/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150608.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, June 8, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 113 Headlines 7447 SOUTH: Faces "Caballero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AARON INC: Computer Spyware Case Suitable for Class Action ALL-WAYS CONTRACTORS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages AMERICAN INT'L: To Pay $40MM in Class Action Settlement AO SMITH: Recalls Oil-Fired Water Heaters Due to Burn Hazard APEX WIND: Complaint Needs to be Amended to Establish Jurisdiction ASSET RECOVERY: "Sickman" Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Magness" Suit Over TCPA Violations BERNARD L. MADOFF: 2nd Cir. Partially Revives Fund Class Action BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls All-terrain Vehicles BOULDER BRANDS: Facing Investor Class Suit in Colorado BP PLC: Dutch Lobby Group Takes Legal Action Over Oil Spill CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves Stipulations in "Coleman" Suit CANADA: Court Rejects Bid for Collusion Class Action CELESTICA INC: July 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set CENTURY MORTGAGE: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss "Back" Suit CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising CHRISTMAS ISLAND: Lawyers May Access Center Ahead of Demolition COLORADO: Pro Se Litigant May Amend Complaint v. Parole Board COOPER VISION: Faces "Khanna" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing CYCLING SPORTS: Recalls Mountain Bicycles Due to Injury Hazard DANOS AND CUROLE: Judge Grants Conditional Cert. in FLSA Suit DENSO CORP: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Power Window Motors DEUTER USA: Recalls S1+ Avalanche Transceivers DL MITCHELL: "Baldock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime EBAY INC: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Green" Privacy Suit ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Kenmore Elite Slide-In Ranges ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Kenmore Elite Dual Fuel Ranges ESPAR INC: Faces Davidson Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing EVERLOOP INC: Swindler Blames Syracuse-Area Financial Advisor FORCEFIELD ENERGY: June 16 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls Cohort Folding Knives GRATUS HOLDING: "Velsher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages GREAT STATES CORP: Recalls Electric Lawn Mowers Over Injury Risk GULLIVER'S TAVERN: "Levi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages HANKYU EXPRESS: 9 Japanese Firms Settle Suit for $100MM HARDEMAN COUNTY, TN: Inmate's Bid for Counsel, Class Cert. Denied HARVESTPRO AND SMITH: Truckers Consider Legal Action HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES: Gas Station Coupons Not Gift Certificates HEALTH CANADA: June 11 & 12 Hearings on Cert. Bid in Privacy Suit HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Illegally Sells Subcribers Info, Suit Says HEWITT MACHINE: Recalls Chain Driven Winches Due to Injury Hazard HMSHOST CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HTC CORPORATION: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT IESI BETHELEHEM: State to Probe Landfill Odors IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Alleged FCRPA Violations INTUIT INC: Sued Over TurboTax Security and Identity Theft ISORAY INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports KALDI'S COFFEE: Recalls Disposable Cup Sleeves Due to Fire Hazard KEANE FRAC: "Stanek" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages KELSEY-HAYES: E.D. Mich. Judge Certifies UAW Case as Class Action KINGSDOWN INCORPORATED: Sued Over Plan Asset Mismanagement KMART CORP: N.D. Cal. Judge Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Steinmetz" Suit Over Toxic Flooring MEDPARTNERS INC: June 30 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set MERCEDEZ BENZ: Aug. 17 Fairness Hearing on "Seifi" Settlement MICHAELS STORES: 3 FCRA Violations Centralized in NJ MIDLAND FUNDING: Denied Request for Reconsideration in "Hallmark" MIRA SUSHI: Faces "Liem" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MULTIBAND CORP: Removed "Holloway" Suit to D. Massachusetts NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Mason Jar Night Light Products NASDAQ OMX: Three Law Firms Reach Settlement of Class Claims NASSAU COUNTY: Court Halts Strip-Search Payment NAT'L FOOTBALL: Garretson to Negotiate Healthcare Lien Discounts NATIONAL RAILROAD: Judge Narrows Claim in "Campbell" Suit NCS MULTISTAGE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Mendez" Suit Claims NISSAN: Class Action Filed by Altima Owners Over Rust Issue NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Feldman Shepherd Files Train Accident Suit OCWEN LOAN: Judge Denied Member's Bid for Discovery in "Lee" Suit OILWELL GUIDANCE: "Barge" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages OXO: Recalls Nest Booster Seats Due to Fall Hazard PALATINE, IL: 7th Cir. Keeps Judgment in Parking Ticket Suit PNC N.A.: Faces "King" Suit Over HAMP Eligibility Policies PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Defibaugh" Suit Removed to Md. Dist. Ct. PRECISION TRADING: Recalls Premium(R) Espresso Makers PYRAMID OPERATING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standard Act QEP MIDSTREAM: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement QUALITY BLOW: Faces "Rucker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RESTAURANTE EL: Faces "Cardona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RHODE ISLAND: Retirees Invited to Weigh-in on Pension Case Accord RIG POWER: "Morgan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages SANDISK CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. California SEAWORLD INC: Texas Resident Sues Over Well-Being of Whales SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims SLATER & ZURZ: Ohio Ct. App. Affirms Judgment in "Beck" Suit SONOMA, CA: Judge Barred Plaintiffs From Filing Amended Complaint SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS: Judge Narrows Claim in "Garcia" Suit SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Atty. Fees Granted in Right of Way Suit SQUARE INC: Credit Card Firm Faces Class Suit by Shierkatz TOP RANK: Faces "Bynum" Suit Over Pacquiao Injury Concealment TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: "Hayes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT TWEEN BRANDS: Sued For Advertising False Merchandise Prices UAG FAYETTEVILLE: Removed "Fletcher" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas UBER TECH: Guide-Dog Users' Discrimination Suit May Move Forward UNIVERSAL PRESSURE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice URS CORPORATION: Sued Over Unlawful Background Check Policies US BANK: Illegally Collects Post-Judgment Debt Cost, Suit Says UTI DRILLING: Settles Discrimination Claim for $14.5 Million UTICA: School District Sued Over Segregation of Refugee Students VALOR ATHLETICS: Recalls Weight Bench Due to Injury Hazard VELDOS LLC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Weissmandl" Suit Claims VIKING RANGE: Recalls Gas Ranges Due to Burn Hazard VIVINT INC: Recalls Dimming Switch Modules Due to Shock Hazard VOLARIS AVIATION: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Action WELLS FARGO: "Hallie" Suit Dismissed for Failure to Opt Out WESTOWER COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Approves Settlement on Final Basis WORLD BANK: Sued Over Funding of Coal Plant in India ********* 7447 SOUTH: Faces "Caballero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Gregorio Caballero, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. 7447 South Shore, LLC and Ibrahim M. Shihadeh, Case No. 1:15-cv-04575 (N.D. Ill., May 24, 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 operate apartment buildings in Cook County, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez, 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 AARON INC: Computer Spyware Case Suitable for Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Thompson, writing for Courthouse News, reports that a couple's spyware claims against computer-rental company Aaron's are enough to warrant class certification, the 3rd Circuit ruled. The couple in question, Brian and Crystal Byrd of Wyoming, say that a franchisee of Aaron's used spyware software installed on its computers to log Brian's keystrokes and web traffic on a product he rented. The spyware even allegedly took pictures of Brian using the computer's webcam. Evidence showed that the franchisee, Aspen Way, accessed the Byrd's computer 347 times over 11 days. The Byrds seek to represent a class of customers "who leased and/or purchased one or more computers from Aaron's, Inc., and their household members, on whose computers DesignerWare's Detective Mode [the spyware] was installed and activated without such person's consent on or after January 1, 2007." Alternatively, they proposed to include customers "who leased and/or purchased one or more computers from Aaron's, Inc. or an Aaron's, Inc. franchisee, and their household members, on whose computers DesignerWare's Detective Mode was installed and activated without such person's consent on or after January 1, 2007." The case faced an appellate hearing of the 3rd Circuit earlier this year after a federal judge handling the case in Pittsburgh shot down the motion for class certification, based on a magistrate's finding that the class was defined too broadly and that its members were not "ascertainable," or objectively identifiable. A three-judge panel reversed on April 16, finding that the lower court misapplied precedent. "First, the District Court abused its discretion by misstating the rule governing ascertainability," Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote for the panel. "Second, the District Court engrafted an 'underinclusive' requirement that is foreign to our ascertainability standard. Third, the District Court made an errant conclusion of law in finding that an 'overly broad' class was not ascertainable. And fourth, the District Court improperly applied the legal principles from Carrera to the issue of whether 'household members' could be ascertainable." Published in 2013, Carrera v. Bayer Corp. expanded on some of the concerns relating to a defendant's "due process right to challenge the proof used to demonstrate class membership." Smith emphasized that objective records exist for the plaintiffs to "readily identify" members of owner or lessee classes. The District Court itself explained that "Aaron's own records reveal the computers upon which Detective Mode was activated, as well as the full identity of the customer who leased or purchased each of those computers," according to the 45-page lead opinion. ALL-WAYS CONTRACTORS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Leipolt, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. All-Ways Contractors Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00628-RTR (E.D. Wis., May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. All-Ways Contractors Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation with a principal place of business located at 15655 W. North Avenue, Suite 200 in Brookfield, Wisconsin. All-Ways provides landscaping and related services for its customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM 1555 N River Center Dr-Ste 202 PO Box 12993 Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone: (414) 271-4500 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com AMERICAN INT'L: To Pay $40MM in Class Action Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lipkin at Law360.com reports that American International Group Inc. will pay $40 million to settle proposed class action allegations that the insurer's employee pension plans improperly invested in its own poorly performing stock following the 2008 mortgage crisis, the plaintiffs said on Thursday in New York federal court. The settlement would pay beneficiaries of the plans from August 2007 to May 2009, who according to the motion seeking preliminary approval are on board with the settlement. The plaintiffs had been seeking up to $300 million in damages based on the 2007. AO SMITH: Recalls Oil-Fired Water Heaters Due to Burn Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with A.O. Smith Corp., of Milwaukee, Wis., announced a voluntary recall of about 250 John Wood oil-fired water heaters. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The water heater's combustion chamber can be misaligned and heat the exterior walls of the water heater instead of the water. Combustible material near the outside of the water heater can catch fire, posing fire and burn hazards. This recall involves John Wood brand 50 and 70 gallon oil-fired water heaters. The 50 gallon water heaters have model number JW517 and serial numbers from 1349A021678 through 1503A016643. The 70 gallon water heaters have model number JW717 and serial numbers from 1421M001517 through 436M000040. The water heaters are gray with "John Wood" printed in blue and white near the top. The model number, size and serial numbers are printed on the rating plate near the top of the tank. Only oil-fired water heaters are included in this recall. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/Wzq8HI The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at John Wood sales representatives to plumbers and consumers from January 2014 through March 2015 for about $1,500 to $2,500. Consumers should immediately turn off and stop using the recalled water heaters and contact A.O. Smith for a free inspection and free replacement of misaligned water heaters. APEX WIND: Complaint Needs to be Amended to Establish Jurisdiction ------------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti of the Western District of Oklahoma directed plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint in the case TERRA WALKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APEX WIND CONSTRUCTION, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. CIV-14-914-D (W.D. Okla.) Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on August 27, 2014, and identified therein 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A) as the basis for the court's exercise of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants challenged the sufficiency of plaintiffs' class action allegations and the court determined those allegations were deficient. The court, however, granted Plaintiffs leave to amend to cure the deficiencies. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and omitted the class action allegations. The amended complaint alleges that "Plaintiffs are all Oklahoma citizens while Defendants are all citizens of another state", purporting to rely on 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a) as the basis for diversity jurisdiction. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Judge DeGiusti said that the factual record is insufficient to establish the existence of subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a). A copy of Judge DeGiusti's order dated April 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/LiFuZrfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Dallas L Dale Strimple, Esq. AAMODT LAW FIRM 1723 S Boston Ave. Tulsa, OK 74119 Telephone: 918-347-6169 Apex Wind Construction LLC, Defendant, represented by J Todd Woolery -- todd.woolery@mcafeetaft.com -- Jodi C Cole -- jodi.cole@mcafeetaft.com -- Patrick L Stein -- patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com -- Timothy J Bomhoff -- tim.bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com -- at McAfee & Taft-OKC Apex Clean Energy Inc, Defendant, represented by J Todd Woolery, McAfee & Taft-OKC, Jodi C Cole, McAfee & Taft-OKC, Patrick L Stein, McAfee & Taft-OKC & Timothy J Bomhoff, McAfee & Taft-OKC Apex Clean Energy Holdings LLC, Kingfisher Wind LLC, Kingfisher Wind Land Holdings LLC, Kingfisher Transmission LLC, Campbell Creek Wind LLC, Campbell Creek Wind Transmission LLC, Defendants, represented by J Todd Woolery, McAfee & Taft-OKC, Jodi C Cole, McAfee & Taft-OKC, Patrick L Stein, McAfee & Taft-OKC & Timothy J Bomhoff, McAfee & Taft-OKC Kingfisher Wind Land Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Clayton D Ketter -- cdketter@phillipsmurrah.com -- Thomas G Wolfe -- tgwolfe@phillipsmurrah.com -- at Phillips Murrah PC ASSET RECOVERY: "Sickman" Suit Transferred to W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendant's motion to transfer venue of the case, ROBERT SICKMAN, on behalf of plaintiff and the class members described below, Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, NO. 14 C 9748 (N.D. Ill.) The plaintiff Robert Sickman is a resident of San Antonio Texas, while defendant Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is a debt collector as defined by the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCPA), with principal place of business in Des Plaines, Illinois. Plaintiff filed a one-count first amended putative class action complaint against the defendant alleging a violation of FDCP, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that on or about February 7, 2014, defendant mailed him a letter, seeking to collect an alleged debt incurred for personal, family, or household purposes. According to plaintiff, in violation of section 1692f(8) of the FDCPA, the envelope containing the letter displayed through a transparent window the account number assigned to plaintiff and defendant's name. Plaintiff alleges that defendant sent similar letters and envelopes to a class of approximately 40 other individuals residing in Texas. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), defendant filed a motion to transfer venue from the present court to the Western District of Texas. Judge Gettleman granted defendant's motion and the venue is transferred to the Western District of Texas. A copy of Judge Gettleman' memorandum opinion and order dated April 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/AIUdfgfrom Leagle.com. Robert Sickmann, Plaintiff, represented by: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. THOMASSON LAW, LLC 101 Hudson Street 21st Floor Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: 201-479-9969 Facsimile: 855-479-9969 - and - Cathleen M. Combs, Esq. Francis Richard Greene, Esq. James O. Latturner, Esq. Daniel A. Edelman, Esq. EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC 20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: 312-739-4200 Facsimile: 312-419-0379 Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by Justin M Penn -- jpenn@hinshawlaw.com -- Raven Elizabeth Burke -- rburke@hinshawlaw.com -- at Hinshaw & Culbertson BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Magness" Suit Over TCPA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Devin Magness, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of America, N.A. and Walled Lake Credit Bureau, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02402 (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz,Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com BERNARD L. MADOFF: 2nd Cir. Partially Revives Fund Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Russell-Kraft at Law360.com reports that the Second Circuit has revived certain portions of a putative class action brought by investors who allege a group of managers, consultants, advisers, auditors and administrators mismanaged the funds they fed into Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. A three-judge panel for the appellate court found that a lower court improperly tossed the entire complaint of 28 class action claims in 2011 when it found that some of them were precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act, which preempts certain class actions that bring state law. BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls All-terrain Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Bombardier Recreational Products, of Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 12,500 All-terrain vehicles (ATVs) The youth ATVs fail to meet performance requirements of the federal ATV standard for maximum unrestricted speed and parking brakes, posing a crash hazard. This recall is for model year 2008 through 2015 Can-Am Mini DS ATVs. The recalled vehicles are youth model ATVs and have engines sizes of 70 cubic centimeters and 90 cubic centimeters. They were sold in the colors black and yellow. "Can-Am DS" and the engine size is on both sides of the vehicle's fairing. "Can-Am" appears in white letters on both sides of the seat. Model year 2008 through 2014 DS 70 ATVs fail to meet requirements pertaining to the unrestricted maximum speed of the vehicle. Model year 2008 through 2015 DS 70 and DS 90 ATVs fail to meet requirements pertaining to parking brakes. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/W3oepT The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and sold at Can-Am dealers nationwide from July 2007 through January 2015 for between $1,800 and $2,800. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ATVs and contact a BRP dealer to schedule a free repair. BRP is notifying registered consumers directly. BOULDER BRANDS: Facing Investor Class Suit in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the District of Colorado on behalf of investors who purchased Boulder Brands, Inc. between December 23, 2013 and October 22, 2014. The complaint alleges that Boulder Brands failed to disclose that the Company was having problems with its inventory management and the integration of recent acquisitions, and that the Company's ongoing mix shift to lower margin products made its previously announced margin improvements unattainable. If you suffered a loss in Boulder Brands you have until June 1, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email -- vw@wongesq.com --, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/BDBD-Info-Request-Form-691. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. BP PLC: Dutch Lobby Group Takes Legal Action Over Oil Spill ----------------------------------------------------------- Dutch News reports that the Dutch investors' lobby group VEB is taking legal action against British energy giant BP for misleading Dutch investors in the wake of the 2010 oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The organization says the legal action opens up the way to compensation for Dutch investors because of the 'systematically incorrect, inadequate and misleading pronouncements' made by BP about its safety and maintenance programs ahead of the leak. In addition, the complaint concerns misleading statements from BP about the size of the leak after it happened, the VEB statement says. The leak was caused by a pipeline explosion under BP's Deepwater Horizon oil platform. Eleven workers died and millions of liters of oil leaked into the gulf. The misleading statements by BP led the US regulator SEC to fine