/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150401.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 1, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 65 Headlines ADECCO USA: June 18 Final Hearing on Miller Suit Settlement AKORN INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in Illinois ALABAMA: Civil Rights Groups File Same-Sex Marriage Class Action ALBERTSONS LLC: Faces Suit Over Accessibility Barriers in Store ALLIANZ LIFE: Court Enters Final Judgment in Negrete Class Suit AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Matrix Benefits to Grundner Upheld AMERICAN NATIONAL: Farm Bureau Dismissed From Basham Class Suit AMERICAN NATIONAL: 21st Century Dismissed From "Basham" Case AMERICAN NATIONAL: Claims vs. Erie in "Basham" Suit Dismissed AMERICAN NATIONAL: Claims v. ANPAC in "Basham" Action Dismissed ANTHEM INC: Brunswick Man Files Data Breach Class Action APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Iowa High Court to Hear Landlord-Tenant Case APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit APPLE INC: Judge Okays $415MM "No Poach" Class Action Settlement ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Modified Opinion Entered in "Franco" Case BAI BRANDS: Vassigh Gets More Time to Reply to Dismissal Bid BEAR STEARNS: May 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set BENCHMARK ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Leasing Surcharge BENECARD SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach BIG LOTS: Faces Class Action Over Meal Break Policy BLANCHARD MERRIAM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act BLUE CROSS: Sued by Galactic Funk Over Conspiracy With Blue Plans BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bid to Dismiss in Blankenship Case Denied BUCCANEERS: Settles Cheerleaders' Wage Class Action CALPERS: Appellate Court Affirms Decision in "Malkenhorst" Case CATELLUS THIRD: Appellate Court Reverses Class Cert. Ruling CENTURY GOLF: "Ashby" Suit Moved From W.D. New York to N.D. Texas CERTIFIED SITE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid or Underpaid OT Wage CHURCH & DWIGHT: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK CLEVELAND BROWNS: Faces Class Action Over Personal Seat Licenses CORPORATE RESOURCE: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in New York CRESA PARTNERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Pregnancy Bias CVS PHARMACY: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in California ELTMAN ELTMAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act EXCLUSIVE ONE LLC: Made Illegal Deductions From Wages, Suit Says FMS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims FOWLER PACKING: Seasonal Workers Sue to Recover Unpaid Wages GENERAL MOTORS: Two Workers Sue Over Unpaid Religious Days Off GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, N.Y. Suit Says GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants Filed Motion for Summary Judgment GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Denied Motion to Sever Claims GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriters Settle RALI Pass-Through Cert. Case GOLDMAN SACHS: Paid Full Contribution Amount to MF Global Deal GOLDMAN SACHS: Paid Contribution Amount to P/E Litigation Deal GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendant in GT Advanced Securities Litigation GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against FireEye Securities Litigation GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Millennial Media Securities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Zynga Securities Litigation Dismissed in February GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Cobalt Securities Litigation GOLDMAN SACHS: Female Employees Move for Class Certification GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Claims in Credit Derivatives Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs in Commodities Suit Revise Complaint GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Zinc Storage Class Action GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Platinum & Palladium Class Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in ISDAFIX Litigation GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Ruled on Bid to Dismiss in Currencies Suit GUTHY-RENKER LLC: June 17 Deadline to File Bid for Class Cert. HALLIBURTON CO: Judge Denies Class Status to Property Owners Suit HIKO ENERGY: "Bogdanski" Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to New York HITACHI-LG DATA: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for May 14 INDIANA: Class Action Over BMV Overcharges Heads to Mediation JUST ENERGY: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Overtime Under FLSA LENOVO US: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Class Action Over Malware LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: To Oppose 2nd Amended Securities Suit LITTON LOAN: Perryman Case Stayed Pending Settlement Proceedings LMS CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Texas Suit Says LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Sued Over Botched Computer System Rollout LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Flooring Class Action in Fla. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Flooring Class Suit in Calif. MERRILL LYNCH: Former Trainees File Overtime Class Action METRIC PRECISION: Faces Wage Class Action in California MICHIGAN: Bradford-Bey's Motions for Class Cert., TRO Denied NESTLE PURINA: Class Action Over Dog Treats Can Proceed NEW ALBERTSON'S: Faces Class Action Over Coupon Sales Tax NEW YORK: More Police Officers Join Quota Punishment Lawsuit NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification NORTH CAROLINA: Magistrates' Pay Suit Gets Class Action Status NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act OCWEN FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Tax Reporting Class Action PANERA BREAD: To Defend Against Class Action by Former Employee PDL BIOPHARMA: "Hampe" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed PEPSICO INC: Judge Dismisses Cancer-Warning Class Action PETROBRAS: Judge Named Pension Fund Trustee as Lead Plaintiff PIZZA PLUS: "Chimbay" Suit Transferred From E.D. to S.D. New York POLAND: Class Action Over Pensions Reform Can Proceed PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA in New York, Suit Claims PROVIDE COMMERCE: 9th Cir. Vacates Ruling in EasySaver Litigation PUBLIC STORAGE: Attorneys Withdraw Insurance Class Action RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: July 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITOR'S: Violates FDCPA in N.J., Suit Says ROBERT J. POWELL: Settlement Mulled for Kids-for-Cash Class Suit ROBERT MANAGEMENT: Trial Court Decision Upheld ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Demands for Arbitration Brought by Crew Members SAFEWAY INC: Plaintiff in "Rodman" Case Wins Summary Judgment SANOFI PASTEUR: Asks 3rd Cir. to Dismiss Junk Fax Class Action SBTICKETS.COM: Keller Rohrback Files Super Bowl Tickets Suit SCHIFF NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over MegaRed Supplement SEAWORLD PARKS: Auto-Renew Ticket Class Action Can Proceed SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Evidentiary Hearing Set for May 18 SHELLPOINT PARTNERS: Faces Suit Linked to Home Mortgage Servicing SHEPHERD COMMUNICATIONS: "Sparacino" Case Stayed Until April 20 SHRED-IT USA: Court Signs Protective Order in "Kirchner" Case SOUTHERN MAINE MOTORS: Sued for Violating Age Discrimination Act STARION ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Consumer Fraud TARGET CORP: Nov. 10 Final Hearing on Security Breach Suit Deal TCF BANK: Faces Overtime Class Action in Illinois TENET HEALTHCARE: Made $5.5MM Initial Deposit in Class Suit Deal TEREX CORP: Filed Motions to Dismiss ERISA and Securities Lawsuit TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Region of Waterloo Delists Guadrail System UBER TECH: California Taxi Drivers Join Class Action ULTIMATE FITNESS: Removes "Villoch" Class Suit to M.D. Florida UNITED STATES: FBI Accused of Retaliation by Jewish Employee UNITED STATES: Seeks Dismissal of Child Immigration Class Action VELDOS LLC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. VIDA CAFE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages VOLVO CARS: Sued Over Side-Impact Protection Defect WASHINGTON: Child Care Providers Sue Over Forced Unionization Z-ULTIMATE SELF DEFENSE: "Geiger" Case Wins Conditional Cert. ********* ADECCO USA: June 18 Final Hearing on Miller Suit Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Troy L. Nunley signed on March 10, 2015, a stipulation and order regarding hearing on plaintiffs' motions for final approval and for attorney fees and cost in the case captioned KEN MILLER, JEREMIE TODD, and CHRISTOPHER FRANKLIN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ADECCO USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01321-TLN-CKD, (E.D. Cal.). Under the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/UKMIN8from Leagle.com, a scheduling order in the case provides, among other things, that: * The deadline for class members to file objections, opt-out or submit claim forms is on May 7, 2015. * The Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney Fees and Cost must be filed by May 21, 2015. * The Hearing on the Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorney Fees and Cost is on June 18, 2015. The Court approved the Notice of Class Action Settlement as to form and content. R. DUANE WESTRUP, PHILLIP R. POLINER, CAT N. BULAON, WESTRUP & ASSOCIATES, Long Beach, California Attorneys for Plaintiffs KEN MILLER, JEREMIE TODD AND CHRISTOPHER FRANKL. Fraser A. McAlpine, JACKSON LEWIS P.C., Attorneys for Defendant CEVA LOGISTICS U.S., INC. Charles F. Barker, SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, Attorneys for Defendant ADECCO USA, INC. AKORN INC: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action in Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on March 4 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Akorn, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and docketed under 15-cv- 01944, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Akorn securities between April 17, 2014 and March 2, 2015, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Akorn securities during the Class Period, you have until May 4, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Akorn, Inc. engages in the manufacture and marketing of diagnostic and therapeutic ophthalmic pharmaceuticals products, hospital drugs, and injectable pharmaceuticals in the United States and internationally. The Company offers products in various specialty areas, including ophthalmology, antidotes, anti-infectives, pain management, anesthesia, and vaccines. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) as of December 31, 2014, more than eight months after it acquired Hi-Tech and four months after it acquired VersaPharm, Akorn did not yet integrate those subsidiaries into the Company's centralized accounting department and accounting systems; (2) certain financial and other related data related to Hi-Tech and VersaPharm, which require inclusion in Akorn's annual report to be filed with the SEC on Form 10-K, could not be timely collected and compiled; (3) due to the aforementioned issues, the Company would be unable to timely complete its assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2014; (4) Akorn's internal control over financial reporting was ineffective and material weaknesses existed relating to the completeness and accuracy of underlying data used in the determination of significant estimates and accounting transactions and accurate and timely reporting of its financial results and disclosures in its Form 10-K; (5) and as a result of the foregoing, Akorn's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 2, 2015, after the close of trading, the Company issued a press release and filed a Form 12b-25, Notification Of Late Filing, with the SEC, announcing that it would need an extension to file its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2014. As a result of this news, shares of Akorn fell $4.38, or over 8%, on unusually heavy volume, to close at $49.33 on March 3, 2015. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. ALABAMA: Civil Rights Groups File Same-Sex Marriage Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- LGBTQ Nation reports that a group of civil rights organizations has filed a motion asking a federal judge to order Alabama probate judges to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and to add plaintiffs to the suit challenging the state's same-sex marriage ban. The request, filed as part of a lawsuit brought by five same-sex couples who previously obtained an order from the same court requiring issuance of marriage licenses in Mobile County, seeks class-action status that would include all same-sex couples in Alabama who wish to marry and have their marriage recognized by the state. The motion requests that the federal district court expand their lawsuit to cover all county probate judges in the state. In Alabama, probate judges are responsible for issuing marriage licenses, and the filing asks the federal district court order to require all probate judges to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The joint motion was filed by the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center. A federal judge in late January ruled that Alabama's ban on same- sex marriage is unconstitutional. But the Alabama Supreme Court ordered probate judges to stop issuing licenses to same-sex couples, saying the state retains authority over state law, not a federal trial judge. "If Alabama officials thought we were going to sit back and allow them to deny same-sex couples their constitutional right to marry, they thought wrong," said Ayesha N. Khan, legal director of Americans United. "We are going to fight for these couples. ALBERTSONS LLC: Faces Suit Over Accessibility Barriers in Store --------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Moras, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Albertsons, LLC and ABS ID-O, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00093-CWD (D. Idaho, March 17, 2015) alleges violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act in connection with accessibility barriers at various properties owned, operated, controlled or leased by the Defendants. Mr. Moras has a mobility disability and relies upon a wheelchair for mobility. He alleges that the Defendants' facilities are not fully accessible to, and independently usable by individuals, who use wheelchairs. Albertson, LLC is the second largest supermarket chain in North America and is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. ABS ID-O, LLC is also headquartered in Boise. The Defendants own, operate, control or lease places of public accommodation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel J. McCarthy, Esq. GABRIEL J. MCCARTHY, ATTORNEY AT LAW 401 Front St., Suite 302 Boise, ID 83702 Telephone: (208) 343-8888 Facsimile: (208) 345-9982 E-mail: mccarthylaw@cableone.net - and - R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. Stephanie Goldin, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP PNC Park 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com bsweet@carlsonlynch.com sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com ALLIANZ LIFE: Court Enters Final Judgment in Negrete Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Christina A. Snyder on March 18, 2015, issued a final judgment in the case captioned VIDA F. NEGRETE, as Conservator for EVERETT E. OW, on behalf of themselves and all others, similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant. CAROLYN Y. HEALEY, on behalf of themselves and all others, similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, CASE NOS. 05-CV-6838-CAS (MANX), 05-CV-8908-CAS (MANX), (C.D. Cal.). Under the final judgment, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/lYdV74from Leagle.com, Judge Snyder held that based upon and subject to the class-wide settlement approved by the Court in this action and the Final Order: (1) Approving Class Action Settlement, (2) Approving Class Counsel Attorneys' Fees and Class Counsel Expenses, (3) Awarding Service Awards to Class Representatives, (4) Permanently Enjoining Parallel Proceedings, and (5) Dismissing Action with Prejudice, the certified Class subject to and bound by the Final Judgment includes, subject to the exclusions: (a) all persons except those excluded below, who, while age 65 or older and between September 19, 2001 and November 21, 2006, purchased one or more Settlement Annuities from Allianz Life either directly, or through surrender (in whole or part) of an existing permanent life insurance policy or annuity, or by borrowing against an existing permanent life insurance policy; (b) all persons to whom an ownership interest in such Settlement Annuities was subsequently assigned or transferred or who otherwise held any interest as an Owner; and (c) Beneficiaries of such Settlement Annuities terminated by death on or before the Annuity Status Date. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the following persons (and all the subsequent owners, co-owners, and Beneficiaries of such persons' Settlement Annuities): (i) purchasers who exercised their right to rescind the purchase of their annuity contracts without penalty pursuant to the applicable "free look" provision in their annuity contracts (with respect to such a rescinded contract); (ii) the plaintiffs and class members in Castello v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., Case No. MC03- 20405 (Hennepin Cty., Minn.); (iii) the plaintiffs and class members in Iorio v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North America, Case No. 05CV633JLS (CAB) (S.D. Cal.) to the extent those claims were extinguished by the Final Judgment and release in that action; (iv) persons who properly opted-out of the Action, whether pursuant to the Special Notice mailed as part of the Settlement Notice Package or earlier; (v) any officer, director, employee or agent of Allianz Life; and (vi) any judge, justice, or judicial official presiding over the Action and the staff and immediate family of any such judge, justice, or judicial official. The Settlement Annuities that are included in the Settlement Class are those annuities described in the Stipulation, some of which are Single-Tier Settlement Annuities and others of which are Two- Tier Settlement Annuities. The Action -- including all individual claims and Settlement Class claims -- is dismissed, with prejudice on the merits. All Settlement Class Members and/or their representatives are barred and enjoined from filing, commencing, prosecuting, maintaining, intervening in, participating in, conducting, or continuing litigation as class members or otherwise, or from receiving any benefits from any lawsuit, administrative, arbitration, remediation or regulatory proceeding or order, or other legal proceeding in any jurisdiction. Vida F Negrete, as Conservator for Everette E Ow, an individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S Friedman, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, Christa L Collins, Christa L Collins LLC, Elaine A Ryan, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, Evangeline F Grossman, Shernoff Bidart Darras Echeverria LLP, Howard David Finkelstein, Finkelstein & Krinsk, Ingrid M Evans, The Evans Law Firm, J Andrew Meyer, Morgan & Morgan, PA, John J Stoia, Jr, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, John A Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan PA, Kimberly C Page, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Mark L Knutson, Finkelstein and Krinsk LLP, Michael D Thamer, Michael D Thamer Law Offices, Patricia N Syverson, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, Phong L Tran, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Rachel L Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Stephen R Basser, Barrack Rodos and Bacine, Steven M Jodlowski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Theodore J Pintar, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, William M Shernoff, Shernoff Bidart Escheverria LLP, Wilson F Green, Battle Fleenor Green Winn and Clemmer LLP, Patrick Joseph Coughlin, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Randi D Bandman, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP & Tonna Kaye Farrar, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC. Carolyn B Healey, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S Friedman, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, Ingrid M Evans, The Evans Law Firm, John J Stoia, Jr, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Kimberly C Page, Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC, Rachel L Jensen, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Steven M Jodlowski, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Theodore J Pintar, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Howard David Finkelstein, Finkelstein & Krinsk, John A Yanchunis, Morgan and Morgan PA, Mark L Knutson, Finkelstein and Krinsk LLP, Patrick Joseph Coughlin, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Randi D Bandman, Robbins Geller Rudman Dowd LLP, Stephen R Basser, Barrack Rodos and Bacine & William M Shernoff, Shernoff Bidart Escheverria LLP. Margene McCracken, Movant, represented by James Paul Sizemore, The Sizemore Law Firm PLC & Leah O Taylor, Taylor and Taylor. Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant, represented by Arthur G Boylan, Leonard Street and Deinard, C Todd Willis, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Denise A Fee, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Eric C Schaffer, Reed Smith, Frank G Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, James F Jorden, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Jeffrey L Williams, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, PA, Kurtis J Kearl, Reed Smith, Lawrence J Field, Leonard Street and Deinard, Linda B Oliver, Reed Smith LLP, Raul A Cuervo, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Stephen J Jorden, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, Thomas Jerome Nolan, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, Dawn B Williams, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt PA, Jason A Morris, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Kristin A Shepard, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Lance A Etcheverry, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, Michael A Valerio, Carlton Fiels Jorden Burt PA, Roland C Goss, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. & Stephen R Basser, Barrack Rodos and Bacine. NBC Universal, Inc., Objector, represented by Tania Marie Hoff, NBC Universal Television Group. Robin Gill, Objector, Pro Se. Stephen Joseph Madigan, Objector, Pro Se. AMERICAN HOME: Denial of Matrix Benefits to Grundner Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-20593, MDL NO. 1203, NO. 2:16 MD 1203, (E.D. Penn.), the Estate of Jennifer E. Grundner, a representative claimant under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, seeks benefits from the AHP Settlement Trust (Trust). Based on the record developed in the show cause process, District Judge Harvey Bartle must determine whether the Estate has demonstrated a reasonable medical basis to support its claim for Matrix Compensation Benefits (Matrix Benefits). Under the Settlement Agreement, only eligible claimants or representative claimants are entitled to Matrix Benefits. Generally, a claimant or representative claimant is considered eligible for Matrix Benefits if the Diet Drug Recipient is diagnosed with mild or greater aortic and/or mitral regurgitation by an echocardiogram performed between the commencement of Diet Drug use and the end of the Screening Period. "As the Estate has not established a reasonable medical basis for finding that Ms. Grundner had at least mild aortic regurgitation between the commencement of Diet Drug use and the end of the Screening Period, the Estate's claim must be denied," ruled Judge Bartle. "Therefore, we will affirm the Trust's denial of the Estate's claim for Matrix B-1, Level III benefits." Copies of the Court's March 17, 2015 memoranda are available at http://is.gd/00vFhRand http://is.gd/GQGin2from Leagle.com. AMERICAN NATIONAL: Farm Bureau Dismissed From Basham Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In EDDIE BASHAM, as administrator of the estate of James Basham, and FREDA MCCLENDON, individually and as class representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL COUNTY MUTUAL INS. CO., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-4005, (W.D. Ark.), before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed on behalf of Farm Bureau Property & Casualty Insurance Company (Farm Bureau). This action is against more than 70 insurance companies, including Farm Bureau, and it arises from their alleged use of a computer software program known as "Colossus." The program was marketed to insurance companies nationwide as a "knowledge-based system for assessing general damages for bodily injury claims." According to Plaintiffs, Colossus was capable of being "tuned" or "calibrated" to achieve the goal of underpaying claims by up to twenty percent. Plaintiffs allege that through the use of the Colossus software program, Defendants "systematically and uniformly pay and paid claimants . . . less than they were owed for bodily injury claims. The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants were involved in a conspiracy to fraudulently conceal their use of Colossus. Plaintiffs allege that, by virtue of their participation in a Colossus conspiracy, Defendants "have subjected themselves to co- equal responsibility for the actions of all fellow conspirators." These conspiracy allegations and their impact on the Court's jurisdiction over certain Defendants are the primary focus of the present motion to dismiss. In an order entered March 10, 2015, District Judge Susan O. Hickey held that Plaintiffs have failed to make a prima facie showing that Farm Bureau participated in a conspiracy with knowledge of its effects in Arkansas so that Farm Bureau can be said to have purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Arkansas. Even if Plaintiffs had made the requisite prima facie showing of a conspiracy, their allegations are not specific enough to warrant the inference that Farm Bureau participated in that conspiracy. For these reasons, the Court finds no basis on which to exercise personal jurisdiction over Farm Bureau. Accordingly, the Court found that Farm Bureau's Motion to Dismiss should be granted and all of Plaintiffs' claims against Farm Bureau are dismissed without prejudice. A copy of the ruling is available at http://is.gd/5hDOeXfrom Leagle.com. AMERICAN NATIONAL: 21st Century Dismissed From "Basham" Case ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Susan O. Hickey dismissed 21st Century Casualty Company, 21st Century Insurance Company, 21st Century Insurance Company of the Southwest, and 21st Century Insurance Group from the case captioned EDDIE BASHAM, as administrator of the estate of James Basham, and FREDA MCCLENDON, individually and as class representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL COUNTY MUTUAL INS. CO., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-4005, (W.D. Ark.). This action is against more than 70 insurance companies, including 21st Century, and it arises from their alleged use of a computer software program known as "Colossus." The program was marketed to insurance companies nationwide as a "knowledge-based system for assessing general damages for bodily injury claims." According to Plaintiffs, Colossus was capable of being "tuned" or "calibrated" to achieve the goal of underpaying claims by up to twenty percent. Plaintiffs allege that through the use of the Colossus software program, Defendants "systematically and uniformly pay and paid claimants . . . less than they were owed for bodily injury claims. The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants were involved in a conspiracy to fraudulently conceal their use of Colossus. Plaintiffs allege that, by virtue of their participation in a Colossus conspiracy, Defendants "have subjected themselves to co- equal responsibility for the actions of all fellow conspirators." These conspiracy allegations and their impact on the Court's jurisdiction over certain Defendants are the primary focus of the present motion to dismiss. "Due to Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim for conspiracy, all of Plaintiffs' underlying causes of action which were premised on the existence of a conspiracy must also be dismissed. This includes Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (insurance bad faith), unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and constructive fraud," ruled Judge Hickey in her March 10, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/dwhkY1from Leagle.com. The Court granted 21st Century's Motion to Dismiss, and dismissed without prejudice, all of Plaintiffs' claims against 21st Century. AMERICAN NATIONAL: Claims vs. Erie in "Basham" Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------------- The action captioned EDDIE BASHAM, as administrator of the estate of James Basham, and FREDA McCLENDON, individually and as class representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL COUNTY MUTUAL INS. CO., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-4005, (W.D. Ark.) is against more than 70 insurance companies and it arises from their alleged use of a computer software program known as "Colossus." The program was marketed to insurance companies nationwide as a "knowledge- based system for assessing general damages for bodily injury claims." According to Plaintiffs, Colossus was capable of being "tuned" or "calibrated" to achieve the goal of underpaying claims by up to twenty percent. Plaintiffs allege that through the use of the Colossus software program, Defendants "systematically and uniformly pay and paid claimants . . . less than they were owed for bodily injury claims. The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants were involved in a conspiracy to fraudulently conceal their use of Colossus. Plaintiffs allege that, by virtue of their participation in a Colossus conspiracy, Defendants "have subjected themselves to co-equal responsibility for the actions of all fellow conspirators." Erie Insurance Company; Erie Insurance Company of New York, Erie Insurance Exchange; Erie Insurance Group; Erie Insurance Property & Casualty Company; and Erie Indemnity Company (collectively, Erie) have filed a motion to dismiss. The conspiracy allegations and their impact on the Court's jurisdiction over the Defendants are the primary focus of the present motion to dismiss. According to District Judge Susan O. Hickey's order dated March 10, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/iH2S7Gfrom Leagle.com, the Motion to Dismiss is granted, and all of Plaintiffs' claims against Erie are dismissed without prejudice. "Due to Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim for conspiracy, all of Plaintiffs' underlying causes of action which were premised on the existence of a conspiracy must also be dismissed. This includes Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (insurance bad faith), unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and constructive fraud," Judge Hickey concluded. AMERICAN NATIONAL: Claims v. ANPAC in "Basham" Action Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susan O. Hickey dismissed American National County Mutual Insurance Company, ANPAC Louisiana Insurance Company, and Pacific Property & Casualty Company (collectively, ANPAC) from the case captioned EDDIE BASHAM, as administrator of the estate of James Basham, and FREDA McCLENDON, individually and as class representatives on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL COUNTY MUTUAL INS. CO., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-4005, (W.D. Ark.). This action is against more than 70 insurance companies, including ANPAC, and it arises from their alleged use of a computer software program known as "Colossus." The program was marketed to insurance companies nationwide as a "knowledge-based system for assessing general damages for bodily injury claims." According to Plaintiffs, Colossus was capable of being "tuned" or "calibrated" to achieve the goal of underpaying claims by up to twenty percent. Plaintiffs allege that through the use of the Colossus software program, Defendants "systematically and uniformly pay and paid claimants . . . less than they were owed for bodily injury claims. The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants were involved in a conspiracy to fraudulently conceal their use of Colossus. Plaintiffs allege that, by virtue of their participation in a Colossus conspiracy, Defendants "have subjected themselves to co- equal responsibility for the actions of all fellow conspirators." These conspiracy allegations and their impact on the Court's jurisdiction over certain Defendants are the primary focus of the present motion to dismiss. According to Judge Hickey's March 10, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/ZyCGuHfrom Leagle.com, "Due to Plaintiffs' failure to state a claim for conspiracy, all of Plaintiffs' underlying causes of action which were premised on the existence of a conspiracy must also be dismissed. This includes Plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (insurance bad faith), unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contract, fraud, and constructive fraud." "The Court finds that ANPAC's Motion to Dismiss should be and hereby is granted. All of Plaintiffs' claims against ANPAC are hereby dismissed without prejudice," Judge Hickey added. ANTHEM INC: Brunswick Man Files Data