/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150413.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 13, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 73 Headlines ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Plaintiff Appeals to 9th Cir. ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Removes "Grundmeyer" Suit to W.D. Washington ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces 7 Smoking, Health Actions in Canada ALTRIA GROUP: 57 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial in 2015 ALTRIA GROUP: 70 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM Resulted in Verdicts ALTRIA GROUP: Deal Reached to Resolve 415 Federal Engle Cases ALTRIA GROUP: Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff in Caprio Case ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Date in Donovan Case Set for Jan. 2016 ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending ALTRIA GROUP: 26 "Lights" Class Actions Served on PM Thru Jan. 27 ALTRIA GROUP: Courts in 19 "Lights" Cases Won't Certify Class ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in Aspinall Case to Begin October 19 ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date on PM Bid to Decertify in Larsen Case ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Set on Appeal in Miner Case ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Commence Q1 2016 in Vassallo Case AMBIT ENERGY: Faces "Kostovetsky" Suit Over RICO Act Violations ASTOR WEISS: Plaintiffs Drop Ponzi Scheme Class Action BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending BIOMET INC: Faces "Cannon" Suit Over M2A-Magnum-Related Injury BLUCORA INC: W.D. Wash. Court Tosses Securities Class Suit BP SUB EXPRESS: Faces "Cortes-Balbuena" Class Suit in New York BROOKS PHOTOGRAPHY: Court Awards $18,000 to Newlywed Couples CANADA: Settlement Talks Underway in Afghan Veterans' Class Suit CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act CAVALRY SPV I: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces NIS15-Bil Privacy Class Action CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Facing 2 Securities Class Actions COLUMBIANA, AL: Faces "Woods" Suit Over Civil Rights Violations COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Suit Asserting Personal Injury Claims COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Keen" Suit Transferred From Ohio to Alabama COOPER TIRE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Apollo Buyout COSTAR GROUP: Company and Insurer Reimbursed Legal Fees CREDIT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA: Accused of Firing Dissenting Employees DOU JIA FU: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Compensation, Suit Says DUN & BRADSTREET: Faces Class Action over TCPA Violation DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiff Won't Bid to Certify Nationwide Class DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Die-Mension Case DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Vinotemp Case DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Flow Sciences Case DUN & BRADSTREET: Defendants Filed Motion to Dismiss Altaflo Case DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ELSEVIER INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Due to Discrimination EMCOR GROUP: USM Inks Consent Decree to Resolve Class Action ENCORE CAPITAL: Appeal in "Brent" Suit Remains Pending ENTEGRIS INC: Class Action Challenging Merger Dismissed ERNST & YOUNG: Settles Lawsuits Over Lehman Collapse Losses FCA US LLC: Accused of Discriminating Against Chinese Employee FERGUSON, MO: Report Reveals Unconstitutional Policing Pattern FINISHMASTER INC: Faces Suit Alleging Discrimination Due to Age FLORIDA: Palm Beach Residents Win Compensation Citrus Canker Suit FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Sexual Harassment, Racial Discrimination GALILEE MEMORIAL: Owner Pleads Guilty to Theft Charge FRIGIDAIRE: Faces Class Action Over Molds in Front Load Washers GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Melton Faulty Ignition Switch Suit GEORGIA: DoJ Files Statement of Interest in Juvenile Defense Suit GFB ENTERPRISES: Removes "Perez" Suit to Florida District Court GHIRARDELLI: Settles Food Labeling Class Action for $5.25MM GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims GWB LLC: Removes "Wyckoff" Class Suit to Florida District Court HEALTHWAYS INC: May 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set HERTZ CORP: Removes "Lo Cascio" Suit to California District Court HMSHOST CORP: Faces "Chao" Suit Seeking to Get Unpaid Overtime HMSHOST CORP: Did Not Pay for Hours Worked, "Benedetto" Suit Says HMSHOST CORP: Fails to Pay for Hours Worked, "Boden" Suit Says HONDA: Launches U.S. Ad Campaign to Boost Recall Repairs IMPAX LABORATORIES: Defending v. Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Suits IMPAX LABORATORIES: Defending v. Opana ER Antitrust Class Suits IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Securities Actions Has Okay IMPAX LABORATORIES: Agreed to Settle Aruliah Class Action IPEX: Settles Kitec Insulation Class Action KABERLINE HEALTHCARE: Moves Alan Presswood Suit to E.D. Missouri KAISER FOUNDATION: Trial Begins in Skin Removal Surgery Suit L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed LUMBER LIQUIDATOR: Knopf Bigger Files Laminate Flooring Suit LYFT: New Drivers File Class Action Over Unpaid Bonuses MANPOWERGROUP US: Removes "Lull" Class Suit to W.D. Missouri MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: Court Reverses Benecol Class Suit Dismissal MICHIGAN: AG Apologizes to Reporters Over Subpoenas MOODY'S CORP: New York Appeals Court to Hear Class Action Appeal MORGAN KEEGAN: Settles Moberly Project Class Action for $8.25MM NESTLE PURINA: 7th Circuit Addresses Settlement Injunction Issue NEW YORK: In Settlement Negotiations Over "Nunez" Class Action NOMAX INC: Removes St. Louis Suit to Eastern District of Missouri NUCO2 LLC: Removes "Balmaseda" Suit to Florida District Court ORYX OILFIELD: "Robinson" Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. Texas PAYTIME INC: Judge Dismisses Two Data Breach Class Actions PEACE WELLNESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says ROYAL PALM: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Fair Housing Act SEMPRA ENERGY: Settled Claim Related to Sept 2011 Power Outage ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: Judge OKs $18MM Red-Light Camera Settlement STAFF ASSISTANCE: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files OT Class Action STAR CAREER: Accused of Discriminating Against Muslim Employee SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Must Define Class SYNGENTA: Enyart Looks to Represent Farmers in GMO Corn Suit TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Guardrail Passes U.S. Crash Tests UBS AG: Settles Forex Rigging Class Action for $135 Million UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act VIVENDI CANADA: Health Insurance Class Action Ruling Upheld VXI GLOBAL: Accused by Gay Worker of Severe, Pervasive Harassment WALTER INVESTMENT: Briefing on Bid to Nix Class Suit Completed WASHINGTON: Holding Mentally Ill People in Jail Unconstitutional WATTS REGULATOR: "Meyers" Suit Moved From Ohio to Massachusetts WINGS NETWORK'S: Faces Class Action over Pyramid Scheme WOLFER LANDSCAPE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime WORLD WRESTLING: "Singleton" Suit Transferred From Pa. to Conn. WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defendant in 34 Injury Lawsuits on PROFEMUR(R) WRIGHT MEDICAL: Facing 4 Complaints Over Tornier Merger WRIGHT NATIONAL: Sued Over Hurricane Sandy Insurance Fraud * Arbitration Agreements Limit Class Action Consumer Relief * Florida Law to Limit Jury Awards in Tobacco Lawsuits * Manufacturers Face Class Action Over "Flushable" Wet Wipes * Oregon Gov. Signs Bill on Unclaimed Class Action Damage Awards ********* ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Robbins Geller Files Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 13 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between February 26, 2015 and March 11, 2015. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from March 13, 2015. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action online at http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/acadia/ Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges ACADIA and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. ACADIA is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the development and commercialization of medicines to address unmet medical needs in neurological and related central nervous system disorders. ACADIA has a pipeline of product candidates led by NUPLAZID(TM) (pimavanserin), which is in Phase III development as a treatment for Parkinson's disease psychosis ("PDP"). The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse facts regarding the timing of ACADIA's submission of its New Drug Application ("NDA") to the FDA for NUPLAZID. As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements or omissions during the Class Period, ACADIA securities traded at artificially inflated prices, with its stock trading at prices above $45 per share. On February 26, 2015, ACADIA announced its 2014 fourth quarter and year-end financial results (for the year ended December 31, 2014) and told investors it "remain[ed] on track to submit [its] New Drug Application to the FDA in the first quarter of 2015." Then, on March 11, 2015, ACADIA issued a press release announcing a change in the timing of its planned NDA submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID from the first quarter of 2015 to the second half of 2015. In a separate press release the same day, ACADIA announced the retirement of the Company's Chief Executive Officer and director, Uli Hacksell. On this news, ACADIA common stock dropped $9.94 per share to close at $34.82 per share on March 12, 2015, a one-day decline of 22% on volume of 15 million shares. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of ACADIA publicly traded securities during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller -- http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action judgment. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Class Action Plaintiff Appeals to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action"). On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012. The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. "Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that during the purported class period defendants failed to take an appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29, 2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of 2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012, which rendered our financial statements and projections of future earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S. GAAP," the Company said. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees. On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint." "On August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss without leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any." ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Removes "Grundmeyer" Suit to W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Michael Grundmeyer v. Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 15-2-04104-5, was removed from the King County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00464-RSL to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges, among other things, (i) that he is the insured under a policy issued by Allstate that covers "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" to the Plaintiff's residence in Seattle, Washington, (ii) the residence was damaged by water intrusion that "was caused by improper construction," and (iii) that the Policy does not expressly exclude coverage for damage caused by improper construction and that, absent exclusion, the Policy actually covers damages from construction defects under the "sudden and accidental direct physical loss" language. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd C. Hayes, Esq. HARPER HAYES PLLC 600 University St., Suite 2420 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 340-8010 Facsimile: (206)260-2852 E-mail: todd@harperhayes.com - and - Adam J. Berger, Esq. SCHROETER, GOLDMARK & BENDER 810 Third Ave. Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 622-8000 Facsimile: (206) 628-2305 E-mail: berger@sgb-law.com The Defendant is represented by: Gavin Williams Skok, Esq. Hilary Bramwell Mohr, Esq. RIDDELL WILLIAMS P.S. 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4500 Seattle, WA 98154-1192 Telephone: (206) 624-3600 Facsimile: (206) 389-1708 E-mail: gskok@riddellwilliams.com hmohr@riddellwilliams.com ALTRIA GROUP: PM USA Faces 7 Smoking, Health Actions in Canada -------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of January 27, 2015, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") is a named defendant in ten health care cost recovery actions in Canada, eight of which also name Altria Group, Inc. as a defendant. PM USA and Altria Group, Inc. are also named defendants in seven smoking and health class actions filed in various Canadian provinces. ALTRIA GROUP: 57 Engle Progeny Cases Set for Trial in 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of January 27, 2015, 57 Engle progeny cases and three individual smoking and health cases against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") are set for trial in 2015. Cases against other companies in the tobacco industry are also scheduled for trial in 2015. Trial dates are subject to change. ALTRIA GROUP: 70 Engle Progeny Cases v. PM Resulted in Verdicts --------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of January 27, 2015, 70 state and federal Engle progeny cases involving Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision. Since January 1999, excluding the Engle progeny cases, verdicts have been returned in 56 smoking and health, "Lights/Ultra Lights" and health care cost recovery cases in which PM USA was a defendant. Verdicts in favor of PM USA and other defendants were returned in 38 of the 56 cases. These 38 cases were tried in Alaska (1), California (6), Florida (10), Louisiana (1), Massachusetts (1), Mississippi (1), Missouri (3), New Hampshire (1), New Jersey (1), New York (5), Ohio (2), Pennsylvania (1), Rhode Island (1), Tennessee (2) and West Virginia (2). A motion for a new trial was granted in one of the cases in Florida and in the case in Alaska. In the Alaska case (Hunter), the trial court withdrew its order for a new trial upon PM USA's motion for reconsideration. Oral argument of plaintiff's appeal of this ruling occurred in September 2014. Of the 18 non-Engle progeny cases in which verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs, 15 have reached final resolution. A verdict against defendants in one health care cost recovery case (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) was reversed and all claims were dismissed with prejudice. In addition, a verdict against defendants in a purported "Lights" class action in Illinois (Price) was reversed and the case was dismissed with prejudice in December 2006, but plaintiff is seeking to reinstate the verdict, which an intermediate appellate court ordered in April 2014. PM USA filed a petition for leave to appeal, which automatically stayed the April 2014 order. In September 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court granted PM USA's motion for leave to appeal. As of January 27, 2015, 70 state and federal Engle progeny cases involving PM USA have resulted in verdicts since the Florida Supreme Court's Engle decision. Thirty-six verdicts were returned in favor of plaintiffs and 34 verdicts were returned in favor of PM USA (Gelep, Kalyvas, Gil de Rubio, Warrick, Willis, Russo (formerly Frazier), C. Campbell, Rohr, Espinosa, Oliva, Weingart, Junious, Szymanski, Gollihue, McCray, Denton, Hancock, Wilder, D. Cohen, LaMotte, J. Campbell, Dombey, Haldeman, Jacobson, Blasco, Gonzalez, Reider, Banks, Surico, Davis, Baum, Bishop, Starbuck and Vila). In addition, there have been a number of mistrials, only some of which have resulted in new trials as of January 27, 2015. The juries in the Reider and Banks cases returned zero damages verdicts in favor of PM USA. The juries in the Weingart and Hancock cases returned verdicts against PM USA awarding no damages, but the trial court in each case granted an additur. In the Russo case (formerly Frazier), however, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in defendants' favor in April 2012 and remanded the case for a new trial. Defendants sought review of the case in the Florida Supreme Court, which was granted in September 2013. Oral argument occurred in April 2014 in the Florida Supreme Court on the question of whether the statute of repose applies in Engle progeny cases. ALTRIA GROUP: Deal Reached to Resolve 415 Federal Engle Cases ------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco Company reached on February 25, 2015, a tentative agreement to resolve approximately 415 pending federal Engle progeny cases (the "Agreement"). Under the terms of the Agreement, PM USA will pay $42.5 million. PM USA will record a pre-tax provision of $42.5 million in the first quarter of 2015. Federal cases that were in trial as of February 25, 2015 and those that have previously reached final verdict are not included in the Agreement. Engle progeny lawsuits pending in Florida state courts are also not part of the Agreement. The Agreement is conditioned on approval by all federal-court plaintiffs in the cases resolved by the Agreement or as the parties otherwise agree. On February 25, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an order staying all upcoming federal trials pending final approval of the Agreement. ALTRIA GROUP: Verdict in Favor of Plaintiff in Caprio Case ---------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a Broward County jury returned a partial verdict in favor of plaintiff and against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Lorillard Tobacco Company and Liggett Group LLC in the Caprio case. In Caprio, on February 24, 2015, a Broward County jury returned a partial verdict in favor of plaintiff and against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"), R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Lorillard Tobacco Company and Liggett Group LLC. The jury found against defendants on class membership allocating 25% of the fault to PM USA. The jury also found $559,172 in economic damages. The jury deadlocked with respect to the intentional torts, certain elements of compensatory damages and punitive damages. In McKeever, on February 20, 2015, a Broward County jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA awarding approximately $5.78 million in compensatory damages and allocating 60% of the fault to PM USA (an amount of approximately $3.48 million). The jury also awarded plaintiff approximately $11.63 million in punitive damages. However, the jury found in favor of PM USA on the statute of repose defense to plaintiff's intentional tort and punitive damages claims. The Florida Supreme Court is currently considering the applicability of the statue of repose defense in Engle progeny cases. In McMannis, a Charlotte County jury returned a verdict in favor of PM USA on February 19, 2015. In Landau, on February 19, 2015, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff and against PM USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco Company awarding $100,000 in compensatory damages. One defendant settled the case. In Sowers, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida returned a verdict in favor of PM USA on February 11, 2015. In Boatright, on February 9, 2015, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal. ALTRIA GROUP: Trial Date in Donovan Case Set for Jan. 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that trial in the Donovan case is scheduled for January 25, 2016. One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs purportedly brought the action on behalf of the state's residents who are: age 50 or older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more; and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a factual issue to be determined by the trial court. The case was remanded to federal court for further proceedings. In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, certifying the class as to plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with an approximate cost of $190 million. In June 2011, plaintiffs filed various motions for partial summary judgment and to strike affirmative defenses, which the district court denied in March 2012 without prejudice. In October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for class decertification, which motion was denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the district court amended the class definition to extend to individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria through February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was not a Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013. In January 2014, plaintiffs renewed their previously filed motions for partial summary judgment and to strike affirmative defenses. In December 2014, the court issued its rulings on plaintiffs' previously-filed motions, granting and denying the motions in part. ALTRIA GROUP: 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" Cases Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of January 27, 2015, a total of 12 "Lights/Ultra Lights" cases are pending in various U.S. state courts. Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been brought against Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and, in certain instances, Altria Group, Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation, injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of January 27, 2015, a total of 12 such cases are pending in various U.S. state courts. ALTRIA GROUP: 26 "Lights" Class Actions Served on PM Thru Jan. 27 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, provided updates on federal multidistrict proceeding. Since the December 2008 United States Supreme Court decision in Good, and through January 27, 2015, 26 purported "Lights" class actions were served upon Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") and, in certain cases, Altria Group, Inc. These cases were filed in 15 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia. All of these cases either were filed in federal court or were removed to federal court by PM USA and were transferred and consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPMDL") before the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine for pretrial proceedings ("MDL proceeding"). In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification in four cases, covering the jurisdictions of California, the District of Columbia, Illinois and Maine. These jurisdictions were selected by the parties as sample cases, with two selected by plaintiffs and two selected by defendants. Plaintiffs sought appellate review of this decision but, in February 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal. Later that year, plaintiffs in 13 cases voluntarily dismissed without prejudice their cases. In April 2012, the JPMDL remanded the remaining four cases (Phillips, Tang, Wyatt and Cabbat) back to the federal district courts in which the suits originated. These cases were ultimately resolved in a manner favorable to PM USA. In Tang, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice in July 2012, concluding the litigation. In Phillips, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, following the district court's denial of class certification, PM USA made an offer of judgment to resolve the case for $6,000, which plaintiff accepted, and the court dismissed the case. In Cabbat, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii denied plaintiffs' class certification motion in January 2014. After plaintiffs were unsuccessful in obtaining appellate review, in July 2014, the parties filed, and the court approved, a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice. In Wyatt, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied plaintiffs' class certification motion in August 2013. After plaintiffs were unsuccessful in obtaining appellate review, PM USA made an offer of judgment to resolve the case for $1,000, which plaintiff accepted in September 2014. The district court dismissed the case in October 2014. ALTRIA GROUP: Courts in 19 "Lights" Cases Won't Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of January 27, 2015, in addition to the federal district court in the MDL proceeding, 18 courts in 19 "Lights" cases have refused to certify class actions, dismissed class action allegations, reversed prior class certification decisions or have entered judgment in favor of Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA"). Trial courts in Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin have refused to grant class certification or have dismissed plaintiffs' class action allegations. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a case in Michigan after a trial court dismissed the claims plaintiffs asserted under the Michigan Unfair Trade and Consumer Protection Act. Several appellate courts have issued rulings that either affirmed rulings in favor of Altria Group, Inc. and/or PM USA or reversed rulings entered in favor of plaintiffs. In Florida, an intermediate appellate court overturned an order by a trial court that granted class certification in Hines. The Florida Supreme Court denied review in January 2008. The Supreme Court of Illinois overturned a judgment that awarded damages to a certified class in the Price case. See The Price Case below for further discussion. In Louisiana, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed a purported "Lights" class action (Sullivan) on the grounds that plaintiffs' claims were preempted by the FCLAA. In New York, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a trial court decision in Schwab that granted plaintiffs' motion for certification of a nationwide class of all U.S. residents that purchased cigarettes in the United States that were labeled "Light" or "Lights." In July 2010, plaintiffs in Schwab voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice. In Ohio, the Ohio Supreme Court overturned class certifications in the Marrone and Phillips cases. Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed without prejudice both cases in August 2009, but refiled in federal court as the Phillips case. The Supreme Court of Washington denied a motion for interlocutory review filed by the plaintiffs in the Davies case that sought review of an order by the trial court that refused to certify a class. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed the Davies case with prejudice. In August 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the Illinois federal district court's dismissal of "Lights" claims brought against PM USA in the Cleary case. In Curtis, a certified class action, in May 2012, the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of PM USA, concluding this litigation. In Lawrence, in August 2012, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order to certify a class and subsequently denied plaintiffs' rehearing petition. In October 2012, the case was dismissed after plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, concluding this litigation. ALTRIA GROUP: Trial in Aspinall Case to Begin October 19 -------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that trial is scheduled to begin October 19, 2015 in the Aspinall case. In August 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the class certification order in the Aspinall case. In August 2006, the trial court denied Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review. In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties, dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case. In September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court. Also in September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case, which the Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014, concluding that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits as an equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to actual damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual damages greater than $25. Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the ruling, which the appellate court denied. Trial is scheduled to begin October 19, 2015. ALTRIA GROUP: No Trial Date on PM Bid to Decertify in Larsen Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a trial date has not been set in the Larsen case related to Philip Morris USA Inc.'s motions to decertify the class and for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim. In August 2005, a Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the class certification order in the Larsen case. In December 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the period during which potential class members can qualify to become part of the class. The class period remains 1995-2003. In June 2010, Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA")'s motion for partial summary judgment regarding plaintiffs' request for punitive damages was denied. In April 2010, plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment as to an element of liability in the case, claiming collateral estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department of Justice. The plaintiffs' motion was denied in December 2010. In June 2011, PM USA filed various summary judgment motions challenging the plaintiffs' claims. In August 2011, the trial court granted PM USA's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that plaintiffs could not present a damages claim based on allegations that Marlboro Lights are more dangerous than Marlboro Reds. The trial court denied PM USA's remaining summary judgment motions. Trial in the case began in September 2011 and, in October 2011, the court declared a mistrial after the jury failed to reach a verdict. In January 2014, the trial court reversed its prior ruling granting partial summary judgment against plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim and allowed plaintiffs to pursue that claim. In October 2014, PM USA filed motions to decertify the class and for partial summary judgment on plaintiffs' "more dangerous" claim. A trial date has not been set. ALTRIA GROUP: Oral Argument Set on Appeal in Miner Case ------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that oral argument on Philip Morris USA Inc.'s appeal of the class certification ruling in the Miner case was scheduled for February 12, 2015. In June 2007, the United States Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings in Miner (formerly known as Watson) case that denied plaintiffs' motion to have the case heard in a state, as opposed to federal, trial court. The Supreme Court rejected defendants' contention that the case must be tried in federal court under the "federal officer" statute. Following remand, the case was removed again to federal court in Arkansas and transferred to the MDL proceeding discussed above. In November 2010, the district court in the MDL proceeding remanded the case to Arkansas state court. In December 2011, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims against Altria Group, Inc. without prejudice. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a class certification motion. In November 2013, the trial court granted class certification. The certified class includes those individuals who, from November 1, 1971 through June 22, 2010, purchased Marlboro Lights, including Marlboro Ultra Lights, for personal consumption in Arkansas. PM USA filed a notice of appeal of the class certification ruling to the Arkansas Supreme Court in December 2013. Oral argument was scheduled for February 12, 2015. ALTRIA GROUP: Trial to Commence Q1 2016 in Vassallo Case -------------------------------------------------------- Altria Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court entered a scheduling order setting trial to commence in the first quarter of 2016 in the Vassallo case. UST LLC and/or its tobacco subsidiaries have been named in certain actions in West Virginia brought by or on behalf of individual plaintiffs against cigarette manufacturers, smokeless tobacco manufacturers and other organizations seeking damages and other relief in connection with injuries allegedly sustained as a result of tobacco usage, including smokeless tobacco products. Included among the plaintiffs are five individuals alleging use of U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Company LLC ("USSTC")'s smokeless tobacco products and alleging the types of injuries claimed to be associated with the use of smokeless tobacco products. USSTC, along with other non-cigarette manufacturers, has remained severed from such proceedings since December 2001. UST and/or its tobacco subsidiaries has been named in a number of other individual tobacco and health suits over time. Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in these cases are based on various theories of recovery, such as negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design defect, failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, addiction and breach of consumer protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief, including compensatory and punitive damages, and certain equitable relief, including but not limited to disgorgement. Defenses raised in these cases include lack of causation, assumption of the risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, and statutes of limitations. USSTC is currently named in one such action in Florida (Vassallo). In December 2014, the court entered a scheduling order setting trial to commence in the first quarter of 2016. AMBIT ENERGY: Faces "Kostovetsky" Suit Over RICO Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Oleg Kostovetsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC, Ambit Midwest, LLC, Ambit Texas, LLC, Ambit Northeast, LLC, Ambit New York, LLC, Ambit Marketing, LLC, Ambit Illinois, LLC, Ambit California, LLC, Ambit Holdings, LLC, Ambit New Jersey LLC, Ambit Management, Inc., Ambit Group, L.P., A Jere Thompson, Chris Chambless and John Does 1-100, Case No. 1:15-cv-02553 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2015) is brought for claims pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com - and - Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq. Thomas E. Ahlering, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1144 W. Lake St., #400 Oak Park, IL 60301-1043 Telephone: (708) 628-4949 Facsimile: (708) 776-5601 E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com toma@hbsslaw.com ASTOR WEISS: Plaintiffs Drop Ponzi Scheme Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Dan Packel, Matt Fair and Jeff Sistrunk, writing for Law360, report that plaintiffs have dropped a putative class action in Pennsylvania state court alleging that Astor Weiss Kaplan & Mandel LLP attorneys should have known green investment business Mantria Corp. was running a Ponzi scheme, following a $6 million settlement in Colorado federal court in 2014. The Colorado settlement between lead plaintiff Touchstone Group LLC and a series of defendants including Astor Weiss -- which agreed to pay $750,000 -- resolved all of the claims in the 2013 Pennsylvania lawsuit, according to a filing from March 6. Both suits stemmed from an alleged $54.5 million scheme run by Mantria that primarily targeted elderly citizens and new retirees. In the federal suit, filed in 2011, Touchstone alleged that Pennsylvania-based Mantria had raised the funds from more than 300 investors between September 2007 and November 2009 by offering fraudulent and unregistered securities purportedly investing in green operations such as the production and sale of biochar, a charcoal substitute made from organic waste, and a so-called carbon-negative housing community in rural Tennessee. Mantria also claimed to have invested in varied operations such as mortgage banking and hip-hop record production, according to the complaint. The state court negligence suit against Astor Weiss, brought by Ronald and Margaret Greenspan, claimed that attorneys with the firm were complicit in Mantria's violation of state securities law because they knew -- or should have known -- that stakes the company sold in these enterprises were not registered as securities and that company principals were themselves not registered to sell securities. Touchstone also lodged similar claims against Astor Weiss and law firm Estill & Long LLC, contending that they received millions of dollars for their roles in preparing unregistered private placement memorandums that were later offered to investors and approving investors as accredited to acquire funds regardless of their sophistication. Estil & Long agreed to pay out $100,000 in the Colorado settlement. The largest payments came from former Mantria interim Chief Financial Officer Daniel J. Rink and executive services firm Tatum LLC -- the company that contracted with Mantria to provide Rink's services. They were responsible for $5.1 in the settlement, which was approved in July. The total $6.05 million settlement, which encompassed Touchstone's agreements with all the defendants, served to recover just over 16 percent of investors' alleged losses, according to court documents. Attorney Patrick Howard -- phoward@smbb.com -- of Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky PC emphasized on March 13 that the end to the Pennsylvania lawsuit was simply a procedural move. A representative from Astor Weiss did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Greenspans are represented by Simon Paris, Patrick Howard and Charles Kocher -- ckocher@smbb.com -- of Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bandesky PC and Anthony Shapiro and Karl Barth of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. The case is Ronald Greenspan et al. v. Astor Weiss, Kaplan & Mandel LLP, case number 121202484 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Certify Class Action Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action is pending. Baxter is a defendant in a number of suits alleging that certain of the company's current and former executive officers and its board of directors failed to adequately oversee the operations of the company and issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's plasma-based therapies business, the company's remediation of its COLLEAGUE infusion pumps, its heparin product, and other quality matters. Plaintiffs allege these actions damaged the company and its shareholders by resulting in a decline in stock price in the second quarter of 2010, payment of excess compensation to the board of directors and certain of the company's current and former executive officers, and other damage to the company. The company and plaintiffs in a consolidated derivative suit filed in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois have entered into a settlement agreement, which settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court. Two other derivative actions were previously filed in state courts, one in Lake County, Illinois and one in the Delaware Chancery Court. Both matters have been stayed pending the resolution of the federal action. In addition, a consolidated alleged class action is pending in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois against the company and certain of its current executive officers seeking to recover the lost value of investors' stock and the parties are currently proceeding with discovery. In April 2013, the company filed its opposition to the plaintiff's motion to certify a class action, which motion is pending. The company was a defendant, along with others, in a number of lawsuits consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S.D.C. for the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Baxter and certain of its competitors conspired to restrict output and artificially increase the price of plasma-derived therapies since 2003. The company settled with the direct purchaser plaintiffs for $64 million, which amount was paid during the first quarter of 2014. BIOMET INC: Faces "Cannon" Suit Over M2A-Magnum-Related Injury -------------------------------------------------------------- Judith Cannon v. Biomet Orthopedics, Inc., n/k/a Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC, Biomet, Inc., and Biomet Manufacturing Corp., Case No. 3:15-cv-00132 (N.D. Ind., March 25, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff has been injured due to a defective M2A-Magnum device manufactured by the Defendants. Ms. Cannon alleges that for many years, the Defendants have known that their hip replacement device, specifically the M2A-Magnum Hip Replacement System, is prone to failure well before its expected life. Biomet, Inc. is an Indiana Corporation with its principal place of business located in Warsaw, Indiana. Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, is a wholly subsidiary of Biomet U.S. Reconstruction, LLC, an Indiana Corporation headquartered in Warsaw. Biomet Manufacturing Corp. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Biomet, Inc. The Defendants designed, developed, manufactured, promoted, marketed, distributed, tested, warranted, and sold in interstate commerce the Biomet M2A-Magnum device. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond L. Panneton, Esq. Robert J. Talaska, Esq. THE TALASKA LAW FIRM, PLLC 442 Heights Blvd. Houston, TX 77007 Telephone: (713) 869-1240 Facsimile: (713) 869-1465 E-mail: ray@ttlf.com rjt@ttlf.com - and - Ben C. Martin, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BEN C. MARTIN 3219 McKinney Ave., Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75204 Telephone: (214) 761-6614 Facsimile: (214) 744-7590 E-mail: bmartin@bencmartin.com BLUCORA INC: W.D. Wash. Court Tosses Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Blucora, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted the order dismissing a class action lawsuit. On May 12, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and certain of its officers. The complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and purported to be brought on behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock during the period between November 5, 2013 and February 20, 2014. Prior to filing the amended consolidated complaint, the plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice, and the Court granted the order dismissing the case on November 4, 2014. BP SUB EXPRESS: Faces "Cortes-Balbuena" Class Suit in New York -------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel A. Cortes-Balbuena, individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Benjamin Grossman, jointly and severally; BP Sub Express Inc. d/b/a BP Sub Express, jointly and severally; and Cafe Shalva Inc. d/b/a Cafe Shalva, jointly and severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-01575 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. BROOKS PHOTOGRAPHY: Court Awards $18,000 to Newlywed Couples ------------------------------------------------------------ 10News reports that a judge has ruled against a San Diego wedding photographer accused of shooting weddings but not handing the photos over to the couples. In a class-action lawsuit, a San Diego Small Claims Court judge on March 13 awarded $18,000 total to three couples and two photographers who say they were hired by Adam Brooks but were never paid for their work. Mr. Brooks lost by default because he was a no-show at the hearing. "He's a chicken," plaintiff Nicholas Dawson said on March 13 outside the courtroom. "Flat out yellow bellied chicken. If he can't man up to do what needs to be done and do it the right way . . . He's a little coward that can't face justice." In February, dozens of newlyweds sat down with 10News to talk about how they had been scammed by Mr. Brooks. Several said they paid hundreds of dollars for a wedding photography package that they never received. On the Brooks Photography website, a statement reads, "The company has filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and our counsel will be in touch with you as such if you are owed any refunds or physical products." 10News checked federal records and were unable to find a recent Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing for an Adam K. Brooks in California. However, Mr. Brooks filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy less than six years ago. Usually, eight years must pass after someone files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy before they can be excused from their debts again through a subsequent Chapter 7 filing. Mr. Brooks is currently being investigated by the San Diego Police Department's fraud division. Several attempts by 10News to contact Brooks have failed. Most of the couples paid up front. Even though they are out thousands of dollars, they are not asking for money, just the photographs. "I had even said, I don't care about the prints anymore," newlywed Alishia Maceachern told 10News in February. "Please just give us you know, the raw." CANADA: Settlement Talks Underway in Afghan Veterans' Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Murray Brewster, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a class-action lawsuit launched by dissatisfied Afghan veterans is on hold because settlement talks are underway, The Canadian Press has learned. The legal challenge, which has become a political black eye for the Conservative government, was put into abeyance recently at the B.C. Supreme Court, two federal sources said on March 12. The decision -- effectively a time-out from legal proceedings -- was taken because both sides were facing court-imposed deadlines to file further submissions in the case. Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the soldiers, confirmed settlement talks are underway with the government, but declined to give details. "When the new minister came in, we'd had approaches to talk," Mr. Sorochan said. "We notified the court -- both parties -- that we were in that situation and asked that we not bother filing these further materials that had been requested by the court, and they agreed to that." The soldiers are determined to see change, but are also interested in hearing what the government has to say, Mr. Sorochan said -- especially now that Erin O'Toole, a former air force navigator, has taken over from Julian Fantino, who had a combative relationship with the veterans community. Veterans charter under fire "The lawsuit is there for one purpose only and that is to improve the benefits for a broad class of veterans," Mr. Sorochan said. "Legal mechanisms can only go partway and the court can't impose legislation. It can declare it to be unconstitutional. To a certain extent, the relief we were seeking in court can be enhanced by discussion." The ex-soldiers are challenging the government's 2006 overhaul of veterans benefits, alleging the so-called new veterans charter is discriminatory under the charter of rights because it does not provide the same level of support as the old pension system. In defending the lawsuit, government lawyers outraged veterans by asserting that the federal government has no extraordinary obligation to those who've fought for the country. They argued it is unfair to bind the current government to a system of benefits and entitlements promises made nearly a century ago by another prime minister. Those statements have been politically toxic to the Harper government, which prides itself on supporting the troops, and has led to increasing friction with former soldiers. Conservatives have been scrambling to fix the battered relationship ahead of the election scheduled for this fall. Plans are underway to roll out a series of measures between now and the summer. The political campaign began on March 9 in Toronto, where O'Toole announced the creation of a retirement fund for moderately and severely wounded soldiers who otherwise might spend their final years in poverty. Federal sources said the minister would be in Halifax on March 13 to announce new measures for wounded reservists and their families, giving part-time members the same access to the same benefits and support as full-time military members during their rehabilitation programs. Such a plan would address a gap identified by the House of Commons veterans committee in a report last June. The unequal treatment of reservists, many of whom served in Afghanistan, is another sensitive topic for the Conservatives, who have put a politically charged overhaul of the reserve force organization on hold. National Defence was supposed to have delivered a new structure for the part-time, volunteer force by this spring's budget, but it likely won't be done until after the election, scheduled for October. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chaim E. Stiel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01537 (E.D.N.Y., March 24, 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 CAVALRY SPV I: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tyrone Simmons, individually and as Class Representative for all others similarly situated v. Cavalry SPV I, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00857-LMM-LTW (N.D. Ga., March 26, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David F. Addleton, Esq. ADDLETON LTD. CO. 355 Cotton Avenue Macon, GA 31201 Telephone: (404) 797-7166 E-mail: dfaddleton@gmail.com - and - James W. Hurt, Jr., Esq. HURT, STOLZ, LLC 345 West Hancock Avenue Athens, GA 30601 Telephone: (706) 395-2750 Facsimile: (866) 766-9245 E-mail: jhurt@hurtstolz.com - and - Steven Howard Koval, Esq. THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC 3575 Piedmont Road Building 15, Suite 120 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 350-5900 Facsimile: (404) 549-4654 E-mail: shkoval@aol.com CELLCOM ISRAEL: Faces NIS15-Bil Privacy Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. on March 15 disclosed that a purported class action was filed against the Company, by plaintiffs alleging to be subscribers of the Company, claiming compensation for non monetary damages in connection with allegations that the Company unlawfully violated the privacy of its subscribers. The amount claimed from the Company, if the lawsuit is certified as class action is estimated by the plaintiffs to be NIS15 billion, all for alleged non monetary damages. At this early stage the Company cannot assess the lawsuit's chances of success. About Cellcom Israel Established in 1994, Cellcom Israel Ltd. -- http://www.cellcom.co.il-- is the largest Israeli cellular provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 3.010 million cellular subscribers (as at September 30, 2014) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad, additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc. and most recently -- also television over the internet service in Israel, based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. The Company operates an LTE 4 Generation and HSPA 3.5 Generation networks enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE networks. Cellcom Israel offers Israel's broadest and largest customer service infrastructure including telephone customer service centers, retail stores, and service and sale centers, distributed nationwide. Cellcom Israel further provides through its wholly owned subsidiaries internet connectivity services and international calling services, as well as landline telephone communication services, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). For additional information please visit the Company's website http://www.cellcom.co.il CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Facing 2 Securities Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------ Channeladvisor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company is facing the actions, Dice v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al. and Gracia v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al. "On January 23, 2015, plaintiff Justin Dice filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws against us and certain of our executive officers," the Company said. "Plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our common stock by making false and misleading statements to investors concerning our financial guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014. On January 26, 2015, plaintiff David Gracia also filed a purported class action complaint in in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in which Plaintiff brings the same claims, against the same named defendants, as in the action brought by Mr. Dice. The complaint names us and certain of our executive officers. We are currently evaluating the claims asserted in these two matters." COLUMBIANA, AL: Faces "Woods" Suit Over Civil Rights Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Kari Woods, Hali Woods and Loretta Cotton, Individually and for a class of similarly situated persons or entities v. City of Columbiana, Case No. 2:15-cv-00493-TMP (N.D. Ala., March 25, 2015) is brought under the Civil Rights Act. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alexandria Parrish, Esq. G. Daniel Evans, Esq. THE EVANS LAW FIRM 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, AL 35209 Telephone: (205) 870-1970 Facsimile: (205) 870-7763 E-mail: ap@evanslawpc.com gdevans@evanslawpc.com - and - William M. Dawson, Esq. DAWSON LAW OFFICE 1736 Oxmoor Road Birmingham, AL 35209 E-mail: bill@billdawsonlaw.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Suit Asserting Personal Injury Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- David Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc. and Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00403- JFC (W.D. Pa., March 24, 2015) alleges claims for personal injury. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. PEIRCE LAW OFFICES 2500 Gulf Tower 707 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com - and - Jason A. Medure, Esq. LUXENBERG, GARBETT, KELLY & GEORGE, P.C. 315 North Mercer Street New Castle, PA 16101 Telephone: (724) 658-8535 Facsimile: (724) 658-8013 E-mail: jmedure@lgkg.com COMMUNITY HEALTH: "Keen" Suit Transferred From Ohio to Alabama -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Keen v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00427, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern). The Alabama District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00483- KOB to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: Beau D. Hollowell, Esq. Daniel R. Karon, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL R. KARON 700 St. Clair Avenue, W, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 622-1851 Facsimile: (216) 241-8175 - and - James A. DeRoche, Esq. Jeffrey D. Johnson, Esq. GARSON JOHNSON LLC 1600 Midland Bldg. 101 Prospect Avenue, W Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 696-9330 Facsimile: (216) 696-8558 - and - Katrina Carroll, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG 211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 750-1265 COOPER TIRE: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Apollo Buyout --------------------------------------------------------------- The Courier reports that Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. urged a Delaware federal judge to throw out a class action lawsuit on behalf of stockholders surrounding its failed $2.5 billion buyout by Apollo Tyres, of India, arguing the case has no merit. Judge Richard G. Andrews has not yet ruled on the motion. The lawsuit was filed in January 2014, claiming Cooper, its chief executive officer, Roy Armes, and other senior executives violated federal securities laws by allegedly issuing misleading statements and omissions during its failed buyout by Apollo in 2013. The plaintiffs include all purchasers of Cooper's publicly traded stock from June 12, 2013, through Nov. 8, 2013, inclusive, and all Cooper shareholders who held shares as of the record date of Aug. 30, 2013, and were entitled to vote with respect to the proposed merger between Cooper and Apollo, the firms said. The lawsuit alleges Cooper falsely represented the significant risks associated with the planned buyout by concealing the fact that the company lacked control over its joint venture manufacturing facility in China, Cooper Chengshan Tire Co. The plant was a major stumbling block in the merger negotiations after striking workers at the plant and the then-minority owner, Chengshan Group, blocked Cooper Tire employees from entering the plant or accessing financial information. It also temporarily quit producing Cooper tires. The combined moves sabotaged the proposed buyout. The shareholder lawsuit alleges Cooper concealed the fact that Chengshan Group opposed the merger, and had in fact sought to acquire Cooper for itself. After the buyout attempt unraveled, Chengshan Group resumed production of Cooper tires and reopened the plant to Cooper employees. Chengshan Group also last year bought Cooper Tire's ownership interest in the plant and became the sole owner. COSTAR GROUP: Company and Insurer Reimbursed Legal Fees ------------------------------------------------------- CoStar Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that pursuant to an agreement between the parties in a class action, the Company and its insurer reimbursed certain legal fees to plaintiffs' counsel in the total amount of $300,000. The Company paid approximately $200,000 of this amount. In May 2011, LoopNet, the Board of Directors of LoopNet ("the LoopNet Board") and/or the Company were named as defendants in three purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged LoopNet stockholders challenging LoopNet's then-proposed merger with the Company. The stockholder actions alleged, among other things, that (i) each member of the LoopNet Board breached his fiduciary duties to LoopNet and its stockholders in authorizing the sale of LoopNet to the Company, (ii) the merger did not maximize value to LoopNet stockholders, (iii) LoopNet and the Company made incomplete or materially misleading disclosures about the transaction and (iv) LoopNet and the Company aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by the members of the LoopNet Board. The stockholder actions sought class action certification and equitable relief, including an injunction against consummation of the merger. The parties stipulated to the consolidation of the actions, and permitted the filing of a consolidated complaint. In June 2011, counsel for the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding in which they agreed on the terms of a settlement of this litigation, which could result in a loss to the Company of approximately $200,000. On March 20, 2013, the California Superior Court declined to grant preliminary approval to the proposed settlement and issued an order scheduling a hearing on June 11, 2013 to show good cause why the case should not be dismissed. Shortly before the hearing, the plaintiffs filed a third supplemental submission in support of their motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement. The show cause hearing took place on May 13, 2014 and a follow up hearing took place on July 16, 2014. At the July 16, 2014 hearing the Court again denied preliminary approval of the settlement and encouraged the parties to discuss a potential disposition of the case due to the mootness of plaintiffs' disclosure claims. The parties engaged in such discussions, and on October 14, 2014, the plaintiffs requested that the Court dismiss their claims with prejudice. The Court dismissed the action and, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the Company and its insurer reimbursed certain legal fees to plaintiffs' counsel in the total amount of $300,000. The Company paid approximately $200,000 of this amount. CREDIT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Chana Goldberg, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Credit Control, LLC d/b/a Credit Control & Collections, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01544-SJ-JO (E.D.N.Y., March 24, 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 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, USA: Accused of Firing Dissenting Employees ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Chantelle Teasdell, Glendora Meyers and Jamal Jones v. District of Columbia, Serve: Mayor Muriel Bowser; Dr. John M. Thompson; and Camile Williams, Case No. 1:15-cv-00445 (D.D.C., March 26, 2015) alleges that the Defendants engaged in a pattern of violations of state and federal laws against their employees, and then retaliated against persons, who raised any objection. If the Defendants were unable to force the dissenter to quit their job, they ultimately terminated anyone who dared to complain, the Plaintiffs allege. The District of Columbia is a municipal corporation. The Office on Aging is a subunit of the District of Columbia and is located in Washington, DC. John M. Thompson is the Director of the District of Columbia Office on Aging. Camile Williams is the Chief of Staff for Dr. Thompson at the Office. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel Hornal, Esq. TALOS LAW 705 4th St., NW, #403 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 709-9662 E-mail: Daniel@taloslaw.com DOU JIA FU: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Compensation, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jing Chun Ruan v. Dou Jia Fu, Inc., Jian Zhong, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01567 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015) alleges that the Defendants have willfully and intentionally committed widespread violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law by failing to pay their employees, including the Plaintiff, compensation for all hours worked, minimum wage, and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. Dou Jia Fu, Inc., purchased and handled goods moved in interstate commerce. The Individual Defendants are owners, officers, directors, managers, shareholders, or agents of Dou Jia Fu, Inc. The Defendants own and operates a restaurant located in Flushing, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. William M. Brown, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (918) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com wbrown@hanglaw.com DUN & BRADSTREET: Faces Class Action over TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a lawsuit against a telemarketing company alleges it called phone numbers that have been registered with the National Do Not Call Registry. Tranis Cates and Andrew Allison filed the lawsuit on March 4 against Dun & Bradstreet, alleging the company called the consumers and businesses without receiving prior permission to make those calls. The lawsuit said D&B has access to more than 235 million companies around the world, and that the calls made to consumers "are in no way connected to any business." The suit alleges the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which was meant to protect consumers from unsolicited telemarketing calls. "(D&B) makes these calls despite the fact that neither plaintiffs nor the other members of the putative classes ever provided express consent to receive such telemarketing calls," the lawsuit said. D&B provides businesses with information on other companies and also helps companies promote their own products and services. D&B uses its massive database to sell the information to businesses, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit seeks class status and an unspecified amount of damages, plus court costs. The plaintiffs also look to prevent D&B from making any more unsolicited phone calls. The plaintiffs are represented by Rafey Balabanian, Ari Scharg and Alicia Hwang -- ahwang@edelson.com -- of Edelson PC in Chicago, and Stefan Coleman of the Law Office of Stefan Coleman, LLC, in Lakewood, N.J. United States District Court for the District of New Jersey case number 2:15-cv-01617 DUN & BRADSTREET: Plaintiff Won't Bid to Certify Nationwide Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the case, Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation Class Action Litigations O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.), plaintiff informed the Court that it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington. On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC, an unaffiliated entity. The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages and equitable relief. On February 18, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices allegations. The Company filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motion and granted it. Specifically, the Court dismissed a contract claim with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims without prejudice. On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and unfair business practices under Washington state law against the Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports. The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint venture or agency theory for practices relating to CreditBuilder. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the Company's motion and dismissed with prejudice the claims based on a joint venture or agency liability theory brought against the Company. The Court denied the motion with respect to the negligence, defamation and unfair practices claims. On January 23, 2014, the Company answered the SAC. At a court conference on December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington. DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Die-Mension Case ------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is ongoing in the case Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.)) On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die- Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company and DBCC, an unaffiliated entity, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company, the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, defamation, and negligence. The complaint alleged deceptive trade practices, negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court, Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder product. On March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the amended complaint. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Discovery in the case is ongoing and the Company is continuing to investigate the allegations. DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Vinotemp Case ---------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is ongoing in the case Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint(R), Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01021 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv- 00451 (C.D. Cal.)) On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation ("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company and DBCC, an unaffiliated entity. Vinotemp and CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of Sec. 17200 and Sec. 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information on credit reports in violation of Sec. 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and defamation claims. On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. On June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to investigate the allegations. DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Ongoing in Flow Sciences Case --------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that discovery is ongoing in the case Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-128 (E.D.N.C.)) On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and DBCC, an unaffiliated entity. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014, the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to investigate the allegations. DUN & BRADSTREET: Defendants Filed Motion to Dismiss Altaflo Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the case Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, et al., No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961 (D.N.J.)) On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC, an unaffiliated entity. Altaflo purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC. On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington. On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014. Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. Discovery in the case is ongoing, and the Company is continuing to investigate the allegations. DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Stamler, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01565 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 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 ELSEVIER INC: Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Due to Discrimination ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Wade v. Elsevier, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01579-PKC-SMG (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2015) is brought to recover compensatory and punitive damages because the Defendant allegedly discriminated against the Plaintiff on the basis of his race in the terms, conditions and privileges of his employment. Mr. Joseph Wade is a 47-year-old African American male resident of East Meadow in Nassau County, New York. Elsevier, Inc., maintains a corporate office in New York City and was the Plaintiff's employer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Mayol, Esq. ANTHONY MAYOL, P.C. 116-55 Queens Blvd., Suite 201 Forest Hills, NY 11375 Telephone: (718) 909-8538 Facsimile: (718) 268-3894 E-mail: am@lawyeram.com EMCOR GROUP: USM Inks Consent Decree to Resolve Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ EMCOR Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that USM, Inc., and its customer entered into a consent decree to resolve the claims and defenses asserted in a class action. "One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"), doing business in California provides, among other things, janitorial services to its customers by having those services performed by independent janitorial companies. USM and one of its customers, which owns retail stores (the "Customer"), are co-defendants in a federal class action lawsuit brought by five employees of USM's California janitorial subcontractors. The action captioned Federico Vilchiz Vasquez, Jesus Vilchiz Vasquez, Francisco Domingo Claudio, for themselves and all others similarly situated vs. USM, Inc. dba USM Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, et al., was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a Superior Court of California and was removed by USM on November 22, 2013 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California," the Company said. "The employees allege in their complaint, among other things, that USM and the Customer, during a period that began before our acquisition of USM, violated a California statute that prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial subcontractor when it knows or should know that the contract does not include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial subcontractor to comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations governing the labor or services to be provided. The employees have asserted that the amounts USM pays to its janitorial subcontractors are insufficient to allow those janitorial subcontractors to meet their obligations regarding, among other things, wages due for all hours their employees worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. These employees seek to represent not only themselves, but also all other individuals who provided janitorial services at the Customer's stores in California during the relevant four year time period. "We do not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with whom USM subcontracted for the provision of janitorial services to the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a class action and USM is found to have violated the California statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial services to its other customers in California. The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that USM has violated the California statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid wages and thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs. "On February 17, 2015, USM and its Customer entered into a consent decree which, subject to approval of the consent decree by the federal judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California following a determination by the Court of the consent decree's fairness, adequacy and reasonableness, will resolve the claims and defenses asserted in the class action. Under the terms of the consent decree, USM is to (a) pay an aggregate of $1.0 million (i) for monetary relief to the members of the class, (ii) for awards to the class representative plaintiffs, (iii) for California Labor Code Private Attorney General Act payments to the State of California for an immaterial amount, and (iv) for all costs of notice and administration of the claims process, (b) pay to counsel for the class an aggregate of $1.3 million, of which $0.25 million is to be allocated for their reimbursable costs and litigation expenses and $1.05 million is to be allocated for attorneys' fees, and (c) establish procedures to monitor USM's California subcontractors providing janitorial services to its Customer designed principally to ensure janitorial employees of those subcontractors are paid no less than minimum wage." ENCORE CAPITAL: Appeal in "Brent" Suit Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------ Encore Capital Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an appeal of the settlement in the case Brent v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et. al, remains pending. On May 19, 2008, an action captioned Brent v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. et. al was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio Western Division, in which the plaintiff filed a class action counter-claim against two of the Company's subsidiaries (the "Midland Defendants"). The complaint alleged that the Midland Defendants' business practices violated consumers' rights under the FDCPA and the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. The Company has vigorously denied the claims asserted against it in these matters, but has agreed to a proposed settlement to avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation. Subject to court approval, settlement awards to eligible class members, as well as fees and costs, will be paid from a settlement fund of approximately $5.2 million, which has already been paid by the Company and its insurer. If the number of class members who make claims exceeds a certain level, the total settlement could increase to an amount not to exceed $5.7 million. On October 14, 2014, the district court issued an order granting final approval of the parties' revised agreed upon settlement of this lawsuit. That order has been appealed by an objector to the settlement, which appeal remains pending. ENTEGRIS INC: Class Action Challenging Merger Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------- Entegris, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the class action challenging the Merger between the Company and ATMI, Inc. has been dismissed by agreement of the parties. On or about February 7 and 28, 2014, two putative class action complaints challenging the Merger between the Company and ATMI, Inc. were filed in the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of Danbury, captioned Andrew Pace v. ATMI, Inc., et al. and Dolores Carter v. ATMI, Inc., et al., respectively. The complaints were filed on behalf of the public shareholders of ATMI, Inc. and name as defendants ATMI, Inc., the members of the Board of Directors of ATMI, Inc., the Company and the Company's subsidiary, Atomic Merger Corporation. The complaints generally alleged that ATMI, Inc.'s directors breached their fiduciary duties to ATMI, Inc.'s shareholders by agreeing to sell ATMI, Inc. for inadequate and unfair consideration and pursuant to an inadequate and unfair process, and that ATMI, Inc., the Company and Atomic Merger Corporation aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The complaint in the Carter action and the second amended complaint in the Pace action also allege purported disclosure deficiencies in the preliminary and definitive proxy statements for the merger that ATMI, Inc. filed with the SEC. The complaints sought, among other things, to enjoin the Merger. The Merger was approved by ATMI, Inc.'s shareholders on April 15, 2014 and was closed on April 30, 2014. The case captioned Dolores Carter v. ATMI, Inc., et al. was subsequently dismissed by the plaintiff. The case captioned Andrew Pace v. ATMI, Inc., et al. was transferred to the Complex Litigation Docket of the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut, Judicial District of Waterbury. On July 21, 2014, ATMI, Inc. and the Company each filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's second amended complaint. On December 29, 2014, the court granted the defendant's motion to strike and on January 27, 2015, the case was dismissed by agreement of the parties. ERNST & YOUNG: Settles Lawsuits Over Lehman Collapse Losses ----------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Fitzgerald, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that Ernst & Young LLP has agreed to settle a pair of lawsuits filed by the state of New Jersey and a handful of California cities and counties over losses they suffered when Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed. Lawyers for New Jersey and the California municipalities each said they have reached "an agreement in principle" to settle their legal disputes with the accounting firm, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court in New York. New Jersey, seven California cities and counties plus one California-based insurer had accused Ernst & Young of helping Lehman hide its true financial condition while the bank's executives were pitching them to invest in "safe" Lehman stock and securities. Terms of the settlement weren't disclosed. Representatives for Ernst & Young, New Jersey and the California plaintiffs either declined to comment or didn't respond to requests for comment. Pension funds, municipalities and individuals from places as far-flung as Scotland, Ireland and Guam, sued Lehman a few months before its September 2008 collapse after their investments in some $30 billion in Lehman debt and equity went sour. The suits claimed Lehman's use of so-called Repo 105 deals -- repurchase transactions that allowed Lehman to temporarily lower its leverage -- falsely allowed the bank to present itself as financially stronger than it really was. The lawsuits also took aim at Ernst & Young for saying Lehman was in compliance with accounting rules even though the auditor was aware of the bank's use of Repo 105 transactions to buff up its balance sheet. A 2010 report by a bankruptcy-court examiner, exposing Lehman's use of Repo 105s, raised questions about whether its executives and auditors should face any regulatory action or other sanctions. New Jersey lost more than $192 million on its Lehman investment and San Mateo County alone lost $155 million. Among the other California cities that sued were Auburn, Burbank and San Buenaventura, along with the Contra Costa Water District, Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District and Zenith Insurance Co. Ernst & Young was Lehman's auditor from 2001 until Lehman's collapse. The accounting firm, while denying any liability, agreed to pay $99 million to settle a class-action suit filed by Lehman investors in 2013. Ernst & Young has always denied allegations of wrongdoing and argued Lehman's demise was caused by the global financial crisis that affected the entire financial sector, not by accounting- or financial-reporting issues. New Jersey and the California cities and counties also sued former Lehman finance chief Erin Callan, along with former Lehman Chief Executive Dick Fuld and more than a dozen of the bank's other officers and directors. The ex-Lehman officials, without admitting wrongdoing, settled with New Jersey for $8.25 million; they settled with the California municipalities for $9.75 million in 2013. Lehman, once the nation's fourth-largest investment bank by assets under management, collapsed into the largest bankruptcy ever in September 2008. The filing sent markets into turmoil and helped trigger a global financial crisis. Lehman's brokerage business was quickly sold to Barclays. Lehman emerged from bankruptcy protection in March 2012, but the estate is still winding down and selling off its remaining holdings, a process that is expected to continue for several more years. FCA US LLC: Accused of Discriminating Against Chinese Employee -------------------------------------------------------------- Te H. Wu v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, (formerly known as Chrysler Group LLC), Case No. 2:15-cv-11132- MFL-MJH (E.D. Mich., March 26, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff was treated disparately in comparison with similarly situated employees with different national origins whose performance was the same or less satisfactory than the Plaintiff's. The Plaintiff is a resident of the state of Michigan. The Plaintiff was born in China, but emigrated from China to the United States. Incorporated in Delaware, FCA US, LLC is a global supplier of automobiles and automotive parts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas R. Warnicke, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS R. WARNICKE, PLLC 16291 W. 14 Mile Road, Suite 21 Beverly Hills, MI 48025 Telephone: (248) 930-4411 Facsimile: (248) 232-7832 E-mail: tom@warnickelaw.com FERGUSON, MO: Report Reveals Unconstitutional Policing Pattern -------------------------------------------------------------- According to The Militant's Naomi Craine and John Hawkins, a report issued by the Justice Department March 4 details how workers in Ferguson, Missouri, especially those who are Black, face rampant and illegal harassment, arbitrary arrests and abuse from the police and municipal court. Ferguson, a suburb of St. Louis, became a household word last August after cop Darren Wilson shot and killed 18-year-old Michael Brown, and after police met protests with tear gas, rubber bullets and arrests. Attorney General Eric Holder was dispatched to Ferguson as part of federal and state government efforts to defuse the demonstrations. The same day the Justice Department issued a separate report saying there were no grounds to bring federal charges against Mr. Wilson, following the November decision of a St. Louis grand jury not to indict him for killing Brown. The Ferguson Police Department has a "pattern of unconstitutional policing" that "violates the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and federal statutory law," the report states. The cops' actions "disproportionately harm Ferguson's African-American residents." In March 2010, the city finance director complained to the police chief that "unless ticket writing ramps up significantly before the end of the year, it will be hard to significantly raise collections next year." The cops obliged. Court fines and fees have become the city's second-largest source of income. A class-action lawsuit filed against the city of Ferguson in February describes how workers are shaken down by this scheme, and chronicles similar policies in surrounding towns. The local jails serve as debtors' prisons where those who can't pay are subjected to inhuman conditions. "Ferguson is mild compared to some other municipalities," Rodney Martin told the Militant in a phone interview March 9. "Ferguson just got caught, and that put them in the hot seat." Mr. Martin, a worker at Home Depot, was a victim of the traffic ticket scam last fall, spending a week in jail, while being shuffled from one municipality to another. "Theoretically it was great for them to recognize that there is a system of injustice and that racism is behind it," he said, "but I'm skeptical about any real change coming out of it." According to the Justice Department, Ferguson police regularly violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable search and seizure" and says the cops and the government can't come after you without "probable cause." In November 2013, a cop arrested five Black youth who were simply listening to music in a car, claiming they were "gathering in a group for the purposes of committing illegal activity." Another cop said he demands identification from every person in any vehicle he stops, and arrests anyone who exercises their legal right to refuse for "Failure to Comply." The report said use of force by Ferguson police "is routinely unreasonable and sometimes clearly punitive." African-Americans "are more than twice as likely as white drivers to be searched during vehicle stops . . . but are found in possession of contraband 26% less often than white drivers, suggesting officers are impermissibly considering race as a factor when determining whether to search," the report said. Circulation of racist emails and "jokes" among Ferguson city officials is documented. Mayor James Knowles fired the top court clerk, Mary Ann Twitty, March 4 over the emails, claiming they were "in no way representative" of the city. Two police supervisors connected to them resigned the next day. Municipal Judge Ronald Brockmeyer and City Manager John Shaw also resigned in the wake of the report. "There is no credible evidence to refute Wilson's stated subjective belief that he was acting in self-defense," the simultaneous Justice Department report on Brown's death concluded. "There are no credible witness accounts that state that Brown was clearly attempting to surrender when Wilson shot him." Brown's parents, Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr., said in a written statement they were disappointed that "the killer of our son wouldn't be held accountable for his actions." They said they welcomed the report on the Ferguson Police Department, and said if it helps bring about change, "our son's death will not have been in vain." FINISHMASTER INC: Faces Suit Alleging Discrimination Due to Age --------------------------------------------------------------- Claude Chamberlain v. Finishmaster, Inc., a foreign profit corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-11136-GER-MJH (E.D. Mich., March 26, 2015) is brought under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Mr. Chamberlain alleges that a motivating factor in the decision to terminate his employment was his age. Finishmaster, Inc. is a foreign profit corporation doing business throughout Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Glen N. Lenhoff, Esq. Robert Kent-Bryant, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GLEN N. LENHOFF 328 South Saginaw Street, 8-N Flint, MI 48502 Telephone: (810) 235-5660 E-mail: lenhofflaw@usol.com FLORIDA: Palm Beach Residents Win Compensation Citrus