/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150409.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 9, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 71 Headlines ABILITY HOUSE: Faces "Kamara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ACE FOAM: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Action Ruling ALABAMA: AG Attempts to Stall Strawser Marriage Equality Case ALCON LABORATORIES: Scott+Scott Files Antitrust Class Action ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "O'Silva" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Action Over Review Manipulation ANTHEM INC: Faces "Keeton" Suit in Mo. Over Alleged Data Breach ANTHEM INC: Faces "Ames" Class Suit in Indiana District Court AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Kelsey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AUTONATION INC: Faces "Wiley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BALL STATE: Confirms 80 Victims of ID Thefts BASIC ENERGY: Moves "Kimbrell" Suit to New Mexico District Court BASIC ENERGY: Removes "Marlar" Suit to New Mexico District Court BAYER AG: Judge Tosses Some Claims in One-A-Day Labeling Suit BP PLC: Removes "Gortney" Class Suit to Florida District Court BRINKS INC: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action BURBERRY LTD: Removes "Manner" Suit to California District Court CENTRAL STATES LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay OT, "McCulley" Suit Says CHINA HOUSE: Faces "Barrientos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CLEVELAND, OH: Appeals Traffic Camera Class Action Ruling COLUMBIA LABS: Appeals Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal COOPER VISION: Faces "Moy" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing COWABUNGA INC: Faces "Hines" Suit Over Reimbursement Policies DELOITTE: Faces C$384MM Document Reviewer Class Action EASTERN ACCOUNT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Specht" Suit Claims EQUIFAX INC: Sued in D.N.J. Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Children's Online Purchases FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Candy Crush App FANCY HANDS: Faces "Callier" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act FOXBORO, MA: Class Action Over Stadium Protective Custody Narrows GLATFELTE: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Odors GLOBAL SPECTRUM: Faces "Hudgon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HEIDTMAN STEEL: Faces "McClain" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HHGREGG INC: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Disabilities Act Violations HISHMEH ENTERPRISES: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Reimbursement Policy HORIZON GROUP: To Sell Assets to Fund Class Action Settlement IMG WORLDWIDE: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime INDIANA: BMV Class Actions Seek Audit of Fee Structures JAMES WARREN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Power Market Manipulation JUDICIAL ALTERNATIVES: Accused of Civil Rights Violation in Ga. KIND LLC: Judge Tosses Refined Sugar Labeling Class Action KRAFT FOODS: Court Cuts Attorneys' Fees in Failed Class Action L&L ENERGY: June 26 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set LANDRY'S INC: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime LISBOA HABANA: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Cross" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Neuhaus" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Schneider" Suit Over Toxic Flooring LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Class Action in Pennsylvania MARION COUNTY, IN: Memo Reveals 72hr Practice for Jail Releases LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Robertson & Associates Files Class Action MIDWAY REMARKETING: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MOBILE AUTO: Faces "Zolotoff" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MRS BPO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Lefkowitz" Suit Says NATIONAL GRID: Faces TCPA Class Action in New York NESTLE PURINA: Finleyville Consumer Says Beneful Killed Pet Dog NEW YORK & CO: Removes "Pietrantonio" Suit to D. Massachusetts NEWARK WATERSHED: Plaintiffs' Attorney Wants Stay on Suit Lifted NEWFRESCO TORTILLAS: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GTX 970 Units, Suit Claims OFFICE DEPOT: Sued Over Breach of Americans with Disabilities Act OLIVER EXTERMINATING: Removes "Tenai" Class Suit to S.D. Florida OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Files Class Action OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit PELICAN BAY, CA: Solitary Confinement Suit May Proceed PH BEAUTY: Removes "Marshall" Suit to California District Court PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Guenser" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Hoirup" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York REEVE TRUCKING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action SEASIDE ROOFING: Faces "Mercado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT SPEEDY STOP: NASM Files Amicus Curiae in Swipe-Fee Class Action SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Suit Over Tuberculosis Outbreak May Proceed TAXI TOURS: "Balderramo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime TELEXFREE LLC: Judge Halts Class Action Evidence Gathering TINDER: Responds to Class Action Over New Fees TONG SHEN: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages TWEEN BRANDS: Shoppers to Get Refunds Via Class-Action Settlement UBER TECH: Faces Class Action Drivers' Info Breach UBER TECH: Drivers' Class Actions to Go to Jury Trial UBS AG: Among Defendants in Silver Price-Fixing Class Action US BANK: Faces Mortgage Insurance Class Action in Minnesota VIACOM INC: Settles Intern Minimum Wage Class Action for $7.2MM WAL-MART STORES: Faces Vision Payment Class Action in Arkansas WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action in California WESTCHESTER SUPER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages WINE GROUP: Faces "Marvin" Suit Over Use of Inorganic Arsenic XOOM CORP: Removes "Barrett" Class Suit to N.D. California XOOM CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ZUFFA LLC: Faces "Kingburry" Suit Over MMA Promotion Monopoly * CFPB Issues Report on Mandatory Consumer Arbitration Clauses * Few Consumers Understand Arbitration Clauses in Fin'l Products ********* ABILITY HOUSE: Faces "Kamara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Samba Kamara, Wanda Fouch, Pamela Henry, David C. Burtch, & Kori Adkins, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ability House, Ltd., George Hudson, Rose Hudson, & Travis Hudson, Case No. 5:15-cv-00224 (W.D. Tex., March 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Ability House, Ltd. provides day rehabilitation services, counseling, and care management in the San Antonio and Corpus Christi areas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq. THE MORALES FIRM, P.C. 115 E. Travis St., Suite 1530 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 225-0811 Facsimile: (210) 225-0821 E-mail: ahartry@themoralesfirm.com ACE FOAM: Supreme Court Won't Review Class Action Ruling -------------------------------------------------------- Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the U.S. Supreme Court will not review a federal appeals court ruling allowing a class action lawsuit that potentially includes hundreds of millions of members and seeks more than $9 billion in damages to proceed against a group of flexible foam manufacturers. The nation's high court denied a writ of certiorari filed by Carpenter Co., Woodbridge Foam Corp. and others in a 14-page order list. Justices did not provide a reason for their decision. The companies filed their petition with the court in November. The case, Carpenter Co. Et Al v. Ace Foam Inc. Et Al and Greg Beastrom Et Al, involves allegations of decades-long price-fixing among numerous polyurethane foam manufacturers. Polyurethane foam is a material used in mattresses, pillows and upholstered furniture, among other things. The companies claim there isn't enough in common between various purchasers of the foam products to allow the class action to proceed. "This gargantuan class action -- which is likely the largest ever certified and upheld by a federal court of appeals -- sweeps together dissimilar purchasers of a vast number of distinct products sold by disparate groups of Defendants at varying prices in a variety of markets over more than a decade," lawyers for the companies wrote in their petition to the Supreme Court. "They cover a kaleidoscope of different purchasers and products, ranging from furniture manufacturers purchasing seat padding, to individuals buying foam pillows and hotel chains acquiring new mattresses. The only common thread is some connection to polyurethane foam, a truly ubiquitous product that is found in virtually every home, office and vehicle in America. "Given the tremendous breadth of this class action, it is impossible to even ascertain whether a given purchase is traceable to any Defendant, let alone which purchasers suffered any injury or are entitled to any measure of damages, without resorting to fact-intensive individualized inquiries." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected the company's argument, upholding a district court's certification of two classes. ALABAMA: AG Attempts to Stall Strawser Marriage Equality Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Scottie Thomaston, writing for Equality On Trial, reports that there's been a development about the National Center For Lesbian Rights' (NCLR) proposed class-action amendment to the Strawser marriage equality case. Alabama's attorney general is attempting to stall the case until after the US Supreme Court issues its decision in late June. Mobile County Probate Judge is currently the only other defendant in the case (unless and until new parties are added when the class-action motions are taken up) and he has yet to file a response. On March 12, Judge Granade ordered his response to be submitted by March 17. The court wanted him to address the possibility of the addition of new parties, plaintiffs and defendants including all same-sex couples who want to marry in Alabama and all county probate judges, whether those groups should be certified as a class, and whether a preliminary injunction should be granted requiring all county probate judges to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The process of certification may take a couple of weeks. ALCON LABORATORIES: Scott+Scott Files Antitrust Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on March 11 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of disposable contact lenses alleging that certain manufacturers of contact lenses, including Defendants Alcon Laboratories, Inc. ("Alcon") (a division of Novartis International AG ("Novartis")); Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. ("J&J") (which operates in the United States under the "Vistakon" trade name); Bausch + Lomb ("B&L"), owned by Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Valeant"); and Cooper Vision, Inc. ("Cooper") (collectively, "Manufacturer Defendants"), conspired with each other and with Defendant ABB Optical Group ("ABB") to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to a so-called "Unilateral Pricing Policy" ("UPP") and thereby eliminate price competition on those products. The Complaint alleges that the Manufacturer Defendants conspired with each other and with Defendant ABB, a wholesaler, as well as independent eye care professionals ("ECP") represented by ABB and their trade association, the American Optometric Association, to impose UPPs and thereby eliminate price competition on those products by "big box" stores (e.g., those owned by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ("Wal-Mart") and Meijer, Inc. ("Meijer")), buying clubs (e.g., those run by Costco), and internet-based retailers (e.g., 1-800-Contacts and LensDiscounters.com) by substantially preventing them from discounting those products. As ECPs themselves have acknowledged, this new pricing scheme represents a "fundamental shift" in how contact lenses are sold to consumers. A copy of the complaint is available at: https://www.scott-scott.com/cases/Alcon Labs Complaint.pdf The class includes all persons and entities who purchased disposable contact lenses manufactured by Alcon, J&J, B&L, or Cooper from June 1, 2013 to the present (the "Class Period"), where the prices for such contact lenses were set pursuant to a UPP. The lines of disposable lenses alleged to be impacted by the anticompetitive conduct are: Alcon - Dailies Total1, Dailies AquaComfort Plus Multifocal, Dailies AquaComfort Plus Toric, and Air Optix Colors; B+L - Ultra; J&J - 1-Day Acuvue Maoist, 1-Day Acuvue Moist for Astigmatism, 1-Day Acuvue TruEye, Acuvue Oasys with Hydraclear, Acuvue Oasys for Astigmatism, and Acuvue Oasys for Presbyopia; and CV - Clariti. If you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, (212) 223-6444, or visit the Scott+Scott website, http://www.scott-scott.com)for more information. There is no cost or fee to you. Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major class actions throughout the United States. The firm represents individuals, pension funds, foundations, and other entities worldwide. ALIBABA GROUP: Faces "O'Silva" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Placidius O'Silva, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited, Jack Yun Ma, Joseph C. Tsai, Jonathan Zhaoxi Lu, and Maggie Wei Wu, Case No. 3:15-cv-01360 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Alibaba Group Holding Limited is a China-based online and mobile commerce company in retail and wholesale trade, as well as cloud computing and other services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber L. Eck, Esq. ZELDES HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 625 Broadway, Suite 1000 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342-8000 Facsimile: (619) 342-7878 E-mail: ambere@zhlaw.com - and - Alfred G. Yates Jr., Esq. Gerald L. Rutledge LAW OFFICE OF ALFRED G. YATES, JR., P.C. 429 Forbes Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15234 Telephone: (412) 391-5164 Facsimile: (412) 471-1033 E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com ANGIE'S LIST: Faces Class Action Over Review Manipulation --------------------------------------------------------- Alex Wolf and Cara Salvatore, writing for Law360, report that Angie's List Inc. was hit with a class action on March 11 in Pennsylvania federal court that contends the online-review site lures consumers of local service providers to pay for access to purportedly unfiltered reviews, ratings and search rankings when it actually profits from secretly manipulating those features. Janelle Moore, a Pennsylvania resident claiming to be a paying Angie's List member since 2012, says she has been misled more than once by the website's service provider rankings. She contends that manipulating reviews and rankings violates Federal Trade Commission guidelines and Pennsylvania consumer protection laws by breaching consumer trust with false promises. "By wrongfully manipulating consumer-generated reviews and ratings, as well as search result rankings, Angie's List deceives, defrauds, and misleads its existing and potential member base," the complaint says. "Angie's List does not help members find the 'best' service provider, but rather the one who paid the most money to Angie's List." The suit alleges that although Angie's List purports to be a "passive conduit" for sharing reviews, ratings and search rankings based solely on "actual firsthand experiences of other users" in its membership agreements, it actually conceals that service providers influence rankings, ratings and reviews in three ways in exchange for substantial fees. According to the complaint, which is based on Ms. Moore's experiences and reports from news outlets, Angie's List secretly changes the order in which service providers are listed in search results by ranking some of them higher based on how much they pay in "advertising" fees. Ms. Moore cites a 2013 report by Forbes Magazine that said an NBC TV affiliate in Richmond, Virginia, discovered that the best- reviewed heating and air company in that area was ranked below 11 others that had inferior ratings or just a handful of reviews because it had not paid the $12,000 to $15,000 required to move up the list. The suit also alleges that Angie's List will suppress negative reviews so they don't appear in search results and remove negative reviews through its internal "complaint resolution process." Lastly, Ms. Moore claims that Angie's List extorts fees from service providers by threatening to suppress positive reviews unless they pay up. "This distorts the integrity of search results because a consumer can never be sure whether her search has located the service providers with the most positive reviews or not," the complaint says. "Angie's List's secret, pervasive, and self-serving actions violate consumer expectations, the company's advertisements and other public statements and representations, and the membership agreement." The suit aims to certify a class of paying Angie's List members in Pennsylvania to sue under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. It also aims to certify a class of paying subscribers throughout the U.S. to claim the company breached consumer agreements, fraudulently induced membership by falsely promising what the service offers and was unjustly enriched. The complaint asks that the judge issue declarative relief voiding Angie's List membership for all class members and order the company to pay restitution for membership fees and be disgorged of all of the profits from the purported misconduct. Ms. Moore also asks that the judge enjoin the company from engaging in the illegal practices and require punitive and exemplary damages. This action comes on the heels of a similar suit filed in October in Delaware Chancery Court by an investor, suing the company and its co-founders, William Oesterle and Angela Hicks Bowman, and a bevy of other executives, saying they sold ratings to businesses and moved away from a consumer-driven model. According to that complaint, Angie's List has more than 3 million paying members. The company, which has existed in some capacity since 1995, went public in November 2011 and has grown every year since, most recently reporting $315 million in revenue for fiscal year 2014, the complaint says. Ms. Moore is represented by Richard M. Golomb, Ruben Honik, Kenneth J. Grunfeld and David J. Stanoch of Golomb & Honik PC. The case is Moore et al. v. Angie's List Inc., case number 2:15- cv-01243, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. ANTHEM INC: Faces "Keeton" Suit in Mo. Over Alleged Data Breach --------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Keeton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00513 (E.D. Mo., March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection for its computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable information and personal health information. Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a managed health care company. The Plaintiff is represented by: John S. Steward, Esq. STEWARD LAW FIRM, LLC 1717 Park Avenue St. Louis, MO 63104 Telephone: (314) 571-7134 Facsimile: (314) 594-5950 E-mail: glaw123@aol.com - and - Joseph V. Neill, Esq. ATTORNEY AT LAW 5201 Hampton Avenue St. Louis, MO 63109 Telephone: (314) 353-1001 Facsimile: (314) 353-0181 E-mail: Neill5300@aol.com - and - Ben Barnow, Esq. BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 621-2000 Facsimile: (312) 641-5504 E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com ANTHEM INC: Faces "Ames" Class Suit in Indiana District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Ames and Barbara Bader, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Anthem Inc. d/b/a Anthem Health Inc., Anthem Inc., Anthem Companies Inc. d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wisconsin, Anthem Companies Inc., Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona Inc., and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00465-SEB-TAB (S.D. Ind., March 20, 2015) asserts claims for breach of contract. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq. Vess Allen Miller, Esq. COHEN & MALAD LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com vmiller@cohenandmalad.com AT&T MOBILITY: Faces "Kelsey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Erika M. Kelsey, individually and on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AT&T Mobility Services LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01352 (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. AT&T Mobility Services LLC is the largest mobile phone company in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq., ODENBREIT LAW, APC 16835 Algonquin Street, Suite 221 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Telephone: (888) 490-3510 Facsimile: (714) 908-7628 E-mail: kodenbreit@kjolaw.com - and - Briana Kim, Esq., BRIANA KIM, PC 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (714)842-6301 Facsimile: (714)482-6302 E-mail: Briana@brianakim.com AUTONATION INC: Faces "Wiley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Trena Wiley, on behalf of herself and others similarly-situated v. Autonation, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00916 (N.D. Tex., March 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Autonation, Inc. is an auto retailer that maintains its principal office located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Corinna Pia Chandler, Esq. Charles W. Branham III, Esq. DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP 3900 Elm Street Dallas, TX 75226 Telephone: (214) 722-5990 Facsimile: (972) 692-5220 E-mail: cchandler@dobllp.com tbranham@dobllp.com BALL STATE: Confirms 80 Victims of ID Thefts -------------------------------------------- Seth Slabaugh, writing The Star Press, reports that Ball State University announced it has created an identity theft information line and learned that 80 of its employees are victims of tax return fraud. Reports filed with city and county police show the victims include an associate vice president, a dean, assistant deans, assistant department chairs, directors and other senior officials in information technology, human resources, the controller's office, the student center, the health center, the athletics department, the career center, the university foundation, the library, the human performance lab and counseling. Numerous faculty also have filed police reports, but so far no clerical/maintenance/union/non-professional staff have done so other than a couple of office coordinators. "They don't have enough money," said Delaware County police Lt. Greg Ellison. Meanwhile, two local physicians, one employed at IU Health Ball Memorial Hospital, and a local senior home health specialist, Gary Brossart, also filed police reports recently of stolen Social Security numbers and fake tax returns being filed on their behalf. "I would imagine all of this stuff goes back to Anthem," the health care company that was the target of a cyber attack weeks ago, Mr. Brossart told The Star Press. Like BSU employees, Mr. Brossart is a member of Anthem. While police know how many BSU victims have filed crime reports locally (around 80), they have less information on how much money has been stolen. One BSU economics faculty member told police he received a tax refund in the mail of $8,395.10 on a pre-paid T-Mobile Visa card. When the professor and his wife called T-Mobile, they learned $8.10 remained on the card. The card was cashed in at Walmarts in several California cities. When an associate dean received a refund in the mail of about $8,400 on a pre-paid Green Dot card, he found out only $3 was left on the card. In some cases, the children of BSU employees also have had their Social Security numbers stolen, Ellison said. "They got the whole family," he said of one case involving a couple and their three children. An assistant dean who has not yet filed his tax return received a letter from the Treasury Department indicating he had received a refund of $8,739, of which $3,840 was intercepted and paid to a creditor, leaving a refund of $4,899. The assistant dean said he was not entitled to any refund. Michele Chiuini, a professor of architecture, told police he received a fraudulent tax refund of $8,117, and that another architecture professor's name mysteriously appeared on his tax return. " . . . clearly whoever filed the tax return does not know me or my wife personally," Mr. Chiuini told The Star Press. "Based on the spelling of my name, they must have believed I was a woman and added a male name as the spouse. It is also interesting that this other person is in my same department . . ." Professors of architecture, actuarial science, communications/ journalism, athletic training, economics, physics, art, geography, voice, math, higher education, natural resources, counseling psychology, political science and history have filed police reports. One of the faculty victims was Amy Harden, the chairperson of University Senate. When The Star Press asked her recently if she knew of any faculty victims, she responded, "I have not talked to anyone who has been victimized . . . but today found out that I am one of those people." There are likely more than 80 victims, according to Scott Sherwood, an officer in the records division at the Muncie Police Department. He cited a state law requiring the law enforcement agency where identity theft victims reside to take a crime report. Many BSU faculty and professional staff live outside of Delaware County, including a large number in the Fishers/Carmel/Noblesville/Zionsville/Indianapolis zip codes. Anthem and Ball State officials, along with cyber security experts at Indiana and Purdue universities, have told The Star Press there is no evidence that the Anthem security breach is related to fraud schemes at Ball State or anywhere else. The university's news center quoted stolen identity victim Dan Byrnes, director of BSU sports facilities, as saying: "As one agent of the credit bureaus stated, your Social Security number is out there forever, so the journey of protecting our family's identity looks like it will be a lifelong pursuit. That's scary. It is frustrating to have one incident that is not your fault cause so much stress and inconvenience, particularly when you think you have done all the right things in protecting your identity and financial health." Ball State on March 9 launched an identity theft information line for employees at 765-285-4883 and at IDtheft@bsu.edu In addition, the university has created a web page at bsu.edu/idtheft The news center quoted Frank Groom, a BSU information/ communication sciences professor, as saying: "This has been going on for years, but in isolated clusters, so the news stays local. For example, there is not much national news about the Ball State and Western Kentucky tax fraud. However, Hagens, Berman, Sobol, and Shapiro LLP of Seattle have filed a class action lawsuit against Anthem for the lack of security of customer identity information. There must be some activity there in Seattle. Furthermore, Bloomberg Business and the Insurance Journal have stated that the FBI has tentatively identified Chinese state- sponsored hackers as the Anthem thieves." Ball State's confirmation of at least 80 victims comes from employees "who chose to tell us they were victimized," spokeswoman Joan Todd said. " . . . we don't know who might have been victimized and hasn't reported it. And some might not even know at this point, since the filing deadline is more than a month away." BASIC ENERGY: Moves "Kimbrell" Suit to New Mexico District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Kimbrell v. Basic Energy Services, Inc., Case No. D-504-CV-2015-00061, was removed from the Fifth Judicial District Court, Chaves County, New Mexico, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico (Albuquerque). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00238-SMV-KBM to the proceeding. The Plaintiff has asserted a cause of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, alleging that the Defendant failed to properly compensate the Plaintiff under federal law. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C. 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331-1800 Facsimile: (806) 398-9095 E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com - and - Richard L. Kraft, Esq. KRAFT AND HUNTER, LLP P.O. Box 850 Roswell, NM 88202 Telephone: (575) 625-2000 Facsimile: (575) 625-2010 E-mail: rkraft@kraftandhunter.com The Defendant is represented by: Marc D. Katz, Esq. Jason R. Regas, Esq. ANDREWS KURTH LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 659-4400 Facsimile: (214) 659-4401 E-mail: marckatz@andrewskurth.com jasonregas@andrewskurth.com BASIC ENERGY: Removes "Marlar" Suit to New Mexico District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Marlar, et al. v. Basic Energy Services, Inc., Case No. D-504-CV-201500062, was removed from the Fifth Judicial District Court of New Mexico to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico (Las Cruces). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00241-GBW-SMV to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard L. Kraft, Esq. KRAFT & HUNTER, LLP 111 W. Third Street Roswell, NM 88201 Telephone: (505) 625-2000 Facsimile: (575) 625-2010 E-mail: rkraft@kraftandhunter.com The Defendant is represented by: Jason R. Regas, Esq. ANDREWS KURTH LLP 1717 Main Street, Suite 3700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 659-4645 Facsimile: (214) 659-4401 E-mail: jasonregas@andrewskurth.com BAYER AG: Judge Tosses Some Claims in One-A-Day Labeling Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reports that a California federal judge on March 10 rejected some claims by a putative class that Bayer AG's labeling on its One-A-Day vitamins lies to customers about the product's benefits, killing the class's claims about heart and immune health but keeping alive claims about physical energy. U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick sided with Bayer on two claims, finding that the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempted the plaintiffs' claims about heart health and the immune system, but left the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their claims. The plaintiffs haven't shown that Bayer has made claims about effects on diseases -- breaking the FDCA's labeling requirements -- with the statements about heart health and the immune system on the One-A-Day packaging, Judge Orrick said. "Plaintiffs have pointed to no specific language on the packaging, websites, or advertisements of the supplements that would take the 'supports heart health' language and move it towards a disease claim," Judge Orrick wrote. Plaintiff Colleen Gallagher filed suit in October, alleging on behalf of a class of One-A-Day buyers that the company overstepped its bounds with promises that the vitamins would benefit anyone who takes them by boosting heart health, immunity and physical energy, among other claims, according to court records. The vitamins only benefit people who are vitamin-deficient, a rare condition that most average consumers wouldn't have, the plaintiff alleges. Bayer sought to throw out the suit in December, contending that its statements were protected under the FDCA because they were about structure and function, rather than disease. And the company contended that the plaintiff didn't have standing to bring claims about all the One-A-Day products, saying Gallagher purchased only the One-A-Day Women's vitamins. Judge Orrick rejected this standing argument, and he found that Gallagher had adequately shown the company's statements about heart health and immunity to be false and left those claims open for amendment. And the claims about physical energy were allowed to stand because the plaintiffs had sufficiently shown that Bayer states that all who take the vitamins will get an energy boost, not just nutritionally deficient people, according to the order. Ms. Gallagher is represented by Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Lauren I. Dubick -- ldubick@kaplanfox.com -- Linda M. Fong and Robert N. Kaplan of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Amanda Marie Howell of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and Stephen Henry Gardner of Stanley Law Group. Bayer is represented by Ryan M. Sandrock -- rsandrock@sidley.com -- Cara Rafaela Viglucci Lopez, Eugene A. Schoon, Jonathan Frederick Cohn and Paul Joseph Ray -- paul.ray@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP. The case is Colleen Gallagher et al. v. Bayer AG et al., case number 3:14-cv-04601, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. BP PLC: Removes "Gortney" Class Suit to Florida District Court -------------------------------------------------------------- The lawsuit captioned Gortney v. BP PLC, et al., Case No. 15- 000055-CA, was removed from the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit in and for Walton County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00118-MCR-CJK to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion. The Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the Defendants failed to properly maintain and operate the Deepwater Horizon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen Herre Echsner, Esq. AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC 17 E Main St., Suite 200 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 202-1010 Facsimile: (850) 916-7449 E-mail: sechsner@awkolaw.com Defendants BP America Inc. and BP Products North America Inc. are represented by: James Andrew Langan, Esq. Wendy L. Bloom, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 300 N LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 862-2064 Facsimile: (312) 862-2200 E-mail: andrew.langan@kirkland.com wendy.bloom@kirkland.com - and - Thomas Andrew Range, Esq. J. Riley Davis, Esq. AKERMAN LLP 106 E College Ave., Suite 1200 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (850) 224-9634 Facsimile: (850) 325-2585 E-mail: tom.range@akerman.com riley.davis@akerman.com The Transocean Defendants are represented by: Kyle A. Diamantas, Esq. BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ P.C. 200 S Orange Ave., Suite 2900 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (407) 422-6600 Facsimile: (407) 841-0325 E-mail: kdiamantas@bakerdonelson.com The Halliburton Defendant is represented by: Donald Everett Godwin, Esq. GODWIN RONQUILLO PC 1201 Elm St., Suite 1700 Dallas, TX 75270 Telephone: (214) 939-4412 Facsimile: (214) 760-7332 E-mail: Don.Godwin@GodwinLewis.com - and - Mark Monroe Barber, Esq. BROAD & CASSEL 100 N Tampa St., Suite 3500 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 225-3020 Facsimile: (813) 225-3039 E-mail: Mbarber@broadandcassel.com BRINKS INC: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files Overtime Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmikis on March 12 disclosed that Brinks Incorporated, a provider of secure logistics and security solutions, is the target of a proposed class action Lawsuit filed by one of their California employees who alleges various California Labor Code violations. The proposed class action lawsuit was filed by the Los Angeles labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrhaug & Bhowmik. The Complaint, filed on November 19, 2014, alleges that Brinks Incorporated did not pay their employees the correct overtime wages for all overtime hours worked and failed to provide the legally required thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods. The lawsuit also claims that the Company allegedly failed to provide their employees with complete and accurate wage statements which fail to show, among other things, the correct overtime wages for all overtime worked. The lawsuit, Case No. BC564369 is currently pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The pending class action lawsuit filed against Brinks Incorporated claims that the company did not have a uniform policy and practice to pay their employees the correct overtime wages for all overtime worked in accordance with applicable law. Under the California Labor Code, an employee who is classified as non-exempt and is paid on an hourly basis must be paid overtime wages for time worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and time worked over forty hours in a workweek. The Complaint also alleges that Brinks Incorporated did not provide their employees with accurate itemized wage statements in writing showing, among other things, gross wages earned and all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding amount of time worked at each hourly rate. In addition, the Complaint alleges that the employees working at Brinks Incorporated were not always able to take their thirty minute uninterrupted meal breaks before their fifth hour of work due to their rigorous work schedules. California law requires employers to provide their non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty minute meal periods before the employee works five hours. The penalty for failing to provide adequate meal breaks is one hour of pay under the California Labor Code. For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against Brinks Incorporated, please call (866) 771-7099 to speak to one of the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmikis a Los Angeles labor law firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. BURBERRY LTD: Removes "Manner" Suit to California District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Manner v. Burberry Limited, et al., Case No. 37-2015-00005895-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego, Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00635-BTM-KSC to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts consumer credit claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARPENTER LAW GROUP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 756-6994 Facsimile: (619) 756-6990 E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com The Defendants are represented by: Dylan John Price, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN 1901 Avenue of the Stars, 16th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 E-mail: dprice@sheppardmullin.com CENTRAL STATES LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay OT, "McCulley" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Exzavior McCulley, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. Central States Logistics, Inc., and Western Logistics, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00587 (D. Colo., March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are Texas corporations that provide delivery services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian David Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES, THE LAW OFFICES OF 123 North College Avenue, #200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 212-4665 Facsimile: (303) 539-9812 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com CHINA HOUSE: Faces "Barrientos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Enrique Gomez Barrientos, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v. China House of McHenry Inc. d/b/a Grand Buffet, and Yi Lin, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02503 (N.D. Ill., March 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy Michael Nolan, Esq. Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq. NOLAN LAW OFFICE 53 West Jackson Boulevard, #1137 Chicago, IL 60604-3207 Telephone: (312) 322-1100 E-mail: tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net CLEVELAND, OH: Appeals Traffic Camera Class Action Ruling --------------------------------------------------------- Robert Higgs, writing for Cleveland.com, reports that The city of Cleveland on March 11 argued to the Ohio Supreme Court that people who paid traffic camera fines, even though they were cited improperly because they leased their vehicles, should not be able to sue for reimbursement from the city. The city is fighting a lower court ruling that certified the suit as a class action case for people who leased their vehicles -- and thus were not owners as city law then required -- and were cited for traffic camera violations. Cleveland argues that since the plaintiffs involved paid their fines, they waived their right to appeal and the lawsuit should not have been allowed. "Once you pay and knowingly admit . . . you waive your right," Cleveland's attorney, Gary Singletary, told the justices. "One admits when they pay." Not recognizing that concept would potentially open the city up to thousands of cases of litigation, he said. The plaintiffs in the case all were cited by Cleveland between July 2005, when the city enacted its traffic camera program, and March 2009, when the city modified its ordinance. All of them leased their vehicles. The original ordinance said that the owner of a vehicle would be liable for fines issued for traffic camera violations. In 2009, a court ruled that the wording did not extend to people who leased their automobiles. The city acknowledged to Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor that it did not reimburse people who drove leased vehicles and had paid tickets. What it did do was update its ordinance. After March 11, 2009, people who leased vehicles were also covered. The case argued on March 11 began as a lawsuit filed by one woman, Janine Lycan of Cleveland, who paid the $100 fine for the camera ticket she got in 2006. By 2013, her complaint had grown into a class action suit and a Cuyahoga County common pleas judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The city appealed to the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals, and then to the Ohio Supreme Court when the appellate court also ruled against Cleveland. During arguments on March 11, Mr. Singletary told the justices the proper forum for plaintiffs to have contested their tickets was through the administrative hearing process set up by the city to handle complaints about traffic camera tickets. After that, they could have taken their cases to common pleas court. "Everything could have been litigated," Mr. Singletary said. Wouldn't that have been the proper avenue for fighting the ticket? Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor asked the plaintiffs' lawyer, Paul Flowers. "If you feel you are wronged you have the ability to hire an attorney," she said. Mr. Flowers argued that the process was not practical. The ticket charge of $100 would escalate with late fees. Filing the case would have cost another $100 in fees. And there would be the cost of the attorney. And all of this cost and action would be to contest a traffic ticket that the city improperly issued based on what its ordinance said at the time. "This case really boils down to responsible government," Mr. Flowers said. The case was one of seven the Supreme Court heard. It will be several weeks, or even months, before the court's ruling is issued. COLUMBIA LABS: Appeals Court Affirms Class Action Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- Columbia Laboratories, Inc., a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on the development of pharmaceuticals for women's health, announced today that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the prior decision of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing the securities class action lawsuit, entitled In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, (D.C. No. 2-12-cv- 00614) filed against Columbia, Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc ("Watson"), and various Columbia and Watson executives. About Columbia Laboratories Columbia Laboratories, Inc -- http://www.columbialabs.com-- has a successful heritage in developing women's health focused pharmaceutical products, including CRINONE(R) 8% (progesterone gel), that is marketed by Actavis, Inc. in the U.S. and by Merck Serono S.A. in over 60 additional countries worldwide. Columbia is leveraging its pharmaceutical development, clinical trial manufacturing, and advanced analytical and consulting services to advance an internal pipeline while generating revenue from pharmaceutical industry customers. COOPER VISION: Faces "Moy" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Moy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Incorporated, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB/Concise Optical Group LLC (a/k/a ABB Optical Group), Case No. 3:15-cv- 01340 (N.D. Cal., March 23, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet- based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Terry Gross, Esq. Adam C. Belsky, Esq. Monique Alonso, Esq. GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP One Sansome Street, Suite 3670 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-0200 Facsimile: (415) 544-0201 E-mail: terry@gba-law.com adam@gba-law.com monique@gba-law.com COWABUNGA INC: Faces "Hines" Suit Over Reimbursement Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Chadwick Hines, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Cowabunga, Inc., Cowabunga Three, Inc. and Cowabunga Four, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00828 (N.D. Ga., March 23, 2015), alleges that the Defendants used a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides lower that the reasonable approximation costs of the business use of their delivery driver's vehicles. The Defendants own and operate approximately 100 Domino's franchise stores in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard M. Paul III, Esq. Jack D. McInnes, Esq. PAUL McINNES LLP 601 Walnut Street, Suite 300 Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 984-8100 Facsimile: (816) 984-8101 E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com - and - Mark A. Potashnick, Esq. WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK 11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133 St. Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: (314) 997-9150 Facsimile: (314) 997-9170 E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com - and - Andrew Weiner, Esq. THE WEINER LAW FIRM 3525 Piedmont Road 7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 254-0842 Facsimile: (866) 800-1482 E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com DELOITTE: Faces C$384MM Document Reviewer Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Neasa MacErlean, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that Deloitte and a document review company it acquired a year ago are alleged to have saved millions of dollars by treating hundreds of document reviewers as contractors when they were, in reality, employees based in their offices. Deloitte acquired ATD Legal Services in January 2014. Representative plaintiff Shireen Sondhi, a lawyer based in Toronto, claims that she and hundreds of fellow document reviewers were mis-categorized as independent workers -- with the result that the businesses saved large sums in payroll deductions and in not having to offer labor protections, holidays and overtime. Counsel for the plaintiff, Andrew Monkhouse, said in a statement: "These workers were supervised in Deloitte's offices, they didn't provide their own tools, or control their own schedules." The statement from Mr. Monkhouse continued: "For many young lawyers, saddled with staggering student debt and desperate not to leave the field of law, document review is a last resort. Deloitte is one of only a few document review companies in Ontario, and for many Class Members, represents their sole source of income." EASTERN ACCOUNT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Specht" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Specht, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Eastern Account System of Connecticut, Inc., Joseph P. Courtney Jr., and John and Jane Does Numbers 1 Through 25, Case No. 1:15-cv-02159 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015), arise out of the Defendants' illegal practices in connection with their attempts to collect an alleged debt. The Defendants own and operate a debt collection company located at 75 Glen Road, Suite 110, Village of Sandy Hook, Fairfield County, Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abraham Kleinman, Esq. KLEINMAN LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: (516) 552-2621 Facsimile: (888) 522-1692 E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com EQUIFAX INC: Sued in D.N.J. Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony Francis Martinez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Equifax Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02100 (D.N.J., March 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to follow reasonable procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in its consumer reports in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Defendants own and operate consumer reporting agencies that compile credit information on consumers and then provide reports that businesses and employers use to judge. The Plaintiff is represented by: James Cecchi, Esq. Donald Ecklund, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com decklund@carellabyrne.com - and - Todd S. Garber D. Greg Blankinship FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220 White Plains, New York 10605 Telephone: (844) 431-0695 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and - Kim E. Richman, Esq. THE RICHMAN LAW GROUP 195 Plymouth Street Brooklyn, NY 11201 Telephone: (212) 687-8291 Facsimile: (212) 687-8292 E-mail: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Children's Online Purchases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge said Facebook Inc must face a nationwide class-action lawsuit seeking to force the social media company to provide refunds when children spend their parents' money on its website without permission. U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, California on March 10 said a class of plaintiffs estimated in the hundreds of thousands may press their claim that Facebook should change how it handles online transactions by minors. The judge also said the plaintiffs could not pursue refunds as a group under U.S. Supreme Court precedent, because any refunds would vary from case to case, but could still seek individual refunds. She set an Oct. 19 trial date. Facebook said it believes the lawsuit lacks merit, and said it will defend itself vigorously. The April 2012 lawsuit said Facebook let children use their parents' credit and debit cards to buy the virtual currency Facebook Credits, and violated California law by refusing refunds under its "all sales are final" policy when the parents complained. In opposing class certification, Facebook said the plaintiffs' claims were too disparate, and an injunction would not address them. But Freeman said state law protects parents and their children when those children "occasionally use their lack of judgment" and buy things they should not. "Though some minors undoubtedly may wish to continue making purchases through credit or debit cards they do not have permission to use, such a desire cannot prevent the named plaintiffs from bringing suit to demand that Facebook's policies comply with the law," she wrote. Facebook Credits were discontinued in 2013 and replaced with Facebook Payments. The lawsuit was brought by two children and their parents. One child said his mother let him spend $20 on her credit card toward the game "Ninja Saga," but was later charged several hundred dollars for purchases he thought he made with "virtual, in-game currency." The other said he took a debit card from his parents without permission and spent $1,059. People who sign up for Facebook must be at least 13 years old, according to the Menlo Park, California-based company. "We're very pleased with the decision," J.R. Parker, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a phone interview. "The difference between Facebook and other businesses is that the company is on actual notice of a user's age, but treats children the same as adult users when it comes to taking their money." The case is I.B. et al v. Facebook Inc, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 12-01894. FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Candy Crush App ----------------------------------------------------- Steve Buja, writing for Game & Guide, reports that a new class action lawsuit initiated earlier in March in Illinois is alleging that the mobile giant is denying lives to players who use the Candy Crush Facebook app. The suit alleges that players who logged out of the game after receiving these donated lives would log back in and discover said lives mysteriously gone. Not wishing to wait or bother people again, they would then purchase more lives via the in-game store. Given that lives in Candy Crush now have a real world valuation - roughly 20 cents a life -- this is tantamount to digital theft, they state. " "As a consequence of King's conduct, players bought replacement lives through In-App Purchases as substitutes for the lives improperly removed by King, thus enriching King," the complaint states. "This case challenges such intentional profiteering at the expense of consumers." What's 20 cents, you might ask? Well, it can add up quickly. According to Business Insider, "If King's practices injured at least 25 million people, as the complaint alleges, the total damages would total above $5 million, the amount necessary to elevate a class action lawsuit to the federal level." Five million is but a drop in the bucket for King. Candy Crush Saga alones makes a little over one million dollars per day There is, of course, some schadenfreude to be had. King has been notorious in attempts to protect its brands, going so far as to trademark the word 'candy' for use in video games, as well as attempting to trademark 'saga', which forced a confrontation between them and Stoic, the makers of The Banner Saga (a game you all should own). King eventually backed down. Also, the company went after the game that their own game copied. FANCY HANDS: Faces "Callier" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Harriet Callier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fancy Hands, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02232 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standard Act. Fancy Hands, Inc. is a virtual assistant service company that offers virtual assistants to perform their clients' tasks for a monthly membership fee. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Edward Pelton, Esq. Taylor Bell Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10000 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com graham@peltonlaw.com FIDELITY BROKERAGE: Violates Disabilities Act, Class Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Mitchiner v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC d/b/a Fidelity Investments, FMR LLC d/b/a Fidelity Investments, National Financial Services LLC d/b/a Fidelity Investments, Case No. 1:15- cv-00410 (D.D.C., March 20, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating The Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Mitchiner, an individual, who is deaf and a customer of the Defendants, brings the action against the Defendants alleging discrimination based on disability. Boston-based FMR LLC is the parent company of various Fidelity entities, including Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC and National Financial Services LLC. The Defendants provide banking, investment management, and administration expertise to individual investors and comprise one of the largest mutual fund and financial services groups in the world. The Defendants also provide bank wire services where account holders can transfer money into and out of banking, brokerage, mutual fund, or retirement accounts via bank wire. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary C. Vargas, Esq. STEIN & VARGAS, LLP 5100 Buckeystown Pike, Suite 250 Frederick, MD 21704 Telephone: (240) 793-3185 Facsimile: (888) 778-4620 E-mail: mary.vargas@steinvargas.com FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Beverly Goldman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Financial Recovery Services Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01469-MKB-RLM (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Palace, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE 383 Kingston Avenue, #113 Brooklyn, NY 11213 Telephone: (347) 651-1077 Facsimile: (347) 464-0012 E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com FOXBORO, MA: Class Action Over Stadium Protective Custody Narrows ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Mortimer, writing for Sun Chronicle, reports that what had been planned as a class action lawsuit targeting the town and Police Chief Edward O'Leary by Gillette Stadium concert-goers claiming civil rights violations when they were placed in protective custody apparently has fizzled. The more than two-year-old lawsuit challenging protective custody practices at the stadium involving patrons who police consider to be intoxicated has been steered for a jury trial in September -- but with just three plaintiffs, attorneys for both sides said. That's good news for the town. The plaintiffs are still seeking monetary damages, but the town's lawyer said on March 11 that any potential award would be far less than the town once had reason to fear under the threat there could be hundreds of plaintiffs. "The court has indicated that it is not going to end up being a class action suit," said Douglas Louison, the lawyer representing the town. Mr. Louison stressed that the plaintiffs have not formally sought class action certification in the matter, "and as such the court is scheduling a trial." The suit originally was filed by Timothy Dutton and Paul Weldner, both Maine residents who travelled to Foxboro. It followed the Aug. 18, 2012, Bruce Springsteen concert they were planning to attend at Gillette Stadium. They alleged that their constitutional rights were violated when police took them into protective custody before entering the stadium. Foxboro's special insurance attorney said more than a year ago that the pending action, known as the Weldner-Dutton case, could grow to 2,700 plaintiffs from several other past stadium events. Town officials feared that could have meant a multi-million dollar cash loss to the town because of how its insurance deductibles were structured. Under Massachusetts law, people can be intoxicated in public, so long as they are not driving or "incapacitated." The law defines incapacitated as unconscious, needing medical attention, likely to cause physical harm or damage property, or disorderly. David Milton, the attorney for three plaintiffs who sued the town and the police chief in 2012, at the time wrote in the court complaint that it is a "class action for money damages." Mr. Milton said that U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock in Boston decided on Jan. 26 that facts in the case remain in dispute. The judge denied motions from each side, and sent the case on for a jury trial. GLATFELTE: Faces Class Action Over Noxious Odors ------------------------------------------------ Matthew Kent, writing for Chillicothe Gazette, reports that residents in Chillicothe have started receiving letters from a Columbus-based law firm that is considering bringing legal action against Glatfelter in connection with complaints of odors from the plant. Meanwhile, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency notified the company in February that compounds emitted during October and January equipment malfunctions were at levels that had the potential to create temporary health issues in some people. The law firm says in the letter seeking residents interested in joining the possible class action lawsuit that odors "which interfere with the use of enjoyment of your home may constitute a nuisance that may entitle you to compensation." The letter does not address any specific incidents. "Any litigation filed by our offices would also have the objective of preventing any future emission of noxious odors," according to the letter. System problems resulted in a chemical discharge at the paper- making plant on Halloween, the smell of which was reported as far away as Columbus. An investigation by the Ohio EPA concluded the company failed to report the discharge to local or emergency management authorities within the threshold of public notification requirements. In that situation, the company acknowledged there had been a failure in the venting system about 1:30 a.m. that was repaired by 7:45 a.m. and that a backup system did not activate properly. At the time, Glatfelter officials said they had notified the EPA of the situation, but an EPA spokeswoman said the company had not provided the necessary details with the notification. The state agency also received several odor complaints naming the Glatfelter plant nearly two months ago. Mitzi Anderson, a spokeswoman for Glatfelter, said following that incident that the plant had not experienced any system upsets that would have caused unusual odors. In its letter, the firm offers a free consultation and includes several questions about residents' experience with the facility. Ms. Anderson said in a statement that plant officials are aware that "out-of-town and out-of-state law firms have sent unsolicited mailings to some of our neighbors, threatening legal action against us." "We are not willing to comment on this speculative legal action," Ms. Anderson said. "Glatfelter is, and will continue to be, a good community partner. As one of the largest employers in Ross County, Glatfelter has had a positive influence on the local economy." In a Feb. 4 letter from the Ohio EPA to Glatfelter, the agency stated it had received several odor- and health-based complaints from residents pointing at the paper mill as the source. "Some of the complaints correspond to periods of time in which the facility reported malfunctions and released pollutants in greater amounts," the EPA letter says. "Many of the complainants describe health effects associated with the odors such as nausea and irritation of the eyes, throat and nose. The types of pollutants emitted by Glatfelter can cause health effects similar to those described by the complainants." The state agency also said data provided by Glatfelter indicating the compounds emitted during the Oct. 31 and Jan. 7 and 8 malfunctions "exceeded health-based action levels and could potentially have endangered the health of the public." The EPA concluded the emissions from the facility were the source of the odors and found that Glatfelter "caused a public nuisance." The EPA required Glatfelter to submit a plan to return to compliance within 30 days of receipt of the letter. GLOBAL SPECTRUM: Faces "Hudgon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marlene Hudgon, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Global Spectrum, L.P., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02060 (D.N.J., March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Global Spectrum, L.P. manages public assembly venues in the United States, Canada, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Steven Swartz, Esq. SWARTZ LEGAL LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: rswartz@swartz-legal.com HEIDTMAN STEEL: Faces "McClain" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ----------------------------------------------------------- Hodges McClain, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Heidtman Steel Products, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00565 (N.D. Ohio, March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Heidtman Steel Products, Inc. is an Ohio corporation that operates steel manufacturing facilities that process, package and distribute flat rolled steel products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. LAZZARO LAW FIRM 920 Rockefeller Bldg. 614 Superior Avenue, W Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com HHGREGG INC: Faces "Mielo" Suit Over Disabilities Act Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Mielo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HHGREGG, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00392-CRE (W.D. Pa., March 20, 2015) alleges violations of The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Bruce Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 115 Federal Street, Suite 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com HISHMEH ENTERPRISES: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Reimbursement Policy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Derek Gibbins, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees v. Hishmeh Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02175 (C.D. Cal., March 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's delivery driver reimbursement policy that is much less than the reasonable approximation of its drivers' automobile expenses. Hishmeh Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates Domino's franchise stores in California and Arizona. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. Thompson, Esq. WATTS GUERRA LLP 5250 Prue Road Suite 525 San Antonio, TX 78240 Telephone: (210) 448-0500 Facsimile: (210) 448-0501 E-mail: rthompson@wattsguerra.com HORIZON GROUP: To Sell Assets to Fund Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Alby Gallun, writing for Chicago Real Estate Daily, reports that almost four months after filing for bankruptcy protection, a North Side apartment landlord wants to sell its assets to a company executive while facing allegations that it defrauded creditors by pulling money out of the business. Horizon Group Management has asked a judge to approve the sale of its assets to Jeffrey Michael, its chief operating officer, for $75,000, well below the $833,455 it owes two Chicago law firms, its two biggest creditors. Horizon owes the money after settling a bitter class-action suit with the firms over unpaid interest on tenant security deposits. Saying it doesn't have the money to pay them, Horizon filed for Chapter 11 protection last November. But the law firms -- Edward T. Joyce & Associates and the Law Offices of Jeffrey S. Sobek -- contend the company had plenty of cash, charging that it transferred $555,000 to company owners and members of the Michael family before the filing, putting the money beyond the reach of creditors. The firms "believed that Horizon, and the Michael family in particular, had engaged in a deliberate course of conduct designed to defraud creditors of Horizon," according to motion they filed in January in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Chicago. DISPUTE DATES TO 2009 The dispute goes back to June 2009, when a Horizon tenant filed a class-action suit accusing the company of underpaying interest on her security deposit and failing to provide disclosures about porch safety, both violations of the city's Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance. About a month later, Horizon sued the tenant for libel over a disparaging comment she posted on Twitter. A judge threw out the libel suit. Horizon settled the class-action suit and wound up being on the hook for $833,455 in legal fees to Messrs. Joyce and Sobek. But Horizon, which manages, but doesn't own, about 1,500 apartments, says it doesn't have many assets beyond two pickup trucks and some office furniture and equipment worth about $61,000 combined, according to a recent filing. "There's no money in the company," said Horizon owner Daniel Michael, Jeffrey Michael's father. "The company is broke." Horizon filed a motion in February saying the proposed $75,000 asset sale to the younger Michael is the best deal it's going to get. Its property management contracts "do not have much, if any, value because they are terminable on 60 days notice by either party, without cause," the motion says. "The only other viable alternative (to the proposed sale) appears be a piecemeal liquidation of the assets to one or more third parties at a substantial discount," the motion says. The Michael family owns many of the buildings Horizon manages. SALES TO INSIDERS Yet creditors in bankruptcy cases have reason to be circumspect about sales to company insiders, said bankruptcy lawyer Ronald Peterson, a partner at Jenner & Block in Chicago. "When there's a sale to an insider, there should be special scrutiny," he said. "The whole object of this exercise it to maximize value, and sometimes insiders have a conflict of interest. They don't always want to pay the most money they can." Edward Joyce and Jeffrey Sobek did not return calls. In their January filing, they accuse Horizon and the Michaels of acting in bad faith, using the $555,000 in transfers and other payments to family members to pull money out of the company. Horizon paid $145,000 in Daniel Michael's credit card bills and covered $37,500 in his country club dues between November 2013 and November 2014, according to the motion. The firm also made monthly payments of $6,000 to Michael's wife, who is not a Horizon employee, and paid Jeffrey Michael an annual salary of $350,000, the motion says. "They have the money, they should pay," said the law firms' attorney Paul Bauch, founding principal of Chicago-based Bauch & Michaels. In January, Judge Timothy Barnes approved the motion, allowing the law firms to subpoena records of the Michaels, Horizon, its affiliates and Northern Trust, the family's bank. Judge Barnes is scheduled to consider the asset sale at a March 18 hearing. IMG WORLDWIDE: Faces "Davis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Davis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. IMG Worldwide, LLC, IMG Worldwide, Inc., IMG Models, LLC, and William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02157 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. IMG Worldwide, LLC, IMG Worldwide, Inc., and IMG Models, LLC are global leaders in sports, fashion and media, operating in more than 25 countries around the world. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC is an American talent- management company with its principal place of business is located 1325 Avenue of the Americas, New York, New York 10019. The Plaintiff is represented by: Troy L. Kessler, Esq. SHULMAN KESSLER, LLP 510 Broadhollow Road Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 499-9100 Facsimile: (631) 499-9120 E-mail: tk@shulmankessler.com INDIANA: BMV Class Actions Seek Audit of Fee Structures ------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Metz, writing for Indiana Daily Student, reports that the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles is alleged to have mistakenly overcharged Hoosiers tens of millions of dollars in the past few years. In 2013, two class action lawsuits were filed against the BMV by Indianapolis-based law firm Cohen & Malad, LLP. The first lawsuit alleged the BMV overcharged Hoosier drivers under the age of 75 by as much as $29 million from at least 2007 until 2013 in mistaken fees and miscalculations in motor vehicle excise taxes. The first lawsuit was settled in 2013 in the amount of $30 million and the BMV is repaying overcharged customers through refunds and credits with incurred interest. The second lawsuit alleges the BMV overcharged as much as $38 million more, dating as far back as 2002. The combined total of alleged overcharges is an estimated $60 million. Irwin Levin, the recipient of the 2013 Consumer Advocate of the Year award from the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, is the attorney from Cohen & Malad, LLP who is working with the lawsuit on behalf of Indiana residents that were overcharged. "Hoosiers' ability to drive their cars cannot be held hostage to arbitrary fees imposed by the BMV," Levin said in a press release. "The BMV does not have the authority to charge fees at its discretion . . . The BMV needs to be held accountable, and Indiana residents deserve restitution." In addition to the refund of overcharged fees, the pending lawsuit requests a full audit of all previous fees and costs be done and for access to public records to find out how long the BMV has known about the alleged overcharges. The second case was set for a bench trial before Marion Superior Judge James Osborn on June 1, but that date was vacated when a notice of mediation was filed. Charles Geyh, professor of law at the IU Maurer School of Law, suggested a notice of mediation doesn't necessarily mean a settlement will be reached in a class action lawsuit such as this one. "A joint notice of mediation indicates that both sides are prepared to sit down with a third-party mediator who will try to help the parties settle the case," Mr. Geyh said. "Settlement is not assured. If the state has a bottom line dollar amount settlement figure . . . that is below the plaintiff's bottom line dollar amount, below which they won't go, settlement may not be possible." Amid the chaos at the BMV, Gov. Mike Pence announced in February that new internal auditors were to be assigned to the agency in order to reassess its fee structures. This announcement was made around the same time another $2 million in overcharging fees from the last six years was discovered to have occurred. Additionally, Pence has moved the BMV's previous commissioner, Don Snemis, to a position as special counsel for program integrity at the Family and Social Services Administration in order to oversee the implementation of Pence's new Healthy Indiana Plan. Kent Abernathy became the new BMV commissioner Feb. 12. Previously, he was the chief of staff at the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. JAMES WARREN: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Chadwick, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. James Warren and Associates Inc., et al, Case No. 7:15-cv-00040 (M.D. Ga., March 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standard Act. James Warren and Associates Inc. is engaged in the business of utility construction with its principal place of business in Lowndes County, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 600 N Pine Island Rd., Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (954) 318-0268 E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com JP MORGAN: Faces Class Action Over Power Market Manipulation ------------------------------------------------------------ Ayesha Rascoe, writing for Reuters, reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co, the largest U.S. bank by assets, alleging it engaged in racketeering and manipulation of California's electricity market. The lawsuit, filed in California federal court on March 9, accuses the firm of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) when it sold power from several gas plants in the state between 2010 and 2012. "(J.P. Morgan) resorted to illegal market manipulation to turn the inefficient, money-losing generators into cash cows," said the lawsuit, which was brought by three California ratepayers on the behalf of retail power consumers in the state. The plaintiffs seek damages for California residents who paid higher electricity prices because of J.P. Morgan's alleged actions. J.P. Morgan did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the case. The lawsuit follows J.P. Morgan's settlement of similar allegations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2013. The company agreed to pay a $285 million civil penalty and to pay back $124 million to California power consumers. In the FERC settlement agreement, J.P. Morgan did not admit to violating the law. The class action lawsuit said FERC had limited authority to seek funds for California residents affected by the alleged manipulation. The damages suffered by California ratepayers from the "illegal market manipulation," the complaint added, were substantially higher than the amount recouped by FERC. The case is Woolsey et al v. J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, No. 15-cv-00530. JUDICIAL ALTERNATIVES: Accused of Civil Rights Violation in Ga. --------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Keen, Jr., and all other persons similarly situated v. Judicial Alternatives of Georgia, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00030- DHB-BKE (S.D. Ga., March 20, 2015) is brought over alleged civil rights violation. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Mitchell Warnock, Jr., Esq. MITCHELL WARNOCK, LLC 1104 Bellevue Avenue Dublin, GA 31021 Telephone: (478) 275-8119 Facsimile: (478) 275-7901 E-mail: warnocklaw@bellsouth.net - and - John C. Bell, Jr., Esq. BELL & BRIGHAM 457 Greene Street Augusta, GA 30901 Telephone: (706) 722-2014 Facsimile: (706) 722-7552 E-mail: john@bellbrigham.com - and - John B. Long, Esq. Thomas W. Tucker, Esq. TUCKER, LONG, PC P.O. Box 2426 Augusta, GA 30903 Telephone: (706) 722-0771 Facsimile: (706) 722-7028 E-mail: jlong@tuckerlong.com ttucker@tuckerlong.com - and - John Ryd Bush Long, Esq. JOHN R.B. LONG, PC P.O. Box 3928 Augusta, GA 30914 Telephone: (706) 868-8011 Facsimile: (706) 868-8041 E-mail: jlongattorney@aol.com KIND LLC: Judge Tosses Refined Sugar Labeling Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lipkin, Juan Carlos Rodriguez, Kat Greene and Greg Ryan, writing for Law360, report that an Illinois federal judge on March 12 threw out for the second time a proposed class action alleging Kind LLC misled consumers by saying its snack bars didn't contain any refined sugars, ruling it was implausible to believe the snacks had sugar in its purest form. U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis dismissed the suit with prejudice, after previously tossing the complaint for failing to properly allege plaintiff Rochelle Ibarrola had been deceived. While Ms. Ibarrola claimed Kind improperly listed evaporated cane juice as an ingredient instead of sugar, Judge Ellis ruled in July she had not explained what she believed evaporated cane juice to be, if not a form of sugar. In an amended complaint, Ms. Ibarrola said the evaporated cane juice and molasses in Kind's Vanilla Berry Clusters and other snacks were refined sugars with minimal nutritional value, contrary to the box's assertion that there were "no refined sugars." But Ms. Ibarrola's claim that she originally thought the sugars in the snack weren't refined at all was highly unlikely given that evaporated cane juice's comes from the bamboo-like sugar cane plant, according to the ruling. "Given this reality, no reasonable consumer would think -- as Ms. Ibarrola alleges she did -- that the sugar contained in Kind's Healthy Grains products was still in its natural, completely unrefined state," Judge Ellis wrote. "Reasonable consumers do not believe that they are eating straight sugar cane in Vanilla Blueberry Clusters or any other food product because sugar cane in its natural, unprocessed state is indigestible." A reasonable consumer would know that sugar cane needs to be at least partially refined in order to be edible, the judge held. Kind's use of "no refined sugars" was meant to be a term of art to distinguish between partially refined products like molasses and completely refined table sugar. Judge Ellis further found a logical inconsistency in the complaint's theory, writing that if Ms. Ibarrola saw the individual ingredients on the label and also knew molasses and evaporated cane juice were at least somewhat refined, it was unclear exactly how she was deceived. "That is not to say that food producers have carte blanche to make false assertions so long as the nutritional and ingredient information is accurate," the judge wrote. "Rather, the court finds that to arrive at a reasonable understanding of the claim 'no refined sugars,' Ms. Ibarrola should have considered the other information she encountered on the product's packaging." Ms. Ibarrola's express warranty claim also failed because she never notified Kind of the alleged breach of warranty before filing her amended complaint, according to the ruling. Consumers have sued Chobani Inc., Nestle USA Inc. and other companies in the past two years over their use of evaporated cane juice, claiming the term suggests the products are healthier than they actually are because the ingredient is essentially the same as sugar. The suits have met with mixed success, and many judges have postponed ruling until a hearing from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the matter. The FDA said last March that it was seeking additional input on its recommendation against companies' use of the term evaporated cane juice on food labels. The FDA is reopening the comment period on its 2009 draft guidance that advised companies against using the term to describe sweeteners derived from sugar cane syrup, since it "falsely suggests that the sweeteners are juice." Kind is represented by Dale J. Giali -- dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- and Matthew D. Provance -- mprovance@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown LLP. Ms. Ibarrola is represented by Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- of Wexler Wallace LLP, Nick Suciu III of Barbat Mansour & Suciu PLLC, Jordan L. Chaikin of Parker Waichman LLP, and Eric D. Holland and R. Seth Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- of Holland Groves Schneller & Stolze LLC. The case is Rochelle Ibarrola v. Kind LLC, number 3:13-cv-50377, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. KRAFT FOODS: Court Cuts Attorneys' Fees in Failed Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher M. Cascino, Esq., and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that in Montgomery v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., No. 1:12-CV-00149 (W.D. Mich. March 2, 2015), Judge Gordon J. Quist of the U.S. District Court For The Western District of Michigan cut the attorneys' fee award of the plaintiff's counsel from a requested $183,168.50 to $6,417 in a decertified class action in which the plaintiff recovered only individual damages. While not a workplace class action, this case provides employers with a tool to dramatically reduce their liability for attorneys' fees when they defeat class or collective action certification. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of seeking to bifurcate class discovery from merits discovery, as this can eliminate exposure for the fee request of plaintiff's counsel incurred in discovery if a class is not certified. Case Background Pamela Montgomery filed a putative class action complaint against Kraft Foods and Starbucks for alleged violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. Ms. Montgomery, 1:12-CV-00149, at 1. Montgomery alleged that she purchased a Kraft single-serving coffee maker for the purpose of brewing Starbucks coffee. Id. She alleged that Kraft and Starbucks misled consumers like her by convincing them that Starbucks would continue to produce the single-serving component of the Kraft single-serving brewing system "for a reasonable amount of time into the future, although Defendants knew that their business relationship would soon be at an end." Id. at 1-2. After class discovery, the Court denied Ms. Montgomery's motion for class certification. Id. at 2. As a result, the only remaining claim in the case was Montgomery's individual claim that had a maximum recovery of $250 in statutory damages. Id. at 3. Because continued litigation would result in attorneys' fees that would far exceed any potential recovery, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause as to why the Court should not order Defendants to submit an offer of judgment to Ms. Montgomery for $250 plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. Id. The Defendants then submitted the proposed offer of judgment, which Montgomery accepted. Id. Because attorneys' fees and costs are awarded to successful plaintiffs in Michigan Consumer Protection Act litigation, Ms. Montgomery moved for an award of $174,786 in attorneys' fees, plus costs, which she later supplemented with an additional request for $8,382.50 in fees for work performed after the offer of judgment was accepted. Id. at 8. After Defendants objected, Montgomery asked the Court to compel Defendants to produce their own billing records "to measure the legitimacy of Defendants' objections," and for a hearing on her fee request. Id. at 4. The Court's Opinion The Court began by addressing Ms. Montgomery's request for discovery of Defendants' billing records. The Court found that Defendants' billing records would not be relevant to Defendants' objections to the fee award because Defendants' objections were based on the sufficiency and accuracy of the billing records of Montgomery's counsel, Ms. Montgomery's request for fees related to Montgomery's failed attempt at class certification, and the proposed billing rate of $350 per hour for an attorney who was in his first year of practice. Id. at *6. The Court thus denied Montgomery's request for Defendants' billing records. Id. The Court also denied Ms. Montgomery's request for an evidentiary hearing. Id at 8. Applying Michigan law, the Court found that only a party opposing a fee award has the right to an evidentiary hearing, and that it could decide the reasonableness of the fee award based on the parties' submissions alone. Id. at 7-8. The Court also addressed Montgomery's fee request. It began by finding that Montgomery's proposed $350 hourly rate was excessive, concluding that a $155 hourly rate was appropriate because it was the mean rate for first year attorneys in Michigan. Id. at 11. The Court then turned to the most significant part of its decision -- Montgomery's request for fees for 523.34 hours of work. Id. The Court first deducted all 330.83 hours Montgomery's counsel billed for discovery. Id. at 12. While Plaintiff's counsel claimed that this work was "exclusive of work related to Plaintiffs' Request for Class Certification," the Court found that this was "not true." Id. The Court pointed out that the case, being worth only $250 if a class was not certified, was "largely, if not exclusively, driven by Ms. Montgomery's request for class certification," and that therefore discovery was, as a practical matter, solely about class certification. Id. The Court then went on to point out that if Montgomery's counsel engaged in merits discovery, he would have done so in violation of the Court's order limiting initial discovery to class certification issues, and thus could not recover any fees for discovery even if he engaged in discovery about Plaintiff's individual claim. Id. at 12 n.7. The Court went on to deduct hours Ms. Montgomery's counsel spend on other tasks to reflect Montgomery's lack of success on her class claims. The Court cut the time Montgomery's counsel spent on pre-complaint research from 9.9 hours to 4 hours and the time spent on drafting the complaint from 38.1 hours to 10 hours. Id. at 13. The Court went on to remove all but one of the 59.8 hours Montgomery's counsel spent on the case after the denial of class certification because after the denial of class certification "it should have been immediately apparent to Montgomery and [her counsel] that continuing the litigation on Montgomery's individual claim made no sense." Id. at 14. Finally, the Court denied Montgomery's request for fees for time spent litigating the fee petition, finding that a plaintiff's counsel is not entitled to any fees incurred after a plaintiff accepts an offer of judgment. Id. at 14-15. After cutting the hourly rate and hours purportedly spent litigating Ms. Montgomery's claim, the Court awarded Ms. Montgomery's counsel $6,417 instead of the requested $183,168.50. Id. at 16. L&L ENERGY: June 26 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on March 11 disclosed that the United States District Court Southern District of New York has approved the following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of L&L Energy, Inc.: SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED COMMON STOCK OF L&L ENERGY, INC. DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 13, 2009 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 18, 2013, INCLUSIVE. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the above-captioned action (the "Litigation"), that a hearing will be held on June 26, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in courtroom 1506 before the Honorable Ronnie Abrams, United States District Judge of the Southern District of New York, 40 Foley Square, New York, New York 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement between Lead Plaintiffs and Defendants L&L Energy, Inc. ("L&L"), Dickson V. Lee, Ian G. Robinson, and Clayton Fong (collectively, "Defendants") consisting of the sum of $3,500,000, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys' fees of one third of the Settlement Amount, reimbursement of expenses of not more than $95,000, and awards to Lead Plaintiff not to exceed a total of $7,500 should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice. If you purchased common stock of L&L during the period between August 13, 2009 and September 18, 2013, inclusive, your rights may be affected by the Settlement of this action. If you have not received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action (the "Settlement Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by writing to L&L Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 North Jackson Street, Suite 3, Media, PA 19063. If you are a member of the Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release no later than May 20, 2015, establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must mail a request for exclusion to the Claims Administrator in the manner detailed in the Settlement Notice, and must be received no later than June 5, 2015. Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and awards to Lead Plaintiffs must be received by the addresses indicated in the Settlement Notice and below by no later than June 5, 2015. Clerk of the Court United States District Court Southern District New York 500 Pearl Street New York, NY 10007 Phillip Kim The Rosen Law Firm 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, New York 10016 Lead Counsel for Class Rich Gonnello Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, New York 10017 Lead Counsel for Class Douglas Greene Lane Powell PC 1420 Fifth Ave, Suite 4200 Seattle WA, 98101 Counsel for L&L, Ian G. Robinson, and Clayton Fong Aric Wu Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, New York 10166 Counsel for Dickson V. Lee If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or write to Lead Counsel identified above. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS SETTLEMENT NOTICE. DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK LANDRY'S INC: "Ahmed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Helal Ahmed, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Landry's, Inc., Landry's Seafood House-Arlington, Inc., and McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02186 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com egitig@fslawfirm.com LISBOA HABANA: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Oilse Gonzalez, and others similarly-situated v. Lisboa Habana LLC, and Armando Areias, Case No. 1:15-cv-21154 (S.D. Fla., March 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edilberto O. Marban, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN 1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 448-9292 Facsimile: (305) 448-9477 E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Cross" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ---------------------------------------------------------- David Cross and Shela Cross v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00228 (W.D. Ky., March 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. The Plaintiff is represented by: W. Lewis Garrison Jr., Esq. William L. Bross, Esq. Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq. Mark R. Ekonen, Esq. HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC 2224 1st Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 326-3336 E-mail: wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com william@hgdlawfirm.com mark@hgdlawfirm.com - and - John E. Spainhour, Esq. GIVHAN & SPAINHOUR, PSC Professional Building, Suite One 200 S. Buckman Street Shepherdsville, KY 40165 Telephone: (502) 543-2218 Facsimile: (502) 955-7000 E-mail: john@gsatty.net LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Neuhaus" Suit Over Toxic Flooring ------------------------------------------------------------ Donia and Scott Neuhaus, a married couple, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00203 (S.D. Ohio, March 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew R. Wilson, Esq. Michael J. Boyle Jr., Esq. MEYER WILSON Co., LPA 1320 Dublin Road, Suite 100 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 2224-6000 Facsimile: (614) 224-6066 E-mail: mwilson@meyerwilson.com mboyle@meyerwilson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Schneider" Suit Over Toxic Flooring -------------------------------------------------------------- Gavin Schneider, Jeffrey Gonzalez, David Bortnick, Michael Oddo, Camil Sader, Tatiana Leechee-Sader, Linda J. Arons, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-60592 (S.D. Fla., March 23, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a retailer of hardwood flooring, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Sarelson, Esq. MATTHEW SETH SARELSON, P.A. 1000 Brickell Avenue, Suite 920 Miami, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 773-1952 E-mail: msarelson@sarelson.com LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Laminate Class Action in Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------------- Jim Boyle, writing for The Pennsylvania Record, reports that one of the world's top flooring distributors continues to reel from reports lumberalleging the company used unsafe chemicals in the manufacture of its products. A class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against Lumber Liquidators, one of dozens of actions lodged against the laminate flooring company for allegedly selling flooring tainted with hazardous levels of formaldehyde. The lead plaintiffs sought a product that would be easier for their asthma symptoms exhibited by their seven-year-old daughter, according to the complaint. The 28-page lawsuit filed on March 9 alleges that Lumber Liquidators sold composite flooring manufactured in China tainted with hazardous levels of formaldehyde while falsely labeling their products as meeting or exceeding California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions standards. According to the complaint, on March 17, plaintiffs Andrew and Carinne Karlick purchased several hundred square feet of Dream Home Kensington Manor Warm Springs Chestnut Laminate Flooring at a Lumber Liquidators store in Wilkes Barre. Carinne suffers from asthma, and their daughter has begun exhibiting asthmatic symptoms, the claim says. According to the complaint, the Karlicks were aware of risks that building products could contain formaldehyde and other dangerous chemicals and specifically tried to ensure that the composite flooring they purchased was safe. "Soon after the Lumber Liquidators composite flooring was installed in their home, Mrs. Karlick and the Karlick's daughter experienced worse asthma symptoms than they normally experienced," the complaint states. "In October, the Karlick's daughter experienced a severe attack that required her to be treated with a nebulizer and to receive oxygen treatment -- which she had never needed before. Her symptoms then complicated and developed into pneumonia." A report from "60 Minutes" recently stated that all laminate flooring carried by Lumber Liquidators bears a label indicating that it is CARB Phase 2-compliant, but that its flooring manufactured in China that bears this label is in fact not compliant. The report revealed that glue and resin used to bond the pressed wood together can be a significant source of formaldehyde gas. The suit seeks injunctive and declarative relief on five counts, including breach of warranty, violations of Pennsylvania's unfair trade practices and consumer protection law, and fraudulent concealment. The class also seeks damages in excess of $5 million for restitution from purchasing the product, plus compensatory damages. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. MARION COUNTY, IN: Memo Reveals 72hr Practice for Jail Releases --------------------------------------------------------------- Russ McQuaid, writing for FOX59, reports that for months, people held inside the Marion County jail have told FOX59 News their court ordered releases were delayed because corrections officers told them the sheriff had 72 hours to discharge an offender after a judge's ruling. Four people who filed federal class action lawsuit last month claim jailers told them the same thing. Now, an internal jail memo written by Sheriff John Layton, and obtained by FOX59 News, confirms that the 72-hour excuse has been a standard but unapproved practice of jailers who give the delayed timetable excuse when offenders ask why they aren't being released as a judge so ordered. "To all staff," begins the email written by Layton at 10:36 a.m. on March 9, "It has come to my attention that there is a rumor that jail inmates can be held up to 72 hours after the date that they have been ordered to be released to the street. That rumor is false. Inmates must be processed for release in a timely manner, and the sheriff's office does not have 72 hours to process inmates for release. It is not, nor has it ever been, a policy of the Sheriff's Office to process inmates within a 72-hour window." The lawyer who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the former offenders was unimpressed. "I think that was written by the sheriff's lawyer to stop their liability for such a policy because it's clearly unconstitutional so they'd like to stop their people telling our clients that," said attorney Rich Waples. "As a matter of fact, that's what they've been telling people for months and months and months and that's what they've been following for a matter of practice so I think the sheriff has some real liability issues here." Mr. Waples said the practice is too wide spread within the department to be the work of a couple misinformed deputies. "The common thread is the sheriff's department doesn't have a handle on what they need to do to get people out on time. They've been pretty consistently telling people, 'Well, we have 48 hours to 72 hours to release people.' That's not the law. That's what our people have been consistently told, and they don't even adhere to that because we've had people held four and five days after they've been ordered to be released." Sherman Duncan is one of those people. Mr. Duncan was held for six days on a battery charge in December before he says he saw a judge and the charges were dropped. He was then held another 80 hours, missed work and a job interview and was housed with killers and other high secruity inmates inside the jail before he was finally released. "They told me basically, 'Sit back and relax. We have up to 72 hours to release you,' and I'm like, 'I don't understand that. If I'm released, then release me,' but that's what they told me, 'We have up to 72 hours.' "I was free. I was supposed to be let go and it's like I did three and a half days for nothing." After Mr. Duncan read Sheriff Layton's email telling his staff to quit leaning on the rumored 72-hour rule as an excuse for release delays, the former detainee was exasperated. "It seems like they're doing that to cover theirself, or he's doing that to cover hisself," said Duncan, "because clearly everybody around there speaks the same language. It's not just one guard that says that. All of them say that and even when I call my public defender to check, she said they told her that." Apparently the overdetention problems, and excuses, are not restricted to the main jail. Several blocks away on East Washington Street, at Jail II, operated by Corrections Corporation of America, the false detention claims are the same and the rationale is even more cynical. "Now I'm asking the CO, 'What's going on? I should've been home. I don't get this,'" said Kevin Thomas who told FOX59 News he was held for 52 additional hours after a judge ordered him released in December pending trial. Mr. Thomas said the corrections officer's response was similar to that of the sheriff's deputies. "'Oh it takes 72 hours,'" Mr. Thomas said he was told. "We're not County One. We are a privately owned company. We got 72 hours to release you . . . Our computers are down. Our computers are down. We don't know your status." "I'm like, 'Y'all are violating my rights,' and they're like, 'Naw. We're private.'" Mr. Thomas said he was told specifically it would do no good to report his complaints to the news media. "They private. Can't nobody come in there," he said. "Ain't no way that y'all would ever be able to step a foot in CCA, so I could just leave that alone. Ain't no way y'all going to get up in there. 'We not run by the state. We just a private jail company.'" As a privately run jail, CCA is paid with public funds to house Marion County inmates. Thomas said that's why he was told his released was being delayed and, when it came, it occurred at two a.m., more than two days after a judge ordered him free, so that CCA could charge the county for an additional day of incarceration. "I see a CO I know from the streets," said Mr. Thomas. "A guy my age. I said,'What's going on, man?' He says, 'You all just paying rent. After three days they let you go. Every 12 o'clock you just paying rent basically.' "'This is just how they run this,' Mr. Thomas quoted the private jailer as telling him. "'After 12 midnight, you pay our rent.' That's all he said. 'You paying our rent. We get money for y'all being here. You know that.'" Mr. Thomas was also dismayed when he read Sheriff Layton's memo. "They know they in trouble," he said. "They know they did something wrong. It's in the Constitution. Due Process. 4th amendment. 8th amendment. 14th amendment. All them been violated. If the judge ordered something, it should be done. Period. Point blank." Mr. Waples and FOX59 News have both received phone calls from dozens of former offenders telling the same story about overdetentions, delayed releases and excuses. "We've had hundreds of people contact us about it, complaining they've been held over for days and days after they've been ordered to be released," said Mr. Waples. "Every other county around Marion County does this within 30 minutes. Marion County can do it within a couple of hours." Those complaints began last summer when the jail installed a new Offender Management System to track inmates and the Marion Superior Court began using the new Odyssey system to track criminal cases. An outside expert and MCSO personnel told FOX59 News that the two systems have struggled to share information. The attorney expects to represent hundreds of plaintiffs in the federal class action lawsuit that could result in settlements for thousands of ex-offenders and invite U.S. District Court oversight of the jail. "We want to get the system fixed," said Mr. Waples. "This is not only costing people their liberty, being held days longer than they should, but it's costing all Marion County taxpayers money keeping people in prison longer than they should. We're paying for that." When asked for a comment, Sheriff John Layton's staff reported, "The Marion County Sheriff's Office does not try lawsuits in the media." A spokesman for CCA told FOX59 News, "While we take these alleged comments by CCA staff members seriously, they do not reflect the reality of the offender release procedures at Marion County Jail II. All CCA facilities operate in accordance with the policies and procedures that are laid out by our government partner. "Upon receiving a release order for an offender housed at Marion County Jail II, staff typically process and complete the release within a matter of hours, and no incentive exists-financial or otherwise-for CCA to house offenders past their ordered date of release. Finally, Marion County jail II is frequently audited and operates transparently with oversight from our government partner." Other former detainees have told FOX59 News their jail II experiences were similar to those experienced by ex-offenders housed at the main jail and their releases were also delayed for several days. An information management specialist was brought in by Sheriff Layton last September to analyze the systems and suggest solutions which were undertaken in October. Most of the recent complaints fielded by Mr. Waples and FOX59 News are from offenders who were housed in the jail since last November. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Robertson & Associates Files Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- On March 11, 2015 Robertson & Associates, LLP., filed a class action lawsuit in United Stated District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of plaintiffs from Los Angeles, Orange, Fresno, Riverside, and San Luis Obispo counties, who seek to represent all similarly situated consumers in California, against Lumber Liquidators, Inc. for allegedly violating California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law by selling laminate wood flooring which contains a known carcinogen, formaldehyde, in levels which far exceed California's Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) adopted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in April 2007. Lumber Liquidators, which reportedly had estimated annual sales of $1.1 Billion in 2014, is one of the largest specialty retailers of hardwood and laminate flooring in the United States, with over 340 stores in 46 states, including 36 stores in California. On March 12, 2015, Robertson & Associates, LLP., filed a similar class action lawsuit in United States District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of two Las Vegas plaintiffs, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of all similarly situated Nevada consumers who purchased allegedly toxic laminate flooring from Lumber Liquidators. Lumber Liquidators has a total of 3 stores in Nevada, one each in Las Vegas, Henderson and Reno. Recently published tests conducted by two independent labs for CBS News "60 Minutes" have shown that certain laminate flooring manufactured in China and sold by Lumber Liquidators contains unsafe emissions of formaldehyde gas, which emissions far exceeded the legal limit under California law. Lumber Liquidators' labels on its packaging and its website represent that its flooring complies with California's regulations of formaldehyde even for flooring sold outside of California. According to a March 1, 2015 CBS News "60 Minutes" report, Lumber Liquidators has sold laminate wood flooring with hazardous levels of formaldehyde which exceed the standards established in 2007 by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The EPA has classified formaldehyde as a "probable human carcinogen." National Cancer Institute researchers have concluded that, based on data from studies in people and from lab research, exposure to formaldehyde may cause leukemia, particularly myeloid leukemia, in humans. Formaldehyde also causes burning eyes, nose and throat irritation, coughing, headaches, dizziness, joint pain and nausea. Formaldehyde has also been linked to the exacerbation of asthma in sensitive individuals. If you or someone you know purchased Chinese-made laminate flooring from Lumber Liquidators, you may have been exposed to formaldehyde. If you would like free information about your legal rights and remedies, call Alex "Trey" Robertson, IV, Esq. of Robertson & Associates, LLP. at (818) 851-3850 or go to www.classactionlumberliquidators.com Alex "Trey" Robertson, IV, Esq. is an experienced trial lawyer who holds an AV-Preeminent rating from Martindale-Hubbell, the highest peer-review rating given only to those lawyers who demonstrate the highest level of ethical standards and legal ability. Alex also has been named a "Super Lawyer" for Southern California from 2011- 2015. In 2014, he received "The Litigator Award" from the Trial Lawyers Board of Regents, a distinction given to only 1% of all attorneys, based upon verified settlement and verdict amounts. Alex is admitted to practice in California, Nevada, Colorado and Texas. As one of the country's top litigators of toxic mold cases, Alex has handled thousands of indoor air quality cases involving airborne toxins into his client's homes. Alex has handled numerous high profile toxic cases, including those for celebrities Ed McMahon, Erin Brockovich, Ted Nugent, Vin Scully (L.A. Dodger's announcer) and other celebrities, professional athletes and public figures. Many of his cases have been featured in local and national media, including CBS News "48 Hours" (twice), CBS News "The Early Show", ABC News "Prime Time Live", NBC News "Today Show", New York Times Sunday Magazine, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, Forbes Magazine and CNN's "Lou Dobbs" show. With over 30 years of experience as a trial lawyer, Mr. Robertson has recovered more than $300,000,000 for consumers in construction defect and consumer class actions. Contact: Alex "Trey" Robertson, IV, Esq. Telephone: (818) 851-3850 E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com Web site: http://www.classactionlumberliquidators.com MIDWAY REMARKETING: Faces "Rojas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Luis Rojas v. Midway Remarketing, Inc., and Martin Shapiro, Case No. 2:15-cv-02064 (D.N.J., March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Midway Remarketing, Inc. is a car detailing company in Hillside New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew I. Glenn, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA Lawrence Office Park Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com MOBILE AUTO: Faces "Zolotoff" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffry Zolotoff and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Mobile Auto Repair, Inc., and Raymond Torres, Case No. 1:15-cv-21161 (S.D. Fla., March 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and auto repair shop that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM MRS BPO: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, "Lefkowitz" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Lefkowitz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. MRS BPO, L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-01477-PKC- VMS (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 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 NATIONAL GRID: Faces TCPA Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------- Patrick Lunsford, writing for insideARM.com, reports that a lawsuit filed in federal court in New York is seeking class action status under the TCPA. Named in the case is a major utility and nearly all of its subsidiaries and parent companies, including global holding firms, even though the alleged violation was committed by a third party debt collection agency. It is a continuation of a trend that sees plaintiffs skipping collectors and going straight after the big money. The case in question, Jenkins v. National Grid USA, was filed by a recently-prolific pro se plaintiff that targets the ARM industry. But for this particular action, Jenkins retained an attorney to push for class action status. The suit alleges that a third party collection agency, NCO Financial Systems, contracted by National Grid used an autodialer to make collection calls and send pre- recorded messages to the plaintiff's -- and other members of a potential class -- cell phone without prior express consent to do so. The plaintiff was a utility customer of National Grid. All of the actions named in the lawsuit were taken by NCO, not by National Grid. Mr. Jenkins claims that the company is "directly liable and/or vicariously liable" for NCO's actions, however. NCO is not named as a defendant in the action. But a host of entities associated with National Grid are named, including many of the largest utility providers in the Northeast and New England. Mr. Jenkins has a fairly lengthy record of recent pro se actions against major ARM firms, principally for violations of the FDCPA or FCRA. Many of the cases have been dismissed. But one still open action appears to have led directly to this lawsuit. In July 2014, Mr. Jenkins sued NCO under the FCRA for pulling his credit report. Mr. Jenkins claimed that NCO had not permissible purpose to access his credit file. NCO responded that it did, in fact, have a permissible purpose to obtain the credit report: it was collecting a debt on behalf of National Grid. NCO has filed a motion to dismiss, but the case is still ongoing. Using some other information from discovery, Mr. Jenkins fashioned a TCPA claim based on NCO's actions. But he skipped NCO as a defendant and went straight to their client. It's a move that is becoming increasingly common. Just in February, American Express lost a motion to dismiss a TCPA lawsuit that made very similar allegations. The credit card giant was the target of a class action suit claiming direct liability under the TCPA for the actions of a contracted debt collection agency. "With respect to the debt collection phone calls, whether American Express itself actually placed the calls at issue is irrelevant," the judge in the case wrote. It makes sense that collection agency clients would be target of TCPA class actions. There have been some massive settlements of such cases recently. In late February, a federal judge in Illinois granted final approval to a $40 million TCPA class action settlement between plaintiffs and credit card issuer HSBC. That was the third- largest TCPA settlement recorded. The largest TCPA settlement went final only weeks before, in front of the same judge. That action saw Capital One pay $75 million in a collection call- related TCPA class action settlement. The past several years have seen an explosion of TCPA lawsuits aimed at the ARM industry. Plaintiffs' attorneys are now realizing that the real money is with collection clients rather than ARM companies. Everyone in the debt collection industry should take note of these recent trends. NESTLE PURINA: Finleyville Consumer Says Beneful Killed Pet Dog --------------------------------------------------------------- KDKA reports that like many, Jim Ball of Finleyville bought what Purina's Beneful brand was selling. As the Purina commercial goes, "Beneful -- live the full life." But now Mr. Ball believes the dog food killed his Siberian husky, Billy, as he told KDKA money editor Jon Delano on March 11. "I read the bag and it seemed like it had some pretty good ingredients from the outside," Mr. Ball said. Mr. Delano: "And this is the actual dog food you fed your dog when he died?" Mr. Ball said: "This was it." Mr. Ball hopes the dog food will be tested, perhaps as part of a class action lawsuit that claims 3,000 dogs have been killed or injured by eight brands of Beneful dog food. Purina denies any liability, saying, "We believe the lawsuit is baseless, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves and our brand." Mr. Ball owned two Siberian huskies, Billy and Midnight, until Billy died in January after he switched to Beneful. "We were out and when we came home, that's when he was laying on the floor," says Mr. Ball. "There was vomit all over the basement, and I could tell that something just wasn't right. And right away I took him into the Castle Shannon Animal Hospital." Mr. Ball says the veterinarian asked if his dog had been poisoned. Never suspecting dog food, Mr. Ball said no way. Nobody from Castle Shannon Veterinary Hospital was available to talk to KDKA on camera, but Ball says that when his dog got sick he took the dog there, met with the vet who told him it was probably the change in diet that was affecting his animal. The vet prescribed a special diet to use instead. Mr. Ball says Billy bounced back on the special diet, but when Beneful was blended in, as instructed, Billy took a turn. "Sadly, he didn't make it," Mr. Ball said. Ball has contacted lawyers but won't sue yet -- if Purina takes Beneful off the shelves. "I thought since my case was fairly new that maybe what they need to take it off the shelves and that's really all I was trying to do -- to keep this from happening to anybody else," Mr. Ball said. NEW YORK & CO: Removes "Pietrantonio" Suit to D. Massachusetts -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Pietrantonio, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. New York & Company, Inc., Case No. 15-231, was removed from the Superior Court of Massachusetts for the County of Middlesex from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Superior Court, County of Middlesex, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Eastern Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv- 11036 to the proceeding. The Complaint alleges that NY&Co improperly wrote personal identification information of the Plaintiff and the putative class members on a credit card transaction form, in violation of the Massachusetts Unfair Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Siprut, Esq. Brandon M. Cavanaugh, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 948-9196 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com bcavanaugh@siprut.com - and - Alexander Shapoval, Esq. SIPRUT PC 84 Winnisimmet Street Chelsea, MA 02150 Telephone: (617) 889-5800 Facsimile: (617) 409-9994 E-mail: ashapoval@siprut.com The Defendant is represented by: Donna L. Wilson, Esq. Brandon P. Reilly, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 West Olympic Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Facsimile: (310) 312-4224 E-mail: dlwilson@manatt.com breilly@manatt.com - and - Meredith M. Lasna, Esq. MORRISON MAHONEY LLP 250 Summer Street Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 439-7500 E-mail: mlasna@morrisonmahoney.com NEWARK WATERSHED: Plaintiffs' Attorney Wants Stay on Suit Lifted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Wichert, writing for NJ.com, reports