Breach Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Beth Brogan, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that a Brunswick man on March 5 filed a $5 million class action suit against Anthem Health Plans of Maine, charging that the company failed to adequately protect the personal information of its clients before the data breach reported in February. In a complaint filed on March 5 in U.S. District Court in Portland, attorney Benjamin K. Grant of McTeague Higbee in Topsham wrote on behalf of his client, Brian Mason, that Anthem Inc. acted unreasonably by failing to encrypt clients' confidential information, including Social Security numbers and medical and financial information. On Feb. 4, Anthem disclosed the breach, announcing that it suspected hackers had stolen information belonging to tens of millions of current and former customers and employees, including at least 300,000 Maine residents, Reuters reported. Social Security numbers, names, dates of birth, medical identification numbers, street and email addresses, and employment information including income data of approximately 80 million people was hacked between Dec. 10, 2014, and Jan. 27, 2015. Although the breach was discovered on Dec. 10, Anthem did not announce it until Feb. 4, according to the suit, which notes, "The Maine Attorney General has joined attorneys general from other affected states in criticizing Anthem Inc.'s delay in notifying affected customers." Anthem is the second-largest health insurer in the country and conducts business in Maine as a wholly owned subsidiary, Anthem ME. According to the complaint, one in every nine Americans receives coverage through Anthem or an affiliated plan. The suit alleges that Anthem also failed to maintain the information in an adequate computer system, failed to implement a process to detect a data breach in a timely way, failed to disclose the breach to consumers and failed to disclose that it could not adequately secure the personal information from theft or misuse. In court documents, Mr. Grant refers to a 2014 FBI report in which the agency's cyber division warned that health care companies were susceptible to cyberattacks. According to Mr. Grant, had Anthem encrypted the data, "hackers would now possess electronic gibberish" instead of personal information that "is now freely readable by the hackers who acquired it and by whomever these hackers choose to sell the [information] to." Mr. Mason and other plaintiffs "now face a lifelong battle against identity theft," Grant wrote, quoting from various publications that labeled the stolen personal information "a treasure trove for cybercriminals" that can "easily be sold on underground markets within hours and used for a wide variety of identity fraud schemes" such as filing fraudulent tax returns and stealing refunds. The suit seeks "damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and any other appropriate relief" on behalf of the plaintiff "and millions of Anthem's customers in Maine and throughout the United States" whose information was stolen. Reached by email on March 6, Mr. Grant declined to comment on the suit, although he confirmed that more than 60 similar lawsuits have been filed in other states. A spokesman for Anthem also did not offer immediate comment on March 6, saying that the company's policy is not to comment on pending litigation. APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Iowa High Court to Hear Landlord-Tenant Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Josh O'Leary, writing for Iowa City Press-Citizen, reports that the Iowa Supreme Court will consider a case this year involving an Iowa City tenant and the city's largest student housing provider. The state's high court issued an order to retain a case that originated in Johnson County -- Elyse DeStefano v. Apartments Downtown -- rather than sending it to the Court of Appeals. Christopher Warnock, an Iowa City attorney representing Ms. DeStefano, said the case involves undergraduate tenants who rented from Apartments Downtown and were billed for repairs after a burglar kicked down their door. It also focuses on the issue of whether automatic carpet cleaning clauses in leases are legal, said Mr. Warnock. The district court had ruled in favor of Ms. DeStefano in 2013, but a magistrate overturned part of that ruling a year later, according to online court records. The state Supreme Court says it will inform the parties involved about a month in advance of when the case is submitted and whether the court will hear oral arguments. Mr. Warnock is part of the Iowa City Tenants' Project, a group that has brought legal action against local landlords on behalf of student renters. The group has pursued a class-action suit against Apartments Downtown and other local property companies in recent years. APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights law firm, on March 6 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. common stock between March 15, 2012 and February 11, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for ARCA investors under the federal securities laws. To join the ARCA class action, go to the website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-510.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, ARCA issued materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) ARCA's financial statements contained errors concerning sales tax related to its appliance replacement programs; and (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls. On August 6, 2014, the Company announced that the California Board of Equalization ("BOE") is conducting an examination of sales and use taxes covering ARCA's appliance replacement sales. On this news, the Company's shares fell $1.11 per share or over 27% to close at $2.99 per share on August 7, 2014, damaging investors. On February 11, 2015, the Company announced that it expects an assessment of at least $4.0 million from the BOE and will need to restate its previously issued financial statement for the years ended December 28, 2013, December 29, 2012 and December 31, 2011, for the quarters in those years, and for the quarters ended March 29, June 28 and September 27, 2014. On this news, the Company's shares fell $0.43 per share or over 14% to close at $2.54 per share on February 12, 2015, further damaging investors. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 5, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation go http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-510.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. APPLE INC: Judge Okays $415MM "No Poach" Class Action Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- Neil Hughes, writing for Apple Insider, reports that Apple, Google and other parties accused of being involved in an illegal "no- poach" employee policy may be on the verge of settling the class- action complaint, after the judge overseeing the lawsuit has given initial approval for their proposed $415 million settlement. Defendants in the case agreed to a smaller $324.5 million settlement last April, but Judge Lucy Koh rejected the offer after hearing objectives from one plaintiff, Michael Devine, who said Apple and others should "pay their fair share." Apple and the other parties later upped their settlement offer to $415 million in January of this year. That increase appears to be enough for Judge Koh, who said that she was satisfied with the $415 million offer, according to the Associated Press. If all goes as expected, final approval will be given at a hearing on June 9. The other parties accused in the complaint are Intel and Adobe. Employees working for the four Silicon Valley firms sued their employers over alleged anti-poaching mandates enacted by executives, including late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs. Earlier in the suit, other codefendants included Intuit, Pixar, and Lucasfilm. They settled out of court for $20 million, and the terms of that settlement helped, in part, to justify Judge Koh's rejection of the initial $324.5 million proposal from the remaining companies. In the complaint, the employees said the companies in question effectively put a cap on their salaries through various no-poach tactics, including "do not call" lists, emails, and intra-office communications. Apple and the other companies were also the subject of a U.S. Department of Justice investigation and lawsuit over the same supposed anti-competitive agreements. That also ended in a settlement in 2010. ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES: Modified Opinion Entered in "Franco" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division One issued on March 11, 2015, an order modifying an opinion in the case captioned EDIXON FRANCO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ARAKELIAN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant and Appellant, NO. B232583. According to the Calif. Appeals Court, the opinion filed on February 26, 2015, will be modified so that on page 1, the counsel listing for Defendant and Appellant will read as: "Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Kyle D. Brown, James A. Bowles and E. Sean McLoughlin; Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Julian W. Poon and Jesse A. Cripps for Defendant and Appellant." Moreover, on page 13, second full paragraph, lines 21 and 22, the case cited as "Iskanian, supra, 206 Cal.App.4th at pp. 959-961" will be removed. There is no change in judgment, the Calif. Courts of Appeals clarified in its modified opinion, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Vgvlebfrom Leagle.com. As previously reported, plaintiff Edixon Franco on April 9, 2007, filed a lawsuit individually and on behalf of other similarly situated current and former employees, alleging his status as an employee of "Athens Disposal Company, Inc., dba Athens Services" (Athens Services). In the first through fourth and sixth causes of action, Franco brought claims as an individual and putative class representative, seeking relief against Athens Services based on his employment as a nonexempt hourly employee, alleging that Athens Services engaged in systematic and illegal Labor Code and wage-order violations. In the fifth cause of action, Franco sued in a representative capacity under the PAGA, seeking civil penalties for Athens Services' violations of its Labor Code obligations to Franco and other current and former employees. The sixth cause of action alleged a violation of the California unfair competition law. The central issue in this appeal concerns the impact of the decision in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348 (Iskanian) on the trial court's determination that the Athens Services' Mutual Arbitration Policy (MAP)'s agreement to forego representative and class actions is unenforceable: whether the trial court erred in refusing to compel arbitration of Franco's claims against Arakelian for individual and class action relief, and his claim for relief under the PAGA. The Supreme Court has transferred this matter to the Calif. Appeals Court with directions to vacate its decision filed November 26, 2012 and to reconsider the cause in light of Iskanian. Following the rule announced in Iskanian, the Calif. Appeals Court reversed and remanded with directions the trial court's order denying the petition of defendant Arakelian Enterprises, Inc. (Arakelian) to compel arbitration of the plaintiff's claims for individual and class action relief, and for representative relief under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (Lab. Code, Sections 2698-2699.5) (PAGA). Hill, Farrer & Burrill, Kyle D. Brown, James A. Bowles and E. Sean McLoughlin for Defendant and Appellant. Rastegar & Matern, Matthew J. Matern, Farzad Rastegar and Thomas S. Campbell for Plaintiff and Respondent. BAI BRANDS: Vassigh Gets More Time to Reply to Dismissal Bid ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Haywood G. Gilliam, Jr., signed on March 9, 2015, a stipulation pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2 to extend time to respond to defendant's motion to dismiss in the case captioned DORINDA VASSIGH, SAMANTHA LEWIN, RICHARD DRAEGER, TRACEY HECHLER and MARK KORABELNIKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BAI BRANDS LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:14- CV-05127 HSG, (N.D. Cal.). On January 14, 2015, the Court granted the parties' stipulation that Plaintiffs would file a First Amended Class Action Complaint by February 6, 2015, and Defendant Bai Brands, LLC would answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint by March 9, 2015. According to the parties in the case, the Plaintiffs have a number of pressing scheduling matters and need adequate time to respond to the Defendant's motion. Allowing Plaintiffs additional time to respond to Defendant's motion will not alter the date of any event or deadline already fixed by Court order, they explained. Accordingly, pursuant to the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/DzR02xfrom Leagle.com, Plaintiffs will file an Opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss on April 3, 2015, and Defendant will file a reply in support of its motion on April 17, 2015. A hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss will be held on May 7, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. before the Court, or at a time more convenient for the Court. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A., L. Timothy Fisher, Annick M. Persinger, Yeremey Krivoshey, Walnut Creek, CA, LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC., C.K. Lee (pro hac vice), New York, NY, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. LINER LLP, Wendy S. Dowse, Angela C. Agrusa, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Defendant Bai Brands, LLC. BEAR STEARNS: May 27 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on March 10 issued a statement regarding the In re Bear Stearns Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE BEAR STEARNS MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:08-cv-08093-LTS SUMMARY NOTICE TO: ALL Persons who (i) prior to July 9, 2009, purchased or otherwise acquired offered residential mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS") pursuant or traceable to offerings BALTA 2006-5, BALTA 2006-6, BALTA 2006-7, BALTA 2006-8, BALTA 2007-1, BSARM 2006-4, BSARM 2007-1 (certificates backed by groups 1, 3 and 5 only), or BSARM 2007-3, and were damaged thereby; (ii) prior to August 20, 2008, purchased or otherwise acquired offered RMBS pursuant or traceable to offering BSMF 2006-AR1, and were damaged thereby; or (iii) prior to May 15, 2009, purchased or otherwise acquired offered RMBS pursuant or traceable to offerings BSMF 2006-AR2, BSMF 2006-AR3, BSMF 2006-AR4, BSMF 2006-AR5, BSMF 2007-AR1, BSMF 2007-AR3, SAMI 2006-AR4, SAMI 2006-AR5, SAMI 2006-AR6, SAMI 2006- AR7, SAMI 2006-AR8, SAMI 2007-AR1 (certificates backed by group 1 only), or SAMI 2007-AR2 (certificates backed by group 1 only), and were damaged thereby (the "Class"). CERTAIN PERSONS, SUCH AS PERSONS THAT HAVE SEPARATELY ASSERTED AND/OR PURSUED THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANTS, ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS. The excluded Persons are specified in the available Stipulation. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, (i) of the pendency of this action asserting claims against Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (n/k/a J.P. Morgan Securities LLC), EMC Mortgage Corporation (n/k/a EMC Mortgage LLC), Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., Jeffrey L. Verschleiser, Michael B. Nierenberg, Jeffrey Mayer, and Thomas F. Marano, relating to the sale of mortgage-backed securities (the "Action") as a class action on behalf of the Persons described above (the "Class"); and (ii) that a settlement of the Action for a total of $500 million in cash and payment of up to $5 million in litigation and administrative expenses has been proposed. A hearing will be held on May 27, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, Courtroom 12D: (a) to determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court; (b) to determine whether the Order and Final Judgment as provided for under the Stipulation should be entered, dismissing the Action, on the merits and with prejudice, and to determine whether the release by the Class of the Released Claims against the Released Parties, as set forth in the Stipulation, should be ordered; (c) to determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court; (d) to determine whether the application by Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (e) to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT, AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Final Approval Hearing, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Costs (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim Form (the "Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator: In re Bear Stearns Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Litigation c/o GCG P.O. Box 1014 Dublin, OH 43017-3148 Toll-free number: (855) 382-6452 Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the Settlement website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.BearStearnsCertificateSettlement.com or from Lead Counsel's websites, www.blbglaw.com and www.cohenmilstein.com If you are a Member of the Class, in order to be potentially eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than July 6, 2015. If you are a Member of the Class and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgment entered in the Action whether or not you make a Claim. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than May 6, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and counsel for Defendants such that they are received no later than May 6, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you are a Member of the Class and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not share in the Settlement Fund but you will nevertheless be bound by the Judgment of the Court. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel: David R. Stickney, Esq. Niki L. Mendoza, Esq. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 12481 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92130 (866) 648-2524 - or - Daniel S. Sommers, Esq. S. Douglas Bunch, Esq. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500 East Washington, D.C. 20005 (888) 240-0775 By Order of the Court BENCHMARK ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Leasing Surcharge ----------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit filed against an energy transport company on Feb. 23 alleged the business assessed an undisclosed surcharge against individuals it leased vehicles from and failed to clearly state the compensation to the plaintiffs in lease contracts. Wayne Gassoway, Juan Avina and Kenneth Johnson filed the suit against Benchmark Energy Transport alleging their contracts violated federal law. The plaintiffs leased commercial vehicles to Benchmark. The lawsuit alleged the leases didn't comply with federal law because the contracts did not state how much Benchmark would pay to each vehicle owner. Instead, the plaintiffs received a percentage of the adjusted gross line-haul revenue that Benchmark billed to its customers. The adjusted gross line-haul revenue was allegedly never defined in the contracts. The plaintiffs also alleged Benchmark assessed a secret surcharge and underreported revenue by up to 12.5 percent, which caused them to be underpaid. The lawsuit seeks class status for anyone who leased vehicles to Benchmark in the last four years and asks for an unspecified amount of damages plus court costs. The plaintiffs are represented by Matthew C. Matheny and Michael A. Harvard, of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP in Beaumont, Texas; Paul O. Taylor, of Taylor & Associates, LTD in Burnsville, Minn.; and Karl L. Cambronne -- kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com -- Jeffrey D. Bores and Sarah B. Bennett -- sbennett@chestnutcambronne.com -- of Chestnut Cambronne, P.A. in Minneapolis. United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas case number 4:15-cv-00488 BENECARD SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Security Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that five individuals have sued their former employer for damages allegedly caused by a security breach. Joan Longenecker-Wells, Kenneth Dodson, Genevieve Regal, Benjamin Huffnagle and Nicholas Dankosky filed a lawsuit Feb. 26 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Benecard Services Inc. doing business as Benecard; Benecard Central Fill of PA; Benecard Marketing; National Vision Administrators; and Contact Fill, alleging breach of trust and identity fraud. According to the class action complaint, each of the five plaintiffs furnished confidential personal information to their employer via tax forms and other paperwork, and it is believed the IRS consequently issued tax refunds to unknown parties instead of the plaintiffs. The defendants failed to protect their privacy and violated administrative guidelines and industry standards, the suit states, and the plaintiffs suffered financial injury for the 2014 tax year. On behalf of all current and former employees, the plaintiffs allege negligence and breach of contract. They seek compensatory damages in excess of $5 million, attorney fees and court costs. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Benjamin Andreozzi and Nathaniel Foote of Andreozzi & Associates in Harrisburg. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case number: 1:15-cv-00422 BIG LOTS: Faces Class Action Over Meal Break Policy --------------------------------------------------- John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that a former employee has accused Big Lots Stores Inc. of stiffing California workers on pay for overtime and off-the-clock work and failing to provide adequate meal breaks, according to a proposed class action that was removed to federal court on March 5. Viola Hubbs, a former cashier for the closeout retailer, originally filed the suit in February 2014 in California Superior Court in Los Angeles County, claiming Big Lots and its affiliate PNS Stores Inc. kept workers locked in the store after they'd clocked out and frequently kept them working during meal and rest breaks. "Defendants had a policy and/or practice of requiring [Hubbs] and class members to clock-out and then wait for a manager to unlock the door and release them at the end of closing shifts," Ms. Hubbs' first amended complaint, which was filed in March 2014, said. "In addition, defendants had a policy and/or practice of failing to staff a sufficient number of employees at its stores and failing to take efforts to relieve [Hubbs] and class members of all duties such that they could take compliant meal periods." Ms. Hubbs, who worked for Big Lots in Los Angeles between July 2010 and August 2013, said that she often worked more than 40 hours per week and that some off-the-clock work done while waiting for release from the store qualifies for overtime pay. But even if some of this work doesn't qualify as overtime, Big Lots and PNS still didn't pay workers at least minimum wage for it, according to the complaint. The stores are also accused of maintaining an illegal meal break policy because workers had to wait more than five hours to eat. California law says workers are required to have 30-minute meal breaks for every five hours of work unless the shift is shorter than six hours and both the employer and employee agree to waive meal time, the complaint said. But some workers with six-hour shifts were denied meal breaks even when they hadn't agreed to waive them, Ms. Hubbs noted. The complaint also said the stores broke state law by refusing to pay employees one hour of pay at minimum wage in addition to their daily wage when they worked split shifts. Ms. Hubbs said that it's impossible to determine if all hours worked were paid and to measure the extent of the underpayment because Big Lots and PNS didn't record off-the-clock work. If the case is certified as a class, it would include anyone who has worked for Big Lots or PNS in a California Big Lots store in an hourly-paid position during the past four years. Big Lots and PNS are represented by Lisa K. Horgan -- lhorgan@littler.com -- Nancy E. Pritikin-- nepritikin@littler.com -- and Kurt R. Bockes of Littler Mendelson PC. Ms. Hubbs is represented by Mark Yablonovich of The Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich. The case is Viola Hubbs v. Big Lots Stores Inc. et al, case number 2:15-cv-01601, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. BLANCHARD MERRIAM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Ioime, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Blanchard, Merriam, Adel & Kirkland, P.A., a Florida Corporation, and Ocala Palms Operations, LLC, a Florida Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-00130-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., March 17, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. BLUE CROSS: Sued by Galactic Funk Over Conspiracy With Blue Plans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Galactic Funk Touring, Inc., et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00483-PGR (D. Ariz., March 17, 2015) arises from the alleged unlawful conspiracy between and among Defendant BCBS-AZ, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and the 36 other Blue Cross Blue Shield member plans of the BCBSA to divide and allocate geographic markets among the Individual Blue Plans, including BCBS-AZ. The Plaintiffs are Galactic Funk Touring, Inc.; American Electric Motor Services, Inc.; CB Roofing, LLC; Linda Mills; Frank Curtis; Judy Sheridan; Jennifer Ray Davidson; Lawrence W. Cohn, AAL, ALC; Saccoccio & Lopez; Monika Bhuta; Michael E. Stark; G&S Trailer Repair Inc.; Renee E. Allie; John G. Thompson; Harry M. McCumber; Gaston CPA Firm; Jeffrey S. Garner; Erik Barstow; GC/AAA Fences, Inc.; Keith O. Cerven; Teresa M. Cerven; SHGI Corp.; Kathryn Scheller; Iron Gate Technology, Inc.; Nancy Thomas; Pioneer Farm Equipment, Inc.; Danny J. Curlin; Amedius, LLC; and Brett Watts. BCBS-AZ is the health insurance plan operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Arizona. Like many other Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans nationwide, BCBS-AZ is the largest health insurer as measured by number of subscribers within its service area, which is defined as the state of Arizona. The principal headquarters for BCBS-AZ is located in Phoenix, Arizona. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - David Boies, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8200 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com - and - Michael Hausfeld, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com - and - Chris T. Hellums, Esq. PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C. 2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 322-8880 Facsimile: (205) 328-2711 E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com - and - William A. Isaacson, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com - and - Gregory Davis, Esq. DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC 7031 Halcyon Park Drive Montgomery, AL 36117 Telephone: (334) 832-9080 Facsimile: (334) 409-7001 E-mail: gldavis@knology.net - and - Megan Jones, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 744-1970 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: mjones@hausfeldllp.com - and - Kathleen Chavez, Esq. FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC 10 West State Street, Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 797-3339 Facsimile: (630) 232-7452 E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com - and - Cyril V. Smith, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202-1031 Telephone: (410) 949-1145 Facsimile: (410) 659-0436 E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (800) 424-6690 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net - and - Karen Dyer, Esq. Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 237-2727 Facsimile: (202) 237-6131 E-mail: kdyer@bsfllp.com hhume@bsfllp.com - and - Patrick Cafferty, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 101 North Main Street, Suite 565 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Telephone: (734) 769-2144 Facsimile: (734) 769-1207 E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com - and - Bryan Clobes, Esq. Ellen Meriwether, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 1101 Market Street, Suite 2650 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 864-2800 Facsimile: (215) 864-2810 E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com - and - Douglas Dellaccio, Esq. CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C. 2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200 Birmingham, AL 32505 Telephone: (205) 328-2200 Facsimile: (205) 324-7896 E-mail: ddellaccio@cwcd.com - and - Chris Cowan, Esq. THE COWAN LAW FIRM 209 Henry Street Dallas, TX 74226-1819 Telephone: (214) 826-1900 Facsimile: (214) 826-8900 E-mail: chris@cowanlaw.net - and - Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq. Benjamin Sweet, Esq. DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC 200 First Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 261-2393 Facsimile: (412) 261-2110 E-mail: ekilpela@dsclaw.com bsweet@dsclaw.com - and - Robert M. Foote, Esq. FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC 10 West State Street, Suite 200 Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone: (630) 797-3339 Facsimile: (630) 232-7452 E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com - and - Charles T. Caliendo, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: ccaliendo@gelaw.com - and - Robert Eisler, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 Facsimile: (302) 622-7100 E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com - and - David Guin, Esq. Tammy Stokes, Esq. GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC The Financial Center 505 20th Street North, Suite 1000 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 226-2282 Facsimile: (205) 226-2357 E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com tammys@gseattorneys.com - and - Daniel Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com - and - William Butterfield, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com - and - Arthur Bailey, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 744-1970 Facsimile: (415) 358-4980 E-mail: abailey@hausfeldllp.com - and - Brent Hazzard, Esq. HAZZARD LAW, LLC 447 Northpark Drive Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 977-5253 Facsimile: (601) 977-5236 E-mail: brenthazzard@yahoo.com - and - John Saxon, Esq. JOHN D. SAXON, P.C. 2119 3rd Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203-3314 Telephone: (205) 324-0223 Facsimile: (205) 323-1583 E-mail: jsaxon@saxonattorneys.com - and - Lawrence Jones, Esq. JONES WARD PLC 312 South Fourth Street, Sixth Floor Louisville, KY 40202 Telephone: (502) 882-6000 E-mail: larry@jonesward.com - and - Andrew Lemmon, Esq. LEMMON LAW FIRM 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2335 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 581-5644 Facsimile: (504) 581-2156 E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com - and - Virginia Buchanan, Esq. LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7000 Facsimile: (850) 435-7020 E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com - and - Robert Methvin, Esq. James M. Terrell, Esq. MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C. The Highland Building 2201 Arlington Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 939-0199 Facsimile: (205) 939-0399 E-mail: rgm@mmlaw.net jterrell@mmlaw.net - and - Michael McGartland, Esq. MCGARTLAND & BORCHARDT LLP 1300 South University Drive, Suite 500 Fort Worth, TX 76107 Telephone: (817) 332-9300 Facsimile: (817) 332-9301 E-mail: mike@attorneysmb.com - and - H. Lewis Gillis, Esq. MEANS GILLIS LAW, LLC 3121 Zelda Court Montgomery, AL 36106 Telephone: (800) 626-9684 E-mail: hlgillis@tmgslaw.com - and - David J. Hodge, Esq. MORRIS, KING & HODGE 200 Pratt Avenue NE Huntsville, AL 35801 Telephone: (256) 536-0588 Facsimile: (256) 533-1504 E-mail: lstewart@alinjurylaw.com - and - Dianne M. Nast, Esq. NASTLAW LLC 1101 Market Street, Suite 2801 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Telephone: (215) 923-9300 Facsimile: (215) 923-9302 E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com - and - Patrick W. Pendley, Esq. Christopher Coffin, Esq. PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP Post Office Drawer 71 Plaquemine, LA 70765 Telephone: (225) 687-6369 E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com - and - Edgar D. Gankendorff, Esq. Eric R.G. Belin, Esq. PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF, LLC 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 410-2795 Facsimile: (504) 410-2796 E-mail: egankendorff@provostylaw.com ebelin@provostylaw.com - and - Richard Rouco, Esq. QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP 2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380 Birmingham, AL 35223 Telephone: (205) 870-9989 Facsimile: (205) 870-9989 E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com - and - Garrett Blanchfield, Esq. REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD E-1250 First National Bank Building 332 Minnesota Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Telephone: (651) 287-2100 Facsimile: (651) 287-2103 E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com - and - Jason Thompson, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com - and - Larry McDevitt, Esq. David Wilkerson, Esq. VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM 11 North Market Street Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 258-2991 E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com - and - Carl S. Kravitz, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036-5807 Telephone: (202) 778-1800 Facsimile: (202) 822-8106 E-mail: ckravitz@zuckerman.