Canker Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Fleshler, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that thousands of Palm Beach County households won compensation on March 13 for fruit trees destroyed in the state's failed fight against the citrus canker disease, which ended nine years ago. The exact amount of the award still needs to be calculated, but Robert Gilbert, lead attorney for the homeowners, estimated it at roughly $19 million, with deductions for previously paid compensation and additions of several million dollars in interest. "We are extremely pleased and gratified by the work this jury put in and by the ultimate decision," Mr. Gilbert said, following a nearly two-week trial in West Palm Beach. "They stood by the constitutional principle of awarding full compensation for private property." This is a class-action lawsuit, so anyone who lost trees during the period covered by the case -- 2000 to 2006 -- is automatically included. The state has computerized records of the addresses, dates and size of trees. More than 26,000 households, which own a total of 66,493 trees, are covered by this case. But collecting the award may be difficult. A jury in Broward County awarded compensation several years ago that still hasn't been paid because the Florida Department of Agriculture has taken the position that any payment must first be appropriated by the Florida Legislature, which has not done so. A Broward judge refused the homeowners' request to force the state to pay. The case is on appeal. From 2000 to 2006, the department's tree-cutting crews went through Florida's residential neighborhoods, destroying orange, grapefruit and other citrus trees found within 1,900 feet of diseased trees. Delayed and hampered by lawsuits from homeowners, the campaign failed to stop the disease, which eventually made it to the state's commercial groves. Under the complex verdict returned by the jury, the amount due each household will be based on the height of the tree destroyed. At the low end, trees up to two feet tall were valued at $105.36, and at the high end, trees of 17 feet or taller were valued at $447.78. Wes Parsons, attorney for the Department of Agriculture, called the verdict a "compromise," saying the jury's decision represented less than the average of $500 per tree sought by the homeowners. He said no decision has been made whether to appeal. But he noted that three similar cases in other counties are on appeal, and said he hoped they would go to the Florida Supreme Court. David Mendez, of Boca Raton, who lost four orange and grapefruit trees to the tree-cutting crews, said the verdict strengthened the rights of Floridians against trespassing and seizure of their property by the state. "I'm very proud that justice was served," he said. "I didn't believe they could come into your backyard, tear up your backyard and pay you nothing. I was not after the money. It was the principle. You can't go onto someone's property and do as you please and expect them to be happy about it." Mr. Gilbert said he was optimistic that payment in the Broward and Palm Beach cases would be made within a year. "We haven't gotten it yet," he said. "We're going to get the money." FORD MOTOR: Sued Over Sexual Harassment, Racial Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph S. Pete, writing for nwi.com, reports that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigation found evidence of sexual harassment and racial discrimination at Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant. A group of women are saying in a class action lawsuit they were subjected to frequent and widespread abuse that included unwanted touching, lewd comments and requests for sexual favors. Before a group of former female employees filed suit in November, attorneys say 100 women who worked at the automotive factory in Hegewisch first went to the EEOC with discrimination complaints, such as that they were groped, had hand-carved phallic symbols thrown at them, and were ridiculed when they complained. A federal investigator looked into claims that female employees were discriminated against, harassed, treated differently than male colleagues, and retaliated against for filing complaints. The probe also examined claims they were discriminated against because of race, religion and age if they were more than 40 years old. Ford paid $9 million in 2000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit at the Chicago Assembly Plant, and spent another $10 million to train managers and male autoworkers on how to treat female colleagues, after the EEOC found proof of harassment that included sexually suggestive graffiti. Ford established a hotline to report discrimination, and monitors watched over the next few years for abusive behavior at the Chicago Assembly Plant and the Chicago Stamping Plant in Chicago Heights. In February, the EEOC notified the Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker it again found evidence of sexual harassment and discrimination at the plant. The EEOC investigation concluded female and black employees were punished when they complained of discrimination, including by being reassigned to less favorable job assignments or shifts, being denied overtime or transfers, and being disciplined or fired. A Ford spokesman said after the 124-page class action lawsuit was filed in November that the automaker cannot address specific allegations of what happened in the plant, but that it generally promotes a diverse and welcoming environment at all its workplaces. "Ford is proud to be an equal opportunity employer and takes reports of harassment or discrimination very seriously," spokeswoman Kristina Adamski said at the time. The EEOC gave Ford 14 days to propose a conciliation agreement that would eliminate unlawful practices and make victims whole, such as by restoring lost benefits or jobs. GALILEE MEMORIAL: Owner Pleads Guilty to Theft Charge ----------------------------------------------------- Sasha Jones, writing for WMC, reports that Jemar Lambert, who owns Galilee Memorial Gardens, pleaded guilty to a charge theft over $60,000 after burying bodies on nearby land that he did not own. Mr. Lambert, 39, agreed to an Alford plea, which means he maintains his innocence but acknowledges there is enough evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Many families do not think the cemetery owner received a punishment suitable for the crime. "Don't let it go just because he plead guilty to one crime and not the other, it's a crime," said Tina Correly. Ms. Correly is just one of the families affected by the closing of the cemetery back in January of 2014. The cemetery closed shortly after Lambert was arrested on the theft charge in September 2013, but was released on his own recognizance. He was later arrested in January 2014 on new charges of theft of property and abuse of a corpse, accused of crushing caskets and burying three bodies in a single grave. Ms. Correly's mother is buried on the land reportedly not owned by Lambert. "It's hard that we can't go in and actually go to her grave," says Ms. Correly. "He should have got more time," said Chris Walsh. Mr. Walsh's family could not bury their loved one in a pre-paid plot at Galilee, putting them thousands of dollars in debt for the funeral. "She didn't get nothing, nobody called her, it was just a lost cause," says Mr. Walsh. Hundreds of families are now a part of a class action lawsuit against the cemetery. On March 9, a status conference was set with the court to discuss the class action lawsuit. FRIGIDAIRE: Faces Class Action Over Molds in Front Load Washers --------------------------------------------------------------- Chris McKinnon, writing for WBZ-TV, reports that Frigidaire is facing a class action over mold problems in washing machines. A washing machine is supposed to clean clothes, not stink up a house. Many owners of front load washers are reporting problems with the buildup of slime and mold. A growing number of consumers are now heading to court. Kathleen Caddell of Plymouth thought one of these energy efficient machines would be a good investment, but she quickly regretted making the purchase. "I couldn't take it anymore because there was black mold actually getting in there, so it was a true health and human safety hazard." The problem was poor drainage around the door. Kathleen needed to use an extra towel after every load just to sop up the extra water that got trapped around the door. "It had a stench to it." Calls to the manufacturer frustrated Ms. Caddell. "There was no remedy for it, except it was my job to clean out the machine every time. So clearly, if I had known that, I would never have purchased the machine to begin with. I would have gotten a top loader until they figured out a better design." Class action lawsuits are now pending against several top washing machine makers, such as Kenmore, Whirlpool, LG, and Bosch. There is also a suit pending against Frigidaire which made Kathleen's machine. Other owners are also claiming that the machine produced a mold or mildew odor that could permeate a home. Attorney Ed Wallace of Wexler Wallace in Chicago is one of the attorneys handling the case against Frigidaire. "The company knew there was a problem as early as April 2007, and rather than recall the machines and letting consumers know there was a problem, they continued to sell the machines." In a statement, Frigidaire disputed the existence of a design defect. Other manufactures stated a majority of customers are satisfied, and added these machines work well if the operating instructions are closely followed. Chris Blanchette of Mr. Appliance of the Merrimack Valley books a lot of service calls for homeowners unhappy with the smell and performance of their front loader. "If you are ruining your clothes, it's expensive." Mr. Blanchette said most owners describe a swampy odor that gets into their clothes. Ms. Caddell is much happier with a new machine that has better drainage around the door. She is considering joining the Class Action suit. "It is very frustrating as a consumer, reaching out to the manufacturer and saying here's a clear design problem, can you fix it, or can you replace it, and they don't stand behind their product." There are few things to try if your machine is giving off a bad odor: make sure to use the recommended amount of detergent; swap liquid fabric softener for dryer sheets; run some bleach through the machine; wipe the door and gasket down with a disinfecting sheet; and leave the door open when not in use, as long as there are no children or pets present. GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Melton Faulty Ignition Switch Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Bill Vlasic, writing for The New York Times, reports that in a notable victory for General Motors, a lawsuit that helped spur the biggest safety crisis in the company's history has been withdrawn in exchange for a settlement from its compensation program, according to two people briefed on the agreement. The lawsuit was the second brought by the family of a Georgia woman, Brooke Melton, who died in 2010 in a car with a faulty ignition switch that has now been linked to at least 64 deaths. For G.M., the agreement removes the significant legal threat of senior officials, including Mary T. Barra, the automaker's chief executive, being questioned under oath about the company's failure for years to recall the defective vehicles. It was depositions in the Meltons' first lawsuit that exposed the dangerous flaw in millions of small cars. "The attorneys for the Melton family may have uncovered additional information that suggested G.M. did too little to protect consumer safety," said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who has been closely following G.M. safety issues. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed. A G.M. spokesman confirmed that the case had been resolved, but declined to provide other details. Ms. Melton was killed after she lost control of her 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt on a Georgia highway when the ignition key slipped into the accessory position, shutting down engine power and disabling the car's airbags. The family's initial lawsuit was settled two years ago for $5 million, but only after G.M. officials admitted in depositions that the company had been unsuccessfully grappling with defective ignitions for a decade. Lawyers for Ms. Melton's family also discovered that G.M. had secretly upgraded its switches without changing the part's identification number -- further frustrating efforts to pinpoint the cause of dozens of accidents that caused deaths and injuries. The revelations in the initial case forced further investigations within G.M. that led to the company's recall of about 2.6 million small cars, and prompted dozens of subsequent recalls of other models. After the switch recall prompted a congressional investigation and other government inquiries, Ms. Melton's family filed a second suit last year, claiming G.M. had knowingly sold unsafe cars. The New York Times has exposed missteps and delays by automakers and federal safety regulators in responding to deadly defects in automobiles during what has become a record year for recalls. A lawyer for the victim's parents, Ken and Beth Melton, said an aim of the second suit was to force G.M. to admit it had concealed evidence of the deadly ignition problem. "One of the important issues for the Meltons was accountability," said Lance Cooper, the family's lawyer. "They are grieving parents who simply wanted the truth and for no one else to suffer a similar loss." Mr. Cooper was not available for comment beyond his prepared statement. A spokeswoman in his office said Ms. Melton's parents also declined to discuss the case. The family's first lawsuit played a pivotal role in uncovering how G.M. had failed to fix faulty ignitions for years, despite knowing about crashes in which vehicles suddenly lost power. In one deposition, a G.M. engineer, Raymond DeGiorgio, denied that any changes were made to the switches, despite evidence that he had ordered newer vehicles be equipped with a replacement part. Another lawyer for the Melton family, Jere L. Beasley, said the initial suit was "directly responsible for alerting the government and the public to a massive cover-up by General Motors." G.M.'s compensation program allows accident victims or their family members to file claims even if they had previously received settlements from the company. The program's administrator, Kenneth R. Feinberg, can then authorize additional compensation beyond the original settlement. But victims or family members cannot pursue a lawsuit once they have been compensated through the program. The ignition-switch recalls announced last year mushroomed into a far-reaching crisis for G.M., which spent about $3 billion to recall vehicles and compensate accident victims in 2014. It also led to widespread changes inside the nation's largest automaker, including the dismissal of 15 employees, a shake-up of its vast engineering organization and the institution of a new safety department. Ms. Barra was questioned at four congressional hearings, and the company was fined $35 million by federal regulators for failing to fix the ignition defect in a timely manner. While the withdrawal of the Melton suit eliminates one legal headache for G.M., other potential pitfalls remain. A federal bankruptcy judge, Robert E. Gerber, could rule soon on whether the company can retain a liability shield in its 2009 bankruptcy restructuring that protects it from claims involving accidents that occurred before the Chapter 11 filing. The company is also seeking to avoid claims that cars built before it went bankrupt have lost value in the marketplace because of recalls and safety problems. Whatever Judge Gerber decides, a number of class-action cases involving accidents after 2009 are proceeding, with a possible trial set for next January. Depositions are expected to begin this spring, including possible testimony from senior executives and former employees who were fired over their role in the delayed ignition-switch recall. GEORGIA: DoJ Files Statement of Interest in Juvenile Defense Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- According to Imperial Valley News, the Department of Justice on March 14 filed a statement of interest in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, in N.P. et al. v. The State of Georgia, et al. The class action asserts that the public defense system in the Cordele Judicial Circuit is so underfunded and poorly staffed that indigent adults and juveniles accused of committing criminal acts are routinely denied their right to legal representation. The department's statement of interest focuses solely on the due process rights of children accused of delinquency. It is the first department filing in a state court action to address the due process right to counsel for children established by the U.S. Supreme Court in In re Gault. In Gault the court recognized the critical needs of children for guidance and advocacy and the vital role counsel plays in ensuring fairness in delinquency proceedings. More recent Supreme Court decisions have emphasized the differences between adults and children in the criminal justice system. Applying this case law, the department's filing identifies procedural safeguards that must be provided to children who appear before the court. "For too long, the Supreme Court's promise of fairness for young people accused of delinquency has gone unfulfilled in courts across our country," said Attorney General Eric Holder. "Every child has the right to a competent attorney who will provide the highest level of professional guidance and advocacy. It is time for courts to adequately fund indigent defense systems for children and meet their constitutional responsibilities." "Every day, in communities across our country, under-resourced public defense systems fail to meet their constitutional obligation to provide effective representation for children," said Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. "Children who depend on these failing systems often get the poorest representation, relegating them to second-class status in our courts. The systemic deprivation of counsel for children cannot be tolerated." In N.P., the plaintiffs allege that children in juvenile delinquency proceedings in the Cordele Judicial Circuit are denied their right to meaningful representation and are, at best, provided with "assembly-line justice." They assert that because public defense counsel are understaffed and under-resourced, they often are not appointed on behalf of children, and that children routinely waive their right to counsel without the waiver being knowing, intelligent and voluntary. The plaintiffs claim that the denial is so total that it amounts to a systemic violation of the juveniles' due process right to counsel, as required by Gault and the U.S. Constitution. In its statement of interest, the department asserts that children are denied their right to counsel not only when an attorney is entirely absent, but also when an attorney is available in name only. It provides the court with a framework to assess the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants are depriving young people accused of delinquency of their right to counsel. As the department summarized in the statement of interest, "due process requires that every child who faces the loss of liberty should be represented from their first appearance through, at least, the disposition of their case by an attorney with the training, resources and time to effectively advocate the child's interest. If a child decides to waive the right to an attorney, courts must ensure that the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary by requiring consultation with counsel before the court accepts the waiver." N.P. et al. v. The State of Georgia et al. was filed in January 2014 and brought by adult defendants and juveniles accused of delinquency in the Cordele Judicial Circuit. The plaintiffs seek reform to prevent future due process and right to counsel violations. GFB ENTERPRISES: Removes "Perez" Suit to Florida District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Perez, et al. v. G.F.B Enterprises, LLC, et al., Case No. 14-18947 CA 01, was removed from the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit Court of Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21172-JLK to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that their Lexus and Toyota vehicles and those of the putative class are defective in that they have "suffered damage to the dashboard and various interior components as a result of heat encountered during the normal use of the vehicles in Florida." The Plaintiffs allege that "dashboards and other similarly constructed interior components" have "become sticky, oily, shiny, cracked and degraded in appearance." The Plaintiffs are represented by: James L. Ferraro, Esq. Juan P. Bauta, II, Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A. 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-0111 Facsimile: (305) 379-6222 E-mail: jlf@ferrarolaw.com jpb@ferrarolaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian M. Ercole, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 200 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 5300 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 415-3000 Facsimile: (305) 415-3001 E-mail: bercole@morganlewis.com - and - J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 1701 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 2921 Telephone: (215) 963-4806 Facsimile: (215) 963-5001 E-mail: jgcooney@morganlewis.com - and - John C. Seipp, Jr., Esq. Donald A. Blackwell, Esq. SEIPP, FLICK & HOSLEY, LLP Two Alhambra Plaza, Suite 800 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 995-5600 Facsimile: (305) 995-6090 E-mail: jseipp@seippflick.com dblackwell@seippflick.com GHIRARDELLI: Settles Food Labeling Class Action for $5.25MM ----------------------------------------------------------- Gary M. Pappas, Esq., Gary M. Pappas, Esq., Alina Alonso Rodriguez, Esq., of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an article for JDSupra, report that a California district court certified a Rule 23(b)(3) food labeling class action against chocolatier Ghirardelli and approved a proposed settlement. The genesis of Plaintiffs' claim is that defendant mislabeled its "White Chips" and other products in a way that would mislead consumers into believing that the products contained white chocolate. Plaintiffs also asserted a claim that the "all natural" label was improper because the products contained "genetically modified, hormone- treated . . . or chemically extracted ingredients." As part of the settlement, Ghirardelli agreed to pay $5.25 million into a common fund and agreed to effect certain labeling changes to all products at issue for a period of three years. The named plaintiffs would each receive a $5,000 incentive payment. Other class members would receive between $0.75 and $1.50 depending on the products purchased. Class counsel would receive over $1.5 million in attorney's fees and approximately $87,000 in costs. Settlement Approval The court began its analysis noting that settlement is a "strongly favored" method for resolving disputes, particularly where complex class action litigation is concerned. The court's focus when evaluating such a settlement is strictly guided by whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, adequate, free of collusion and consistent with the named plaintiffs' fiduciary obligations to the class. In so determining, courts bound by the Ninth Circuit consider: (1) the strength of the plaintiff's case; (2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation; (3) the risk of maintaining class-action status throughout trial; (4) the amount offered in settlement; (5) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of the proceeding; (6) the experience and views of counsel; (7) the presence of a government participant; and (8) the reaction of class members to the proposed settlement. Moreover, where a settlement is the product of arms-length negotiations conducted by capable and experienced counsel, the court presumes that the settlement is fair and reasonable. In keeping with this framework, the court found the proposed settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable. The court noted that the litigation to date had been a "a hard-fought affair." Considering the strength of the plaintiffs' case, the risk, expense, complexity, and likely duration of further litigation -- including the risk of maintaining class action status throughout the trial and successfully proving liability in the face of Ghirardelli's strong denial -- the court found that these factors all weighed in favor of approving the settlement. Fees and Costs The court also awarded class counsel $1,575,000 in attorney's fees and $87,572.15 in costs. In the Ninth Circuit, the benchmark for an attorney's-fee award is 25% of the total settlement value. When determining the value of a settlement, courts consider both the monetary and non-monetary benefits. In common-fund cases, such as this one, the Ninth Circuit requires district courts to assess proposed fee awards under either the "lodestar" method or the "percentage of the fund" method. The court found the fee request reasonable under both approaches. First, with respect to the "percentage of the fund" approach, Plaintiffs presented expert testimony that the changed practices required by the settlement for the next three years can be expected to save class members $13.46 million. When added to the $5.25 million, the requested fee represented 8.9% -- significantly below the Ninth Circuit's $25% benchmark. The court found that the requested fee appropriate even if the expert's estimate was deeply discounted. Second, after applying the percentage method, courts typically calculate the lodestar as a cross-check to assess the reasonableness of the percentage award. Once the court has fixed the lodestar, it may increase or decrease that amount by applying a positive or negative multiplier to take into account a variety of other factors, including the quality of the representation, the novelty and complexity of the issues, the results obtained and the contingent risk presented. Based on the declarations submitted by the plaintiffs' counsel, the court found that lodestar was approximately $1,711,710, which sum exceeded the requested fee award of $1,575,000. Thus, the court found the fee request reasonable under both the "percentage of the fund" approach and the lodestar cross-check. Finally, based on documentation provided, the court found that the cost award was reasonable. Incentive Awards The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that awarding incentives should not become routine practice. However, the court concluded that the incentives proposed here were within the range of such awards that the Ninth Circuit has either affirmed or cited with approval. The court specifically noted that the named plaintiffs merit this incentive, detailing the effort they personally made in pursuing this lawsuit. Cy Pres Doctrine The settlement agreement provides that if, after payment of notice, administration, fees, costs, incentives and valid claims, there remains a balance in the common fund, the plaintiffs will ask the court to approve a list of charitable organizations to receive any balance remaining in the settlement fund. The court found that the cy pres doctrine is appropriate for a case like this one, where class members who did not make claims cannot be easily located or identified, in order to "put the unclaimed fund to its next best compensation use, e.g., for the aggregate, indirect, prospective benefit of the class." Objections to Settlement The court rejected three objections, finding that all three objectors failed to establish their standing to challenge the settlement because they did not establish they were proper class members. The court also rejected the objections on the merits, dismissing claims of collusion, challenges to the cy pres distribution and to the attorney's fees. Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., No. 12-cv-04936-LB (N.D. Cal. Feb 20, 2015). GLOBAL CREDIT: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul E. Ziegler, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, Case No. 3:15- cv-02094-AET-DEA (D.N.J., March 24, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeanne Lahiff, Esq. 8 Cayuga Road Cranford, NJ 07016 Telephone: (862) 812-0623 E-mail: cavarsvp@people.com GWB LLC: Removes "Wyckoff" Class Suit to Florida District Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Defendants GWB LLC and Cheney OFS, Inc. removed the class action lawsuit titled Wyckoff, III v. GWB, LLC, et al., Case No. CACE-15- 002755, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Ft. Lauderdale Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-60612-BB to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com apetisco@rgpattorneys.com Defendants GWB LLC and Cheney OFS, Inc. are represented by: Benjamin D. Sharkey, Esq. Justin C. Sorrell, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 501 Riverside Avenue, Suite 902 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: (904) 638-2655 Facsimile: (904) 638-2656 E-mail: sharkeyb@jacksonlewis.com Justin.sorrell@jacksonlewis.com HEALTHWAYS INC: May 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ----------------------------------------------------- Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on March 13 issued a statement regarding the Healthways Shareholder Litigation. IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, On Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated and On Behalf of Nominal Defendant HEALTHWAYS, INC., Plaintiff, v. JOHN W. BALLANTINE, J. CRIS BISGARD, MARY JANE ENGLAND, BEN R. LEEDLE JR., C. WARREN NEEL, WILLIAM D. NOVELLI, ALISON TAUNTON- RIGBY, DONATO TRAMUTO, JOHN A. WICKENS, KEVIN WILLS, and SUNTRUST BANK, Defendants, and HEALTHWAYS, INC., Nominal Defendant. C.A. No. 9789-VCL SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: All persons and entities who held Healthways Inc. ("Healthways" or the "Company") common stock at any time during the period from June 8, 2012 through and including the close of trading on February 10, 2015 (the "Class Period") and that continued to hold Healthways common stock as of the end of the Class Period, but excluding (a) the Individual Defendants and their respective immediate family members; (b) the Company, SunTrust and each of the other Lenders, as well as each of their respective subsidiary companies, officers, directors and affiliates; and (c) the legal representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any of the foregoing excluded parties (the "Class").1 Members of the Class are referred to herein as "Class Members." PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that, pursuant to Delaware Court of Chancery Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2), the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court") has preliminarily certified the above-captioned litigation (the "Action") as a non-"opt-out" class action on behalf of the Class. YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that plaintiff Pontiac General Employees Retirement System ("Plaintiff") has reached a proposed settlement of the Action (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on May 8, 2015, at 11:00 AM, before Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County Courthouse, 500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801 (the "Settlement Hearing"). At the Settlement Hearing, the Court will, among other things: (a) determine whether the certification of the Class should be made final; (b) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable and adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court; (c) determine whether the Judgment should be entered dismissing the Action with prejudice against Defendants pursuant to the Stipulation; (d) determine whether the application by Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses should be approved; (e) hear and consider any objections to the Settlement, final certification of the Class or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses; and (f) consider any other matters that may properly be brought before the Court in connection with the Settlement. If you are a Class Member, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement. If you have not yet received full printed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action (the "Notice"), you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Notice Administrator at Healthways Shareholder Litigation, c/o GCG, PO Box 10166, Dublin, OH 43017-3166. Copies of the Notice can also be downloaded from the website www.gardencitygroup.com or by calling the Notice Administrator toll-free at 1-800-231-1815. As consideration for the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to eliminate the Proxy Put provision in the Company's 2012 Loan Agreement. Plaintiff alleged that the Proxy Put provision in the 2012 Loan Agreement had the potential to deter stockholders from nominating directors and/or supporting the director nominees of other stockholders because, under certain circumstances, the nomination of directors through an actual or threatened proxy contest could give rise to an "event of default." As a result of the Action and Settlement, the parties have agreed to eliminate the Proxy Put provision, and Healthways stockholders can nominate or support director nominees without concern for the possibility of triggering an event of default under the 2012 Loan Agreement. Additionally, the Healthways Board has agreed to issue a resolution instructing the Company's senior management and its General Counsel that any material corporate contract containing a change of control provision like the Proxy Put provision must be brought to the attention of and explained to the Board, including its impact on the shareholder franchise, prior to its execution. Any objections to the proposed Settlement or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to representative counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants such that they are received no later than April 28, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please note that there is no proof of claim form for Class Members to submit in connection with the Settlement. Also, because the Class was preliminarily certified as a non-"opt-out" class, Class Members do not have the right to exclude themselves from the Class. Please do not call or write to the Court or the Register in Chancery regarding this notice. All questions, other than requests for the Notice, should be made to Plaintiff's Counsel: BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP Mark Lebovitch, Esq. 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 1-800-380-8496 FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A. Joel Friedlander, Esq. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400 Wilmington, DE 19801 1-302-573-3500 Requests for the Notice should be made to the Notice Administrator: Healthways Shareholder Litigation c/o GCG PO Box 10166 Dublin, OH 43017-3166 1-800-231-1815 www.gardencitygroup.com By Order of the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware February 20, 2015 1All capitalized terms used in this Notice that are not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings provided in the Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release dated February 10, 2015 (the "Stipulation"). A copy of the Stipulation is available for review at www.gardencitygroup.com HERTZ CORP: Removes "Lo Cascio" Suit to California District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Hertz Corporation removes the class action lawsuit styled Lo Cascio v. Hertz Local Edition, et al., Case No. 37-2014-00042259- CU-OE-CTL, 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-00667-WQH-KSC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff is represented by: William D. Turley, Esq. THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC 7428 Trade Street San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: (619) 234-2833 Facsimile: (619) 234-4048 E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Robert A. Dolinko, Esq. NIXON PEABODY LLP One Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8200 Facsimile: (415) 984-8300 E-mail: rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com HMSHOST CORP: Faces "Chao" Suit Seeking to Get Unpaid Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Joaquin Chao, Clinton Hartman Ira Stone, and Vickie Willingham v. HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc., Case No. 0:15- cv-60616-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid wages from the Defendants for all hours worked by them as well as for overtime work for which they did not receive overtime premium pay, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc., are Delaware corporations headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. HMSHost Corporation is wholly owned by Autogrill Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Autogrill S.p.A., an Italian corporation. Directly or through wholly owned subsidiaries, including Defendant Host International, Inc., HMSHost Corporation manages and oversees the operations of food and beverage concessions at numerous United States airports and other travel facilities. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gregg L. Shavitz, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael H. Reed, Esq. KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com Jklafter@klafterolsen.com frudich@klafterolsen.com michael.reed@klafterolsen.com - and - Bradley I. Berger, Esq. BERGER & ASSOCIATES 321 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-1900 HMSHOST CORP: Did Not Pay for Hours Worked, "Benedetto" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Benedetto, Oscar Middleton, Ricky Malin, and Ryan Jensen v. HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc., Case No. 3:15- cv-00947-L (N.D. Tex., March 26, 2015) alleges that the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs as exempt under federal laws and failed to pay them for all hours worked. The Defendants, directly and through their subsidiaries, are one of the world's largest providers of travel venue merchandise and food and beverage concessions. HMSHost Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Bethesda, Maryland. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael H. Reed, Esq. Dudley G. Jordan, Esq. KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com Jklafter@klafterolsen.com frudich@klafterolsen.com michael.reed@klafterolsen.com dudley.jordan@klafterolsen.com - and - Bradley I. Berger, Esq. BERGER & ASSOCIATES 321 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-1900 - and - Bill Pedersen III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BILL PEDERSEN III, PLLC 2501 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 380-LB50 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 630-4554 Facsimile: (214) 630-9264 E-mail: bill@bpedlaw.com HMSHOST CORP: Fails to Pay for Hours Worked, "Boden" Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Boden and David Vigil v. HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00606-KMT (D. Colo., March 24, 2015) alleges that the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs as exempt under federal law and failed to pay them for all hours worked. HMSHost Corporation is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland. HMSHost Corporation is wholly owned by Autogrill Group, Inc., a subsidiary of Autogrill S.p.A., an Italian corporation. Host International, Inc., is a Delaware corporation also headquartered in Bethesda. The Defendants are among the world's largest providers of travel venue merchandise and food and beverage concessions. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 123 North College Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 212-4665 Facsimile: (303) 539-9812 E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael H. Reed, Esq. KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 Facsimile: (914) 934-9220 E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com Jklafter@klafterolsen.com frudich@klafterolsen.com michael.reed@klafterolsen.com - and - Bradley I. Berger, Esq. BERGER & ASSOCIATES 321 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-1900 HONDA: Launches U.S. Ad Campaign to Boost Recall Repairs -------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that Honda is launching an unprecedented U.S. ad campaign urging owners to get vehicles repaired if they have been recalled to fix defective air bags. The Japanese automaker will spend several million dollars on ads in 120 newspapers and 30-second radio spots in 110 markets. It's also sponsoring customized Facebook posts that will appear in owners' timelines. The ads are in English and Spanish. Honda has recalled about 6.2 million cars in the U.S. since 2008 because air bag inflators made by Takata Corp. can explode with too much force, sending shrapnel into the vehicle. Ten automakers, including Honda, have recalled about 22 million cars globally to replace Takata inflators. Six deaths have been blamed on the problem. Spokesman Chris Martin said it's the first time Honda has reached out to owners through a media campaign. The ad makes clear that recalls are free, and promises loaners if there is a delay in getting the cars repaired. "Almost everyone knows someone who owns a Honda," says one print ad, which urges friends to tell owners to contact the company. "We care about your safety, so please take action immediately." The ads will focus on the 11 warm weather states and U.S. territories that Honda says are at greatest risk. Honda says it has replaced 1.1 million of about 8 million defective inflators in the U.S., or just 14 percent of the total. Some of the recalled cars have recalled Takata inflators on both the driver and passenger sides. Honda reported to the government that 17,809 owners hadn't been found, despite mailings and phone calls. Chrysler, Ford and Toyota, which also have recalled cars with Takata air bags, say they have also done phone calls and mailings, but none plans to match Honda's advertising effort. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Defending v. Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that from July 2013 to March 2014, 15 class action complaints were filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company. On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation. The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Defending v. Opana ER Antitrust Class Suits --------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that from June 2014 to January 2015, eleven class action complaints were filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and the Company. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re- filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation. In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints have not yet been filed in the consolidated proceeding. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Settlement in Securities Actions Has Okay ------------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the securities class actions. On March 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013, two class action complaints were filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Denis Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, respectively ("Securities Class Actions"), alleging that the Company and those named officers and directors violated the federal securities law by making materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies at the Hayward, California manufacturing facility, including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's branded product candidate, RYTARY(TM) and its generic version of Concerta(R). These two Securities Class Actions were subsequently consolidated, assigned to the same judge, and lead plaintiff has been chosen. The plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 13, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on November 14, 2013. On April 18, 2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss. On September 22, 2014, the Company, together with certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle this consolidated securities class action, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $8.0 million for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this action. On January 16, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. The Company will not be taking any charges for the settlement as the settlement amount will be paid for and covered by the Company's insurance policies. The settlement remains subject to final court approval and certain other conditions and does not resolve the related shareholder derivative litigations. IMPAX LABORATORIES: Agreed to Settle Aruliah Class Action --------------------------------------------------------- Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company, together with certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle the securities class action filed by Linus Aruliah. On August 13, 2014, a class action complaint was filed against the Company and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by Linus Aruliah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint alleged that the Company and those named officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies at the Company's Taiwan manufacturing facility, including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's then branded product candidate, RYTARY(TM) (which was subsequently approved by the FDA on January 7, 2015). On January 13, 2015, the Company, together with certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle this securities class action, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $4.75 million for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this action. The Company will not be taking any charges for the settlement as the settlement amount will be paid for and covered by the Company's insurance policies. The settlement remains subject to preliminary and final court approval and certain other conditions and does not resolve the related shareholder derivative litigations. IPEX: Settles Kitec Insulation Class Action ------------------------------------------- Richard Silver, writing for inman.com, reports that a class action against IPEX has been settled. With the cold weather this winter, there's nothing more comfortable than radiant heating, especially when it's installed in your flooring or used for high-end treats such as heated towel racks. However, if your clients have used a product known as Kitec in the installation of the radiant heat, some insurance companies won't insure their homes. This issue turned up in a house inspection recently and caught everyone by surprise. Is this the new UFFI (urea-formaldehyde foam insulation)? It seems that the plumbers who originally installed Kitec have come to believe that if you have Kitec in your home, it will eventually cause a problem -- not maybe, but definitely. If your clients have radiant heating in their houses that is water-heated and was installed between 1995 and 2007, ask them to call a plumber and have him or her certify that no Kitec was used. If they do find Kitec, the best thing to do is replace it right away and join in the class-action lawsuit at kitecsettlement.com to get some money to help the remediation. What is Kitec? Sold between 1995 and 2007, Kitec is a piping system that was used both for carrying water throughout a home and supplying water to radiant heating systems. The Kitec system used brass fittings as well as blue and orange flexible piping, which was made from a mixture of polyurethane and aluminum. This system was initially thought to be a superior product to copper piping because the Kitec pipes are more flexible, easier to install and less expensive than copper. In fact, many plumbers pushed for the use of Kitec over copper piping before it became apparent that the product was faulty. What can clients get from the class-action settlement? If your clients have bought a home and discovered that it has Kitec in it, they might have trouble getting your home insured -- it all depends on the insurance company. According to a 2013 article from the Nova Scotia Association of Realtors about the dangers of Kitec: "Insurance companies assess risks based on their own claims experience, and some larger companies have not had enough bad experiences with Kitec to deny insurance. Some companies are denying insurance, however, most likely because they are not relying solely on their own claims experience, but avoiding all possible risks." Even if clients haven't been denied home insurance because of the product, they should still be able to receive compensation from Kitec's manufacturer, IPEX, in order to help them replace the Kitec. In 2011, three class-action lawsuits -- one in the U.S., one in Quebec and one covering the rest of Canada -- were brought against IPEX on behalf on anyone who owns or had previously owned a home with Kitec in it. In 2012, all parties reached a settlement in which IPEX was forced to create a settlement account of $125 million (U.S. dollars) in order to compensate the claimants. The settlement became effective Jan. 9, 2012, and the deadline for filing a claim against IPEX is Jan. 9, 2020, so if you believe your clients might deserve compensation, ask them to visit kitecsettlement.com to see whether they are eligible and to find out how to make a claim. KABERLINE HEALTHCARE: Moves Alan Presswood Suit to E.D. Missouri ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Alan Presswood, D.C., P.C. v. Kaberline Healthcare Informatics, Inc., Case No. 15SL-CC00432, was removed from the St. Louis County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00536 to the proceeding. The case is brought over alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Max G. Margulis, Esq. MARGULIS LAW GROUP 28 Old Belle Monte Rd. Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 536-7022 Facsimile: (636) 536-6652 E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Matthew D. Knepper, Esq. HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 480-1500 Facsimile: (314) 480-1505 E-mail: matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Trial Begins in Skin Removal Surgery Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Jessica M. Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a two-week trial was set to begin in a class action lawsuit filed against health care service provider Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc. over its alleged refusal to cover excess skin removal surgeries. The trial was set to take place in California's Alameda County Superior Court starting March 16. It will be webcast live and recorded on Courtroom View Network. In her class action, plaintiff Wendy Gallimore, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleges that Kaiser violated California law by refusing to cover the skin removal surgery. The surgery is typically done in patients who lose a significant amount of weight after lap band, or stomach stapling, surgery. According to her complaint, filed in the superior court in February 2012, Ms. Gallimore underwent bariatric surgery for treatment of morbid obesity. Following the surgery, she experienced massive weight loss and was left with large amounts of excess skin. At that time, she requested that Kaiser authorize reconstructive surgery to remove the excess skin. Kaiser denied the request. Ms. Gallimore argues that her condition satisfied the requirements of state statute -- Health and Safety Code section 1367.63, enacted by the California Legislature in 1998. The statute, according to the class action complaint, was enacted because health plans were denying requests for reconstructive surgery on the basis that it was only medically necessary to restore or improve a bodily function, not restore a normal appearance -- even in cases where a physical abnormality was caused by trauma, disease or congenital defects. Basically, the plans claimed such surgeries were "cosmetic." To remedy the problem, section 1367.63 made clear that health plans must cover surgeries to correct abnormal structures of the body caused by disease when the surgery would improve function or create a normal appearance to the extent possible. Ms. Gallimore argues that Kaiser has a "pattern and practice" of violating the statute by not covering such reconstructive surgeries, including her own. "Kaiser systematically ignores both the functional impairment standard and the 'normal appearance' prongs of section 1367.63(c) and, in doing so, systematically violates the statute," her lawyers wrote. Los Angeles law firm Gianelli & Morris is representing the plaintiffs. L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Consolidated Class Suit Dismissed ----------------------------------------------------------- L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications Corporation said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company filed a motion to dismiss a consolidated class action. In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action on October 24, 2014, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in the District Court on December 22, 2014. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses. The Company believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. On February 20, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the action. The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this matter because the proceedings are in their early stages. LUMBER LIQUIDATOR: Knopf Bigger Files Laminate Flooring Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Rachel Crosby, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that an Orlando law firm is seeking class-action status after filing a federal complaint against Lumber Liquidators on March 13 on behalf of an Orlando couple. The firm, Knopf Bigger, is fielding calls from other concerned consumers. "Their kids are playing on it, they have it in their homes," said Andrew Knopf, a firm attorney. "The 60 Minutes piece obviously has been a catalyst for a lot of folks." Mr. Knopf's firm is following in the footsteps of California group Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, which filed the original lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators in December. After the show aired, the suit was moved to federal court, which means judges across the country will likely consolidate similar cases -- like Knopf's -- to reach one streamlined conclusion, he said. While Lumber Liquidators' flooring made in the United States met California's CARB emissions standards, every sample manufactured in China failed. Lumber Liquidators, which has 354 stores in the United States and Canada, said random testing of its six laminate flooring suppliers in China determined the products were "safe and compliant." "We stand by every single plank of wood and laminate we sell all around the country," the company said in its SEC filing. The company is offering to pay for customers to safety test their floors. The Lumber Liquidators location in Lutz has been open for about eight years, said assistant manager Kiel Skrobacz. On March 12, he stood on his toes, reaching up to stick small yellow "sale" tags on most of the store's products. Mr. Skrobacz said his head manager has been in contact with corporate to "make sure we fully understand what's going on." As for concerned customers calling their store? "We've had our fair share," he said. LYFT: New Drivers File Class Action Over Unpaid Bonuses ------------------------------------------------------- R. Rex Parris Law Firm on March 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed accusing Lyft, a peer-to-peer ridesharing company, of promising $1,000 bonuses for new drivers that turned out was too good to be true. The lawsuit claims Lyft has paid very few of the new drivers the $1,000 bonus. In a detailed 22 page complaint, lead plaintiffs Casey Loewen and Jonathan Wright claim Lyft breached their contract and defrauded recruits by failing to pay the $1,000 bonuses. According to the complaint, in an effort to grow its driver community and compete with other rideshare companies (such as Uber), Lyft launched two $1,000 new driver referral programs on February 25, 2015. These programs were available in Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, Philadelphia, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Seattle, and Washington D.C. To qualify for the bonuses, drivers had to apply on or after midnight February 25th and complete their first ride on or before March 5th. "The promotions resulted in a huge wave of applicants," said Alexander R. Wheeler, a lawyer with the R. Rex Parris Law Firm. As stated in the complaint, "On March 4, 2015, Lyft sent an email to all of its new applicants and drivers in participating cities." It stated that "the invitation -- apply to be driver, give 1 ride by March 5th, and make $1,000 -- brought the biggest wave of applicants in Lyft history. As we're processing the applications, it's important that we continue to fulfill our safety obligations. Some of these steps, including DMV and background checks, are outside our control and can vary in length for different applicants. It is possible that you won't qualify for the promotion if all steps aren't completed by the March 5th deadline, along with the ride requirement." A copy of this email can be found in the complaint. "Lyft took drivers for a ride by not providing timely background checks for new drivers making it impossible for them to give their first ride by the deadline imposed by Lyft," said Mr. Wheeler. According to the complaint, "Lyft's actions caused outrage throughout the Lyft community, with many referring drivers and new drivers believing the entire promotion had been a scam to attract new drivers without having to pay them $1,000. Many drivers took to the Internet to voice their frustrations, accompanied by #lyftgate." The lawsuit alleges that Lyft