, the public health insurance board -- have to refund taxpayers, Leblanc said, but they're not subjected to punitive measures. RAMQ reimburses patients nearly $230,000 a year for excess or abusive fees; it also recovered $4.61 million in 2012 and $3.64 million from doctors' clinics in connection with "errors in billing" attributed to a misunderstanding of "ententes" or fee agreements. Responsibility, however, for reining in doctors over-billing lies with the provincial physician's governing board, a spokesperson for Health Minister Gaetan Barrette said. In January the board tightened it's code of ethics to ban excessive fees. The College is against "holding the patient hostage" and in 2010 denounced the practice of abusive fees, like charging $300 for eye drops that basically cost $10, said Charles Bernard, president of the College des medecins. The new revised code bans "disproportionate" fees for administering medication and devices, Mr. Bernard said, and the committee currently finalizing guideline of what is reasonable fees and what is outright profit. Clinics are on the hook for providing services that are not covered or that are partially covered, and they need to recover their costs, Bernard explained. For a colonoscopy in a hospital, the specialists gets paid and gets a room, nurse, support staff and medications, Bernard said. Outside of a hospital none of that is covered by RAMQ. Who pays, Mr. Bernard demanded, if the system is not paying for it? "Many doctors are now calling us to say we are too severe with the code," Mr. Bernard said. "They say, 'You are preventing us from compensating for what's not covered in the regime.' " It's fine to throw the ball into the College's court, but the responsibility of defining what is insured and what isn't, Bernard said, "is a crying problem that's not up to us to fix." ********* 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 * * *