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Bid to Dismiss in Blankenship Case Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ In IN RE: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, pending before the court in the case captioned Mildred Blankenship v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 2:12-cv-86198, MDL NO. 2326, (S.D. W. Va.) is the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on statute of limitations. This case resides in one of seven MDLs assigned to District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concerning the use of transvaginal surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Ms. Blankenship was surgically implanted with the Obtryx Transobturator Mid-Urethral Sling System (the Obtryx) on May 26, 2010, a product manufactured by BSC to treat SUI. She received her surgery at a hospital in Shreveport, Louisiana. Ms. Blankenship claims that as a result of implantation of the Obtryx, she has experienced multiple complications, including, but not limited to, pain, urinary problems, infections, scarring, and erosion. She brings these claims against BSC: strict liability for design defect, manufacturing defect, and failure to warn; negligence; breaches of express and implied warranties; and punitive damages. In the pending motion, BSC argues that each of the plaintiff's claims is barred by Louisiana's prescriptive statute, and consequently, the court should grant summary judgment in favor of BSC and dismiss Ms. Blankenship's entire case. Judge Goodwin, in an order entered March 18, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/APl1Wefrom Leagle.com, denied the motion saying "this determination is a fact question left to the jury." Mildred Blankenship, Plaintiff, represented by Ami Rebecca Romanelli, BABBITT JOHNSON OSBORNE & LECLAINCHE, D. Renee Baggett, AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, Joseph A. Osborne, BABBITT JOHNSON OSBORNE & LE CLAINCHE, Katharine Gale Krottinger, THE MONSOUR LAW FIRM, Robert L. Salim, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. SALIM, Brandon Stewart Morris, AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, Bryan F. Aylstock, AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, Douglas C. Monsour, THE MONSOUR LAW FIRM, Douglass Alan Kreis, AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, Lisa L. Causey, SALIM-BEASLEY & Patty Ann Trantham, AYLSTOCK WITKIN KREIS & OVERHOLTZ. Boston Scientific Corporation, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Brent A. Talbot, CHAFFE MCCALL, Eric M. Anielak, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Jon A. Strongman, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Lindsey M. Saad, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, Matthew D. Keenan, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Robert T. Adams, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Steven D. Soden, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Eva Marie Mannoia Weiler, SHOOK HARDY & BACON, Peter J. Rotolo, III, CHAFFE MCCALL & Skye Eiswirth Prince, CHAFFE MCCALL. BUCCANEERS: Settles Cheerleaders' Wage Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Shawn Krest, writing for CBSSports.com, reports that The Buccaneers agreed to a settlement of the class-action lawsuit filed by 94 former cheerleaders. The cheerleaders accused the team of violating federal and state laws by requiring cheerleaders to work extra hours without being paid. The Bucs will set up a fund with up to $825,000 to reimburse cheerleaders for hours worked. Each of the cheerleaders named in the class action will receive an average of $5,254.78 in back wages, which comes to about $3,400 after attorney's fees. The terms of the settlement were reached on Dec. 23, but the motion wasn't filed in court until March 6. CALPERS: Appellate Court Affirms Decision in "Malkenhorst" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Feuer of the Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, affirmed the trial court's decision in the appealed case entitled BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, SR., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. B247676 (Cal. Ct. App.) The Public Employees Retirement Law (PERL) established the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) to administer the statute and manage pensions for public employees. CalPERS's Board manages and controls the system, makes such rules as it deems proper and determines who the employees are and which employees are entitled to receive retirement benefits. The plaintiff Bruce V. Malkenhorst, Sr. was the City Administrator of the City of Vernon (Vernon) from 1975 until his retirement in 2005. In early 1995, CalPERS began an administrative investigation of Malkenhorst's pension. It requested information on the salary schedules for employees in the same group or class of employees. On August 17, 2006, CalPERS sent a letter to Vernon finding that Malkenhorst's compensation, including calculation of his longevity pay would be allowed. However, on May 25, 2012, CalPERS notified Malkenhorst that it had conducted an audit of Vernon and a review of the compensation reported by Vernon for Malkenhorst. CalPERS informed Malkenhorst that, if after review of that documentation CalPERS's preliminary determination remained unchanged, it would reduce Malkenhorst's benefits and it might also seek to collect overpayments made to him. Malkenhorst submitted a response on July 25, 2012. He claimed that CalPERS had no jurisdiction to reduce his pension because it was collaterally estopped by its prior decision to approve his pension, the statute of limitations for correcting a mistake had run, and his current pension was a property interest that could not be reduced without a hearing. Malkenhorst additionally claimed that CalPERS's decision to reduce his pension violated Vernon's constitutional autonomy and Malkenhorst's constitutionally protected and vested contract rights. Malkenhorst also argued that his compensation met PERL requirements. Prior to CalPERS issuance of final decision, Malkenhorst filed a complaint in the Orange County Superior Court for declaratory and injunctive relief and petition for writ of mandate against CalPERS and the Board, naming Vernon as a real party in interest. On October 18, 2012, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend for Malkenhorst's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. Malkenhorst filed a motion for reconsideration of the Orange County Superior Court's order sustaining CalPERS's demurrer without leave to amend but the court denied the same. While Malkenhorst was litigating his claim in the Orange County action, CalPERS continued with its administrative process. On October 22, 2012, CalPERS wrote to Malkenhorst that it had affirmed its preliminary determination and issued a final determination to reduce Malkenhorst's pension amount. On December 21, 2012, while Malkenhorst's motion for reconsideration was pending in the Orange County action, Malkenhorst filed a timely appeal in the administrative action. While his administrative appeal was pending and before judgment was entered in the Orange County action on January 16, 2013, Malkenhorst filed an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against CalPERS. Again, he sought declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandate, and he added a cause of action for administrative mandate. He sought to have the court order CalPERS to terminate its administrative process, cease all efforts to reduce Malkenhorst's pension based on issues decided "years ago," and preserve Malkenhorst's higher pension. Malkenhorst alleges that based on the 2005 proceedings, collateral estoppel and res judicata bar CalPERS from reopening issues regarding his pension. CalPERS and the Board filed their demurrer on February 14, 2013. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order in sustaining the demurrer on the ground that Malkenhorst's civil action is barred by his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. A copy of Justice Feuer unpublished opinion dated February 13, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/UgfJnjfrom Leagle.com. John Michael Jensen -- johnjensen@johnmjensen.com -- at Law Offices of John Michael Jensen, for Plaintiff and Appellant Gina M. Ratto, Interim General Counsel, and Wesley E. Kennedy, Senior Staff Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven panel consists of Presiding Justice Dennis M. Perluss, and Associate Justices Fred Woods and Feuer. CATELLUS THIRD: Appellate Court Reverses Class Cert. Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------- Acting Presiding Justice Mark B. Simons of the Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Five, reversed and remanded the case entitled BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING, LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. A138609 (Cal. Ct. App.) Beacon Residential Community Association is the homeowners' association for a 595-unit residential condominium project in San Francisco. The Association sued the defendants-respondents entities involved in the development, design, sale, and/or construction of the residential condominium, alleging various construction defects. The complaint asserts causes of action for violation of Civil Code section 895 et seq., strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of contract (third party beneficiary), and fraudulent concealment. The Association sought to certify a class of all of its members with respect to certain aspects of its claims. The Association also sought certification of two subclasses. The first proposed subclass consists of approximately 34 of the Association's members who were plaintiffs (or whose units had been owned by plaintiffs) in previous lawsuits against some of the same Respondents, which resulted in stipulated dismissals (the Zucker subclass). The second proposed subclass consists of the Association's members who purchased units from a prior owner other than Mission Place (the subsequent purchaser subclass). The trial court denied the motion. The Association took an appeal. Acting Presiding Justice Simons held that the portion of the appeal challenging the order denying class certification with respect to the Association's seventh cause of action is dismissed. The order denying class certification with respect to the sixth and eighth causes of action is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. A copy of Acting Presiding Justice Simons's unpublished opinion dated February 13, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/cKIEgqfrom Leagle.com. The California Court of Appeals, First District, Division Five panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Mark B. Simons, and Justices Henry E. Needham and Terence L. Bruiniers. CENTURY GOLF: "Ashby" Suit Moved From W.D. New York to N.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Ashby v. Century Golf Partners Management LP, Case No. 1:14-cv-00759, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas). The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00861-M to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges that that Defendant failed to pay proper overtime wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Andrew Vona, Esq. Brian James Hutchison, Esq. MUSCATO, DIMILLO & VONA, LLP 107 East Avenue Lockport, NY 14094 Telephone: (716) 434-9177 Facsimile: (716) 434-9196 E-mail: bjhesq@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Erin W. Smith, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON PC 400 Linden Oaks, Suite 110 Rochester, NY 14625 Telephone: (585) 203-3406 Facsimile: (585) 486-1609 E-mail: ewsmith@littler.com CERTIFIED SITE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid or Underpaid OT Wage ----------------------------------------------------------------- Earl Rose, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Certified Site Safety. Inc.; Certified Site Safety of NY, LLC; ISG Risk Management, Inc.; MRG Engineering & Construction. Inc.; and Michael R. Gianatasio, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-02020-UA (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015) alleges that the Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and that they are liable to the Plaintiff for unpaid or underpaid overtime compensation. Certified Site Safety, Inc., is a New York business corporation with its office in Westchester County. Certified Site Safety of NY, LLC is a New York limited liability company with its office in Westchester County. ISG Risk Management, Inc., and MRG Engineering & Construction, Inc., are Delaware Corporations with their office in New Castle County. Michael R. Gianatasio is an owner, shareholder, officer, or manager of the Corporate Defendants. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Gurrieri, Esq. Brandon David Sherr, Esq. Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007-2036 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com bsherr@zellerlegal.com Jazeller@zellerlegal.com CHURCH & DWIGHT: Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. Court OK -------------------------------------------------------------- The parties in the action captioned Trewin et al. v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc., No. 3:12-cv-01475, on March 6 disclosed that the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey has preliminarily approved a class action settlement. The Class includes all people who purchased Arm & Hammer(R) Essentials(TM) deodorant with a label stating "Natural Deodorant". The Plaintiffs, represented by Class Counsel, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, alleged that the labeling of the Essentials(TM) deodorant with the words "Natural Deodorant" ("Old Label") was false and misleading to consumers. Church & Dwight expressly denies Plaintiffs' allegations and claims and maintains that its Essentials(TM) deodorant with the Old Label is not in any way false or misleading. Nevertheless, the parties believe that resolving the claims would be desirable in order to end the expenses, burdens and uncertainties associated with continuing the litigation. The settlement provides, among other things, that Church & Dwight will make a cash payment for the benefit of the class in exchange for certain releases and covenants by the Plaintiffs. The settlement was reached after almost two years of litigation and months of negotiation and is subject to approval by the District Court of New Jersey and to other conditions specified in the settlement documents. CLEVELAND BROWNS: Faces Class Action Over Personal Seat Licenses ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adriana Adkins, writing for The Morning Journal, reports that a Cleveland Browns fan filed a lawsuit March 4 against the NFL team after discovering that the team stopped making the purchase of personal seat licenses a prerequisite for obtaining season tickets. The class action suit in Lorain County Common Pleas Court was filed by Mike Brosky on behalf of himself and other Browns fans who purchased personal seat licenses for season tickets prior to the team discontinuing the requirement March 4, 2014. Mr. Brosky, who wrote in the suit he's been a devoted Cleveland Browns fan for the last 16 years, purchased two personal seat licenses, also known as PSLs, for $750 each in 1999 giving him the right to purchase season tickets each year. The purchase of PSLs also gave the owners the right to gift or sell the licenses, the lawsuit states. Those who purchased PSLs were entitled to the best seats in FirstEnergy Stadium. It was formerly named Cleveland Browns stadium. The team's decision to do away with the PSL prerequisite caused the class action suit members' PSLs to lose their value, attorney Eric Zagrans wrote in the suit. "The Browns represented to Brosky and other class members that no one could buy season tickets in the best locations in FirstEnergy Stadium without first buying a PSL for each season ticket," Mr. Zagrans wrote. "Now that the Browns have removed the PSL requirement and cost to new purchasers of season tickets, the PSLs owned by Brosky and the class members have lost their value to anyone interested in acquiring Browns season tickets." Due to the team's recent decision to make season tickets available to all fans without the purchase of a PSL, Mr. Zagrans accused the Brown's of breaching the contract and said the team made "knowing, intentional or reckless misrepresentations that fraudulently induced Brosky and other class members to enter into their respective transactions to purchase PSL's from the Browns." The suit seeks reimbursement of the cost of the PSLs for all fans who bought them prior to the team's 2013 decision in addition to monetary damages to be shared among current holders. CORPORATE RESOURCE: Pomerantz LLP Files Class Action in New York ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on March 5 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Corporate Resource Services, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-01632, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Corporate Resource Services securities between July 1, 2014 and February 6, 2015, inclusive. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. If you are a shareholder who purchased Corporate Resource Services securities during the Class Period, you have until May 1, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Corporate Resource Services, Inc. provides diversified technology, staffing, recruiting, and consulting services in the United States. It offers companies trained employees in the areas of insurance, information technology, accounting, legal, engineering, science, healthcare, life sciences, creative services, hospitality, retail, general business, and light industrial work. The Complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements to investors by failing to disclose that its co-employer, Tri-State Employment Services, Inc., had a material unpaid federal payroll tax liability, which would adversely impact the Company and that the Company was not in compliance with the Account Purchase Agreements with Wells Fargo as of November 30, 2014. On September 29, 2014, the Company announced the abrupt resignation of Defendant Amato on September 28, 2014, who would be replaced by Defendant Holzer. On February 3, 2015, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, which revealed that: (i) as of November 30, 2014, the Company was not in compliance with the Net Worth covenant under the Account Purchase Agreements; (ii) on January 27, 2015, the Company learned that TSE had a material unpaid federal payroll tax liability; (iii) on January 28, 2015, Wells Fargo indicated to the Company that it would need to reconsider funding the Company's operations through the Account Purchase Agreement; (iv) on February 2, 2015, TSE filed for bankruptcy. On this news, shares of the Company fell $0.39 per share over the next two days, or 59%, from its previous closing price on February 2, 2015, to close at $0.27 per share on February 4, 2015. On February 6, 2015, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC during after-market hours revealing that the financial statements for the year ended January 3, 2014 and the quarters ended April 4, 2014, July 4, 2014 and October 3, 2014 can no longer be relied on due to TSE's material unpaid federal payroll tax liability. On this news, shares of the Company fell $0.06 per share, or over 18%, from its previous closing price to close at $0.27 per share on February 9, 2015. On February 10, 2015, the Company announced the abrupt resignation of Defendants Clarke, Holzer, and Melby -- the members of the Audit Committee -- effective February 5, 2015. In each of their resignation letters, Defendants Clarke, Holzer, and Melby indicated that they learned of TSE's unpaid federal payroll tax liability on January 29, 2015 and the Audit Committee sought to commence an investigation on the matter, but was denied funding by Wells Fargo, which had sole control of the Company's financing. They also stated that their resignation stemmed from their inability to obtain funding to conduct the necessary investigation and other concerns about the situation, including the related party relationships between the Company and TSE. On this news, shares of the Company fell $0.04, per share or over 14%, from its previous closing price to close at $$0.23 per share on February 10, 2015. With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, The Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. CRESA PARTNERS: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages for Pregnancy Bias ---------------------------------------------------------------- Hillary Walter v. Cresa Partners, LLC and Cresa New York, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01995-ER (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015) is brought to recover damages for alleged pregnancy discrimination, retaliation, violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act and other matters. Ms. Walter worked for the Defendants for almost 10 years, as well as its Boston affiliate. Boston is also where its headquarters, Defendant Cresa Partners LLC, is located. The Company and its affiliates specialize in finding commercial space for corporate tenants. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory S. Antollino, Esq. GREGORY ANTOLLINO, ATTORNEY AT LAW 275 Seventh Avenue, Suite 705 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 334-7397 E-mail: gantollino@nyc.rr.com CVS PHARMACY: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hoang Minh Le, an individual v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a California Corporation; Garfield Beach CVS, LLC, a limited liability company; and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 5:15-cv-00513 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2015) seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is a T-12 paraplegic, and as a result is unable to walk or stand and, thus, requires a use of a wheelchair at all times when traveling in public. The Defendants are the owners, operators, lessors or lessees of the building, structure, facility, complex, property, land, development, and surrounding business complex known as: CVS Pharmacy located in Ontario, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Pamela Tsao, Esq. ASCENSION LAW GROUP 2030 E. 4th Street, Suite 205 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Telephone: (714) 783-4220 Facsimile: (888) 505-1033 E-mail: Pamela.Tsao@ascensionlawgroup.com ELTMAN ELTMAN: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Itzchak Hirsch, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., and Palisades Acquisition XVI, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01437 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2015) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq. ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW 483 Chestnut Street Cedarhurst, NY 11516 Telephone: (516) 791-4400 Facsimile: (516) 791-4411 E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com ENHANCED RECOVERY: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Laytora Robertson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01970-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., March 17, 2015) seeks relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC 1669 East 12th Street Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com EXCLUSIVE ONE LLC: Made Illegal Deductions From Wages, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Volkan Bahce and Kasim Batirbek v. Exclusive One LLC d/b/a Montclair Limo and Serdar Has, Case No. 2:15-cv-01984-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., March 18, 2015) alleges that the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs overtime for hours worked over 40 per week and made unlawful deductions from their pay. Exclusive One LLC, doing business as Montclair Limo, provides limousine services. The Company is a New Jersey domestic business corporation headquartered in Montclair, New Jersey. The Individual Defendants is the owner and an officer of Montclair Limo. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael R. DiChiara KRAKOWER DICHIARA LLC One Depot Square 77 Market Street, Suite 2 Park Ridge, NJ 07656 Telephone: (201) 746-0303 Facsimile: (347) 765-1600 E-mail: md@kdlawllc.com FMS INC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Serge Jean-Jacques, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. FMS Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01381 (E.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015) seeks relief over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gus Michael Farinella, Esq. The Westminster Building 180 West 20th Street, Suite 12b New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 675-6161 Facsimile: (212) 675-4367 E-mail: gmf@lawgmf.com FOWLER PACKING: Seasonal Workers Sue to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Beatriz Aldapa and Elmer Avalos, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Fowler Packing Company, Inc., a California Corporation; AG Force LLC; a California Limited Liability Company; Fowler Marketing International LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 - 10, Case No. 1:15-cv-00420-SAB (E.D. Cal., March 17, 2015) is brought on behalf of current and former employees of the Defendants for recovery of unpaid wages and penalties, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs and injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs and Members of the Proposed Class are seasonal agricultural workers, within the meaning of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, who have worked in Defendants' fields, for the Defendants. The Defendants are engaged in the business of cultivating, harvesting and packing fruit, mostly tree fruits -- generally peaches, nectarines, plums, and pomegranates -- as well as table grapes on land located primarily in or near Fresno County, California. The Defendants also own and operate packing facilities in or near Fresno County, California, to sort, grade, package and distribute fruit harvested by the Plaintiffs and other agricultural employees under the "Fowler Packing" brand and other related brands. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq. BUSH GOTTLIEB, A LAW CORPORATION 500 North Central Avenue, Suite 800 Glendale, CA 91203-3345 Telephone: (818) 973-3200 Facsimile: (818) 973-3201 E-mail: igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com - and - Mario Martinez, Esq. Edgar I. Aguilasocho, Esq. Anna K. Walther, Esq. MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH, APLC 1227 California Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93304 Telephone: (661) 324-8100 Facsimile: (661) 324-8103 E-mail: mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com edgara@ufw.org awalther@ufw.org GENERAL MOTORS: Two Workers Sue Over Unpaid Religious Days Off -------------------------------------------------------------- Ben Klayman, writing for Reuters, reports that two General Motors Co. workers at its Arlington, Texas, assembly plant have sued the No. 1 U.S. automaker and are seeking class-action status, claiming the company violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by denying them unpaid religious days off. The lawsuit, filed on March 4 in U.S. District Court in Forth Worth, Texas, charged the company with violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act "by denying a reasonable religious accommodation" to James Robinson III, a Seventh-day Sabbatarian, and Chris Scruggs, a Messianic Jew, who had previously taken off religious holidays without pay. Messrs. Robinson and Scruggs are seeking class-action status for the lawsuit, an injunction allowing them and similar employees to take unpaid leave on holy days in accordance with their religious beliefs, unspecified lost wages, and punitive and compensatory damages, and legal fees, according to the lawsuit. GM spokesman Patrick Morrissey said it was premature for the company to comment because it had not formally been served with the lawsuit. The two men, both electricians at the plant, said they had taken off holy days according to their religious beliefs without pay for several years, but that allowance ceased in 2013, according to the lawsuit. GM failed to see if volunteers were available to cover the men's shifts and the cost of allowing them to take unpaid leave was minimal, according to the lawsuit. Both men experienced "stress, humiliation, frustration, sadness and embarrassment" and were made to "feel inferior and different because of their beliefs," according to the lawsuit. The case is Robinson v General Motors, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, No. 15-158. GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, N.Y. Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dunstan A. Weerasinghe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01428 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gus Michael Farinella, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA 180 West 20th Street, Suite 12b The Westminster Building New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 675-6161 Facsimile: (212) 675-4367 E-mail: gmf@lawgmf.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants Filed Motion for Summary Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants have moved for summary judgment in a class action lawsuit. On September 30, 2010, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of investors in $823 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). The amended complaint asserts federal securities law and common law claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages. The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted as to plaintiff's claim of market manipulation and denied as to the remainder of plaintiff's claims by a decision dated March 21, 2012. On May 21, 2012, the defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and fraud. On June 27, 2014, the appellate court denied defendants' petition for leave to appeal from the district court's January 22, 2014 order granting class certification. On January 30, 2015, defendants moved for summary judgment. GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Denied Motion to Sever Claims -------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Group Inc., Litton Loan Servicing LP (Litton), Ocwen Financial Corporation (Ocwen) and Arrow Corporate Member Holdings LLC, a former subsidiary of Group Inc., are defendants in a putative class action pending since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York generally challenging the procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance as required by their mortgages. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfair practices law, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. An amended complaint, filed on November 19, 2013, added an additional plaintiff and RICO claims. On September 29, 2014, the court denied without prejudice and with leave to renew at a later date Group Inc.'s motion to sever the claims against it and certain other defendants. GOLDMAN SACHS: Underwriters Settle RALI Pass-Through Cert. Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), and the other underwriter defendants agreed to a settlement with the plaintiffs in the RALI Pass-Through Certificates Litigation. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a securities class action initially filed in September 2008 in New York Supreme Court, and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering documents in connection with various offerings of mortgage-backed pass-through certificates violated the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI), Residential Funding Corporation (RFC), Residential Funding Securities Corporation (RFSC), and certain of their officers and directors. On January 3, 2013, the district court certified a class in connection with one offering underwritten by GS&Co. which includes only initial purchasers who bought the securities directly from the underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading days after the offering date. On April 30, 2013, the district court granted in part plaintiffs' request to reinstate a number of the previously dismissed claims relating to an additional nine offerings underwritten by GS&Co. On May 10, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint incorporating those nine additional offerings. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the nine additional offerings but denied the plaintiffs' motion to expand the time period and scope covered by the previous class definition. On October 17, 2014, the plaintiffs and defendants moved for summary judgment. On February 11, 2015, GS&Co. and the other underwriter defendants agreed to a settlement with the plaintiffs, subject to court approval. The firm has reserved the full amount of its proposed contribution to the settlement. GOLDMAN SACHS: Paid Full Contribution Amount to MF Global Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) has paid the full amount of its contribution to the settlements in the MF Global Securities Litigation. GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in class action complaints and an individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York commencing November 18, 2011. These complaints generally allege that the offering materials for two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd. (MF Global) convertible notes (aggregating approximately $575 million in principal amount) in February 2011 and July 2011, among other things, failed to describe adequately the nature, scope and risks of MF Global's exposure to European sovereign debt, in violation of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. On December 12, 2014, the court preliminarily approved a settlement resolving the class action, and on January 5, 2015, the court entered an order effectuating the settlement of all claims against GS&Co. in the individual action. GS&Co. has paid the full amount of its contribution to the settlements. GOLDMAN SACHS: Paid Contribution Amount to P/E Litigation Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Group Inc., together with its affiliates, has paid the full amount of its proposed contribution to the settlement in the Private Equity- Sponsored Acquisitions Litigation. Group Inc. is among numerous private equity firms named as defendants in a federal antitrust action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in December 2007. As amended, the complaint generally alleges that the defendants have colluded to limit competition in bidding for private equity- sponsored acquisitions of public companies, thereby resulting in lower prevailing bids and, by extension, less consideration for shareholders of those companies in violation of Section 1 of the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act and common law. The complaint seeks, among other things, treble damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2014, Group Inc. and the plaintiffs agreed to a settlement, which the court preliminarily approved on September 29, 2014. Group Inc., together with its affiliates, has paid the full amount of its proposed contribution to the settlement. GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendant in GT Advanced Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions filed in October 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include certain directors and officers of GT Advanced Technologies Inc. (GT Advanced Technologies). As to the underwriters, the complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the December 2013 offerings by GT Advanced Technologies of approximately $86 million of common stock and $214 million principal amount of convertible senior notes, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. GS&Co. underwrote 3,479,769 shares of common stock and $75 million principal amount of notes for an aggregate offering price of approximately $105 million. On October 6, 2014, GT Advanced Technologies filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against FireEye Securities Litigation -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in June 2014 in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye) and certain of its directors and officers. The complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the offering materials for the March 2014 offering of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common stock, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of approximately $172 million. GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Millennial Media Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Millennial Media, Inc. (Millennial Media) and certain of its directors, officers and shareholders. As to the underwriters, the complaint generally alleges misstatements and omissions in connection with Millennial Media's $152 million March 2012 initial public offering and the October 2012 offering of approximately $163 million of Millennial Media's common stock, asserts claims under the federal securities laws, and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. GS&Co. underwrote 3,519,000 and 3,450,000 shares of common stock in the March and October 2012 offerings, respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately $95 million. GOLDMAN SACHS: Zynga Securities Litigation Dismissed in February ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) was among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on August 1, 2012 in the California Superior Court, County of San Francisco. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants included Zynga Inc. (Zynga) and certain of its directors and officers. The consolidated amended complaint, filed on April 29, 2013, generally alleged that the offering materials for the March 2012 $516 million secondary offering of Zynga common stock by certain of Zynga's shareholders violated the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws, and sought compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. On February 11, 2015, the court dismissed the action. GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Cobalt Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), shareholders of Cobalt (including certain funds affiliated with Group Inc.), affiliates of these shareholders (including Group Inc.) and underwriters (including Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.)) for certain offerings of Cobalt's securities are defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws, seeks compensatory and rescissory damages in unspecified amounts and alleges material misstatements and omissions concerning Cobalt in connection with a $1.67 billion February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a $1.38 billion December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes, a $1.00 billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, a $1.33 billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, and a $1.30 billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes. The complaint alleges that Group Inc., GS&Co. and the affiliated funds are liable as controlling persons with respect to all five offerings. The complaint also seeks damages (i) from GS&Co. in connection with its acting as an underwriter of 14,430,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $465 million, $690 million principal amount of convertible notes, and approximately $508 million principal amount of convertible notes in the February 2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings, respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.66 billion, and (ii) from Group Inc. and the affiliated funds in connection with their sales of 40,042,868 shares of common stock for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $1.06 billion in the February 2012, January 2013 and May 2013 common stock offerings. GOLDMAN SACHS: Female Employees Move for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------------ The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs in a putative class action filed by female former employees moved for class certification. On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages. On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations in their entirety as premature. On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an arbitration agreement with the firm. On May 19, 2014, plaintiffs moved for class certification. GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Narrows Claims in Credit Derivatives Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the credit derivatives antitrust matters. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the numerous defendants in putative antitrust class actions relating to credit derivatives, filed beginning in May 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to forestall the development of alternatives to OTC trading of credit derivatives and to maintain inflated bid-ask spreads for credit derivatives trading. The complaints seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On September 4, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, permitting the claim alleging an antitrust conspiracy to proceed but confining it to a period after the fall of 2008. GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs in Commodities Suit Revise Complaint -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the remaining plaintiffs in the commodities-related litigation filed proposed amended complaints on October 9 and 10, 2014. Group Inc. and its subsidiary, GS Power Holdings LLC (GS Power), as well as Metro International Trade Services LLC (Metro), a previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege violation of federal antitrust laws and other federal and state laws in connection with the management of aluminum storage facilities. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages. On August 29, 2014, the court granted the Goldman Sachs defendants' motion to dismiss. Certain plaintiffs appealed on September 24, 2014, and the remaining plaintiffs filed proposed amended complaints on October 9 and 10, 2014. GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Zinc Storage Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Group Inc., GS Power Holdings LLC (GS Power), Metro International Trade Services LLC (Metro), Goldman Sachs International (GSI) are among the defendants named in putative class actions, filed beginning on May 23, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, based on similar alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws in connection with the management of zinc storage facilities. GOLDMAN SACHS: Defending Against Platinum & Palladium Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. GOLDMAN SACHS: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in ISDAFIX Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint in the ISDAFIX-Related Litigation. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the defendants named in several putative class actions relating to trading in interest rate derivatives, filed beginning in September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmark and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On December 12, 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, and on February 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint. GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Ruled on Bid to Dismiss in Currencies Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on behalf of the non-U.S. plaintiffs in the Currencies-Related Litigation. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in several putative antitrust class actions relating to trading in the foreign exchange markets, filed beginning in December 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On February 13, 2014, the cases were consolidated into one action. On February 28, 2014, Group Inc. was named in a separate putative class action on behalf of non-U.S. plaintiffs containing substantially similar allegations, which was not consolidated but was coordinated with the other proceedings for pretrial purposes; that complaint was amended on April 30, 2014. On January 28, 2015, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action and granted defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on behalf of the non-U.S. plaintiffs. GUTHY-RENKER LLC: June 17 Deadline to File Bid for Class Cert. -------------------------------------------------------------- The original putative class action complaint in the matter captioned AMY FRIEDMAN and JUDI MILLER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GUTHY-RENKER LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-06009-ODW(AGRX), (C.D. Cal.) was filed on July 31, 2014. On October 16, the parties stipulated to an extension of time to file the First Amended Complaint and an extension to file a class certification motion, with the suggestion that a new timeline would be submitted to the Court once it ruled on Guthy-Renker's imminent Motion to Dismiss. On October 17, 2014, the Court granted the joint stipulation and instructed the parties to submit a proposed schedule regarding the motion for class certification within ten days of the Court's ruling on the Motion to Dismiss. In granting the joint stipulation, the Court waived the requirements of Local Rule 23-3 which requires the proponent of the class to file a motion for certification "[w]ithin ninety days after service of a pleading purporting to commence a class action." On December 10, 2014, Defendant Guthy-Renker LLC filed its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On February 27, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part Guthy-Renker's Motion to Dismiss. On March 13, 2015, the parties filed the pending Joint Stipulation regarding the class certification deadlines, in compliance with the Court's October 17, 2014 Order. In the Joint Stipulation, the parties request a bifurcation of class certification and the merits, and propose a December 18, 2015 deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification. District Judge Otis D. Wright, II, in his order dated March 17, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/op2ZNsfrom Leagle.com, rejected both proposals saying the proposed class certification deadline is arbitrary and excessive, and the Court sees no need to bifurcate the discovery in this matter. Accordingly, the Court rejects the proposed timeline in the Joint Stipulation, and the deadline to file a class certification is on Wednesday, June 17, 2015. Amy Friedman, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Tate Shippen-Murray, Johnson and Johnson LLP, Brian W Warwick, Varnell and Warwick PA, Janet R Varnell, Varnell and Warwick PA, William H Anderson, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Charles J LaDuca, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Douglas L Johnson, Johnson and Johnson LLP, Neville Lawrence Johnson, Johnson and Johnson LLP & Michael J Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP. Judi Miller, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas L Johnson, Johnson and Johnson LLP & Michael J Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP. Krystal Henry-McArthur, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas L Johnson, Johnson and Johnson LLP & Michael J Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP. Guthy-Renker LLC, Defendant, represented by David J Schindler, Latham and Watkins LLP, Dina M Cox, Lewis Wagner LLP, Jonathan Michael Jackson, Latham and Watkins LLP & Robert M Baker, IV, Lewis Wagner LLP. HALLIBURTON CO: Judge Denies Class Status to Property Owners Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brianna Bailey, writing for NewsOK, reports that a federal judge in Oklahoma City has denied class-action status to a group of Duncan property owners who are suing Halliburton after pollution from rocket fuel seeped into the groundwater in their neighborhood. The property owners in the north Duncan neighborhood contend Halliburton is liable for damages after ammonium perchlorate contamination from Cold War-era defense contract work was discovered in residential water wells in the area. A separate class of property owners where high levels of perchlorate were not found claimed the value of their property has been threatened by the proximity to the groundwater pollution. In a nine-page order handed down on March 3, U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange ruled that Halliburton's liability to each property owner should be determined as an individual case and not as a class. Showing how each owner was damaged by Halliburton would be a "highly individualized determination requiring each plaintiff to show that his property contains perchlorate and that the perchlorate came from the site and not from some other source," Miles-LaGrange said in the ruling. ". . . Simply put, the individual issues would dwarf whatever common issues there may be, such that a vast array of mini-trials would be required for each class member if certification were granted." The lawsuit, McCormick et al v. Halliburton Company et al, is one of several pending lawsuits that Halliburton faces after perchlorate pollution was found in 28 residential water wells on the north side of Duncan in the area around Osage Road. "Halliburton is pleased with the Court's denial of class certification in this case," Susie McMichael, a spokeswoman for Halliburton said in an email. The company declined to comment further because the litigation is ongoing. The ruling essentially means that property owners who believe they have been damaged by the perchlorate pollution and have not yet filed a claim against Halliburton will now have a limited amount of time to do so on their own, said attorney Todd Ommen, an attorney from the firm Weitz & Luxenberg who represents some of the homeowners. The property owners could still decide to appeal the judge's ruling. "That is one of the options we are considering," Mr. Ommen said. In 2011, Halliburton disclosed that it had found ammonium perchlorate in residential water wells around its closed plant in north Duncan, where the company had carried out Cold War-era defense contract work to clean fuel from spent missile casings. Ash from the burned rocket fuel waste was stored in an evaporation pond on the site that was unlined until the late 1980s, records show. Residents file several lawsuits against Halliburton, claiming the company knew about the contamination at Osage Road for years, but failed to warn residents or conduct adequate water testing. Halliburton pays to have bottled water delivered to residents in affected areas and paid $2.5 million to extend a city water line to areas where testing showed perchlorate in residential water wells. The company said in a 2012 regulatory filing that it had spent more than $25 million in its initial response to the problems on Osage Road. HIKO ENERGY: "Bogdanski" Suit Moved From Pennsylvania to New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Bogdanski v. HIKO Energy, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-01948, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (White Plains). The New York District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:15-cv-02024-CS to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts claims for breach of contract. The Plaintiff is represented by: Beatrice Yakubu, Esq. Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 8120 Woodmont Ave., Suite 810 Bethesda, MD 20814 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 E-mail: byakubu@cuneolaw.com charlesl@cuneolaw.com - and - Michelle R. O'Brien, Esq. THE O'BRIEN LAW GROUP LLC 4099 Birney Avenue Moosic, PA 18507 Telephone: (570) 209-7901 E-mail: mobrien@theobrienlawgroup.com - and - Richard Greenfield, Esq. GREENFIELD & GOODMAN LLC 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (917) 495-4446 E-mail: whitehatrdg@earthlink.net The Defendant is represented by: Ginene A. Lewis, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP One Logan Square, Suite 2000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 988-2707 E-mail: ginene.lewis@dbr.com - and - Vincent E. Gentile, Esq. DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP 105 College Road East P.O. Box 627 Princetonille, NJ 08542 Telephone: (609) 716-6500 Facsimile: (609) 799-7000 E-mail: vincent.gentile@dbr.com - and - Motty Shulman, Esq. William Marsillo, Esq. Andrew J. Dressel, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP (ARMONK) 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8244 Fax: (914) 749-8300 E-mail: mshulman@bsfllp.com wmarsillo@bsfllp.com adressel@bsfllp.com HITACHI-LG DATA: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for May 14 -------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA If You Directly Bought An Optical Disk Drive Or An Optical Disk Drive Device, A Class Action Settlement May Affect You. Optical Disk Drive Devices include devices incorporating Optical Disk Drives such as desktop computers, mobile/laptop computers, videogame consoles, CD players/recorders, DVD players/recorders, and Blu-Ray disc players/recorders. A Federal Court authorized this Notice. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer. Why did I get this notice? You or your company may have directly purchased an Optical Disk Drive or an Optical Disk Drive Device between January 1, 2004 - December 31, 2011. A direct purchaser is a person or business who bought an Optical Disk Drive or an Optical Disk Drive Device directly from one or more of the Defendants, affiliates, or subsidiaries. A direct purchaser is NOT a person or company who purchased an Optical Disk Drive or an Optical Disk Drive Device from a wholesaler or a retail store. If you are a direct purchaser, you have the right to know about the litigation and about your legal rights and options. The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the case is called In re Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2143. The people who sued are called Plaintiffs and the companies they sued are called Defendants. On October 3, 2014 the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Permission to Appeal Pursuant to Rule 23(f). On January 14, 2015 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal the order denying class certification. Some Defendants in the Direct Purchaser Optical Disk Drive Antitrust Litigation have settled their claims ("Settling Defendants"). A settlement was reached with Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics USA, and Hitachi, Ltd. (collectively, "HLDS") for $26,000,000. The HLDS settlement released claims asserted in the Second Consolidated Direct Purchaser Class Action Complaint. Subsequently, a settlement was reached with Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North America (collectively, "Panasonic") for $5,750,000. Finally, a settlement was reached with NEC Corporation ("NEC") for $6,000,000 (plus up to an additional $150,000 for notice costs). The Panasonic and NEC settlements released claims asserted in the Third Consolidated Direct Purchaser Class Action Complaint. The Court has finally approved each of the settlements with Settling Defendants and the settlement proceeds are ready to be distributed to qualified claimants. A proof of claim form has been approved by the Court. All Claim Forms must be postmarked or submitted online no later than June 22, 2015. Claims may be submitted online at www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com Additional Claim Forms may be obtained at www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com by calling 1-888-270-0759, or writing to ODD Direct Settlement, P.O. Box 808054, Petaluma, CA 94975-8054. Please do not contact the Court about claim administration. Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards is on file with the Court and available at www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com Class Counsel have asked the Court for attorneys' fees not exceeding one-third (33.3%) of the Settlement Fund plus reimbursement of their costs and expenses, in accordance with the provisions of the Settlement Agreements. Class Counsel have also asked for incentive awards for the named plaintiffs. The Court has set a hearing on Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards for May 14, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3. Any comments or objections to Plaintiffs Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Incentive Awards must be filed with the Court (Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Court, Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Courtroom 3, 17th floor, San Francisco, CA 94102) on or before April 13, 2015. Dated: March 23, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT For More Information: Call 1-888-270-0759 or Visit www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com CLAIMS MAY BE FILED ONLINE AT www.ODDDirectPurchaserAntitrustSettlement.com INDIANA: Class Action Over BMV Overcharges Heads to Mediation ------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Evans, writing for Indystar, reports that a second class- action lawsuit alleging the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles overcharged Hoosier motorists millions of dollars is headed toward mediation. In a similar lawsuit filed in 2013, the BMV agreed to refund $30 million to drivers it overcharged for operator's licenses -- and also acknowledged it had overcharged Hoosiers an additional $29 million due to mistakes in calculating motor vehicle excise taxes. The BMV is repaying those overcharges through refunds and credits. The second lawsuit, also filed in 2013, alleges the BMV owes motorists for even more overcharges -- possibly as much as $38 million more. The excessive fees, the lawsuit contends, may go as far back as 2002. A joint notice of mediation in that lawsuit was filed on March 4 by attorneys for the BMV and motorists challenging the alleged overcharges. John L. Krauss, an adjunct professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, said he could not comment on specifics of the BMV case. In general, he said, a move to mediations is "a healthy sign" but does not guarantee a settlement is imminent. "It is a sign that the parties would like to sit down and try to craft some possible options and see if any of them would be acceptable to both sides," Mr. Krauss said. Refunds, accounting sought Mr. Krauss added that mediation is a voluntary process and any potential settlement agreement would have to be approved by the court. The case had been set for a bench trial June 1 before Marion Superior Judge James Osborn, but that trial date was vacated after the mediation notice was filed. A BMV spokesman directed The Star to Indianapolis attorney Carl Hayes, who is defending the agency in the lawsuit, for comment. "We're always interested in any solution that makes sense for the taxpayers of Indiana," said Mr. Hayes, who is with the law firm Bingham Greenebaum Doll. Scott Gilchrist -- sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com -- an attorney with Cohen & Malad, the Indianapolis law firm that filed the lawsuit in October 2013, said his policy is to not comment on cases scheduled for mediation. The pending lawsuit asks the BMV to refund millions for overcharges on a variety of fees and services. It also asks for a full accounting of all overcharges and access to public records that could reveal how long BMV had known about the overcharges. Agency shakeup The latest action in the case comes a month after Gov. Mike Pence announced a major leadership shakeup at the BMV -- and that the troubled agency revealed yet another $2 million in mistaken taxes and fees. Pence named Kent Abernathy, formerly chief of staff at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, to replace BMV Commissioner Don Snemis. Mr. Snemis was moved to a new position as special counsel for program integrity at the state's Family and Social Services Administration. The leadership change came as the BMV acknowledged overcharging nearly 30,000 customers a total of about $2 million over six years. The mistaken charges involved delinquent fees for mobile and manufactured home titles, reinstatement fees paid by people who later proved they had insurance and other miscellaneous taxes and fees. The BMV plans to issue refunds or credits to affected customers. In announcing the appointment of Abernathy last month, Pence warned that an ongoing BMV review by accounting firm BKD could trigger additional refunds in the future. "I want to emphasize," the governor said, "there will likely be more to come." Beyond the leadership change, Pence announced a number of other steps his administration is taking in an effort to fix the BMV's financial mistakes. The changes include creating an internal BMV audit group made up of BMV employees, auditors from the State Board of Accounts and representatives from the state technology department. JUST ENERGY: Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Overtime Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Flood, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Just Energy Marketing Corp., Just Energy New York Corp. and Just Energy Group, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-02012-NSR (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015) seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Ontario-based Just Energy Group, Inc., is a Canadian for-profit corporation doing business in New York. Just Energy Marketing Corp. and Just Energy New York Corp. are Delaware for-profit corporations doing business in New York and are subsidiaries of Just Energy Group. The Defendants market and sell natural gas and electricity supply to residential and commercial customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine Elizabeth Anderson, Esq. GISKAN, SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON & STEWART, LLP 11 Broadway, Suite 2150 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 847-8315 Facsimile: (646) 520-3236 E-mail: canderson@gslawny.com LENOVO US: Weitz & Luxenberg Files Class Action Over Malware ------------------------------------------------------------ New York-based Weitz & Luxenberg P.C. on March 4 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against Lenovo and Superfish for a recent case of laptop security failings. The suit was filed in response to the growing concern over computer manufacturer Lenovo's inclusion of Superfish "malware" on laptops purchased after Sept. 1, 2014. In January 2015, a security expert discovered that Superfish's VisualDiscovery software had been installed on Lenovo laptops before they were shipped out to customers. This software has security defects that endanger all communications made on the affected laptops. According to published reports, more than just a few models are affected. Laptops purchased after Sept. 1, 2014 and during Feb. 2015 may all contain this damaging software. The models containing Superfish include the Lenovo G, U, Y, Z, S, Flex, MIIX, YOGA, and E series. As Robin L. Greenwald, head of Weitz & Luxenberg's Environmental, Toxic Tort & Consumer Protection Unit explained, "Lenovo sold you a laptop that you thought you could trust to protect confidential internet communications. But Lenovo didn't care about your security; instead, it cared about exploiting you and helping advertisers promote their products. By doing so, Lenovo and Superfish exposed you to a serious security risk." How Superfish Causes a Security Risk: It has been announced in news reports that hackers can use Wi-Fi networks, which are found across the U.S. in many public places -- including coffee shops, restaurants and bars -- to hack into your computer. The Superfish software is what allows them in, according to Weitz & Luxenberg. Once these thieves access your computer, they can capture any data you have stored on it. This gives them possible access to your passwords, bank account numbers, tax records and any other private information, according to industry reports. The hackers then can use the information themselves to open credit card or cell phone accounts in your name, file false tax returns in your name, or sell your information on the black market to others who will do so. Christopher Dalbey, an attorney with Weitz & Luxenberg, explained, "Lenovo's actions are also reprehensible because it installed software that allows hackers to easily mimic the look and feel of other companies' secure websites." Mr. Dalbey emphasized, "You think that you're visiting a website for your bank, but instead the software tricks you into giving up personal and private information. And that software is installed on your own computer by a manufacturer you trusted." Lenovo explained the inclusion of this malware as an attempt to improve the advertising experience for its customers. The company claimed not to have realized that the software gives Superfish access to all of a customer's online communications and enables hackers to easily spy on customers, according to news outlets. Join Our Class Action Against Lenovo: The attorneys at Weitz & Luxenberg believe that you have certain privacy rights that are safeguarded by federal and state laws. These include the federal wiretapping statute and state laws about deceptive trade practices, breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment. And at least one state has an anti- spyware law. The firm believes that the evidence indicates that Lenovo knowingly violated those rights. Therefore, both Lenovo and Superfish should be held accountable and people who have been damaged should receive compensation. W&L invites anyone who has purchased a Lenovo laptop during this time period to reach out to us to discuss joining our class action lawsuit. "Lenovo put your security and privacy at risk, and you deserve to be compensated for that," affirms Ms. Greenwald. "Big corporations must learn that they cannot take advantage of people. And if they do so, they will be held accountable for it." About Weitz & Luxenberg Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C. -- http://www.weitzlux.com/-- is a personal injury and consumer protection law firm. Weitz & Luxenberg's numerous litigation areas include mesothelioma, defective medicine and devices, environmental pollutants, consumer protection, accidents, personal injury, and medical malpractice. Victims of corporate wrongdoing are invited to rely on Weitz & Luxenberg's more than 25 years of experience handling such cases. LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: To Oppose 2nd Amended Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated plans to oppose within the first quarter of 2015 a second amended complaint to be filed in a securities litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. On June 8, 2012, a federal securities class action and shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Genaera Corporation and its officers, directors, major shareholders and trustee ("Genaera Defendants") for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to Genaera shareholders. The lawsuit also names the Company and its CEO as additional defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the Genaera Defendants' various breaches of fiduciary duties based on the Company's purchase of a licensing interest in a development- stage pharmaceutical drug program from the Genaera Liquidating Trust in May 2010 and the Company's subsequent sale of half of its interest in the transaction to Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc. Following an amendment to the complaint and a round of motions to dismiss, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice on August 12, 2013. The plaintiff appealed that dismissal on September 10, 2013, and the Third Circuit reversed on October 17, 2014. The plaintiff has indicated that he intends to move to file a second amended complaint, which the Company plans to oppose within the first quarter of 2015. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the claims against the Company and its CEO. Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual issues involved, however, the outcome of this matter is not presently determinable. LITTON LOAN: Perryman Case Stayed Pending Settlement Proceedings ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on March 12, 2015, a joint stipulation in the case captioned MARGO PERRYMAN individually, and for other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LITTON LOAN SERVICING, LP; OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC; SOUTHWEST BUSINESS CORPORATION; AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY; AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY; ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS, S.A.; and DOES 4-100, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-02261-JST, (N.D. Cal.). The joint stipulation provides that the case will be stayed against defendant Beltline Road Insurance Agency, Inc. and specially appearing defendant Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. pending resolution of settlement proceedings in Lee v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. Defendants Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (Ocwen) and American Security Insurance Company (ASIC) executed on December 18, 2014, a settlement agreement in the case Lee v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, No. 0:14-CV-60649, pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, which, if approved, will release Plaintiff's claims, and the claims of the classes she seeks to represent, against Altisource and Beltline in this case. On January 23, 2015, the Lee court entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement. The current response, reply, and hearing dates for Altisource's pending motion to dismiss and Beltline's pending motion to stay are vacated. If the Lee Court denies final approval, Altisource will have 14 days after the date final approval is denied to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at http://is.gd/4SGsU1from Leagle.com. Barry Himmelstein, HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK, Emeryville, CA, Sheri L. Kelly, LAW OFFICE OF SHERI L. KELLY, San Jose, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff Margo Perryman. David W. Moon, STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN, Attorneys for Defendants ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO SOLUTIONS, S.A., and BELTLINE ROAD INSURANCE AGENCY, INC. LMS CONCEPTS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Texas Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kassie J. Rehmert v. LMS Concepts, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00131 (S.D. Tex., March 18, 2015) alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff, a nonexempt employee, at one and one half times her regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per each seven-day workweek. LMS Concepts, Inc. operates residential group homes in Corpus Christi, Texas, serving the intellectually disabled, and is doing business in Nueces County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gay E. Gilson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GAY E. GILSON 5525 S. Staples, Suite 3B Corpus Christi, TX 78411 Telephone: (361) 887-0552 Facsimile: (210) 887-0554 E-mail: gegilson@gilsonlaw.com - and - Adriaan T. Jansse, Esq. THE JANSSE LAW FIRM 8438 Fountain Circle San Antonio, TX 78229 Telephone: (210) 595-8665 Facsimile: (210) 592-1793 E-mail: aj@janssemoore.com LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP Sued Over Botched Computer System Rollout -------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Saillant, writing for The Los Angeles Times, reports that the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power lost up to $88 million in commercial billings because of the botched rollout of a computer billing system, city lawyers said March 6. The news that tens of millions of dollars in revenue went uncollected at the city-owned utility came as City Atty. Mike Feuer announced he was suing PricewaterhouseCoopers, the consultant hired to oversee the launch of the complex system. The $70-million billing program had been touted as a major initiative to streamline the ratepayer experience and increase efficiency by integrating a variety of functions, including service calls and billings. But it didn't work, Mr. Feuer said, and the DWP spent an additional $41 million trying to correct problems. Among those were customers receiving highly inflated, error-filled bills. Most of the breakdowns have been fixed, Chief Deputy City Atty. Jim Clark said, adding that the utility still appears to be losing an undetermined amount of money because of the troubles. After the system was activated in September 2013, DWP customers flooded the utility with complaints about delayed or incorrectly estimated bills and late notices. The telephone call volumes were so high that some customers had to wait on hold for up to 40 minutes. The backlog got so bad that the DWP added a voice message advising customers to try again during off-hours. A 57-page complaint alleges that PricewaterhouseCoopers breached its contract and fraudulently misrepresented how it could help the city implement the new system. Cleveland Water, another municipal utility, encountered similar problems when it hired PricewaterhouseCoopers to integrate new billing software, but the accounting firm concealed that fact from Los Angeles officials, the lawsuit alleges. "The city of Los Angeles is out tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars," Mr. Feuer told the press gathering. "Today we are here to get it back." An outside counsel for PricewaterhouseCoopers called the lawsuit "meritless." Daniel J. Thomasch -- dthomasch@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, said the lawsuit is an attempt by the DWP "to shift blame . . . for its self-inflicted billing problems." Mr. Thomasch said the DWP "acknowledged in writing last year that [PricewaterhouseCoopers] fulfilled each one of its contractual obligations" and it paid the firm in full. "We will defend [the firm's] excellent work and this case vigorously," he said. Mr. Feuer told reporters that the DWP was not able to bill 40,000 of its 400,000 commercial customers for up to eight months, resulting in losses of $11 million a month. That doesn't include potential losses incurred from botched residential billings, he said. In November, DWP chief Marcie Edwards released a consultant's report blaming the rocky transition on poor management, an underprepared workforce and a decision to move forward despite warnings that the system wasn't ready. Ms. Edwards, hired by Mayor Eric Garcetti after the rollout debacle, paid Texas-based TMG Consulting to prepare the report and asked a senior manager, Randy Howard, to present it to DWP commissioners. "There's overwhelming evidence that we weren't ready to go live, and yet the department made the decision to go live," Mr. Howard told commissioners at the November meeting. When Mr. Feuer was asked about the November report, and whether it opened the city up to a countersuit by PricewaterhouseCoopers, he responded: "Bring it on." Ms. Edwards on March 6 acknowledged the lawsuit's filing and sought to assure the public that the utility will continue to fix problem billings. The utility has hired more than 200 customer service representatives and meter readers to address incorrect billings based on estimated meter readings, Ms. Edwards said. It has also reduced average call wait times from 35 minutes to five minutes, she said. "We have made tremendous progress and appreciate the action by the city attorney today," she said. Three class-action lawsuits have been filed against the DWP on behalf of ratepayers who may have received incorrect billings. Those suits are ongoing, Mr. Feuer said. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Flooring Class Action in Fla. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Fagenson, writing for Reuters, reports that a $5 million class-action lawsuit filed in Florida accuses hardwood and laminate flooring giant Lumber Liquidators, Inc of selling products laden with cancer-causing chemicals. The case, filed on March 3 in federal court in Miami, claims the company "deceptively manufactured, labeled and sold the toxic laminate flooring." A similar lawsuit was filed late last year in California. U.S. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, called on federal agencies on March 4 to investigate the Delaware-based company's flooring. "Because this could affect millions of homeowners, it's imperative we get some answers quickly," Mr. Nelson said. His statement followed a report on March 1 on CBS' "60 Minutes" that found high levels of the carcinogen formaldehyde in the lumber company's products. The report sampled Chinese-made laminate flooring sold in California, Virginia, Florida, Texas, and Illinois. Out of 31 samples, CBS found only one was compliant with California formaldehyde emissions standards. Lumber Liquidators representatives could not immediately be reached for comment. The company has disputed the network's testing methods and said it complies with U.S. emissions regulations. In the Southern District of Florida the case is number 1:15-cv- 20876, Joaquin F. Badias vs. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. et al. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Flooring Class Suit in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Geiger, writing for Richmond Times-Dispatch, reports that a California couple want Lumber Liquidators to stop selling laminate flooring in that state and to pay damages to people who bought the company's products in the past four years. John and Tracie-Linn Tyrrell filed a lawsuit in federal court in California on March 5 and are seeking class-action status. If their request is granted, all customers who bought laminate flooring in California during the past four years could be covered by the lawsuit. They are seeking an injunction that would prohibit the company from selling certain types of its laminate flooring in California. The Tyrrells also want to be repaid for the cost of the flooring and to receive payment for damages. "Based on lawsuits, articles and blog posts, (Lumber Liquidators) knew or should have known that its laminate wood flooring products were not compliant with (California emissions) standards," the lawsuit said. "Despite this knowledge, defendant failed to reformulate its flooring products so that they are compliant or to disclose to consumers that these products emit unlawful levels of formaldehyde." Lumber Liquidators said in a statement on March 6 that it believes the lawsuit mirrors similar accusations made by the company's opponents. "We are currently reviewing the allegations contained in this lawsuit," the company said. "It appears that many of the claims mimic contentions raised in a separate suit that was filed by a law firm that also represents a short-seller, which looks to benefit from decreases in our stock price, in another action against us. We believe in the safety of our products and intend to defend this suit vigorously." The lawsuit quotes articles written by short sellers -- investors who have made bets that Lumber Liquidators stock would decline in value. It also quotes extensively from a "60 Minutes" segment that aired on March 1. The CBS report alleged Lumber Liquidators sold laminate flooring made in China that exceeds California standards for formaldehyde emissions. Formaldehyde, a carcinogen, is used in some glues in the flooring. It can cause certain cancers and respiratory issues when inhaled in unsafe levels. The Toano-based specialty retailer of hardwood flooring, which has a large distribution center in eastern Henrico County, said on March 2 in a regulatory filing that it had contacted its Chinese suppliers and that those suppliers said products sold to Lumber Liquidators met the required environmental standards. "We believe that '60 Minutes' used an improper test method in its reporting that is not included in California regulations and does not measure a product according to how it is actually used by consumers," the company said in the filing. "We stand by every single plank of wood and laminate we sell all around the country." The lawsuit claims John Tyrrell began "experiencing symptoms that include extreme shortness of breath, weakness, fatigue, and incessant coughing and sneezing," shortly after he and his son-in- law installed the laminate flooring. "Despite repeated medical tests, his doctors have not been able to identify the cause of these symptoms." Shares of Lumber Liquidators have shed about half their value since the company first warned that it would be the subject of a "60 Minutes" report. MERRILL LYNCH: Former Trainees File Overtime Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Chris Isidore, writing for CNNMoney, reports that two former trainees of Merrill Lynch have filed a federal suit charging the Wall Street firm with violating federal overtime laws. Andrew Blum and Zaq Harrison, who both worked for the firm from 2011 to 2012, say they regularly worked 10 to 12 hour days and more than five days a week. But they say that neither of them, nor any of the other trainees in the program, were paid overtime. The suit seeks to be granted class action status on behalf of other trainees whom it argues should also have been paid overtime. According to Merrill Lynch's web site, the trainee program prepares employees to become financial advisers with the firm. It can last for three years and promises a "rewarding compensation structure that includes salary, bonuses and incentive payouts." Under federal law, overtime pay is due to non-management hourly workers who work more than 40 hours a week. But salaried workers who earn more than $455 a week are not promised overtime under current federal law. That works out to $23,660 a year. The trainee complaint did not specify what their annual salaries were. The Obama administration has proposed raising the minimum salary above which OT is not guaranteed. Merrill Lynch and Bank of America (BAC), which owns the firm, will not comment on the suit, according to spokesman Bill Halldin. METRIC PRECISION: Faces Wage Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Harding, writing for Law360, reports that a former Metric Precision and Engineering LLC employee accused the aerospace and defense manufacturer of violating California labor laws by requiring employees to work at least five minutes past their shift without pay, according to a recent class action filed in California state court. Jorge A. Monterosa, who worked for Metric Precision from April 2006 until March 2014, accused the company on March 3 of failing to pay wages for all time worked at minimum wage, failing to pay overtime, failing to provide second meal periods or third rest periods and other violations of the state's labor laws. Metric Precision, now known as AMG Torrance, manufactures parts for fixed and rotary winged aircraft. Mr. Monterosa said he and other hourly nonexempt employees regularly had to stay at least five minutes after the end of their shift to explain to employees on the next shift what work had to be done, the complaint said. "Defendants suffered, permitted and required hourly non-exempt employees to be subject to defendants' control for at least five minutes at the end of each work period without paying wages for that time," the complaint said. "This resulted in hourly employees working time for which they were not compensated any wages." The complaint also claimed that Metric Precision failed to provide second meal periods when employees worked more than 10 hours, as required by California law, or third rest periods. "If the employees worked shifts between 10 and 14 hours in length, defendants did not authorize or permit and therefore failed to provide a third rest period of ten net minutes," the complaint said. The cost of work uniforms was also deducted from every bi-weekly paycheck Mr. Monterosa received, the suit said. The deduction violates California labor law that requires employers to indemnify employees from necessary expenditures incurred during the duties of the employees, according to the suit. "Moreover, an employer is prohibited from passing the ordinary business expenses and losses of the employer onto the employee," it said. Mr. Monterosa also accused Metric Precision of failing to pay for all accrued time off, to provide accurate and complete wage statements and to timely provide all earned wages and final paychecks upon separation. Mr. Monterosa seeks to include all current or former hourly, nonexempt employees in the suit, although the complaint said it's unclear how many people that would entail. A class action would give class members the anonymity some may feel they need in suing an employer, the complaint said. "Current employees often are afraid to assert their rights out of fear of direct or indirect retaliation" the complaint said. "Former employees fear bringing actions because they perceive their former employers can blacklist them in their future endeavors with negative references and by other means." A representative with AMG Torrance and Mr. Monterosa's attorney did not immediately return a message seeking comment. Jorge A. Monterosa is represented by Joseph Lavi of Lavi & Ebrahimian LLP. Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available. The case is Jorge A Monterosa VS Metric Precision Machine & Engineering, case number BC574447, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles. MICHIGAN: Bradford-Bey's Motions for Class Cert., TRO Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ Leonard Bradford-Bey, a prisoner under the control of the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), filed the lawsuit captioned LEONARD BRADFORD, # 131806, a/k/a LEONARD BRADFORD-BEY, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL HEYNES, et al., Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-679, (W.D. Mich.) in which he alleges violations of his religious freedoms. The Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, a motion for reconsideration, and a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiff, however, did not file a motion for class certification with the complaint. Approximately four weeks after the complaint was filed, Magistrate Judge Phillip J. Green issued an order denying class certification. Four weeks later, the Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification and a motion for reconsideration of the order denying class certification. The magistrate judge recommended denying both because, as an incarcerated, pro se plaintiff, he is not an appropriate representative of a class. A copy of the report and recommendation is available at http://is.gd/qHsF0Mfrom leagle.com. The Plaintiff has not objected to this conclusion. Therefore, any objection Plaintiff has to the recommendations concerning the complaint moving forward as a class action are waived. "On this issue, the report and recommendation is adopted as the opinion of this Court," ruled Chief District Judge Paul L. Maloney in his March 17, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/Ebn0INfrom Leagle.com. Having adopted the report and recommendation as the opinion of the District Court, the Plaintiffs' motions are denied, ruled Judge Maloney. Leonard Bradford, plaintiff, Pro Se. Daniel Heyns, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. Michael Martin, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. Unknown Wilcoxson-Bey, defendant, Pro Se. John Prelesnik, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. G. Wyma, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. Unknown Pattison, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. C. Stoddard, defendant, represented by Cori Eve Barkman, MI Dept Attorney General. NESTLE PURINA: Class Action Over Dog Treats Can Proceed ------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. appeals court will let a class action proceed in Missouri state court over allegedly tainted Nestle Purina Petcare dog treats, after ruling that a federal judge had improperly stayed the state action as part of a nationwide settlement in a parallel suit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on March 2 said the Missouri case was "free to proceed" despite an injunction in the national settlement that prohibits class members from pursuing litigation about the dog treats in other courts. NEW ALBERTSON'S: Faces Class Action Over Coupon Sales Tax --------------------------------------------------------- Catherine A. Battin, Esq. and Matthew Boch, Esq., of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, report that a class action complaint was filed in federal court against New Albertson's, Inc. the operator of the Jewel-Osco grocery chain, alleging failure to deduct manufacturers' coupons from the tax base on which sales tax was calculated and collected from customers. Wong v. New Albertson's Inc. d/b/a Jewel-Osco, no. 1:15-cv-01732 (N.D. Ill.). This latest attack on a retailer relies on an interpretation of a Department of Revenue regulation that, if correct, would be overly burdensome on Illinois retailers. Other Illinois retailers that accept manufacturers' coupons may be at risk of being sued in similar actions or may be forced to change their practices. The Illinois sales tax, the Retailers' Occupation Tax, is a tax on a retailer's gross receipts. Store coupons, where a retailer does not receive reimbursement from another party, constitute a reduction in a retailer's gross receipts and therefore reduce the tax owed. 86 Ill. Admin. Code 130.2125(b)(1). Manufacturers' coupons, on the other hand, involve reimbursement to a retailer from a third party. This reimbursement constitutes taxable gross receipts. 86 Ill. Admin. Code 130.2025(b)(2). As such, manufacturers' coupons do not decrease the amount of Retailers' Occupation Tax owed by the retailer. An Illinois retailer collects Use Tax from its customer as reimbursement for its Retailers' Occupation Tax. See 35 ILCS 105/3-45; 86 Ill. Admin. Code 130.101(d). The difficulty with manufacturers' coupons is that the customer has not paid the entire amount of the retailer's receipts on which Retailers' Occupation Tax is due. The Department's regulation addresses the issue by calling for the customer to assume liability for Use Tax in the fine print of the coupon: Technically, the coupon issuer . . . owes the corresponding Use Tax on the value of the coupon. However, in many cases, the coupon issuer incorporates language into the coupon that requires the bearer . . . to assume this Use Tax liability. 86 Ill. Admin. Code 130.2025(b)(2). The theory of the complaint is that the coupon did not contain this language shifting the Use Tax liability, and therefore it was improper of the retailer to collect tax on the coupon amount. If the class action attorneys' theory is correct, store clerks would be expected to carefully read the fine print of each and every coupon that customers present. Surely, the Department of Revenue could not have intended such a result. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages of at least 1 percent of the revenue from Illinois stores during years in which violations occurred, and fees and costs. Other retailers may risk similar suits and should consider seeking clarity from the Department of Revenue. NEW YORK: More Police Officers Join Quota Punishment Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Antonio Antennuci and Dana Sauchelli, writing for New York Post, report that more than a dozen additional police officers have sought to join a class-action lawsuit against the NYPD for allegedly discriminating against black and Hispanic cops who fall short of arrest and ticket quotas in minority neighborhoods. Lawyer Emeka Nwokoro said on March 4 that 15 more cops stepped up after The Post on March 2 revealed the claims that officers face retribution if they don't make at least one arrest and issue 20 summonses a month. "These are minority police officers walking in minority areas and they are being pressured by their white superiors to basically get more arrests," Ms. Nwokoro said. "When they don't do it, they get punished by the NYPD." Ms. Nwokoro said the additional cops will be evaluated before determining if they will become plaintiffs. NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: Appeals Court Reverses Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a federal appeals court on March 4 reversed a ruling that had established a class action in a discrimination case involving telecommunications firm Nextel Communications Inc. In the complex litigation, New York law firm Leeds, Morelli & Brown P.C., which represented 587 plaintiffs with discrimination claims against Reston, Virginia-based Nextel, had agreed with Nextel to set up a dispute resolution process to settle all claims without going to court, according to the unanimous ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in Michael S. Johnson et al. v. Nextel Communications Inc. After most of the cases were settled through the out-of-court process, a group sued both the law firm and Nextel on behalf of the entire class. The suit alleged breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice and breach of contract. In September 2013, a New York federal judge certified a class action, holding that common issues "predominated over any individual issues" and that New York law applied even though the class members were from 27 states, according to the appeals ruling that overturned the class certification. The federal judge erred in certifying the class, the appeals court said. "Under the circumstances of the case," the common issues "are substantially outweighed by individual issues," the three- judge appeals court panel said. Furthermore, "It is clear that New York is not the state with the most significant relationship to the claims here and, instead, the class members' individual home states have the most significant contacts," the appeals court ruled in remanding the case for further proceedings. NORTH CAROLINA: Magistrates' Pay Suit Gets Class Action Status -------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a judge has given class-action status to a lawsuit saying North Carolina has broken its promise to give magistrates pay raises. Forty magistrates filed the lawsuit last year in Burke County. The lawsuit, which has plaintiffs from Burke County, has since been moved to Wake County, said Scott Jones, an Asheville attorney for the magistrates. While 40 magistrates originally filed the lawsuit, with Superior Court Judge Michael O'Foghludha's ruling, the number could jump to more than 500. Magistrates make $37,000 to $57,000 a year, based on the number of years of experience. "We are very pleased with the judge's order," an attorney for the magistrates, David Wijewickrama, said on March 6. "We are cautiously optimistic moving forward that, as the voices of state employees grow louder with more participants, state government will start to listen and pay them the moneys they are owed." The lawsuit is similar to one filed last year by Mr. Wijewickrama on behalf of state Highway Patrol troopers, who say they are facing severe financial hardships because they haven't gotten pay raises as promised. A hearing is pending on whether to grant the troopers' lawsuit class-action status. During the hearing for the magistrates' lawsuit, Mr. Wijewickrama said the pay raises were contractual, and were not discretionary. The increases were supposed to come in steps. The state, however, said it lawfully suspended step increases for the magistrates between 2009 and 2014. But Judge O'Foghludha said the lawsuit should extend beyond the 40 plaintiffs. "Whether the state could suspend step increases for the magistrates between 2009 and 2014 without incurring liability is an issue" that affects "all members of the class," the judge said. He noted that the class-action would head off any confusion for magistrates who are not part of it, but who decide to file similar lawsuits. He said the class will include all magistrates who were employed by the state at any time between June 30, 2009 and July 1, 2014. The lawsuit said magistrates have lost pay and benefits, including retirement benefits. They are seeking back pay plus interest, to pay the magistrates' attorneys' fees and the lawsuit requests a jury trial. The state representatives have told magistrates numerous times to wait for the state to address its failing to pay what the magistrates were promised, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit says the state never denied its obligations under the magistrates' contracts and that money was in the state budget to honor the contracts. Mr. Wijewickrama said lawmakers and government officials have put other interests ahead of magistrates. "It is not unreasonable to ask that magistrates, who serve their communities 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and who have already worked the hours based on a promise of a certain rate of pay . . . be paid what they are owed," he said. NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Chaya F. Posen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01422 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. OCWEN FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Tax Reporting Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Kroh, writing for Law360, reports that Ocwen Financial Corp. on March 5 asked a California federal court to dismiss a proposed class action alleging the company failed to report home mortgage interest to the Internal Revenue Service because the relevant statute does not allow for private action. Plaintiffs George and Claudia Camberis should have sought a refund rather than suing Ocwen if they believed they did not receive the full amount of the mortgage interest deduction they were entitled to, Ocwen said. Two federal district courts have rejected the existence of a right to bring action for incorrect Forms 1098, which financial institutions use to report mortgage interest paid by homeowners, the company said in a motion to dismiss the Camberises' complaint. "Courts have long held that claims pertaining to IRS information returns, such as the Form 1098, do not support a private civil claim absent express language in the Tax Code creating one," Ocwen said. The couple alleges that Ocwen did not include so-called negative amortization in the nearly $15,000 in mortgage interest the company reported the Camberises paid in 2013 on the Form 1098 it sent to the IRS. Negative amortization is unpaid monthly interest added to the loan's principal balance. The couple claims some $30,000 in negative amortization that Ocwen omitted from the form remained on their mortgage when they paid it off, according to the motion. In addition to a lack of a private action under the statute, the Camberises' complaint fails to establish that Ocwen violated Section 6050H, which governs the reporting of home mortgage interest payments to the IRS, the company said. No IRS authority requires negative amortization to be reported on the Form 1098, the motion said. Also, only the IRS may enforce the tax code, and the court cannot direct the IRS to declare a violation of the code because doing so would run afoul of the Anti-Injunction Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act, Ocwen said. The Camberises have not shown that they have been injured by Ocwen, the motion said. They have not stated that they filed income tax returns for 2013 seeking a deduction for the negative amortization and were denied by the IRS, the company said. If they were injured, it was a result of their own inaction, not Ocwen's, the motion said. The couple also failed to state claims for breach of contract, fraud and negligence under state law and those claims should be dismissed, Ocwen said. The Camberises are represented by Michael R. Brown of Michael R. Brown APC. Ocwen is represented by Jeff E. Scott -- scottj@gtlaw.com -- Jennifer L. Gray -- grayjen@gtlaw.com -- and Sarah E. Barrows of Greenberg Traurig LLP. The case is Camberis v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC, case number 3:14-cv-02970, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. PANERA BREAD: To Defend Against Class Action by Former Employee --------------------------------------------------------------- Panera Bread Company is prepared to vigorously defend a class action lawsuit filed by a former employee of one its subsidiaries, Panera said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 30, 2014. "On July 2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against one of our subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a former employee of one our subsidiaries. The lawsuit was filed in the California Superior Court, County of Riverside," the Company said. The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law. The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the Court might find just and proper. "We believe our subsidiary has meritorious defenses to each of the claims in the lawsuit and we are prepared to vigorously defend the lawsuit. There can be no assurance, however, that our subsidiary will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. We are not presently able to reasonably estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuit," the Company said. PDL BIOPHARMA: "Hampe" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed --------------------------------------------------------- PDL BioPharma, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, the federal class action entitled Hampe v. PDL Biopharma, Inc., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01526-APG-NJK (D. Nev.), was voluntarily dismissed on February 2, 2015, without prejudice. Shortly thereafter, on February 17, 2015, the federal derivative action entitled Freely, et ano. v. Lindell, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01738- APG-GWF (D. Nev.) was likewise voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. On February 18, 2015, the parties to the Nevada state court derivative action, Marchetti, et ano. v. Lindell, et al., No. A-14-708757-C (Dist. Ct. Clark Co., Nev.), filed a stipulation and proposed order of dismissal, which is subject to the approval of the court. PEPSICO INC: Judge Dismisses Cancer-Warning Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Emily Field and Beth Winegarner, writing for Law360, report that a California judge on March 4 dismissed with prejudice a proposed class action that sought to compel PepsiCo Inc. to provide medical monitoring to consumers after failing to warn them that a chemical in its drinks is linked to a form of lung cancer, ruling that the plaintiffs' causation and injury allegations aren't factually supported. U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen granted PepsiCo's motion to dismiss the suit, agreeing with the beverage giant that plaintiffs Paul R. Riva and Danielle Ardagna lack standing and their allegations aren't backed by sufficient facts. The plaintiffs claimed that the chemical 4-methylimidazole, present in some of its sodas, has been found to cause lung tumors in lab mice and rats. But the judge ruled that it was speculative to infer an increased risk of harm to humans. "As noted above, even considering the rodent studies, the levels allegedly consumed by the named plaintiffs herein would not appear to come close to the equivalent exposure in those studies," the judge said. "The specific problem here is not the general value of animal studies but the lack of any factual content to show that 4-MeI causes bronchioloalveolar cancer in humans and the failure to plead that the levels of consumption alleged herein are sufficient to trigger credible risk of such cancer." Under a California appeals court's ruling in Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., the judge said that plaintiffs have to show that a chemical is significantly likely to cause serious disease to obtain medical monitoring. The judge said the plaintiffs didn't show how much 4-Mel humans would have to be exposed to in order to bring the risk of bronchioloalveolar cancer to a credible level. Even considering the rodent studies cited by the plaintiffs, the levels consumed by the plaintiffs don't seem to come close to an equivalent exposure to the levels in those studies, the judge said. The plaintiffs said in their amended complaint that the National Toxicology Program has found 4-Mel to cause lung tumors in laboratory rats and mice, based on two-year studies of exposure. "At the hearing, plaintiffs acknowledged they were not aware of any additional scientific studies they could cite to support their claim," the judge said. Alternative sources of the chemical made it problematic to establish causation between Diet Pepsi or Pepsi One and consuming levels of 4-Mel above certain threshold limits, the judge said. The plaintiffs claimed that the soft drinks had an average of 30 to 40 micrograms of the chemical in a can, according to testing by Consumer Reports, according to the ruling. The plaintiffs cited a Consumer Reports toxicologist's opinion that there is no "safe level" of 4-MeI, and that the threshold should be "more like 3 micrograms/day," according to the judge. Pepsi moved to dismiss the amended complaint in November, saying Riva's suit was one of nine filed after the Consumer Reports piece, all of which the soda company called "a misguided overreaction to that article." The other class actions had been consolidated, but Riva's case was severed to allow the plaintiffs to chance to plead a personal injury medical monitoring claim, according to the ruling. The plaintiffs are represented by Roy A. Katriel of the Katriel Law Firm and by Ralph B. Kalfayan and Amanda Marie Friedman of Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens LLP. Pepsi is represented by Andrew Tulumello -- atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Christopher Chorba, Sapna D. Pandya and Lauren M. Blas -- lblas@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn and by Trenton H. Norris -- Trent.Norris@aporter.com -- and Sarah Esmaili -- Sarah.Esmaili@aporter.com -- of Arnold & Porter LLP. The case is Riva et al v. PepsiCo, Inc., case number 3:14-cv- 02020, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. PETROBRAS: Judge Named Pension Fund Trustee as Lead Plaintiff ------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that a U.S. federal judge on March 4 named a trustee of a British pension fund as the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit against Brazil's state-run oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA and its top executives. Universities Superannuation Scheme Ltd (USS) will represent people and companies that bought U.S.