breached its contract and is guilty of fraud. It seeks compensatory damages as well as punitive damages. The plaintiffs are represented by R. Rex Parris, of Lancaster and Dunn & Associates of Santa Monica. About The R. Rex Parris Law Firm For over 25 years, R. Rex Parris -- http://www.rrexparris.com-- has devoted his practice to protecting the rights of injured people and aggrieved workers. About Dunn & Associates Law Firm Since 1977, Dunn & Associates -- http://www.dunnpersonalinjury.com -- has been helping those who are injured get full and fair compensation for their injuries. MANPOWERGROUP US: Removes "Lull" Class Suit to W.D. Missouri ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit styled Lull v. ManpowerGroup US Inc., Case No. 15AC-CC00084, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Jefferson City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-04058-MJW to the proceeding. On behalf of herself and the putative class, Plaintiff Sandra Lull seeks statutory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees, and all other relief available pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Jason Brown, Esq. Jayson A. Watkins, Esq. BROWN & ASSOCIATES LLC 301 S. US 169 Hwy. Gower, MO 64454 Telephone: (816) 505-4529 Facsimile: (816) 424-1337 E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com watkins@brownandwatins.com The Defendant is represented by: Chris R. Pace, Esq. Justin M. Dean, Esq. Rene L. Duckworth, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4520 Main Street, Suite 400 Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 471-1301 Facsimile: (816) 471-1303 E-mail: chris.pace@ogletreedeakins.com Justin.dean@ogletreedeakins.com rene.duckworth@ogletreedeakins.com MCNEIL NUTRITIONALS: Court Reverses Benecol Class Suit Dismissal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal appeals court on March 13 reversed the dismissal of a proposed class action claiming that the butter substitute Benecol, made by Johnson & Johnson unit McNeil Nutritionals, had misleading labeling claims about its health benefits and trans fat content. In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the lower court had erred by finding that plaintiff Robert Reid's state-law claims were preempted by federal regulation of food labels, because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had never authorized the labeling claims in question. MICHIGAN: AG Apologizes to Reporters Over Subpoenas --------------------------------------------------- Chad Livengood, writing for The Detroit News, reports that attorney General Bill Schuette apologized on March 12 to two journalists who were slapped with subpoenas by his office for news gathering on allegations of juvenile prisoner abuse in state prisons. Sounding embarrassed, Mr. Schuette said he called Huffington Post reporter Dana Liebelson and Michigan Radio host Cynthia Canty to apologize for subpoenas sent to them by staff attorneys for information they obtained from plaintiffs and an attorney suing the Department of Corrections. "I said I was sorry and there's no excuse for that," Mr. Schuette said in a conference call on March 12 evening with reporters. "It should not have happened. It will not happen again." The Republican attorney general said he did not learn about the subpoenas until March 9 while he was on a family skiing vacation in Colorado, when Liebelson disclosed the two subpoenas she was served during interviews with inmates on March 5 and March 6 at state prisons in Ionia and Lapeer. Mr. Schuette ordered the subpoenas immediately withdrawn on March 9 -- the day the third subpoena arrived at Michigan Radio's office seeking "complete and unedited" audio and video recordings of a March 3 interview of an Ann Arbor attorney representing inmates who are suing the state for alleged sexual and physical abuse sustained as juveniles. "He did apologize," said Ms. Canty, host of Michigan Radio's "Stateside" program. "And I am certainly accepting the apology." Ms. Liebelson on March 9 she told The Detroit News she was served the first subpoena March 5 during the middle of an interview with one of the inmates suing the state at the Michigan Reformatory Prison in Ionia. She identified the Attorney General's Office employee as David Dwyre, a special agent in the criminal division. The next day, Ms. Liebelson said Mr. Dwyre was waiting for her at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, the site of a third scheduled interview with a juvenile prisoner who is suing the state. Ms. Liebelson said it was "intimidating" to be followed across the state from one prison to another. Mr. Schuette would not disclose on March 12 whether disciplinary action was taken against any of the attorneys involved in the subpoenas or the process that was followed in authorizing the subpoenas. "I'm not going to go back into it," Mr. Schuette told reporters. Deborah LaBelle, the Ann Arbor attorney whose radio interview with Ms. Canty was subpoenaed, said the Attorney General's Office has deployed "scorched earth" legal tactics in trying to get her class-action lawsuit dismissed. The lawsuit alleges that officials in the Michigan Department of Corrections failed to prevent abuse of juvenile inmates at the hands of adult prisoners and guards. Ms. LaBelle said she hoped Mr. Schuette's apology to the journalists would signal the end of "abusive tactics" by state attorneys in the case. "Hopefully this is a new day in the case and the direction of the attorneys involved in the case," she said. Mr. Schuette, who just began his second four-year term as attorney general, said very few of the evidence-seeking subpoenas pursued by the state's 275 attorneys rise to his desk for approval. "If I reviewed every subpoena the Department of Attorney General issued, everything would grind to a halt," Mr. Schuette said. He said he bears responsibility for the mistake. "I'm not throwing nobody under the bus, that's not what I do," Mr. Schuette told reporters. In the future, though, Mr. Schuette said if state attorneys believe they need to compel journalists to disclose their notes or unpublished work product, the subpoena request will have to go through him. The attorney general said the future use of subpoena power against journalists would remain "very infrequent, if at all." Asked how many other times journalists have been subpoenaed under his watch since 2011, Mr. Schuette replied: "To the best of my knowledge, none." MOODY'S CORP: New York Appeals Court to Hear Class Action Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moody's Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the New York Court of Appeals has agreed to hear an appeal in a class action and set a briefing schedule. On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance (the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading. In early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were subsequently added to the complaint. In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims. In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19, 2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim. On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11 plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's for aiding and abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions, reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously dismissed. On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013. On April 24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements, the 14 plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these claims as against all defendants, and the Court so ordered that stipulation on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover certain claims of two plaintiffs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") and Commerzbank AG ("Commerzbank"), that were previously dismissed by the Court. On May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their claims and also seeking reversal of the trial court's denial of class certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in earlier proceedings, PSERS and Commerzbank AG seek, respectively, $5.75 million and $69.6 million in compensatory damages in connection with the two claims at issue on the appeal. In October 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification and the dismissal of PSERS' claim but reversed a ruling of the trial court that had excluded certain evidence relevant to Commerzbank's principal argument on appeal. The Second Circuit did not reverse the dismissal of Commerzbank's claim but instead certified a legal question concerning Commerzbank's argument to the New York Court of Appeals. The New York Court of Appeals subsequently agreed to hear the certified question and set a briefing schedule. After the New York Court of Appeals has ruled on the certified question, the case will be returned to the Second Circuit for a final decision on Commerzbank's appeal. MORGAN KEEGAN: Settles Moberly Project Class Action for $8.25MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Rudi Keller, writing for Columbia Daily Tribune, reports that investment banker Morgan Keegan and St. Louis law firm Armstrong Teasdale will pay up to $8.25 million to settle claims stemming from the 2011 collapse of Mamtek U.S., the scandal-plagued project to build an artificial sweetener factory in Moberly. Under the terms of a settlement deal filed on March 11 in federal court, some investors who purchased bonds underwritten by Morgan Keegan will recover about 86.5 percent of their losses. The settlement does not cover investors who opted out of the class- action lawsuit, many of whom are pursuing their own litigation against Morgan Keegan, Armstrong Teasdale and Mamtek officers and consultants. The filings reveal for the first time the terms of a deal struck Jan. 14, as the case filed by Alabama investor John Cromeans and other plaintiffs was ready to go to trial before U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey. The plaintiffs alleged that Morgan Keegan and Armstrong Teasdale misled investors who purchased $39 million in industrial development bonds to finance construction and equipment for the factory. Attorney fees and expenses will take about one-third of the settlement, leaving $5.2 million for distribution to investors. Attorney Timothy Francis of Birmingham, Ala., lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said the investors participating in the lawsuit purchased about $6 million of the bond issue. Morgan Keegan and Armstrong Teasdale "paid more than the out-of- pocket losses of these investors, which is a really good settlement," Francis said. The Mamtek project was sold to Moberly and the state of Missouri as an opportunity to capitalize on a proprietary process for making sucralose that had been developed in China. In July 2010, Gov. Jay Nixon and Mamtek CEO Bruce Cole announced the factory would provide up to 600 jobs. Along with the bonds, Missouri promised up to $17.6 million in tax credits and other incentives. Construction halted in August 2011 after Mamtek defaulted on the bond payments and private investments promised by Mr. Cole and other Mamtek insiders never materialized. The settlement filed on March 11 will compensate investors who purchased the bonds before Mamtek defaulted on the August 2011 payment. Mr. Cole, who used money from the bond issue to prevent foreclosure on his $6 million Beverly Hills home, is currently serving a seven-year prison term at the Tipton Correctional Center after pleading guilty to theft and securities fraud. In the papers filed on March 11, Morgan Keegan and Armstrong Teasdale denied the settlement was an admission of wrongdoing. "Defendants deny that they have engaged in any unlawful activity, have failed to comply with the law in any respect or have any liability to anyone under the claims asserted in the litigation," according to the filings. "The parties expressly acknowledge that this settlement is entered into solely for the purpose of compromising highly disputed claims and that nothing herein is an admission of liability or wrongdoing by defendants." The plaintiffs benefit by certainty they will recover most of their money this year, according to the filings. Chuck Hatfield of the Stinson Leonard Street law firm declined to comment on the settlement. Hatfield represents Morgan Keegan in the federal case and in six lawsuits pending in state courts. NESTLE PURINA: 7th Circuit Addresses Settlement Injunction Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wystan Ackerman, Esq., of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for JDSura, reports that defendants who are defending multiple class actions involving the same issue in different jurisdictions can sometimes be faced with a quandary when they want to settle. They might reach a settlement agreement with plaintiffs' counsel in one of the cases, but until that settlement is final, which typically takes months, they may have to continue litigating the other cases. And, in the meantime, cross their fingers that the other cases do not undermine the settlement. One option some federal courts have used to prevent other litigation from derailing a settlement is to issue an injunction, after preliminary approval, that bars the class members from prosecuting other litigation in state court on the same issue. The Seventh Circuit, however, held that such an injunction violated the Anti-Injunction Act, in Adkins v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., No. 14-3436, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3270 (7th Cir. Mar. 2, 2015). The Anti-Injunction Act bars a federal court from enjoining state court proceedings "except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments." 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2283. Where a class action settlement reaches a final judgment, an injunction may well be appropriate, as the Seventh Circuit explained. But here, where the settlement process would take months to complete, and the state court class action was heading towards trial, the parties relied on the "necessary in aid of its jurisdiction" exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. In finding this exception inapplicable, Judge Easterbrook wrote that the word "jurisdiction" meant "adjudicatory competence," or, in other words, that a court "has been designated by statute as an appropriate forum for a dispute of a given sort . . . . ." Id. at *6. The opinion further explained that "[p]arallel state and federal litigation is common" and "[t]he first to reach final decision can affect the other," but "the potential effect of one suit on the other does not justify an injunction." Id. at *7. The Seventh Circuit also cited the word "necessary" in the statute and dictum in Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368 (2011) to the effect that when in doubt injunctions should not be issued. Id. at *10-11. It noted that other courts had reached contrary results but did not discuss those opinions. Adkins may be taking an unduly narrow view of the terms "jurisdiction" and "necessary." The word "jurisdiction" has different meanings in different contexts. If "jurisdiction" means only that the federal court has statutory authority to hear a case, which Adkins seems to suggest, it is difficult to conceive of circumstances in which state courts could interfere with that. Either the federal court has jurisdiction or it does not, and that is a federal question that the state court has nothing to do with. But the "necessary in aid of jurisdiction" exception cannot be a dead letter. Congress likely intended to allow federal courts to enjoin state courts to prevent them from interfering with federal courts' authority (not merely statutory jurisdiction) in some respects. Adkins seems to acknowledge that, at least if there were inconsistent orders by the federal and state systems, the "necessary in aid of its jurisdiction" exception might apply (and it has been found applicable in "in rem" cases). Other than arguing that Adkins was wrongly decided (if you are in another circuit, or in the Supreme Court), what can a defendant do in this scenario? Asking the state court for a stay would be an option (and perhaps trying to appeal the ruling on that issue, if possible). But where there is a "race to res judicata" that might fail. Another option would be to try to speed up the federal settlement -- speed up the issuance of the notice, shorten the opt-out period, and hold the fairness hearing as soon as possible. Not easy, but it might work. There is no real reason why class members need a long period after getting a class action notice in the mail (or by e-mail) to send back a form. Perhaps a federal court could even issue a judgment that would be effective as a final judgment (and thereby permit an injunction against other proceedings), but be subject to reopening if the settlement process failed? It may take some creativity to work around this decision and achieve the objective of a final resolution sooner with lower litigation costs. NEW YORK: In Settlement Negotiations Over "Nunez" Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Colby Hamilton, writing for Capital New York, reports that on March 12, Mayor Bill de Blasio unveiled a 14-point plan to improve conditions at the Rikers Island jail complex, which focused on reducing violence among prisoners while increasing overall security. "The policies that we announce will have a profound impact on reducing the amount of violence that has been experienced here over many years," Mr. de Blasio told reporters at a press conference at the jail. The announcement came on the eve of a court deadline for the administration, which is currently engaged in settlement negotiations over the class-action Nunez suit, which was filed on behalf of former Rikers prisoners by the Legal Aid Society, Ropes & Gray and was joined by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara's office in late December. According to court documents, the administration has been working on coming to a final settlement with the parties since at least February 5, and faced a deadline of March 13 for attempting to reach an agreement on "all remaining operational topics." A status report was due to Magistrate Judge James Francis on March 16. An April 15 deadline was set for any "remaining settlement language." Mr. De Blasio's plan mostly avoids the issues that appear to be involved in the Nunez negotiations. According to a Christmas Eve letter from the plaintiffs to the court, nearly a month before joining the suit, Mr. Bharara's office provided the city with proposed settlement language on a number of topics: "(1) the Use of Force Policy, (2) Use of Force Investigations, (3) the Safety and Supervision of Inmates Under the Age of 19, and (4) Discipline for Inmates Under the Age of 19." This was to be added to areas already presented by the plaintiffs: "(5) Inmate Arrests, (6) Screening and Assignment of Staff, (7) Video Camera Surveillance, (8) Accountability and Discipline, (9) Use of Force Incident Reporting, and (10) Risk Management." The administration has previously rolled out reforms that were connected to some of what Mr. Bharara had called for, such as changes to the facility's youth-detention policy. Still, to the surprise of some close observers of the case, de Mr. Blasio's announcement on March 12 addressed only one of these areas, promising to "add full video and camera coverage within all facilities on Rikers Island by February 2018," according to a press release from the administration. But even that echoed an earlier pledge: the administration announced in November it was "installing security cameras in every D.O.C. facility on Rikers Island within the next 18 months"--or by mid-2016. For Mr. de Blasio, who has made a priority of reforming Rikers, the plan serves to show he's taking his own proactive steps, before a big announcement that's sure to split the credit with Mr. Bharara. NOMAX INC: Removes St. Louis Suit to Eastern District of Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Nomax, Inc., Case No. 15SL-CC00433, was removed from the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00517-RLW to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Max G. Margulis, Esq. MARGULIS LAW GROUP 28 Old Belle Monte Rd. Chesterfield, MO 63017 Telephone: (636) 536-7022 Facsimile: (636) 536-6652 E-mail: maxmargulis@margulislaw.com Defendant Nomax, Inc. is represented by: Tina N. Babel, Esq. Laura Bailey Brown, Esq. CARMODY MACDONALD P.C. 120 South Central Ave., Suite 1800 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 854-8663 Facsimile: (314) 854-8660 E-mail: tnb@carmodymacdonald.com lbb@carmodymacdonald.com NUCO2 LLC: Removes "Balmaseda" Suit to Florida District Court ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Balmaseda v. NUCO2 LLC was removed from a Florida state court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21199-CMA to the proceeding. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brody Max Shulman, Esq. Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower, Suite 2200 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. Patrick Gerald DeBlasio, III, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Wells Fargo Center 333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 400-7500 Facsimile: (305) 603-2552 E-mail: Nstorch@littler.com pdeblasio@littler.com ORYX OILFIELD: "Robinson" Suit Moved From S.D. to N.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned Robinson, et al. v. Oryx Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00039, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi) to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00230-O to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Craig M. Sico, Esq. SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH LLP 802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 653-3300 Facsimile: (361) 653-3333 E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com csico@swhhb.com - and - Timothy D. Raub, Esq. RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C. 814 Leopard Street Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 880-8181 Facsimile: (361) 887-6521 E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Russell Daniel Cawyer, Esq. Ezra Rodgers Kuenzi, Esq. KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 201 Main Street, Suite 2500 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 878-2500 Facsimile: (817) 878-9280 E-mail: russell.cawyer@khh.com ezra.kuenzi@kellyhart.com PAYTIME INC: Judge Dismisses Two Data Breach Class Actions ---------------------------------------------------------- Matt Miller, writing for PennLive, reports that saying no legally compensable injuries have yet occurred, a federal judge on March 13 dismissed two would-be class-action lawsuits filed over last year's massive data breach at the Paytime Inc. national payroll firm. The clients who sued the Cumberland County-based Paytime had sought financial damages for what they claimed was the threat they face of identity theft due to the April 2014 breach by unknown hackers. They contended that about 233,000 Paytime clients were put at risk nationwide. Also, the clients claimed in their suits that Paytime, which offered free credit monitoring and identity restoration services to those affected, had delayed informing them about the breach. In dismissing the suits, U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones III noted that none of those who sued Paytime have proven they have yet been victimized by identity thieves because of the hacking. And that, he said, is the critical point. The courts have to address cases of actual injuries, not injuries that are merely speculative, the judge concluded. "For a court to require companies to pay damages to thousands of customers, when there is yet to be a single case of identity theft proven, strikes us as overzealous and unduly burdensome to businesses," Judge Jones wrote in his dismissal ruling. "There is simply no compensable injury yet (from the Paytime hack) and the courts cannot be in the business of prognosticating whether a particular hacker was sophisticated or malicious enough to be able to successfully read and manipulate the data and engage in identity theft," he added. Still, Judge Jones continued, "Once a hacker does misuse a person's information for personal gain . . . there is a clear injury and one that can be fully compensated with money damages." If that happens, he wrote, any affected Paytime client "would be free to return to court and would have (legal) standing to recover his or her losses." It was obvious from his opinion that Judge Jones doesn't expect the Paytime case to be the last such dispute he'll have to address. At the outset of his ruling, he cited a 2014 data security report by the Ponemon Institute which found that 43 percent of companies had experienced data breaches in the past year. "When our fellow citizens hear statistics such as these, they are understandably worried about the privacy of their most personal information," Jones wrote. PEACE WELLNESS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Shandra Kelly v. Peace Wellness Center, P.L.L.C., an Arizona Professional Limited Liability Company; Timothy S. Peace and Jane Doe Peace, husband and wife, Case No. 2:15-cv-00534-ROS (D. Ariz., March 24, 2015) is brought for alleged unlawful failure to pay overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Peace Wellness Center P.L.L.C. was incorporated in the state of Arizona, and has its principal place of business in Phoenix. The Individual Defendants are owners or agents of the Company. The Defendants operated a wellness center. The Plaintiff is represented by: Trey Dayes, Esq. Sean Davis, Esq. PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM, APC 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Telephone: (602) 288-1610 E-mail: treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com seand@phillipsdayeslaw.com ROYAL PALM: Faces Suit Alleging Violations of Fair Housing Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Jill Freedman v. Royal Palm Place Investments, LLC, Case No. 9:15- cv-80387-KAM (S.D. Fla., March 24, 2015) is brought for injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Housing Act. Ms. Freedman suffers from osteoporosis and back pain from spondylolisthesis, which constitutes a "qualified disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act. She was, at all material times, a joint lessee of real property located in Boca Raton, Florida. She leases an apartment unit within an apartment complex called "Royal Palm Place." Royal Palm Place Investments LLC is a Florida limited liability company headquartered in Boca Raton. The Company owns the land and complex of buildings known as "Royal Palm Place," encompasses 14 acres of mixed use residential space and commercial space. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott R. Dinin, Esq. SCOTT R. DININ, P.A. 4200 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (786) 431-1333 Facsimile: (786) 513-7700 E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com SEMPRA ENERGY: Settled Claim Related to Sept 2011 Power Outage -------------------------------------------------------------- Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that SDG&E settled a claim related to the September 2011 Power Outage and the related appeal and lawsuit have been dismissed. In September 2011, a power outage lasting approximately 12 hours affected millions of people from Mexico to southern Orange County, California. Within several days of the outage, several SDG&E customers filed a class action lawsuit in Federal District Court in San Diego against Arizona Public Service Company, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and SDG&E alleging that the companies failed to prevent the outage. The lawsuit sought recovery of unspecified amounts of damages, including punitive damages. In July 2012, the court granted SDG&E's motion to dismiss the punitive damages request and dismissed Arizona Public Service Company and Pinnacle West Capital Corporation from the lawsuit. In September 2013, the court granted SDG&E's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the lawsuit. In October 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the court's dismissal of their action. In January 2015, SDG&E settled this claim for an insignificant amount and the appeal and lawsuit have been dismissed. The FERC and North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Staff conducted a joint inquiry to determine the cause of the power failure and issued a report in May 2012 regarding their findings. In January 2014, FERC Enforcement Staff issued a Staff Notice of Alleged Violations, in which FERC Enforcement Staff alleged violations of various Reliability Standards by several entities. FERC Enforcement Staff did not allege or find any violations by SDG&E. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MO: Judge OKs $18MM Red-Light Camera Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joel Currier, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that a judge approved on March 13 an $18 million settlement in class- action lawsuits that challenged Missouri's red-light camera laws, but only about $2.2 million is expected to be paid out. Circuit Judge Tom W. DePriest Jr. certified a settlement reached in September that releases claims against 27 Missouri cities that have contracted with Tempe, Ariz.