that two former employees of the Newark Watershed Conservation and Development Corp. filed a class-action lawsuit last year to recover money allegedly stolen from the now-defunct agency. But after the agency's trustees filed for bankruptcy in January, that lawsuit was put on hold. Now the former employees' attorney is asking a federal bankruptcy judge to partially lift the stay on the lawsuit and allow certain claims to proceed on behalf of Newark residents. "I want to go forward with the lawsuit," said David Hoffman, the attorney representing the former employees. "I'm in limbo." But Daniel Stolz, an attorney representing the corporation in the bankruptcy case, argued the stay must remain in place, because the agency should be the one to pursue such litigation, not Mr. Hoffman. "The appropriate thing is for the watershed to bring those claims and we've always intended to bring those claims," said Mr. Stolz, adding that the corporation should serve that role "because the agency is the one that was directly injured." The litigation pursued by the agency would include negligence claims against law firms that had represented the agency and claims against people who wrongfully took money from the corporation, according to Mr. Stolz. A hearing on Hoffman's motion to partially vacate the stay was scheduled for March 31 before U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Vincent F. Papalia. For several years, the corporation -- which had treated and delivered water for 500,000 customers in northern New Jersey until its watershed operations were transferred to city control in 2013 -- has been steeped in controversy. One of the greatest blows came in February 2014 with the release of a scathing report by the New Jersey Comptroller's Office, alleging rampant mismanagement, corruption and abusive spending practices at the agency. At the center of those allegations is the agency's former executive director, Linda Watkins-Brashear, who received more than $600,000 in severance packages, and wrote more than $200,000 in unauthorized checks to herself, the investigation found. The report also asserts that Ms. Watkins-Brashear awarded millions of dollars' worth of no-bid contracts to her ex-husband, close personal associates and agency employees. One of the agency employees who allegedly received those no-bid contracts -- Donald Bernard Sr. -- and a contractor, Giacomo "Jack" DeRosa, are now facing federal criminal charges for allegedly participating in a kickback scheme at the agency. Mr. Bernard is accused of accepting at least $730,000 in kickbacks from Mr. DeRosa and other contractors, authorities said. Another former contractor, James Porter, pleaded guilty in January to his role in the scheme. Ms. Watkins-Brashear and Mr. Bernard are among the various defendants being sued in the class-action lawsuit from the former employees. The lawsuit was initially filed on July 9 in New Jersey Superior Court in Essex County. Mr. Hoffman said the lawsuit involves two main components -- a claim on behalf of Newark residents to recover the allegedly stolen funds, and a claim on behalf of former agency employees to receive their benefits, including money for their pensions, severance pay and unused sick and vacation time. While the employees' claim would remain part of the bankruptcy case, Hoffman said he is looking to remove the stay in regard to the residents' claim and move forward with that part of the lawsuit. "It has nothing to do with the bankruptcy," said Mr. Hoffman, referring to the residents' claim. Mr. Stolz noted the "automatic stay" of the lawsuit fits with the standard operating procedures in bankruptcy cases. Referring to the agency's trustees, Mr. Stolz argued "it would be duplicative of the claims that we're going to be bringing" for Hoffman to pursue the lawsuit. NEWFRESCO TORTILLAS: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Zhen Ming Chen, individually and on behalfof allotheremployees similarly situated v. Newfresco Tortillas Taco LLC d/b/a "the Original Fres'co Tortillas Taco", "John" Chen, John Doe and JaneDoe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-02158 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 100 West 83rd Street, New York, New York 10024. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HNAG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (718) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com NVIDIA CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed GTX 970 Units, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Patrick E. Parker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nvidia Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00062 (M.D. Ga., March 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's false and misleading representations of its GeForce GTX 970 graphics processing unit that it operates with a 4 gigabyte (GB) pool of video random access memory (VRAM), 64 Raster Operations Pipelines (ROP), and 2048 kilobytes (KB) of L2 cache capacity. When in fact, the VRAM in the GTX 970 is divided into two separate pools of memory, with one high performance pool of 3.5GB VRAM, and a second nearly unusable pool of 0.5GB VRAM, the GTX 970 contains only 56 ROP and only has 1792KB of L2 cache capacity. Nvidia Corporation is a visual computing company and is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, selling, and distributing computing equipment. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Coomes, Esq. MCCONNELL & SNEED, LLC 990 Hammond Drive, Suite 840 Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (404) 220-9994 Facsimile: (404) 665-3476 E-mail: ajc@mcconnellsneed.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq. Benjamin S. Branda, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com enafisi@wbmllp.com bbranda@wbmllp.com OFFICE DEPOT: Sued Over Breach of Americans with Disabilities Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Kennedy and Robert Cohen v. Office Depot, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-60587 (S.D. Fla., March 20, 2015), alleges that the Defendant's facility fails to adhere to a policy and procedure to afford goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals with disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Office Depot, Inc. is an office supply retailing company headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Michael Cullen III, Esq. THOMAS B. BACON, P.A. 621 S Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3146 Telephone: (954) 462-0600 Facsimile: 462-1717 E-mail: CULLENIII@aol.com OLIVER EXTERMINATING: Removes "Tenai" Class Suit to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Tenai v. Oliver Exterminating Corporation, Case No. 15-000419-CC-24, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21142-DPG to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Francisco Zacarias, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A. 5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230 Miami, FL 33126 Telephone: (305) 403-2000 Facsimile: (305) 459-3964 E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com - and - Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE 1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2 Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Telephone: (305) 448-9292 Facsimile: (305) 448-9477 E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Teri Guttman Valdes, Esq. TERI GUTTMAN VALDES, LLC 1501 Venera Avenue, Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33146 Telephone: (305) 740-9600 Facsimile: (305) 740-9202 E-mail: tgvaldes@aol.com OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Barrack, Rodos & Bacine Files Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Barrack, Rodos & Bacine on March 12 disclosed that it commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. common stock during the period between March 3, 2015 and March 5, 2015, inclusive. The Case is No. 15- cv-557-CAB-MDD. The complaint alleges that Orexigen and certain of its executives violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchases of Orexigen common stock during the Class Period. Orexigen is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development of pharmaceutical product candidates for the treatment of obesity, including Contrave, which it claims "regulates appetite and energy expenditure through [central nervous system] activity." Orexigen is headquartered in La Jolla, California, just north of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine's office in San Diego, California. The Barrack complaint alleges that as part of the FDA post- marketing approval process for Contrave, Orexigen was required to conduct a new, randomize-blind, placebo-controlled study to evaluate the effects of long-term treatment with Contrave on the incidents of major adverse cardiac events, or "MACE," in overweight and obese subjects with cardiovascular disease or multiple cardiovascular risk factors, referred to as a "LIGHT study." On March 3, 2015, Orexigen disclosed detailed interim results of its LIGHT study. However, according to media reports, Orexigen had been warned by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") about inappropriately releasing interim study data in the past and, thus, knew that it would not be appropriate to release interim LIGHT study results on March 3, 2015. With the company's March 3, 2015 disclosures, the price of Orexigen common stock increased by more than 30%, from a closing price of $5.79 on March 2 to a closing price of $7.64 on March 3, 2015. The stock closed at even higher prices the next two days -- closing at $8.49 per share on March 4 and at $8.01 per share on March 5, 2015. Over the three days, more than 150 million shares of stock were traded. However, after the close of trading on March 5, 2015, Forbes published an article entitled "Top FDA official Says Orexigen Study Result 'Unreliable', "Misleading." As alleged in the Barrack complaint, the Forbes report contained comments from an FDA official charged with overseeing the Contrave post-marketing clinical trial program, who reportedly stated, among other things, that the interim data from the study was probably "unreliable," "misleading," and "likely false." The Forbes article commented that "[i]f Orexigen cannot find a way to set things right, it could face fines, civil penalties, or even the withdrawal of Contrave from the market." After issuance of the Forbes article, the price of Orexigen stock fell significantly as trading resumed on March 6, 2015, falling to a low of $6.76 per share and resting at $7.10 per share by the close of the day. If you purchased Orexigen common stock during the period from March 3, 2015 through March 5, 2015, you may be eligible to serve as a lead plaintiff and thereby participate in the direction of this litigation on behalf of the class members. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you are required to file a motion with the court no later than 60 days from March 10, 2015. If you would like to discuss this case or have any questions or information concerning this notice or your rights and interests as a purchaser of Orexigen stock, we encourage you to contact Stephen R. Basser or Samuel M. Ward of Barrack at (619) 230-0800, (215) 963-0600, or (212) 688-0782, or via email at sbasser@barrack.com or sward@barrack.com You may view a copy of the complaint as filed at www.barrack.com Barrack, Rodos & Bacine -- http://www.barrack.com-- concentrates its practice in prosecuting investor class actions. OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on March 11 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Orexigen securities between March 3, 2015 and March 5, 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 Orexigen securities during the Class Period, you have until May 11, 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. Orexigen is a biopharmaceutical company that focuses on the development of pharmaceutical product candidates for the treatment of obesity. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) study results released by Orexigen, showing that its obesity drug Contrave reduced the risk of heart attacks and cardiovascular death, were unreliable and misleading; (ii) as such, Orexigen faced potential fines, civil penalties, and the possible removal of Contrave from the market; and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On March 3, 2015, the Company filed a Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing a patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In the patent application, the Company disclosed positive interim results of an ongoing clinical trial of its weight loss drug Contrave. As a result of this news, the Company's shares increased $1.85 or almost 32%, to close at $7.64 on March 3, 2015. The next day, shares rose $0.85 or over 11%, to close at $8.49 on March 4, 2015. The total increase over two days was $2.70, or over 46%. However, the interim data published by the Company was particularly unreliable, as noted in numerous articles published in the days after the patent application was filed. Takeda, which has an agreement with Orexigen to market Contrave in the United States, released a statement on March 5, 2015, stating that it did not support the release of the interim data. On the news, shares in Orexigen fell $0.48 or almost 6%, to close at $8.01 on March 5, 2015. After the close of trading on March 5, 2015, in a report published on Forbes.com, a top FDA official criticized Orexigen and its decision to release interim trial data. In the report, Dr. John Jenkins, the FDA's director of the Office of New Drugs criticized the released data as "unreliable," "misleading," and "likely false." He also said that the results must be kept confidential to avoid compromising the trial's integrity so researchers can get a clear sense of any cardiovascular risk related to the drug. On this news, shares in Orexigen fell as much as $1.25, or almost 16%, to as low as $6.76 in intraday trading on March 6, 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. PELICAN BAY, CA: Solitary Confinement Suit May Proceed ------------------------------------------------------ Mohamed Shehk, writing for San Francisco Bay View, reports that Pelican Bay prisoners named as plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against the use of solitary confinement in California gained an important victory on March 9 as U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled in favor of a motion filed by the plaintiffs' counsel. The motion allows prisoners who have been in solitary confinement for more than 10 years, but have been transferred out of Pelican Bay State Prison since the lawsuit was first filed, to remain eligible as class members in the case. "Our success with this motion should be a strong message to the prison administration that its attempts to evade court review of its unconstitutional practices," says Carol Strickman, co-counsel for the plaintiffs and staff attorney at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. "Our goal in this case is to support the demand of prisoners to end the inhumane use of indefinite solitary, and no amount of legal shell games is going to stop us from achieving that goal." The case was filed in June 2014 on behalf of prisoners held in Pelican Bay's notorious Security Housing Units (SHU) for more than 10 years. Since then, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) has attempted to weaken the case and repress political organizing by transferring prisoners out of Pelican Bay, thereby claiming that they are no longer eligible class members in the lawsuit. "This is a huge victory against CDCR's attempts to suppress the resistance and solidarity among prisoners and their loved ones on the outside," says Dolores Canales of California Families Against Solitary Confinement. "It shows us the power of prisoner-led organizing and efforts on the outside to challenge and block an oppressive prison system." The lawsuit against CDCR comes out of a wave of prisoner organizing and of efforts by their loved ones on the outside to bring the prisoners' demands to the center of public consciousness. The call to end indefinite solitary confinement was one of five core demands of over 30,000 California prisoners who went on a historic hunger strike in July of 2013. Yet CDCR has responded to the prisoners' action by attempting to break their collective efforts by moving them around the state and pushing forward stricter visitation and mailing policies. "CDCR's attempt at retribution for political organizing has only galvanized support for prisoners," continued Ms. Canales. "The prisoners' win in court on March 9 means that CDCR's main strategy of repression -- which has been to separate prisoners by transferring them -- is not working. We are hopeful and encouraged by this ruling, and will use this momentum to continue fighting for the prisoner's demands." Families, loved ones and advocates of prisoners are continuing to organize to highlight the lawsuit and to amplify the prisoners' struggles more broadly. The Prisoner Hunger Strike Solidarity Coalition and community members across California will be mobilizing on March 23 for a day of "Statewide Coordinated Action to End Solitary Confinement." PH BEAUTY: Removes "Marshall" Suit to California District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Geri Marshall v. PH Beauty Labs, Inc., Case No. BC571836, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv- 02101-DDP-AGR to the proceeding. The complaint alleges violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the California Commercial Code. The complaint was filed as a nationwide putative class action and purports to seek relief on behalf of "a class of persons in the United States who, from May 1, 2009 to the present, purchased eclos products primarily for personal, family, or household use, and not for resale." The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald A. Marron, Esq. Skye Resendes, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON APLC 651 Arroyo Drive San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 696-9006 Facsimile: (619) 564-6665 E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com skye@consumersadvocates.com - and - John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV, Esq. Tran Hai Thi Nguyen, Esq. Trevor M. Flynn, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD PC Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Facsimile: (619) 362-9555 E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: J. Craig Crawford, Esq. CARR MCCLELLAN PC 216 Park Road Burlingame, CA 94010-0513 Telephone: (650) 696-2580 Facsimile: (650) 342-7685 E-mail: ccrawford@carr-mcclellan.com PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Guenser" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Bradd Guenser, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00441 (W.D. Wash., March 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant failure to properly secure and protect its users' sensitive, personally-identifiable information. Premera Blue Cross is a Washington nonprofit corporation, headquartered in Montlake Terrace, Washington. It is one of the largest health plan provider in the Northwest United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com kstephens@tousley.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Swathi Bojedla, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street, NW Suite 650 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com sbojedla@hausfeld.com PREMERA BLUE: Faces "Hoirup" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Yolanda Hoirup, Peter Hoirup, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv- 00445 (W.D. Wash., March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to protect and safeguard the personal and financial information of its 11 million insureds. Premera Blue Cross is a Washington company, headquartered in Mountlake Terrace, Washington. It is one of the largest health insurers in the Pacific Northwest. The Plaintiff is represented by: Darrell L. Cochran, Esq. Kevin M. Hastings, Esq. PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 911 Pacific Ave., Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (253) 777-0799 Facsimile: (253) 627-0654 E-mail: darrell@pcvalaw.com kevin@pcvalaw.com PROGRESSIVE FINANCIAL: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Membreno, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Progressive Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01492 (E.D.N.Y., March 22, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating 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 REEVE TRUCKING: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. on March 11 disclosed that on January 15, 2015, the San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. alleging that the company's policy and practice failed to lawfully compensate their employees working as Truck Drivers for all their missed meal and rest periods. The pending class action lawsuit against Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. for alleged unpaid missed meal and rest periods, is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court, Case No 37-2015- 00001601-CU-OE-CTL. The class action Complaint filed against Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. by the San Diego employment attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik alleges that Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. did not have a policy or practice which provided a full off-duty, thirty minute uninterrupted meal breaks to the Plaintiff and California Class Members. The company's alleged failure to provide the legally required meal and rest breaks is evidenced by their business records which contain no evidence of these breaks the Complaint claims. As a result, Truck Drivers working for Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. allegedly forfeited meal and rest breaks without additional compensation. For more information about the class action lawsuit against Reeve Trucking Company, Inc. call (866) 771-7099 to speak to an experienced San Diego employment attorney today. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with law offices located in San Diego County, San Francisco County, and Los Angeles County. The firm has a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types of illegal workplace conduct. Call one of their experienced employment law attorneys today at (866) 771-7099. SEASIDE ROOFING: Faces "Mercado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Margarito Mercado, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. Joseph W. Snyder and d/b/a Seaside Roofing Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-14101 (S.D. Fla., March 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Seaside Roofing Inc. owns and operates a roofing company that conducts business in Martin County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Monica Espino, Esq. ESPINO LAW 2100 Coral Way, Suite 300 Miami, FL 33145 Telephone: (305) 704-3172 Facsimile: (305) 722-7378 E-mail: me@espino-law.com SPEEDY STOP: NASM Files Amicus Curiae in Swipe-Fee Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- CSP Daily News, citing NASM's Legal Bulletin, reports that in Texas, the National Association of Shell Marketers (NASM) filed an amicus curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief in Speedy Stop Food Stores Inc. et al. v. Visa Inc. et al., Case No. 13-10-75377-A, in the District Court of Victoria County, Texas. In the Texas case, four branded petroleum marketers that opted out of the nationwide Visa-MasterCard class-action settlement in New York, filed their own, separate lawsuit against Visa and MasterCard alleging antitrust claims similar to those asserted by the plaintiff class members in the New York class action. Visa and MasterCard have asked the Texas court to dismiss the case based on their contention that branded petroleum retailers have no standing to assert such antitrust claims because they supposedly do not pay directly the credit-card interchange fees that are deducted from the proceeds of credit-card transactions at branded retail locations. Visa and MasterCard have made the same argument in the New York class action that they have raised in the Texas case. Consequently, the question of whether branded retailers will ultimately be able to receive any portion of the proceeds that are to be distributed pursuant to the settlement in the New York Visa- MasterCard class action is currently unresolved, said NASM. Because the ruling by the Texas state court could possibly set an important precedent on this issue, NASM filed its amicus curiae brief in support of the Texas marketers' position that they do pay such interchange fees directly and, therefore, have standing to asset their antitrust claims against Visa and MasterCard concerning those fees. SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Suit Over Tuberculosis Outbreak May Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Carri Beer Thevenot, writing for Las Vegas Review Journal, reports that a lawsuit that centers on a deadly 2013 tuberculosis outbreak at Summerlin Hospital Medical Center may proceed as a class action, a judge ruled, but he has not determined which potential plaintiffs may join the case. District Judge Kenneth Cory heard extensive arguments on the subject March 11 before granting a motion for class certification. He plans to issue a written order. Attorney John Cotton, who represents the hospital, argued that plaintiffs should be required to file separate lawsuits, rather than one joint case. "There is no commonality or typicality among any of these people," he told the judge. A class action is a lawsuit brought by one or more plaintiffs on behalf of a larger group, or "class," of plaintiffs with common issues. It is considered a more efficient way of handling cases involving large numbers of people who have suffered the same or similar injuries. Attorneys for plaintiffs in the tuberculosis case say 214 people already have retained them, but Cotton expressed skepticism about that number. "I'm happy to take the risk that there aren't 214 lawsuits that are going to be filed against my client," he said. According to FindLaw's website, every person who would be affected by the court's decision in a class action is entitled to notice that the action has started. Mr. Cotton asked Judge Cory to consider the "damage to a fine institution's reputation" that would be caused by putting out such a notice in the case against Summerlin Hospital. The Southern Nevada Health District already notified more than 1,100 people, including 142 infants, that they needed to be evaluated for possible exposure to TB in connection with the outbreak. Judge Cory asked about the possibility of limiting notice in the class action to that group. Judge Cory, who noted that the case involves medical professionals who are trying to make a living by helping other people, also expressed a desire to narrow the size of the potential class. "Can we protect such defendants from incurring unnecessary expenses to defend themselves?" he asked. The judge said he knows those costs will be passed on to consumers. Vanessa White, 25, was admitted to Summerlin Hospital on May 9, 2013, and has been identified as the source of the TB outbreak. She gave birth to twin daughters on May 11, 2013. White and both of her infants, who spent time in the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit, later died. Her husband, Ruben, has filed a separate medical malpractice lawsuit against Summerlin Hospital. The class action lawsuit accuses the hospital of negligence and a lack of oversight for failing to screen patients, maintain proper infection controls or adequately respond once officials there were notified that a former patient had died from TB. Valley Health System, which runs the hospital, has insisted the facility did what it should have. Of the 977 noninfants who were told they needed to be evaluated, 735 tested negative, according to a December 2013 report from the health district. Two had an active form of TB, and 59 had a latent form. The remainder had incomplete evaluations. The district indicated in the report that evaluations for many infants remained incomplete. Seven infants were on preventive treatment at the time. Attorneys representing plaintiffs in the class action case said three infants since have tested positive. "The NICU babies continue to test positive to this day," Louisiana attorney Anthony Irpino said. Mr. Irpino argued that potential plaintiffs in the class action include those who feared exposure to TB, but Mr. Cotton argued that only those with active or latent cases have a claim. He said he intends to ask the Nevada Supreme Court to rule on that issue before the case proceeds to trial. Judge Cory previously ruled that employees are barred under workers' compensation laws from bringing personal injury claims against the hospital in connection with the TB outbreak. TAXI TOURS: "Balderramo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Victor H. Alvarado Balderramo, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Taxi Tours Inc. d/b/a Big Taxi Tours and Christopher Preston, Case No. 1:15-cv-02181 (S.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate as a tour operator and maintains a principal place of business at 333 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon David Sherr, Esq. John Gurrieri, Esq. Justin Alexander Zeller, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C. 277 Broadway, Suite 408 New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 229-2249 Facsimile: (212) 229-2246 E-mail: bsherr@zellerlegal.com jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com Jazeller@zellerlegal.com TELEXFREE LLC: Judge Halts Class Action Evidence Gathering ---------------------------------------------------------- Scott O'Connell, writing for the Metrowest Daily News, reports that a federal judge approved the government's request to halt evidence gathering in a bundle of class action cases against TelexFREE, court records show. The order ties up a key loose end in the sprawling legal battle involving the company, and paves the way for the criminal case against TelexFREE's co-owners to proceed without any potential contamination from the other civil cases. U.S. authorities claim the Marlborough-based telecommunications company was a front for a massive worldwide pyramid scheme. A government-appointed bankruptcy trustee overseeing the business through Chapter 11 proceedings has estimated TelexFREE raised $1.8 bill in around two years, and ensnared close to 1.9 million participants. The company's co-founders, James Merrill of Ashland and Carlos Wanzeler of Northborough, have been charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud for their role in the alleged scheme. To prevent any interference with the case during the ongoing evidence buildup, the justice department has asked other courts to halt discovery in the simultaneous complaints against the company, including the Securities and Exchange Commission's case. This past December, the department also sought a stay of discovery in the multiple class action lawsuits brought against TelexFREE since the company collapsed last April. The plaintiffs in those cases, represented by an interim lead counsel and interim executive committee, technically opposed, telling the court in January they wanted to still have access to materials that were being produced in the bankruptcy case. On March 12, however, interim lead counsel Robert Bonsignore said he was ultimately OK with U.S. District Court Judge Timothy S. Hillman's decision to allow the government's request. "I think it's a compromise on the part of everyone trying to help the victims," he said. "The only alternative would be to have everyone fight, and that would waste resources, cost victims money, and defy common sense." With the discovery cessation in place, the sides in the class action cases won't be able to officially compile evidence until the criminal proceedings against Merrill and Wanzeler finish, which could take more than a year. But Judge Hillman's order does allow for a check-in date six months from now, at which point the court could allow for a modification of the stay order "for good cause shown." In the meantime, Mr. Bonsignore said he and the executive committee would continue to informally gather evidence for their cases. He also planned to file a consolidated version of the various class action suits before the end of March, per a court order filed by Judge Hillman. Mr. Bonsignore said he is still "biting at the bit" to move those cases forward, but acknowledged TelexFREE "is not your average, run of the mill case." TINDER: Responds to Class Action Over New Fees ---------------------------------------------- The Hollywood Reporter reports that a class-action lawsuit has been filed against Tinder over its new pay structure, alleging a massive scheme to hook users with an addictive experience before charging them money, but Tinder finds the whole complaint laughable. "We normally don't comment on pending litigation," a spokesperson for Tinder's parent company IAC tells The Hollywood Reporter, "but on this one we just can't help ourselves: It's downright silly." Tinder user Billy Warner filed the lawsuit on behalf of all users on March 6 in California, claiming the fees associated with Tinder's new incarnation, Tinder Plus, are "unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent." Mr. Warner argues that Tinder lured millions of users with free features, including unlimited swipes, and then pulled a "bait and switch," suddenly forcing users to pay for the same privileges. Mr. Warner claims Tinder's tactics were especially sinister because they got users "addicted" to the app before deciding to charge them. Tinder, however, doesn't see it that way. Company spokesperson Rosette Pambakian tells THR, "Lots of products offer differentiated price tiers by age, like Spotify does for students, for example. Tinder is no different; during our testing we've learned, not surprisingly, that younger users are just as excited about Tinder Plus, but are more budget-constrained and need a lower price to pull the trigger. As for Warner's gripe that the swipe limit is ruining his fun, Ms. Pambakian says the new limitation isn't meant to be a buzzkill. "It's really meant to curb the behavior of the chronic right-swipers, who are cheating the system by flooding it with right swipes." "The validity of the swipe is core to the Tinder experience," Ms. Pambakian says. "Tinder works best when swipes are genuine reflections of a user's desire to connect. Limitations on right- swiping give users more incentive to make sure their swipes are honest." The lawsuit story was first published by Taryn Hillin at Fusion. TONG SHEN: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Miranda, on behalf of himself and all others similarly- situated v. Tong Shen Trading Inc., and Qin Lin, Case No. 1:15-cv- 01506 (E.D.N.Y., March 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Tong Shen Trading Inc. is a New York Corporation that sells meats, poultry, vegetables, plastic cutlery, plastic dishes and aluminum ware. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Griffin, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: jpg@employmentlawyernewyork.com TWEEN BRANDS: Shoppers to Get Refunds Via Class-Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sheryl Harris, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that tweens who shopped at Justice are about to get some of their (parents') money back. The refunds are coming from a class-action settlement and affect only people who shopped at Justice stores in Ohio. As any parent of a tween knows, Justice sells clothes to kids who don't want to look like little kids anymore. The main clientele is girls between 10 and 13. Justice has a lot of sales. And that got it into trouble with a Lake County shopper, said plaintiff Marian Perez. Ms. Perez took the chain's owner, Tween Brands, to court, challenging Justice sales that claimed shoppers would get "40 percent off." Her class-action lawsuit claimed that items were sold at a higher price so fleetingly the 40 percent off price tag was in fact the regular price. And that, the suit says, violates Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act. Ohio law says stores can only advertise a "sale price" on items if they were sold at a higher, regular price for a run of at least 28 days in the previous 90 days. Tween Brands denies it violated Ohio law. But it has agreed to a settlement giving refunds to people who bought items at an Ohio Justice store between July 1, 2012 and Aug. 31, 2014. Consumers in Tween Brands records are beginning to get notices about the preliminary settlement now. The final version of the settlement still has to be approved by Lake County Common Pleas Court. To get refunds, consumers must mail in a claim form by June 8. Claim forms and more information about the suit are available at http://ohiosalepricesettlement.com/ People who can document their purchases will be eligible for 20 percent off what they spent at the stores. Those who can't, may be eligible for $12 or a 40 percent off coupon. Tween Brands is providing names of consumers it has in its records to the settlement administrator. Some have already received notices about the settlement. UBER TECH: Faces Class Action Drivers' Info Breach -------------------------------------------------- Daniel Siegal, Michael Lipkin and Y. Peter Kang, writing for Law360, report that Uber Technologies Inc., which in February revealed that hackers had exposed the personal information of 50,000 current and former drivers, on March 12 was hit with a putative class action in California federal court accusing the company of failing to secure its drivers' information. On Feb. 27, Uber announced that it was contacting drivers affected by the breach in multiple states, which occurred in March 2014, and had not yet received any reports of misuse of the information. The suit, filed on March 12 by former driver Sasha Antman, who worked for Uber in San Francisco until September 2013, alleges that the company was negligent in its care of drivers' personal information and improperly delayed telling drivers about the breach. According to the suit, hackers gained access to the Uber database using a "security key" publicly available on GitHub. a code database website and app. "In other words, defendant not only permitted all of the compromised private information to be accessible via a single password, but allowed that password to be publicly accessible via the Internet," the complaint states. Mr. Antman alleges that due to the data breach, in June 2014 an unknown person used his private information to apply for a credit card with Capital One, which now appears on his credit report. Uber knew of the data breach as early as September 2014, but did not provide any notice to the drivers for another five months, according to the complaint. Mr. Antman seeks to represent all affected drivers -- at least 50,000 in multiple states -- according to the suit and Uber's press release, in two classes, alleging violation of California data security law and unfair competition law for California drivers only, in addition to a nationwide class. Uber's February announcement said that it changed the access protocols for the database upon learning of the unauthorized access. No information aside from names and driver's license numbers were in the database, Uber noted. The company, which said that it would provide affected drivers a year of free credit monitoring, filed a John Doe lawsuit in California federal court the same day as its announcement in order to help the company identify and prosecute the unidentified perpetrator. The suit against Uber is just the latest class action to follow in the wake of a data breach at a major company. Anthem Inc.'s Feb. 4 announcement that hackers had exposed the personal information of roughly 80 million customers was followed less than a day later by putative class actions in California and Alabama federal courts. In what may be one of the first suits over the breach, California plaintiff Samantha Kirby alleges that Anthem didn't have proper security procedures in place and waited too long to tell customers about the breach. Anthem released a statement in February, but it had detected the breach as early as Jan. 29, according to Kirby's suit. Robert Ahdoot of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC, representing Ms. Kirby, told Law360 that Anthem's breach was more concerning than those affecting retailers over the past year because it potentially exposed medical information, in comparing it to the December 2013 Target Corp. hack that stole information on 70 million customers. Mr. Ahdoot and his firm also represent Mr. Antman is the suit filed against Uber on March 12. The plaintiffs are represented by Robert Ahdoot, Tina Wolfson, Theodore W. Maya and Keith Custis of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC. The case is Sasha Antman v. Uber Technologies Inc., case number 3:15-cv-01175, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. UBER TECH: Drivers' Class Actions to Go to Jury Trial ----------------------------------------------------- Dan Levine and Edwin Chan, writing for Reuters, report that ride- hailing apps Uber and Lyft failed to persuade separate U.S. judges on March 11 to rule that their drivers are independent contractors instead of employees, in cases that have wide implications for Silicon Valley "sharing economy" firms. U.S. District Judges Edward Chen and Vince Chhabria in San Francisco federal court said in two rulings that juries would have to determine the status of each companies' drivers. Uber and Lyft face separate lawsuits seeking class-action status in San Francisco, brought on behalf of drivers who contend they are employees and entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including gas and vehicle maintenance. The drivers currently pay those costs themselves. An ultimate finding against the two biggest car-ride services could significantly raise their costs beyond the lawsuits' scope and force them to pay Social Security, workers' compensation, and unemployment insurance. That could, in turn, affect the valuations of not just Lyft and Uber but also other startups that rely on large networks of privately contracted individuals to provide rides, clean houses and the like. Uber declined to comment and Lyft did not respond to a request for comment on the decisions. "We are very excited about both rulings," said Shannon Liss- Riordan, an attorney for drivers in both cases. Uber has raised more than $4 billion from prominent venture capital firms such as Benchmark and Google Ventures, valuing the company at $40 billion and making it the most valuable U.S. startup. Lyft has raised $331 million from Andreessen Horowitz, Founders Fund and other investors. In the March 11 ruling, Judge Chen noted that Uber has the right to terminate its drivers, and that they provide a key service for the app. Both factors weigh in favor of the drivers being considered employees. "Uber could not be 'Everyone's Private Driver' without the drivers," Judge Chen wrote. However, the issue is not "unambiguous", Judge Chen wrote, so a jury should ultimately decide. Similarly, Judge Chhabria acknowledged the difficulty of parsing the status of Lyft's drivers, who share common characteristics with both full-time employees and contractors. "The jury in this case will be handed a square peg and asked to choose between two round holes," the judge wrote. "California's outmoded test for classifying workers will apply in cases like this. And because the test provides nothing remotely close to a clear answer, it will often be for juries to decide," wrote Judge Chhabria. Representatives from Uber and Lyft declined to comment on pending litigation. Ms. Liss-Riordan's next task will be trying to establish class- action status for both cases, she said. Both lawsuits have also been limited in scope to California drivers for now. "I'm very excited -- this has been a long time coming," Ms. Liss-Riordan said. "We're looking forward to pushing these cases further and showing that Uber and Lyft are not above the law." UBS AG: Among Defendants in Silver Price-Fixing Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Jan Harvey, writing for Reuters, reports that UBS was added in January to a class action lawsuit in the New York federal court related to the silver price benchmark known as the silver fix, the Swiss bank said in its annual report on March 13. "In January 2015, UBS was added to an ongoing putative class action against other banks in federal court in New York on behalf of a putative class of persons that transacted in physical silver or a silver financial instrument priced, benchmarked, and/or settled to the London silver fix at any time from January 1, 1999 to an unspecified date," UBS said in the report. Litigation alleging that Deutsche Bank AG, Bank of Nova Scotia and HSBC Plc illegally fixed the price of silver was centralized in a Manhattan federal court late last year. The silver fix, a London-based benchmark pricing method dating back to the Victorian era, ceased to operate last year after the banks administering it said they would no longer take part in the process. It was replaced by a new London silver benchmark price operated by CME Group and Thomson Reuters. US BANK: Faces Mortgage Insurance Class Action in Minnesota ----------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a major bank is being sued over claims it abused its right to force borrowers to purchase mortgage insurance. Mary Jo Muellner and Gregory R. Mullner filed the class action lawsuit on Jan. 28 against U.S. Bank alleging the bank placed insurance coverage limits that exceeded the unpaid balance of the mortgage. The case was originally filed in state court in Hennepin County, but the defendants have removed it to U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit also claims U.S. Bank purchased backdated policies and charged borrowers for expired coverage; failed to refund premiums to borrowers after coverage was canceled; and received kickbacks, commissions and other compensation connected to the property insurance coverage. American Security Insurance Company is also named as a defendant in the case, and the plaintiffs claim the company participated in the "scheme" by misrepresenting coverage amounts; failing to check market values for homes that were being insured; issuing insurance plans for the bank that were backdated; and offering the bank kickbacks in return for business. The lawsuit seeks class status for those that purchased mortgages from U.S. Ban, and also asks for an unspecified amount of damages plus court costs. The plaintiffs are represented by Berk Black, Bryce M. Miller and Lawrence P. Schaefer -- LSchaefer@SchaeferHalleen.com -- of Schaefer Halleen, LLC of Minneapolis; Robert K. Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Elizabeth Odette -- erodette@locklaw.com -- and Lockridge Grindal Nauen, P.L.L.P. Of Minneapolis; Richard J. Fuller of Richard J. Fuller Attorney At Law in Minneapolis; and Charles A. Horowitz of Charles A. Horowitz Attorney At Law in Minneapolis. U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota case number 0:15-cv-00596 VIACOM INC: Settles Intern Minimum Wage Class Action for $7.2MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Y. Peter Kang and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that Viacom Inc. agreed to pay about $7.2 million to resolve a putative class action brought by two former interns who claimed they were unlawfully denied minimum wage, the plaintiffs told a New York federal court on March 11. Named plaintiffs Casey Ojeda and Karina Reynaga filed a motion for preliminary approval of a class action deal that would resolve both federal and state wage claims following nine months of settlement negotiations, according to court documents. "Further litigation here would cause additional expense and delay," the interns said in a memorandum supporting their preliminary approval bid. "If the court denied the motions, a fact-intensive trial would necessarily follow. A trial would be lengthy and complex and would consume tremendous time and resources for the parties and the court . . . The settlement, on the other hand, makes monetary relief available to class members in a prompt and efficient manner." Under terms of the settlement, each intern in the 12,500-strong class would be paid $577 while ex-Viacom interns Ojeda and Reynaga would receive $5,000 each for services rendered on behalf of the class. Opt-ins Nicole Rosinsky, a former MTV human resources intern, and Nikhil Kasbekar, a former Viacom marketing intern, would receive $2,500 and $1,500 respectively. Ojeda lodged the lawsuit in 2013, targeting Viacom and MTV Networks Enterprises Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act as well as New York law. Ojeda and others were misclassified as exempt from minimum wage requirements, the complaint alleged. The plaintiffs sought collective action certification in January 2014, saying Viacom "engaged in an unlawful scheme to require plaintiffs to provide free labor that undeniably benefited defendants." The court granted certification in April 2014. The proposed settlement follows similar deals forged by other big companies including NBCUniversal Media Inc. and Conde Nast Publications. In 2014, Conde Nast settled for $5.8 million with an estimated 7,500 former interns, and disbanded its internship program altogether. The same year, NBCUniversal settled with a class of nearly 8,000 former unpaid interns at "Saturday Night Live" and MSNBC for $6.4 million. The proper standard for determining whether an individual is an intern or an employee covered by wage law is currently before the Second Circuit in appeals involving the Hearst Corp. and Fox Entertainment Group Inc. A Viacom spokesman said the company was pleased to end litigation. "Viacom's popular internship program has helped thousands of students launch careers in the entertainment business and beyond," spokesman Jeremy Zweig said. "We are proud of our efforts -- not only do we fully comply with all applicable educational requirements, but Viacom's interns also take part in a unique, in- house educational program designed to broaden their experience and help them learn from senior executives across the company." The plaintiffs are represented by Lloyd Ambinder, LaDonna Lusher and Suzanne Klein of Virginia & Ambinder LLP and Jeffrey Brown, Michael Tompkins and Daniel Markowitz of Leeds Brown Law PC. Viacom is represented by Lyle Zuckerman and Michael Goettig of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP. The case is Ojeda v. Viacom et al., case number 1:13-cv-05658, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. WAL-MART STORES: Faces Vision Payment Class Action in Arkansas -------------------------------------------------------------- Aebra Coe, writing for Law360, reports that an Arkansas couple has accused Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of flouting consumer protection laws by overcharging customers in its vision center, then pocketing payouts from their insurance companies, according to a proposed class action removed to Arkansas federal court on March 10. Lead plaintiffs Leslie and William Epps claim Wal-Mart has a "pattern and practice" of overcharging customers at its Wal-Mart Vision Centers and Sam's Club Optical stores by demanding payment from both the customers and their insurers for the same charges. "When it collects payments from a patient's insurer, defendant is obligated to charge the patient a reduced amount that reflects the insurance benefit," the complaint said. "Otherwise, defendant is overcharging the insured, collecting double payment for the same services and pocketing the insured's insurance benefit for itself. That is exactly what is happening here." The suit, originally filed in Arkansas state court Feb. 5, accuses Wal-Mart of conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and seeks to certify a class of all similarly situated customers going back five years. According to the complaint, Leslie Epps, who is insured through Delta Dental, walked into a Wal-Mart Vision Center in Arkansas and bought some eyeglass lenses and related products for $245 before tax. After a $25 after-tax discount through her insurance company was applied, the final purchase came out to $242.05, the complaint said. She claims she contacted her insurer to figure out why she had to pay so much and they explained that Wal-Mart submitted a claim for the purchase and the insurer sent the retailer $80 in order to satisfy the claim. The class action complaint said Epps contacted Wal-Mart to tell them they owed her $55 because she'd only saved $25 on the purchase in the store and her insurer provided $80, but she never heard back about the complaint and was never reimbursed for the discrepancy. The Epps allege that Leslie's experience is not an isolated incident because her husband went into the same store and had a similar experience. The retail giant has a "pattern and practice" of invoicing customers for payment amounts that don't reflect insurance benefits, then not reimbursing those customers once it receives a payout from the insurer, the Epps said. Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove told Law360 on March 11 that the company is looking into the allegations and "will respond appropriately with the court." The suit seeks recovery of all of the insurance benefits alleged to have been wrongly withheld and attorneys' fees. The Epps are represented by Joseph Henry Bates III, James Allen Carney Jr. -- acarney@cbplaw.com -- and John Charles Williams -- jwilliams@cbplaw.com -- of Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC. Wal-Mart is represented by Jess L. Askew, III, Luke K. Burton, Jeffrey M. Fletcher and Andrew King of Kutak Rock LLP. The case is Epps et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., case number 4:15- cv-00138, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. WELLS FARGO: Settles TCPA Class Action in California ---------------------------------------------------- ILYM Group Inc., a neutral third party that has been court appointed as Claims Administrator for this case, announces that Class Counsel, Douglas J. Campion, Joshua B. Swigart and Abbas Kazerounian have reached an agreement to resolve this class action pending against Wells Fargo Bank in federal court in California. The lawsuit alleges that Wells Fargo violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling cell phones using an automated dialer or with a prerecorded voice message related to credit card accounts. Under the terms of the settlement, Wells Fargo denies any liability but agreed to fund a $13,859,103.80 settlement to fully resolve this matter without the time and expense of a court proceeding. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of California, Franklin v. Wells Fargo, N.A., case number 14-cv-2349 MMA (BGS) and is subject to the court's final approval. The Settlement Class consists of persons who allegedly received an autodialed call or a prerecorded voice message from Wells Fargo regarding an effort to collect on a consumer credit card account from November 1, 2009 to September 17, 2014. The settlement fund, less attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs of notice and claims administration as approved by the Court, will be distributed to Settlement. Class members who submit claims under procedures implemented by the Court overseeing the settlement. Most persons included in the Settlement Class can be identified from Wells Fargo's records and will receive mailed notice of the settlement. Individuals who allegedly received such calls but cannot be identified from Wells Fargo's records will need to contact the Claims Administrator to determine if they are in the Settlement Class. For more information, go to http://www.FranklinWellsfargoTCPA.com Class Counsel: Law Offices of Douglas J. Campion APC Douglas J. Campion: (619) 299-2091 E-mail: franklinwf@djcampion.com Hyde & Swigart Joshua B. Swigart: (619) 233-7770 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com Kazerouni Law Group, APC Abbas Kazerounian: (800) 400-6808 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com Wells Fargo: Name: Natalie Brown E-mail: Natalie.m.brown@wellsfargo.com WESTCHESTER SUPER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Juan Navarro Herrera and Leonardo Sosa Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Westchester Super Clean Laundromat LLC, d/b/a Sartorius Cleaners, Hillside Laundromat, Inc. d/b/a Sartorius Cleaners, Jong Ho Lee, A. Choi and Son Jeong Park, Case No. 1:15-cv-02223 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a full service Laundromat located at 1643 York Avenue, New York, New York 10028. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com WINE GROUP: Faces "Marvin" Suit Over Use of Inorganic Arsenic ------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Marvin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Wine Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00176 (M.D. La., March 23, 2015), alleges that the Defendants produce and market wines that contain dangerously high levels of inorganic arsenic, that is up to 500% or more than what is considered the maximum acceptable safe daily limit. The Wine Group, Inc. sells and distributes wine in Florida and throughout the United States and maintains its principal place of business located at 4596 South Tracy Blvd., Tracy, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Esq. Matthew Moreland, Esq. Salvadore Christina Jr., Esq. Becnel Law Firm, LLC P.O. Drawer H Reserve, LA 70084 Telephone: (985) 536-1186 Facsimile: (985) 536-6446 E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com mmoreland@becnellaw.com schristina@becnellaw.com XOOM CORP: Removes "Barrett" Class Suit to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Barrett v. Xoom Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-15-544655, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01319-VC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff brought the lawsuit asserting claims for alleged violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933 on behalf of "thousands" of Xoom shareholders. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com - and - Francis P. McConville, Esq. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: fmcconville@pomlaw.com jalieberman@pomlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian E. Pastuszenski, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP The New York Times Building 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 813-8800 Facsimile: (212) 355-3333 E-mail: bpastuszenski@goodwinprocter.com - and - Teodora E. Manolova, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 S. Figueroa St., 41st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 426-2500 Facsimile: (213) 623-1673 E-mail: tmanolova@goodwinprocter.com - and - Nicole L. Chessari, Esq. Nicholas A. Reider, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 752-3100 Facsimile: (650) 853-1038 E-mail: nchessari@goodwinprocter.com nreider@goodwinprocter.com XOOM CORP: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP on March 12 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit against Xoom Corporation and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Francisco, and docketed under CGC-15-544655, is on behalf of a class of all persons other than defendants who purchased the common stock of Xoom pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus, declared effective by the SEC on February 14, 2013, issued in connection with the Company's Initial Public Offering, including all those who purchased Xoom stock after February 14, 2013. This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933. If you are a shareholder who purchased Xoom securities during the Class Period, you have until April 8, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Xoom provides digital consumer-to-consumer online money transfers services worldwide. The company offers money transfer services over the Internet, through a mobile device on its Website at xoom.com, and through its mobile application, the Xoom App. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, the Company failed to disclose that the registration statement and prospectus contained inaccurate statements of material fact and/or omitted material facts because it failed to disclose that Xoom's internal controls were so seriously deficient that tens of millions of dollars of Xoom's corporate cash could be fraudulently transferred and stolen without the Company's knowledge. On October 28, 2014, the Company announced Ryno Blignaut's resignation as Chief Financial Officer, effective December 1, 2014. Matt Hibbard, the Company's current Vice President of Finance, was named as the Company's new Chief Financial Officer. On this news, shares of Xoom fell $2.45 per share, or more than 12.60%, to $17.00 per share in after-hours trading on October 28, 2014. On January 5, 2015, Xoom announced that a criminal fraud had taken place at the Company, whereby $30.8 million in corporate cash was illegally transferred to overseas accounts. Also, on January 5, 2015, Xoom announced that Matt Hibbard, who replaced Mr. Blignaut as CFO on December 2, 2014, had abruptly resigned from his position. On this adverse news, shares of Xoom fell $0.27 per share, or more than 1.6%, in intraday trading on January 6, 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. ZUFFA LLC: Faces "Kingburry" Suit Over MMA Promotion Monopoly ------------------------------------------------------------- Kyle Kingsbury and Darren Uyenoyama, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01324 (N.D. Cal., March 20, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's overarching anticompetitive scheme to maintain and enhance its monopoly power in the market for promotion of live Elite Professional mixed martial arts (MMA) bouts and monopsony power in the market for live Elite Professional MMA Fighter services. Zuffa, LLC is a sports promotion company specializing in mixed martial arts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com jdavis@saverilawfirm.com mweiler@saverilawfirm.com - and - Benjamin D. Brown, Esq. Hiba Hafiz, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC 1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408 4699 E-mail: bbrown@cohenmilstein.com hhafiz@cohenmilstein.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ecramer@bm.net mdellangelo@bm.net * CFPB Issues Report on Mandatory Consumer Arbitration Clauses -------------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas M. Gess, Esq., Elizabeth H. Baird, Esq., Charles M. Horn, Esq., and Melissa R. H. Hall, Esq., of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that on March 10, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), as required by section 1028(a) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, issued a lengthy study on mandatory predispute arbitration agreements. According to an accompanying statement released by the CFPB, the report supports five conclusions: (1) over half of checking account deposits and credit card debt is covered by such agreements; (2) 75% of consumers do not know whether they are subject to such an agreement; (3) consumers are reluctant to pursue claims in even simplified court systems, such as small claims; (4) approximately 32 million U.S. consumers are eligible to participate in class action settlements annually; and (5) arbitration agreements do not lead to lower prices for consumers. What Does This Mean? In other situations where the CFPB has issued a report or study, it has used those documents as the legal, policy, and political justification for subsequent regulatory actions, such as for fair lending and payday lending. Based on the new study, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius anticipates that the CFPB will promulgate rules that either prohibit or restrict the use of mandatory consumer arbitration clauses or create a system in which such arbitration may not be commercially or legally viable. Moreover, although the CFPB's actions certainly do not bind any other agency of federal or state government, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius believes that the CFPB action might lead to what amounts to "government peer pressure" on other agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, as well as state law enforcement and financial regulatory authorities, to either promulgate their own rules if they have the authority or to look to their own unfair and deceptive trade practices authority to expand the CFPB mandate beyond the CFPB's authority. Analysis The study provides what will likely be represented to be empirical support for rules that would prohibit or curtail the use of these agreements with respect to consumer financial products, such as checking accounts, credit cards, prepaid cards, private student loans, auto purchase loans, and mobile wireless agreements. One of the study's underlying premises is that 32 million consumers benefit from class action settlements annually. This amounts to more than 41% of the adult U.S. population. As the percentage of deposits and debt covered by such agreements increases, the study indicates that the number of consumers who "benefit" from class action settlements will decrease. Whether the study supports the relative benefits to financial consumers of class action to the extent that the CFPB has concluded that it does may be open to question. First, the assumption that there is a correlation between deposits/debt subject to arbitration clauses, and numbers of consumers benefiting from class action settlements, may be overstated. Given broad-based criticism of the U.S. consumer class action settlement system, in which many consumers receive miniscule sums or even value as in coupons and the like, while class plaintiffs' lawyers receive the lion's share of such settlements, the 32 million number is relatively meaningless. Second, even if there is no direct price correlation, the more fundamental question is whether arbitration is fair. As long as the adjudications, whether by arbitration or through class action, are fairly initiated and conducted, there should be no particular reason for the CFPB, rather than the marketplace, to dictate the nature and form of financial consumer remedies. Third, the analysis suggests that this is an issue with a binary answer when it is not. There is a legitimate role both for arbitration and consumer class action settlements in our system of financial consumer dispute resolution. If indeed there are specific concerns about the fairness of consumer arbitration, those should be solvable without the need to dispense with, or limit, the availability of arbitration as a remedy. Given the study's expressed preference for consumer class action settlements, however, the CFPB's results and conclusions bear careful consideration and monitoring. As Morgan, Lewis & Bockius noted, further regulatory action based on the study would appear to be quite likely. * Few Consumers Understand Arbitration Clauses in Fin'l Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jonnelle Marte, writing for Washington Post, reports that companies routinely put language into the fine print of loan agreements, credit card contracts and other financial products that drastically reduce the chances that a consumer with a complaint will get relief, according to a report released on March 11 by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Most consumers, or more than 75 percent of those surveyed by the agency, have no idea if they are subject to arbitration clauses -- which restrict their options for seeking retribution from a financial institution that they think has wronged them, often by banning class action suits. Of those consumers subject to arbitration clauses, fewer than 7 percent are aware that the clauses prevent them from being able to sue in court, according to the report. "Tens of millions of consumers are covered by arbitration clauses, but few know about them or understand their impact," said Richard Cordray, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) director, in a statement. "Our study found that these arbitration clauses restrict consumer relief in disputes with financial companies by limiting class actions that provide millions of dollars in redress each year." The agency was set to hold a field hearing on the topic on March 11 in Newark, N.J., where consumers will get a chance to share their experiences with arbitration. By restricting class actions and instead steering people into arbitration when they take issue with a company, the agreements often lead to poorer outcomes for consumers, the CFPB noted in the long-awaited report. When they are barred from class action status, few consumers end up taking action either by going through arbitration or by filing individual lawsuits, the report showed. Between 2010 and 2012, an average of 600 arbitration disputes were filed each year with the American Arbitration Association, the largest administrator of arbitration disputes in the country. In contrast, 32 million consumers are eligible to receive relief through class action settlements. The agreements are used regularly for credit cards, loans and other types of consumer products. More than half of all credit card debt is subject to arbitration clauses -- affecting up to 80 million consumers. The clauses are used in enough checking accounts to make up roughly 44 percent of insured deposits, the agency found. They also show up in the majority of prepaid cards, private student loans and payday loans. The findings shed light on what type of relief is offered to consumers who choose to go through arbitration, which is usually conducted in private. For the 1,060 cases filed in 2010 and 2011 with the American Arbitration Association, roughly two-thirds ended without a decision from an arbitrator, resulting in a settlement or another form of resolution. Of the cases that were decided, arbitrators awarded consumers a grand total of less than $175,000 in damages and less than $190,000 in debt forbearance. Consumers were also ordered to pay $2.8 million to companies, mostly for debts that were disputed. While more than 90 percent of arbitration agreements ban class action lawsuits, the clauses are rarely invoked to block individual lawsuits, the agency found. Still, few consumers actually file lawsuits on their own, the report showed. Between 2010 and 2012, consumers filed an average of 1,200 individual lawsuits in federal court per year. The bureau analyzed most of the cases and a random sample of the credit card cases and found that in the few instances where the outcomes were decided by a judge, consumers were awarded just under $1 million total. ********* 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 * * *