/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150528.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, May 28, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 106 Headlines AARON'S INC: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to Certify Spyware Class Action ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss in Actos Case Held ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Vigorously Against AndroGel(R) Litigation ACTAVIS PLC: Sanofi to Indemnify Watson Over Cipro Claims ACTAVIS PLC: New Trial Date Has Not Been Set in Doryx Litigation ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Lidoderm(R) Retailer Complaint ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation ACTAVIS PLC: Opana Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Actavis Defendants ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Celexa/Lexapro Actions v. Forest ACTAVIS PLC: Reached Agreement to Settle with Luster Plaintiffs ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissal of Columbia Labs Litigation Affirmed ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing in Forest Securities Case Deal ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing in Furiex Securities Case Deal AD TELAMERICA: Judge Narrows Claims in "Dinsdale" Suit ALLMAX NUTRITION: Falsely Marketed Dietary Products, Suit Claims AMAZON.COM.KYDC LLC: Wins Dismissal of ADA Suit AMBIT ENERGY: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Class Action Over Mass Firing AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion for Summary Judgment Pending AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal AMERICAN EXPRESS: Request for Initial Deal Approval to Be Renewed AMERICAN REALTY: Investors Update Class Action Complaint APPLE INC: Judge Allows Artist to Amend Complaint APPLIED MACHINERY: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ARIZONA: 9th Cir. Rejects Rehearing En Banc Bid in Inmates Case BALTIC TRADING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Merger BARCLAYS PLC: Motion to Dismiss "Strougo" Case Partially Granted BELL CANADA: Faces $750MM Class Action Over Privacy Breach BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Gets More Time to Respond to "Cardoza" Action BOEING COMPANY: Decision to Remand Case to State Court Vacated BOS SOLUTIONS: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice CAPITAL ONE: Appeal Period in Interchange Suit Deal Expired CARNICERIA Y VERDULERIA: Final Fairness Hearing Set for July 31 CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Faces "Portis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Suit in California for Trading Through UBS CHARLESTON RETIREMENT: Sued Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime COUNTRY CLUB HILLS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Property Tax Rebate CR ENGLAND: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, "Cain" Suit Says CYAN INC: To Defend Against Stockholder Class Action DELTA RIGGING: Faces "Shields" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DELUXE CORP: Summary Judgment Motion in "Graves" Case Denied DICK'S SPORTING: Sued by Assistant Store Managers Over Unpaid OT DINO'S FINER: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime DNC SERVICES: Fla. Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss "Shamblin" Case DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Bid for Arbitration in "Kitsch" Case Okayed DU PONT: Court Will Not Compel Corp. Representative to Testify ENGINEERING NETWORK INT'L: Ruling in Staffing Firm's Suit Flipped EL DORADO, CA: Suit Against Sheriff's Dept Can't Proceed as Class ETSY INC: Faces "Altayyar" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports EXPERIAN SERVICES: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Consumers Info EXXON MOBIL: Judge Denies Plaintiffs' Bid to Enforce Agreement FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Patel" Suit Over Consumers Biometric Info FARMEDHERE LLC: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FEDERAL INSURANCE: Need Not Defend L.A. Lakers, Court Rules FINANCIAL AMERICAN: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Granted FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT: Fee Bid in "Spears" Granted in Part FITBIT INC: Falsely Claims It Can Track Sleeping Time, Suit Says FLYING FOOD: Faces Wage Class Action in California FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: To Defend Against All Class Action Claims GAF MATERIALS: Court Approves Settlement on Defective Shingles GAUCHO LLC: Faces "Hadel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GLOBAL POWER: Faces "Ream" Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports GRAND FLORIDIAN: Faces "Cordoba" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT HAGUE QUALITY: Faces "Bergman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Court Issues Guidelines to Evaluate Deals HCR MANOR: Ohio Ct. App. Drops Appeal on Interlocutory Judgment INTERSECTIONS INC: Made Immaterial Payment to Settle Class Action INTERTHINX INC: Colo. Court Approved Settlement in "Shaw" Action JACO OIL: Must File Bid for Initial OK of Settlement on July 3 JB HUNT: "Wheat" Suit Transferred to C.D. California JC CRANBERRY: Joint Motion to Seal Settlement Agreement Denied KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California KINGATE MANAGEMENT: Dist. Court Judgment Vacated, Suit Remanded KRAFT FOODS: Faces 'Foote" Suit Over Illegal Company Merger LEE COUNTY, FL: State Immunity Causes Case to be Dismissed LICHTER GROUP: Judge Allows Amendment in "Malinowski" Suit LINCOLN TECHNICAL: Judge Denies Bid for Document Production LOUISIANA BIDCO: Trial Court Judgment Reversed in Suit v. D&O LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Dist. Ct. Judgment in Securities Suit Upheld MAGNANTE EYE CARE: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction MANDALAY CORP: July 22 Final Approval Hearing Set on Smith Deal MARRONE BIO: Court Directs Filing of Consolidated Complaint MARYLAND: Faces Class Action Over Women Pay Disparity MIAMI, FL: Judge Denies Attorneys' Fees in Homeless Case MIDLAND FUNDING: Fee Application Partially Granted MONSANTO CO: Two Mass. Towns Lose in 1st Round of PCB Litigation MONSEY NEW: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Alleged Gender Discrimination MORGAN KEEGAN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 9 MOUNTAIN STATES: "Hornaday" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages NAILSWAY INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Raises Concerns Over Concussion Deal NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Concussion Injury Settlement Approved NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Settlement in Turner and Wooden Case Okayed NEBRASKA: Food Stamp Approval Delays May Cost $17 Million NEVADA PROPERTY: Motions to Certify in Wage & Hour Action Pending NEVADA PROPERTY: Settlement to be Presented for Initial Approval NEVADA PROPERTY: Condominium Hotel Litigation in Earliest Stages NORTH DAKOTA: Mental Health Crisis May Spur Class Action NYLOK LLC: Court Dismisses Trujillo's Individual Claims OLD NATIONAL: Denial of Summary Judgment Bid Affirmed in Part OS INTERIOR: "Marin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PHILIP MORRIS: Court Upheld $5-Mil. Verdict in "Cuculino" Suit PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles Investor Class Action for $65MM PRODIGY DIABETES: Class Cert. Bid in Rhea Drugstore Suit Denied PULTEGROUP INC: Faces " Schumacher" Suit Over PT Foundation Plans RADIO CORPORATION: Has Enough Assets to Cover Class Suit Damages RANBAXY INC: Faces Meijer Suit Over Valcyte and Diovan Drugs RESONANT INC: Defending Against Paggos Class Action RESONANT INC: Defending Against Devouassoux Class Action RESTORATION HARDWARE: Mailing of Class Action Award Begins RHODE ISLAND: Ruling in Foster Kids' Suit Vacated RITE AID: Motion to Stay Withdrawn in "Welday" Case ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Court to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in "Ding" Suit RS PARKING: "Pereira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Accused in California of Drugging Orcas SFBSC MANAGEMENT: N.D. Cal. Judge Stayed Exotic Dancers' Action SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Class Action Settlement Wins Preliminary Okay SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: E.D. Pa. Judge Drops Diabetic's Suit SNCF: Holocaust Victims' Descendants File Class Action STANFORD UNIVERSITY: US Govt Dismissed From "Phillips" Suit SUMMIT RESTAURANT: Sued in Cal. Over Reimbursement Policies SUPREME SERVICE: Suit to be Transferred to E.D. Louisiana TOP RANK: Faces "Galandak" Suit for Concealing Pacquiao's Injury TRIPTI INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Samuel" Suit Says TURNKEY BUSINESS: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages & Damages UAG FAYETTEVILLE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Interest UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S: May Intervene in Class Suit UNILEVER UNITED STATES: "Pardini" Case Stayed UNION PACIFIC: La. Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in "Ned" Case UNITED STATES: Settlement in Hunneshagen Trust Case Approved UNITED STATES: Veterans Court Ruling in "Adeyi" Case Affirmed UNITED STATES: Bid for Continuance of Sentencing Hearing Granted VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval VERINT SYSTEMS: Court Reviews Summations on Motion to Certify VIKRANT CONTRACTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages WEBBER SPRINGS: Summary Judgment in "Fleet" Case Affirmed in Part WELLS FARGO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Banking Products WELLS FARGO: Wins Dismissal of "Perez" Complaint WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs May Find Substitute Counsel YELP INC: "Curry" Securities Class Action in N.D. Cal. Dismissed YP ADVERTISING: Bid to Dismiss FLSA Action Denied ********* AARON'S INC: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to Certify Spyware Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Thompson, writing for GoErie.com, reports that a ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has given new life to a long-pending federal lawsuit filed in Erie that alleged nationwide rental chain Aaron's Inc. and an Aaron's franchisee used spyware developed by a North East company to secretly capture webcam photos, screen shots and key strokes of customers. In March 2014, U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon adopted the recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter and ruled against the plaintiffs' request to certify the spyware complaint as a class-action lawsuit against the Aaron's defendants. The decision hinged on Baxter's finding that the class, as proposed by the plaintiffs, Crystal and Aaron Byrd of Wyoming, could not be determined with certainty. A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said on April 17 that ruling represented an abuse of discretion and resulted from a misapplication of the law. It said there appeared to be "confusion" in the 3rd Circuit about the court's rulings on what it called the "simple requirement" for a class to be ascertainable -- whether the class is defined with reference to objective criteria and there is a reliable mechanism to determine if possible members of a class fit the class definition. "Not surprisingly, defendants in class actions have seized upon this lack of precision by invoking the ascertainability requirement with increasing frequency in order to defeat class certification. We seek here to dispel any confusion," U.S. Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote on behalf of the panel. The case will now return to U.S. District Court in Erie for further litigation, which could result in its receiving class certification. "The Court's ruling provides clear guidance regarding the certification of class actions," said one of the Byrds' lawyers, Frederick S. Longer, of Philadelphia, who wrote and argued the Third Circuit appeal. "With this ruling, we are pleased to refocus our efforts on getting the victims of the spyware back into court," Mr. Longer said. Andrea S. Hirsch, of Atlanta, another of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said, "we look forward to the Byrds and other affected consumers having their class action certified and then having their day in court." Aaron's could not be immediately reached for comment. The plaintiffs claim the defendants conspired to use tracking spyware developed by a North East company, DesignerWare Inc., to secretly snap webcam photos and capture the screen shots and keystrokes of plaintiff Brian Byrd in the mistaken belief that he and his wife had not finished paying for the computer he was using. The software, called PC Rental Agent, was designed to help rental stores recover stolen equipment. The plaintiffs said the software violated privacy and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. The plaintiffs and their team of lawyers want to pursue claims not only on behalf of the Byrds, but also as a class-action lawsuit on behalf of more than 800 Aaron's rental customers they say were similarly spied on between June 2009 and January 2012. They charge that sensitive personal information -- including legal documents, medical and financial records, Social Security and personal identification numbers -- was collected, transmitted and stored by Aaron's corporate servers. The long-running case was first filed in Erie in 2011 and initially included DesignerWare. The claims against DesignerWare were suspended in March 2012, when the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, according to court records. In September 2012, DesignerWare entered a consent decree with the Federal Trade Commission in which it agreed to scale back the technology. Aaron's settled a complaint with the FTC in October 2013. The FTC charged that Aaron's Inc. enabled its franchisees to violate consumer protection laws by secretly installing the monitoring software. Aaron's neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the FTC complaint, but the company agreed to modify its use of the monitoring technology. ACTAVIS PLC: Oral Argument on Bid to Dismiss in Actos Case Held --------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that oral argument on a motion to dismiss the Actos(R) Litigation was scheduled for April 27, 2015. On December 31, 2013 two putative class actions were filed in the federal district court (United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltc. Et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9244 and Crosby Tugs LLC v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 13-9250) against Actavis plc and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Watson" now known as Actavis, Inc.) 2010 patent lawsuit settlement with Takeda Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd. related to Actos(R) (pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin "Actos(R)") is unlawful. Several additional complaints have been filed (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-0116; International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health & Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-0644; A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14- 1493; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1661; Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., N.D.Ill. Civ. No. 14-1601; City of Providence v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 14-125; Minnesota and North Dakota Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Health Fund and Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health and Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1691; Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-1788; New England Electrical Workers Benefit Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., S.D.N.Y. Civ. No. 14-2424; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., Civ. No. 14-2378; Dennis Kreish v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2137; Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund and Teamsters Union Local 115 Health & Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., et al., Civ. No. 14-2846). The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations may be filed. Prior to the filing of the Painters District Council and City of Providence complaints, plaintiffs in the cases pending in federal court in New York filed a consolidated class action complaint. Plaintiffs in the Painters District Council and City of Providence cases subsequently voluntarily dismissed their complaints in Illinois and Rhode Island, respectively, and refiled their complaints in the Southern District of New York where all the cases have been referred to the same judge. Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated, amended complaint on May 20, 2014 (In re Actos End-Payor Antitrust Litigation, Civ. No. 13- 9244). The amended complaint, asserted on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges an overall scheme that included Watson improperly delaying the launch of its generic version of Actos(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Takeda in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified damages. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on July 11, 2014. Rather than oppose the motions to dismiss, plaintiffs amended their complaint on August 22, 2014. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 10, 2014. Plaintiffs' oppositions to the motion were filed on December 5, 2014 and defendants' reply briefs were filed on January 9, 2015. Oral argument on the motion was scheduled for April 27, 2015. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Vigorously Against AndroGel(R) Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the AndroGel(R) Litigation. On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Solvay"), related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel(R) in exchange for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote Androgel(R) for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services provided by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable relief and civil penalties. On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated claimants (Meijer, Inc., et. al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09- 0228). On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 21, 2009 the State of California voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against Watson without prejudice. The Federal Trade Commission and the private plaintiffs in the Northern District of Georgia filed amended complaints on May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA "Orange Book," and sham litigation. Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect purchasers of Androgel(R) (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09- 1507); (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1856); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. MN Civ. No. 09-1168); (Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et al. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240); (Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No. 10-1024); (LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ. No. 10-2883); (Jabo's Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837). On April 20, 2009, Watson was dismissed without prejudice from the Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey. On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re: AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084), and all currently-pending related actions are presently before that court. On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all the consolidated litigations related to Androgel(R) then pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted Watson's motions to dismiss the complaints, except the portion of the private plaintiffs' complaints that include allegations concerning sham litigation. Final judgment in favor of the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade Commission's action on April 21, 2010. On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of review and ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme Court Androgel Decision"). On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA's "Orange Book," and sham litigation similar to the claims raised in the direct purchaser actions. On October 28, 2010, the judge presiding over MDL 2084 entered an order pursuant to which the LeGrand action, filed on September 10, 2010, was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the other indirect purchaser class action as part of MDL 2084 and made subject to the Court's February 22, 2010 order on the motion to dismiss. In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and on June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, including Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed a motion for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints. On September 28, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all outstanding claims. The plaintiffs then appealed. On September 12 and 13, 2013, respectively, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs and direct purchaser plaintiffs filed motions with the district court, asking the court for an indicative ruling that it would vacate its final order on the parties' summary judgment motions and conduct further proceedings in light of the Supreme Court Androgel Decision, should the Court of Appeals remand the case to the district court. On October 23, 2013, the district court granted the motions. The court of appeals remanded the case back to the district court which has granted plaintiffs relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, vacating the ruling from which plaintiffs appealed. On August 5, 2014 the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Company answered the amended complaint on September 15, 2014. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Sanofi to Indemnify Watson Over Cipro Claims --------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that Sanofi has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims related to the Cipro(R) Litigation and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these actions. Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against Watson and certain Company affiliates including The Rugby Group, Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seeking class certification. Approximately 42 cases were filed against Watson, Rugby and other Company entities. Many of these actions have been dismissed. Actions remain pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug, Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. The action pending in Kansas, which the court previously terminated administratively, has been reopened. Plaintiffs' in that case moved for class certification on February 21, 2014; defendants' filed opposition to the class certification motion on May 23, 2014. Class discovery ended on July 25, 2014 and plaintiffs filed reply briefs in support of certification on August 22, 2014. A hearing was held on October 28, 2014 on defendants' motion for an evidentiary hearing on class discovery and a hearing on the certification was held on December 15, 2014. There has been no action in the cases pending in Florida and Tennessee since 2003. In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego (In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the majority of the plaintiffs would be permitted to pursue their claims as a class. On August 31, 2009, the California Superior Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and final judgment was entered on September 24, 2009. On October 31, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. On December 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. On February 15, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review. On September 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court entered a stay of all proceedings in the case pending a decision from the United States Supreme Court in the Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis matter involving Androgel, described above. The California Supreme Court lifted the stay on June 26, 2013 following the ruling by the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiffs and Bayer announced that they have reached an agreement to settle the claims pending against Bayer and Bayer has now been dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs are continuing to pursue claims against the generic defendants, including Watson and Rugby. The remaining parties submitted letter briefs to the court regarding the impact of the Supreme Court Androgel Decision. Response briefs were submitted on February 14, 2014. Amicus briefs were submitted on March 18, 2014 and the parties filed responses to such briefs on April 24, 2014. In addition to the pending actions, the Company understands that various state and federal agencies are investigating the allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend and indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these actions. ACTAVIS PLC: New Trial Date Has Not Been Set in Doryx Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that a new trial date has not been set in Doryx Litigation. In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan's generic competition to Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law. (Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 12-cv-03824). In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported indirect purchasers, each in the same court. On December 5, 2013 an additional complaint was filed by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund and on May 9, 2014, Laborers' Trust Fund for Northern California filed a complaint each on behalf of additional groups of purported indirect purchasers. Warner has moved to dismiss each of these new complaints. In each case the plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. The court consolidated the purported class actions and the action filed by Mylan and ordered that all the pending cases proceed on the same schedule. On February 5, 2013, four retailers, including HEB Grocery, Safeway, Inc., Supervalu, Inc. and Walgreen Co., filed in the same court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities against Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding Doryx(R). (Walgreen Co., Safeway, Inc., Supervalu, Inc. and HEB Grocery Co, LP. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv- 00658). On March 28, 2013, another retailer, Rite Aid, filed a similar complaint in the same court. (Rite Aid Corp. v. Warner Chilcott Public Limited Co., et al., E.D.Pa. No. 13-cv-01644). Both retailer complaints recite similar facts and assert similar legal claims for relief to those asserted in the related cases described above. Both retailer complaints have been consolidated with the cases described above. Warner Chilcott and Mayne moved to dismiss the claims of Mylan, the direct purchasers, the indirect purchasers and the retailers. On November 21, 2012, the Federal Trade Commission filed with the court an amicus curiae brief supporting the plaintiffs' theory of relief. On June 12, 2013, the court entered a denial, without prejudice, of Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motions to dismiss. On November 13, 2013, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives for $15.0 million. On February 18, 2014 the court preliminarily approved the settlement and after a hearing issued a final approval of the settlement on September 15, 2014. On April 18, 2014, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement to settle the claims of the opt-out direct purchasers for $10.9 million. On May 29, 2014 Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims of the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives for $8.0 million. On July 11, 2014, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion to approve the settlement with the court and on September 9, 2014 the court, after a hearing, issued an order preliminarily approving this settlement. After a final fairness hearing, the indirect purchaser settlement received final approval on January 28, 2015. Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for summary judgment on March 10, 2014. On June 2, 2014, the court vacated the trial date. A new trial date has not been set. ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Lidoderm(R) Retailer Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the Company intends to defend itself vigorously against the retailer complaint related to Lidoderm(R) Litigation. On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the federal district court (Drogueria Betances, Inc. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-06542) against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine transdermal patches, "Lidoderm(R)") is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on behalf of putative classes of direct purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges that Watson improperly delayed launching generic versions of Lidoderm(R) in exchange for substantial payments from Endo Pharmaceuticals in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Additional lawsuits contain similar allegations have followed on behalf of putative classes of direct purchasers (Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-7217; American Sales Co. LLC, v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 14-0022; Cesar Castillo, Inc. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 14-0569) and suits filed on behalf of a putative class of end-payer plaintiffs (United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5257; Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5280; City of Providence v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-771; Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers - Employees Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., D.Minn. Civ. No. 13-3399; Pirelli Armstrong Retiree Medical Benefits Trust v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378; Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 13-5938; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0057; International Association of Fire Fighters Local 22 Health & Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0092; Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund v. Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc., et al., C.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-0289; Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-0503; Teamsters Local Union 115 Health and Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-0772; Roller v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-0792; Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operation Engineers Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., M.D.Tenn. Civ. No. 13-1378; NECA- IBEW Welfare Trust v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., N.D.Cal. Civ. No. 14-1141; Allied Services Division Welfare Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-1548; Irene Kampanis v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 14-1562). The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations may be filed. On December 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the United Food and Commercial Workers action filed a motion with the JPML to have all the Lidoderm(R) antitrust cases consolidated in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs in several of the other actions filed objections and argued for consolidation in districts where their suits were filed. The motion was heard by the JPML at a hearing on March 27, 2014 and on April 3, 2014 the JPML consolidated the cases in the Northern District of California. (In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, N.D. Cal., MDL No. 14-2521). An initial case conference was held on May 9, 2014 after which the court issued a schedule order. Pursuant to that order, on June 13, 2014 the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed amended and consolidated complaints. The defendants thereafter filed a joint motion to dismiss on July 28, 2014. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the joint motion on September 8, 2014. Defendants filed reply briefs on October 14, 2014. Oral argument on the motion was held on November 5, 2014. The court issued its decision on November 17, 2014 granting the motion in part but denying it with respect to the claims under Section 1 the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 19, 2014. Defendants' responses to the amended complaint were filed on January 30, 2015. On March 5, 2015, a group of five retailers, including HEB Grocery, Safeway, Inc., The Kroger Co., Albertson's LLC and Walgreen Co., filed in the same court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities regarding Lidoderm(R). (Walgreen Co., The Kroger Co., Safeway, Inc., HEB Grocery Co, LP. and Albertson's LLC v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., N.D. Cal. No. 15-cv-1032). The retailer complaint recites similar facts and asserts similar legal claims for relief to those asserted in the related cases. The retailer complaint has been consolidated with the cases. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation -------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the Company intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the district court's decision granting the Company's motion to dismiss related to the Loestrin(R) 24 Litigation. On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the federal district court (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., et al., D.N.J., Civ. No. 13-02178, and United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et al., E.D.Pa., No. 13-01807) against Actavis, Inc. and certain affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets, "Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. On April 15, 2013, the plaintiff in New York Hotel Trades withdrew its complaint and, on April 16, 2013, refiled it in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa., Civ. No. 13-02000). Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors (A.F. of L. - A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan v. Warner Chilcott, et al., D.N.J. 13-02456, Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-02014). Electrical Workers 242 and 294 Health & Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-2862 and City of Providence v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-307). In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a class of direct payors (American Sales Company, LLC v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd., Co. et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 12-347 and Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc., v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-133476). On June 18, 2013, defendants filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") to consolidate these cases in one federal district court. After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order conditionally transferring all related Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the District of Rhode Island. (In re Loestrin 24 Fe Antitrust Litigation, D.R.I. MDL No. 13- 2472). A preliminary hearing was held on November 4, 2013 after which an amended, consolidated complaint was filed on December 6, 2013. On February 6, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs' complaints. Plaintiffs' filed oppositions to the motion on March 24, 2014 and the Company filed its responses on April 23, 2014. A hearing was held on June 27, 2014 on the motion to dismiss and on September 4, 2014, the court granted the motion. On October 6, 2014, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the district court's opinion and on October 20, 2014, they filed a motion for entry of a final judgment. Also, on October 20, 2014 the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court's September 4, 2014 opinion. On November 21, 2014 the Company moved to stay the opt-out direct purchasers' action. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the district court's decision granting the Company's motion to dismiss. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: Opana Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Actavis Defendants ----------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that plaintiffs in the Opana Litigation have agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Actavis defendants from the action without prejudice. On December 19, 2014, a putative class action was filed in California state court (Mahaffay v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., et al., CA Super. Ct. Case No. HG14752254) against Actavis, Inc. and Actavis South Atlantic LLC alleging, among other things, that Actavis' 2009 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to Opana ER(R) (extended release oxymorphone hydrochloride tablets) is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on behalf of a putative class of end payer plaintiffs, generally alleges that Actavis and Impax improperly delayed launching generic versions of Opana ER(R) in exchange for substantial consideration from Endo in violation of CA state antitrust, unfair competition and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks damages and other equitable relief. On March 4, 2015, plaintiffs in this action agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Actavis defendants from the action without prejudice. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations may be filed. However, this action and any others like it, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Celexa/Lexapro Actions v. Forest --------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions involving Forest and certain of its affiliates. Forest and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a Multi-District Litigation ("MDL") proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the caption "In re Celexa and Lexapro Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation." These actions, two of which were originally filed as putative nationwide class actions, and one of which is a putative California-wide class action, allege that Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims under the Missouri and California consumer protection statutes, respectively, and state common laws. On February 5, 2013, the district judge overseeing the MDL denied all plaintiffs' motions for class certification. On February 18, 2013, the plaintiff in the California action filed a petition seeking leave to appeal this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. On April 16, 2013, the First Circuit denied the petition. On April 30, 2013, plaintiffs in the other two actions filed an Amended Complaint seeking to certify state-wide class actions in Illinois, Missouri, and New York under those states' consumer protection statutes. On January 13, 2014, the district judge denied plaintiffs' motion with respect to the proposed Illinois and New York classes and allowed it with respect to the proposed Missouri class. Forest filed a petition seeking leave to appeal this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on January 27, 2014. On March 12, 2014, Forest reached agreement with the MDL plaintiffs to settle the Missouri class claims, including claim by both individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013. In exchange for a release from class members, Forest will pay $7.65 million into a fund that will cover (1) the settlement benefits paid to class members, (2) administration costs, (3) incentive awards to be paid to the representative plaintiffs, and (4) attorneys' fees and costs. If valid claims are greater than $4.215 million, Forest will pay up to $2.7 million more to pay for the additional valid claims (the total settlement payment shall not exceed $10.35 million). The district court judge preliminarily approved the settlement on March 14, 2014 and issued an order enjoining all class members and other persons from litigating claims relating to those covered by the settlement. On September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the settlement. On May 3, 2013, another action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of individuals who purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a state-wide class action in California and alleging that our promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has been deceptive. This action was transferred to the MDL mentioned in the preceding paragraph and, on July 29, 2013, Forest moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court judge granted Forest's motion to dismiss on March 5, 2014. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on March 17, 2014 and filed its appeal brief on July 24, 2014. Forest filed its opposition brief on August 25, 2014. On February 20, 2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). On November 13, 2013, another action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). This action was transferred to the MDL, and Forest filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on January 15, 2014. On February 5, 2014, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the complaint and filed a First Amended Complaint, which, among other things, added claims on behalf of a Minnesota class of entities and consumers under Minnesota's consumer protection statutes. Forest filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint on April 9, 2014. A motion hearing was held on October 1, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the remaining portions of the motion. On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off- label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). This action was filed as a related action to the action described above in the preceding paragraph. Forest filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 30, 2014. In its December 12, 2014 ruling, the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss. On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (Civ. No. 14-1339) seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). On October 14, 2014, the court entered a conditional transfer order to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts where it has been consolidated with the other actions pending in that court relating to marketing of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. ACTAVIS PLC: Reached Agreement to Settle with Luster Plaintiffs --------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the company reached an agreement to settle with the Luster plaintiffs for a payment that is not material to the Company's financial condition or results of operations. Forest and certain of its affiliates are named as defendants in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri Circuit Court, Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit, and arising from similar allegations as those contained in the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs. The first action, filed on November 6, 2009 under the caption "St. Louis Labor Healthcare Network et al. v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Forest Laboratories, Inc.," is brought by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. The Company has reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to resolve this action for payments that are not material to our financial condition or results of operations. The second action, filed on July 22, 2009 under the caption "Crawford v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," and now known as "Luster v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," is a putative class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees. In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but who do not have a claim for personal injury. On December 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which was argued on January 8, 2014. On February 21, 2014, the Company filed a motion to de-certify the class. Decisions on these motions are pending. On March 12, 2014, the Company informed the judge of the MDL Missouri class settlement, including that the federal class encompasses the members of the certified Missouri class in Luster. At a status conference on April 2, 2014 the parties agreed that the action is stayed in light of the injunction contained in the MDL Preliminary Approval Order. On January 21, 2015, the company reached an agreement to settle with the Luster plaintiffs for a payment that is not material to our financial condition or results of operations. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissal of Columbia Labs Litigation Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals court issued its ruling affirming the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' amended complaint in the Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation. On June 8, 2012, Watson and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a consolidated amended class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (In re: Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 12-614) by a putative class of Columbia Laboratories' stock purchasers. The amended complaint generally alleges that between December 6, 2010 and January 20, 2012, Watson and certain of its officers, as well as Columbia Laboratories and certain of its officers, made false and misleading statements regarding the likelihood of Columbia Laboratories obtaining FDA approval of Prochieve(R) progesterone gel, Columbia Laboratories' developmental drug for prevention of preterm birth. Watson licensed the rights to Prochieve(R) from Columbia Laboratories in July 2010. The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the statistical analysis of the clinical studies performed by Columbia Laboratories in connection with its pursuit of FDA approval of Prochieve(R). The complaint seeks unspecified damages. On August 14, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in the amended complaint, which the court granted on June 11, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 11, 2013. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 9, 2013. On October 21, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In ruling on the motion to dismiss, the court also ruled that if the plaintiffs seek to further amend the complaint, they must file a motion within thirty days seeking permission to do so. On December 20, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on the district court's motion to dismiss ruling and filed their opening appellate brief on March 20, 2014. Respondents' briefs in the appeal were filed on April 9, 2014. The oral argument on the appeal was held on December 9, 2014. On March 10, 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals court issued its ruling affirming the district court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs have ninety days from the entry of the appellate court's order to petition the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. If the plaintiffs pursue their claims further and are successful in having the dismissal reversed, the Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and it intends to defend itself vigorously. Additionally, the Company maintains insurance to provide coverage for the claims alleged in the action. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. The action, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing in Forest Securities Case Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that a fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled on the settlement in the Forest Laboratories Securities Litigation. In February and March 2014, nine putative stockholder class actions were brought against Forest, Forest's directors, Actavis plc, and certain of Actavis's affiliates. Four actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery and have been consolidated under the caption "In re Forest Laboratories, Inc. Stockholders Litigation" (the "Delaware Action"). Five actions were filed in New York State Supreme Court and have been consolidated under the caption "Turberg v. Forest Laboratories, Inc. et al." (the "New York Action"). On April 4 and May 5, 2014, respectively, the Delaware and New York plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints in their respective jurisdictions. The amended complaints seek, among other remedies, to enjoin Actavis's proposed acquisition of Forest or damages in the event the transaction closes. The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the members of the Forest Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Forest for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process, and that the disclosure document fails to disclose allegedly material information about the transaction. The complaints also allege that Actavis, and certain of its affiliates, aided and abetted these alleged breaches. On May 28, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the Delaware Action and the New York Action regarding a settlement of both Actions, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding pursuant to which Forest agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with Actavis, which are contained in a Form 8-K filed May 28, 2014. The parties entered into a definitive stipulation of settlement on February 6, 2015 that remains subject to customary conditions, including court approval. A fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed transaction, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus. There can be no assurance that the Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement is not approved, the proposed settlement may be terminated. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing in Furiex Securities Case Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- Actavis plc said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, that a fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled on the settlement in the Furiex Securities Litigation. In May 2014, four putative stockholder class actions were brought against Forest, Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Furiex"), and Furiex's board of directors. Two actions were brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery under the captions "Steven Kollman v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." and "Donald Powell v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." (the "Delaware Actions"). Two actions were brought in North Carolina state court under the captions "Walter Nakatsukasa v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." and "Christopher Shinneman v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al." (the "North Carolina Actions"). These actions alleged, among other things, that the members of the Furiex Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Furiex for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process. These actions also alleged that Forest aided and abetted these alleged breaches. These actions sought class certification, to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Furiex, and an award of unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other costs. The Kollman and Nakatsukasa actions also sought recission of the acquisition and unspecified recissory damages if the acquisition was completed. On June 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions and the North Carolina Actions regarding a settlement of all four actions, and that agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Furiex agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with us, which are contained in a Form DEFA14A filed June 23, 2014. On January 15, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement which is subject to court approval. A fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all claims in all four actions that were or could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed transaction and any disclosure made in connection therewith. There can be no assurance that the North Carolina state court will approve the settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement may be terminated. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole. AD TELAMERICA: Judge Narrows Claims in "Dinsdale" Suit ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Jane J. Boyle of the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss in the case JUSTIN DINSDALE, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AD TELAMERICA INCORPORATED, d/b/a Yellow Pages and d/b/a Yellow Pages Directories, and BARBARA J. SOMMER, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-3427-B (N.D. Tex.) Defendants were sued by the United States Postal Service (USPS) and the Texas Attorney General's Office for deceptive mailings and solicitations. Both lawsuits resulted in consent orders being entered against defendants, in which defendants agreed to cease making certain representations. Justin Dinsdale purchased a listing in defendants' Yellow Pages Directories to advertise his business in 2012. On March 13, 2013, Dinsdale filed a class action in federal court on behalf of himself and other purchasers of Ad TelAmerica's Yellow Pages Directories advertising service, asserting claims for (1) common law fraud, (2) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, (3) false representations under 39 U.S.C. Section 3005; (4) fraud and related activity in connection with access devices under 18 U.S.C. Section 1029; (5) money had and received; and (6) unjust enrichment against defendants Ad TelAmerica and Barbara J. Sommer. Dinsdale alleges that defendants deceptively and fraudulently solicit customers around the country by mailing them a final notice of payment for the service of listing their businesses in the Yellow Pages Directories, despite the fact that defendants neither publish nor are affiliated with the Yellow Pages. Dinsdale claims that defendants continue to engage in deceptive and fraudulent practices, in violation of the terms of the agreements reached with the State and USPS, causing damage to plaintiff and others similarly situated. Plaintiff's case was transferred from the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division to the present court. Thereafter, on October 30, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or, in the alternative, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Judge Boyle granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge's memorandum opinion and order dated April 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/ThZhDlfrom Leagle.com Justin Dinsdale, Plaintiff, represented by: Omar Weaver Rosales, Esq. The Rosales Law Firm LLC 1400 Montana Avenue El Paso, TX 79902 Telephone: 915-219-5516 Facsimile: 915-542-0878 Defendants, represented by C Brenton Kugler -- brent.kugler@solidcounsel.com -- Charlene Cantrell Koonce -- charlene.koonce@solidcounsel.com -- at Scheef & Stone LLP ALLMAX NUTRITION: Falsely Marketed Dietary Products, Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Todd Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allmax Nutrition, Inc. and HBS International Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00744-AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal., May 14, 2015), is brought on behalf of all who purchased the dietary supplement Allmax Nutrition Isoflex from the Defendants, that were falsely marketed that it contains the free-form amino acids L-Arginine and L-Taurine. Allmax Nutrition, Inc. is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in Toronto, Ontario. Allmax is a supplier of bodybuilding and sports nutrition supplements in the United States and Canada. HBS International Corp. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allmax and distributes Allmax's line of products in the United States and Canada for purchase at a variety of retailers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Tina Wolfson, Esq. Paul Kerkorian, SBN 148825 AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC 434 West Alexandrine #101 Detroit, MI 48201 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nicksuciu@bmslawyers.com - and - Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 878-1342 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com AMAZON.COM.KYDC LLC: Wins Dismissal of ADA Suit ----------------------------------------------- District Judge David L. Bunning of the Eastern District of Kentucky, Central Division, in Lexington granted defendants' motion in the case JULIAN SHULMAN, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM.KYDC, LLC, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-5-DLB-REW (ED. Ky.) On February 8, 2008, Amazon.com.kydc, LLC (Amazon Ky.) offered Julian Shulman employment as a Warehouse Associate at their LEX1 fulfillment center in Lexington, Kentucky. The offer letter stated that Shulman would be an employee-at-will, so he or Amazon Ky. could terminate the relationship at any time for any reason, with or without cause. The letter set forth the terms of employment, which superseded any previous discussions or offers of employment. Shulman accepted employment with Amazon.com under the terms set forth in the letter on February 11, 2008. Shulman suffered osteoarthritis prompting him to sought treatment from Dr. Nicole Freels at Lexington Podiatry. Shulman's site safety team instructed him to submit an updated RMI no later than April 21, 2011 in order to request an extension of his leave or to return to work. Shulman asked Amazon Ky. to extend his FMLA leave to the full 12 weeks because his condition had not yet substantially improved. Amazon Ky. would only consider his request only if Shulman will accompany it with updated medical documentation. Once Shulman provided the updated RMI, Amazon Ky. approved him for a reduced work schedule. After further prompting from Amazon Ky., Shulman finally provided the updated RMI. After resuming work, Shulman asked Amy Derheim, a member of the Leave of Absence and Accommodations Team, to accommodate his disability by allowing him to work a full ten hour shift but take a ten minute break every hour. She told him that Amazon would be willing to consider the proposed accommodation if he provided supporting medical documentation. Shulman never provided the requested documents to Amazon. After returning to work, Shulman received coaching twice. Shulman failed to meet productivity standards for the week of June 19, 2011 to June 26, 2011. On July 13, 2011, Amazon Ky. terminated his employment. On March 29, 2012, Shulman filed a Notice of Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC dismissed the claim, closed the file and notified Shulman of his right to sue on September 12, 2012. Shulman then filed a lawsuit against Amazon Ky., its corporate parent company, Amazon.com, Inc. and John Does 1-25 in Fayette Circuit Court. The Amazon defendants promptly removed the case to federal court. Defendants move for summary judgment on Shulman's claim for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA). The defendants argue that Shulman failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination because his osteoarthritis does not constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA). Alternatively, the Amazon defendants contend that Shulman's claim fails the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting test because he cannot prove that his performance-based termination was a pretext for discrimination. The defendants then argue that summary judgment is appropriate on Shulman's breach of implied-in- fact contract and class action claims because the record is devoid of supporting evidence. Judge Bunning granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. A copy of Judge Bunning's memorandum opinion and order dated April 20, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Bw4DyIfrom Leagle.com Julian Shulman, Plaintiff, Pro Se Defendants, represented by Susan C. Sears -- ssears@littler.com -- J. Andrew Inman -- jinman@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson PSC AMBIT ENERGY: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action ----------------------------------------------- Paul Post, writing for The Record, reports that area residents say a Texas company scammed them by offering discounted electric rates that skyrocketed a year or two later without their knowledge. Dallas-based Ambit Energy says consumers were told via mail that their fixed-rate savings plan would expire, and that they'd pay a higher variable rate, unless they contacted the company. But residents say no letter was ever received and asked why the burden was on them not to "choose" a higher rate. "That's crazy," said John Lundgren of Salem, a retired teacher. "No other company makes you contact them to let them know you want the lower rate. That's bogus. I got burned." Mr. Lundgren said he was charged 18-20 cents per kilowatt hour on a recent bill, when New York State Gas & Electric Company was charging its customers 8 cents, Mr. Lundgren is not alone is his frustration and anger. On March 26, an Illinois law firm filed a fourth class-action suit against Ambit. Others originated in New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The latter accuses Ambit of violating the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and four counts of violating the New York Business Law. In 2014 alone, the New York Public Service Commission received 450 complaints about Ambit, primarily from people whose guaranteed savings plan was rolled over to a plan that did not guarantee savings at the end of the contract term. As a result of a PSC investigation, Ambit has agreed to provide rebates to customers who were charged higher-than-expected rates. Also, the company has agreed to start sending letters in April to all variable-rate customers in New York, letting them know they can switch to the guaranteed rate and receive a 2 percent savings. Ambit, founded in 2006, services 14 states including New York and the District of Columbia, which all have deregulated energy markets. Ambit is one of many alternative energy service companies, known as ESCOs, that have sprung up to compete with large utilities. They typically offer one- or two-year fixed rate contracts that promise to save consumers money. Previously, Ambit renewed such plans automatically. More recently, the company began requiring customers to make online renewals themselves. Those that didn't began getting bills based on variable rates, sometimes double or triple what they were paying. Larry LaFountain of Gansevoort says he's been marketing Ambit for six years and has 1,610 customers in 13 states, with 116 other marketers under him. "Every customer that comes on board gets a free website to go on to see their usage and rates," he said. But Mr. LaFountain said he, too, learned Ambit's policy of changing fixed rates to variable rates the hard way. He said he joined Ambit in October 2010. In December 2011 his bill shot up to more than $600. "I called the company and they said, 'You forgot to check your guaranteed savings box on your website,' " he said. After contacting Ambit, Mr. LaFountain said he began getting the lower rate again on the next billing cycle. But some residents say they haven't been able to contact the company or get a response. The more customers that Ambit marketers get, the more commission they earn. Marketers who bring on at least 15 new customers are eligible for free energy, and may also qualify for prizes such as free cruises. "It's a pyramid scheme," said Jim Comstock of Wilton. He said he recently dropped Ambit after paying at least $1,000 more than he would have with National Grid. Mr. Comstock recently filed a complaint with the Public Service Commission and like many residents, he said Ambit didn't tell him he had to indicate his preference for the continued fixed-rate savings plan. In a March 13 to Comstock, Tracey Brock of the PSC's Office of Consumer Services said Ambit provided the PSC with a copy of the letter it sent Comstock. "We consider this renewal letter reasonable proof that the company sent it to you," Brock told Comstock. "Should you have reasonable proof that you did not receive this letter, please provide us with this information so we may further investigate your case. My re- review of your case has determined that you were billed correctly and no refund is warranted." But Mr. Comstock said, "How do I prove I never got a letter that wasn't received?" "That's the scam," he said. "If it was legal there wouldn't be all these class-action suits. These companies came in when the state deregulated. The government allowed this to happen." More recently, Ambit has agreed to recalculate bills for customers that contacted the PSC during 2014 and 2015 and to give rebates, based on what they should have been charged, to customers that filed a complaint saying they did not receive a renewal letter. The company says it will also take steps to improve communication with customers that are rolling off the guaranteed rate. In a blog posting, Ambit National Consultant Shawn Cornett defended the company's renewal policy change, from automatic to manual, which he said was done in part because of complications sending out letters to consumers, sometimes involving lengthy delays. "Does Ambit make more money by not auto-renewing the guaranteed savings? Yes, of course they do because they are not sending out savings guarantee checks to those people (who don't renew)," Cornett said. "Many customers were harshly reminded of their failing to renew their guaranteed savings plan. . . . The change/transition to renewing guaranteed savings has and will continue to be tough. But again, it's not difficult to renew. It's just something that's not been required before." Washington County dairyman Brent Petteys said he thought Ambit's fixed-rate plan would give him some control over his energy prices. "We're already dependent on the federal government setting the price of milk," he said. "We have no control over that." After failing to realize his plan had been changed, he said his high energy-usage farm was charged $32,000 more than it would have been otherwise. "It affects your bottom line when you're paying double," he said. Customers who believe they were wrongly billed by Ambit must file a complaint with the PSC. AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces Class Action Over Mass Firing ----------------------------------------------------- Hermandad Mexicana on April 18 disclosed that clothing manufacturer American Apparel has been sued by workers after an Easter week mass firing. The complaint filed on April 16 by the fired employees of the multi-million dollar fashion upstart charges that American Apparel failed to comply with the WARN Act that prohibits surprise mass firings by companies that have more than 100 employees. American Apparel claims to have more than 10,000 workers. The charges in the complaint describe a scenario where long time employees were discharged without even a single full day's warning and forced to sign releases without time to seek legal advice. "I was told that I had to sign a release immediately or I would not receive any severance at all," said Dominga Valencia, a fired long time worker. "I stood there worried about how I would be able to feed my family without the severance." The actions described in the labor complaint stand in stark contrast to the promise of a "sweat free workplace" touted by American Apparel to its mostly urban fan base. The clothing manufacturer has taken a cold tone to its American workforce since being taken over by billionaire Wall St. Hedge fund manager Standard General. Standard General recently took a major stake in Radio Shack before the electronic retailer was led to bankruptcy and began the firing thousands of American workers. "American Apparel promised its workers and its customers that it would be an ethical employer," said Nativo Lopez of Hermandad Mexicana. "The only thing sweat free at American Apparel is the way that management regards labor law. Its Wall St. owners say 'we need to dump workers now' and its management responds 'no sweat.'" AMERICAN EXPRESS: Motion for Summary Judgment Pending ----------------------------------------------------- American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a trial date for individual merchant actions has not been set, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the individual merchant actions is pending. In 2010, the Department of Justice, along with Attorneys General from Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii (Hawaii has since withdrawn its claim), Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Vermont filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against American Express, MasterCard International Incorporated and Visa, Inc., alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants' policies prohibiting merchants from steering a customer to use another network's card, another type of card or another method of payment ("anti-steering" and "non-discrimination" rules and contractual provisions) violate the antitrust laws. The complaint seeks a judgment permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing their anti-steering and non-discrimination rules and contractual provisions. The complaint does not seek monetary damages. The DOJ matter was coordinated pre-trial with individual and putative class actions pending in the Eastern District of New York against American Express brought by merchants alleging that the "anti-steering" provisions in its merchant acceptance agreements with the plaintiffs violate federal antitrust laws. As alleged by the plaintiffs, these provisions prevent merchants from steering consumers or offering consumers incentives to use alternative forms of payment when consumers wish to use an American Express- branded card. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief. Arbitration proceedings raising similar claims also have been filed. In July 2004, American Express was named as a defendant in a putative class action captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company, et al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between certain of American Express' charge cards and credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of damages. In December 2013, American Express announced a proposed settlement of the Marcus case and the putative class actions challenging American Express' "anti-steering" or non-discrimination provisions. The settlement, which provides for certain injunctive relief for the proposed classes, received preliminary approval in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The final approval hearing was held on September 17, 2014 and American Express is awaiting decision. A non-jury trial in the DOJ matter concluded on August 18, 2014. Closing arguments were held on October 9, 2014 following submission of post-trial proposed findings and briefs. On February 19, 2015, the trial court found that the challenged provisions were anticompetitive and will now determine the scope of the remedy when it enters judgment in the case. American Express intends to vigorously pursue an appeal of the decision and judgment. A trial date for the individual merchant actions has not been set. Defendants' motion for summary judgment in the individual merchant actions is pending. AMERICAN EXPRESS: "Ross" Plaintiffs Appeal Claims Dismissal ----------------------------------------------------------- American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal of their claims in the case, Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank. In July 2004, a purported class action complaint, Ross, et al. v. American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that American Express conspired with Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club in the setting of foreign currency conversion rates and in the inclusion of arbitration clauses in certain of their cardholder agreements. The suit seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages. The class is defined as "all Visa, MasterCard and Diners Club general-purpose cardholders who used cards issued by any of the MDL Defendant Banks." American Express Card Members are not part of the class. The settlement of the claims asserted on behalf of the damage class concerning foreign currency conversion rates was approved in 2012. On April 10, 2014, following a trial of the claims asserted by the injunction class concerning cardholder arbitration clauses, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims and granted judgment in favor of American Express. Plaintiffs have appealed. AMERICAN EXPRESS: Request for Initial Deal Approval to Be Renewed ----------------------------------------------------------------- American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that parties in the case Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank, are responding to the Court's questions regarding the class notice and claims processes and the request for preliminary approval will be renewed. In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al. v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank, was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The amended complaint sought to certify a class of California American Express Card Members whose interest rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009 or otherwise increased. On August 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended nationwide complaint and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a settlement of the claims alleged in that complaint. The settlement provides for certain relief to class members, attorneys' fees and costs of up to $6 million. On September 22, 2014, the motion for preliminary approval was denied without prejudice to renew. The parties are responding to the Court's questions regarding the class notice and claims processes and the request for preliminary approval will be renewed. AMERICAN REALTY: Investors Update Class Action Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- Linda Sandler, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that behind the accounting errors that knocked $4 billion off American Realty Capital Properties Inc.'s market value was a hidden scheme that generated more than $900 million in managers' fees and bonuses, investors said in a lawsuit against the company. Ex-Chairman Nicholas Schorsch turned a small real estate investment trust into a massive engine of payments for himself and cronies, adding $20 billion of assets in two years and charging for services rendered by 47 entities he controlled, according to court documents. As American Realty Capital Properties, or ARCP, grew, Mr. Schorsch was in line for $94 million in incentives over five years, on top of $28 million in potential 2014 compensation. In their class action, begun in January, teachers' pension funds that lost money on American Realty shares accused managers of manipulating cash-flow data to inflate the stock for takeovers. Those deals were "designed" to generate fees for the executives and didn't deliver the promised benefits to the REIT or its shareholders, the funds said. "This complex and opaque web of interrelated companies is permeated with conflicts of interest and was used to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars to Schorsch-controlled entities in connection with the acquisitions," they said, pointing to $55 million in fees from two big deals alone. Mr. Schorsch didn't return messages seeking comment on the allegations. John Bacon, an American Realty spokesman, declined to comment. $917 Million The updated complaint, filed April 17 in Manhattan federal court, adds details on American Realty's deals with other Schorsch entities, tracing the movement of $917 million in fees to insiders and their affiliates. ARCP was charged $510 million in deal-related commissions and fees, $63 million for advice, and assorted sums for public relations work, "services relating to office supplies" and furniture, much of which had no record of being received, according to the complaint. The chairman's acquisitions quickly made American Realty, started in December 2010, the biggest U.S. owner of single-tenant buildings such as drugstores, banks and Red Lobster restaurants. The U.S. Justice Department, Securities and Exchange Commission and state investigators in Massachusetts are probing American Realty's accounting errors and coverups, the Phoenix-based company said in a March regulatory filing. October Report American Realty said in October that it inflated cash flow and wrote down assets by $406 million in the fourth quarter, mostly tied to an earlier takeover. A deal to sell its Cole Capital unit's broker-dealer to a Schorsch firm fell apart after American Realty disclosed the concealed accounting errors, sticking it with a $309 million writedown. After the October report, ARCP's top five executives and most directors resigned or were fired. Mr. Schorsch has resigned and ARCP says it's putting its house in order, ending deals with the web of companies he controlled. It said in March that some payments to Schorsch entities "warrant scrutiny" and the compensation committee should only have approved $120 million of a $222 million incentive plan, keyed to the company's growth. The investors say there was "a multi-year long accounting fraud that ultimately required ARCP to admit that it had falsified its reported operating performance and/or financial statements for every reporting period since it went public in 2011." 'Accounting Tricks' Their scheme had been "breathtaking in both its breadth and magnitude" -- "a collage of accounting tricks" designed to inflate cash flow and "line senior insiders' pocketbooks," investors said. Recurring expenses were classified as one-time costs, while executives delayed reporting many expenses, used so-called goodwill from acquisitions as a "slush fund" to absorb losses on property sales and devised unusual metrics to swell their bonuses by $100 million, the investors said in their complaint, citing a report by ARCP's accountants. The fraudulent accounting was necessary to oil the fee engine, investors said: American Realty was borrowing money for acquisitions so it had to show good numbers, and it was using cash and stock for the acquisitions so the stock had to be propped up by rigging the numbers. 'Overvalued' Securities In the investors' words, the deals were "predicated on the use of ARCP securities that were overvalued as a result of defendants' misconduct." Complaining of misleading registration statements, investors are also suing underwriters of bonds and stock, including Morgan Stanley. Mary Claire Delaney, a Morgan Stanley spokeswoman, declined to comment. American Realty has dropped to less than $10 from its 2014 peak of almost $15. Led by TIAA-CREF, the investors want compensation and damages. Darren Robbins, the lawyer handling the lawsuit, has experience with accounting maneuvers. He wrested $7.3 billion for Enron Corp. investors, mostly from banks that settled allegations of engineering sham transactions to keep debt off Enron's balance sheet. The case is In re American Realty Capital Properties Inc. Litigation, 15-mc-00040, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan). APPLE INC: Judge Allows Artist to Amend Complaint ------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, of the Southern District of New York granted plaintiff's motion in the case NORMAN BLAGMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APPLE, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., GOOGLE, INC., MICROSOFT CORPORATION, EMUSIC.COM INC., THE ORCHARD ENTERPRISES, INC., ORCHARD ENTERPRISES NY, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, persons and entities whose identities are unknown to plaintiff but who have performed and participated in the unlawful acts alleged herein, Defendants, NO. 12 CIV 5453 (ALC)(JCF)(S.D.N.Y.) Defendants the Orchard Enterprises, Inc., and Orchard Enterprises NY, Inc. (Orchard) are aggregators, who acquire digital distribution rights from record labels and upload the digital recordings to online music stores. They act as the middlemen between the retailer and the record labels. Defendants Apple, Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Google, Inc., Microsoft Corp., and eMusic.com Inc. are digital music retailers who own and operate the largest digital music retail stores in the world. They sell the music online. The plaintiff Norman Blagman is a composer of songs who alleges that the defendants, without acquiring the necessary licenses or permissions, have all imported, exported, reproduced, distributed, and sold digital recordings of certain compositions for which he owns the copyright. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants in which the same has been amended twice in the course of the proceeding. Plaintiff moves again to amend his complaint as he tends to narrow the class definition and damages claimed. The proposed third amended complaint purportedly limits the class by eliminating 11 record companies identified in Exhibits A and B to the second amended complaint and by excluding owners of works registered after December 31, 1997 so that all included works will be governed by the Copyright Act of 1909 rather than the Copyright Act of 1976. In addition, it provides more detailed allegations concerning the identity of the aggregators that the retailer defendants have contracted with to obtain infringing musical works and of 104 specific record label names used to market these infringing works for sale in the retailer defendants' online music stores. The proposed class thus comprises the legal and/or beneficial owners of all or part of at least one musical composition registered with the U.S. Copyright Office prior to January 1, 1998, and embodied on a phonorecord that was reproduced, distributed, sold, imported, or exported by at least one of the Retailer Defendants during the Class Period and that was supplied to the Retailer Defendant, directly or through one or more intermediaries, by one of the aggregators listed on the Aggregator-Label List annexed as Exhibit A on behalf of a corresponding label listed on Exhibit A. Magistrate Judge Francis granted plaintiff's motion for leave to file a third amended complaint. A copy of Judge Francis's memorandum and order dated April 20, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/YElAcRfrom Leagle.com Matthew T. Schwartz, Esq. Brians Levenson, Esq. Schwartz & Ponterio, PLLC 134 W. 29th Street, Suite 1006 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: 917-338-3879 Facsimile: 212-714-1264 Jason L. Solotaroff, Esq. -- jsolotaroff@gslawny.com -- Oren Giskan, Esq. -- ogiskan@gslawny.com -- at Giskan, Solotaroff & Anderson, LLP Michael J. Boni, Esq. -- MBoni@bonizack.com -- John E. Sindoni, Esq. -- at Boni & Zack LLC Kenneth L. Steinthal, Esq. -- ksteinthal@kslaw.com -- Joseph R. Wetzel, Jr., Esq. -- jwetzel@kslaw.com -- at King & Spalding LLP A. John P. Mancini, Esq. -- jmancini@mayerbrown.com -- Alison L. Stillman, Esq. -- astillman@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP Gabrielle Levin, Esq. -- glevin@gibsondunn.com -- Gail E. Lees, Esq. -- glees@gibsondunn.com -- Scott A. Edelman, Esq. -- sedelman@gibsondunn.co -- at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP APPLIED MACHINERY: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Rodolfo Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Applied Machinery Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-01282 (S.D. Tex., May 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Applied Machinery Corporation designs, manufactures and sells a full line of drilling equipment, including drilling rigs, and provides related services to its customers in the oilfield industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq. Melissa Moore, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES 440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675 Houston, TX 77002-1637 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 E-mail: curt@mooreandassociates.net melissa@mooreandassociates.net ARIZONA: 9th Cir. Rejects Rehearing En Banc Bid in Inmates Case --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit denies rehearing en banc of the case Victor Antonio Parsons; Shawn Jensen; Steve Swartz; Dustin Brislan; Sonia Rodriguez; CHRISTINA District of Arizona, Verduzco; Jackie Thomas; Phoenix Jeremy Smith; Robert Carrasco GAMEZ, Jr.; Maryanne Chisholm; Desiree Licci; Joseph Hefner; Order Joshua Polson; Charlotte Wells; Arizona Center for Disability LAW, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Charles L. Ryan and Richard PRATT, Defendants-Appellants, NO. 13-16396 (9th Cir.) Thirteen inmates in custody throughout the Arizona prison system brought a class action suit under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure against senior officials in the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC). They alleged that through its various system wide practices and policies regarding prisoners' medical, dental, and mental health care, the ADC is deliberately indifferent to the resulting significant injury and substantial risk of serious harm to all prisoners in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The prisoners identified ten such practices, including inadequate staffing, outright denials of care, lack of emergency treatment, failure to stock and provide critical medication, grossly substandard dental care, and failure to provide therapy and psychiatric medication to mentally ill inmates. Plaintiffs moved to certify a class consisting of all approximately 33,000 prisoners in the ten ADC prisons. The district court concluded that Rule 23(a)'s threshold requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were each met, and certified a class of all 33,000 prisoners. Defendants appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirms the district court's certification of the class. A petition for rehearing en banc was made and the panel voted to deny the petition, but the petition was subsequently withdrawn. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter in banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the nonrecused active judges in favor of en banc reconsideration. A copy of the Ninth Circuit's order dated April 21, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/YA06jlfrom Leagle.com The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt, John T. Noonan, Jr. and Paul J. Watford. BALTIC TRADING: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Company Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- Todd J. Biederman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baltic Trading Limited, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03711-RJS (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties, specifically by facilitating the acquisition of Baltic Trading by Genco for inadequate consideration and through a flawed process. Baltic Trading Limited is a Marshall Islands shipping company with its principal executive offices located at 299 Park Avenue, 12th Floor, New York, New York 10171. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian C. Kerr, Esq. BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 488 Madison Avenue, Eight Floor New York, NY Telephone: (212) 501-9000 Facsimile: (212) 501-0300 E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com BARCLAYS PLC: Motion to Dismiss "Strougo" Case Partially Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in its April 24, 2015 Opinion and Order, in the case docketed as BARBARA STROUGO, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. BARCLAYS PLC, BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ROBERT DIAMOND, ANTONY JENKINS, CHRISTOPHER LUCAS, TUSHAR MORZARIA, and WILLIAM WHITE, Defendants, NO. 14-CV-5797 (SAS), partially granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiffs. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin granted defendants' motion solely to the extant that the section 20(a) claims are dismissed as to Individual Defendants and Finance Directors Christopher Lucas and Tushar Morzaria. The motion was otherwise denied, except insofar as the alleged misstatements regarding Barclay's general business practices and risk controls, as well as the Salz report, which were deemed inactionable. The Plaintiffs were not permitted to seek damages based on the June 27 Telegraph article. The Plaintiffs were directed to amend their Complaint within 30 days and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion. A conference was scheduled on May 5, 2015 A copy of Judge Scheindlin's April 24, 2015 Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/ADNSMNfrom Leagle.com. Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Emma Gilmore, Esq. -- egilmore@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, New York, New York, for Plaintiffs. Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Chicago, Illinois Jeffrey T. Scott -- scottj@sullcrom.com -- Esq., David H. Braff, Esq. -- braffd@sullcrom.com -- Matthew A. Schwartz, Esq. -- schwartzmatthew@sullcrom.com -- Andrew H. Reynard, Esq. -- reynarda@sullcrom.com -- John J. Hughes, III, Esq. -- hughesj@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, New York, for Defendants. BELL CANADA: Faces $750MM Class Action Over Privacy Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a $750-million national class- action lawsuit has been filed against Bell Canada over alleged breaches of privacy arising from its recently discontinued target ads program. The suit against subsidiaries of Bell alleges that the defendants used the program to track, collect and sell the sensitive account and internet browsing information of their customers to advertisers. It seeks $750 million in damages for breach of privacy, breach of contract and breach of the Telecommunications Act. A similar lawsuit has also been launched in Quebec, counsel for the plaintiffs, Charney Lawyers and Sutts, Strosberg LLP, said in a statement issued on April 16. Bell issued a statement saying it would not comment on the allegations contained in the lawsuit, which have not been proven in court. Although Bell has already cancelled the program, the company has indicated it plans to reintroduce it in the future and might expand it to include landline use and TV viewers. However, it has said it would seek explicit customer consent through an opt-in approach. By building consumer profiles, such programs allow advertisers to tailor or target ads to specific consumers. The suit, against Bell Mobility Inc. and Bell Canada Inc. on behalf of Bell Mobility and Virgin Mobile customers, targeted what Bell labelled as its "relevant ads program," which was launched in November 2013. 'Unprecedented' amount of complaints Following Bell's announcement of the program, the federal privacy commissioner began an investigation due to "an unprecedented volume of complaints," the statement from the lawyers said. On April 7, the commissioner said it had found that Bell violated the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act because it did not adequately disclose the nature of the information and customers were not given the option to properly consent to the use of their information for the program. According to the report, customers were automatically included in the program unless they specifically opted out -- something 113,000 Bell customers decided to do. However, the privacy commissioner said Bell should not assume because customers didn't opt out that they were consenting to having vast amounts of their personal information used in this way. In addition to cancelling the program, Bell said earlier that it would delete all customer profiles created under it. However, in addition to damages, the lawsuit seeks the appointment of an expert to "oversee and confirm the destruction of the personal information," the statement from the plaintiffs' lawyers said. "The Relevant Ads program was a misguided attempt by a Canadian telecommunications company to generate advertising revenue," said Ted Charney of Charney Lawyers. "If allowed to proceed, it constitutes a threat to the core privacy rights of all Canadians." Lawyer David Robins of Sutts, Strosberg said that through the class action "the plaintiff seeks to hold Bell accountable and stop other providers from selling customers' personal information without informed consent." Two other groups, the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Consumer Association of Canada, have filed complaints to the CRTC against Bell's old program and say they will continue the fight against any revised initiative. BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Gets More Time to Respond to "Cardoza" Action -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey signed on May 8, 2015, a stipulation and order in the case captioned BROOKE CARDOZA, CODY C. HANCOCK, MICHAEL YENDES, JEFFERY BROWN, KEVIN CONNELLEY, TREVOR TULLIS, DENISE GOODLIN, JOSEPH VERRENGIA, AMY WOMACK, VALERIE GARDNER, ALEX NESBITT, DANIEL GEIGER, RACHEL TALASKO, and WESLEY MILES, all on behalf of themselves and all similarly-situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC.; OSI RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC; OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE OF FLORIDA, LLC; OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 5 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-01820-JAD-NJK, (D. Nev.) extending the deadline for plaintiffs to respond to defendants' motion to strike Ohio Class Action allegations and for defendants to file their reply in support of motion to strike Ohio Class Action allegations. The Parties stipulated to extend the time in which Plaintiffs may respond to Defendants' Motion to Strike Ohio Class, filed on April 22, 2015. Pursuant to the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1FWZR8kfrom Leagle.com, Plaintiffs' deadline for filing their Opposition was May 15, 2015. Defendants' stipulation is conditioned upon the parties' further joint stipulation to extend the deadline for Defendants to file their Reply in support of their Motion to Strike to June 1, 2015, to coincide with the deadline for filing of Defendants' Reply in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment. This is the first request for an extension of time to file a response. Don Springmeyer, Esq., Justin C. Jones, Esq., Bradley Schrager, Esq., WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP, Las Vegas, Nevada, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC, Timothy J. Becker, Esq. -- tbecker@johnsonbecker.com -- (admitted pro hac), Jacob Rusch, Esq. -- jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- (admitted pro hac), Minneapolis, Minnesota, SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C., Jason J. Thompson, Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- (admitted pro hac) Jesse Young, Esq. -- jyoung@sommerspc.com -- (admitted pro hac) Southfield, Michigan, Attorneys for Plaintiffs. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- San Francisco, CA, JOHN H. COTTON & ASSOCIATES, John H. Cotton, Esq. -- JHCotton@jhcottonlaw.com -- Las Vegas, NV, COTTON, DRIGGS, WALCH, HOLLEY, WOLOSON & THOMPSON, F. Thomas Edwards, Esq. -- tedwards@nevadafirm.com -- Las Vegas, NV, Attorneys for Defendants Bloomin' Brands, Inc.; OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC; Outback, Steakhouse of Florida, LLC; OS Restaurant, Services, LLC. BOEING COMPANY: Decision to Remand Case to State Court Vacated -------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit vacated a district court's remand of a class action lawsuit against The Boeing Company to state court, affirmed the District Court's determination that Boeing failed to show that Landau Associates (Landau) was fraudulently joined, and referred the Plaintiffs' assertion that their action falls within the local controversy exception to federal jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(A), to the District Court for consideration in the first instance. Jocelyn Allen and others (Plaintiffs) sued Boeing and Landau in a Washington state court alleging that for over 40 years Boeing released toxins into the groundwater around its facility in Auburn, Washington, and that for over a decade Landau had been negligent in its investigation and remediation of the pollution. Boeing removed the case to the District Court for the Western District of Washington claiming federal jurisdiction based on diversity and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Circuit Judge Consuelo Maria Callahan concluded that "because Plaintiffs' action does not come within the local single event exception to federal jurisdiction under CAFA, the district court's order remanding this case to state court is vacated. The district court's denial of Boeing's allegation of fraudulent joinder is affirmed, and accordingly, there is not complete diversity. Finally, Plaintiffs' assertion that their action comes within the local controversy exception to federal jurisdiction under CAFA is referred to the district court for initial consideration." The case is docketed as JOCELYN ALLEN; LAWRENCE J. ALLEN; VIVIAN LYNN ALLEN; CAREN BARNES; EMERY BLESSING; HORACE BLINER; ROBERT A. BLINER; JASON BOGART; BRENDA BRAMMER; BRETNEY A. BROWNFIELD; DONALD N. CAMPBELL; DEBORAH JEAN CETTOLIN; CAROLE DENISE COGGIN; ROBERT ALLEN COGGIN; ANGELA COMSTOCK; TIMOTHY EUGENE CONNOR; CHRISTINE R. COUNCILMAN; DARYL CRAWFORD; SHAWN CREED-WOOLERY; ANITA DECKER; DANIEL DECKER; KERRI DECKER; SHAWN DECKER; DANIEL ANDREW DOLLOFF; JACOB DOLLOFF; TONI RAE DOLLOFF; JEFFREY DOSCH; KARRIE DOSCH; ALVINE DRAYTON; PATRICIA ANN DUKE; JUANITA DUPONT; DONALD WARREN EDWARDS; TAMMY ELSNER; MICHAEL PATRICK ETHIER; FAY FARRINGTON; LARRY D. FORD, Sr.; KENNETH MARK FOREMAN; SHERRI LEE FOREMAN; MICHAEL GESE; AIMEE GREEN; JOSH GREEN; LEE LYNN HARDY; LISA ANN HARDY; BARRY CURTIS HARMON, II; NICOLE HARMON; DONALD R. HAUPT; KARI LYN HERNANDEZ; RONALD A. HOLT; BRIAN JONES; MIKISHA D. JONES; TATIANA JONES; PHYLLIS KAIN; ROBERT KENNICOTT; ANDREY KINAKH; TONY KINGSADA; MICHELLE KLUSMEYER; SONJA LAPPING; BRITTNEY LYNN LICKEY; ROBIN LINDY; WAYNE LINDY; ASHLEY LISENBY; PAULLET LITTLEFIELD; DEIDRE LORENZ; COURTNEY MACISAAC; PAUL MALAVOTTE; RANDOLPH MALILONG; ANNISSA MANOLOVITZ; LISA MARTIN; MARIE MCASKILL; JILL A. MENTZER; JOHN L. MENTZER; VICKI L. MILLS; KAREN MILLSAP; TERRENCE MILLSAP; KYLIE MOREFIELD; ELIZABETH MORGAN; TARA MOTT; CECILY NEILSEN; ANTHONY B. NOCERA; DIANE C. NOCERA; JESSICA PARKER; RICHARD PARKER; PATRICIA PLATTNER; MIKE RAMIREZ; LUDMILLA REDKA; BRIAN REITZ; KATHLEEN RISMOEN; MATTHEW MONTGOMERY ROBERTS; LURA ELAINE ROBERTSON; JANENE M. ROLLINS; CLAUDE ROUGHT; DAN RUDOLPH; DEBORAH A. RYAN; RICHARD R. RYAN; STEVE SANBORN; MICHAEL C. SCOTT; DAVEENE KIM SEARS; GERALD L. SEARS; DARRON SHOOK; LISA SHOOK; STACIE SIPPO; HAROLD A. SPONBERG; PENNY J. SPONBERG; TRENT B. TESTERMAN; BERNADETTE J. TRANHOLT; ROBIN L. TRANHOLT; JEFFREY A. TREKLA; KAREN R. TREKLA; JESSICA A. VAUGHN; GABRIEL WARREN; MAX WERDEN; TINA WERDEN; STACY WILEY; ANTHONY WILLIAMS; CINDA J. ZITTERICH; RICKY L. ZITTERICH, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, and BOEING COMMERCIAL AIRPLANES; LANDAU ASSOCIATES INC, a Washington Corporation; DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 15-35162, A copy of Judge Callahan's Decision dated April 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/03TSAafrom Leagle.com. Michael Sylvain Paisner, of Renton Washington (argued), Jeffrey M. Hanson -- JHanson@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, Washington, and Michael F. Williams -- michael.williams@kirkland.com -- Peter A. Farrell -- peter.farrell@kirkland.com -- Michael J. Podberesky -- michael.podberesky@kirkland.com -- and Devein A. DeBacker -- devin.debacker@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, of Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant The Boeing Company. Robert Finnerty, Thomas V. Giraldi, and David N. Bigelow (argued), Giraldi/Keese of Los Angeles, California, and Thomas Vertetis, Pfau Cochran Vertetis of Tacoma, Washington for the plaintiffs- appellees, Jocelyn Allen, et al. BOS SOLUTIONS: Sued in Tex. Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice ----------------------------------------------------------------- James Cole, Stephen Tippins, Jeffery Bell, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Bos Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01677 (N.D. Tex., May 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection with recent Mass Layoffs and/or Plant Closings at the Defendant's Rio Vista, Texas, Mandan, North Dakota and Midland, Texas sites of employment. Bos Solutions, Inc. owns and operates an oilfield services company with its principal place of business located at 1200, 635-8th Avenue SW, Calgary, AB T2P 3M3. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq. BARON & BUDD PC 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com CAPITAL ONE: Appeal Period in Interchange Suit Deal Expired ----------------------------------------------------------- Capital One Funding, LLC and Capital One Bank (USA), National Association said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the final approval of a class action settlement was subject to appeal through March 2015. In 2005, a number of entities, each purporting to represent a class of retail merchants, filed antitrust lawsuits (the "Interchange Lawsuits") against Visa U.S.A., Inc. ("Visa") and MasterCard International ("MasterCard") and several member banks, including Capital One Financial Corporation (the "Corporation") and its subsidiaries, including the Bank, alleging among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the level of interchange fees. The complaints seek injunctive relief and civil monetary damages, which could be trebled. Separately, a number of large merchants have asserted similar claims against Visa and MasterCard only. In October 2005, the class and merchant Interchange Lawsuits were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery. In July 2012, the parties executed and filed with the court a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to resolve the litigation on certain terms set forth in a settlement agreement attached to the Memorandum. The class settlement provides for, among other things, (i) payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs totaling approximately $6.6 billion; (ii) a distribution to the class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis points of certain interchange transactions for a period of eight months; and (iii) modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules regarding point of sale practices. This agreement is contingent on final court approval of the class settlement. In November 2012, the court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement. In December 2013, the court granted final approval of the proposed class settlement, which was appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2014. Several merchant plaintiffs have also opted out of the class settlement, some of which have sued MasterCard, Visa and various member banks, including the Bank. Relatedly, in December 2013, individual consumer plaintiffs also filed a proposed national class action against a number of banks, including the Bank, alleging that because the banks conspired to fix interchange fees, consumers were forced to pay more for the fees than appropriate. The consumer case and virtually all of the opt-out cases were consolidated before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York for certain purposes, including discovery. In November 2014, the Court dismissed the proposed consumer class action. The remaining consolidated cases are in their preliminary stages, and Visa and MasterCard have settled a number of individual opt-out cases, requiring non-material payments from all banks, including the Bank. As a member of Visa, the Bank has indemnification obligations to Visa with respect to final judgments and settlements, including the Interchange Lawsuits. In the first quarter of 2008, Visa completed an IPO of its stock. With IPO proceeds, Visa established an escrow account for the benefit of member banks to fund certain litigation settlements and claims, including the Interchange Lawsuits. As a result, in the first quarter of 2008, the Corporation reduced its Visa related indemnification liabilities of $91 million. The Corporation made an election in accordance with the accounting guidance for fair value option for financial assets and liabilities on the indemnification guarantee to Visa, and the fair value of the guarantee as of December 31, 2014 was zero. Separately, in January 2011, the Corporation entered into a MasterCard Settlement and Judgment Sharing Agreement, along with other defendant banks, which apportions between MasterCard and its member banks the costs and liabilities of any judgment or settlement arising from the Interchange Lawsuits. The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multidistrict Litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two pending putative class actions against the Bank -- Nancy Mancuso, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (E.D. Virginia); and Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (N.D. Georgia). A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred into the MDL. In August 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint alleging that the bank breached its contractual obligations, and violated the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law (the "UCL"), the California False Advertising Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the Kansas Consumer Protection Act when it raised interest rates on certain credit card accounts. As a result of a settlement in another matter, the California- based UCL and TILA claims in the MDL are extinguished. The MDL plaintiffs seek statutory damages, restitution, attorney's fees and an injunction against future rate increases. In August 2011, after the completion of fact discovery, the Bank filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted in September 2014. Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2014. In December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") Multidistrict Litigation matter was created as a result of a transfer order issued by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("TCPA MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois three pending putative class actions -- Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois); and Charles C. Patterson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois) -- and several individual lawsuits. In February 2013, the putative class action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint. The Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint and individual lawsuits allege that the Bank and/or entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by contacting consumers on their cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice without first obtaining prior express consent to do so. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief. In June 2014, the parties filed a settlement agreement resolving all outstanding litigation. The court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement in July 2014, and granted final approval in February 2015. The final approval of the class settlement is subject to appeal through March 2015. CARNICERIA Y VERDULERIA: Final Fairness Hearing Set for July 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned WALTER ORLANDO MANCIA RIVERA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARNICERIA Y VERDULERIA GUADALAJARA INC.; and SERGIO EVANGELISTA, Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 13-CV-02309-REB-MJW (D. Colo.), District Judge Robert E. Blackburn granted the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) Collective and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) Class Action Settlement and set the matter for a final fairness hearing. After having reviewed and considered the motion, the Settlement and Release Agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the proposed notices, claim forms, and opt-out forms; and the pertinent portions of the entire record of the case, Judge Blackburn granted the motion, certified the proposed settlement cases, granted preliminary approval of the settlement and set the matter for a final fairness hearing on Friday, July 31, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. (MDT), in the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse Annex, 901 19th Street, Courtroom A1001, Denver, Colorado 80294. Vantage Settlement Advisory Group, a Division of Vantage Financial Group, Inc., is appointed to serve as the Settlement Administrator. A copy of the April 9, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/NGlqTsfrom Leagle.com. Walter Orlando Mancia Rivera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice-Denver, Andrew Arthur Schmidt, Andrew Schmidt Law PLLC & Edward Frank Siegel, Towards Justice. Carniceria y Verduleria Guadalajara Inc, and Sergio Evangelista, Defendants, represented by Robert L. Pitler -- RobertLPitler@RPitlerLaw.com -- Pitler and Associates, P.C.. CENTRAL TRANSPORT: Faces "Portis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Portis, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Central Transport, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04234 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Central Transport, Inc. owns and operates a trucking distribution company with its headquarters located in Warren, Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Terrence Buehler, Esq. TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP 55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 372-2209 Facsimile: (312) 456-3838 E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Suit in California for Trading Through UBS ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Charles Schwab & Co. executes customers' trades through nonparty UBS, instead of through the cheapest trader possible. CHARLESTON RETIREMENT: Sued Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Diana L. Haynes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Charleston Retirement Investors, LLC., and Century Park Associates, LLC., Case No. 2:15-cv-02003-PMD (D.S.C., May 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a senior assisted living and rehabilitation facility located at 2590 Elms Plantation Blvd, North Charleston, SC. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq. MULLANEY LAW 321 Wingo Way, Suite 201 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (800) 385-8160 Facsimile: (800) 385-8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net - and - William Clark Tucker, Esq. TUCKER LAW FIRM 690 Berkmar Circle, Suite A Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 978-0100 Facsimile: (434) 978-0101 E-mail: bill.tucker@tuckerlawplc.com COUNTRY CLUB HILLS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Property Tax Rebate ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leora H. Bell, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Country Club Hills, Case No. 1:15-cv-04227 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide 25% rebate of the 2010 property taxes to eligible Country Club Hills residents. City of Country Club Hills is an Illinois municipal corporation located in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq. Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com adam@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com CR ENGLAND: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, "Cain" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Cain, as an individual, and on behalf of the putative class v. CR England, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03613 (C.D. Cal., May 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide job applicants and employees with pre-adverse action notice prior to obtaining employment background check reports or consumer reports. CR England, Inc. owns and operates a temperature-controlled transportation services company that conducts business throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Devin H. Fok, Esq. DHF LAW, P.C. 234 East Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (310)430-9933 Facsimile: (818) 484-2023 E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com - and - Joshua E. Kim, Esq. A NEWWAY OF LIFE RE-ENTRY PROJECT 9512 S. Central Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (323) 563-3575 Facsimile: (323) 563-3445 E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org CYAN INC: To Defend Against Stockholder Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Cyan, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company intends to defend against purported stockholder class action lawsuit. The Company said, "On April 1, 2014 a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, against the Company, the members of our Board of Directors, our former Chief Financial Officer and the underwriters of our IPO. On April 30, 2014 a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against the same defendants. The two cases have been consolidated under the caption Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-539008. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting of purchasers of our common stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for our IPO, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. In July 2014, the defendants filed a demurrer (motion to dismiss) to the consolidated complaint. On October 22, 2014, the court overruled the demurrer and allowed the case to proceed. We intend to defend the litigation vigorously. Based on information currently available, we have determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of possible loss is not reasonably estimable." DELTA RIGGING: Faces "Shields" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Shields, on behalf of himself and others similarly- situated v. Delta Rigging & Tools, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01291 (S.D. Tex., May 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Delta Rigging & Tools, Inc. specializes in providing lifting and rigging products and services to various construction industries throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE BRAZIEL LLP 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com DELUXE CORP: Summary Judgment Motion in "Graves" Case Denied ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, in its April 27, 2015 Memorandum and Order, denied the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Deluxe Corporation, in the case docketed as JENNIFER GRAVES, Plaintiff, v. DELUXE CORPORATION, Defendant, NO. 4:14-CV-1823 RLW. District Judge Ronnie L. White held that "because the Court is allowing Graves to conduct discovery and because the Court is consolidating the Graves and Catlin Actions, the Court will deny Deluxe's Motion for Summary Judgment, without prejudice." Deluxe was granted an opportunity to refile its Motion for Summary Judgment after Plaintiffs have conducted discovery. Graves alleges that she purchased checks from Deluxe for personal, family or household purposes and was illegally overcharged a fee for delivery. On September 24, 2014, Graves filed a Petition against Deluxe. On March 24, 2015, Kay Catlin filed a nationwide class action Complaint (except for Missouri) against Deluxe, which alleges claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. ("ICFA") and consumer protection statutes of other states (Count I) and for unjust enrichment (Count II). On March 25, 2015, Plaintiffs Graves and Catlin filed a motion to consolidate both cases. A copy of Judge White's April 27, 2015 Memorandum and Order is available at http://is.gd/BF6fLhfrom Leagle.com. Kay Catlin, Plaintiff, represented by Richard S. Cornfeld, LAW OFFICE RICHARD S. CORNFELD, Anthony S. Bruning, LERITZ AND PLUNKERT, P.C. & Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., LERITZ AND PLUNKERT, P.C.. DICK'S SPORTING: Sued by Assistant Store Managers Over Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Dick's Sporting Goods stiffs assistant store managers for overtime, a class action claims in Philadelphia County Court. DINO'S FINER: Faces "Ramirez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Fidel Ramirez, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. Dino's Finer Food and Elvio Mazzei, Case No. 1:15-cv-04290 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez I, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com DNC SERVICES: Fla. Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss "Shamblin" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, denied defendant's motion in the case LORI SHAMBLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OBAMA FOR AMERICA, DNC SERVICES CORPORATION, and NEW PARTNERS CONSULTING, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. 8:13-CV-2428-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla.) Lori Shamblin contends that despite the prohibition of robocalls to cell phones, and the reminder by the Federal Communications Commission that such calls are illegal, President Obama's principal campaign committee, defendant Obama for America, with the assistance and participation of defendant DNC Services Corporation and New Partners Consulting, Inc., called voter cell phones with both auto-dialed and pre-recorded calls urging the recipients to vote for Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election. Shamblin alleges that defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), by calling voters' cell phones with auto-dialed calls and pre-recorded messages. Shamblin further indicates that she had not given defendants her express consent to call her cell phone with automatically-dialed or pre-recorded messages. She had never given defendants her telephone number and, prior to receiving defendants' messages, had never even heard of Obama for America. Shamblin also asked for class certification. New Partners responded by filing an answer and affirmative defenses. New Partners then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on September 25, 2014, alleging that it offered Shamblin full relief under Rule 68, Fed. R. Civ. P., which the court denied. Simultaneously, the court denied without prejudice Shamblin's amended motion for class certification. Thereafter, New Partners served Shamblin with a second Rule 68, Fed. R. Civ. P., offer of judgment, and accordingly sought dismissal in a second motion to dismiss. The court denied the motion to dismiss and rejected New Partners' mootness arguments because its offers for judgment only addressed New Partners' conduct, and did not address Shamblin's requests for relief against the other defendants. DNC Services Corp. filed a motion for summary judgment. Judge Covington denied DNC's motion for summary judgment. A copy of Judge Covington's order dated April 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/lRWbW7from Leagle.com Lori Shamblin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Quiat -- aquiat@alqpclaw.comc -- at Andrew L. Quiat, P.C.; Jack D. McInnes -- mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com -- Richard M. Paul, III -- paul@paulmcinnes.com -- at Paul McInnes LLP; Jeffrey M. Paskert -- jpaskert@mpdlegal.com -- at Mills Paskert Divers, PA; Joseph J. Mellon -- jmellon@mellonlaw.com -- Mary F. Mellon -- at The Mellon Law Firm Obama for America, Defendant, represented by Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- at Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC; Debra R. Bernard -- DBernard@perkinscoie.com -- Elisabeth C. Frost -- EFrost@perkinscoie.com -- Graham M Wilson -- GWilson@perkinscoie.com -- Marc Erik Elias -- MElias@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins Coie, LLP; Gregg Darrow Thomas -- Rachel E. Fugate -- at Thomas & LoCicero, PL DNC Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- at Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC; Debra R. Bernard -- DBernard@perkinscoie.com -- Elisabeth C. Frost -- EFrost@perkinscoie.com -- Graham M Wilson -- GWilson@perkinscoie.com -- Marc Erik Elias -- MElias@perkinscoie.com -- at Perkins Coie, LLP; Gregg Darrow Thomas -- at Thomas & LoCicero, PL New Partners Consulting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles James McHale, Jr. -- cmchale@gsgfirm.com -- Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com; Gregg Darrow Thomas -- at Thomas & LoCicero, PL American Association of Political Consultants, Amicus, represented by Patrick A. Traber, Allen Dell, PA Peter J. Grilli, Mediator, represented by Peter John Grilli, Peter J. Grilli, PA DREAMWORKS ANIMATION: Bid for Arbitration in "Kitsch" Case Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, in its April 24, 2015 Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Motion To Compel Arbitration, in the case docketed as ROBERT A. NITSCH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DREAMWORKS ANIMATION SKG INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV- 04062-LHK, granted in part, and denied in part the Joint Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings filed by Defendants DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc., The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd., LLC, Pixar, ImageMovers, LLC., Two Pic MC LLC (f/k/a ImageMovers Digital), Sony Pictures Animation Inc., Sony Pictures Imageworks Inc., and Blue Sky Studios. District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration with respect to Plaintiff Robert A. Kitsch's claims against Defendant DreamWorks arising out of Plaintiff's employment at DreamWorks and granted a stay only as to these claims. The Defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Stay was denied with respect to: (1) Nitsch's claims against DreamWorks arising out of his employment at Sony Pictures Imageworks; and (2) Nitsch's claims against the non signatory Defendants the latter's request to stay these claims. A copy of Judge Koh's Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Motion To Compel Arbitration is available at http://is.gd/b1FAhO from Leagle.com. Robert A. Nitsch, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Small -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Matthew W Ruan, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Brent W Johnson -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner -- jdubner@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Richard L. Grossman, PILLSBURY & COLEMAN, LLP, Steven Gerald Sklaver -- ssklaver@SusmanGodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. David Wentworth, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley A Bede -- ashleyb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steven Gerald Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP. Georgia Cano, Plaintiff, represented by Marc M. Seltzer -- mseltzer@SusmanGodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Ari Nathan Cherniak -- ari.cherniak@gmail.com -- HammondLaw, PC, Craig Justin Ackermann -- cja@laborgators.com -- Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C., Jeffrey Benjamin Dubner, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC, John Edward Schiltz -- jschiltz@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Jordan Lee Talge -- jtalge@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey, LLP, Julian Ari Hammond, HammondLaw, PC, Kalpana Srinivasan -- ksrinivasan@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey, Matthew Robert Berry -- mberry@susmangodfrey.com -- Susman Godfrey LLP, Polina Pecherskaya, Steven Gerald Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Dreamworks Animation SKG Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Glen Swanson -- dswanson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Rodney Joseph Stone -- rstone@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher & Shannon Edward Mader -- smader@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP. Pixar, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Cortlin Hall Lannin -- clannin@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP, Deborah A. Garza -- dgarza@cov.com -- Covington and Burling LLP & Thomas A. Isaacson -- tisaacson@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP. Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson Henn, Covington & Burling LLP, Cortlin Hall Lannin, Covington & Burling LLP, Deborah A. Garza, Covington and Burling LLP & Thomas A. Isaacson, Covington & Burling LLP. The Walt Disney Company, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson Henn, Covington & Burling LLP, Cortlin Hall Lannin, Covington & Burling LLP, Deborah A. Garza, Covington and Burling LLP & Thomas A. Isaacson, Covington & Burling LLP. ImageMovers, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson Henn, Covington & Burling LLP. ImageMovers Digital, Defendant, represented by Emily Johnson Henn, Covington & Burling LLP, Cortlin Hall Lannin, Covington & Burling LLP, Deborah A. Garza, Covington and Burling LLP & Thomas A. Isaacson, Covington & Burling LLP. Sony Pictures Animation, Defendant, represented by Stephen V. Bomse -- sbomse@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, David Mark Goldstein, Esq. -- dgoldstein@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Paul Francis Rugani -- prugani@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe. Sony Pictures Imageworks, Defendant, represented by Stephen V. Bomse, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, David Mark Goldstein, Esq., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Paul Francis Rugani, Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe. Blue Sky Studios, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan Bradley Pitt -- jpitt@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP & William Faulkner -- wfaulkner@mcmanislaw.com -- McManis Faulkner. DU PONT: Court Will Not Compel Corp. Representative to Testify -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division denied plaintiffs' motion in the case entitled IN RE: E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY C-8 PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION This document relates to: ALL CASES, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-MD-2433 (S.D. Ohio) In plaintiffs' first motion to compel, plaintiffs sought a court order compelling DuPont to appear for deposition on a number of subjects. In discovery order number four, the court discussed the permissible scope of discovery concerning DuPont's financial condition. The court declined to compel a DuPont corporate representative to testify regarding DuPont's financial condition. In light of plaintiffs' non-speculative claims for punitive damages, however, the court concluded plaintiff was entitled to written discovery. In May 2014, following discovery order number four, DuPont produced the declaration of Justin M. Miller, its associate general counsel, to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not object to the sufficiency of DuPont's response to discovery order number four. Moreover, their forensic economist utilized DuPont's Form 10-K in preparing his opinions regarding DuPont's financial condition. Following unsuccessful mediation, plaintiffs filed the present motion to compel on January 22, 2015, citing a December 2014 letter DuPont sent to the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the December 2014 Form 10 DuPont submitted for the new The Chemours Company, LLC spinoff company. Plaintiffs sought and obtained reassurance from DuPont that the information Mr. Miller provided in his declaration remained accurate. Plaintiffs nevertheless requested the working draft of the non-public, proposed Separation Agreement between DuPont and Chemours. DuPont declined to produce any working draft, but indicated that a final version would be publically available between late March and early April and that it would provide plaintiffs with a copy of the agreement. Plaintiffs argue that DuPont has failed to satisfy its continuing duty to supplement its discovery responses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1). Plaintiffs also maintain that DuPont failed to satisfy its duty to supplement its Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, citing Rule 26(a)(1)(iv). Magistrate Judge Preston Deavers denied plaintiffs' second motion to compel deposition and production of documents. A copy of Magistrate Judge Preston Deavers's discovery order dated March 9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/TVzb47from Leagle.com ENGINEERING NETWORK INT'L: Ruling in Staffing Firm's Suit Flipped ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Seven, in its Opinion filed on April 27, 2015, in the case docketed as TELECOM NETWORK SPECIALISTS, INC., Cross-complainant and Appellant, v. ENGINEERING NETWORK INTERNATIONAL, INC. et al, Cross-defendants and Respondents, NO. B250559, reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of the staffing agencies, concluding that the staffing agencies failed to demonstrate they are entitled to judgment on Telecom Network Specialist's (TNS) contract claim. Justice Laurie D. Zelon reversed the trial court's judgment and vacated the order awarding Respondents' attorneys fees. The matter was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The trial court was directed, upon remand, to enter an order (1) granting respondents summary adjudication of TNS's claims from express indemnity, equitable indemnity and declaratory relief; (2) denying summary adjudication of TNS's claim for breach of contract; and (3) denying TNS's motion for summary adjudication. A copy of Judge Zelon's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/8RUCdHfrom Leagle.com. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Ronald J. Holland -- rholland@sheppardmullin.com -- Ellen M. Bronchetti -- ebronchetti@sheppardmullin.com -- and Karin Dougan Vogel -- kvogel@sheppardmullin.com -- for Cross-complainant and Appellant. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller -- jeff.Miller@lewisbrisbois.com -- Jeffrey S. Ranen -- jeffrey.Ranen@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Lann G. McIntyre -- lann.McIntyre@lewisbrisbois.com -- for Cross-defendant and Respondent Kineticom, Inc. Hurt & Berry and Jeffrey W. Hurt for Cross-defendants and Respondents Ritesync, Inc. and Dataworkforce, L.P. Young Zinn & Bate, David H. Bate -- dbate@yzblaw.com -- and Harry A. Zinn -- hzinn@yzblaw.com -- for Cross-defendant and Respondent Orin USA, Inc. Armstrong The Law Firm and Richard L. Armstrong for Cross- defendant and Respondent Datalogix Texas, Inc. Connor & Sargent and Stephen P. Connor -- derik@cslawfirm.net -- for Cross-defendant and Respondent Engineering Network International, Inc. Krafchak & Lynch and Stephanie L. Krafchak for Cross-defendant and Respondent Multipoint Wireless, LLC. EL DORADO, CA: Suit Against Sheriff's Dept Can't Proceed as Class ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Allison Claire severed the plaintiffs' claims in the case captioned BRIAN SPEARS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EL DORADO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants, NO. 2:15-CV-0165 AC P (E.D. Cal.). Four plaintiffs, all currently incarcerated either in the Placerville Jail or in Deuel Vocational Institution, sought to pursue the case as a pro se civil rights class action challenging conditions of confinement at the El Dorado County Correctional Facility. To the extent that plaintiffs seek to represent one another and additional inmates, Judge Claire held that pro se plaintiffs may only represent themselves. While plaintiffs jointly requested the appointment of legal counsel, asserting that they are unable to afford counsel, that they are untrained in the law and have limited access to the law library, the court held that these reasons do not demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel at this time. For these reasons, Judge Claire ordered that plaintiffs' claims be severed. Each plaintiff will proceed with his own action and will be solely responsible for his own action. A copy of the April 8, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/QVSaqvfrom Leagle.com. ETSY INC: Faces "Altayyar" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports ------------------------------------------------------------- Saleh Altayyar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Etsy, Inc., Chad Dickerson, and Kristina Salen, Case No. 1:15-cv-02785-ARR-RER (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Etsy, Inc. operates online and offline marketplaces to buy and sell handmade items, vintage goods, and craft supplies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South LaSalle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pvdahlstrom@pomlaw.com - and - Peretz Bronstein, Esq. BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN LLP 60 E. 42nd Street, Suite 4600 New York, New York 10165 Telephone: (212) 697-6484 Facsimile: (212) 697-7296 Email: peretz@bgandg.com EXPERIAN SERVICES: Sued Over Illegal Sale of Consumers Info ----------------------------------------------------------- Sue Rodriguez, Deborah Sumlin, Laurie Amagan, Taaliba Warden, Nick Nichols, Steed Rollins, Debbi Houston, Courtney Dusseau, Vito Andrisani, Ruth Gabauer, Miranda Taylor, Anthony Anneski, Lori Joachim, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Experian Services Corp., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv- 03553 (C.D. Cal., May 12, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's deceptive trade practices of selling consumers rights to privacy, specifically by capturing, tracking and selling consumers' personal information to third party debt relief partners. Experian Services Corp. owns and operates an information services company. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Kevin Fisher, Esq. FISHER & KREKORIAN 2121 Park Drive Los Angeles, CA 90026 Telephone: (310) 862-1220 Facsimile: (310) 862-1230 E-mail: rkf@fkslaw.net EXXON MOBIL: Judge Denies Plaintiffs' Bid to Enforce Agreement -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the Eastern District of Louisiana denied plaintiffs' motion in the case CATHERINE M. BERNARD, ET AL. v. JOSEPH GREFER, ET AL., SECTION "L" (2), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-887 (E.D. La.) From 1953 until 1992, Grefer Tract was leased to clean, maintain, and repair used oil field pipes and equipment. The petitioners are all present or former residents of Jefferson Parish and have all, at some point, worked or lived in the area near Grefer Tract. Plaintiffs allege that the oil field equipment and pipes were and continued to be contaminated with highly toxic materials, hazardous, carcinogenic, and poisonous and that this contaminated the Grefer Tract. Plaintiffs allege that at all times, defendants knew or should have known that the oil pipes were contaminated and the contamination was caused by the negligence, wanton conduct, breach of duty, deceit, and intentional misrepresentation of the defendants. The plaintiffs brought claims against 28 defendants but have settled with most defendants, leaving only two defendants in the case, ExxonMobil and Intracoastal Tubular, Inc. Plaintiffs filed a second supplemental amended complaint on December 23, 2015 and allege, in addition to their personal injury claims that ExxonMobil and Intracoastal Tubular Co. entered into a settlement agreement in Dottie Adams et al. v. Joseph Grefer et al. and that defendants breached that settlement agreement. ExxonMobil claims that in or around June 2008, plaintiffs' counsel provided ExxonMobil with a list of an additional 1,000 claimants, most of whom were not named in the Dottie Adams suit. This list eventually swelled to over 1,700 claimants, and plaintiffs' counsel claimed that the claimants were entitled to the terms of the agreement despite the fact that they were not named plaintiffs in the Dottie Adams suit. According to ExxonMobil, plaintiffs' counsel demanded that ExxonMobil pay an additional $4.2 million in settlement money for these new claimants. Exxon refused to pay and settle the remainder of the new claimants. Plaintiffs filed a motion and seek enforcement of the 2008 Agreement. Plaintiffs argue that while executing the agreement, defendants also processed new claimants. Plaintiffs argue that ExxonMobil's refusal to pay additional new claimants, and their objections to plaintiffs' attempts to formally add these new claimants to the Dottie Adams suit through amended petitions, renders ExxonMobil estopped from asserting that the plaintiffs did not meet a condition precedent of actually being named in the Dottie Adams suit. Plaintiffs claim ExxonMobil therefore acted in bad faith. Plaintiffs argue that the terms of the agreement only require plaintiffs to file an amendment, and that any ambiguity should be construed against ExxonMobil. Judge Fallon denied plaintiffs' motion to enforce settlement agreement and will contact the parties to schedule a status conference to discuss a scheduling order. A copy of Judge Fallon's order and reasons dated April 20, 205, is available at http://is.gd/Abq0EFfrom Leagle.com Catherine M Bernard, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright, Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. Alvarez A Brown, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright, Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. Mary Louise Butler, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright, Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. Shirley Ann Chase, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright, Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. Robert Coleman, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright, Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. Rivers Davis, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright, Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. Lafabian A. Fluker, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright, Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. Joseph William Burkess, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright, Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. Dionne Monique Clofer, Plaintiff, represented by George Febiger Riess, Law Offices of George F. Riess & Associates, LLC, Dwight Jefferson, Coats, Rose, Yale, Ryman & Lee, P.C. & James L. Wright, Law Offices of Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. Exxon-Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Glen Marion Pilie, Adams & Reese, LLP, Donald Cole Massey, Adams & Reese, LLP, E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Adams & Reese, LLP, John Jerry Glas, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Martin Alan Stern, Adams & Reese, LLP, Raymond C. Lewis, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Roland M. Vandenweghe, Jr., Adams & Reese, LLP, Valeria M. Sercovich, Adams & Reese, LLP & William Everard Wright, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP Intracoastal Tubular Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas E. Balhoff, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister & Carlton Jones, III, Roedel, Parsons, Koch, Blache, Balhoff & McCollister Mobil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glen Marion Pilie, Adams & Reese, LLP, Donald Cole Massey, Adams & Reese, LLP, E. Paige Sensenbrenner, Adams & Reese, LLP,Martin Alan Stern, Adams & Reese, LLP, Roland M. Vandenweghe, Jr., Adams & Reese, LLP & Valeria M. Sercovich, Adams & Reese, LLP OFS, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles Bruce Colvin, Kingsmill Riess, LLC, Marguerite Kern Kingsmill, Kingsmill Riess, LLC & R. A. Osborn, Jr., Osborn & Osborn Shell Offshore, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mary S. Johnson, Johnson, Gray, McNamara, LLC,Chadwick J. Mollere, Johnson, Gray, McNamara, LLC, Jill Thompson Losch, Johnson, Gray, McNamara, LLC & Nichole M. Gray, Johnson Gray McNamara FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Patel" Suit Over Consumers Biometric Info -------------------------------------------------------------- Nimesh Patel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04265 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2015), arises from the alleged consumers' privacy rights abuse of collecting, storing, and using users' biometric identifiers and biometric information without informed consent. Facebook, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters and principal executive offices at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025. Facebook operates an online social network. The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Barz, Esq. Frank Richter, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 200 South Wacker Drive, 31st Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 674-4674 Facsimile: (312) 674-4676 E-mail: jbarz@rgrdlaw.com fricher@rgrdlaw.com - and - Shawn A. Williams, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: swilliams@rgrdlaw.com dhall@rgrdlaw.com FARMEDHERE LLC: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Kelly, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Farmedhere, LLC, Mark Thomann, Steve Denenberg, and Mark Weglarz, Case No. 1:15-cv-04267 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in indoor vertical farming business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank John Andreou, Esq. ANDREOU & CASSON, LTD. 661 West Lake Street, Suite 2 North Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 935-2000 E-mail: fandreou@andreou-casson.com FEDERAL INSURANCE: Need Not Defend L.A. Lakers, Court Rules ----------------------------------------------------------- Federal Insurance Co. had no a duty to defend the Los Angeles Lakers against a class action accusing it of sending fans unwanted text messages, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. David Emmanuel filed a putative class action in 2012, claiming the Lakers violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by spamming him and others with unwanted text messages. Emmanuel said that while attending a Lakers game he responded to a solicitation to send a text message to be posted on the arena scoreboard during the game. The Lakers then used his cell phone number to send him an unsolicited text message, he said. The court found that Emmanuel had given consent to receive the text message in question and dismissed with prejudice. While the case was on appeal to the 9th Circuit, the parties reached a settlement. After the settlement, the Lakers made repeated requests for Federal Insurance to cover the costs of defending the litigation, but Federal refused, citing the policy's invasion-of-privacy exclusion. The Lakers argued that Emmanuel's suit alleged economic injury and not damages for invasion of privacy, and noted that Federal's policy did not contain an express exclusion for claims made under the TCPA. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee found that violations of the TCPA are rooted in a violation of an individual's privacy interests, so the policy's privacy exclusion applied to Emmanuel's claims. "By protecting consumers against the nuisance and annoyance of unsolicited calls, the TCPA protects consumers against invasions of privacy. The nuisance and annoyance violate consumers' seclusion-based privacy interest," Gee wrote in the April 17 ruling. The fact that Emmanuel sought only economic and not personal damages did not strip the allegations of their privacy-based character, since the economic injury stemmed from the Lakers' alleged invasion of Emmanuel's and putative class members' privacy rights through the unsolicited text messages, Gee said. Furthermore, the dismissal based on Emmanuel's consent to receive the text did not rule out invasion of privacy as the basis for the action. Rather, the ruling was "tantamount to a determination that there was no invasion of privacy because Emmanuel consented to receiving the text," Gee said. Given courts' universal interpretation of TCPA claims as implicit invasion-of-privacy claims, Federal's invasion of privacy exclusion encompasses TCPA claims and the Emmanuel complaint fit within the exclusionary clause. Gee dismissed the Lakers' complaint with prejudice. A spokesman for Federal Insurance declined to comment. The case is Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-07743-DMG-SH, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. FINANCIAL AMERICAN: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Granted ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, partially granted, and partially denied the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by defendant Financial American Life Insurance Co., in the case docketed as SHEELA K. O'DONNELL, Plaintiff, v. FINANCIAL AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-1071. District Judge Gregory L. Frost denied Defendant's request for judgment on Plaintiff's breach of contract claims, and claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. On the other hand, Judge Frost granted Defendant's request for judgment on Plaintiff's claim for breach of fiduciary duty. A copy of Judge Frost's April 23, 2015 Opinion and Order is available at http://is.gd/Nu37I1from Leagle.com. Sheela K O'Donnell, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg -- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, John Michael Snider, Stebelton, Aranda & Snider, Robert Brent Sherwood -- rsherwood@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider & Todd B Naylor -- tnaylor@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider, LPA. Financial American Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Patrick T Lewis -- plewis@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP, Amy D. Fitts -- afitts@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC, Lauren E Tucker McCubbin -- ltucker@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC, Lisa A Weixelman -- lweixelman@polsinelli.com -- Polsinelli PC & Rodger L Eckelberry -- reckelberry@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler. Financial American Life Insurance Company, Counter Claimant, represented by Patrick T Lewis, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Amy D. Fitts, POLSINELLI PC, Lauren E Tucker McCubbin, Polsinelli PC, Lisa A Weixelman, Polsinelli PC & Rodger L Eckelberry, Baker & Hostetler. Sheela K O'Donnell, Counter Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA, John Michael Snider, Stebelton, Aranda & Snider, Robert Brent Sherwood, Goldenberg Schneider & Todd B Naylor, Goldenberg Schneider, LPA. FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT: Fee Bid in "Spears" Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted the Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees, Costs and Class Representative Service Award filed by Plaintiff in the case docketed as FELTON A SPEARS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FIRST AMERICAN EAPPRAISEIT, Defendant, CASE NO. 5:08-CV-00868-RMW. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte awarded Plaintiff's counsel with attorney's fees in the amount of $2,644,983.92 and $2,302,848.02 in expenses and granted a service award in the amount of $4,000.00 to plaintiff Felton A. Spears, Jr. for his services and efforts as a class representative. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC, 429 Forbes Avenue, Allegheny Building, 17th Floor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15219, was held responsible for allocating the award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses between Settlement Class Counsel and Plaintiff's Other Counsel, as well as for distributing the service award to Plaintiff. A copy of Judge Whyte's April 27, 2015 Order Granting in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Service Award is available at http://is.gd/XieHXY from Leagle.com. Felton A Spears, Jr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Janet Lindner Spielberg, Law Offices of Janet Lindner Spielberg, Joseph N. Kravec, Jr. -- jkravec@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Michael D. Braun, Braun Law Group, P.C., Ellen Mary M. Doyle -- edoyle@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Gretchen Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP, Joel R. Hurt -- jhurt@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne and Kravec, LLC, Khesraw Karmand -- kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Matthew J Preusch -- mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, L.L.P., McKean James Evans -- mevans@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Raymond John Farrow -- rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK, Tana Lin -- tlin@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP & Wyatt A. Lison -- wlison@fdpklaw.com -- Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC. Sidney Scholl, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Braun, Braun Law Group, P.C., Ellen Mary M. Doyle Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Gretchen Freeman Cappio Keller Rohrback, LLP, Janet Lindner Spielberg, Law Offices of Janet Lindner Spielberg, Joel R. Hurt, Feinstein Doyle Payne and Kravec, LLC, Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Khesraw Karmand, Keller Rohrback LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., McKean James Evans, Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, Raymond John Farrow, KELLER ROHRBACK, Tana Lin, Keller Rohrback LLP & Wyatt A. Lison, Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC. Mr. Juan Bencosme, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Braun, Braun Law Group, P.C., Janet Lindner Spielberg, Law Offices of Janet Lindner Spielberg & Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC. Mrs. Carmen Bencosme, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Braun, Braun Law Group, P.C., Janet Lindner Spielberg, Law Offices of Janet Lindner Spielberg, Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC & Raymond John Farrow, KELLER ROHRBACK. First American Eappraiseit, Defendant, represented by Alvin Matthew Ashley -- mashley@irell.com -- Irell and Manella, LLP, John C. Hueston, IRELL & MANELLA LLP, Justin Nathanael Owens -- jowens@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP, Allison Lauren Libeu, Irell and Manella LLP, Brian Clifton Berggren, Irell and Manella LLP, Jeffrey Scott Wilkerson, Irell and Manella LLP, John Charles Hueston, Irell and Manella LLP, Moez Mansoor Kaba, Irell and Manella LLP & Nathaniel H Lipanovich -- nlipanovich@irell.com -- Irell and Manella LLP. JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, Objector, represented by Jenny Lee Merris -- jenny.merris@piblaw.com -- Parker Ibrahim & Berg LLC, John M. Sorich -- jsorich@alvaradosmith.com -- Alvarado Smith & Sung-Min Christopher Yoo, AlvaradoSmith. Mr. Larry Ellis, Objector, represented by Matt Kurilich. FITBIT INC: Falsely Claims It Can Track Sleeping Time, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that FitBit sells a wearable wireless device by falsely claiming it can track "how long you sleep," a class action claims in Federal Court. FLYING FOOD: Faces Wage Class Action in California -------------------------------------------------- Steve Lopez, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that Flying Food is facing a class action. Rafael Leon joined fellow employees in a one-day strike against Flying Food, where he has worked for two years and makes $10.25 an hour. Flying Foods' employees allege they are paid less than required under the city's living-wage ordinance, that they are shorted on overtime pay, that they sometimes work in puddles of water because drains are clogged, that the company doesn't always provide insulated clothing for those who spend hours in food coolers, and that they must work harder to compensate for equipment and staff shortages. Flying Food, by the way, denies the allegations. For Leon, however, his main grievance is something quite basic. "We want respect," he said. "My mom raised me with a higher standard of respect . . . and taught me to be proud of what you do, even if it's cleaning toilets or scrubbing floors." But Mr. Leon said some of his supervisors subject him and others to verbal abuse and rudely order them around. "We want to be treated like human beings." Flying Food spokesperson Courtney Harper said the company -- which serves Air France, China Airlines and Virgin Australia, to name a few clients -- is committed to providing "competitive pay and benefits as well as comfortable and safe working conditions." The base wage averages $12 an hour, she said, and employee benefits include vacations, an offer of health insurance and perks including free cafeteria meals. Ms. Harper said the company is paying "the required wage to all employees who are subject to" the living-wage ordinance. But a class-action lawsuit against Flying Food contends otherwise. The employees are nonunion but are being represented by Unite Here, which says some of the 300-plus employees are not being paid the required equivalent of roughly $15 an hour in combined wages and benefits. FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: To Defend Against All Class Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Francesca's Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend itself against all claims asserted in a consolidated class action lawsuit. On September 27, 2013 and November 4, 2013, two purported class action lawsuits entitled Ortuzar v. Francesca's Holdings Corp., et al. and West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Francesca's Holdings Corp., et al. were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers for alleged violations of the federal securities laws arising from statements in certain public disclosures regarding the Company's current and future business and financial condition. On December 19, 2013, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 14, 2014, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint purportedly on behalf of shareholders that purchased or acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock between July 22, 2011 and September 3, 2013 against the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a) (2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly false and misleading statements in the Company's public disclosures concerning, among other things, the Company's relationship with certain vendors. The lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On May 13, 2014 defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. That motion was fully briefed as of August 13, 2014. The Company believes that the allegations contained in the consolidated complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against all claims asserted therein. A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time and, as such, the Company has not recorded an accrual for any possible loss. GAF MATERIALS: Court Approves Settlement on Defective Shingles -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge J. Michelle Childs issued a final order approving the settlement agreement in the case captioned In re Building Materials Corporation of America Asphalt Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation. The deal relates to CARROLL THOMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GAF MATERIALS CORPORATION, Defendant. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF BLAIRSVILLE, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GAF MATERIALS CORPORATION, Defendant. JOHN GREEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GAF MATERIALS CORPORATION, Defendant, MDL NO. 8:11- MN-02000-JMC, CIVIL ACTION NO. 8:12-CV-00087-JMC., 8:12-CV-00088- JMC, 8:11-CV-00983-JMC (D.S.C.). Under the deal, all Settlement Class Members will release and discharge GAF from claims related to defective Mobile Timberline(R). On April 22, 2015, the court conducted a Formal Fairness Hearing to consider the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Mobile Class Action Settlement, the Settlement Agreement and all exhibits thereto, and Mobile Class Counsel's Petition for Reimbursement of Expenses and Award of Attorney's Fees. On April 22, 2015, Judge Childs issued a final order and judgment, available at http://is.gd/Qzznidfrom Leagle.com, granting the Joint Motion for Final Approval of Mobile Class Action Settlement and Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, adopting all defined terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Building Materials Corporation of America Asphalt Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation MDL 2283, In Re, represented by David Tulchin -- tulchind@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell. Jack Brooks, and Ellen Brooks, Plaintiffs, represented by Shawn M Raiter -- sraiter@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP, Algernon Gibson Solomons, III, Speights & Runyan, Daniel Alvah Speights, Speights and Runyan & Thomas H Pope, III, Pope and Hudgens. Angela Posey, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson -- brendant@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Patrick F Madden -- pmadden@bm.net , Berger and Montague. James Morocco, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Michael M Weinkowitz -- mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman. Sybil McDaniel, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra C Warren, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Daniel M Cohen -- danielc@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP & Melissa W Wolchansky -- wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen and Associates. Diane Haner, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Charles J LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Christopher Luke Coffin, Pendley Baudin and Coffin, Mark A Solheim -- msolheim@larsonking.com -- Larson King, LLP, Michael McShane, Alexander Hawes and Audet, Robert K Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP & Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP. Kathleen Erickson, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, John Gordon Rudd, Jr, Zimmerman Reed, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Michael M Weinkowitz, Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman. Tina Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Gary E Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- Mason Law Firm, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Parker Waichman. First Baptist Church of Blairsville, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP & John A. Dickerson, McClure Ramsay Dickerson & Escoe. John Green, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Algernon Gibson Solomons, III, Speights & Runyan, Daniel Alvah Speights, Speights and Runyan, Edward J. Peterson, III -- epeterson@srbp.com -- Stichter, Riedel, Blain & Prosser, PA & Thomas H Pope, III, Pope and Hudgens. Michael Ragan, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, John Gordon Rudd, Jr, Zimmerman Reed, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP & Charles E Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran and Berman. Richard Godfrey, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP, Daniel K Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Donna F Solen -- dsolen@masonlawdc.com -- Mason Law Firm, Gary E Mason -- gmason@masonlawdc.com -- Mason Law Firm, James C Shah, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLC, Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Parker Waichman, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLC & Scott C Harris -- scott@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson and Mason. Thomas Byrd, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP, C Dorian Britt, Tatlow Gump Faiella LLC & Jordan Lucas Chaikin, Parker Waichman. Susan D Ashley, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan S Thompson, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Dennis Craig Reich, Reich Binstock & Shawn M Raiter, Larson King, LLP. GAF Materials Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anna H Fee -- feean@sullcrom.com , Sullivan and Cromwell, Childs Cantey Thrasher -- cthrasher@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan White and Boyd, David Tulchin -- tulchind@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell, Gray Thomas Culbreath -- gculbreath@gwblawfirm.com -- Gallivan White and Boyd, Kathleen S McArthur -- mcarthurk@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell LLP & Sara Miro -- miros@sullcrom.com -- Sullivan and Cromwell. Building Materials Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Gray Thomas Culbreath, Gallivan White and Boyd, Arthur Gerald Boylan, Leonard Street and Deinard, PA, David Glenn Barger -- bargerd@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP, David R Crosby, Leonard Street and Deinard, PA, David Tulchin, Sullivan and Cromwell & Gavin J Rooney -- grooney@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler. GAUCHO LLC: Faces "Hadel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Don Hadel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gaucho, LLC, Samba Brands Management, 7th & Barrow LLC, Avenue Spoon Inc., Shimon Bokovza, Danielle Billera, and Matthew Johnson, Case No. 1:15-cv-03706-PKC (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Sushi Samba restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Esq. Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com GLOBAL POWER: Faces "Ream" Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Daniel Ream, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Global Power Equipment Group Inc., Luis Manuel Ramirez, Raymond K. Guba, and Terence J. Cryan, Case No. 3:15-cv- 01679-M (N.D. Tex., May 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Global Power Equipment Group Inc. is a comprehensive provider of custom engineered equipment, and modification and maintenance services for customers in the energy, infrastructure and process and industrial segments. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Dean Gresham, Esq. PAYNE MITCHELL LAW GROUP, LLP 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 252-1888 Facsimile: (214) 252-1889 E-mail: dean@paynemitchell.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com GRAND FLORIDIAN: Faces "Cordoba" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Jhonny Alberto Preciado Cordoba, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Grand Floridian Estate Realty LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-21818-JLK (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Grand Floridian Estate Realty LLC owns and operates a real estate company regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM HAGUE QUALITY: Faces "Bergman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Mark D. Bergman, and John Prochazka, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Hague Quality Water of Kansas City, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-09070 (D. Kan., May 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay field service technician employees overtime compensation. Hague Quality Water of Kansas City, Inc. is a water treatment manufacturer that does business in the State of Kansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raymond A. Dake, Esq. SIRO SMITH DICKSON, PC 1621 Baltimore Avenue Kansas City, MO 64108 Telephone: (816) 471-4881 Facsimile: (816) 471-4883 E-mail: rdake@sirosmithdickson.com HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Court Issues Guidelines to Evaluate Deals ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of California gave notice of the factors that the Court would consider in evaluating any proposed class settlement in the case docketed as ERESA CLEMENS, JORDAN SIMENSEN, and ADRIA DESPRES, individuals, for themselves and all members of the putative class, and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") Plaintiffs, v. HAIR CLUB FOR MEN, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, NO. C 15-01431 WHA. In addition to reminding counsels to review the Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements, District Judge William Aslup also enumerated the following substantive and timing factors that he would consider in granting preliminary and/or final approval to a proposed class settlement: (1) Adequacy of presentation; (2) Due diligence; (3) Cost-benefit for absent class members; (4) The release; (5) Expansion of the class; (6) Reversion; (7) Claim procedure; (8) Attorney's Fees; (9) Dwindling or minimal assets; (10) Timing of proposed settlement; (11) A right to opt out is not a cure-all; (12) Incentive payment; and (13) Notice to class members. A copy of the Judge Aslup's April 23, 2015 Notice Regarding Factors To Be Evaluated For Any Proposed Class Settlement is available at http://is.gd/jz72f3from Leagle.com. Teresa Clemens, Plaintiff, represented by John Michael Bickford, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & R. Rex Parris, R. Rex Parris Law Firm. Jordan Simensen, Plaintiff, represented by John Michael Bickford, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & R. Rex Parris, R. Rex Parris Law Firm. Adria Despres, Plaintiff, represented by John Michael Bickford, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & R. Rex Parris, R. Rex Parris Law Firm. Hair Club for Men, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew More McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Justin Taylor Curley -- jcurley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. HCR MANOR: Ohio Ct. App. Drops Appeal on Interlocutory Judgment --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Arlene Singer of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, Wood County, dismissed an appeal in the case Martin Forbush, individually and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Thomas Forbush, Jr., Appellee, v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., et al. Appellants, C.A. NO. WD-14-071 (Ohio Ct. App.) Martin Forbush, individually and as executor of the estate of Thomas Forbush, Jr., brought a wrongful death action on June 17, 2014, against appellant, HCR ManorCare, Inc., which operates nursing homes, including Heartland of Perrysburg, HCR Manor Care Services, Inc., Heartland Employment Services, LLC, Heartland of Perrysburg OH, LLC, and Lisa Chalk, NHA. Forbush alleged that appellants held themselves out to be able to adequately care for Forbush Jr., but in fact did not provide him with the necessary care and, as a result, Forbush Jr. died. Appellees alleged claims of negligence of the corporate defendants and unknown individual defendants; violation of nursing home contractual obligations, statutes, or regulations by unknown nursing home employees which resulted in non-lethal and lethal injuries; medical malpractice; fraud; breach of fiduciary duty; and intentionally creating and covering up dangerous conditions that existed at the home. The defendants answered, denying the allegations and asserting that the parties had entered into an arbitration agreement and that the complaint should be stayed pending arbitration pursuant to R.C. 2711.02. R.C. 2711.02(C). Defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration. Appellee opposed the motion arguing that a wrongful death beneficiary is not a party to the agreement and, therefore, is not required to arbitrate. On September 9, 2014, the trial court denied the motion to stay the case and compel arbitration until after the parties engaged in discovery. Appellants filed an immediate appeal from the judgment. Appellee argues on appeal that the judgment appealed was not a final, appealable order. Judge Singer agreed with appellee and ordered the case to be dismissed. A copy of Judge Singer's decision and judgment dated April 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/tDOnGufrom Leagle.com For Appellee: Michael J. Fuller, Jr., Esq. D. Bryant Chaffin, Esq. Amy Quezon, Esq. A. Lance Reins, Esq. John R. Cummings, Esq. McHUGH FULLER LAW GROUP 97 Elias Whiddon Road Hattiesburg, MS 39402 Telephone: 601-261-2220 Facsimile: 601-261-2481 Robert M. Anspach -- ranspach@anspachlaw.com -- Mark D. Meeks -- mmeeks@anspachlaw.com -- Charles D. Rittenhouse -- crittenhouse@anspachlaw.com -- at ANSPACH LAW, for appellants. The Ohio Court of Appeals panel consists of Presiding Judge Stephen A. Yarbrough and Judges Arlene Singer and Thomas J. Oswik. INTERSECTIONS INC: Made Immaterial Payment to Settle Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- Intersections Inc. made an immaterial payment to settle a class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014. In September 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois in Cook County Circuit Court against Intersections Inc., Intersections Insurance Services Inc., and Ocwen Financial Corporation, alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case was removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. On October 30, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing, without prejudice, Intersections Inc. from the case. On November 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC. On November 27, 2013, Intersections Insurance Services Inc. and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC jointly filed a Motion to Dismiss and to Strike Class Allegations. On March 5, 2014, the motion was granted in part, and denied in part. "All parties entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which we made an immaterial payment, and the case was dismissed in December 2014," the Company said. INTERTHINX INC: Colo. Court Approved Settlement in "Shaw" Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Colorado granted Plaintiffs' unopposed Motions for (1) Approval of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards, and (2) Final Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement in the case docketed as CELESTE SHAW; JUDITH VERHEECKE; SHABNAM SHEILA DEHDASHTIAN; MEDHAT GAREEB; and DEJAN NAGL on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. INTERTHINX, INC., a California Corporation; and VERISK ANALYTICS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-01229- REB-NYW. District Judge Robert E. Blackburn, in granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement, held that: (1)the settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of litigation in doubt; (3) the value of an immediate recovery outweighs the mere possibility of future relief, as well as protracted and expensive litigation; (4) the judgment of the parties confirms the settlement is reasonable; and (5) the notice to the class members was sufficient. The granting of Plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees, Expenses and Incentive Awards was granted by Judge Blackburn was supported by the 12 factors identified by the Fifth Circuit in Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, Inc., 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974), also known as the Johnson factors. After nearly two years of contentious litigation in three separate lawsuits, named plaintiffs Celeste Shaw, Judith Verheecke, Shabnam Sheila Dehdashtian, Medhat Gareeb, and Dejan Nagl ("Named Plaintiffs") and class counsel from Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Rowdy Meeks Legal Group, LLC, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, and The Spivak Law Firm ("Class Counsel") obtained a settlement of this class/collective action that creates a common fund worth up to $6 million, plus employer's share of employment taxes. Named Plaintiffs and Defendants Interthinx, Inc., and Verisk Analytics, Inc. ("Defendants"), memorialized the settlement in a Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release, filed with the court on November 4, 2014. The Settlement specifically resolves wage and hour claims of four proposed settlement classes of Auditors and Underwriters ("AUs") employed by Interthinx: (a) those employed in Colorado between May 9, 2010, and June 30, 2014 ("Colorado Class"); (b) those employed in California between June 28, 2009, and June 30, 2014 ("California Class"); (c) those employed in Missouri between May 9, 2010, and June 30, 2014 ("Missouri Class"); and (d) those employed in any other state between May 9, 2010, and June 30, 2014, and who are not members of the California, Colorado, or Missouri Classes ("FLSA Class"). A copy of Judge Blackburn's April 21, 2015 Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class and Collective Action Settlement and Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Approval of Attorney's Fees, Expenses, and Incentive Awards is available at http://is.gd/tfIIwjfrom Leagle.com. Celeste Shaw, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Andrew Edward Swan, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm, David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm, Jessica Lee Riggin -- jriggin@rhdtlaw.com Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, Paul Forrest Lewis, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Steven M. Tindall -- stindall@rhdtlaw.com -- Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP & Rowdy Byron Meeks -- rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com -- Rowdy Meeks Legal Group, LLC. Judith Verheecke, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm, David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm, Jessica Lee Riggin, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, Paul Forrest Lewis, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC & Steven M. Tindall, Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP. Shabnam Sheila Dehdashtian, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm & David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm. Dejan Nagl, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm & David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm. Medhat Gareeb, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Dickson Kuhn, Lewis Kuhn Swan PC, Caroline Tahmassian Zarneh, Spivak Law Firm & David Glenn Spivak, Spivak Law Firm. Verisk Analytics Inc, Defendant, represented by Nicholas Anthony Murray -- nicholas.Murray@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., Angela Quiles Nevarez -- angela.Nevarez@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., Leila Nourani -- leila.Nourani@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLP, Nicky Jatana -- JatanaN@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, LLP & Peter Francis Munger -- peter.munger@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C.. Interthinx Inc, Defendant, represented by Nicholas Anthony Murray, Jackson Lewis, P.C., Angela Quiles Nevarez, Jackson Lewis, P.C., Leila Nourani, Jackson Lewis, LLP, Nicky Jatana, Jackson Lewis, LLP & Peter Francis Munger, Jackson Lewis, P.C.. JACO OIL: Must File Bid for Initial OK of Settlement on July 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston signed on May 14, 2015, a notice of settlement and stipulation extending the deadline to file dispositional documents pursuant to Local Rule 160 in the case captioned LINDA DE SANTOS an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JACO OIL COMPANY, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00738-JLT, (E.D. Cal.). The parties in the case have agreed to the terms of a settlement that would resolve this matter in its entirety, pending Court approval. The parties have executed a Memorandum of Understanding as of May 13, 2015, and anticipate circulating and executing a long form settlement agreement within approximately one to two weeks. Plaintiff will then prepare and file a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. Therefore, the parties stipulated that the 21-day deadline for filing dispositional documents be extended from June 3, 2015 to June 12, 2015. Accordingly, the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1HvAGo8from Leagle.com, provides that: 1. The request for preliminary approval of class settlement must be filed no later than July 3, 2015; 2. All pending deadlines, dates and hearings are vacated. Linda De Santos, Plaintiff, represented by Shane Carson Stafford -- sstafford@ssbfirm.com -- Shanberg, Stafford and Bartz LLP. Jaco Oil Company, Defendant, represented by David Cooper -- dcooper@kleinlaw.com -- Klein Denatale Goldner & Connie M. Parker -- cparker@kleinlaw.com -- Klein Denatale Goldner Cooper Rosenlieb & Kimball, LLP. Ross E. Shanberg, Shane C. Stafford, Aaron A. Bartz, SHANBERG, STAFFORD & BARTZ, LLP, Irvine, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA DE SANTOS, and all others similarly situated. David J. Cooper, Connie M. Parker, COOPER, ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL LLP, Attorneys for Defendants, JACO OIL COMPANY, FASTRIP, FOOD STORES, INC., FASTRIP, FOOD STORES OF FRESNO, INC., FASTRIP FINANCIAL, LP, INSTANT STORAGE, LLC, BROOKE UTILITIES, INC., WHOLESALE FUELS, INC. JB HUNT: "Wheat" Suit Transferred to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Samuel Conti granted the parties' stipulation to transfer to the Central District of California, the case captioned DARNETTA WHEAT, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, ORDER TRANSFERRING VENUE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF Plaintiff, CALIFORNIA v. J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-05431-SC (N.D. Cal.). A putative employment class action was filed on behalf of truck drivers employed by J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. ("JBH"). The complaint alleged various violations by JBH of state and federal law arising out of its failure to pay wages and to reimburse employees for medical and physical examinations they were required to undergo. The suit was originally filed in Alameda County Superior Court, but was later removed to federal court. The parties thereafter requested that the court transfer venue to the Central District of California. In finding that the transfer of venue to the Central District of California is appropriate, Judge Conti held that the case satisfies all three requirements for a transfer of venue: (1) the propriety of venue in the transferor district, (2) whether the action could have been brought in the transferee district, and (3) whether the transfer will serve the interests of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses. In his April 15, 2015 order available at http://is.gd/sxt1RHfrom Leagle.com, Judge Conti noted that the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in California, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to plaintiff's claims took place in the Central District. He also found that documents relevant to the lawsuit are kept in JBH's office in South Gate, California, located in the Central District, and that JBH's employees and managers responsible for enjorcing JBH's employment policies in California are also there. Darnetta Wheat, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Leslie Joyner, Marlin and Saltzman LLP, Christina A Humphrey, Marlin and Saltzman LLP & Stanley D Saltzman, Marlin and Saltzman LLP. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., a Georgia corporation, Defendant, represented by Sophia Behnia -- sbehnia@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC & Keith A Jacoby -- kjacoby@litter.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. JC CRANBERRY: Joint Motion to Seal Settlement Agreement Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Mark R. Hornak denied the Joint Motion to Seal in the case captioned JUSTIN WEISMANTLE, et al, Plaintiffs, v. AMMAR JALI, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-CV-01087 (W.D. Pa.). A suit was filed by the plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), and its Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") for non-payment of overtime compensation. The parties settled the case and asked the court that they be permitted to file the settlement agreement under seal on the court's docket. In denying the parties' Joint Motion to Seal, Judge Hornak held that the parties' did not state any overriding reason that sealing and secrecy are required beyond the fact that that is a term of their deal, although they do say that divulging the terms of the settlement would create embarrassment as well as the perception of wrongdoing by the defendants. The reasons fail to demonstrate a particularized and significant private interest that overcomes the public interest as embodied in the presumption of openness when a federal court is asked to substantively consider the terms of a Fair Labor Standards Act settlement and then approve it. A copy of the April 23, 2015 opinion is available at http://is.gd/E1br7dfrom Leagle.com. JUSTIN WEISMANTLE, JAMES SAYLOR, JENNIFER MABIN, and AMANDA WEISMANTLE, Plaintiffs, represented by Ari R. Karpf, Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C. & Jeremy M. Cerutti, Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti, P.C.. AMMAR JALI, KHURRAN ALI, JC CRANBERRY INC, JC BUTLER INC, JC NEW CASTLE INC, Defendant, represented by David C. Zimmaro -- david@zimmarolaw.com -- Zimmaro Law Offices. KAISER FOUNDATION: Faces Overtime Class Action in California ------------------------------------------------------------ Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a class-action overtime pay lawsuit has been filed against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. alleging senior systems administrators employed by the hospital(s) were purposefully misclassified in order to escape payment of overtime, as well as the issuance of meal breaks and other rest periods mandated by California overtime law and other employment statutes for non-management personnel. Employees in the state of California who reach an earnings plateau, or who are working at a management job and thus paid an annual salary, are usually exempt from overtime pay: the thought being, a job commanding such a high rate of pay requires, from time to time, that extra hours should be expected and tolerated as necessary, without the need for additional compensation. Some employers, however, have attempted to skirt around this by incorrectly classifying non-management personnel as exempt, in an effort to save dollars. The overtime pay laws class action, filed in California in March, alleges that Senior Systems Administrators employed by Kaiser spent the lion's share of their days performing non-managerial tasks. Such tasks included, as alleged in court documents, the repair and replacement of personal computers and servers in Kaiser call centers, installations of software and operating systems, password resets and other tasks that are considered by the plaintiffs to be non-managerial in nature. It is also alleged in the overtime laws class action that employees serving as Senior Systems Administrators did not supervise other employees of Kaiser, which is usually a function of management personnel and therefore exempt from overtime pay according to the provisions of California overtime law. It is sometimes the case that an employer will hire an employee for a job that is meant to be managerial in nature, and thus would be exempt from overtime pay. However, if the majority of tasks performed by the employee are non-managerial, with no provision or opportunity to supervise others, then the management profile of the particular job is suspect. The lawsuit did not specify what damages are being sought by plaintiffs in the California overtime law class action. The lawsuit also alleges unfair competition, and failure to provide accurate, itemized statements in accordance with California labor statutes. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Inc. is a subsidiary of Kaiser Permanente and boasts 30 wholly owned community hospitals throughout California, Hawaii and Oregon. Plaintiffs are seeking various unspecified damages and a trial by jury. The overtime pay laws class-action lawsuit is Bernard Howard et al v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals Inc., Case No. 37-2015-00008539-CU- OE-CTL, filed March 12 and currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court for the State of California. KINGATE MANAGEMENT: Dist. Court Judgment Vacated, Suit Remanded --------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the district court in the case captioned IN RE KINGATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED LITIGATION. CRITERIUM CAPITAL FUNDS B.V., BBF TRUST, WALL STREET SECURITIES, S.A., BANCA ARNER S.A., ALVARO CASTILLO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, EITHAN EPHRATI, ANDBANC, SILVANA WORLDWIDE CORPORATION, BG VALORES, S.A., JAQUES LAMAC, NITKEY HOLDINGS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellants, LUCIEN GELDZAHLER, Plaintiff-Consolidated Defendant-Appellant, v. TREMONT (BERMUDA) LIMITED, GRAHAM H. COOK, JOHN E. EPPS, SANDRA MANZKE, FIM ADVISERS LLP, CHARLES SEBAH, KEITH R. BISH, CHRISTOPHER WETHERHILL, MICHAEL G. TANNENBAUM, TREMONT GROUP HOLDINGS, INCORPORATED, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP, Defendant-Appellees, KINGATE MANAGEMENT LIMITED, FIM (USA) INCORPORATED, CITI HEDGE FUND SERVICES LTD., Defendant- Consolidated Defendant-Appellees, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS BERMUDA, CARLO GROSSO, FIM LIMITED, FEDERICO M. CERETTI, Consolidated Defendant-Appellees, BERNARD L. MADOFF, PHILLIP A. EVANS, MARGARET EVERY, SHAZIEH SALAHUDDIN, JOHANN WONG, PRESTON M. DAVIS, BANK OF BERMUDA LIMITED, Defendants, PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, ANDORRA BANC AGRICOL REIG S.A., on behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consolidated Defendants, NO. 11-1397-CV (App. 2d Cir.) Plaintiffs are individuals and entities, each of which purchased shares in Kingate Global Fund, Ltd. and/or Kingate Euro Fund, Ltd. and continued to hold their shares until the exposure in December 2008 of the Ponzi scheme operated by Bernard L. Madoff and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, a broker-dealer founded and run by Madoff. The Madoff Ponzi scheme resulted in the loss of the great majority of the Funds' assets. The Complaint asserts a class action on behalf of all shareholders in the Funds (with the exception of Defendants and certain affiliates of Defendants) as of the time Madoff's fraud was exposed. The Funds are open-ended investment companies organized and operating in the British Virgin Islands. Defendants are persons and entities that served in roles affiliated with the Funds, including officers, directors, and managers of the Funds, auditors, a consultant, and the Funds' administrator. The names and roles of the defendants in connection with the Funds are set forth in the margin. Plaintiffs invested in the Funds by purchasing shares. It appears to be common ground in this appeal that the shares of the Funds are not "covered securities," as defined by SLUSA, so that if the applicability of SLUSA depends on the plaintiffs' purchase of those shares, SLUSA cannot apply. The plaintiffs' expectations, however, based on the declared intentions of the Funds, was that the Funds would invest in common stock of Standard & Poors ("S&P") 100 companies, listed on United States exchanges. The latter securities are "covered securities" under the terms of SLUSA. The Funds operated as "feeder funds" for BMIS, meaning that the Funds delegated custody of the investments and all investment decisions and duties to Madoff and BMIS. Between March 1994 and December 10, 2008, Kingate Global gave BMIS $963.45 million to invest for its account. Between May 1, 2000, and December 10, 2008, Kingate Euro gave BMIS $767.44 million of its funds to invest for its account. During those periods, BMIS provided the Funds with periodic account statements. The statements purported to show purchases and sales for the Funds' accounts of "covered securities" -- common stock of major companies included in the S&P 100 Index, and of options on the S&P 100 Index. According to the account statements, those investments produced a continuous course of very substantial profits and growth, so that by November 30, 2008, the Funds' investments with BMIS had grown to a combined value of over $3 billion. In December 2008, however, the investments made by BMIS on behalf of the Funds turned out to be entirely fictitious. BMIS had made no purchases or sales of securities, and there were no profits or growth in its customers' accounts. Madoff had used the assets invested through BMIS either for his personal benefit or for distribution to account holders who demanded withdrawal of their investments. The Funds' investments through BMIS, which represented substantially all of the Funds' assets, were lost to Madoff's fraud. Prior to the exposure of Madoff's scheme, the Funds, and the defendants speaking on their behalf, represented to their investors that the Funds' assets were being invested by an unnamed investment advisor, who was realizing substantial growth for the accounts of the Funds, using a trading strategy that involved purchasing S&P 100 stocks while concurrently selling call options and buying put options on the S&P 100 Index. According to the allegations of the Complaint, in statements to investors, the Managers undertook obligations to evaluate and monitor the investment advisor, and the Auditors undertook obligations to audit the Funds' financial statements in accordance with established accounting principles. Each falsely represented to the Funds' investors from time to time (according to the allegations of the Complaint) that they had performed those obligations, when in fact they had not. The Administrator similarly undertook the obligation to determine the Funds' values and periodically made allegedly false representations to the Funds' investors of values that accorded with values reported by BMIS. The Complaint asserts 28 class action claims, each based on state common law. Some of the claims are based on false conduct; other claims are based on breach of other legal duties. The claims include fraud, constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, gross negligence, breach of contractual obligations, breach of fiduciary duties, constructive trust, mutual mistake, unjust enrichment, and aiding and abetting various aforementioned violations. Some of the numbered claims of the Complaint assert more than one theory of liability. Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which dismissed their state-law class action claims as precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"), and denied leave to re-plead as futile. The appellate court disagreed with the proposition that SLUSA's language suggests a need to dismiss the entire action merely because one of its claims is precluded. Consistent with its prior ruling and that of other circuits, it held that only the claims covered by SLUSA's terms should be dismissed, and the claims not within SLUSA's terms should proceed. The appellate court thus vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the matter for further proceedings. A copy of the April 23, 2015 ruling is available at http://is.gd/rd2EMzfrom Leagle.com. DAVID A. BARRETT (S. Douglas Bunch -- dbunch@cohenmilstein.com -- Steven J. Toll -- stoll@cohenmilstein.com -- Lisa M. Mezzetti, Daniel S. Sommers -- dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- Joshua S. Devore -- jdevore@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY; David Boies -- dboies@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Armonk, NY; Stuart H. Singer -- ssinger@bsfllp.com -- Carl E. Goldfarb -- cgoldfarb@bsfllp.com -- James Grippando -- jgrippando@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, on the brief), Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellants. SETH M. SCHWARTZ -- seth.schwartz@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellees Tremont (Bermuda) Limited and Tremont Group Holdings, Inc. HOWARD J. RUBIN -- hrubin@dglaw.com -- (Bruce M. Ginsberg -- bginsberg@dglaw.com -- on the brief), Davis & Gilbert LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellees Graham H. Cook, John E. Epps, and Charles D. Sebah. CARMINE D. BOCCUZZI -- cboccuzzi@cgsh.com -- (David Y. Livshiz, on the brief) Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Citi Hedge Fund Services, Ltd. SANFORD M. LITVACK -- sandy.litvack@hoganlovells.com -- (Dennis H. Tracey, III -- dennis.tracey@hoganlovells.com -- Lisa J. Fried -- lisa.fried@hoganlovells.com -- on the brief), Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee PricewaterhouseCoopers Bermuda. JODI A. KLEINICK -- jodikleinick@paulhastings.com -- (Barry G. Sher -- barrysher@paulhastings.com -- Mor Wetzler -- morwetzler@paulhastings.com -- on the brief), Paul Hastings LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellees FIM Advisers LLP, FIM Limited, FIM (USA), Inc., Carlo Grosso, and Federico H. Ceretti. John Han -- john.han@kobrekim.com.hk -- Jonathan D. Cogan -- jonathan.cogan@kobrekim.com -- Carrie A. Tendler -- carrie.tendler@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Sandra Manzke. Peter R. Chaffetz -- peter.chaffetz@chaffetzlindsey.com -- Charles J. Scibetta -- charles.scibetta@chaffetzlindsey.com -- Erin E. Valentine -- erin.valentine@chaffetzlindsey.com -- Chaffetz Lindsey LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellees Kingate Management Limited and Christopher Wetherhill. Laura Grossfield Birger -- lbirger@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Michael Tannenbaum. Michael S. Flynn -- michael.flynn@davispolk.com -- Michael P. Carroll -- michael.carroll@davispolk.com -- James H.R. Windels -- james.windels@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. KRAFT FOODS: Faces 'Foote" Suit Over Illegal Company Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Foote, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv- 04236 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the planned acquisition of the Company by H.J. by means of an unfair process and for inadequate consideration. Kraft Foods Group, Inc. is a consumer packaged goods company which maintains its principal executive offices at Three Lakes Drive, Northfield, Illinois, 60093. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman Rifkind, Esq. Amelia S. Newton, Esq. LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD. 351 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 401 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 634-0057 Facsimile: (312) 634-0059 E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com newton@laskyrifkind.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Edward B. Gerard, Esq. Justin D. Rieger, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com soddo@robbinsarroyo.com egerard@robbinsarroyo.com jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com LEE COUNTY, FL: State Immunity Causes Case to be Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John E. Steele of the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case KEVIN CALDERONE, an individual, GEORGE SCHWING, an individual, MICHAEL ZALESKI, an individual, and SELENA LEE, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL SCOTT, as the duly elected Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-519- FTM-29CM (M.D. Fla.) Kevin Calderone, George Schwing, Michael Zaleski and Selena Lee are former employees of the Lee County Sheriff's Office. They alleged that they performed off-the-clock work for which they were not compensated. According to plaintiffs, defendant's failure to compensate them for such work constitutes unjust enrichment and violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA). Plaintiffs have filed an Amended Collective & Class Action Complaint, on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, against defendant Michael Scott in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lee County, Florida. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs' unjust enrichment causes of action (Counts V and VI) on the basis of Florida state law sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs respond that the State of Florida has waived sovereign immunity under the circumstances giving rise to their unjust enrichment claims. Judge Steele granted defendant's motion to dismiss counts V and VI of the amended collective & class action complaint and the same is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of Judge Steele's opinion and order dated April 16, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/hTIG46from Leagle.com Plaintiffs, represented by: Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq. YORMAK DISABILITY LAW GROUP Ft. Myers - Estero Brooks Executive Suites 9990 Coconut Rd. Ste. 206 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Telephone: 239-985-9691 Michael Scott, as the duly elected Sheriff of Lee County, Florida, Defendant, represented by David J. Stefany -- dstefany@anblaw.com -- Shaina Thorpe -- at Allen, Norton & Blue, PA LICHTER GROUP: Judge Allows Amendment in "Malinowski" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William D. Quarles, Jr. of the District of Maryland, Northern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend in the case STEVEN MALINOWSKI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE LICHTER GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants, CIVIL NO. WDQ-14-917 (D. Md.) The defendant The Lichter Group, LLC is a Maryland limited liability company that provides certified public accounting and business consulting services. Trojan Horse, Ltd. is a mail transportation contractor, providing mail services for the U.S. Postal Service under the McNamara-O' Hara Service Contract Act (SCA). The SCA required Trojan Horse to establish benefits for the plaintiffs and putative class members that included pensions on retirement or death or equivalents. Trojan Horse established the single employer plan, with a Trust Plan funding and benefit arrangement. Brian Hicks was the plan administrator and trustee. Trojan Horse retained Lichter, which held itself out as experts in performing audits of Employee Benefit Plans. Steven Malinowski was employed by Trojan Horse as a Manager/Supervisor at its Bethpage, New York facility. James E. Miley, Ray Dotzler, Andrew L. Frantz, and Wayne P. McMillenwere were employed as Trojan Horse truck drivers. Lichter is a Maryland limited liability company that provides certified public accounting and business consulting services. The plaintiffs filed a class action complaint, suing the defendants for breach of fiduciary and statutory duties under Employee Retirement Income (ERISA). Lichter moved to dismiss the complaint, or for summary judgment. On May 16, 2014, Ascensus and Cambridge Investment moved to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs moved for leave to file an amended complaint, which dismissed all claims against Ascensus and Cambridge Investment and the breach of fiduciary duty claim against Lichter, and added a negligent misrepresentation claim against Lichter. On February 26, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The court granted plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims against Ascensus and Cambridge Investment, but denied the addition of an ERISA section 406(a) claim against Lichter. The court requested briefing on whether it would have subject matter jurisdiction over the remaining state claim. On March 4, 2015, the plaintiffs briefed the court on its diversity jurisdiction. Having received the plaintiffs' briefing, the remainder of the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is ready for review. Judge Quarles granted plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint and Lichter's motion to dismiss the original complaint is denied as moot. A copy of Judge Quarles's memorandum opinion dated March 11, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/JzbcwRfrom Leagle.com LINCOLN TECHNICAL: Judge Denies Bid for Document Production ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach of the District of Nevada denied plaintiff's motions in the case WENDY GUZMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LINCOLN TECHNICAL INSTITUTE, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:13-CV-2251-RFB-VCF (D. Nev.) Plaintiff Wendy Guzman was a former student of Euphoria Institute of Beauty Arts and Sciences and worked at Euphoria Salon. Guzman contends that she performed services for Euphoria's paying customers, which created an employment relationship between her and the salon. Guzman filed a class action against the Lincoln Technical Institute for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 206. The parties are in the midst of discovery. On November 25, 2014, Guzman deposed Mark DeCola, Euphoria's Rule 30(b)(6) representative. DeCola admitted that computer records regarding revenue generated by the putative class are imperfect. Guzman filed a motion to compel and requested that an order be made compelling the salon to produce the underlying documents in order to verify the accuracy of the records. Guzman argues that the underlying documents are relevant to the salon's de minimis defense, which lacks any support in the law. In response, the salon contends that Guzman's discovery request is overly burdensome and the underlying information is protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. Section 1232g. On April 7, 2015, Guzman filed a motion to extend time. Guzman requests an order extending the duration of time for the Nevada State Board of Cosmetology to comply with a subpoena. Magistrate Judge Ferenbach denied both motions. A copy of Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's order dated April 15, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/9rFJt0from Leagle.com Wendy Guzman, Kayla Resendes, Plaintiffs, represented by: Dana Sniegocki, Esq. Leon Greenberg, Esq. Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 633 S 4th Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: 702-383-6085 Danielle Johnson, Johnelle Bergeron, Sharnell Weston, Noorly Campene, Cierra Giguerre, Fara Iacometta, Plaintiffs, represented by: Leon Marc Greenberg, Esq. LEON GREENBERG PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 633 S 4th Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: 702-383-6085 Defendants represented by Hallie Diethelm Caldarone -- caldaroh@jacksonlewis.com -- Michael C. Stepien -- Michael.Stepien@jacksonlewis.com -- Elayna J Youchah -- YouchahE@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis P.C. LOUISIANA BIDCO: Trial Court Judgment Reversed in Suit v. D&O ------------------------------------------------------------- The Louisiana Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, reversed a judgment sustaining an exception of prematurity and dismissing an action against North Louisiana Bidco LLC (NLB). NLB was organized in 1999 and licensed as a Business Industry Development Corporation to provide financing to small businesses in North Louisiana. Soon after the company was formed, its members executed a detailed operating agreement. This agreement provides, in part, for the management and control of the company; the agreement named defendants Richard Cloud and James Garner as the company's managers. Cloud, his son, and Garner control a majority ownership interest in NLB. In September 2013, NLB, Cloud, Garner and two other companies affiliated with Cloud and Garner were sued by Craig Taylor, Inc. ("CTI"), a company with which these defendants had engaged in business dealings. CTI demanded, among other things, a money judgment against NLB, Cloud and Garner. CTI's 185-paragraph petition alleged that Cloud and Garner had engaged in various acts of self-dealing with NLB as well as fraud and forgery. On May 2, 2014, 11 members of NLB filed a petition which they captioned as a derivative action; this action was combined with a demand for injunctive relief. The defendants in this action included NLB, Cloud and Garner. Plaintiffs urged that they sought to enforce NLB's own right to examine the company's "financial and other" records, an effort that had been thwarted by Cloud and Garner's refusal to make the records available to them. Plaintiffs asserted that CTI's allegations of wrongdoing against Cloud and Garner, along with a $6 million bad debt expense on NLB's 2013 financial statement, were behind their efforts to scrutinize NLB's records. In response, NLB, Cloud and Garner raised an exception of prematurity. They cited the provisions of NLB's operating agreement requiring members of the LLC to mediate their disputes and, if mediation failed, to submit disputes to arbitration. Justice Drew held that "the right of members to view the company's books and records is fundamentally a question of the rights of the members vis-a-vis the company and not a dispute between members and managers even though the managers may be the parties charged with acting on behalf of the company." "For purposes of the mediation/arbitration clause, this is not a dispute between members. In the absence of a genuine dispute between members, the arbitration clause is not triggered." Justice Drew reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the matter for further proceedings at the Appellee's cost. The appellate case is docketed as SANCTUARY CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL. ON BEHALF OF NORTH LOUISIANA BIDCO, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. RICHARD D. CLOUD, JAMES RANDOLPH GARNER, AND NORTH LOUISIANA BIDCO, LLC, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 49,766-CA. A copy of Justice Drew's April 15, 2015 Judgment is available at http://is.gd/L6zw1vfrom Leagle.com. Roger Joseph Naus -- rjnaus@wwmlaw.com -- Michael Allyn Stroud -- astroud@wwmlaw.com -- WIENER, WEISS & MADISON, Counsel for Appellants, Sanctuary Capital, LLC, J. Bishop Johnston, W. Clinton Raspberry, Jr., MSC Two, LLC, O. A. Cannon, Jr., Nelson D. Abell, III, R. Stewart Ewing, Jr., Carolyn W. Perry, Annette Williams Carroll, Molly Williams, and Clark M. Williams, III, on behalf of North Louisiana Bidco, LLC. Charles Herman Heck, Sr., Charles Herman Heck, Jr., HECK LAW FIRM, LLP, Counsel for Appellee, James Randolph Garner. Robert Alan Breithaupt, BREITHAUPT, DUNN, DUBOS, SHAFTO, WOLLESON, L.L.C., Counsel for Appellees, Richard Cloud and Nephos, LLC. Stephen D. Wheelis, Richard Alan Rozanski, Shawn M. Bordelon, WHEELIS & ROZANSKI, Counsel for Appellee, North Louisiana Bidco, LLC. HENRY A. BIEDENHARN, III, Appellee, In Proper Person. LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Dist. Ct. Judgment in Securities Suit Upheld ----------------------------------------------------------------- In IN RE: LULULEMON SECURITIES LITIGATION. LOUISIANA SHERIFFS' PENSION & RELIEF FUND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LULULEMON ATHLETICA INC., DENNIS J. WILSON, CHRISTINE McCORMICK DAY, Defendants- Appellees, NO. 14-1664-CV, Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund (the Fund) appealed from the District Court's dismissal of its consolidated class action complaint for failure to state a claim under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5. The Fund alleged that Lululemon Athletica Inc., its founder and former chairman Dennis Wilson, and its former CEO Christine Day materially misrepresented to investors the quality of Lululemon's popular black luon yoga pants and the degree to which Lululemon implemented controls to prevent or minimize product quality deficiencies. The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, in a summary order entered May 15, 2015, held that for substantially the reasons provided by the District Court in its April 18, 2014, opinion and order, it concludes that the Fund has failed adequately to plead that any of the statements attributed to the defendants were materially misleading at the time that they were made. "We have considered the Fund's remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed," ruled the Second Circuit in its order, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1BnktPGfrom Leagle.com. ROBERT D. KLAUSNER -- bob@robertdklausner.com -- Klausner, Kaufman, Jenson & Levinson, Plantation, FL (Hannah G. Ross -- hannah@blbglaw.com -- Jai Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com -- Katherine M. Sinderson, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Appellant. JOSEPH S. ALLERHAND -- joseph.allerhand@weil.com -- (Caroline Hickey Zalka -- caroline.zalka@weil.com -- Melanie A. Conroy -- melanie.conroy@weil.com -- Robert S. Ruff III -- robert.ruff@weil.com -- on the brief), Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, New York, NY, for Lululemon Athletica Inc. and Christine McCormick Day. AUDRA J. SOLOWAY -- asoloway@paulweiss.com -- (Michele Hirshman -- mhirshman@paulweiss.com -- Brette Tannenbaum -- btannenbaum@paulweiss.com -- on the brief), Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY, for Dennis J. Wilson, for Appellees. MAGNANTE EYE CARE: Appeal Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction ------------------------------------------------------------ The Court of Appeals of Indiana dismissed an appeal filed by Plaintiffs Jeannine Whittington, personal representative of the Estate of Robert J. Whittington, deceased, and Jeannine Whittington, in her individual capacity, for lack of jurisdiction, in the case docketed as Jeannine Whittington, Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert J. Whittington, Deceased, and Jeannine Whittington, Individually, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. David Magnante, M.D., and Magnante Eye Care, Appellees-Defendants, NO. 54A05-1411-PL-519. Senior Judge Sharpnack states that the trial court determined that the Defendants were not obligated to pay the Plaintiffs for the deponent's deposition preparation time. This order does not qualify as an order for the payment of money. As a result, the Plaintiffs were not entitled to interlocutory review as a matter of right but were required to pursue a discretionary appeal under Indiana Appellate Rule 14(B). A copy of the Judge Sharpnack's April 24, 2015 Decision, is available at http://is.gd/arjT7Efrom Leagle.com. James E. Ayers -- sharon@wralaw.com -- Wernle, Ristine & Ayers, Crawfordsville, Indiana, ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT. David G. Field -- dfield@schultzpoguelaw.com -- Justin C. Wiler, Schultz & Pogue, LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES. MANDALAY CORP: July 22 Final Approval Hearing Set on Smith Deal --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Andrew P. Gordon issued an order on May 6, 2015, granting preliminary approval of a class action settlement in JUDITH SMITH on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MANDALAY CORPORATION, dba Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02158-APG-VCF, (D. Nev.). The Settlement Class as defined in the Stipulation of Settlement is preliminarily certified for settlement purposes only. The Court confirmed Plaintiff Judith Smith as Class Representative and Thierman Buck, LLP as Class Counsel. Because of its small size, the Court confirmed that Mandalay Corp. will serve as administrators for the class. To facilitate administration of the settlement pending final approval, the Court enjoined Plaintiffs and all Class Members from filing or prosecuting any claims, suits or administrative proceedings (including filing claims with the Nevada Office of the Labor Commissioner and the U.S. Department of Labor) regarding claims released by the settlement unless and until such Class Members have filed valid Requests for Exclusion with the Claims Administrator and the time for filing exclusions with the Claims Administrator has elapsed. The Court orders this schedule for further proceedings: a. Deadline for Defendant to Submit May 18, 2015 Class Member Information to [10 calendar days after Claims Administrator Order granting Preliminary Approval] b. Deadline for Claims Administrator May 22, 2015 to Mail the Notice and the [15 calendar days after Exclusion Form to Class Members Order granting Preliminary Approval] c. Deadline for Class Members to June 22, 2015 Postmark Exclusion Forms [30 calendar days after mailing of the Notice and Exclusion Form to Class Members] d. Deadline for Receipt by Court and June 22, 2015 Counsel of any Objections to [30 calendar days after Settlement Notice and mailing of the Exclusion Form to Class Members] e. Deadline for Class Counsel to file July 8, 2015 Motion for Final Approval of [15 calendar days before Final Settlement, Attorneys' Approval Hearing] Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Award f. Deadline for Class Counsel to File July 8, 2015 Declaration from Claims [15 calendar days before Administrator of Due Diligence Final Approval Hearing] and Proof of Mailing g. Final Fairness Hearing and Final July 22, 2015 Approval h. Deadline for Defendant to deposit 5 days after the Final the Net Settlement Amount into an Final Fairness and Approval escrow account set up by the Claims hearing Administrator i. Deadline for Claims Administrator August 12, 2015 to mail the Settlement Awards and [21 calendar days after the Enhancement Awards, and to wire Effective Date] transfer the Attorneys' Fees and Costs (if Settlement is Effective) j. Claims Administrator to File Proof October 22, 2015 of Payment of Settlement Awards, [90 calendar days after Enhancement Awards, Attorneys' Effective Date] Fees and Costs (if Settlement is Effective) A copy of the ruling is available at http://bit.ly/1HIsLtdfrom Leagle.com. Mark R. Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Joshua D. Buck -- josh@thiermanlaw.com -- THIERMAN BUCK LLP, Reno, Nevada 89511, Attorneys for Plaintiff. Elayna J. Youchah, Esq. -- youchahe@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS LLP, Las Vegas, NV 89169, Attorney for Defendant(s). MARRONE BIO: Court Directs Filing of Consolidated Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the Eastern District of California approved the parties' stipulation and order in the case SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., AND SPECIAL SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG, TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, LES LYMAN, RICHARD ROMINGER and SHAUGN STANLEY, Defendants. JOANN N. MARTINELLI, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, and JAMES B. BOYD, Defendants. PAUL SAUSMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, and JAMES B. BOYD, Defendants. SUSCHIA CHEN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, and JAMES B. BOYD, Defendants. KENT OLDHAM, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, PAMELA G. MARRONE, RANJEET BHATIA, TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, RICHARD ROMINGER, SEAN SCHICKEDANZ, SHAUGN STANLEY, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, ROTH CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, and JEFFERIES LLC, Defendants, NO. 2:14-CV- 2571-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.) Lead plaintiffs Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P. filed a class action complaint on November 3, 2014, alleging that defendants engaged in conduct that violates the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Lead plaintiffs and defendants Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. (MBII), Pamela G. Marrone, James B. Boyd, Donald J. Glidewell, Hector Absi, Elin Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela Contag, Tim Fogarty, Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman, Richard Rominger, Shaugn Stanley, and Sean Schickedanz, by and through their respective counsel, stipulated and agreed and subject to the court's approval, the following concerns (1) the filing of a consolidated class action complaint (2) the briefing schedule for any responsive motions and (3) continuing the date by which the parties must file a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) discovery plan. Judge England approves that lead plaintiffs shall file and serve the consolidated complaint no later than 30 days after MBII announces the results of the Financial Statement Review. If MBII does not announce the results of the Financial Statement Review by May 13, 2015, lead plaintiffs shall file and serve the consolidated complaint no later than June 1, 2015. Defendants are to file and serve any responsive pleadings or motions to dismiss no later than 45 days after the filing and service of the consolidated complaint. If a motion to dismiss is filed, lead plaintiffs shall file and serve their opposition briefs no later than 45 days after defendants file and serve their motions to dismiss. Defendants shall file and serve their replies in further support of the motions to dismiss no later than 21 days after lead plaintiffs file and serve their opposition briefs. In the event defendants' motions to dismiss are denied in whole or in part, lead plaintiffs and defendants shall meet and confer within 45 days of the court's disposition of defendants' motions to dismiss to address the discovery-related topics set forth in the court's order requiring Joint Status Report and will thereafter submit to the court a Rule 26(f) discovery plan consistent with the Order. Michael J. McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- Lawrence M. Rolnick -- lrolnick@lowenstein.com -- Steven M. Hecht -- shecht@lowenstein.com -- Thomas E. Redburn, Jr. -- tredburn@lowenstein.com -- at LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP, Counsel for Lead Plaintiffs Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P Judson E. Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com -- Jordan Eth -- jeth@mofo.com -- at MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP, Counsel for Defendants Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G. Marrone, James B. Boyd, Donald J. Glidewell, Elin Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela Contag, Tim Fogarty, Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman, Richard Rominger, Shaugn Stanley, and Sean Schickedanz Jonathan C. Sandler -- jsandler@bhfs.com -- BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP, Counsel for Defendant Hector Absi A copy of Judge England's stipulation and order dated April 13, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/GD8Dubfrom Leagle.com MARYLAND: Faces Class Action Over Women Pay Disparity ----------------------------------------------------- Lorraine Mirabella, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed on April 15 a class action lawsuit against the Maryland Insurance Administration, alleging wage inequities between male and female investigators and enforcement officers at the agency since 2009. The lawsuit claims the agency violated federal law by discriminating against three female employees and a class of workers by paying them "at rates less than the rates paid to male employees in the same establishment for substantially equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions." The insurance administration "strongly disputes the allegations," and plans to "vigorously" defend the case, said spokesman Joseph A. Sviatko III on April 17. MIAMI, FL: Judge Denies Attorneys' Fees in Homeless Case -------------------------------------------------------- Nathan Hale, writing for Law360, reports that counsel for homeless Miami residents whose class action prompted a landmark 1998 agreement over their treatment by the city told the Eleventh Circuit on April 17 that a lower court's denial of attorneys' fees for their work on recent modifications endangers similar civil rights consent decree cases. The attorneys, working in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the plaintiffs, are seeking more than $476,000 in attorneys' fees for nearly 900 hours of work negotiating changes to the consent decree sought by the city and approved as an addendum in 2014. Without that compensation, plaintiffs may have trouble finding representation for that degree of post-consent decree work and embolden governments to try to change or terminate such agreements, they say. "We have to look at what the purpose of the attorneys' fee provision is -- to make sure there are lawyers there to defend it," plaintiffs counsel Dante P. Trevisani of the Florida Justice Institute argued to the appeals court. They hold that their work amounted to a successful defense that preserved the consent decree for the majority of the class members, but the district court denied their fee request, finding that the modification work was not an enforcement and thus they had waived fees under a provision in the original pact awarding $900,000 in attorneys' fees to cover "all other matters connected to this settlement agreement, except enforcement proceedings." The lower court decision also found that the class could not be characterized as a prevailing party because the agreement was reached through nonbinding mediation before the court made a ruling on the matter. The plaintiffs say that the Supreme Court and other courts have defined modification proceedings to fall under enforcement. "That would be the only reasonable assumption given the state of the law at the time," Mr. Trevisani said. Asked why there were separate sections in the consent decree about modification and enforcement, Mr. Trevisani said that was to specify the process for making modifications but did not mean the two issues are mutually exclusive. The city disagrees. "They were completely separate and completely different," said Thomas E. Scott -- thomas.scott@csklegal.com -- of Cole Scott & Kissane PA, who argued on behalf of the city. At no time during the modification proceedings were attorneys' fees mentioned or was the matter described as relating to enforcement, he said. "We negotiated a fair result for both sides," Mr. Scott said, claiming the modifications benefited both the greater public and the homeless. "The spirit of the agreement . . . was never in jeopardy for a minute." The plaintiffs, however, characterized the changes, which they say focused on changing the definition of who is homeless, requirements for available shelter, and the arrest protocol for police to follow, would have "eviscerated" the protections reached in the consent decree for 90 percent of the class. Mr. Trevisani again pointed to existing federal law when U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan noted that the consent decree is completely silent on whether it is necessary for the plaintiffs to qualify as a prevailing party to obtain attorney fees. "You're asking us to read a lot into the agreement on the backdrop of federal law," Judge Jordan responded. "You can't just sweep in all of the law that exists elsewhere." But Mr. Trevisani said that is where the context that the matter involves a consent decree comes in, because case law says the plaintiffs are entitled to prevailing status. According to court documents, the 1998 consent decree reflects the adoption by Miami of a policy "to protect the constitutional rights of homeless persons, to prevent arrests and harassment of these persons, and the destruction of their property." The decree limited arrests of homeless people and protected their property rights, and it set up a fund for compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. The plaintiffs are represented by Maria Kayanan of ACLU Foundation of Florida Inc. and Dante P. Trevisani of Florida Justice Institute, Benjamin S. Waxman of Robbins Tunkey Ross Amsel Raben & Waxman PA, Arthur J. Rosenberg of Florida Legal Services Inc. and Stephen J. Schnably of University of Miami School of Law working as Miami ACLU cooperating attorneys. Miami is represented by Victoria Mendez, John A. Greco, Warren Bittner and Forrest L. Andrews of the City Attorney's Office and Thomas E. Scott and Scott A. Cole of Cole Scott & Kissane PA. The case is Peery et al. v. City of Miami, case number 14-13287, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. MIDLAND FUNDING: Fee Application Partially Granted -------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, in its April 27, 2015 Ruling Re: Plaintiff's Fee Application in the case docketed as GARY PALMER, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00691 (JCH), partially granted the motion filed by Plaintiff Gary Palmer for an award of attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692k(a)(3), in the amount of $16,140.00, for 40.35 hours at $400 per hour. District Judge Janet C. Hall held that after taking into consideration "case-specific variables", she is satisfied that $400 is a reasonable rate. Aside from reducing the Plaintiff's fee for a duplicative item, Judge Hall concludes that "while not detailed, the entries in question 'contain sufficient information to permit the identification of the general subject matter' of Attorney Faulkner's time expenditure." A copy of Judge Hall's April 27, 2015 Ruling Re: Plaintiff's Fee Application is available at http://is.gd/LYj03Afrom Leagle.com. Gary Palmer, Plaintiff, represented by Joanne S. Faulkner, Law Offices of Joanne Faulkner. Midland Funding, LLC, Defendant, represented by Nicole R Fernandes, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Stephen P. Brown, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP & Thomas A. Leghorn, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nicole R Fernandes -- nicole.fernandes@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, Stephen P. Brown -- stephen.brown@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP & Thomas A. Leghorn -- thomas.leghorn@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker. MONSANTO CO: Two Mass. Towns Lose in 1st Round of PCB Litigation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Marc J. Goldstein, Esq. and Jeanine L.G. Grachuk, Esq. of Beveridge & Diamond PC Beveridge & Diamond PC, report that two Massachusetts municipalities are down but not out in their attempts to hold manufacturers of PCBs responsible for the environmental effects of PCB-containing products decades later. In March, the Federal court in Boston issued several opinions involving claims bought by towns against Monsanto and its successors Pharmacia Corporation and Solutia, Inc. alleging that they are responsible for harm caused by the release of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at schools because they manufactured the PCBs. These cases raise interesting issues as to whether a manufacturer should bear responsibility for harm caused by its products, long after those products enter the stream of commerce. In the first case, Town of Westport v. Monsanto Co., the Town of Westport alleged Monsanto and its successors produced PCBs for use in transformers, light ballasts, caulks, paints and sealants when it knew that PCBs had harmful effects on humans. Congress banned the manufacture of PCBs in 1979 as part of the Toxic Substances Control Act, but the products that contained PCBs manufactured during this period live on. Westport alleged that it has identified PCBs in the buildings of its school system. Based on theories of breach of implied warranty of merchantability (design defect and failure to warn), negligence, public and private nuisance, trespass, and the Massachusetts contamination remediation statute, M.G.L. c. 21E, Westport claimed that Monsanto and its successors must address the PCB contamination found in the schools. In March, the U.S. District Court addressed Monsanto's motion to dismiss some of Westport's causes of action: public nuisance, trespass, and M.G.L. c. 21E. First, the court determined that the defendants were not liable for public nuisance, based on lead and asbestos cases involving similar claims, because Monsanto had no power to abate the nuisance once the PCBs were sold. Second, the court determined that, the fact, if true, that Monsanto sold PCBs with the knowledge that they would be made into building materials was not analogous to negligent entry on the town's land causing injury. Finally, under M.G.L. c. 21E, the town alleged that the Defendants were liable as arrangers, transporters, or as persons who "otherwise caused" a release of hazardous materials. The court dismissed the arranger and transporter claims because no specific allegations were made supporting these claims. The court also dismissed the "otherwise caused" claim because there was no allegation Monsanto caused the release other otherwise interacted with the property where the release occurred, other than through manufacture and sale of PCBs. Westport's claims of implied warranty of merchantability, negligence, and private nuisance remain. Also in March, the U.S. District Court ruled in the second case, Town of Lexington v. Pharmacia Corp., in which Lexington attempted to bring a class action against the same defendants as the Westport case on behalf of all similarly situated towns for recovery of environmental remediation costs due to presence of PCBs in indoor air of schools. Lexington included claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (design defect and failure to warn) and violation of the Massachusetts consumer protection act, M.G.L. c. 93A. In the first of two opinions in the case, the court denied Lexington's motion to certify the class because, among other reasons, the class was overbroad; i.e., it was not likely limited to school districts impacted by PCBs manufactured by Monsanto. In the second opinion, Solutia and Monsanto moved for summary judgment on the basis that they do no bear liabilities associated with the manufacture of PCBs due to various contracts between the defendants. The court denied Solutia's motion for summary judgment, determining that Solutia retained liability via contract. The court reserved its decision on Monsanto's motion and requested additional briefing. MONSEY NEW: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Alleged Gender Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- Diana Luckey, on behalf of herself and the Class v. Monsey New Square Trails Corp., Monsey Transportation Corp., Jacob Lunger and Isaac Lunger, Case No. 1:15-cv-02792 (E.D.N.Y., May 14, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' systematic pattern or practice of discrimination on the basis of sex in hiring for the position of bus driver. The Defendants operate charter and commuter bus companies doing business throughout New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com MORGAN KEEGAN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey preliminarily approved the settlement and the plan of allocation and for the provision of notice in the case captioned JOHN W. CROMEANS, JR., et al, Plaintiffs, v. MORGAN, KEEGAN & COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-04269-NKL (W.D. Mo.). A copy of the April 15, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/scrqmafrom Leagle.com. Judge Laughrey preliminarily approved the Stipulation of Settlement and Plan of Allocation as being fair, just, reasonable and adequate as to the Class Members, subject to further consideration at the Final Approval Hearing, which will be held before the Court on September 9, 2015. She also approved the Notice of Settlement of Class Action and the Proof of Claim, as well as stated the terms and conditions governing the Settlement of Class Action. John W. Cromeans, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew P. Campbell -- andy.campbell@campbellguin.com -- Campbell, Guin, Williams, Guy & Gidiere LLC, Caroline Smith Gidiere -- caroline.gidiere@campbellguin.com -- Campbell, Guin, Williams, Guy & Gidiere LLC, J. Timothy Francis, James L. North & Associates, John C Guin -- john.guin@campbellguin.com -- Campbell, Guin, Williams, Guy & Gidiere LLC, Richard E. McLeod -- richmcleod@mclaw.com -- The McLeod Law Firm PC & Stephen D. Wadsworth -- stephen.wadsworth@campbellguin.com -- Campbell, Guin, Williams, Guy & Gidiere LLC. Elkton Bank and Trust Company, and Robert Benisch, Plaintiffs, represented by Caroline Smith Gidiere, Campbell, Guin, Williams, Guy & Gidiere LLC, J. Timothy Francis, James L. North & Associates, John C Guin, Campbell, Guin, Williams, Guy & Gidiere LLC, Richard E. McLeod, The McLeod Law Firm PC & Stephen D. Wadsworth, Campbell, Guin, Williams, Guy & Gidiere LLC. Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bernard Suter, Charles W. Hatfield -- chuck.hatfield@stinsonleonard.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Lisa Bertain -- lisa.bertain@kyl.com -- Elyse Whitehead -- elyse.whitehead@kyl.com -- Erin M Naeger -- erin.naeger@stinsonleonard.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP & Jeremy A. Root -- jeremy.root@stinsonleonard.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP. Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Defendant, represented by Dale C. Doerhoff -- ddoerhoff@cvdl.net -- Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C., Heidi Doerhoff Vollet -- hvollet@cvdl.net -- Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C. & Timothy W. Van Ronzelen -- tvanronzelen@cvdl.net -- Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, P.C.. Bank of Cairo & Moberly, Shelter Insurance Company, and Karole Green, Objectors, represented by Joseph A. Kronawitter -- jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC. Haulers Insurance Company, Inc., Intervenor, represented by Joseph A. Kronawitter, Horn, Aylward & Bandy, LLC. Morgan Keegan & Company, Inc., Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Bernard Suter, Charles W. Hatfield, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Lisa Bertain, Elyse Whitehead, Jeremy A. Root, Stinson Leonard Street LLP MOUNTAIN STATES: "Hornaday" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wayne Hornaday, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons v. Mountain States Casing Company, LLC, and Timothy McNear, Case No. 1:15-cv-01011-WJM-KLM (D. Colo., May 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an oilfield service company providing casing and other services in Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian David Gonzales, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES 123 North College Avenue, #200 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Telephone: (970) 212-4665 Facsimile: (303) 539-9812 E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com NAILSWAY INC: Faces "Fernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Blanca Fernandez and Gloria Marca, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nailsway Inc., Naulo Nails, Inc., Nailsmetic Corporation, Nailscure Inc., Sury A. Gurung, Tsering Angmo, Case No. 1:15-cv-03710-PGG (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate nail salons in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Nicholas Filosa, Esq. FILOSA LAW FIRM 111 John Street, Suite 2510 New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (212) 256-1780 Facsimile: (212) 487-9131 E-mail: gfilosa@filosalaw.com NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Judge Raises Concerns Over Concussion Deal ------------------------------------------------------------ FoxSports reports that a dissenting plaintiff's attorney told a federal judge on April 17 that a reworked class-action head-injury settlement with the NCAA is as bad as the one the same judge rejected in December -- though other attorneys defended it. The hearing in U.S. District Court in Chicago, where around ten similar suits nationwide were consolidated into the one case, was the first since the new proposed agreement was unveiled. In giving the first proposal the thumbs-down, Judge John Lee raised several concerns, including that the $70 million the NCAA pledged to set aside to test current and former athletes for signs of brain injury might be too little. Around 4.4 million former or current athletes who played contact and non-contact sports in college could apply for the NCAA-funded testing, which was the core feature of both the original proposal and in the new one. Jay Edelson, the dissenting lawyer, said the deal would still deprive thousands of people of the compensation they deserve. And he said drafts of the notices that would go out to former and current players don't say clearly enough that they'd forfeit their rights to sue as a collective class if they accept the settlement. He told the judge, "It's incredible." But a lead plaintiffs' attorney, Steve Berman, said the new deal fixes all the flaws highlighted by Judge Lee. He said new supporting documents illustrate how the $70 million will be more than enough. Judge Lee had also expressed concern that the NCAA had no mechanism for forcing schools to tighten return-to-play concussion policies that are called for. The new deal, Mr. Berman said, requires that schools adopt the policies within six months or they'd lose the protection from class-action suits that the deal confers. Judge Lee said he will take several weeks to decide on preliminary approval for the revamped settlement. Outside the courtroom on April 17, Mr. Edelson told reporters the proposed settlement gave the false impression that the NCAA was taking decisive steps to resolve the concussions issue. "This is a smoke-screen settlement," he said. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Concussion Injury Settlement Approved -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Anita B. Brody granted the motion for class certification and final approval of the settlement in the case captioned IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, NO. 2:12-MD-02323-AB (E.D. Pa.). In granting the motion for class certification, Judge Brody found that the proposed class and subclasses met the requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) numerosity (2) commonality; (3) typicality; and (4) adequacy of representation. She also determined that the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) were also met: (1) common questions must predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and (2) class resolution must be superior to other available methods to adjudicate the controversy. Judge Brody also approved the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e). The Settlement has three primary components: 1. An uncapped Monetary Award Fund ("MAF"), overseen by a Claims Administrator, provides compensation for Retired Players who submit sufficient proof of Qualifying Diagnoses. 2. A $75 million Baseline Assessment Program ("BAP") provides eligible Retired Players with free baseline assessment examinations of their objective neurological functioning. BAP funds will also be used to provide BAP Supplemental Benefits, including counseling and prescription drug benefits, to those who are impaired but have not deteriorated to the point of receiving a Qualifying Diagnosis. 3. An Education Fund will educate Class Members regarding the NFL Parties' existing CBA Medical and Disability Benefits programs, and promote safety and injury prevention for football players of all ages, including youth football players. Wendell Pritchett and Jo-Ann Verrier are appointed jointly as Special Master responsible for overseeing, implementing, and administering the entire Settlement. A copy of the April 22, 2015 memorandum is available at http://is.gd/PlnKUUfrom Leagle.com. IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION, IN RE: represented by KONSTANTINE KYROS, KYROS LAW & MICHAEL A. WARNER, THE WARNER LAW FIRM. PERRY GOLKIN, Special Master, represented by PERRY GOLKIN. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, Administrator, represented by ORRAN L. BROWN -- obrownjr@browngreer.com -- BROWNGREER PLC. ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC, Movant, represented by BRAD S. KARP -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP. BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Amicus, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. WRIGHT -- cwright@hwglaw.com -- WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP. NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Settlement in Turner and Wooden Case Okayed -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Anita B. Brody certified the Settlement Class and Subclasses and approved the Settlement Agreement in its entirety in the case captioned IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION; Kevin Turner and Shawn Wooden, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Football League and NFL Properties, LLC, successor-in- interest to NFL Properties, Inc., Defendants. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ALL ACTIONS, NO. 2:12-MD-02323-AB, CIV. ACTION NO. 14- CV-00029-AB (E.D. Pa.). Judge Brody found that the Settlement Class satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b). She also found that the dissemination of the Settlement Class Notice and the publication of the Summary Notice were compliant with the Order granting preliminary approval and satisfied legal requirements. Judge Brody also found that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court confirmed the appointment of Christopher A. Seeger, Sol Weiss, Steven C. Marks, Gene Locks, Arnold Levin and Dianne M. Nast as Class Counsel. In addition the Court confirmed the appointment of Christopher A. Seeger and Sol Weiss as Co-Lead Class Counsel, and confirmed the appointments of Arnold Levin and Dianne M. Nast as Subclass Counsel for Subclasses 1 and 2, respectively. The Court confirmed the appointment of The Garretson Resolution Group, Inc. as the BAP Administrator, BrownGreer PLC as the Claims Administrator, The Garretson Resolution Group, Inc. as the Lien Resolution Administrator and Citibank, N.A. as the Trustee, and confirms that the Court retains continuing jurisdiction over those appointed. The appointed Wendell Pritchett and Jo-Ann M. Verrier as Special Master to perform the duties of the Special Master as set forth in the Settlement Agreement for a five-year term commencing from the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement. The April 22, 2015 final order and judgment is available at http://is.gd/yfS6y0from Leagle.com. IN RE: NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS' CONCUSSION INJURY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by KONSTANTINE KYROS, KYROS LAW & MICHAEL A. WARNER, THE WARNER LAW FIRM. PERRY GOLKIN, Special Master, represented by PERRY GOLKIN. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR, Adminstrator, represented by ORRAN L. BROWN -- obrownjr@browngreer.com -- BROWNGREER PLC. ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB LLC, Movant, represented by BRAD S. KARP -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP. BRAIN INJURY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, Amicus, represented by CHRISTOPHER J. WRIGHT -- cwright@hwglaw.com -- WILTSHIRE & GRANNIS LLP. NEBRASKA: Food Stamp Approval Delays May Cost $17 Million --------------------------------------------------------- Martha Stoddard, writing for Omaha.com, reports that too many more delays in approving or denying food stamp applications could cost Nebraska nearly $17 million a year in federal funds. But state officials said on April 17 that they are "absolutely" confident Nebraska can improve its performance enough to avoid the potential penalty. "We're already making great progress," said Jill Schreck, deputy director of children and family services within the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. Ms. Schreck oversees AccessNebraska, the problem-plagued call center system that handles economic assistance. The system processes applications for several programs, largest of which is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, commonly known as food stamps. Also on April 17, Gov. Pete Ricketts announced that HHS will begin reporting key monthly performance measures for AccessNebraska. He said the online reports will allow the public to track the administration's progress in fixing the call center system. "Accountability begins with transparency," Mr. Ricketts said. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture warned Nebraska that it needed to get better at processing SNAP applications on time or risk losing federal dollars for administering the program. In a January letter, Regional Administrator Darlene Barnes in Denver said that Nebraska has not met federal standards "for some time." The standards call for states to approve or deny 95 percent of applications by the deadline. Expedited applications are to be processed within seven days, and nonexpedited applications within 30 days. Nebraska ranked 52nd of 53 states and territories for meeting processing deadlines in 2013, the most recent information available. In that year, the state met processing deadlines for 68 percent of applications, ms. Barnes said. "(The state's) chronic untimely processing has resulted in hardship for thousands of needy households across the state," she said. Ms. Schreck said that Nebraska already is doing better at processing SNAP applications on time. The state's measurements show steady improvement in meeting deadline since October. The on-time rate topped 90 percent in February, according to HHS. Still, the federal letter represents the latest fallout from Nebraska's move to the AccessNebraska call center system in 2008. HHS officials originally touted the system as a way to cut costs and improve efficiency by making use of technology. Instead, AccessNebraska has been plagued by long wait times, lost documents and delays in needed benefits since its start. A legislative investigation last year concluded that the system was "largely a failure." Since the system began, the state's ranking for processing SNAP applications in a timely manner has fallen from the middle of the pack to the bottom. Nebraska no longer qualifies for the federal performance bonuses it once earned for accuracy in processing SNAP applications. Federal officials have been concerned enough that they hired a consultant last year to work with Nebraska on fixing AccessNebraska. Last year, the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the state was unlawfully delaying people from getting needed SNAP benefits. State Sen. Kathy Campbell of Lincoln, the Health and Human Services Committee chairwoman, said on April 17 that she had not seen the recent federal letter. She called it concerning, especially in light of previous federal penalties and warnings concerning HHS programs. Sen. Heath Mello of Omaha, the Appropriations Committee chairman, said the letter raises a red flag that more legislative oversight may be needed to ensure that the state does not lose federal money. In the letter, Barnes noted that HHS has reduced its backlog of applications and laid the foundation for sustained improvements recently. But she said the slide in state performance since 2011 indicates long-standing and systemic issues. The concerns include "poor organizational communication, staffing, training and technology." She said Nebraska must meet improvement benchmarks to avoid the chance of losing funds. The state must process 85 percent of applications on time by September this year, and must achieve a 95 percent on-time rate by March 2016. Tony Green, acting children and family services director for HHS, said he absolutely expects Nebraska to meet those benchmarks. Ms. Schreck said state officials and AccessNebraska staff have been working hard to find ways to be more efficient. She said several changes have been made since last summer. Among them was a period of mandatory overtime, during which employees tackled the backlog of applications. Other steps have included: -- Employees in the documents imaging center were cross-trained so they could scan newly submitted documents into the state's computer system and also link those documents to the electronic case files. -- Those employees also now screen applications to see which need expedited handling. -- The computer system was updated to assign applications to local office and call center workers, rather than having the applications wait until a supervisor could assign them. -- Tips were gathered from efficient workers and developed into standard operating procedures for all workers to follow. -- A new command center data analyst is working to identify times of the year when applications and staff absences peak. The information will help in planning employee schedules to meet demand. NEVADA PROPERTY: Motions to Certify in Wage & Hour Action Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that motions to certify all classes of employees in a wage and hour class action lawsuit remain pending at this time. During late 2012, the Company was put on notice and/or served with two separate purported class action lawsuits related to alleged unpaid compensation for time incurred by CoStars while on Property for donning and doffing of the CoStars required uniform, alleged improper rounding of time for hours worked and various other claims related to alleged unpaid compensation. One of the purported wage and hour class action lawsuits is pending in the Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada ("Nevada State Court"), and one is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. The discovery period as to liability has closed in both cases. In 2014, the plaintiffs' in the Nevada State Court action filed a motion to certify all proposed classes. Additionally, in June 2014, the plaintiffs' filed various liens against the Property. The Company has opposed the motion to certify all classes and filed motions for summary judgment and dismissal. In September 2014, the Nevada State Court ordered the plaintiffs' liens to be expunged. No decisions on the dispositive motions have been issued. With respect to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada actions, during 2014, the Company filed a motion to decertify the one conditionally certified class and for summary judgment and dismissal. Plaintiff filed a motion to certify all classes of employees under the federal rules. All of these motions remain pending at this time. The Company said, "During the second quarter of 2013, as part of an ongoing assessment of our wage and hour cases, we accrued an estimated loss contingency of $3.0 million (reported as a corporate operating expense in the condensed consolidated statement of operations beginning with the June 30, 2013 quarterly reporting period). A portion of the loss contingency was utilized in the October 2013 settlement of a third purported wage and hour class action matter, with subsequent payment occurring during the first quarter of 2014. We will continue evaluating the adequacy of this accrual as the cases develop. Specific additional factors applicable to each case that prevent the Company from providing an estimate of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued or range of loss include, but are not limited to: (1) whether class certification will be granted and the scope of any class or subclass; (2) the quantification of highly variable damages claimed by the purported classes and subclasses asserted in separate, but overlapping litigation are unspecified or indeterminate; and (3) the outcome of any future settlement negotiations, should they occur, as they may apply to limit the class or eliminate all class claims. Legal fees associated with the cases are recognized as incurred when the legal services are rendered, and are, therefore, not recognized as part of the loss contingency accrual." The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to these matters and intends to defend its positions vigorously. NEVADA PROPERTY: Settlement to be Presented for Initial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company and the putative class counsel expected a settlement agreement to be presented for preliminary approval by the United States District Court on or before May 8, 2015, in the alleged unlawful taping/recording class action lawsuit. A purported class action lawsuit was filed during the quarterly period ended September 30, 2012, in Superior Court in the State of California against the Company, alleging violation of the California Penal Code regarding the unlawful taping or recording of calls. On August 31, 2012, the Company moved the case to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Subsequently, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to strike the class allegations. On July 15, 2013, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California issued an order denying these motions. The Company continues to deny all liability to the putative class members but, at a mediation held on February 20, 2015, the Company agreed to settle all of the claims against it in this matter for a total payment of $14.5 million inclusive of all attorneys' fees to the putative class counsel and all costs of administering the settlement. The Company and the putative class counsel are presently negotiating a formal settlement agreement and expect that agreement to be presented for preliminary approval by the United States District Court on or before May 8, 2015. NEVADA PROPERTY: Condominium Hotel Litigation in Earliest Stages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that certain matters related to the Condominium Hotel Litigation are in the earliest stages of proceedings. The Company was a named defendant in a number of lawsuits and arbitrations concerning the purchase and sale of condominium hotel units located within the East and West Towers of the Property. The thrust of the claims were virtually the same in every matter. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the project had materially changed and that delays in the completion of the Property constituted a material breach by the Company, thus permitting the plaintiff/purchaser to rescind their contract and receive a full refund of their earnest money deposit, plus interest thereon. The Company was represented in each of these matters by outside legal counsel. On or about August 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Lenny Spangler v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, et al., alleging, among other things, that former class action settlements entered into by the Company with buyers of condominium hotel units in the project were fraudulently induced, and seeking to recover all amounts paid to or retained by the Company in such settlements. During 2014, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the case in exchange for a waiver and release by the Company of its claims for costs related to the lawsuit. A formal order of dismissal was subsequently entered with the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. At December 31, 2013, there were two condominium hotel units remaining under contract at The Cosmopolitan (the "Okada Unit" and the "Mastej Unit"). During the three months ended March 31, 2014, the Company prevailed in its efforts to confirm and enforce prior arbitration awards for each of the Okada Unit and the Mastej Unit. As such, the applicable earnest money deposits were released to the Company. With respect to the Okada Unit, on or about January 3, 2014, a Notice of Appeal was filed with the Nevada Supreme Court, appealing the district court's order and judgment granting the Company's motion to confirm and enforce the arbitration award. That appeal was dismissed by the Nevada Supreme Court on February 2, 2015. On or about March 3, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Donald Okada v. Nevada Property 1 LLC, et al., alleging, among other things, that former class action settlements entered into by the Company with buyers of condominium hotel units in the project were fraudulently induced thus permitting the plaintiff to recover the full earnest money deposit and related attorney fees. During July 2014, the complaint against the Company was dismissed without prejudice and the plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. On or about July 21, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Subsequently, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the Company's motion to transfer venue of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. In October 2014, the Company submitted a motion in the case to compel the matter to binding arbitration. With respect to the Mastej Unit, on or about April 1, 2014, a Notice of Appeal was filed with the Nevada Supreme Court, appealing the district court's order and judgment granting the Company's motion to confirm and enforce the arbitration award. That matter is in the earliest stages of proceedings. NORTH DAKOTA: Mental Health Crisis May Spur Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Carlotta McCleary, writing for Grand Forks Herald, reports that the North Dakota mental health and substance abuse systems are in crisis, according to Renee Schulte in her report of July 2014. The report was commissioned by Legislative Management after being selected by the Legislature for study during the interim. Schulte gives the bad news by saying that the situation is dire and that many of the challenges facing the state are self-imposed. Gov. Jack Dalrymple's recommended budget for the next two years suggested a reasonable start to begin to address the crisis. But as his executive budget makes its way through the legislative process, it appears that support is absent. Appropriations committees, both House and Senate, have stripped funding for critical services including suicide prevention, mobile on-call crisis services, autism-related services and residential beds for those in crisis, and employment training services for people with mental health and substance abuse disorders. If these actions aren't remedied, the crisis will continue and worsen across the state. Many people with mental health disorders will remain on waiting lists and get no services at all. Families and advocates will be left to scramble to find any help to prevent or address a crisis. And people will end up homeless, in jail or institutionalized without available preventive services. This lack of response also is likely to result in a class action lawsuit reminiscent of the Arc lawsuit of the 1980s, a caution given a year ago by Schulte. There is still time to turn this around. Lawmakers should be hearing from their constituents that this is not how North Dakota chooses to treat people with disabilities. Support these services that were laid out by the Schulte report and recommended in the governor's budget. Legislators requested the report, paid for the report and ought to take its advice. NYLOK LLC: Court Dismisses Trujillo's Individual Claims ------------------------------------------------------- Upon considering the stipulation for voluntary dismissal submitted by the parties in MARIA TRUJILLO, and Members of the General Public, Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NYLOK LLC, NYLOK COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. SACV13-01637 AG (DFMX), (C.D. Cal.), and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), District Judge Andrew J. Guilford issued an order dismissing all individual claims of Maria Trujillo with prejudice. The Court further dismissed all of the claims of any absent putative Class Members without prejudice. A copy of the Court's May 6, 2015 Order is available at http://bit.ly/1LI0mltfrom Leagle.com. Timothy J. Donahue -- tdonahue@attorneydonahue.com -- Law Offices of Timonty J. Donahue, Orange, CA, James M. Trush, Esq. -- jtrush@earthlink.net -- Trush Law Office, APC, Costa Mesa, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff, MARIA TRUJILLO, and Members, of the General Public, Similarly Situated. OLD NATIONAL: Denial of Summary Judgment Bid Affirmed in Part ------------------------------------------------------------- The Court of Appeals of Indiana, in its April 23, 2015 Decision, in the case docketed as Old National Bank, Appellant-Defendant, v. Steven Kelly, Jon A. Cook, and Rebecca F. Cook, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Appellees-Plaintiffs, NO. 82A01-1406-CT-234, affirmed in part, and reversed in part the trial court's denial of the Bank's motion for summary judgment upon breach of contract, conversion, and equitable claims of a certified class of depositors-plaintiffs who were charged overdraft fees stemming from debit card transactions ("Depositors"). Judge Bailey concluded that "C.F.R. Section 7.4002 authorizes a bank to charge overdraft fees, but does not authorize banks to ignore state contract or tort law. Depositors have alleged that the Bank acted inconsistent with its contractual obligations and assessed improper overdraft fees. The Bank has not negated Depositors' state law claim for a breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing. However, Depositors' claims for conversion, unconscionability, and unjust enrichment have been negated." The case was remanded for further proceedings. A copy of Judge Bailey's Decision is available at http://is.gd/QBYCNyfrom Leagle.com. Mark J.R. Merkle -- mmerkle@kdlegal.com -- Marc T. Quigley -- mquigley@kdlegal.com -- Libby Y. Goodknight -- lgoodknight@kdlegal.com -- Kay Dee Baird -- kbaird@kdlegal.com -- Krieg DeVault LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE. Thomas W. Dinwiddie -- tdinwiddie@woodmclaw.com -- Maureen E. Ward -- mward@woodmclaw.com -- Wooden & McLaughlin LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE INDIANA BANKERS ASSOCIATION. Henry J. Price -- hprice@price-law.com -- Joseph N. Williams -- jwilliams@price-law.com -- Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana, William M. Sweetnam, Sweetnam LLC, Chicago, Illinois, ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT OS INTERIOR: "Marin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Guillermo Marin and Ronald Marin, on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly situated v. O.S. Interior Systems, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01292 (S.D. Tex., May 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. O.S. Interior Systems, Inc. is engaged in construction and remodeling business located at 3665 Walnut Bend Lane, Houston, Texas 77042. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Micah Williams, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES 810 Highway 6 South, Ste 111 Houston, TX 77079 Telephone: (832) 230-4125 Facsimile: (832) 230-5310 E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com PHILIP MORRIS: Court Upheld $5-Mil. Verdict in "Cuculino" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Alex Pickett, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a Florida appeals court upheld a $5 million jury verdict against cigarette maker Philip Morris in a case brought by a Miami man who said the company's products caused his coronary heart disease. Florida's Third District Court of Appeal upheld a Miami-Dade jury's findings that Antonio Cuculino's coronary heart disease was caused, at least in part, by smoking cigarettes. The jury initially awarded Cuculino $12.5 million, but then on to ascribe 60 percent of the blame for heart disease on the plaintiff, and 40 percent on Philip Morris, bringing down the ex- smoker's compensation award to $5 million. The trial court previously ruled Cuculino could not seek punitive damages for his claims of negligence and strict liability. Philip Morris appealed 2014 decision, claiming Cuculino's counsel made "highly prejudicial and inflammatory" comments during closing arguments. Cuculino's counsel asserted the ex-smoker deserved to get paid for the "job" of "suffering from progressive heart disease." They later stated, "You know, what is it that's going to be a just and appropriate figure? Who in their right mind would want to trade places with Mr. Cuculino and take this job?" Though Appeals Judge Leslie Rothenberg conceded the statements were "improper," she ruled the comments did not preclude the cigarette maker from a fair trial. Cuculino filed his complaint against Philip Morris in 2013 after years of battling heart disease. According to the ruling, he suffered a heart attack at the age of 49, underwent an angioplasty the next year and later underwent a quadruple bypass surgery. In 2013, Cuculino had three stents placed in his arteries. Cuculino is one of the latest individuals using the Florida Supreme Court's Engle class action decision to singularly go after tobacco companies for smoking-related diseases. The Appellant/Cross-Appellee is represented by: Stephen N. Zack, Esq. Andrew S. Brenner, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 539-8400 Facsimile: (305) 539-1307 E-mail: szack@bsfllp.com abrenner@bsfllp.com - and - James Daniel Gardner, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY & BACON LLP 201 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3200 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-5171 Facsimile: (305) 358-7470 E-mail: jgardner@shb.com - and - Geoffrey J. Michael, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1206 Telephone: (202) 942-5000 Facsimile: (202) 942-5999 E-mail: Geoffrey.Michael@aporter.com The Appellee/Cross-Appellant is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Esq. David A. Jagolinzer, Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM, P.A. 600 Brickell Ave., 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 375-0111 Facsimile: (305) 379-6222 The appellate case is Philip Morris USA, Inc., Appellant/Cross- Appellee v. Antonio Cuculino, Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Case Nos. 3D14-1339 & 3D14-823, in the Third District Court of Appeal, State of Florida. The Lower Tribunal case is Antonio Cuculino v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., Case No. 10-62733, in the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida. PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Settles Investor Class Action for $65MM --------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed to pay $65 million in cash to settle a lawsuit claiming it fraudulently deceived MF Global Holdings Ltd investors about its auditing of the now-defunct brokerage, which was run by former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine. The preliminary settlement with investors in MF Global's common stock, bonds and convertible debt was disclosed in papers filed on April 17 with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, and requires court approval. It resolves class action claims that PwC in 2010 and 2011 falsely certified that it had properly audited MF Global's financials and internal controls, and knew about or recklessly disregarded problems that contributed to the brokerage's Oct. 31, 2011, bankruptcy. PwC denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. The lead plaintiffs are the Virginia Retirement System and the Province of Alberta, Canada. "PwC is pleased to resolve this matter and avoid the cost and distraction of prolonged securities litigation," spokeswoman Caroline Nolan said. "The firm stands behind its audit work and its opinions on MF Global's financial statements." MF Global filed for Chapter 11 protection as worries mounted about its $6.3 billion bet on European sovereign debt, credit rating downgrades, margin calls and news that money from customer accounts was used to cover liquidity shortfalls. The April 17 settlement is separate from a $1 billion lawsuit filed by MF Global's bankruptcy plan administrator that accused PwC of professional malpractice. It also does not resolve the investors' claims against other defendants, which include Mr. Corzine, other MF Global executives and directors, and various bank underwriters. Seven underwriters reached a $74 million settlement in December. "The securities class action will continue with substantial exposure as to MF Global's former officers and directors including Jon Corzine," Salvatore Graziano, a lawyer for the investors, said in an email. Mr. Corzine is also a former Goldman Sachs co-chairman. His lawyer Andrew Levander was not immediately available for comment. The case is In re: MF Global Holdings Ltd Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-07866. PRODIGY DIABETES: Class Cert. Bid in Rhea Drugstore Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge D.P. Marshall, Jr. issued an order denying a motion for class certification in the case captioned RHEA DRUGSTORE, INC. individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRODIGY DIABETES CARE, LLC, Defendant, NO. 4:15-CV- 54-DPM, (E.D. Ark.). According to Judge Marshall, when Rhea Drugstore filed its complaint five months ago, it moved to certify a class, but stay any briefing ruling pending discovery. This was a hedge, he said. The drugstore is following the Seventh Circuit's suggestion in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (2011), about how to avoid any mootness question if Prodigy Diabetes Care, LLC, offers to make this drugstore whole for the unsolicited fax, which didn't contain the statutorily required opt-out notice. The Court admires counsel's caution and creativity. But the motion to certify is denied without prejudice. We'll handle any mootness issue, if and when it comes, Judge Marshall added. "The Court declines to let the motion hang fire; it's been five months since it was filed, for example, and the parties have suggested doing the real certification briefing starting in October. That would put resolution of the motion about a year after filing. This is just too long a delay," Judge Marshall continued. With regards Prodigy's request for the Court to stay the whole case, pointing to its pending FCC petition seeking retroactive waiver of the rules requiring an opt-out notice on solicited faxes, the motion is also denied, ruled Judge Marshall, adding that Rhea Drugstore didn't suffer the same injury as someone who got an imperfect solicited fax, and therefore the drugstore can't represent those who did. "The case will proceed on a claim, and as potential class action, about the contents of unsolicited faxes. A Final Scheduling Order will issue," Judge Marshall concluded. A copy of the Court's May 14, 2015 order is available at http://bit.ly/1LHVwEKfrom Leagle.com. Rhea Drugstore Inc, Plaintiff, represented by James Allen Carney, Jr. -- acarney@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, John Charles Williams -- jwilliams@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC & Joseph Henry Bates, III -- hbates@cbplaw.com -- Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC. Prodigy Diabetes Care LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher L. Bernard -- cbernard@worldpatents.com -- Clements Bernard PLLC, Lawrence A. Baratta, Jr. -- lbaratta@worldpatents.com -- Clements Bernard PLLC, Matthew Byron Finch -- finch@gill-law.com -- Gill Ragon Owen P.A. & Danielle M. Whitehouse -- whitehouse@gill- law.com -- Gill Ragon Owen P.A. PULTEGROUP INC: Faces " Schumacher" Suit Over PT Foundation Plans ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Schumacher, Vivian Schumacher and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pultegroup, Inc., Entex Homes, Centex Real Estate Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00944 (C.D. Cal., May 13, 2015), asserts that during the relevant time period, the Defendants and its agents failed to use a licensed engineer to engineer the post-tensioned foundations (PT Foundation) plans that it ultimately used to build a number of its homes. The Defendants are engaged in residential construction, specifically the construction and sale of detached and attached single-family homes and it acquired the land used for the construction of its homes through the purchase of finished or partially finished lots and through the purchase of raw land that needed development. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jerome L. Ringler, Esq. Catherine Burke Schmidt, Esq. RINGLER SCHMIDT, A LAW CORPORATION 233 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 955-4105 Facsimile: (310) 955-4106 E-mail: jlr@ringlerschmidt.com cbs@ringlerschmidt.com - and - Thomas A. Kearney, Esq. Prescott Littlefield, Esq. KEARNEY LITTLEFIELD LLP 3436 N. Verdugo Rd., Ste. 230 Glendale, CA91208 Telephone: (213) 473-1900 Facsimile: (213) 473-1919 E-mail: tak@kearneylittlefield.com pwl@kearneylittlefield.com - and - Alexander Robertson IV, Esq. Mark Uyeno, Esq. ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP 32121 Lindero Canyon Rd., Ste 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 851-3850 Facsimile: (818) 851-3851 E-mail: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com RADIO CORPORATION: Has Enough Assets to Cover Class Suit Damages ---------------------------------------------------------------- The China Post reports that investment regulators said on April 18 that the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) still has enough assets in Taiwan to cover the NT$560 million in damages awarded by a court to its former employees in a landmark class action against the now-defunct firm. Officials from the Economics Ministry's Investment Commission said RCA's paid-in capital alone amounts to more than NT$1 billion. The officials said the commission has not agreed to let RCA withdraw its investment from Taiwan, as the lawsuit and matters concerning the compensation have yet to be completed. The defendants in the class action -- namely RCA and the companies that have taken it over -- could still appeal the verdict handed down by the Taipei District Court on April 16. The district court, concluding a decade-long lawsuit, ruled in favor of 445 former RCA workers and their families, determining that the company exposed the employees to toxic substances by illegally disposing of chemicals used at a Taoyuan plant. Many of its former employees have contracted or died of cancer. "I hope the government can show more concern to laborers," said one of the lawyers, Lee Ping-hung, representing the RCA employees in the class action. "We urge the defendants not to appeal against the verdict." Mr. Lee said the RCA case is the only lawsuit he has worked on since becoming a lawyer in the 2000s. He was the first ever blind person to pass the bar exam in Taiwan. Mr. Lee said he feels honored to be able to play a part in the RCA case, and he has huge respect for his seriously ill clients who had to face critical questioning by the judges during the trial. He said he was determined to help the plaintiffs after seeing how RCA and its co- defendants ignored them. Mr. Lee was born blind but his parents managed to raise him as an "ordinary" child, who went on to finish university education, become a lawyer and also pass the civil service exam. The plaintiffs have so far not made an official statement in response to the verdict, and it remains uncertain whether they will appeal to the high court. RCA ran manufacturing operations in Taiwan between 1970 and 1992, employing thousands of workers at its plants in Taoyuan, Hsinchu and Yilan. In 1998, the environmental authorities found that its former plant site in Taoyuan was seriously contaminated with chlorinated organic solvents and other toxic chemicals that the company had illegally dumped into wells it had dug. The toxic water then contaminated tap water that workers consumed. The 7.2-hectare plant site has to this day remained closed and unusable, despite efforts to clean the land. RCA was bought by General Electric, and subsequently by Thomson Consumer Electronics, the U.S. subsidiary of France-based Thomson Multimedia, which is now called Technicolor SA. RANBAXY INC: Faces Meijer Suit Over Valcyte and Diovan Drugs ------------------------------------------------------------ Meijer, Inc., and Meijer Distribution, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ranbaxy Inc., Ranbaxy Laboratories, Ltd., Ranbaxy U.S.A., Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-11828-NMG (D. Mass., May 12, 2015), is brought on behalf of all direct purchasers who overpaid for the brand drugs Valcyte (valganciclovir hydrochloride) and Diovan (valsartan) as a result of the Defendants' wrongful conduct of delaying or blocking the generic entry of Valcyte and Diovan in the market. The Defendants own and operate an international, integrated, specialty pharmaceutical company based in India. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Sobol, Esq. Gregory T. Arnold, Esq. Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. Kristie A. LaSalle, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301 Cambridge, MA 02142 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com grega@hbsslaw.com kristenj@hbsslaw.com kristiel@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve D. Shadowen, Esq. R. Bryce Duke, Esq. Matthew C. Weiner, Esq. HILLIARD &SHADOWEN LLP 919 Congress Ave., Suite 1325 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (855) 344-3928 E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com bryce@hilliardshadowenlaw.com matt@Hilliardshadowenlaw.com - and - Joseph M. Vanek, Esq. David P. Germaine, Esq. John Bjork, Esq. VANEK, VICKERS &MASINI, P.C. 55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 224-1500 Facsimile: (312) 224-1510 E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com dgermaine@vaneklaw.com jbjork@vaneklaw.com RESONANT INC: Defending Against Paggos Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit was commenced on March 17, 2015, against the Company, Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned John Paggos v. Resonant Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-01970-SJO-VBK. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's common stock between August 14, 2014 and February 26, 2015 (the "Paggos Class Period"). "The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance, our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Paggos Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of damages being sought in the action," the Company said. RESONANT INC: Defending Against Devouassoux Class Action -------------------------------------------------------- Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a putative class action lawsuit was commenced on March 19, 2015, against the Company, Terry Lingren and John Philpott, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, captioned John Devouassoux v. Resonant Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-02054-JFW-VBK. The plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff purports to be acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers of the Company's common stock between November 6, 2014 and February 26, 2015 (the "Devouassoux Class Period"). The plaintiff alleges that, as a result of the defendants' allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions concerning our financial well-being and prospects, our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Devouassoux Class Period. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and fees and costs, among other relief, but has not specified the amount of damages being sought in the action. RESTORATION HARDWARE: Mailing of Class Action Award Begins ---------------------------------------------------------- Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the Company, through the third party claims administrator, has began mailing the class action award to class members. On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with credit cards. On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the Court, the parties filed a joint statement as to the parties' agreed-upon claims process for the class members as well as to other matters related to this proceeding. On September 5, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and awards, and awarded $9.5 million in fees and costs to plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court entered judgment on September 29, 2014 and, on November 21, 2014, a class member filed a notice of appeal from the judgment. As a result of the appeal, the judgment was stayed until January 10, 2015. The appeal remains pending but the judgment is enforceable. As a result of these developments, during fiscal 2014, the Company recorded a $9.5 million charge related to this matter that was subsequently decreased to approximately $8 million. The decrease of approximately $1.5 million was based on a revision of estimated class member response. On March 16, 2015, the Company, through the third party claims administrator, began mailing the class action award to class members. RHODE ISLAND: Ruling in Foster Kids' Suit Vacated ------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Bruce M. Selya of the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case of DANNY B., BY NEXT FRIEND GREGORY C. ELLIOTT, and CASSIE M., BY NEXT FRIEND KYMBERLI IRONS, FOR THEMSELVES AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. GINA M. RAIMONDO, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND, ET AL., Defendants, Appellees, NO. 14-1585 (1st Cir.) A putative class action was brought on behalf of 10 foster children in the custody of the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families (DCYF). Because the plaintiffs were minors, the initiators of the suit sought to appear as their next friends under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17. The complaint designated as defendants, in their official capacities, a coterie of state officials. It sought certification of a class of all minor children who were in or might enter DCYF custody based on a report or suspicion of abuse or neglect. Invoking 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the complaint prayed for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiffs and the putative class. The complaint averred that the State had failed to comply in various respects with the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. Sections 620- 628, 670-679a. The State moved to dismiss the complaint, and the district court obliged. The court's principal rationale was that the proposed next friends did not satisfy Rule 17's requirements. Plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court remanded the case as it concluded that the initiators were suitable representatives. On remand the State again move to dismiss the complaint invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court dismissed as moot the claims of five or more plaintiffs, but nevertheless it allowed the case to proceed. The State moved for a protective order aimed at limiting the scope of discovery. The district judge referred the motion to the magistrate judge, who allowed the protective order in part. No separate order was entered delineating the modified scope of discovery, but the magistrate judge directed the parties to confer in an attempt to narrow their disputes in light of his decision. As a result, the plaintiffs provisionally withdrew portions of their motions to compel. The plaintiffs appealed the protective order to the district judge, who upheld it. On February 26, 2013, the plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification. They argued that the district judge's reluctance to decide the class certification issue was causing substantial prejudice because the claims of ten plaintiffs already had become moot and several more plaintiffs would soon age out of DCYF custody. The district judge again declined to rule on the class certification. On August 29, 2013, the plaintiffs moved to compel the State to allow plaintiffs' counsel and the next friends to meet with the plaintiffs for purposes of trial preparation. The State objected. At the ensuing hearing, the district judge stated that she viewed the motion for access as a veiled attempt to obtain fact discovery beyond the discovery deadline. When the judge asked whether the named plaintiffs would be called as witnesses, counsel replied that they could not make that determination without meeting with their clients. The judge proceeded to deny the motion, effectively preventing plaintiffs' counsel from speaking with their clients in advance of trial. By the time that the trial commenced on November 12, 2013, the claims of all but two of the named plaintiffs had been rendered moot through aging or adoption. When the plaintiffs rested, the State moved for judgment on partial findings. The district judge took the matter under advisement and, after receiving post-trial briefing, concluded that the plaintiffs had presented insufficient evidence to establish that DCYF's policies and customs had either harmed them or exposed them to an unreasonable risk of harm. The judge likewise concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden of proof with respect to their statutory causes of action. Judgment entered, and a timely appeal ensued. Judge Selya vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. A copy of Judge Selya's opinion dated April 21, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/PYljesfrom Leagle.com For Appellants: William Kapell Ira Lustbader, Esq. Children's Rights 330 Seventh Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10001 Telephone: 212-683-2210 Facsimile: 212-683-4015 - and - John W. Dineen, Esq. -- Jared Bobrow, Esq. -- jared.bobrow@weil.com -- at Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP Neil F.X. Kelly, Assistant Attorney General, with whom Peter F. Kilmartin, Attorney General, and Brenda D. Baum, Assistant Attorney General, were on brief, for appellees. The First Circuit panel consists of Associate Justice David Souter and Circuit Judges Bruce M. Selya and Kermit V. Lipez RITE AID: Motion to Stay Withdrawn in "Welday" Case --------------------------------------------------- The defendant's motion to stay was withdrawn and the deadline for the parties' joint status report was set in the case captioned KEITH WELDAY, an individual Plaintiff, v. RITE AID CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-02439 JAM-EFB, RELATED TO NO: NO. 2:14-CV-01946 JAM-EFB, NO. 2:14-CV- 01957 JAM-EFB;, 2:14-CV-01960 JAM-EFB;, 2:14-CV-01961 JAM-EFB;, 2:14-CV-01963 JAM-EFB;, 2:14-CV-01965 JAM-EFB;, 2:15-CV-00429 JAM- EFB;, 2:15-CV-00622 JAM-EFB;, 2:15-CV-00623 JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Keith Welday and defendant Rite Aid Corporation submitted to the court a stipulation to withdraw the motion to stay previously filed by Rite Aid, and to set the parties' deadline to file a status report. In an order dated April 21, 2015 and available at http://is.gd/VrQ3VGfrom Leagle.com, District Judge John A. Mendez found good cause and ordered that: -- defendant Rite Aid Corporation's motion to stay is withdrawn; and -- the parties' deadlines to file their joint status report was set for May 18, 2015. MATTHEW RIGHETTI, JOHN GLUGOSKI, MICHAEL RIGHETTI, RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C., San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff Keith Welday. JEFFREY D. WOHL -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- RISHI N. SHARMA -- rishisharma@paulhastings.com -- PETER A. COOPER -- petercooper@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant Rite Aid Corporation ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Court to Appoint Lead Plaintiff in "Ding" Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a court was expected to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on or before April 6, 2015, in the case Ding v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv- 8020. A putative securities class action captioned Ding v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, was filed against Roka and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December 24, 2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Roka securities pursuant or traceable to the Company's initial public offering (the "IPO") during the putative class period, which ran from July 17 through November 6, 2014. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and contends that the IPO Registration Statement was false and misleading, or omitted allegedly material information, in connection with the Company's statements about its placement of Atlas instruments and its expectations of future growth and increased market share, and the Company's alleged failure to disclose "known trends and uncertainties about the Company's sales." The alleged misrepresentations and omissions purportedly came to light when Roka issued its third-quarter 2014 earnings release on November 6, 2014. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, two applicants filed motions on February 23, 2015 for appointment as lead plaintiff. On March 23, 2015, the applicant with the smaller loss agreed not to oppose the application for lead plaintiff filed by the applicant with the larger loss. The court was expected to appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel on or before April 6, 2015. The parties have agreed, with the court's consent, that defendants need not respond to the pending complaint and that the parties will submit a proposed schedule for any amendment of the complaint and for responsive pleadings within ten days after the court appoints lead plaintiff. RS PARKING: "Pereira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Pereira, and others similarly- situated v. R.S. Parking and Valet Services, Inc., and Ronald Sussman, Case No. 0:15-cv-61000- JIC (S.D. Fla., May 14, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a valet parking services company in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Francisco Zacarias, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER F. ZACARIAS, P.A. 5757 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 230 Miami, FL 33126 Telephone: (305) 403-2000 Facsimile: (305) 459-3964 E-mail: czacarias@zacariaslaw.com SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Accused in California of Drugging Orcas --------------------------------------------------------------- SeaWorld conceals that it keeps killer whales in tiny spaces, inbreeds them, drugs them and deprives them of food, a class action claims in California Federal Court, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiff Valerie Simo claims she would not have paid SeaWorld Entertainment for tickets or membership had she known the truth about orca abuse. She claims SeaWorld made hundreds of millions of dollars from its signature "Shamu Show," pushed in a massive public marketing campaign claiming that the whales and humans at their parks live in harmony and play together for public entertainment. "This illusion masks the ugly truth about the unhealthy and despairing lives of these whales. This is a truth that, if known to the purchasing public at the time families make the decision to visit SeaWorld, buy a membership, or pay for an 'exclusive park experience,' would lead them to seek entertainment elsewhere," according to the May 7 lawsuit. Orcas are highly intelligent, family oriented, long-lived and self-aware, are socially complex with distinct cultural traditions among varied ecotypes, and roam 100 miles a day in the wild, according to the complaint. "Concealed from the public is the impact on these animals of captivity in a confined space, the forced separation of young whales from their mothers, the unnatural mixing of whales that do not have the same culture in small spaces, the forced breeding and inbreeding of young female whales, the routine use of pharmaceutical products to unnaturally drug the orcas, the psychological manipulation and at times food deprivation to which they are subjected, the deep rake marks on their bodies that result from incompatibility and cramped conditions, and many other life-shortening and painful experiences from which they have no escape," Simo claims. As a result, according to the 87-page lawsuit, "SeaWorld whales die many years before they would in the wild." Orcas in the wild can live roughly as long as human beings, with a mean life expectancy of 50 years for females and up to a maximum life span of 90 years, and a mean life of 30 years for males with a maximum life span of up to 70 years, the complaint states. But Simo claims that SeaWorld lies to the public that killer whales live to be about 35 years old and tend to live a lot longer as captives. "The vast majority of captive orcas of either sex die before their early 20s, many still in their early teens," the lawsuit states. Captive orcas also "wear down and break their teeth on concrete and metal, and bang their heads into the walls of their pools from (what humans can only describe as) fear, anxiety, sadness, and a forced resignation to an unnatural and unreasonably monotonous, empty, and dangerous life of captivity," according to the complaint. In nature, orcas choose their own mates, but at SeaWorld they are forced to breed on a regular basis, often with their own relatives, and trainers masturbate males to collect their sperm, Simo says. The whales are dosed with powerful drugs, sometimes for their entire lives, which are necessary because of their captivity at SeaWorld, according to the complaint. Simo says the orcas are given antacids to treat ulcers, antibiotics to treat infections caused by their conditions of confinement, strong contraceptives and antipsychotic and psychoactive drugs such as valium to calm them. "These drugs are dangerous for the orcas and would never be consumed in nature -- but in confinement they are additional tools SeaWorld uses to dominate its captive orcas and keep from public view the reactions orcas have to confinement," the lawsuit states. Trainers at SeaWorld also face dangers, as evidenced by experienced SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau, who was killed in 2010 by Tilikum, an orca taken as a young calf form his family in the wild. SeaWorld spread false information implying that Brancheau was to blame for her own death because she slipped, but then changed its story to falsely state that the trainer's ponytail in the water caused the "accident," the lawsuit states. "Dozens of documented examples of aggression toward trainers were unearthed during the OSHA investigation following Dawn Brancheau's death, and were then made part of the public record over SeaWorld's strong objection. In truth, several SeaWorld trainers have been variously hit and knocked unconscious, suffered broken limbs and ribs, and been grabbed and pulled into the water at great peril," the lawsuit states. The OSHA investigation resulted in a citation and imposition of nominal fines against SeaWorld, decisions that were affirmed on appeal by the D.C. Circuit. The investigation also resulted in a ban on trainer performance in the water with orcas. Despite this, SeaWorld refuses to acknowledge the aggression of captive orcas for fear that the public would come to conclude, as scientists have, that the aggression is a product of the park's treatment of the whales, Simo claims. The 2013 documentary "Blackfish," which followed the 32-year history of Tilikum, revealed that the conditions at SeaWorld are unnatural and unhealthy for orcas, according to the complaint. In the wake of "Blackfish," schools canceled longstanding annual field trips to SeaWorld, popular musicians withdrew from scheduled performances at the park, and longstanding sponsors and strategic partners -- such as Southwest Airlines and Taco Bell -- cut ties with the park, Simo says. Despite this, those who question the propriety of profiting from captive orcas are accused of "radicalism" and "extremism" by SeaWorld, which continues to claim that its whales are treated well and have "fun" lives in captivity, the complaint states. Simo and two co-plaintiffs seek to represent consumers who purchased SeaWorld tickets, memberships or other orca "experience" products at the San Diego, Orlando and Texas facilities before they became aware of the park's alleged mistreatment of its captive whales. They estimate the class in the millions. They seek injunctive relief requiring SeaWorld to stop with its alleged misleading business practices. According to SeaWorld's Web site, daily tickets to the three facilities range from $52 to $89. SeaWorld recently launched a national television and online advertising campaign aimed at reinforcing "the truth about the company's commitment to its killer whales," according to its Web site. The ad features a veterinarian at SeaWorld Orlando and a senior member of the park's animal rescue team addressing many common misperceptions about SeaWorld's whales, including how long they live and where they come from, according to the Web site. "We love these animals and do everything in our power to assure that they're happy and health," Jill Kermes, senior corporate affairs officer for SeaWorld Entertainment, said in a statement. SeaWorld also runs the Web site AskSeaWorld.com, which answers questions about how SeaWorld cares for, displays and educates the public about its animals. In response to questions about "Blackfish," SeaWorld called it animal rights propaganda that is "manipulative and misleading." The parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. SFBSC MANAGEMENT: N.D. Cal. Judge Stayed Exotic Dancers' Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler of the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, stayed the case of JANE ROE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SFBSC MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-03616-LB (N.D. Cal.) The plaintiffs are or were exotic dancers of defendant SFBSC, LLC (BSC) that managed the nightclubs where they worked. Plaintiffs' suit is a putative collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-19 and a putative class action under Rule 23. BSC filed a motion to compel arbitration, which the court denied. BSC appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. BSC moves to stay all proceedings in the case until the Ninth Circuit renders its decision while the plaintiffs moves the court to approve notice under Hoffman-LaRoche v. Sperling, 493 U.S.165 (1989) and asks the court to add Jane Roe 3 as an additional proposed class representative. Magistrate Judge Beeler granted BSC's motion to stay the case pending resolution of its appeal. The court denies the plaintiffs' motions to send Hoffman-LaRoche notice and to add Jane Roe 3 as a proposed class representative. A copy of Magistrate Judge Beeler's order dated April 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/6YwYcufrom Leagle.com Jane Roe, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick -- sgt@tidricklaw.com -- Joel Benjamin Young -- jby@tidricklaw.com -- at The Tidrick Law Firm Jane Roe Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 Plaintiffs, represented by Steven Gregory Tidrick -- sgt@tidricklaw.com -- at The Tidrick Law Firm SFBSC Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Douglas J. Melton -- dmelton@longlevit.com -- Noah Samuel Rosenthal -- nrosenthal@longlevit.com -- Shane Michael Cahill -- scahill@longlevit.com -- at Long & Levit LLP SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP: Class Action Settlement Wins Preliminary Okay ----------------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in its April 22, 2015 Order, granted a Motion For Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case docketed as DON C. BENNETT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP, Defendant, CASE NO. 11-CV-01854-JST. The unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement was filed by proposed class representative Plaintiffs Darren Scott, Jon Hotzler, Gary Backlund, and Jose Valdez. District Judge Jon S. Tigar found that the settlement appeared "to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible approval." In deciding the Motion, Judge Tigar: (1) granted the parties' request for preliminary approval of their class action settlement, subject to a revision concerning settlement administration costs; (2) granted the parties' request for certification of the Rule 23 settlement class (all individuals employed by Defendant SimplexGrinnell at any time since April 18, 2007, until October 28, 2014, who have performed testing or inspection of fire alarm or sprinkler systems in California on 'public works,' as defined in California Labor Code Sections 1720, 1771) for the sole and limited purpose of implementing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, subject to the Court's final approval; (3) appointed Plaintiffs' counsel, the Fay Law Group, Beranbaum Menken, and Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho as class counsel, and Plaintiffs Scott, Hotzler, Backlund, and Valdez as class representatives; (4) preliminarily approved the form and content of the settlement agreement, and the proposed class notice and estimated share form, subject to certain revisions; (5) approved the selection of Settlement Services, Inc. as the settlement administrator, and the payment of reasonable administration costs, which are not to exceed $16,550.00 and will be paid from the maximum settlement amount. A copy of the Judge Tigar's April 22, 2015 Order is available at http://is.gd/CSKjVsfrom Leagle.com. Don C. Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho -- lho@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken -- bmenken@NYemployeelaw.com -- Beranbaum Menken LLP, James Kan -- jkan@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO, Jason Rozger -- jrozger@NYemployeelaw.com -- Beranbaum Menken LLP & Raymond C. Fay -- rfay@faylawdc.com -- Fay Law Group PLLC. Comerlis Delaney, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP, James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO, Jason Rozger, Beranbaum Menken LLP & Raymond C. Fay, Fay Law Group PLLC. Gary Robinson, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP, James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO, Jason Rozger, Beranbaum Menken LLP & Raymond C. Fay, Fay Law Group PLLC. Darren Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP, James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO, Jason Rozger, Beranbaum Menken LLP & Raymond C. Fay, Fay Law Group PLLC. Jon Hotzler, Plaintiff, represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & Ho, Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP, James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO & Raymond C. Fay, Fay Law Group PLLC. Gary Charles Backlund, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP & James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO. Jose D. Valdez, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E. Menken, Beranbaum Menken LLP & James Kan, Goldstein Borgen Dardarian & HO. Simplexgrinnell LP, Defendant, represented by Carolyn Blecha Hall -- carolyn.hall@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Jocelyn A. Merced -- jocelyn.merced@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, and Stewart, P.C. & Robert Raymond Roginson -- robert.roginson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: E.D. Pa. Judge Drops Diabetic's Suit -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case entitled IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT APPLIES TO STACI LAURINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION d/b/a GLAXOSMITHKLINE, MDL NO. 07-MD-01871, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-3683 (E.D. Pa.) The defendant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) is the manufacturer of a drug called Avandia. The plaintiff Staci Laurino had purchased and used Avandia as early as 2007, which had been prescribed for her by a licensed physician. Plaintiff alleged that despite notice of the dangerous propensities associated with Avandia, GSK engaged in misrepresentations, and failed to adequately advise consumers and medical providers of the risks of Avandia, including but not limited to the increased risk of heart attacks and deaths. Furthermore, the company omitted material facts concerning Avandia's risk factors, even though it knew or reasonably should have known those facts. GSK also promoted Avandia's efficacy when in fact, Avandia is no more effective than other drugs. GSK misrepresented, concealed, suppressed and/or omitted material facts concerning Avandia and the fact that the drug increased the likelihood of cardiovascular disease. Plaintiff alleges that defendant violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), which prohibits deceptive practices. Defendant moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that plaintiff lacks standing and has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Judge Rufe granted defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action and concludes that to allow any further amendment would be inequitable and likely futile. The amended complaint is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of Judge Rufe's memorandum opinion dated April 16, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/67Fji3from Leagle.com IN RE: AVANDIA MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by LAURIA ANN LYNCH-GERMAN, HODAN DOSTER & GANZER SC & TURNER W. BRANCH, BRANCH LAW FIRM. PATRICK A. JUNEAU, Special Master, represented by PATRICK A. JUNEAU, JR. BRUCE P. MERENSTEIN, Special Master, represented by BRUCE P. MERENSTEIN, SCHNADER HARRISON SEGAL & LEWIS. ANDREW A. CHIRLS, Administrator, represented by ANDREW A. CHIRLS, FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS PC PLAINTIFFS' STEERING COMMITTEE, Amicus, represented by BILL ROBINS, III, HEARD ROBINS CLOUD & BLACK, DIANNE M. NAST, NASTLAW LLC, JASON E. DUNAHOE, HEARD ROBINS CLOUD & BLACK LLP, PAUL R. KIESEL, KIESEL LAW LLP & TURNER W. BRANCH, BRANCH LAW FIRM SNCF: Holocaust Victims' Descendants File Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Olivia Hampton, writing for Agence France-Presse, reports that descendants of Holocaust victims have filed a US lawsuit claiming France's national railway seized the property of tens of thousands of Jews and others sent to Nazi concentration camps. The class-action suit seeks compensation for the confiscation and sale of personal property and for third-class train fares billed to the Nazis even though the victims were packed into cattle cars. The suit was filed on April 23, on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, in US federal court in Chicago. "SNCF committed, conspired to commit and aided and abetted others who committed war crimes and crimes against humanity," the court document alleged, using the acronym by which the French railway company is known. "Acting with full knowledge, SNCF was complicit in the commission of genocide." In a statement to AFP, the SNCF said it "has no comment on the complaint in the US and has no additional information to provide." The personal property allegedly seized includes cash, securities, silver, gold, jewelry, works of art, musical instruments, clothing and equipment. The goods were "illegally, improperly and coercively taken from the ownership or control of an individual during the deportations," according to the suit. In a landmark deal, France agreed in December to pay $60 million to the United States to be shared among American and foreign nationals deported to Nazi death camps on French trains during World War II. The lead plaintiff in the case is Karen Scalin, a Chicago resident whose grandparents were sent from France on an SNCF train to the Auschwitz death camp in Nazi-occupied Poland, where they died in November 1942. The two other named plaintiffs, Josiane Piquard and Roland Cherrier, are both French citizens and residents whose relatives were deported to Auschwitz and died there during the war. "SNCF's unlawful and torturous conduct as described herein was done intentionally, maliciously and wantonly, and for the purpose of obtaining revenues for and maintaining the independence of SNCF," according to the lawsuit. "Plaintiffs are thereby entitled to an award of punitive damages as well as compensatory damages." And the suit spoke of a "mutually beneficial" relationship between the SNCF and the Nazis. "The Nazis received the human fodder for their Final Solution, as well as the victims' property, all through the collaboration of SNCF," it said. The plaintiffs say the US federal court has jurisdiction over the matter because the claims arise under international law enforceable in the Chicago court as federal law. The suit also claims that the statute of limitations has not expired, even though they took place nearly 75 years ago, because the SNCF only opened some of its archives to the public in 2012. STANFORD UNIVERSITY: US Govt Dismissed From "Phillips" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, granted the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, in the case docketed as BENJAMIN M. PHILLIPS, SR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY d/b/a STANFORD UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:12-CV-02269-HEA. Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against the United States of America, among others, alleging in their Third Amended Complaint theories of public nuisance, Count I; battery, Count IV; and Recklessness, Count V. Presumably, the claims against the United States are brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2674 ("FTCA"). Defendant United States filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The government maintains that Plaintiffs' claims fall within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity. District Judge Henry Edward Autrey, in granting the Defendant United States' Motion to Dismiss, concluded that "the Court has considered the extensive briefing on the issue and has heard argument of counsel regarding the propriety of dismissal. No further hearing on the matter is required for the Court to conclude that the challenged governmental actions fall within the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act." A copy of Judge Autrey's Decision is available at http://is.gd/HHJcPHfrom Leagle.com. Benjamin M. Phillips, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce A. Morrison, BRUCE A. MORRISON, Elkin L. Kistner, BICK AND KISTNER, PC, Joseph V. Neill, Kevin C. Roberts -- KevinRoberts@rwzlaw.com -- ROBERTS AND WOOTEN, LLC, Ronnie Glynn Penton, THE PENTON LAW FIRM & Daniel T. DeFeo, DEFEO AND KOLKER, LLC. Chester Deans, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce A. Morrison, BRUCE A. MORRISON, Elkin L. Kistner, BICK AND KISTNER, PC, Joseph V. Neill, Kevin C. Roberts, ROBERTS AND WOOTEN, LLC, Ronnie Glynn Penton, THE PENTON LAW FIRM & Daniel T. DeFeo, DEFEO AND KOLKER, LLC. Willis Lloyd, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce A. Morrison, BRUCE A. MORRISON, Elkin L. Kistner, BICK AND KISTNER, PC, Joseph V. Neill, Kevin C. Roberts, ROBERTS AND WOOTEN, LLC, Ronnie Glynn Penton, THE PENTON LAW FIRM & Daniel T. DeFeo, DEFEO AND KOLKER, LLC. Parsons Government Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dara D. Mann --dmann@mckennalong.com -- MCKENNA AND LONG, Robert A Roth -- rroth@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP, Tami L. Azorsky -- tazorsky@mckennalong.com -- MCKENNA AND LONG & Larry D. Hale, HALE LAW FIRM. The Leland Stanford Junior University, d/b/a Stanford Univeristy, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey S. Jacobi -- jeffrey.jacobi@pillsburylaw.com -- PILLSBURY AND WINTHROP, LLP & Sarah G. Flanagan -- sarah.flanagan@pillsburylaw.com -- PILLSBURY AND WINTHROP, LLP. United States Army, Defendant, represented by John Adam Bain, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Keri Lane Berman, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. United States of America, Defendant, represented by John Adam Bain, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Keri Lane Berman, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. United States Department of Defense, Defendant, represented by John Adam Bain, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Keri Lane Berman, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE. The Leland Stanford Junior University, d/b/a Stanford Univeristy, Cross Claimant, represented by Jeffrey S. Jacobi, PILLSBURY AND WINTHROP, LLP & Sarah G. Flanagan, PILLSBURY AND WINTHROP, LLP. SUMMIT RESTAURANT: Sued in Cal. Over Reimbursement Policies ----------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Scarry, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons v. Summit Restaurant Group, LLC, Summit Pizza, Inc., Summit Restaurants, LLC, Summit Interests, LLC, Summit Fare, LLC, Arkansas Pizza, Inc. and Summit Pizza West, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv- 01090-WQH-BGS (S.D. Cal., May 14, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' flawed method to determine their delivery drivers' reimbursement rates that provides an unreasonably low rate beneath any approximation of the expenses they incur. The Defendants own and operate a chain of Pizza Hut stores in California, Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan L. Thompson, Esq. WATTS GUERRA LLP 525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 220-8141 Facsimile: (424) 732-8190 E-mail: rthompson@wattsguerra.com SUPREME SERVICE: Suit to be Transferred to E.D. Louisiana --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos granted the defendant's unopposed motion seeking the transfer to the Eastern District of Louisiana of the case captioned BRANDON KERVIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUPREME SERVICE & SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-102 (S.D. Tex.). Judge Ramos in Corpus Christi, Texas, held that "majority of the relevant private and public factors weigh heavily in favor of transferring this case to the Eastern District of Louisiana for the convenience of parties and witnesses. Kervin's attorney does not oppose the transfer." The Clerk was directed to transfer the case and all filed materials to the Clerk of the Eastern District of Louisiana. A copy of the April 7, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/JiBd5Afrom Leagle.com. Brandon Kervin, Nicholas Ardoin, Aubrey Lee Castille, Jr, Chris Castoe, Jai Dufrene, Russell Freeman, Joshua Gunn, Mario Moreno, Jr, Mark Peacock, Alonzo Robles, Jody Stinson, Mark Wallace, Randy Pruden, John Citizen, Josh Schleben, David Moon, Micah Matlock, Marc Alan Davidson, Wesley Jared Harper, James Maxey, Cecil Delaughter, III, Chad Born, Jason Moss, Torrance Hoye, Huey McCray, Aaron Perkins, Kody Leonard, Dusty E Weidnex, Lamarquis Brooks, Marcos N Martinez, Demone Thomas, Fidencio DeLeon, Brandon Hobbs, Todd Burroughs, Oscar Sepulveda, Eduardo Mena, Michael Billeaudeau, and Brandon Laperouse, Plaintiffs, represented by William Clifton Alexander, Sico White Hoelscher & Braugh LLP, Craig M. Sico, Sico, White & Braugh, LLP & Timothy Dean Raub, Raub Law Firm PC. John William Byrd, Plaintiff, represented by John William Byrd. William Scott Owens, Plaintiff, represented by William Scott Owens. Jason Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Griffin. Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Pamela Dawn Williams -- pamela.williams@arlaw.com -- Adams and Reese LLP. TOP RANK: Faces "Galandak" Suit for Concealing Pacquiao's Injury ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Galandak, Brian Jarecki, and Lars Olaussen, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04232 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2, 2015. Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq. Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com adam@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com TRIPTI INC: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Samuel" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Prabir Samuel v. Tripti Inc. d/b/a Moti Mahal Delux Restaurant, and Gaura V. Anand, Case No. 1:15-cv-03718 (S.D.N.Y., May 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate Moti Mahal Delux Restaurant in Manhattan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548 Facsimile: (212) 688-5639 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com TURNKEY BUSINESS: Sued Over Failure to Pay OT Wages & Damages ------------------------------------------------------------- Connie Jeffries v. Turnkey Business Solutions, LLC and Edward J. Pruse, Case No. 8:15-cv-01159 (M.D. Fla., May 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate a call center in Pinellas Park, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Bernard Celler, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. Suite 230, 7450 Griffin Road Davie, FL 33314 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com UAG FAYETTEVILLE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Interest ------------------------------------------------------------ ArkansasOnline reports that a lawsuit filed on April 17 in Washington County Circuit Court alleges some car dealers and financing companies in Northwest Arkansas are charging customers more interest than the law allows. The suit was filed on behalf of Natasha Fletcher and names UAG Fayetteville II, doing business as Honda of Fayetteville, Landers Honda North and Fayetteville Autoplex, also known as Fayetteville Auto Park. It also names Ally Financial Inc. UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S: May Intervene in Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court's denial of a motion for intervention in the case captioned CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NOS. LLG035083, LLG041386, EQ6564A, EQ6564B, EQ6564C, LCL002222, EQ6366A, EQ6366B, EQ6366C, EQ6366D, EQ6366E, EQA22264, EQA12036, LCP001820, LCL003461, LCP002646, LLG034560, LLG040476, LLG045650, LLG051521, LLG055843, LLG059178, EQA14445, EQA14505, LSP510482, LSP511933, LSP513021, LSP513885, 05SRT20094, 05SRT20640, 05SRT21188, 05SRT21737, 05SRT20794, CP04265, CP04980, CP05809, CP06776, CP06159, CP07113, 058204-004, 058204-005, 068204-003, 058170-027, 068170-012, 068170-013, 078170-009, 078170-010, 088170-010, 088170-011, 098170-003, 098170-004, 19618-08, 19618- 09, 19618-10, 19618-11, 19511-08, 19511-09, 19511-10, AND 19511- 11, APPELLANTS, v. DAVID BASS; DONALD HUGHES; LISTON HASEMAN, JR.; JOHN KIMBROUGH; LEWIS JENKINS TRUCKING, INC.; LEW THOMPSON & SON, INC.; MOORE VALLEY FARMS, INC.; JEREMY POE; FRANKLIN D. POLLARD D/B/A THE REGENCY LIMITED; BOBBY AND EARNESTINE POLLINS; ROBBY SUMMERS; TOMMIE WALKER AUCTION, INC.; ADVADA WARD; LANCE WHITAKER; AND SHIRLEY WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PLAINTIFF CLASS REPRESENTATIVES, APPELLEES, NO. CV-14-788 (Ark.). The Supreme Court of Arkansas agreed with appellants that their mere use of the shorthand reference ("Certain Underwriters") to describe the numerous insurers of these policies do not render them amorphous. The Supreme Court also held that it is not enough for appellees to rely on the fact that appellants and the defendant brokers have the same counsel and similar defenses. The appellants' interests, which include proving that they are approved insurers and that all policies issued are valid, are ultimately different than the defendant-brokers' interests when their ultimate goal is to deny any personal liability for premiums paid to appellants to procure insurance. This is an appeal from an order of the Saline County Circuit Court denying a motion by appellants, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, to intervene in a class-action suit filed by appellees, David Bass; Donald Hughes; Liston Haseman, Jr.; John Kimbrough; Lewis Jenkins Trucking, Inc.; Lew Thompson & Son, Inc.; Moore Valley Farms, Inc.; Jeremy Poe; Franklin D. Pollard d/b/a The Regency Limited; Bobby and Earnestine Pollins; Robby Summers; Tommie Walker Auction, Inc.; Advada Ward; Lance Whitaker; and Shirley Williams, purchasers of surplus-lines insurance. Named as defendants were Michael Ellis Alexander, Terry Lynn Burnett, Dianna Lynn Farish, John Archie Griggs, John Christopher Hildebrand, James Robert Hill, Stephen Frederick Hoffmann, Michael Leon Johnson, Stanley Guy Payne, Frances S. Shaddox, Roy Mack Shaddox, Richard Paul Simon, Russell Ellsworth Short, and Jimmy Sutterfield, Arkansas licensed surplus-lines-insurance brokers. A copy of the April 23, 2015 ruling is available at http://is.gd/4NqRgWfrom Leagle.com. Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: David D. Wilson -- wilson@fridayfirm.com -- Clark S. Brewster, PLLC, by: Clark S. Brewster; and Fields Howell, by: Paul L. Fields, Jr. -- pfields@fieldshowell.com -- and Gregory L. Mast -- gmast@fieldshowell.com -- for appellants. Ludwig Law Firm, PLC, by: Gene A. Ludwig and Ryan K. Culpepper, for appellees. UNILEVER UNITED STATES: "Pardini" Case Stayed --------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of California, in its April 15, 2015 Order Granting Motion to Stay in the case docketed as KYM PARDINI and CARRIE WOOD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-01675-SC, granted Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay the case pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Jones v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. District Judge Samuel Conti concludes "that there will be little to no damage to Defendant from a stay. By contrast, failing to stay this case might result in substantial hardship to both parties and deal a severe blow to judicial economy. Perhaps most importantly, Jones is very likely to simplify questions of law that might well be dispositive to class certification in this case." Judge Conti granted Plaintiffs' motion to stay this case and gave the Parties 14 days to file a joint notice of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Jones with the Court. A copy of Judge Conti's April 15, 2015 Order Granting Motion to Stay is available at http://is.gd/6zCZSRfrom Leagle.com. Kym Pardini, Plaintiff, represented by Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lee M. Gordon -- lee@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Ureka Ellie Idstrom, The Eureka Law Firm. Carrie Wood, Plaintiff, represented by Lee M. Gordon, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP. Unilever United States, Inc., Defendant, represented by William Lewis Stern -- wstern@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Claudia Maria Vetesi -- cvetesi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Lisa Ann Wongchenko -- lwongchenko@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP. UNION PACIFIC: La. Appeals Court Affirms Judgment in "Ned" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Phyllis M. Keaty affirmed the trial court's judgment in the case captioned GLORIA M. NED, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF JESSIE JANUARY AND JACQUELINE JANUARY, v. UNION PACIFIC CORPORATION, ET AL., NO. 14-1310, CONSOLIDATED WITH NOS. 14-1311, 14-1312, 14-1313, AND 14-1314 (La. Ct. App., 3d Cir.). Judge Keaty held that the trial court was not manifestly erroneous in dismissing the six Plaintiffs who failed to respond to discovery. She likewise held that the "Plaintiffs have not shown any inconsistencies between the commencement of federal and state prescriptive periods that would warrant federal preemption of state law. Plaintiffs' reliance on federal preemption law is without merit, and the trial court was not manifestly erroneous in this regard." Judge Keaty, in finding that the Plaintiffs' third assignment of error was without merit, concluded that "the identification of records requirement is met since the affiants stated that they obtained their information used to make their spreadsheets attached to their affidavit from Plaintiffs' discovery responses and other related items. The personal familiarity requirement is further met as the affiants stated that they "personally reviewed" the Plaintiffs' discovery responses and other related items. Affiants satisfied both requirements even though only satisfaction of one Denbury requirement is sufficient for a finding of personal knowledge." The fourth assignment of error was likewise found to be without merit. Judge Keaty stated that "both parties' counsel agreed at the hearing on Defendants' partial motion for summary judgment that they attended a previous telephone conference with the trial court wherein it orally set this shorter deadline. Pursuant to the foregoing law and jurisprudence, the parties were required to comply with this shorter, court-ordered deadline." A copy of the April 15, 2015 decision is available at http://is.gd/m6ZKI0from Leagle.com. Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants: Gloria M. Ned, et al.: J. Arthur Smith, III, Esq. SMITH LAW FIRM 830 North Street Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Tel: (225) 383-7716 Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants: Gloria M. Ned, et al.: Leonard Knapp, Esq. Attorney at Law Post Office Box 1665 Lake Charles, LA 70602 Tel: (337) 439-1700 Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants: Gloria M. Ned, et al. Brian Crawford, Esq. CRAWFORD & OGG Post Office Box 14600 Monroe, LA 71207 Tel: (318) 325-3200 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Union Pacific Corporation Dallas Stutes: David A. Fraser, Esq. Pamela L. Courtney, Esq. FRASER, WHEELER & BERGSTEDT, L.L.P. Post Office Box 4886 Lake Charles, LA 70606 Tel: (337) 478-8595 Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Union Pacific Corporation Dallas Stutes: H. Alston Johnson, III, Esq. Steven J. Levine, Esq. Kevin W. Welsh, Esq. PHELPS DUNBAR LLP Post Office Box 4412 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-4412 Tel: (225) 346-0285 E-mail: alston.johnson@phelps.com steve.levine@phelps.com kevin.welsh@phelps.com Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: Union Pacific Corporation Dallas Stutes: Merrick Walton, Esq. Attorney at Law 3515 Rice Boulevard Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 665-8464 E-mail: merrickwalton@merrickwalton.com Counsel for Defendants/Appellees: PPG Industries, Inc., A. L. Greathouse, Tommy G. Brown, W. J. Peard: William B. Monk, Esq. Allyson E. Champagne, Esq. Kathleen T. Deanda, Esq. STOCKWELL, SIEVERT, VICCELLIO, CLEMENTS & SHADDOCK, L.L.P. Post Office Box 2900 Lake Charles, LA 70602 Tel: (337) 436-9491 UNITED STATES: Settlement in Hunneshagen Trust Case Approved ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Federal Claims approved the settlement of the class action, HUNNESHAGEN FAMILY TRUST OF JUNE 25, 1999, Individually, For Itself, and As a Representative of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, NO. 09-504L. Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams, in approving the parties' settlement agreement, found that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. Judge Williams ordered the parties to "disburse payments as agreed in the settlement and shall file a notice of compliance once payment is completed." The Clerk was ordered to enter judgment accordingly, and was likewise ordered to dismiss the claims of Plaintiffs Dorothy Keller, Roberta Grapel, Scott and June Morrison, Roger Timmons, and Ronald A. White. A copy of the Judge Williams' April 15, 2015 Opinion is available at http://is.gd/MKrQuEfrom Leagle.com. HUNNESHAGEN FAMILY TRUST, Plaintiff, represented by John Robert Sears -- sears@bscr-law.com -- Baker Sterchi Cowden and Rice, LLC. USA, Defendant, represented by Alison D. Garner -- alison.garner@usdoj.gov -- U.S. Department of Justice. UNITED STATES: Veterans Court Ruling in "Adeyi" Case Affirmed ------------------------------------------------------------- The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in the case captioned DAVID ADEYEMI ADEYI, Claimant-Appellant, v. ROBERT A. McDONALD, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee, NO. 2015-7033 (Fed. Cir.). On September 25, 2014, David Adeyi filed a "petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of mandamus" with the Veterans Court. R.A. 2. alleging that the Houston regional office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was "violating various federal laws and the constitutional rights of veterans . . . by working with a nonprofit organization named The Mission Continues" in a research program involving Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Veterans Court denied Mr. Adeyi's petition. In affirming the Veterans Court's decision, the United States Court of Appeals held that Mr. Adeyi has not shown a clear legal right to proceed with a claim for class relief. As to the alleged violation of Mr. Adeyi's rights with respect to the processing or adjudication of his claims for his own disability benefits, the appellate court also agreed with the Veteran Court's determination that he can seek relief through the normal appellate process. Thus, mandamus is unavailable for his claim. The appellate court also saw no basis on which they could conclude that the Veterans Court committed a legal error in finding insufficient delay in his case to warrant extraordinary relief. Finally, the appellate court saw no error in the Veteran Court's conclusion that Mr. Adeyi's allegations were "vague" and "unsupported" in regard to his claims that the Houston RO's work with The Mission Continues is violating the constitutional rights of veterans. A copy of the April 13, 2015 decision is available at http://is.gd/UnOaQdfrom Leagle.com. DAVID ADEYEMI ADEYI, Washington, DC, pro se. COURTNEY D. ENLOW, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by JOYCE R. BRANDA, ROBERT E. KIRSCHMAN, JR., MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR.; MEGHAN D. ALPHONSO, DAVID J. BARRANS, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. UNITED STATES: Bid for Continuance of Sentencing Hearing Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John A. Mendez ordered the continuance of the sentencing hearing of the case captioned United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Rachel Siders, Defendant, CASE NO. 2:12-CR-0226 JAM (E.D. Cal.) Defendant Rachel Siders requested the continuance of her scheduled sentencing hearing on June 9, 2015. Her counsel was preoccupied with other cases which have prevented him from sitting down with the defendant and the probation officer to fully prepare for the sentencing hearing. The United States' probation officer Nisha Modica agreed to the continuance. Plaintiff United States has not responded to the motion. Counsel for Defendant is also appellate counsel for Donald M. Wanland, currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary Camp, Atwater. The Opening Brief on appeal for the incarcerated client was due on April 13, 2015. Counsel for Defendant is also counsel for Daniel Norcia in a consumer class action. The Responding Brief on appeal for Mr. Norcia was due on April 22, 2015 and counsel had been devoting a substantial amount of time in preparation of the brief. Counsel for Defendant is also counsel for Michael Deatrick in an employment class action of over 25, 000 class members. The Mediation Brief for Mr. Deatrick was due April 20, 2015. Mediation for Mr. Deatrick was to begin on April 22, 2015 and counsel has been spending substantial time in preparation for the mediation. On April 20, 2015, Judge Mendez issued an order for the sentencing hearing to be continued to August 4, 2015 at 9:15 a.m. A copy of the Court's order is available at http://is.gd/JPzDSA from Leagle.com. PROMETHEUS PARTNERS LLP, EDUARDO G. ROY, San Francisco, CA, Attorney for Defendant Rachel Siders. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kevin H. Sharp of the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the case TRACY MORTON, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, Defendant, (M.D. Tenn.) Plaintiff Tracy Morton is one of the 279 employees who lost their jobs in a mass lay-off executed by defendant The Vanderbilt University on September 17, 2013. The parties have tentatively settled the class action under the Worker Adjustment and Restraining Notification Act ("WARN Act"), 29 U.S.C. Section 2101 et seq. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment while the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement. The parties also filed a release and settlement agreement which discloses that if the court resolves defendant's summary judgment motion in plaintiff's favor, and thereby determines that the 279 employees who received notification of the elimination of their positions in September 2013 suffered an employment loss in September 2013, the parties stipulate that a final judgment should be entered awarding damages in the aggregate amount of $285,000 to the class members. They also agree that $135,000 should be awarded to class counsel as reimbursement for their attorney's fees and for the litigation expenses they have advanced. Finally, they agree that defendant shall then be permitted to appeal the court's final judgment at defendant's choosing. Judge Sharp denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's motion for settlement approval. A copy of Judge Sharp's memorandum dated April 17, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/iIs9Nxfrom Leagle.com Tracy Morton, Plaintiff, represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Jerry E. Martin, Esq. Scott P. Tift, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC 217 2nd Avenue N Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: 615-244-2202 Vanderbilt University, Defendant, represented by William N. Ozier -- bozier@bassberry.com -- Michael Scott Moschel -- mmoschel@bassberry.com -- at Bass, Berry & Sims; John C. Callison -- at Office of the General Counsel VERINT SYSTEMS: Court Reviews Summations on Motion to Certify ------------------------------------------------------------- Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit have filed summations on the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action, which are under consideration by the District Court. The Company said, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09) (the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms. Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the grounds that she purports to represent a class of our employees and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during our previous extended filing delay period. In the Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages." "On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action. On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the "Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action"). In the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do not specify an amount of damages. On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor Action was transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court, based on an agreed motion filed by the parties requesting such transfer. "On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012, the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the consolidated class certification motion and an amended consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited. Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion was heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to appeal this ruling in August 2012, but subsequently withdrew it in July 2014. Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI either sold or transferred substantially all of its business operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution, in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest in us. "On February 4, 2013, we completed the CTI Merger. As a result of the CTI Merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse relating to the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse for any losses we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel District Action. "Following an attempt to mediate the dispute, on July 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice with the District Court informing it that the mediation process had been unsuccessful. As a result, the parties recently filed summations on the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a class action, which are under consideration by the District Court." VIKRANT CONTRACTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Raul Velasquez, in his individual capacity and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Vikrant Contracting & Builders, Inc. and Palwinder "Roman" Singh, Case No. 1:15-cv-02783 (E.D.N.Y., May 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a construction company with principal place of business is located at 179-36 Hillside Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11432. The Plaintiff is represented by: Penn Ueoka Dodson, Esq. ANDERSON DODSON, P.C. 11 Broadway, Suite 615 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 961-7639 E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com WEBBER SPRINGS: Summary Judgment in "Fleet" Case Affirmed in Part ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's grant of summary judgment, and remanded for further proceedings the case captioned JAMES R. FLEET, JAMILA J. FLEET, AND JAMES LAMPLEY, Defendants Below, Petitioners, v. WEBBER SPRINGS OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff Below, Respondent, NO. 14-0637 (W.Va. App.). The court concluded that West Virginia Code Section 38-16- 202(a)(1999)(Repl. Vol. 2011) and West Virginia Code Section 38- 16-201(1999)(Repl. Vol. 2011) authorize a consensual common law lien against real property and that the unfair debt collection provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act do apply to a homeowners association's attempts to collect delinquent assessments. A copy of the April 23, 2015 ruling is available at http://is.gd/svF87Wfrom Leagle.com. Stephen G. Skinner, Anthony J. Delligatti, Skinner Law Firm, Charles Town, West Virginia, Christopher J. Regan, Jason E. Causey, Bordas & Bordas, PLLC, Wheeling, West Virginia; Attorneys for the Petitioners. Susan R. Snowden -- srsnowden@martinandseibert.com -- Jason S. Murphy -- jsmurphy@martinandseibert.com -- Martin & Seibert, L.C., Martinsburg, West Virginia, Tammy Mitchell McWilliams, Trump & Trump, L.C., Martinsburg, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Respondent. Anthony J. Majestro, Powell & Majestro, PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia Association for Justice. WELLS FARGO: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Banking Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Shahriar Jabbari, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 4:15-cv-02159-DMR (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' illegal, fraudulent, and deceptive tactics to generate sales of their banking and financial products by enrolling its customers in multiple banking accounts and services. Wells Fargo & Company operates the fourth biggest bank in the United States, and is the largest bank headquartered in California. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association with its primary place of business in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Preusch, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1129 State Street, Suite 8 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone: (805) 456-1496 Facsimile: (805) 456-1497 E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com - and - Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq. Daniel P. Mensher, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com dmensher@kellerrohrback.com WELLS FARGO: Wins Dismissal of "Perez" Complaint ------------------------------------------------ The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in the case docketed as MONIQUE PEREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO AND CO., et al., Defendants, NO. C 14-0989 PJH. District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton states "the named plaintiffs in the SAC have not adequately alleged injury in fact and causation because they have not clearly alleged an employment relationship between each named plaintiff and a particular defendant, or alleged facts showing what that particular defendant did to cause injury to the named plaintiff." A copy of the Judge Hamilton's April 24, 2015 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss is available at http://is.gd/YDjogEfrom Leagle.com. Monique Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC & John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP. Thaxton Rowe, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC & John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP. Porcelynne Hawthorne, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC & John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP. Corry A Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC & John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP. Karla Salazar, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC & John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP. Brian Lynch, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC & John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP. Sezgin Unay, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC & John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP. John Sorocenski, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC & John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP. Brandon Grzan, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose Moises Cedillos, Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC & John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP. Jason L. Hoffman, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose Moises Cedillos, John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC. Sona K. Anand, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada, Jose Moises Cedillos, John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC. Anthony Austin, Plaintiff, represented by John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC. Jason M. Otto, Plaintiff, represented by John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC. Anthony Sosa, Plaintiff, represented by John Manuel Padilla, Padilla & Rodriguez, LLP & Rhonda Kaye Hunter Wills, Wills Law Firm, PLLC. Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph Rowley -- crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jessica S. Lieberman -- jmschauer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jill Crawley Griset -- jgriset@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods, LLP, Jill Ann Porcaro -- jporcaro@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard Lee Alfred -- ralfred@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Timothy Mitchell Watson -- twatson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, Kendra Koneman Paul, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Rachel Megan Hoffer -- rhoffer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph Rowley, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jessica S. Lieberman, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jill Crawley Griset, McGuireWoods, LLP, Jill Ann Porcaro, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard Lee Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Timothy Mitchell Watson, Seyfarth Shaw, Kendra Koneman Paul, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Rachel Megan Hoffer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. WFC Holdings Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph Rowley, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jessica S. Lieberman, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jill Crawley Griset, McGuireWoods, LLP, Jill Ann Porcaro, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard Lee Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Timothy Mitchell Watson, Seyfarth Shaw, Kendra Koneman Paul, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Rachel Megan Hoffer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Wachovia Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph Rowley, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jessica S. Lieberman, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jill Crawley Griset, McGuireWoods, LLP, Jill Ann Porcaro, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard Lee Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Timothy Mitchell Watson, Seyfarth Shaw, Kendra Koneman Paul, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Rachel Megan Hoffer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Wachovia Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph Rowley, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jessica S. Lieberman, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jill Crawley Griset, McGuireWoods, LLP, Jill Ann Porcaro, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Richard Lee Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Timothy Mitchell Watson, Seyfarth Shaw, Kendra Koneman Paul, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Rachel Megan Hoffer, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. WILHELMINA INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs May Find Substitute Counsel ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wilhelmina International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 27, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in a purported class action lawsuit brought by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others, the court granted the motion by plaintiffs' local New York counsel for leave to withdraw, gave the plaintiffs 90 days to find substitute counsel, and stayed the action in the interim. On October 24, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit brought by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the "Shanklin Litigation"), naming as defendants the Company's subsidiaries Wilhelmina International and Wilhelmina Models, Inc. (the "Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties"), was initiated in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in a prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the "Raske Litigation"). The claims in the Shanklin Litigation include breach of contract and unjust enrichment and are alleged to arise out of matters relating to those matters involved in the Raske Litigation, such as the handling and reporting of funds on behalf of models and the use of model images. Other parties named as defendants in the Shanklin Litigation include other model management companies, advertising firms, and certain advertisers. On March 3, 2014, the judge assigned to the Shanklin Litigation wrote the Office of the New York Attorney General bringing the case to its attention, generally describing the claims asserted therein against the model management defendants, and stating that the case "may involve matters in the public interest." The judge's letter also enclosed a copy of his decision in the Raske Litigation, which dismissed that case. The Company believes the claims asserted in the Shanklin Litigation are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself and its subsidiaries. On January 6, 2014, the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the Shanklin Litigation for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted and other grounds, and other defendants also filed motions to dismiss. By Decision and Order dated August 11, 2014, the court denied the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties' motion to dismiss. The parties were directed to engage in court-ordered mediation, but during that process, in October 2014, plaintiffs lost their principal attorney and new lead counsel for plaintiffs has not yet been identified. On March 10, 2015, the court granted the motion by plaintiffs' local New York counsel for leave to withdraw, gave the plaintiffs 90 days to find substitute counsel, and stayed the action in the interim. The Company intends to vigorously defend the Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties in the event plaintiffs move forward with substitute counsel. YELP INC: "Curry" Securities Class Action in N.D. Cal. Dismissed ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action Complaint in the case captioned JOSEPH CURRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YELP INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-03547-JST (N.D. Cal.). A securities action was brought against Yelp Inc., its Co-founder and Chief Executive Jeremy Stoppelman, its Chief Financial Officer Robert Krolik, and its Chief Operating Officer Geoffrey Donaker, alleging that the defendants made material misrepresentations about the authenticity of reviews hosted on Yelp's website, and about whether Yelp manipulated reviews in favor of businesses that advertised with Yelp. In granting the motion to dismiss, Judge Tigar held that the plaintiffs failed to plead with particularity material false or misleading statements, loss causation, or scienter and therefore plaintiffs have not stated a claim for relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, either under section 10(b) or 20(a). A copy of the April 21, 2015 order is available at http://is.gd/vlr7h0from Leagle.com. Joseph Curry, Plaintiff, represented by Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Darren Jay Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Conrad Walton -- davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Frank James Johnson -- FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP & Nathan R. Hamler -- NathanH@JohnsonandWeaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP. Mary Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay -- Rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Francis P McConville, Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Michael M. Goldberg -- mgoldberg@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Yelp Inc., Jeremy Stoppelman, Robert J. Krolik, and Geoffrey Donaker, Defendants, represented by Gilbert Ross Serota -- Gilbert.Serota@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLC, Marjory Anne Gentry -- Marjory.Gentry@aporter.com -- Arnold & Porter LLP & Ryan M. Keats -- Ryan.Keats@aporter.com -- Arnold and Porter LLP. Dru L. Pio, Movant, represented by David E. Azar -- dazar@milberg.com -- Milberg LLP & Charles J. Piven -- piven@browerpiven.com -- Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation. City of Miami Fire Fighters' and Police Officers' Retirement Trust, Movant, represented by Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Kenneth Joseph Black -- kennyb@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP. YP ADVERTISING: Bid to Dismiss FLSA Action Denied ------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned CHRISTOPHER DINKINS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. YP ADVERTISING LP (f/k/a AT&T ADVERTISING SOLUTIONS), ET AL., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-1463-G (N.D. Tex.), Senior District Judge A. Joe Fish denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") claims. The plaintiffs sued YP Advertising LP (f/k/a AT&T Advertising Solutions) and YP Texas Region Yellow Pages LLC (collectively, "YP") alleging that YP's practice of charging bank unearned commissions is unlawful. YP moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' FLSA claims for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In his March 27, 2015 memorandum opinion and order available at http://is.gd/kccfkxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Fish held that YP failed to show that the plaintiffs could prove no set of facts in support of their claims that would entitle them to relief, or that the court lacks jurisdiction over the case. Christopher Dinkins, Annette West, and Kevin Lewis, Plaintiffs, represented by Allen Ryan Vaught -- avaught@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd PC. YP Advertising, LP, and YP Texas Region Yellow Pages, LLC, Defendants, represented by Kimberly Rives Miers -- kmiers@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson & Jonathan Gary Rector -- jrector@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC. ********* 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 * * *