-based American Traffic Solutions Inc., which makes and installs the cameras. At issue was issuance of tickets to vehicle owners instead of drivers, in what the nine suits claimed was a violation of Missouri law governing tickets for moving violations. They said it deprived them of due process of law. The cases were consolidated for the settlement. It was unclear on March 13 what effect the settlement would have on continuing red-light camera enforcement. The settlement is a significant step in an ongoing legal showdown between cities, which argue that cameras improve safety, and drivers, who see them as Orwellian devices designed primarily to make money. The class-action suits filed in St. Louis County court represent 892,725 class "members" who have received tickets going back to 2005. ATS and cities using the cameras have defended the devices as legal and effective for improving road safety. Plaintiffs could split as much as $16 million; lawyers will get about $2 million in fees. Tickets from red-light camera violations typically cost $100; people who paid them should be eligible for a partial refund of about $20 per ticket, the lawsuit says. As of March 1, only 112,123 valid claims were filed, which means the total payout to those who got tickets will be about $2.2 million. Lawyers for the plaintiffs could not be reached on March 13. ATS responded to an inquiry with an email that said, in part, "Under Missouri law, a Judgment becomes final 30 days after it is entered. Therefore, we expect settlement checks to be mailed approximately within weeks to class members who filed timely valid claims. Missouri cities included in the settlement are: Arnold, Bellerive Acres, Bel-Nor, Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Bridgeton, Calverton Park, Clayton, Country Club Hills, Creve Coeur, Dellwood, Ellisville, Excelsior Springs, Ferguson, Florissant, Grandview, Hazelwood, Kansas City, Moline Acres, Northwoods, Richmond Heights, St. Ann, St. John, St. Joseph, St. Louis, Sugar Creek and Washington. ATS is settling the claims on behalf of the cities. By reaching the settlement, defendants do not admit to allegations made in the lawsuits. The settlement excludes plaintiffs in a separate suit pending before the Missouri Supreme Court that focuses on red-light camera programs in St. Louis, St. Peters and a speed-camera case from Moline Acres. Those cities also have argued that their cameras are legal and an important safety tool. Last year, a St. Louis judge invalidated St. Louis city's red- light ordinance but later suspended his order to allow for an appeal. The city is still issuing tickets but putting fines it collects into an escrow account pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case. In December, Rep. Paul Curtman, R-Union, filed a bill aimed at giving Missourians a chance to eliminate red-light cameras statewide. If it passes, a referendum would be put to the voters in August 2016. In February, St. Peters terminated its contract with Redflex Traffic Systems, another red-light camera firm. The city turned off its cameras last fall and said they would be dismantled this summer. STAFF ASSISTANCE: Blumenthal, Nordrehaug Files OT Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik on March 13 disclosed that on December 29, 2014 the Los Angeles employment law lawyers at the firm filed a proposed class action Complaint against Staff Assistance, Inc. ("SAI") for allegedly failing to provide their employees with the legally required thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods. The lawsuit also claims that the Company failed to give their employees complete and accurate wage statements in order to avoid paying all overtime worked by their California employees. The SAI lawsuit, Case No. BC567943 is currently pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawsuit filed against Staff Assistance, Inc. claims that SAI's uniform policy and practice to not pay their employees the correct overtime wages for all overtime hours worked is evidenced by SAI's business records. 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. Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that SAI failed to maintain and provide their employees with accurate wage statements evidencing the correct overtime wages for all overtime worked, including, work performed in excess of eight (8) hours in a workday and/or forty (40) hours in any workweek. The Complaint also alleges that the employees working at Staff Assistance, Inc. were unable to take off duty meal breaks and were not fully relieved of duty for meal periods because the Company did not have a policy or practice that provided meal and rest breaks to their employees. 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. Additionally, the lawsuit alleges that SAI failed to reimburse and indemnify their employees for required business expenses incurred as a direct result of discharging their duties on behalf of SAI. The Complaint claims that in the course of their employment, SAI required their employees to travel between job sites but failed to reimburse their employees for the cost associated with traveling to the job sites assigned to them, including money for gas. Under California Labor Code Section 2802, employers are required to indemnify employees for all expenses incurred in the course and scope of their employment. For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against Staff Assistance, Inc., please call (866) 771-7099 to speak to one of the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik. Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a labor law firm that has offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco. The firm dedicates its practice to helping employees fight back against unfair business practices, including violations of the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. STAR CAREER: Accused of Discriminating Against Muslim Employee -------------------------------------------------------------- Omnia Lotfi v. Star Career Academy, Michelle Mumma in her individual capacity, Derrick Ruffin in his individual capacity, Adrianna Tortorello in her individual capacity and Michael Levitt in his individual capacity, Case No. 1:15-cv-02215-NRB (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2015) is brought for damages (compensatory and punitive) for alleged injuries the Plaintiff has sustained as a result of the Defendants' discrimination on the basis of her gender, national origin, race and religion, sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, in violation of the New York State Human Rights Law and other statutes. Ms. Lotfi is a resident of the County of Brooklyn, New York. She is a Middle Eastern female, of Egyptian origin and a practicing Muslim. Star Career Academy is a for-profit network of private, post- secondary schools, providing career training in medical, hospitality, culinary, and business fields at eight campuses in New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Star's main office and headquarters is located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. The Individual Defendants are officers, employees or agents of Star. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christine Alexandria Rodriguez, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTINA A. RODRIGUEZ 1350 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 430-6525 Facsimile: (888) 349-2932 E-mail: christine@crodriguezlaw.com SUMMERLIN HOSPITAL: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Must Define Class ----------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a Nevada state judge has said he will consider certifying a class action accusing a Las Vegas hospital of maintaining lax safety standards that exposed patients to tuberculosis infections. Judge Kenneth Cory of the Eighth Judicial District Court on March 11 ordered attorneys for the plaintiffs -- a group of patients, visitors and employees at Summerlin Hospital Medical Center who say they may have been exposed to the disease -- to come up with a firm definition for a proposed class by April 9, according to attorneys in the case. SYNGENTA: Enyart Looks to Represent Farmers in GMO Corn Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Joseph Bustos, writing for BND.com, reports that Bill Enyart has scheduled an information session for farmers to learn more about lawsuits against Syngenta. It was scheduled at 8:00 a.m. on March 16 at Eckert's at 951 S. Green Mount Road in Belleville. Former U.S. Rep. Bill Enyart of Belleville is looking to represent farmers in lawsuits against Syngenta, a Swiss producer of seed corn. Mr. Enyart, who is a practicing attorney, is working with Texas- based attorney Mikal Watts to represent farmers across the country in lawsuits against Syngenta after it attempted to sell genetically modified corn to China in 2013. China had not approved Syngenta's GMO corn and rejected it. The country proceeded to reject all other corn from the United States because of the tainted supply chain, Enyart said. It led to a drop in corn prices after the U.S. market had an excess corn supply, Mr. Enyart said. "In 2013, corn prices plummeted thanks to the underhanded practices of Syngenta," Mr. Enyart said. "We're working to get our farmers the money they deserve for their hard work and their quality crops." The former congressman is looking to represent anyone who grew corn and lost money because of the Syngenta move. He said soybean growers also may have been negatively affected by Syngenta's actions. Mr. Enyart will be holding informational sessions in Southern and Central Illinois for farmers who might wish to join the class- action lawsuit. One session was scheduled for 8:00 a.m. on March 16 at Eckert's, 951 S. Green Mount Road, Belleville. "We want to make sure farmers understand the theory of why they're damaged, how they were damaged, and what their recourse is," Mr. Enyart said. Mr. Enyart said the litigation could affect tens of thousands of farmers. "Losses in the agricultural sector of the economy mean farmers didn't have money to buy the new tractor, or the new plow, or the new pickup truck," Mr. Enyart said. "Clearly the agricultural sector was affected by it." Mr. Enyart, a Democrat, served one term in the U.S. House of Representatives. He lost re-election in November to Republican Mike Bostof Murphysboro. Mr. Enyart now has a law office in Belleville and was recruited by Watts to find clients in Illinois. TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Guardrail Passes U.S. Crash Tests ----------------------------------------------------- Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that an allegedly defective guardrail widely used across Canada and the U.S. has passed a series of crash tests, U.S. authorities said on March 13, but the findings are unlikely to end concerns about their safety. Questions about Trinity's ET Plus unit continued to swirl as highway officials conceded results of one of the tests involving a small passenger car could be interpreted differently. "Based on our analysis of the crash test results and the analysis we conducted into the level of risk of serious injuries, we concluded . . . the ET Plus end terminal meets the applicable crash test criteria," Tony Furst, associate administrator for safety for the Federal Highway Administration, told a news teleconference. "There was no penetration of the vehicle by any test article in any of the four tests." U.S. highway authorities ordered the crash tests on the ET Plus -- subject of a recent $500-million proposed Canadian class action -- after an American jury found Texas-based Trinity Industries guilty last year of fraud in a civil action. Trinity had modified the guardrail unit about 10 years ago without notifying appropriate authorities and critics say the ET Plus end unit can end up impaling occupants of a vehicle like a "spear" rather than protecting them. Most states and several provinces, including Quebec, Nova Scotia, Alberta and New Brunswick, have stopped installing them pending the testing and analysis but thousands remain in place on the country's highways. Greg Nadeau, deputy administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, said the agency was making no recommendations on whether installation of the units should resume, saying that decision is up to local authorities. In the last of the eight crash tests done in Texas, a small passenger car slammed into the rail at about 100 kilometres an hour. Mr. Furst said it was "unlikely" a driver exposed to the crash conditions would have been at risk of serious injury from the folded rail impact to the driver side door. "We are mindful that others have reached their own conclusions," Mr. Furst said. Lawyer Matt Baer, who launched the proposed class action on behalf of Stratford, Ont., said the administration considered the test a pass because the guardrail did not penetrate the door. Still, he said, the test casts doubt on the safety of the rails. "The guardrail did lock up in the feeder chute and at the head which is a classic failure in real-world accidents," Mr. Baer said. "It is worrisome both that they were so close to failure in a test designed to pass under perfect conditions." Zyg Gorski, an accident-reconstruction expert based in London, Ont., said the problem with the U.S. tests is that they occur under controlled conditions that don't necessarily replicate reality. One example, he said, is that gravel thrown into the rail channels from snowplows could cause them to jam in a crash. "No one is taking real-life collisions and examining what is happening" Mr. Gorski said. "That's frightening." A spokesman for Trinity said the ET Plus has now been "successfully crash tested more times than any product of its kind." UBS AG: Settles Forex Rigging Class Action for $135 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360, reports that UBS AG on March 13 agreed to a $135 million settlement in an antitrust class action alleging that it was part of a conspiracy to rig the approximately $5 trillion-per-day foreign exchange market, attorneys for the plaintiffs announced. Along with paying $135 million, the Swiss banking giant also agreed to provide documents and other assistance to plaintiffs as they pursue claims against other banks. That clause in the settlement mirrors terms that JPMorgan Chase & Co. agreed to in a January settlement that saw it pay $99.5 million to exit the case. "The class will not only obtain a substantial sum for their losses, but it will also receive unique and valuable cooperation from UBS, as it has from JPMorgan," David Scott, the managing partner of Scott & Scott LLP, said in an emailed statement. Scott & Scott attorneys are co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs on the case, along with lawyers from Hausfeld LLP. UBS is the second of the banks targeted in the class action, which also includes Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and several other global banking giants, to settle the litigation. The suit alleges their traders engaged in a conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange rates in violation of U.S. antitrust law. The UBS settlement shows that pressure to settle the litigation is beginning to build on the banks. "This also builds momentum toward further settlements while improving our litigation posture vis a vis the remaining defendants," Mr. Scott said. The pressure to settle first arose after Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied their motion to dismiss a complaint from U.S.-based investors alleging market manipulation in early January. The judge rejected the banks' claims that the U.S. plaintiffs failed to bring enough evidence of a potential conspiracy, finding that the facts laid out in the complaint, including the existence of chat rooms where traders "congratulated each other on the manipulation of 'the Fix,'" were enough that discovery and trial were needed to determine their veracity. "The Fix" is an industry term for the median price of a widely traded currency 30 seconds before market close that sets the closing price for the day. "Even the names the FX traders gave their chat rooms -- such as 'The Cartel,' 'The Bandits' Club' and 'The Mafia' -- support the inference that the chat rooms were used for anti-competitive purposes," Judge Schofield wrote. The plaintiffs, including the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System, filed their complaint in 2012. They alleged the banks routinely charged pension funds the worst possible forex rates when processing transactions on their behalf. Other plaintiffs filed similar class action complaints. They were eventually consolidated in New York district court. Buttressing the plaintiffs' claims were a series of enforcement actions from U.S. and other regulators resulting in about $4.3 billion in fines against the banks. Discovery in the class action has been stayed for six months as the U.S. Department of Justice continues its investigation into forex rigging. UBS is represented by Joel S. Sanders -- jsanders@gibsondunn.com -- Joshua H. Soven and Melanie L. Katsur -- mkatsur@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP. The plaintiffs are represented by David R. Scott, Chris M. Burke, Kristen Anderson, Sylvia M. Sokol, Walter Noss, William Fredericks, Thomas Boardman of Scott & Scott LLP and Michael D. Hausfeld, William Butterfield -- wbutterfield@hausfeld.com -- Reena Gambhir, Timothy Kearns, and Nathaniel Giddings -- ngiddings@hausfeld.com -- of Hausfeld LLP. The case is In re: Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation, case number 1:13-cv-07789, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Kura, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated v. United Recovery Systems, LP, Case No. 1:15- cv-01554 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq. FAGENSON & PUGLISI 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 3302 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 268-2128 Facsimile: (212) 268-2127 E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com VIVENDI CANADA: Health Insurance Class Action Ruling Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael Torrance, Esq. of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the right of former employees to pursue a class action against their former employer after the employer unilaterally amended their post-retirement health insurance benefits to their detriment in Vivendi Canada Inc. v Dell'Aniello, 2014 SCC 1. The Quebec Superior Court had originally disallowed the action on the basis that it did not raise "identical, similar or related" questions within the meaning of Article 1003(a) of the Quebec Code of Civil Procedure. It found 5 different groups of employees who, based on their retirement date, had received different information and might have different rights from those of the petitioning employee. It felt that a determination of that employee's rights would not have resolved the dispute for the majority of the remaining employees. That assessment was rejected by the Quebec Court of Appeal. In the opinion of the Court of Appeal, the validity of the plan amendments was an 'identical, similar or related' question for all group members. The individual questions to be determined for each employee could co-exist with the determination of that common issue. On further appeal, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeal. It held that an issue could be "identical, similar or related" if addressing that issue enabled all the claims to move forward and avoided duplication of the analysis for each group member. It could meet that criterion even if the issue was answered differently for one group member than for another, as long as the answer did not give rise to conflicting interests among the members. The Court also noted that the Article 1003(a) requirement was broader and more flexible than the 'common issue' requirement for a class action in the common law provinces, suggesting that its decision may have limited application outside Quebec. VXI GLOBAL: Accused by Gay Worker of Severe, Pervasive Harassment ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aaron Patton v. VXI Global Solutions Inc., Staff Right Services, LLC, Talia Lawson, Kenny -- Last Name Unknown -- John Doe, Pam Hall, Jeryan -- Last Name Unknown -- Jane Doe, and Shavvar Brown, Case No. 4:15-cv-00566 (N.D. Ohio, March 24, 2015) alleges that throughout the Plaintiff's employment, he faced severe and pervasive harassment from his direct supervisor, Talia Lawson, on the basis of his non-conforming gender behavior. Mr. Patton is a homosexual male. According to the complaint, he at times engages in non-conforming gender behavior. VXI Global Solutions, Inc. is a California corporation lawfully licensed to conduct business in the state of Ohio. Staff Right Services, Inc. is an Ohio Corporation with offices located in Columbiana, Ohio, Boardman, Ohio, and Warren, Ohio. The Individual Defendants are officers, employees or agents of either of the Corporate Defendants. Staff Right is in the business of employment recruiting and staffing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris P. Wido, Esq. THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC 4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290 Warrensville Heights, OH 44128 Telephone: (216) 291-4744 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: chris.wido@spitzlawfirm.com WALTER INVESTMENT: Briefing on Bid to Nix Class Suit Completed -------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Investment Management Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that briefing on the motions to dismiss a shareholder class action was completed on February 19, 2015. On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880 (S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint was filed. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The amended complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional claims are asserted against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint alleges that between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014 the Company and the individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions relating to the Company's internal controls and financial reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance with applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Green Tree Servicing (including certain of the Company's business practices that are being reviewed by the FTC and the CFPB), the liabilities associated with the Company's acquisition of RMS, and RMS's internal controls. The complaint seeks class certification and an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014. On August 11, 2014, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On December 23, 2014, the court granted the motions to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice. On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint which includes some additional allegations, but asserts the same claims against the same defendants as the amended complaint. In the second amended complaint, plaintiffs seek an expanded class period of May 9, 2012 through August 11, 2014. On January 23, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on February 19, 2015. WASHINGTON: Holding Mentally Ill People in Jail Unconstitutional ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has deemed unconstitutional Washington's practice of holding mentally ill people in jails while they await competency evaluations and treatment and during a trial that was set to start on March 16, lawyers for mentally ill defendants and the state will try to find a remedy. The trial in U.S. District Court in Seattle comes as the Legislature debates bills that seek to fix the problem ahead of a court ruling. But one lobbyist for a state defender's group said the judge is unlikely to approve either of the measures lawmakers are considering to shorten wait times and provide treatment. In a criminal case, if there's a question on whether a defendant is mentally able to participate in his defense, the judge will order a competency evaluation. Under state law, the Department of Social and Health Services then has seven days to conduct that review, usually at Western or Eastern state hospitals. If the person is found incompetent, the state has another seven days to provide treatment to restore competency. But bed and staffing shortages at the psychiatric hospitals have resulted in hundreds of mentally ill defendants waiting weeks or months in jail cells. These defendants who often spend 23-hours a day in solitary confinement don't receive treatment while on the competency wait lists. Some judges who were angry that Washington was not following their orders in a timely fashion started holding the state in contempt and ordered sanctions ranging from $200 to $500 per day for each day the person waited in jail. The fines have topped $200,000. As of March 6, 10 people were awaiting competency evaluations at Western State Hospital, and seven had waited longer than seven days, according to Kathy Spears, spokeswoman for the state's behavioral health and service agency. Another 83 people were awaiting restoration treatment and 72 had spent more than seven days in jail, Ms. Spears said. The numbers were lower for Eastern State Hospital. Six were waiting more than seven days in jail for evaluations and another six spent more than seven days waiting for treatment, Ms. Spears said. Lawyers for Disability Rights Washington and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action lawsuit last year asking a federal judge to force the agency to deal with the problem. In December, Judge Marsha Pechman granted the lawyers' motion for summary judgment, saying the practice violates the defendants' due process rights. "The state has consistently and over a long period of time violated the constitutional rights of the mentally ill -- this must stop," she said in her order. Judge Pechman acknowledged that lawmakers are addressing the issue during the 2015 session. "Legislation passed by both houses of the Legislature can be brought forward by either party during trial for determination of its relevance," she said in a March 9 order. To date, the bills cover two areas -- the amount of time a defendant can be on the wait list and where evaluations and treatment can be conducted. But Bob Cooper, a lobbyist for the Washington Defenders Association, said he doubts the judge will go along with those plans based on comments she has made in previous orders. The Legislature passed, and on March 12, Gov. Jay Inslee signed House Bill 5889, a measure that sets a new time limit for the state to provide evaluations or restoration treatment. The bill changed the seven day deadline to 14 days. "I would be surprised if she finds 14 days acceptable," Cooper said of the judge. In her Dec. 22 order granting summary judgment, Judge Pechman said: "It is clear to the court that wait times of less than seven days comport with due process, and that anything beyond seven days is suspect. The precise outer boundary permitted by the constitution depends on facts proven at trial . . . some detainees are held in solitary confinement -- isolated for 22 to 23 hours per day -- because city and county jails are ill equipped to handle the challenges posed by mentally ill detainees," Judge Pechman said. "For many, solitary confinement exacerbates mental illness and increases the chance of suicide." Several other bills encourage the state to develop alternative sites for competency restoration. The bills would allow treatment to be conducted in jails. However, they say the jails should keep those defendants separated from other inmates. Cooper said he doubts Judge Pechman would approve that idea. "If you look at her decision, three times the judge states that jails are not therapeutic environments," Cooper said. WATTS REGULATOR: "Meyers" Suit Moved From Ohio to Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Meyers v. Watts Regulator Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-02729, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv- 11180-ADB to the proceeding. The case asserts product liability claims. The lawsuit arises out of alleged damages sustained by the Plaintiff and the proposed class that were proximately caused by Watts' defective supply lines, which were used in Class members' homes and other structures. Watts manufactures and markets a line of flexible braided stainless steel water supply lines. Each line consists of two metal (e.g., brass or other metallic material) coupling nuts, a braided stainless steel outer sheathing covering a thermoplastic rubber inner tubing. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Landskroner, Esq. Drew Legando, Esq. LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC 1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 522-9000 Facsimile: (216) 522-9007 E-mail: jack@lgmlegal.com drew@lgmlegal.com - and - Shanon J. Carson, Esq. Glen L. Abramson, Esq. Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-4656 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: scarson@bm.net gabramson@bm.net josterwise@bm.net - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC Bank of America Center 550 Main Avenue, Suite 600 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com aek@wexlerwallace.com Defendant Watts Regulator Company is represented by: Harold T. Schisler, II, Esq. Brian S. Sullivan, Esq. DINSMORE AND SHOHL LLP 1900 Chemed Center 255 E 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 977-8200 E-mail: toby.schisler@dinsmore.com brian.sullivan@dinsmore.com - and - Vladimir P. Belo, Esq. DINSMORE AND SHOHL LLP 191 W Nationwide Blvd., Suite 300 Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 628-6935 Facsimile: (614) 628-6890 E-mail: vladimir.belo@dinsmore.com - and - Jodi Dylan Oley, Esq. Keith E. Smith, Esq. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC Two Liberty Place, 22nd Floor 50 South 16th Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 851-8400 E-mail: joley@eckertseamans.com ksmith@eckertseamans.com WINGS NETWORK'S: Faces Class Action over Pyramid Scheme ------------------------------------------------------- Scott O'Connell, writing for The MetroWest Daily News, reports that a Clinton woman accused by the government of raising $6 million for an accused pyramid scheme is also the lead plaintiff in a class action suit against the company, court records show. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which filed a complaint against Wings Network's operators and promoters in U.S. District Court in February, listed Viviane Amaral Rodrigues among the 17 defendants, many of whom live in the Marlborough area. Federal investigators allege Ms. Rodrigues, 37, was a top promoter for the company, generating commissions approaching $434,150. But Ms. Rodrigues's lawyer, Evans J. Carter, said his client actually only made around $20,000, and was not even able to access that money. "It was all pie in the sky, or as we say, illusory dollars," he said. In addition to defending Ms. Rodrigues in the SEC case, the Framingham lawyer is also representing her in her class action suit against Wings. Authorities claim the company, which began business in Massachusetts around November of 2013, was able to raise at least $23.5 million from thousands of investors in the state, especially Brazilian and Dominican immigrants, until Secretary of State William Galvin's office ordered it to shut down last May. "Basically, she didn't know the first thing about securities laws," Mr. Carter said of Ms. Rodrigues, whom the SEC claims appeared in promotional videos, attended online conferences, and traveled to out-of-state marketing events on behalf of Wings. Ms. Rodrigues's class action suit says promoters for the company -- in particular two Marlborough couples, Vinicius and Thais Aguiar and Geovani and Priscila Bento -- started a strong recruiting effort from the Boston area outward in early 2014. The Aguiars and Bentos, who are also named in the SEC's complaint, "went door-to-door in Spanish and Portuguese-speaking communities in the Boston and MetroWest area to induce Massachusetts residents to join," and would also hold informal group presentations at people's houses, the lawsuit claims. Wings purported to sell products like phone apps and cloud storage, but government investigators allege the company's revenue mostly came from the sale of membership packages, which depended on the continuous recruitment of new investors. In particular, Ms. Rodrigues's lawsuit claims the defendants in her case "aggressively pushed the purchase of the Elite package," the most expensive membership Wings offered, at $1,499. Ms. Rodrigues ended up investing $20,000 of her own money into the alleged scheme, her complaint says, and took in approximately $175,000 from other investors. Ms. Carter originally filed her class action case in Middlesex Superior Court on Jan. 21, according to court records. It was bumped up to federal court, primarily because the complaint names a couple multinational banks as defendants, he said, and because racketeering charges are involved. With the case now in federal court, Ms. Carter said he could soon add a couple other clients as plaintiffs to the complaint. WOLFER LANDSCAPE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages and Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jaime Arango v. Wolfer Landscape Services, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, and Sean A. Wolfer, Case No. 0:15-cv-60620-WJZ (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2015) is brought by the Plaintiff and those similarly-situated to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime wages compensation, as well as an amount for liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Wolfer Landscape Services, Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation having its main place of business in Broward County, Florida, and the Individual Defendant were the Plaintiff's employer. The Plaintiff is represented by: K. Brian Roller, Esq. SCHWARTZ ROLLER, LLP. 3876 Sheridan Street Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 966-2483 Facsimile: (954) 966-2566 E-mail: broller@szalaw.com WORLD WRESTLING: "Singleton" Suit Transferred From Pa. to Conn. --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Singleton, et al. v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00223, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven). The Connecticut District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00425-VLB to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert personal injury-related claims. The Defendant is represented by: Curtis B. Krasik, Esq. Jerry S. McDevitt, Esq. K&L GATES LLP K&L Gates Center 210 Sixth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222-2312 Telephone: (412) 355-8696 Facsimile: (412) 355-6501 E-mail: curtis.krasik@klgates.com jerry.mcdevitt@klgates.com WRIGHT MEDICAL: Defendant in 34 Injury Lawsuits on PROFEMUR(R) -------------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that as of February 15, 2015, the Company is a defendant in 34 lawsuits in various state and federal courts involving claims for damages for personal injury associated with fractures of the Company's PROFEMUR(R) long titanium modular neck product. WRIGHT MEDICAL: Facing 4 Complaints Over Tornier Merger ------------------------------------------------------- Wright Medical Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that on November 25, 2014, two purported Wright shareholders, Anthony Marks (as Trustee for Marks Clan Super) and Paul Parshall, filed class action complaints challenging the proposed merger with Tornier N.V. in the Chancery Court of Shelby County Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis and the Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware, respectively. On November 26, 2014, a third purported Wright shareholder, City of Warwick Retirement System, filed a class action complaint challenging the merger in the Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis. On December 2, 2014, a fourth purported Wright shareholder, Paulette Jacques, filed a class action complaint challenging the merger in the Chancery Court of Shelby County Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis. The four complaints name as defendants, among others, Wright, Tornier, and the members of the board of directors of Wright. The complaints seek, among other relief, an order enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs on the grounds that the Wright board or directors breached their fiduciary duty in connection with entering into the merger agreement and approving the merger. The complaints further allege that Wright, Tornier, and certain of their respective subsidiaries aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of directors. It is possible that these complaints will be amended to make additional claims and/or that additional lawsuits making similar or additional claims relating to the merger will be brought. WRIGHT NATIONAL: Sued Over Hurricane Sandy Insurance Fraud ---------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Dunn, writing for International Business Times, reports that New York and New Jersey homeowners whose properties flooded during Hurricane Sandy filed a series of class action lawsuits on March 13, leveling a new set of fraud allegations -- this time, involving manipulated software programs -- against insurers and the federal government. The four complaints all claim that insurers systematically underpaid claims by purposefully excluding sales tax from damage calculations. Homeowners filed three lawsuits in federal court in the Eastern District of New York, and one suit in federal court in New Jersey. In New Jersey, where the state charges a 7 percent sales tax, that means "for every $100,000 worth of storm damages, homeowners were shortchanged $7,000," says attorney Charles Mathis IV, with Merlin Law Group. "This was potentially hundreds of millions of dollars that was underpaid to Sandy victims," says Louisiana-based attorney John Houghtaling, who represents homeowners in the three New York suits. The suits, with their focus on common insurance estimates, broaden accusations of fraud beyond the allegations of altered engineering reports that have roiled FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The agency, succumbing to pressures from lawmakers and homeowners' attorneys, agreed on March 11 to reopen all 144,000 Hurricane Sandy flood insurance claims to a new review process. Engineering reports were written up for 14 percent of Sandy flood insurance claimants, according to Mr. Mathis. Yet, by comparison, virtually everyone received estimates from adjusters who evaluate damages. "The issues we're alleging in our complaint are potentially very pervasive," Mr. Mathis says. Three of the lawsuits name insurance companies which are among the dozens of private carriers that administer claims on behalf of FEMA -- handling about 83 percent of the program's 5.3 million policies. A fourth suit, filed in New York, names the National Flood Insurance Program itself as a defendant. FEMA's own insurance unit -- known as "NFIP Direct" -- administers the rest of the policies in the program. As in the other New York class actions, the homeowner accusing the NFIP says her insurer "uniformly" failed to include sales tax in damage estimates, and conspired to cover it up with adjusting and software firms involved in the claim. "They put a notation to the policyholder that tax was included in the line items of the estimate," says Mr. Houghtaling. "And it turned out that was a lie." At FEMA, the agency "can't comment on the specifics of ongoing litigation," a representative said, "but we remain committed to increasing oversight of the program to ensure it's fair, transparent and efficient." A representative for Standard Fire Insurance, a unit of Travelers Insurance, said the company does not comment on pending litigation. Representatives for Wright National Flood Insurance and for Simultaneous Solutions Inc. -- the maker of Simsol software that is being sued in all three New York suits -- did not respond to messages seeking comment. In the New Jersey case, against Selective Insurance, homeowners Charles and Beverly Mooney allege that even though their damage estimate stated that sales tax was included in each line item, a software program called Xactimate was "incapable" of performing that function at the time. Reached for comment, a representative for Selective said the company doesn't discuss pending lawsuits. Like the Mooneys, another New Jersey homeowner, Humphrey Uddoh, recently accused Selective of using a fraudulently altered adjuster report to underpay his claim. In that case, slated for an evidentiary hearing in May, Mr. Uddoh alleges the Selective not only changed the report, but kept evidence hidden from him during nearly two years in litigation. Amid the ongoing fallout from the fraud allegations, FEMA confirmed the departures of two senior agency officials. This month, a U.S. Senate task force will begin to tackle structural reforms to the program. Meanwhile, multiple government investigations continue. They include a criminal probe in New York state, and an investigation by the inspector general's office at the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees FEMA. * Arbitration Agreements Limit Class Action Consumer Relief ----------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Bohn, Esq., of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion upheld an arbitration clause requiring arbitration of claims individually, thereby effectively preventing class actions. While the consumer finance industry and other industries frequently invoked arbitration clauses in defending lawsuits before AT&T, since that decision was published, industry has increasingly relied on such clauses to successfully defend against expensive class actions. But on March 10, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ("the CFPB" or "Bureau"), the watchdog federal agency created by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd- Frank") to implement and enforce regulations on consumer financial products and services, released the results of a three-year study on arbitration agreements, and announced its finding that arbitration agreements were restricting consumer relief in disputes with financial service providers by limiting class actions. The announcement also signaled that arbitration clauses in agreements for consumer financial products and services other than home mortgages may be next on the Bureau's regulatory agenda. Dodd-Frank prohibited arbitration agreements in home mortgages and authorized the Bureau to regulate the use of arbitration clauses in other consumer financial products if it found by a study of such agreements that doing so would protect consumers and serve the public interest, and if findings in any proposed rule are consistent with the results of the Bureau's study. The 700-plus page study released March 10 analyzes the resolution of consumer disputes in arbitration and the courts dating back to 2010, focusing primarily on credit card and checking account products. Excluded from the study were cases involving investors, securities, brokerage accounts, or investor services, as were insurance cases unless an add-on to a consumer financial product such as title or credit card insurance was involved. According to the report, arbitration clauses are found in the agreements of card issuers with 53 percent of the credit card market, and in checking account agreements of banks and credit unions representing 44 percent of insured deposits. Eighty- eight percent of mobile wireless providers who authorize third parties to charge consumers for services and cover over 99 percent of the market also have arbitration clauses in their customer agreements. Most consumers were reportedly unaware of the fact that they were subject to arbitration clauses with their financial service providers, and a small minority understood that the clauses restricted their ability to sue in court. The study also found that arbitration clauses were invoked to block class actions against credit card issuers whose agreements contained arbitration clauses 65 percent of the time. According to the study, class action settlements involving consumer finance markets totaled $2.7 billion (averaging $220 million per year) over the study period and the amounts paid did not take into account the potential value to consumers of class action settlements requiring companies to change behavior. By contrast, the study reported that the value in debt forbearance consumers reportedly recovered in arbitration cases was a mere $400,000. No evidence was found that companies that included arbitration clauses offered lower prices as a result of not being subject to class action lawsuits, the CFPB reported. In conclusion, the Bureau stated that arbitration clauses "restrict consumer relief in disputes with financial companies by limiting class actions that provide millions of dollars in consumer redress each year" and that now that it has finished the study, it would consider "what next steps are appropriate." Having concluded that arbitration clauses chill consumer rights to compensation in consumer disputes with financial companies, the CFPB appears to have laid the groundwork for future regulation of the use of these clauses in the credit card, checking account, and other consumer financial markets which were the focus of the study. * Florida Law to Limit Jury Awards in Tobacco Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------ Jenna Buzzacco-Foerster, writing for Naples Daily News, reports that nearly a decade ago, the Florida Supreme Court tossed out a $145 billion award in a class-action lawsuit against Big Tobacco, but not before giving plaintiffs a chance to individually pursue their claims. More than 8,000 lawsuits were filed within a year of the ruling, and more than 180 trials have taken place. Now some state lawmakers want to drastically reduce the amount juries can award plaintiffs in those cases. Sen. Garrett Richter, R-Naples, said the proposal (SB 978) caps how much can be awarded in these cases, and puts the jury awards in line with punitive damage limits already in state law. "This says that in those suits . . . tobacco companies still, if they go to court, will pay compensatory damages. They will pay punitive damage, but not sky-is-the-limit punitive damages, not $100 million," he said. "If you end up suing tobacco, call it $10 million on 4,000 cases, they've already paid billions of dollars. They're going to go out of business." But opponents said the measure changes the playing field, and could result in plaintiffs in tobacco-related cases never getting paid damages. "They're doing it now because they don't like how the litigation has gone," said Jimmy Gustafson, a lawyer and treasurer of the Florida Justice Association, which opposes the measure. "They're losing a lot of cases. They're being held accountable, about two- thirds of the jury verdicts are in favor of plaintiffs." In 1994, attorneys filed a class-action lawsuit against tobacco companies. Mr. Gustafson said public health experts estimated that 700,000 Floridians met the criteria for the class-action suit. The case went to trial in the late 1990s. In 1999, a jury found the companies were guilty and ordered them to pay $145 billion in punitive damages. Tobacco companies appealed the decision, and in 2006 the Florida Supreme Court tossed out the verdict, saying the cases should have been tried individually. The state Supreme Court gave members of the class action suit one year to file individual lawsuits. In 1999, the Florida Legislature approved caps on punitive damages. According to state law, those caps went into place on any action that surfaced after the law went into effect. Sen. Richter's bill, and a similar one (HB 1067) filed by Rep. David Santiago, R-Deltona, aims to change that. Under both proposals, the caps would apply to "all civil actions in which judgment has not been entered, regardless of when the cause of action arose." "My take on this is this is a desperate attempt on the behalf of cigarette manufactures to achieve through legislation what they have not been able to achieve in the court system," said J.B. Harris, a Miami trial attorney who specializes in these types of tobacco cases. Mr. Harris said he solely handles tobacco litigation, and has been doing so since the state's high court tossed the class action verdict. He said he has more than 170 cases, including three that went to trial. In one case, Mr. Harris said a jury awarded his client $30 million in her claim against R.J. Reynolds. His team won a second case, though he did not disclose how much was awarded, and lost a third. A trial in a fourth case begins in May, he said. Mr. Harris' clients aren't the only ones seeing success in the courtroom. In February, a $100 million settlement was reached between three major tobacco companies -- R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA Inc. and Lorillard Tobacco Co. -- and hundreds of people who sued them in Florida federal court. And in July 2014, a Pensacola jury awarded the widow of a longtime smoker $23 billion in punitive damages. Sen. Richter said his bill puts potential payouts in line with existing law, something he said he thought should have happened when plaintiffs began filing individual lawsuits. "I got involved because I think it's the right thing to do," he said. "I wouldn't have taken it on if I thought it was unfair. The bill does provide the damages be paid by companies, if it was proved in a court of law that there was malicious intent." Campaign finance records show that Sen. Richter received about $1,500 total from tobacco companies, including Philip Morris USA, in the months leading up to his 2012 re-election. Mr. Gustafson, with the Florida Justice Association, said his organization is doing everything it can to make sure the proposal doesn't pass. They're meeting with lawmakers, in hopes of persuading them not to vote for the bill. Both bills have been assigned to two committees each. Sen. Richter said his office requested that his bill be placed on the Senate judiciary committee's calendar. Mr. Harris said he's hopeful lawmakers won't support the legislation, but knows anything can happen during the annual 60- day legislative session. "I'm concerned. Nothing can be taken for granted," he said. "I think it would be a travesty if this bill would pass." * Manufacturers Face Class Action Over "Flushable" Wet Wipes ------------------------------------------------------------ Matt Flegenheimer, writing for The New York Times, reports that with its sewer system under siege, tallying millions of dollars in equipment damage across its underground maze, New York City is confronting a menace that has gummed the gears of plumbing networks around the world: the common wet wipe. In recent years, the intersection of evolving hygienic sensibilities and aggressive industry marketing has fueled the product's rise. Wet wipes, long used for baby care, have grown popular with adults. Some of the products are branded as "flushable" -- a characterization contested by wastewater officials and plaintiffs bringing class-action lawsuits against wipes manufacturers for upending their plumbing. Often, the wipes combine with other materials, like congealed grease, to create a sort of superknot. "They're really indestructible," said Vincent Sapienza, a deputy commissioner for the city's Department of Environmental Protection. "I guess that's the purpose." The city has spent more than $18 million in the past five years on wipe-related equipment problems, officials said. The volume of materials extracted from screening machines at the city's wastewater treatment plants has more than doubled since 2008, an increase attributed largely to the wipes. Removal is an unpleasant task. The dank clusters, graying and impenetrable, gain mass like demon snowballs as they travel. Pumps clog. Gears falter. Then, there is the final blow, wrought by an intake of sewage that overwhelmed a portion of a north Brooklyn treatment plant. "Odor control," a sign there reads. But on a recent afternoon, the second word had disappeared behind a wayward splotch: It was a used wipe, etched with a heavenly cloud design. The city is not alone. Wet wipes, which do not disintegrate the way traditional toilet paper does, have plagued Hawaii and Alaska, Wisconsin and California. Sewer systems have been stuffed in Portland, Ore., and Portland, Me. Semantic debates have visited Charleston, W.Va., challenging the latitude of "flushability." "I agree that they're flushable," said Tim Haapala, operations manager for the Charleston Sanitary Board. "A golf ball is flushable, but it's not a good idea." The consummate cautionary tale is that of London, where in 2013 a collection of wipes, congealed cooking oil and other materials totaled 15 tons, according to Thames Water, the utility company that removed it. It was known, like some previous occurrences, as the fatberg. "We reckon it has to be the biggest such berg in British history," Gordon Hailwood, an official with Thames Water, said at the time. For wipe manufacturers, heavy investments in products for adults have resonated with customers. Market research, cited in a Bloomberg News article last year, suggested that from 2008 to 2013, sales of the moist flushable wipes had grown 23 percent to $367 million. In New York, city officials are tackling the problem in various ways. A City Council bill, which has the backing of the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio, was introduced in February to prohibit advertising certain moist wipes as flushable. The environmental department has begun work on a public awareness campaign concerning the importance of proper wipe disposal: throwing them in the trash. Emily Lloyd, Mr. de Blasio's environmental commissioner, who also served in that role from 2005 to 2009 and was sanitation commissioner from 1992 to 1994, recalled the warning she received during a return tour of a wastewater plant last year: "You're not going to believe what's happened with baby wipes." And it is residents, Ms. Lloyd noted, who bear the extra cost. "That goes, obviously, on the water rates," she said. "It's an expense we didn't have before that now we have." High-profile wipes champions have included the television host Dr. Mehmet Oz; he has since reversed course after conferring with wastewater experts. In a segment outlining his change of heart, he advised viewers to return to regular toilet paper, manually moistened if possible. Industry representatives chafe at the suggestion that they have operated irresponsibly. The prime culprits, they say, are customers who ignore label warnings. Dave Rousse, president of the Association of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry, a trade group representing wipes manufacturers, said a vast majority of problems derived from "nonflushable wipes inappropriately flushed." The group has teamed up with municipal officials and advocacy groups to promote proper disposal. The industry even pitched in with a logo. "It's the symbol of a stick man dropping something in the toilet, with a slash bar across the stick man," Mr. Rousse said. But environmentalists say the industry must do more, calling for improved labeling and refined standards for what is considered flushable. While companies like Procter & Gamble have maintained that their flushable wipes are compatible with municipal pumps, wastewater authorities have long argued that guidelines are not stringent enough. At issue, primarily, is an industry trial known as the "slosh box test," designed to gauge disintegration thresholds. Critics say the test, which rocks wipes back and forth in a crate of water, does not properly mimic the wastewater system, allowing manufacturers to claim flushability for a product that may be too sturdy for treatment systems. The test is "a lot more turbulent than the flow that you find in a wastewater pipe," said Cynthia Finley, director of regulatory affairs for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies. Flushed materials, she added, generally move "on very gentle slopes." Mr. Rousse agreed that the test "can be modified," but added that only 5 or 6 percent of wipes were designed to be flushable, suggesting that much of the trouble involved improper disposal. City officials have emphasized that they are not anti-wipe. The Council bill would keep the "flushable" label off any product that does not pass a third-party test approved by the environmental protection commissioner, but would not imperil sales, supporters say. "We're not banning wipes," said Councilman Antonio Reynoso, a co-sponsor. He said the bill would simply ban the "flushable" label for products that emerge from the wastewater treatment process "almost as new." On a recent afternoon at the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Brooklyn, heaps of wipes -- flushable or otherwise -- had survived the underground journey intact. They clung to walls and wires, hanging off gears and horizontal rails, with some discarded atop a metal sheet. A sewage treatment worker, Michael Brady, approached with a rake, sidling up beside the machines. He cleared the materials off the sheet, into a small trash bin. "It's kind of gross," Mr. Brady said, scraping the bottom clean. * Oregon Gov. Signs Bill on Unclaimed Class Action Damage Awards ---------------------------------------------------------------- Denis C. Theriault, writing for The Oregonian, reports that Gov. Kate Brown reports signed House Bill 2700 on March 4, directing unclaimed damage awards from class-action lawsuits to the Oregon State Bar's legal-aid fund. Before, sued companies could keep any unclaimed money. The money will provide free legal counsel for Oregonians who need help in housing, family law, public benefits and other noncriminal cases. ********* 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 * * *