-listed securities in Petrobras, as the oil company is known. A corruption scheme has helped wiped about $90 billion of the value of the company in six months. The judge also named the law firm of Pomerantz LLP in New York as the lead counsel and ordered lawyers for both side to contact the court on March 6 to schedule further proceedings. More than three-dozen Brazilian executives have been indicted in Brazil in a case that prosecutors say involved price-fixing, bribery and political kickbacks. On March 3, the country's top prosecutor asked the Supreme Court to open investigations into an additional 54 people, many expected to be sitting politicians. The case is expected to be the largest ever corruption case in Brazil. The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of New York on Dec. 8, alleges that Petrobras made false statements and engaged in a multibillion dollar money-laundering and bribery scheme since 2006. Petrobras officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment but in the past the company said it will evaluate the value of some assets due to allegations of corruption. U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff chose USS from among four final candidates. These were the Skagen-Danske group of three European asset management companies, Danske Invest Management AS, and Danske Invest Management Co., both part of the Danske Bank Group and Skagen AS; the State Retirement Systems group, representing the public-employee retirement funds of Ohio, Idaho and Hawaii; USS; and Daniela Freitas Da Silva, an individual investor. The original action was filed by New York law firm Wolf Popper LLP. * * * Petrobras disclosed that on March 4, 2015, the presiding judge appointed Universities Superannuation Scheme, Ltd. as the lead plaintiff in the Class Action filed against Petrobras in the New York federal court. A conference call between the presiding judge, Petrobras and the lead plaintiff was set to take place on March 6th, 2015, in order to plan the next steps in the proceeding. As the Company stated on February 13, 2015, it has hired a specialized U.S. law firm and will defend itself against the allegations in this lawsuit. PIZZA PLUS: "Chimbay" Suit Transferred From E.D. to S.D. New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Chimbay, et al. v. Pizza Plus at Staten Island Ferry Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-07169, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02000-KBF to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com The Defendant is represented by: Lee Nuwesra, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LEE NUWESRA 1623 Unionport Rd., Suite 101 New York, NY 10462 Telephone: (718) 942-4294 Facsimile: (718) 942-4295 E-mail: lnuwesra@optonline.net POLAND: Class Action Over Pensions Reform Can Proceed ----------------------------------------------------- Krystyna Krzyzak at Investment & Pensions Europe reports that Poland's controversial second-pillar pensions law, which took effect in 2014, is facing a new legal challenge. On March 4, the Warsaw District Court ruled that a class action initiated by lawyer Pawel Kowalczyk for 53 claimants could go ahead. The lawsuit -- against the Polish State Treasury, Social Insurance Institution (ZUS) and pension fund management companies -- claims the transfer of Polish sovereign bonds from pension fund (OFE) portfolios to ZUS violated members' property rights. The transfer, in February 2014, removed PLN153.2 billion (EUR36.7 billion) in assets, equivalent to 51.2% of the previous month's net asset value. The Court ruled that, because the claims of the individuals -- all OFE members -- were substantially the same, the lawsuit could proceed as a group action. Other members can now sign up to the action. Any compensation from the State Treasury, should the case succeed, would be subject to a separate lawsuit. The ruling, which is subject to appeal, has already caused disquiet, given that the government had earlier insisted its reforms were legally watertight. There are other outstanding challenges to the 2014 law. In January 2014, president Bronislaw Komorowski, after signing off the law, referred sections to the Constitutional Tribunal. These included the ban on investments in sovereign bonds, the requirement for a high level of equity investment and the prohibition on pension companies advertising during the window when all members had to declare that they wanted to remain in the second pillar or default to ZUS. Subsequently, Irena Lipowicz, Poland's Human Rights Ombudsman, referred the law to the tribunal on the grounds it violated public confidence in the State. Neither party addressed the issue of legal ownership of second-pillar assets. The tribunal has yet to set a date for the hearings. Meanwhile, the size of the second pillar has shrunk dramatically following the bond removal, the decision of the majority of former members to stop further contributions once the system became voluntary, the incremental transfer to ZUS of the assets of members with 10 or fewer years left till retirement, and the massive indifference of new labor market entrants. In January 2015, net assets, at PLN150.6 billion, were down 49.6% year on year in Polish zloty terms, while the total monthly contribution plunged by 78.5% to PLN231 million. PROFESSIONAL RECOVERY: Violates FDCPA in New York, Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Hector Isaac, Sr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Professional Recovery Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-01376 (E.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gus Michael Farinella, Esq. The Westminster Building 180 West 20th Street, Suite 12b New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 675-6161 Facsimile: (212) 675-4367 E-mail: gmf@lawgmf.com PROVIDE COMMERCE: 9th Cir. Vacates Ruling in EasySaver Litigation ----------------------------------------------------------------- In In re: EASYSAVER REWARDS LITIGATION, JOSUE ROMERO; DEANNA HUNT; KIMBERLY KENYON; GINA BAILEY; ALISSA HERBST; GRANT JENKINS; BRADLEY BERENTSON; JENNIFER LAWLER; DANIEL COX; JONATHAN WALTER; CHRISTOPHER DICKEY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BRIAN PERRYMAN, Objector-Appellant, v. PROVIDE COMMERCE, INC.; REGENT GROUP, INC., a California corporation, DBA Encore Marketing International; ENCORE MARKETING INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-55373, Objector-Appellant Brian Perryman appealed the district court's approval of the class settlement agreement reached by Defendant-Appellee Provide Commerce, Inc., Defendant-Appellee Regent Group, Inc., d/b/a Encore Marketing International, and Plaintiffs-Appellees. Mr. Perryman contends that the district court abused its discretion in approving the settlement agreement and the attorney's fee award, because the $20 credit offered to the class was a coupon subject to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section 1712. Mr. Perryman further contends that the district court abused its discretion in approving the cy pres distribution. This case was originally set for argument on February 2, 2015. That argument date was vacated, and submission was deferred pending resolution of Frank v. Netflix, No. 12-15705+. On February 27, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit decided Frank v. Netflix (In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig.), No. 12-15705, ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 846008 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015). Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Ninth Circuit, in an order and memorandum entered March 19, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/NBYdegfrom Leagle.com, vacated the district court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Frank. According to the Ninth Circuit, because class settlement is a package deal that must "stand or fall in its entirety," it need not now address whether the district court abused its discretion in approving the cy pres distribution. Each party will bear its own costs on appeal. PUBLIC STORAGE: Attorneys Withdraw Insurance Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Caroline Simson, writing for Law360, reports that Newport Trial Group attorneys defending Public Storage in a putative class action accusing it of overcharging customers for its self-storage insurance have withdrawn from the suit after weathering accusations that they paid a potential class member to cooperate in the company's defense, according to documents filed in Florida federal court. Lead plaintiffs Colin Bowe and Brian Morgan notified the court they were withdrawing their motion seeking disqualification and other sanctions against Public Storage's defense attorneys, but did not provide details of the events that had transpired. Attorney for the plaintiffs Seth Miles of Grossman Roth PA told Law360 on March 5 that the Newport Trial Group's withdrawal from the case mooted the majority of the relief they had sought, but declined further comment. Attorneys from Newport Trial Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment. An evidentiary hearing on the motion set for March 5 was canceled, but as of early afternoon on March 5, the case docket did not reflect Newport Trial Group's withdrawal. The suit has been punctuated by attacks among the parties' counsel regarding their conduct, particularly with regard to depositions, over the last few months, beginning in December when Public Storage asked the court to sanction the plaintiffs' counsel "for abusive misconduct" by harassing putative class declarants during depositions. Public Storage claimed that the plaintiffs' counsel wasted time during the deposition of two witnesses by "battering" them with repetitive, legalistic and often speculative questioning. Messrs. Bowe and Morgan had responded with their own motion on Dec. 9 -- the one withdrawn on March 4 -- seeking to disqualify Newport Trial Group attorneys for allegedly paying a putative class member to cooperate in the company's defense by signing a declaration expressing complete satisfaction with his experience as a customer of the company, despite his unhappiness about being allegedly overcharged. The class member later refused to continue cooperating with the company because he had received less money than he was promised, according to that motion. Thereafter, Messrs. Bowe and Morgan accused Public Storage on Dec. 22 of violating discovery rules by serving a privilege log that didn't meet the burden to establish that attorney-client privilege protected the withheld documents, among other things. The defendants asked the court to sanction the plaintiffs' attorneys on Jan. 27 for not properly responding to requests for admissions based on the bad-faith assertion that they didn't understand the meaning of the the term "valid" insurance, according to the motion. A magistrate judge later denied the sanctions motion, but ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the requests for admission. The plaintiffs responded with another sanctions motion on Feb. 5, saying a Public Storage attorney was repeatedly coaching witnesses during depositions even after the court already found that defense counsel had inappropriately coached a witness during a deposition. They also accused Public Storage of improperly withholding certain records. They asked the court to prohibit defense attorney James Hardin from participating in depositions and the trial in the case, along with attorneys' fees in connection with a Jan. 29 deposition during which Hardin allegedly attempted to turn a plaintiffs' witness against them. During that deposition, Hardin allegedly also accused plaintiffs' counsel of "trying to destroy Mr. Hardin's family and his ability to earn a livelihood," according to the motion. U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel and for sanctions in a Feb. 11 order, but required the defendants to complete the outstanding production of documents relevant to the remaining depositions, and ordered defense counsel to abide by her admonitions regarding his conduct at the remaining depositions. The complaint alleges that Public Storage unfairly induces its customers to purchase its own self-storage insurance at inflated rates while retaining the excess premium for its own coffers in an undisclosed kickback. The suit claims that of the nearly $85 million the company grossed from its tenant insurance program in 2013, nearly $68 million of it was net profit. Public Storage is represented by David P. Ackerman -- dackerman@alslaw.com -- of Ackerman Link & Sartory PA. The plaintiffs are represented by Scott B. Cosgrove -- scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com -- Alec H. Schultz -- aschultz@leoncosgrove.com -- and David A. Karp of Leon Cosgrove LLC, David M. Buckner -- dbu@grossmanroth.com -- Seth E. Miles and Brett E. von Borke -- bvb@grossmanroth.com -- of Grossman Roth PA. The case is Bowe v. Public Storage, case number 1:14-cv-21559, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: July 31 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------------ Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC on March 10 issued a statement regarding the RALI Mortgage-Backed Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL., Defendants. No. 08-cv-8781 (KPF) SUMMARY NOTICE OF: (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION; (II) PROPOSED $235 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH THE UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS; (III) SETTLEMENT HEARING; (IV) PLAN OF ALLOCATION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF BOTH THE $235 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH THE UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED $100 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH THE RESCAP DEFENDANTS, THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, AND ALLY SECURITIES; AND (V) LEAD COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired interests in any mortgage asset-backed pass-through certificates issued by any of the following twenty (20) RALI trusts: RALI Series 2006-QH1, RALI Series 2006-QO1, RALI Series 2006-QO2, RALI Series 2006-QO3, RALI Series 2006-QO5, RALI Series 2006-QS7, RALI Series 2006-QO6, RALI Series 2006-QS8, RALI Series 2006-QO7, RALI Series 2006-QS15, RALI Series 2006-QO10, RALI Series 2007-QS1, RALI Series 2007-QS2, RALI Series 2007-QS5, RALI Series 2007-QH1, RALI Series 2007-QH2, RALI Series 2007-QH3, RALI Series 2007-QH4, RALI Series 2007-QH5, and RALI Series 2007-QH6 (the "Certificates"). - AND - TO: All persons or entities who purchased certificates or otherwise acquired beneficial interests in any of the following fifty-nine (59) RALI trusts: RALI Series 2007-QS1, RALI Series 2007-QO4, RALI Series 2007-QH4, RALI Series 2006-QO7, RALI Series 2007-QS5, RALI Series 2006-QS7, RALI Series 2007-QO2, RALI Series 2006-QS11, RALI Series 2007-QS4, RALI Series 2006-QA4, RALI Series 2006-QA6, RALI Series 2006-QA7, RALI Series 2006-QA8, RALI Series 2006-QA10, RALI Series 2006-QA11, RALI Series 2007-QA1, RALI Series 2007-QA2, RALI Series 2007-QO3, RALI Series 2007-QA3, RALI Series 2007-QA5, RALI Series 2007-QH8, RALI Series 2007-QH9, RALI Series 2007-QO5, RALI Series 2007-QS11, RALI Series 2007-QS6, RALI Series 2006-QS8, RALI Series 2006-QS9, RALI Series 2007-QS7, RALI Series 2007-QH2, RALI Series 2007-QH5, RALI Series 2007-QH6, RALI Series 2006-QS18, RALI Series 2006-QO10, RALI Series 2006-QO3, RALI Series 2006-QO6, RALI Series 2007-QH3, RALI Series 2007-QS2, RALI Series 2006-QO9, RALI Series 2006-QO8, RALI Series 2006-QO5, RALI Series 2006-QA5, RALI Series 2006-QA9, RALI Series 2006-QH1, RALI Series 2006-QO4, RALI Series 2006-QS5, RALI Series 2006-QS16, RALI Series 2006-QS17, RALI Series 2007-QH1, RALI Series 2007-QO1, RALI Series 2007-QS3, RALI Series 2007-QA4, RALI Series 2007-QH7, RALI Series 2007-QS8, RALI Series 2007-QS10, RALI Series 2006- QS12, RALI Series 2006-QS13, RALI Series 2006-QS6, RALI Series 2007-QS9, and RALI Series 2006-QS15. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT, SETTLEMENT, AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION PENDING IN THIS COURT. NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, SETTLEMENT WITH THE UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS, PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND LEAD COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES: You are hereby notified: (i) of the pendency of the above-captioned class action lawsuit (the "Action") asserting claims against defendants Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., and UBS Securities LLC (collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants"), relating to certain mortgage asset- backed pass-through certificates and brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired interests in the Certificates described above on or before the date when a claim concerning those Certificates was first asserted in the Action (i.e., the "Date of First Suit") (the "Underwriter Settlement Class");1 (ii) that a proposed settlement has been reached in the Action (the "Underwriter Settlement"); (iii) of the plan of allocation pertaining to the Underwriter Settlement's funds; and (iv) of Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. A hearing with respect to the Underwriter Settlement, the plan of allocation, and Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses will be held on July 31, 2015, at 2:30 P.M. before the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 618, New York, New York 10007. The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things: (i) whether the proposed settlement of the claims asserted in this Action, pursuant to which the Underwriter Defendants will cause to be deposited the sum of $235,000,000.00 into a settlement fund in exchange for (among other things) the dismissal of the Action and a release of claims against the Underwriter Defendants and other related persons and entities, is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed, on the merits and with prejudice, and whether the releases set forth in the Underwriter Settlement should be ordered by the Court; (iii) whether the proposed plan of allocation of the settlement fund is fair and reasonable, and should be approved by the Court; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Underwriter Settlement Class, you may be entitled to share in the distribution of the Underwriter Settlement if you submit a claim form postmarked no later than July 3, 2015, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. If you are a member of the Underwriter Settlement Class, you have the right to object to the Underwriter Settlement, the plan of allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting a written objection so that it is received by July 1, 2015, in accordance with the procedures described in a more detailed notice that has been mailed to persons or entities known to be potential members of the Underwriter Settlement Class, and that is available at www.RALIMBSLitigation.com You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Underwriter Settlement Class by submitting a written request for exclusion so that it is received by June 22, 2015, in accordance with the procedures described in the more detailed notice. If the Underwriter Settlement is approved by the Court, you will be bound by the terms of that settlement and the Court's final order and judgment, including the releases provided for in the final order and judgment, unless you submit a request to be excluded. NOTICE OF PLAN OF ALLOCATION FOR DISTRIBUTION OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED $100 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH RESCAP DEFENDANTS AND LEAD COUNSEL'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES: You are also hereby notified of: (i) the plan of allocation pertaining to funds from a previously approved $100 million settlement (the "ResCap Settlement") with defendants Residential Capital, LLC, Residential Funding Company, LLC, Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., Bruce J. Paradis, Kenneth M. Duncan, Davee L. Olson, Ralph T. Flees, Lisa R. Lundsten, James G. Jones, David M. Bricker, James N. Young, and Ally Securities (the "ResCap Defendants") pertaining to persons or entities who purchased certificates or otherwise acquired beneficial interests in any of the following fifty-nine (59) RALI trusts: RALI Series 2007-QS1, RALI Series 2007-QO4, RALI Series 2007-QH4, RALI Series 2006-QO7, RALI Series 2007-QS5, RALI Series 2006-QS7, RALI Series 2007-QO2, RALI Series 2006-QS11, RALI Series 2007-QS4, RALI Series 2006-QA4, RALI Series 2006-QA6, RALI Series 2006-QA7, RALI Series 2006-QA8, RALI Series 2006-QA10, RALI Series 2006-QA11, RALI Series 2007-QA1, RALI Series 2007-QA2, RALI Series 2007-QO3, RALI Series 2007-QA3, RALI Series 2007-QA5, RALI Series 2007-QH8, RALI Series 2007-QH9, RALI Series 2007-QO5, RALI Series 2007-QS11, RALI Series 2007-QS6, RALI Series 2006-QS8, RALI Series 2006-QS9, RALI Series 2007-QS7, RALI Series 2007-QH2, RALI Series 2007-QH5, RALI Series 2007-QH6, RALI Series 2006-QS18, RALI Series 2006-QO10, RALI Series 2006-QO3, RALI Series 2006-QO6, RALI Series 2007-QH3, RALI Series 2007-QS2, RALI Series 2006-QO9, RALI Series 2006-QO8, RALI Series 2006-QO5, RALI Series 2006-QA5, RALI Series 2006-QA9, RALI Series 2006-QH1, RALI Series 2006-QO4, RALI Series 2006-QS5, RALI Series 2006-QS16, RALI Series 2006-QS17, RALI Series 2007- QH1, RALI Series 2007-QO1, RALI Series 2007-QS3, RALI Series 2007- QA4, RALI Series 2007-QH7, RALI Series 2007-QS8, RALI Series 2007- QS10, RALI Series 2006-QS12, RALI Series 2006-QS13, RALI Series 2006-QS6, RALI Series 2007-QS9, and RALI Series 2006-QS15 (the "ResCap Settlement Class"); and (ii) Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses. A hearing with respect to the plan of allocation and Lead Counsel's motion for and award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses will be held on July 31, 2015, at 2:30 P.M. before the Honorable Katherine Polk Failla, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, Courtroom 618, New York, New York 10007. The purpose of the hearing is to determine, among other things: (i) whether the proposed plan of allocation of the settlement fund is fair and reasonable, and should be approved by the Court; and (ii) whether Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the ResCap Settlement Class, you may be entitled to share in the distribution of the settlement fund if you submit a claim form postmarked no later than July 3, 2015, establishing that you are entitled to a recovery. If you are a member of the ResCap Settlement Class, you have the right to object to the plan of allocation and/or Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, or otherwise request to be heard, by submitting a written objection so that it is received by July 1, 2015, in accordance with the procedures described in a more detailed notice that has been mailed to persons or entities known to be potential members of the ResCap Settlement Class, and that is available at www.RALIMBSLitigation.com. This notice provides only a summary of matters regarding the Action and the ResCap Settlement and the Underwriter Settlement. A more detailed notice describing the Action, the Underwriter Settlement, and the rights of members of the ResCap Settlement Class and/or the Underwriter Settlement Class to appear in Court at the hearing referenced above, to request to be excluded from the Underwriter Settlement Class and/or to object to that settlement, the plan of allocation, and/or Lead Counsel's motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses, has been mailed to persons or entities known to be potential members of the ResCap Settlement Class and/or Underwriter Settlement Class. You may obtain a copy of that more detailed notice, a claim form, or other information by writing to the following address or calling the following telephone number: RALI MBS Litigation c/o Garden City Group, LLC P.O. Box 9991 Dublin, OH 43017-5991 (888) 985-9201 info@RALIMBSLitigation.com or by downloading the same from www.RALIMBSLitigation.com PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the more detailed notice and claim form referenced above, may be made to Lead Counsel for the ResCap Settlement Class and the Underwriter Settlement Class: COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC Joel P. Laitman Christopher Lometti Michael Eisenkraft 88 Pine Street, 14th Floor New York, N.Y. 10005 Telephone: (212) 838-7797 Email: jlaitman@cohenmilstein.com clometti@cohenmilstein.com meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com Steven J. Toll 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 500, West Tower Washington, D.C. 20005 Tel.: (202) 408-4600 Email: stoll@cohenmilstein.com Dated: March 5, 2015 By Order of the Clerk of the Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 1 The Date of First Suit is September 22, 2008 for the Certificates issued by the RALI Series 2006-QO1, RALI Series 2006- QO2, RALI Series 2006-QO3, RALI Series 2006-QO5, RALI Series 2006- QO6, RALI Series 2006-QO7, and RALI Series 2006-QO10 trusts and May 18, 2009 for the Certificates issued by the RALI Series 2006- QH1, RALI Series 2006-QS7, RALI Series 2006-QS8, RALI Series 2006-QS15, RALI Series 2007-QS1, RALI Series 2007-QS2, RALI Series 2007-QS5, RALI Series 2007-QH1, RALI Series 2007-QH2, RALI Series 2007-QH3, RALI Series 2007-QH4, RALI Series 2007-QH5, and RALI Series 2007-QH6 trusts RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITOR'S: Violates FDCPA in N.J., Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Yael Sokol, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Retrieval-Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc. d/b/a AMCA a/k/a American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 2:15-cv-01971-CCC-MF (D.N.J., March 17, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Zelman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON PC 1669 East 12th Street Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 339-0856 E-mail: yzelman@sassonlaw.com ROBERT J. POWELL: Settlement Mulled for Kids-for-Cash Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Citizens' Voice reports that attorneys for kids-for-cash figure Robert J. Powell and juveniles improperly jailed in a detention center he co-owned plan to file a settlement in the juveniles' class-action suit, according to a motion filed in U.S. District Court. Powell served an 18-month prison sentence in the kids-for-cash case after testifying he paid more than $700,000 in bribes to two Luzerne County judges who directed the juveniles to his center. The class-action suit filed against Mr. Powell and other kids-for- cash figures has already resulted in a $17.75 million settlement with local developer Robert Mericle, who built the center and paid the same judges more than $2 million. Mr. Mericle is serving a one-year prison term. The judges, Mark A. Ciavarella and Michael T. Conahan, are serving 28 and 17 years respectively. ROBERT MANAGEMENT: Trial Court Decision Upheld ---------------------------------------------- Judge Max N. Tobias Jr. of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the trial court's judgment in the case ANDRE' J. ROBERT, RANDALL G. MOUROT, AND J. STOREY CHARBONNET, v. ROBERT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, ET AL., NO. 2014-CA-0822 (La Ct. App.) In 1999, MarketFare, L.L.C., was formed by Marc Robert (Marc) as a manager-managed Louisiana limited liability company for purposes of acquiring, through a bankruptcy action, leases on former Schwegmann Grocery Stores in New Orleans. Marc recruited investors, including the plaintiffs, his brother Andre J. Robert (Andre), J. Storey Charbonnet (Storey), and Randall G. Mourot (Randy). The plaintiffs collectively own 32.2% of the membership interest in MarketFare, whereas Marc and his wife, Darlene Robert (Darlene), own 65% of the membership interest of the company in community. MarketFare created four wholly owned subsidiaries to separately own and operate each of the four stores; namely: MarketFare N. Broad, LLC; MarketFare Canal, LLC; MarketFare St. Claude, LLC; and, MarketFare Annunciation, LLC. RMC was designated as the manager for the newly-formed MarketFare as well as for the Subsidary LLCs. Marc and Darlene are the sole members of RMC. From 1995 to 2005, the MarketFare stores lost more than a million dollars per year. In May 2004, due to a continuous loss in revenue, the Broad Street Store was closed. Following severe property damage sustained during Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, MarketFare's operations at the remaining three grocery stores ceased and the Subsidiary LLCs were over $6 million in debt. As a result of the severe damages sustained to the various properties during the hurricane and the denial of payment for its insurance claims by MarketFare's insurers, MarketFare filed lawsuits for the collection of insurance proceeds. On September 13, 2006, without notice to the plaintiffs or other investors, the defendants formed Claiborne Fresh Market, LLC (Claiborne LLC), establishing RMC as its managing member, for purposes of pursuing the Claiborne Avenue Store opportunity. The Claiborne Avenue Store opened in August 2008, one year from the execution of the ground lease. MarketFare, the Subsidiary LLCs, and the individual plaintiffs held no ownership interest in the Claiborne Avenue Store. The plaintiffs, on behalf of MarketFare, subsequently filed suit in April 2010 against RMC, Marc, and Darlene alleging not only derivative claims on behalf of MarketFare under a corporate veil piercing/alter ego theory, but also individual claims. The verified petition, as amended, averred that by pursuing and developing the Claiborne Avenue Store through a new limited liability company without their involvement, thereby usurping business opportunities that belonged to MarketFare, the defendants intentionally breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith owed to the Plaintiffs. In response, the defendants filed a peremptory exception of preemption in June 2010 relative to the Claiborne Avenue Store opportunity. The trial court granted the defendants' exception in November 2010, finding that the plaintiffs failed to bring suit within three years of September 2006, the date Claiborne LLC was formed. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on the basis that La. R.S. 12:1502 is a "prescriptive statute with peremptive time limitations and remanded the matter back to the trial court. In May 2013, the defendants filed a second peremptory exception of prescription averring that, given the allegations contained in the plaintiffs' original and previous supplemental and amending verified petitions stating they were aware in 2007 that Marc was not offering the Claiborne Avenue Store opportunity to MarketFare, the plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duties for seizure and theft of the Claiborne Avenue Store opportunity (Count I) and conspiracy to breach fiduciary duties (Count III) set forth in the plaintiffs' fourth and fifth supplemental and amending petitions had prescribed. The trial judge rendered judgment granting the defendants' exception and dismissing Counts I and III. Plaintiffs appealed. Judge Tobias affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting the exception of prescription in favor of the defendants. A copy of Judge Tobias's decision dated February 11, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/ezsba6from Leagle.com. Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant: Robert Patrick Vance, Esq. Andrew R. Lee, Esq. Avery B. Pardee, Esq. Brett S. Venn, Esq. JONES WALKER WAECHTER POITEVENT CARRERE & DENEGRE, L.L.P. 201 St. Charles Avenue, 49th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170-5100 Telephone: 504-582-8000 Facsimile: 504-585-8583 Counsel for Defendant/Appellee: Kyle D. Schonekas, Esq. Patrick Shaw McGoey, Esq. Andrea V. Timpa, Esq. SCHONEKAS EVANS McGOEY & McEACHIN, L.L.C. 909 Poydras Street, Suite 1600 New Orleans, LA 70112 Telephone: 504-680-6050 Facsimile: 504-680-6051 ROYAL CARIBBEAN: Demands for Arbitration Brought by Crew Members ---------------------------------------------------------------- Demands for arbitration are being brought individually by crew members and not on behalf of a purported class of stateroom attendants, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. A class action complaint was filed in June 2011 against Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a purported class of stateroom attendants employed onboard Royal Caribbean International cruise vessels. The complaint alleged that the stateroom attendants were required to pay other crew members to help with their duties and that certain stateroom attendants were required to work back of house assignments without the ability to earn gratuities, in each case, in violation of the U.S. Seaman's Wage Act. "In May 2012, the district court granted our motion to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the applicable collective bargaining agreement requires any such claims to be arbitrated. The United States Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit, affirmed the district court's dismissal and denied the plaintiffs' petition for re- hearing and re-hearing en banc," the Company said. In October 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' request to review the order compelling arbitration. Subsequently, approximately 575 crew members submitted demands for arbitration. The demands make substantially the same allegations as in the federal court complaint and are similarly seeking damages, wage penalties and interest in an indeterminate amount. "Unlike the federal court complaint, the demands for arbitration are being brought individually by each of the crew members and not on behalf of a purported class of stateroom attendants. At this time, we are unable to estimate the possible impact of this matter on us. However, we believe the underlying claims made against us are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against them," the Company said. SAFEWAY INC: Plaintiff in "Rodman" Case Wins Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California granted plaintiff's motion in the case MICHAEL RODMAN, Plaintiff, v. SAFEWAY INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-03003-JST (N.D. Cal.) Since 2006, Safeway has operated an online grocery delivery service on its website, Safeway.com. Prior to placing a delivery order with Safeway.com, customers must register for an account. Once registered, customers place orders for home delivery by browsing selections and prices displayed on the website. For each item, the online store describes the item, displays its image, and displays a price next to the item. Customers select a delivery time, which can be several days after the order is placed online. Groceries are then selected from a physical Safeway store and delivered to the customer. Prices for products in Safeway's physical stores, and in its online store, change frequently. The plaintiff Michael Rodman used the Safeway.com delivery service and later discovered the prices were higher than those in his local store. He brought suit, alleging causes of action for breach of contract and under California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law. Plaintiff argued that he understood the Special Terms to promise the same prices in the local stores as were charged on the website, and Safeway argued that his claims failed as a matter of law. Plaintiff argues that Defendant breached the terms of the parties' agreement by charging higher prices for groceries on its online Safeway.com delivery service than it charged in the stores where the groceries were selected. On November 1, 2011, the Court denied Safeway's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims. On November 15, 2011, Safeway revised the Special Terms to include the following language: "Please note before shopping online at Safeway.com that online and physical store prices, promotions, and offers may differ." On August 29, 2012, Safeway sent an email to customers who had opened an email from Safeway.com in the last six months, informing them that "Grocery delivery prices, promotions, discounts, and offers may differ from your local store." On March 9, 2014, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class for purposes of bringing the breach of contract action, although not for the CLRA, UCL and FAL causes of action. Both plaintiff and defendant have filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment on the class's breach of contract claim. Judge Tigar granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and finds that Safeway breached the contract by charging plaintiff and the class members who registered beginning in 2006 more than the prices permitted under the terms of the contract and the class is entitled to damages even for purchases which occurred after the Special Terms were amended on November 15, 2011. A copy of Judge Tigar's amended order dated February 12, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Dx8NBkfrom Leagle.com. Michael Rodman, Plaintiff, represented by, James C Shah -- jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Rosemary Farrales Luzon -- rluzon@sfmslaw.com -- Scott Rhead Shepherd -- at -- Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP; Steven Alan Schwartz -- SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- Timothy Newlyn Mathews -- TimothyMathews@chimicles.com -- at Chimicles & Tikellis LLP Safeway Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian R. Blackman -- bblackman@sheppardmullin.com -- Elizabeth Sarah Berman -- ebarcohana@sheppardmullin.com -- P. Craig Cardon -- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- at -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP SANOFI PASTEUR: Asks 3rd Cir. to Dismiss Junk Fax Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Packel and Lisa Ryan, writing for Law360, report that Sanofi Pasteur Inc. on March 4 asked the Third Circuit to throw out a putative class action over the company's alleged transmission of unsolicited faxes to consumers, arguing that its unaccepted offer to resolve the suit put the case to rest. Carl J. Greco, representing Sanofi, told the three-judge panel that the company's offer of judgment mooted the plaintiffs' individual claims, as well as the class claims, since no motion for class certification had been filed at that time. "In the three years after the filing in federal court, the plaintiffs have taken no action to move for class certification," he said. "We believe there was undue delay." The federal suit, filed in November 2011, alleges advertisers VisionLab Inc., Westfax Inc. and Velofax LLP sent more than 10,000 unsolicited fax advertisements to consumers on behalf of Sanofi and Vaxserve Inc. The suit claims the faxes violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The advertisers allegedly began sending the faxes in April 2004 after purchasing the fax numbers from list broker List Strategies Inc, the suit says. The lead plaintiff had originally filed in Pennsylvania state court in February 2005. The issue before the Third Circuit flows out of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in a case against Genesis Health Care Corp., in which it ruled that the company's offer of full relief to the named plaintiff mooted a putative wage-and-hour collective action, but didn't address the question of whether an unaccepted offer can moot a case. "This is an area of the law that is in great turmoil," Judge Anthony Scirica said on March 4. Mr. Greco argued that Sanofi's Rule 68 offer of judgment to the lead plaintiffs in November 2013 mooted the plaintiffs' individual claims well as the class claims, since no motion for class certification had been filed at that time. In response to questions from Judges Jane Roth and Patty Shwartz, he said that even though the offer had expired, it still stood and could be approved by the court. "We could consent to the entry of a judgment," he said. Todd Bank, representing the plaintiffs, responded that the court should follow Justice Elena Kagan's dissent in the Genesis case, which said that an unaccepted offer did not moot a case. She was joined by three other justices in the 5 to 4 decision. "Every single district court -- except for those finding binding precedent in their circuits -- has followed Justice Kagan's dissent," he said. "The issue couldn't be more clear: an offer that has expired, it's like it has never been made," he continued. "It's just not logical." But Judge Roth noted while the offer might have been expired for the purposes of Rule 68, it could still be on the table for the purposes of making the plaintiffs whole, pointing to Greco's previous acknowledgment in open court that Sanofi was willing to stand by the offer. "If it makes the plaintiffs whole, it's not a chimera," she said. The plaintiffs are represented by P. Timothy Kelly of Mattise & Kelly PC, Daniel A. Osborn of Osborn Law PC and Todd C. Bank of the Law Office of Todd C. Bank. The defendants are represented by Carl J. Greco of Carl J. Greco PC. The case is Weitzner et al. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. et al., case number 14-3423 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. SBTICKETS.COM: Keller Rohrback Files Super Bowl Tickets Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Keller Rohrback L.L.P. on March 4 disclosed that it has filed a class action complaint against SBTickets.com and Paul Jones, president and founder of SBTickets.com, alleging the Company did not fulfill its "100% guarantee" of delivering Super Bowl XLIX tickets to their customers. According to the complaint, despite repeated representations that the tickets would be delivered as promised, customers from all over the world traveled to Phoenix only to find that SBTickets did not have their tickets, leaving them without a seat for this once-in-a-lifetime event. The complaint further states that customers spent at least $2,000 per ticket as well as thousands of dollars more to travel to Phoenix, Arizona. Most, if not all, SBTickets customers received messages assuring them that "by having chosen SBTickets as your Super Bowl ticket provider, your ticket(s) are guaranteed and waiting to get you into the Big Game," only to find out there was no ticket waiting for them. Many customers were first notified that they had no ticket just hours before kick-off, when they were at the University of Phoenix Stadium in Glendale, Arizona. "For many football fans, a trip to Super Bowl XLIX was the trip of a lifetime. But the failure of this ticket broker to fulfill its promise left those fans with huge travel bills and nothing to show for it," said Gary Gotto -- sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com -- a partner in Keller Rohrback's nationally recognized Complex Litigation Group who has practiced in the Phoenix area since 1982. If you would like more information about this case, contact attorneys Gary Gotto or David Ko at (206) 623-1900 or (800) 776- 6044 or via email at info@kellerrohrback.com. People who bought tickets through a broker but did not have their orders fulfilled can contact Keller Rohrback if they would like the firm's attorneys to evaluate their potential claims. Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is a sixty-plus lawyer law firm with a national reputation as a go-to plaintiffs' firm for large-scale, complex individual and class action cases. With offices in Seattle, Phoenix, New York, and Santa Barbara, Keller Rohrback represents harmed consumers in class action cases in a variety of contexts. SCHIFF NUTRITION: Faces Class Action Over MegaRed Supplement ------------------------------------------------------------ Legal Newsline reports that a dietary supplement maker is being sued over allegations it falsely advertises one of its products could reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Seth Sultan filed the lawsuit on Feb. 25 against Schiff Nutrition International over its MegaRed supplement, which claims on its label that it "may reduce the risk" of CHD. MegaRed contains omega-3 fatty acids, which in some research has indicated it may reduce CHD risk, the complaint says. That research, however, has not been adopted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also said nutritional supplements like MegaRed are only allowed to include a statement that says consuming omega-3 fatty acids may reduce the risk of CHD, but that research on the subject likewise is not conclusive. "For this same reason, the FDA has stated that any claim suggesting a level of omega-3 fatty acids to be useful in achieving a reduction in the risk of CHD for the general healthy population is presumed to be false and misleading," the lawsuit said. Despite the FDA stance, MegaRed still states on its label that it "may reduce the risk of coronary heart disease" without any information that the research hasn't been confirmed, the suit says. The lawsuit seeks class status and more than $5 million in damages plus court costs. Mr. Sultan is represented by Lionel Glancy and Mark Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP in Los Angeles and Stuart Scott and Daniel Frech of Spangenberg Shibley & Liber, LLP in Cleveland. United States District Court for Central District of California case number is 8:15-cv-00315. SEAWORLD PARKS: Auto-Renew Ticket Class Action Can Proceed ---------------------------------------------------------- Zachary Zagger and Linda Chiem, writing for Law360, report that a Florida federal judge on March 5 refused to dismiss a putative class action against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc. alleging the theme park operator wrongfully renewed and automatically charged customers for annual passes to its parks without their permission. Plaintiff Jason Herman alleges SeaWorld breached its "EZpay" payment plan contract by automatically renewing and charging customers for annual passes to its parks for the upcoming year before the current 12-month period was up and without obtaining authorization from the customers. In a two-page order, U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven denied SeaWorld's motion to dismiss, except for an unjust enrichment claim that the plaintiff stipulated to dismissal, ordering SeaWorld to answer Herman's complaint within 14 days. According to his December complaint, Mr. Herman bought two adult passes good for one year's worth of unlimited admission to Busch Gardens Tampa and SeaWorld Orlando on March 18, 2013, opting to pay for the passes through SeaWorld's EZpay monthly payment plan instead of paying for them upfront in full. Mr. Herman said that despite making the full payment for the year passes in 11 months, SeaWorld continued to charge his credit card on a monthly basis. He alleged that SeaWorld did not have the contractual right to automatically renew the passes or continue to charge him on a month-to-month basis. But in its motion to dismiss, SeaWorld called Mr. Herman's interpretation of the contract "nonsensical," saying it focuses on a single clause in the EZpay contract contending that the contract clearly allowed for automatic renewal unless the purchaser canceled. Following the 12th monthly payment in February 2014, Mr. Herman's contract renewed automatically on a month-to-month basis pursuant to its terms and he continued to make the monthly payments up until September to keep his annual pass valid and he never canceled his EZpay plan, SeaWorld said in its motion to dismiss. The theme park giant argued that, reading the contract as a whole, "there can be no question that SeaWorld's conduct was authorized" and that the "plain language of the contract simply does not permit plaintiff's strained reading to the contrary," in its motion to dismiss. SeaWorld had also sought to bifurcate the discovery process to first handle discovery related to class certification, leaving the discovery on the merits of the claim for when and if the court certifies the class. However, the court denied this request in its order on March 5, saying bifurcation was premature. Mr. Herman is represented by Paul R. Fowkes and Ryan C. Hasanbasic of Disparti Law Group PA. SeaWorld is represented by Colin C. Deihl -- colin.deihl@faegrebd.com -- and Ann E. Prouty -- ann.prouty@faegrebd.com -- of Faegre Baker Daniels and Christopher T. Hill of Hill Rugh Keller & Main. The case is Herman v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc., case number 8:14-cv-03028, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Evidentiary Hearing Set for May 18 ------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Dunn, writing for International Business Times, reports that Humphrey Uddoh wrote a letter to a federal judge in New Jersey in February about two insurance adjusters who appeared at his Jersey City home after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 -- one a welcome guest, the other quite suspicious. The first man, Mr. Uddoh says, assessed that the home had sustained flood damage totaling at least $80,000. The second man, Uddoh says, showed up under false pretenses, but eventually admitted the true nature of the visit: An insurance company had dispatched him to "undercut" the initial estimate. Incensed, Mr. Uddoh threatened to call the police. He then watched the man "scatter like a vermin," almost knocking over one of Mr. Uddoh's neighbors on the sidewalk before he jumped into an SUV and peeled away. The mysterious visitor "put the 'pedal to the metal' and screeched out of his parking spot so fast that he left burned black tire marks behind," according to the 187-page document Mr. Uddoh filed with a federal district court in New Jersey early February. The letter has won Mr. Uddoh a new hearing in a case that illustrates deeper problems within the Federal Emergency Management Agency's embattled National Flood Insurance Program, already reeling from allegations of widespread fraud. Mr. Uddoh said he now has evidence that a common document was first wrongfully altered and then kept hidden by his insurance carrier and a powerful private law firm that has served FEMA for decades. The document that Mr. Uddoh unearthed -- an adjuster's report -- is the cornerstone of nearly every insurance claim. Thousands more people are at risk of having received manipulated adjusters' reports, and reduced claims payments, attorneys say. "If that part of the process is manipulated, altered, or tainted, the entire process is manipulated, altered and tainted," said Mr. Uddoh's lawyer, Mitchell B. Shpelfogel. Both Mr. Uddoh's insurance carrier, Selective Insurance Co. of America, and one of its attorneys from the firm Nielsen, Carter & Treas LLC declined to comment for this story, citing the pending litigation. A lawyer for the adjusting firm, CNC Catastrophe & National Claims, also declined to comment, citing a judge's dismissal of the company's involvement in the case. The firm reached a settlement agreement with Mr. Uddoh in January. A FEMA representative declined to comment on Mr. Uddoh's case, but said, "We expect every insurance company we partner with to share FEMA's values of putting survivors first." Mr. Uddoh said the evidence he now has shows Selective fraudulently reduced his claim from the $80,000 the original adjuster set aside. The final estimate he was issued back in 2012 totaled $334. The new report he obtained shows an estimate of $16,170. Mr. Shpelfogel said he believes even the newly uncovered version was altered, and that repairs to Mr. Uddoh's home -- which he hasn't been able to complete -- could ultimately top $150,000. What's more is that Selective maintained that no other version existed, Mr. Shpelfogel said. Despite spending nearly two years in litigation with Selective and CNC, Mr. Uddoh managed to obtain the new copy only when he settled part of the case with CNC in January. "The continued lies and cover-ups is why we're still in litigation," Mr. Shpelfogel said. Until February, Mr. Uddoh, a lawyer by trade, represented himself in the lawsuit. He was up against a law firm -- Nielsen, Carter & Treas -- that has a long history with FEMA. Partner Gerald Nielsen has represented National Flood Insurance Program carriers since 1988. He is a noted speaker on the workings of the NFIP, and a fixture at the National Flood Conference, an annual gathering of executives from insurance companies, banks, adjusting firms and engineering firms. FEMA pays the legal bills for defense attorneys when homeowners sue on their flood-insurance claims. Nielsen's comments about how much defense lawyers would earn from Sandy litigation have drawn heightened scrutiny. Last June, he predicted that defense fees from Sandy were "likely to exceed the total costs" from the previous 20 years combined, reaching $100 million. In December, the two U.S. senators in New York requested that the Government Accountability Office audit the flood-insurance program's legal fees, quoting directly from Nielsen's statements in the federal court for the Eastern District of New York. In mid-February, FEMA confirmed it had so far spent $12.4 million on outside attorneys for Sandy lawsuits. Mr. Shpelfogel and Mr. Mostyn argued that they see another troubling pattern: In several cases involving allegations of manipulated damage reports, as well as evidence that has not been produced in litigation, the Nielsen firm is a "common denominator," Mr. Shpelfogel said. Gerald Nielsen did not respond to requests for comment. In the Raimey v. Wright case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Gary R. Brown found in November the altered engineering report was "concealed by design" from the homeowners and that Wright's counsel "violated its obligations" to turn over evidence. In that same order, Brown sanctioned Wright's attorneys, which included lawyers from the Nielsen firm. Mr. Shpelfogel and Mr. Mostyn are suing Nielsen, Carter & Treas in a class-action racketeering suit, alleging the firm took part in a scheme to reduce flood-insurance payments, based on altered engineering reports. Mr. Uddoh filed suit against Selective and CNC in April 2013, and attempted to subpoena documents from the original adjuster -- an outside contractor who was not an employee of the adjusting firm. In a previous conversation with Mr. Uddoh, this adjuster "spoke of the pressure that CNC was subjecting him to" and "stated his directive by CNC and Selective to lower his $80,000 damage award," according to Mr. Uddoh's court filing. An attorney with Nielsen, Carter & Treas intervened in that subpoena attempt. Court documents show that lawyer Kristie Mouney emailed Daniel Jules April 11, 2013, "instructing that you not provide any response to" Mr. Uddoh's subpoena. Looking back, Mr. Mostyn said, "Uddoh had to fight very, very hard to get his documents." A hearing on evidence in the case is scheduled for May 18. SHELLPOINT PARTNERS: Faces Suit Linked to Home Mortgage Servicing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Un Boon Kim, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and the general public v. Shellpoint Partners, LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, Case No. 3:15-cv-00611-LAB-BLM (S.D. Cal., March 17, 2015) seeks redress for damages caused by the Defendant's alleged numerous violations of California and federal laws related to the servicing of home mortgages. Shellpoint is a mortgage lender and servicer with headquarters in Greenville, South Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Robert Forde, Esq. Matthew B. Bernstein, Esq. HOFFMAN & FORDE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3033 5th Avenue, Suite 225 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 546-7880 Facsimile: (619) 546-7881 E-mail: dforde@hoffmanforde.com mbernstein@hoffmanforde.com - and - Frank J. Polek, Esq. POLEK LAW 701 B. Street, Suite 1110 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 550-2455 Facsimile: (619) 274-8166 E-mail: frank@poleklaw.com SHEPHERD COMMUNICATIONS: "Sparacino" Case Stayed Until April 20 --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Colin H. Lindsay of the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville Division, sustained in part and overruled in part the parties' joint motion in the case JEREMY SPARACINO and RONNIE SPATE, on behalf of THEMSELVES and All Others Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS, v. SHEPHERD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TIME WARNER CABLE MIDWEST, LLC, INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., and ERIC SHEPHERD, DEFENDANTS, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-298-JHM- CHL (W.D. Ky.) The parties filed a joint motion to stay litigation and toll the claims. The parties have proposed that the Court enter an agreed order staying the action and tolling the applicable statutes of limitations. The parties seek a stay of the litigation from the date of filing the Joint Motion, February 2, 2015, until April 20, 2015. The purpose of the proposed stay is to provide adequate time for the parties to engage in limited discovery and to mediate this matter on April 13, 2015. The parties agree that, should a stay be imposed, any party may move to lift or prolong the stay depending on the status of settlement discussions. Also the parties have moved the court for an order tolling the applicable statutes of limitations for the same period of time that the matter is stayed. The parties ask that the statutes of limitations be tolled with respect to all claims asserted by plaintiffs and potential opt-in plaintiffs, as well as claims asserted in the lawsuit by former plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs whom the court previously compelled to arbitration. Judge Lindsay sustained in part and overruled in part the parties' joint motion. The litigation is stayed from the date of filing of the joint motion, February 2, 2015, until April 20, 2015. During the period of time that the stay is in effect, the parties are free to move the Court to lift or extend the stay. The Court overruled the parties' request that it equitably toll the statutes of limitations applicable to the claims in this action. A copy of Judge Lindsay's memorandum opinion and order dated February 12, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/89A470from Leagle.com. Ian Coram, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC George Bright, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Philip Hess, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Howard L. Sutton, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Jerome Trowell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Ryan Cagle, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Chet Emerson Glisson, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC James Clemons, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Chris J. Ennis, Plaintiff, represented by Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Greggory Mick, Plaintiff, represented by Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Brian Adams, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Christopher J. Buckman, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Jacob Dunham, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Edward Hohmann, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Mitchell Lilly, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Brandon Howard, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Tyrone Cardwell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Tom Riddell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Joseph A. Brown, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Lloyd W. Brown, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Rodney Long, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Jonatan Cisneros Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Anthony Roussel, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Patrick Ferguson, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Adam Guenther, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Shawn Gray, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC James Travis Barker, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Michael Hicks, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Charles Yocum, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Mark Miracle, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Benji Riddell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC George Cline, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Jason Messer, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Richard Smith, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Ashley Wasielewski, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Dustin Leatherwood, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Michael Snell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Jeremy Loney, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Jeremy Sparacino, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Philip John Thomas, III, Plaintiff, represented by Philip John Thomas, III Anna Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Sammy Wayne Lester, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Jeff Redmon, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Michael Logan, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Chris Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Matthew P. Reese, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Brandon W. Chesser, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Brian Marksbury, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Jason Keith, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Todd Ogden, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Victor D. Davenport, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Ronnie Spate, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Jesse Noel, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Thomas Abbott, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Kevin Ritchie, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Arnoldo Hutchinson, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC,J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC John T. Ivey, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Terell Purnell, Plaintiff, represented by David W. Garrison, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, J. Chris Sanders, Jerry E. Martin, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC, Scott P. Tift, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC & Seth M. Hyatt, Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC Shepherd Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by John C. Roach, Ransdell & Roach PLLC, S. Chad Meredith, Ransdell & Roach PLLC & W. Keith Ransdell, Ransdell & Roach PLLC Insight Communications Company, L.P., Defendant, represented by Barry L. Dunn, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Culver V. Halliday, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, J. Scott Carr, Wargo & French, LLP, Michael D. Kabat, Wargo & French, LLP & Stephanie L. McAlister, Wargo & French LLP Time Warner Cable Midwest LLC, Defendant, represented by Culver V. Halliday, Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, J. Scott Carr, Wargo & French, LLP & Stephanie L. McAlister, Wargo & French LLP Eric Shepherd, Defendant, represented by W. Keith Ransdell, Ransdell & Roach PLLC SHRED-IT USA: Court Signs Protective Order in "Kirchner" Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan approved on March 18, 2015, a stipulation for protective order in the case captioned MICHAEL KIRCHNER, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SHRED-IT USA INC., a Delaware Corporation, FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-01437-WBS-EFB, (E.D. Cal.). Among other things, the parties agreed that in connection with discovery proceedings in this action, including document productions, interrogatory answers, responses to requests to admissions, depositions, and discovery materials, the parties designate documents as "confidential" under the terms of the Stipulation for Protective Order. The documents protected pursuant to the Order have not been made public and the disclosure of these documents would have the effect of causing harm. A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at http://is.gd/t3tjWNfrom Leagle.com. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Mark P. Grajski, Sacramento, California, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Frederick T. Smith (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), Esther Slater McDonald (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), Atlanta, Georgia, Attorneys for Defendant FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP. THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM, Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C., Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Woodland Hills, California, THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff MICHAEL KIRCHNER. SOUTHERN MAINE MOTORS: Sued for Violating Age Discrimination Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- John A. Williams v. Southern Maine Motors, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00109-GZS (D. Me., March 18, 2015) challenges the Defendant's alleged: (1) unlawful age discrimination against the Plaintiff, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Maine Human Rights Act; (2) unlawful whistleblower retaliation against Plaintiff in violation of the Maine Whistleblower Protection Act; and (3) false and misleading advertising causing harm to the Plaintiff and confusion among the Defendant's customers, in violation of the Lanham Act. Southern Maine Motors, LLC is a Maine Limited Liability Company doing business in Maine. The Company operates a dealership located in Saco, Maine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura H. White, Esq. BERGEN & PARKINSON, LLC 62 Portland Rd., Suite 25 Kennebunk, ME 04043 Telephone: (207) 985-7000 E-mail: lwhite@bergenparkinson.com STARION ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Consumer Fraud -------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a Pennsylvania resident has filed a class action lawsuit against an energy manufacturing group for alleged fraud in marketing and retaining customers. John D. Orange, of Punxsutawney, filed a lawsuit Feb. 18 in U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against three entities doing business as Starion Energy, alleging consumer fraud. According to the complaint, Starion misled consumers by advertising a "teaser rate" for electricity provision and Mr. Orange, who enrolled as a Starion customer in September 2013, says his electric bill was nearly triple that of his previous provider. The suit states Starion led customers to believe their bills would be lower when, in fact, they increased and the defendants knew they would not provide the advertised savings. Orange alleges breach of contract, good faith and fair dealing. He seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorney fees and court costs. He is represented by attorneys Jonathan Shub and Scott Alan George of Seeger Weiss in Philadelphia. U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case 2:15-cv-00773 TARGET CORP: Nov. 10 Final Hearing on Security Breach Suit Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Paul A. Magnuson entered an order on March 19, 2015 Granting preliminary approval to a settlement in In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL NO. 14- 2522 (PAM/JJK), (D. Minn.). The ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/p9GFg0from Leagle.com, relates to all Consumer Cases. The Court certified the Settlement Class defined: All persons in the United States whose credit or debit card information and/or whose personal information was compromised as a result of the data breach that was first disclosed by Target on December 19, 2013. Excluded from the class are the Court, the officers and directors of Target, and persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class. The Court held that the Settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate to warrant providing notice of the Settlement to the Class and accordingly is preliminarily approved. The Settlement Agreement contemplates the establishment of a Settlement Fund and a claims process. Target will fund the payment of claims to be determined by the Settlement Administrator and the Service Payments awarded to the Settlement Class Representatives up to a combined total of $10 million. The Court designated these professionals as Settlement Class Counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g): Consumer Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.; E. Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, appointed by the Court to serve as Liaison Counsel in the Consumer Actions; John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group, PA, who serves on the Executive Committee - Coordinating Lead and Liaison Counsel; and members of the Consumer Steering Committee, Ariana J. Tadler, Milberg LLP, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs, LLP. The Court appointed Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement Administrator, with responsibility, together with Kinsella Media, LLC, for class notice and claims administration. Target will pay reasonable costs of administration and class notice costs, which payments will be in addition to and independent of the Settlement Fund. Any Class Member who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class must mail a personally signed, written request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator, postmarked no later than July 31, 2015 (the Opt-Out Deadline). A Final Approval Hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 10, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. IN RE: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, In Re, represented by Brian C Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP. Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Charles S Zimmerman, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Felipe J Arroyo, Robbins Arroyo LLP, Karl L Cambronne, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Vincent J Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, Brian C Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Bryan L Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, James J Pizzirusso, Hausfeld LLP & Jennifer J Sosa, Milberg LLP. Plaintiff's Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher R Walsh, Walsh Law Firm, E Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Garrett D Blanchfield, Jr, Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Amanda R Cefalu, Anderson, Helgen, Davis & Nissen, LLC & Jennifer J Sosa, Milberg LLP. Target Corporation, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michael A Ponto, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, David F McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, David Frank McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Fred B Burnside, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, Harold J McElhinny, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Jack W Londen, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michael John Agoglia, Morrison & Foerster, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP, Nancy R Thomas, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Patrick J. Kenny, ARMSTRONG TEASDALE, LLP, Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Robert G. Flanders,Jr, Jr., Hinckley, Allen & Snyder LLP, Samuel James Boone Lunier, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Sterling Arthur Brennan, MASHOFF BRENNAN. Target.com, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michael John Agoglia, Morrison & Foerster, Michael A Ponto, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, David F McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Harold J McElhinny, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Jack W Londen, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP. Target Corporation of Minnesota, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michael A Ponto, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, David F McDowell, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP, Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Seth A. Schmeeckle, Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard. Target Corporation of Minnesota, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP, Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. Target.com, Defendant, represented by Douglas H Meal, Ropes & Gray LLP, Michelle L Visser, Ropes & Gray LLP, Rebekah Kaufman, Morrison & Foerster LLP & Wendy J Wildung, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP. TCF BANK: Faces Overtime Class Action in Illinois ------------------------------------------------- Nick Woltman, writing for TwinCities.com, reports that a class action lawsuit filed on March 3 in U.S. District Court in Illinois alleges that TCF Bank misclassified employees to avoid paying them overtime. The complaint accuses Wayzata-based TCF of trying to reduce labor costs by classifying assistant branch managers as overtime-exempt, despite being assigned to the same type of work as overtime- eligible employees. "We have reviewed the lawsuit and deny the allegations," TCF spokesman Mark Goldman said. "Beyond that, we cannot comment on the specifics of the case. We look forward to presenting our argument in court." The two former employees named in the suit seek back overtime pay and a judgment declaring illegal a waiver they signed giving up their rights to join a class action. TCF is Minnesota's third-largest bank by deposits and has branches in eight states. TENET HEALTHCARE: Made $5.5MM Initial Deposit in Class Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tenet Healthcare Corporation made an initial deposit of $5.5 million into an escrow account in late November 2014, related to the settlement in a class action lawsuit, the company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. "In October 2014, we received court approval of a final agreement to settle a previously disclosed class action lawsuit captioned Doe, et al. v. Jo Ellen Smith Medical Foundation, which was filed in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in Louisiana in March 1997. The plaintiffs pursued a claim for tortious invasion of privacy due to the fact that in April 1996 patient identifying records from a psychiatric hospital we closed in 1995 were temporarily placed in an unsecure location while the hospital was undergoing renovations. The court certified a class of over 5,000 persons; however, only eight individuals (in addition to the two plaintiffs) have been identified to date in the class certification process. The plaintiffs have asserted each member of the class is entitled to common damages under a theory of presumed "common damage" regardless of whether or not any members of the class were actually harmed or even aware of the incident. In an effort to avoid protracted litigation, the parties settled this matter in June 2014 for a maximum potential payment of $32.5 million, subject to the number and type of claims asserted by the class members between January 15 and March 31, 2015. We made an initial deposit of $5.5 million into an escrow account in late November 2014. The settlement will be funded in amounts and on a schedule to be agreed to by the parties. Management has established a reserve of $11.5 million, recorded in discontinued operations, to reflect our current estimate of probable liability for this matter based on anticipated levels of class member participation," the Company said. TEREX CORP: Filed Motions to Dismiss ERISA and Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 23, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company has received complaints seeking certification of class action lawsuits in an ERISA lawsuit, a securities lawsuit and a stockholder derivative lawsuit as follows: * A consolidated complaint in the ERISA lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on September 20, 2010 and is entitled In Re Terex Corp. ERISA Litigation. * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18, 2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et al. * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April 12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs, William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J. Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C. Wang, and Terex Corporation. These lawsuits generally cover the period from February 2008 to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class when they purchased the Company's securities and in the ERISA lawsuit and the stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of fiduciary duties and of ERISA disclosure requirements. The stockholder derivative complaint also alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits. The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in its favor. The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with federal securities laws and ERISA law with respect to these matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the ERISA lawsuit and the securities lawsuit. These motions are currently pending before the court. The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with the securities lawsuit. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Region of Waterloo Delists Guadrail System -------------------------------------------------------------- Paige Desmond, writing for TheRecord.com, reports that since 2005, the Region of Waterloo has been using guardrails made by a U.S.- based company that have recently become the subject of a class- action lawsuit over potential safety issues. But the region is taking a "wait-and-see" approach before deciding to join the $500- million suit launched against Trinity Industries by the Town of Stratford in February. "I think that's what a lot of jurisdictions are doing, particularly the (Transportation Ministry) and the province," Coun. Tom Galloway said. "If it doesn't meet the code, then we will have to consider what our alternatives are and whether or not we would want to join the lawsuit or proceed in some manner." At issue is the end piece of the ET-Plus guardrail system. It's designed to keep cars from hitting the sharp end of a guardrail. Stratford claims a design modification was made in 2005, but customers were not notified. It is alleged the change jeopardizes safety, according to the suit filed in Superior Court on behalf of all affected Canadian jurisdictions. Thomas Schmidt, regional commissioner of transportation and environmental services, said the region has delisted the product but won't be removing what's already installed. "Now that we're aware of it, we're not going to keep installing them, but it's a little bit different dealing with the past," he said. Mr. Schmidt said there is no danger to the public. Trinity Industries stopped shipping the guardrails last year but denies the modifications compromise safety. Updated crash tests and ET-Plus statistics are being reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration. The ET-Plus system has passed four of the necessary tests, which were also conducted by accredited facilities in 2005 and 2010, according to the federal administration. More results are pending. In a year-end report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Trinity Industries says Stratford's lawsuit is without merit and will be vigorously defended. A firm number on units installed isn't available, Mr. Schmidt said. He isn't aware of any municipality that has ripped out the existing Trinity product. "Most municipalities have taken the position that, one, we have a lot of them out there, to go and tear them all out and replace them without knowing (if they're unsafe) is a considerable expense. Two, the evidence seems to be that the testing . . . seems to be headed toward a position where they would be safe," Mr. Schmidt said. In an email to The Record, provincial Transportation Ministry spokesperson Ajay Woozageer said the government has been monitoring the Trinity issue since October 2014. "We are not aware of any safety performance issues with the Trinity Highway Products steel beam rail energy-absorbing terminals installed on provincial highways," he said. The ministry is awaiting data from the final four crash tests before making any decisions on the product. More than 40 U.S. states have stopped installing the ET-Plus units. Alberta, Nova Scotia and Quebec have done the same. According to media reports, the ET-Plus guardrail system has been linked to five deaths, several injuries and at least 14 collisions in the U.S. The City of Waterloo said it has not installed the product in the city. Most roads with guardrails are under regional jurisdiction. Kitchener staff said they were not aware of any in use either. The City of Cambridge could not be reached. UBER TECH: California Taxi Drivers Join Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Oakland North reports that California taxi divers face a new frustration: booming competition from companies like Uber and other app-based taxi companies that have recently entered the market with new services, systems and often better cars. Standing close to his cab in a taxi garage, Ben Ezeokoli, a driver who works at the Oakland Airport, says he has been in business for nearly 30 years. Back when he started driving his taxi, the business was paying off -- there were a lot of customers and few taxis. But now private cars are also joining the market. "Sometime you see the cabs parked and waiting, but suddenly you see a private car comes by," says Mr. Ezeokoli, 55. He used to think that these private cars had drivers there to pick their family members or friends. "But now you know these are Uber drivers," he said. By last fall, Business Insider was reporting that Uber was recruiting about 50,000 drivers a month nation-wide. And some of those new drivers work at the Oakland Airport, too. The Uber cars are newer than most taxis, and ride sometimes costs less, and you can get one within 3 to 5 minutes. That makes it hard for Ezeokoli and his peers -- the traditional taxi drivers -- to make a living. ULTIMATE FITNESS: Removes "Villoch" Class Suit to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Villoch v. Ultimate Fitness Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 15-CA-001444, was removed from the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15- cv-00587-SDM-MAP to the proceeding. The action is brought for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Kevin Savage, Esq. SAVAGE, COMBS & VILLOCH, PLLC 412 E. Madison Street, Suite 1120 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 251-4890 Facsimile: (813) 354-4561 E-mail: bert@savagelaw.us Defendant Ultimate Fitness Group, LLC d/b/a Orange Theory Fitness is represented by: Daniel R. Levine, Esq. BENNARDO LEVINE, LLP 1860 NW Boca Raton Blvd. Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 392-8074 Facsimile: (561) 368-6478 E-mail: drlevine@bennardolevine.com UNITED STATES: FBI Accused of Retaliation by Jewish Employee ------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Weber v. United States Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and FBI Director James B. Comey, Case No. 1:15-cv-02045 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2015) arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Mr. Weber alleges that the Defendants have discriminated and retaliated against him, based on his religion and protected activities, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He is a resident of County of Kings, New York, and a member of the Orthodox Jewish faith. Department of Justice is a federal agency within the Executive Branch of the United States government. The DOJ has its headquarters in Washington, DC, but has field offices throughout the United States. Federal Bureau of Investigation is a federal agency operated and controlled by the United States Department of Justice. James B. Comey is the Director of the FBI. Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the United States and, thus, the head of the United States Department of Justice. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Porges, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW S. PORGES, ESQ. 641 President Street, Suite 205 Brooklyn, NY 11215 Telephone: (718) 673-2578 Facsimile: (718) 619-8654 E-mail: mspesq@mspesq.com UNITED STATES: Seeks Dismissal of Child Immigration Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Ingalls, writing for KING 5 News, reports that government lawyers have asked a Seattle federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that would fundamentally change immigration law in the U.S. The proposed class action lawsuit asks the court to require lawyers for all "unaccompanied minors" arrested by immigration officers in the US. Right now, there are 28,000 children in the federal immigration system who fit that class. Under current law, they may face an immigration judge without help from a lawyer. "It's a joke to pit a child against a government attorney and pretend that child is getting their fair day in court," said attorney Matt Adams of the NW Immigrant Rights Project. Mr. Adams and lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union represent nine children from Seattle and Los Angeles who could face deportation. The children are often sent to the U.S. by their families to escape violence or abuse in their homeland. The children are smuggled onto U.S. soil by "coyotes" who leave the children at the border. Last year, the U.S. captured more than twice as many unaccompanied minors as the year before. Authorities say most of those children came from Honduras and El Salvador, which are rife with violence and poverty. In a hearing on March 6, lawyers from the U.S. Department of Justice said the district court in Seattle did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. They also say the government already has programs to assist child immigrants and requiring lawyers for them would be costly and unnecessary. Leon Fresco of the DOJ said that it is a simple process for a child to explain to a judge that they are fearful of returning to their homeland. "How does a 10-year-old who doesn't speak the language even know to (raise) that question?" Judge Thomas Zilly asked the government lawyer. Judge Zilly did not immediately rule on the government's motion to dismiss the case. VELDOS LLC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shaya Bodansky, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Veldos LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01400 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com VIDA CAFE: Class Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum & Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Zeferino Castelan-Hilario, Mario Quirino, Oscar Ortega, and Marcos Geovanny, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Vida Cafe Inc. d/b/a Mamajuana Cafe, Rancho Vida LLC d/b/a Mamajuana Cafe, Victor Osorio, Victor Santos, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02015-RJS (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiffs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, are entitled to recover from the Defendants: (a) unpaid minimum wages, (b) unpaid overtime compensation, (c) liquidated damages, (d) prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and (e) attorneys' fees and costs. Mamajuana Cafe is a New York domestic business corporation with a principal place of business in New York City. The Corporate Defendants operate restaurants in New York, New Jersey, and the Dominican Republic, each doing business under the "Mamajuana" brand. The Individual Defendants are owners, principals or officers of the Corporate Defendants. The true names and identities of the Doe Defendants are unknown at this time. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com pcooper@jcpclaw.com VOLVO CARS: Sued Over Side-Impact Protection Defect --------------------------------------------------- Kurt Orzeck and Aaron Vehling, writing for Law360, report that plaintiffs' attorney in a $5 million class action accusing Volvo Cars of North America LLC of selling cars with an allegedly fatal side-impact protection defect urged a Pennsylvania federal judge on March 4 to stop its counsel's "attacks" over a sanctions motion. In a letter to the court, Francis Malofiy of Francis Alexander LLC -- whom Volvo is trying to have sanctioned for allegedly altering a document in the dispute -- accused defendant's attorneys of trying to prejudice Volvo owners' case through inappropriate personal attacks. On Feb. 27, Volvo filed a memorandum supporting its sanctions motion, which was originally filed in October 2013, before the case was stayed due to proceedings in a related state suit. Volvo argued that its earlier motion for sanctions against Mr. Malofiy was now ripe for decision, since the stay had been lifted. Mr. Malofiy replied with a March 3 letter requesting an immediate telephone conference with the court to address the sanctions request, which he claimed the parties had agreed was moot after Mr. Malofiy filed an amended complaint omitting the altered document. He said it appeared Volvo's filing was made solely to attack plaintiffs' counsel on the public docket. "Just a few hours after Volvo filed their memorandum, plaintiffs' counsel received a rare Friday night email from a reporter asking for comment about the improper memorandum," Mr. Malofiy's March 3 letter said. "If Volvo filed this memorandum on the docket, regarding a motion it agreed was moot, for the sole purpose of publicly attacking plaintiffs' counsel and having the press seize on the improper memorandum, then that is a very serious situation that must be addressed by the court." After submitting that letter, Volvo's attorneys responded on March 4 with a letter saying they had no recollection that the parties had agreed that the sanctions motion was moot. "We feel very much as the Honorable John M. Younge did in responding to Mr. Malofiy's post-trial arguments: 'I will say that you remember things in a way that's totally distinct and different from the way I remember it,'" the letter stated. In his March 4 letter, Mr. Malofiy accused Volvo of engaging in further inappropriate personal attacks on him through its letter from earlier that day. He asked the judge to order Volvo's attorneys to stop making gratuitous filings and admonish them accordingly. The suit claims the 1997 Volvo 850 was marketed and advertised as containing rear door bars, even though the vehicles did not. The absence of the rear door beams allegedly led to the death of a child of lead plaintiffs Ana and Mark Webb after a side-impact collision. Volvo said Mr. Malofiy should be sanctioned after he admitted during a December 2013 hearing to removing the words "Volvo 900 Series" from an image of a brochure included in a version of the complaint and changing it to "Volvo 850." Mr. Malofiy -- who has faced sanctions in other litigation -- has claimed he was trying to clarify that the vehicles depicted on the brochure were Volvo 850s, even though it said they were from the 900 Series. Mr. Malofiy claimed in a November 2013 opposition filing to Volvo's sanctions motion: "It is laughable to suggest that anyone would look at such an image and conclude that it was being passed off as a piece of manufactured evidence." He said in his March 4 letter that a judge in a different suit recently threatened Richard B. Wickersham Jr. of Post & Schell PC, which is representing Volvo, with contempt for deliberately disobeying a court order. Plaintiffs are represented by Francis Malofiy of Francis Alexander LLC. Volvo is represented by Peter W. Herzog III -- pherzog@wtotrial.com -- of Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP and Richard B. Wickersham Jr. -- rwickersham@postschell.com -- of Post & Schell PC. The case is Ana Webb et al. v. Volvo Cars of NA LLC et al., case number 2:13-cv-02394, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. WASHINGTON: Child Care Providers Sue Over Forced Unionization ------------------------------------------------------------- On March 5, 2015, a group of family child care providers filed a federal class-action lawsuit challenging a 2006 law that authorizes the forcible unionization of Washington State's 12,000 home-based child care providers. With free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation attorneys in conjunction with the Freedom Foundation, Cindy Mentele and three other providers from around the state filed the suit against Governor Jay Inslee and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 925. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The child care providers' lawsuit challenges the forced-unionism scheme on the grounds that it violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of free political expression and association. National Right to Work Foundation attorneys argue that such schemes violate providers' First Amendment right to choose with whom they associate to petition the government because the government does not have the constitutional authority to force citizens to accept its handpicked political representative to lobby itself. The child care providers seek repayment of union fees illegally taken from them by the Governor, and given to SEIU Local 925, over the past three years. Home-based child care and personal care providers, with Right to Work Foundation attorneys' assistance, have challenged similar forced-unionization-by-government-fiat schemes in several states across the country, including Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and New York. On June 30, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in Harris v. Quinn striking down the Illinois scheme, ruling that individuals who receive state subsidies based on their clientele cannot be forced to pay compulsory union fees. The Court did not rule on whether providers can be forced to accept the union's so-called representation under a monopoly bargaining scheme. The next day, the Court cleared the path for 50,000 home child care providers in Michigan to receive a refund of union dues illegally taken during Michigan's now-defunct unionization scheme. "Citizens have the power to select their political representation in government, not the other way around," said Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Foundation. "This scheme, which forces small business owners, and even grandma taking care of her grandchildren, into SEIU union political association is a slap in the face of fundamental American principles we hold dear." Z-ULTIMATE SELF DEFENSE: "Geiger" Case Wins Conditional Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert E. Blackburn granted a motion for conditional collective action certification in the case captioned ZACH GEIGER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Z-ULTIMATE SELF DEFENSE STUDIOS LLC. et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-CV-00240-REB- NYW, (D. Col.). This case involves alleged violations of the wage and record keeping provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act). According to Judge Blackburn's March 10, 2015 ruling, a copy of which is available at http://is.gd/CilKanfrom Leagle.com, under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), this case is conditionally certified as a collective action concerning the claims of the named plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of all current and former Chief Instructors who worked for the defendants or any of them, whether designated as an employee or as an independent contractor, between March 10, 2011, and the present and who (a) were not paid the minimum wage for all hours worked; and/or (b) were not paid for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one week at the required overtime rate of pay; and/or (c) for whom the defendants failed to keep accurate employment records. With the amendments specified in the order, the Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and the Consent to Join Collective Action forms proposed by the plaintiffs are approved. Any and all Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit forms must be received by counsel for plaintiffs no later than June 10, 2015. The Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit form will not include the statement "You are eligible to join this lawsuit if you believe you were paid less than $670.62 in any one-week period". On or before March 30, 2015, the defendants were to provide to the plaintiffs the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of all current and former Chief Instructors employed by any of the defendants on or after March 10, 2011, whether designated as an employee or as an independent contractor. On or before April 20, 2015, counsel for the plaintiffs must the Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit and the Consent to Join Collective Action forms, as approved, to all potential plaintiffs via first class mail. ********* 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 * * *