the company $525 million, the third highest fine the organization has ever levied, the VEB says. After the disaster, BP's share price plunged more than 48%. The VEB says the share price had been kept artificially high because of misleading statements about the company's safety program. BP is facing legal action from other BP shareholders in Canada and the US. Investors who did not buy their shares in BP via a US institution have been ruled out of the American class action suit, hence the VEB's campaign. CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves Stipulations in "Coleman" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division approved stipulations reached in the case RALPH COLEMAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EDMUND G. BROWN JR., et al., Defendants, NO. 2:90-CV-00520 KJM DAD PC (E.D. Cal.) On January 30, 2015, the Special Master filed his report, as required by the Court's April 10, 2014 order on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) implementation of policies and procedures related to Rules Violation Reports. The report included four recommendations. The parties met-and-conferred with the Special Master's team on February 19, February 27, March 12, March 17, March 23, April 1, and April 2, 2015, to discuss the Special Master's recommendations and the RVR process. During the meet-and-confer process, the parties, in coordination with the Special Master, made several modifications to CDCR's RVR policies and procedures, in response to the Special Master's Report. The first recommendation in the report states: "CDCR shall immediately end the practice of using inmate workers in any aspect of the RVR process." The parties have agreed that CDCR will eliminate the use of inmate workers in the RVR process entirely by upgrading its Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS). CDCR will implement this measure within 12 months from the date the Court approves this Stipulation and Proposed Order, and will make a good-faith effort to accelerate implementation. In the interim, CDCR will not use inmate clerks in the RVR process for inmates who receive RVRs while housed in a Mental Health Crisis Bed, or in an inpatient program within a CDCR prison which includes DSH-Stockton, Salinas Valley Psychiatric Program, Vacaville Psychiatric Program, the San Quentin Psychiatric Inpatient Program, and the California Institution for Women Psychiatric Inpatient Program. Also in the interim, for RVRs issued to any participant in the Mental Health Services Delivery System, CDCR will not use inmate clerks to type RVR hearing summaries or RVR dispositions, or file or otherwise track completed RVRs. CDCR proposes to implement these interim measures concurrently with the revised RVR policies outlined above. The second recommendation in the report states: "CDCR shall devise an RVR quality improvement process for incorporation into its Quality Improvement Tool (CQIT) and conduct regular quality improvement reviews of the RVR process, including but not limited to the staff training aspects of the RVR process, in all of its institutions." CDCR will revise its Continuous Quality Improvement Tool (CQIT) to include a quality improvement process for RVRs and to conduct regular RVR reviews. The third recommendation in the report states: "Within 243 days, CDCR shall implement, under the guidance of the Special Master, its program of RVR mandatory initial and ongoing training/re- training of all clinical and custody staff who are involved in the RVR process." CDCR will work with the Special Master to develop and implement mandatory training on the revised policies and procedures outlined above, for clinical and custody staff who are involved in the RVR process. CDCR will implement these policies and procedures, and training thereon, within the 243 day timeframe recommended by the Special Master in the report. The fourth recommendation in the report states: "Following the 243-day period for implementation of the staff training/re- training program, the Special Master shall conduct a review of staff training/re-training on the RVR process in all CDCR institutions, and shall report to the Court on his findings no later than 90 days after the completion of his review." The parties agree that the Special Master will review and report on CDCR's training on the revised policies and procedures. Judge Mueller approved the stipulations and orders compliance with its provisions. A copy of Judge Mueller's stipulated response and order dated May 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/bXnbPBfrom Leagle.com. KAMALA D. HARRIS, Attorney General of California, PATRICK R. MCKINNEY, Supervising Deputy Attorneys General, ELISE OWENS THORN, CHRISTINE M. CICCOTTI, Deputy Attorneys General, Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Defendants MICHAEL W. BIEN -- mbien@rbgg.com -- at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld LLP, Attorney for Plaintiffs CANADA: Court Rejects Bid for Collusion Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Andrew Peplowski, writing for CJAD, reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has refused to hear the case of a Montreal man who wanted to launch a class action lawsuit against a number of engineering firms named in the Charbonneau Commission as having taken part in a system of collusion involving municipal contracts. Erik Charest said the suit would have been on behalf of all citizens and small business owners who paid property taxes between January 1998 and December 2010. Charest had failed in his bid to seek a class action lawsuit in Superior Court last May. The decision was upheld by the Quebec Court of Appeal last November. The final report of the Charbonneau Commission is due at the end of November. CELESTICA INC: July 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ------------------------------------------------------ The following statement is being issued by Lead Counsel Labaton Sucharow LLP regarding the In re Celestica Inc. Securities Litigation. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK IN RE CELESTICA INC. SEC. LITIG. Civil Action No.: 07-CV-00312-GBD TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE COMMON STOCK OF CELESTICA INC. ON A UNITED STATES STOCK EXCHANGE DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 27, 2005 AND JANUARY 30, 2007, INCLUSIVE , AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that New Orleans Employees' Retirement System and Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves, Lead Plaintiffs, and the Class, on the one hand, and Celestica, Stephen W. Delaney, and Anthony P. Puppi, on the other hand, have reached a proposed Settlement in the above-captioned action in the amount of $30,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held before the Honorable George B. Daniels of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007-1312 at 10:00 a.m. on July 28, 2015 to, among other things, determine whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated April 17, 2015; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount and any interest thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees, Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or expenses approved by the Court should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of litigation expenses should be approved. The Court may change the date of the hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND. If you have not yet received the full Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement, and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting its website: In re Celestica Inc. Securities Litigation c/o GCG P.O. Box 10180 Dublin, OH 43017-3180 (888) 345-0866 www.celesticasecuritieslitigation.com info@celesticasecuritieslitigation.com Inquiries, other than requests for the aforementioned documents or for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel: LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Thomas A. Dubbs, Esq. James W. Johnson, Esq. 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 (888) 219-6877 www.labaton.com settlementquestions@labaton.com If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim postmarked or received no later than September 17, 2015. If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice such that it is received no later than July 7, 2015. If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation, and/or application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses must be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice, such that they are received no later than July 7, 2015 and filed with the Court no later than July 7, 2015. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE, THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO CLASS COUNSEL AT THE ADDRESS LISTED ABOVE. DATED: June 1, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CENTURY MORTGAGE: Judge Denied Bid to Dismiss "Back" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Greg N. Stivers of the Western District of Kentucky denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case NATALIE BACK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CENTURY MORTGAGE COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-00173-GNH-HBB (W.D. Ky.) Plaintiffs Natalie Back, John Hishmeh, and Heather Walker filed a collective and class action complaint alleging that defendant Century Mortgage Company had violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-219, and the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act, KRS 337.010-337.994. Plaintiffs allege that Century failed to pay loan mortgage officers and loan processors overtime compensation when they had worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, failed to pay loan mortgage officers minimum wage or greater, misclassified loan mortgage officers as exempt from provisions of the FLSA governing minimum wages and overtime compensation, and failed to record accurately and preserve records of hours worked by employees. Century filed a motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions and motion in the alternative to place the case in abeyance pending the final ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Perez v. MBA. Judge Stivers denied defendant's motion to dismiss. A copy of Judge Stivers memorandum opinion and order dated April 28, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/lPgxxZfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Matthew James Baker 911 College St Bowling Green, KY 42101 Telephone: 270-746-2385 Century Mortgage Company, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey W. Kibbey CHIQUITA BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising ---------------------------------------------------------- FreshPlaza.com reports that a class action lawsuit was filed against a large banana company for multiple reasons including the violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and false advertising. The banana company describes itself as socially and environmentally responsible on their website. However, at the Guatemalan plantation, they are spraying pesticides that are contaminating local water sources and causing illness to the surrounding communities. Lincoln Bandlow has experience in a similar case. Regarding this case, he said that there will be a battle to prevent class certification. Bandlow commented, "One of the things they may say is that the statements [on the company website] are essentially puffery and not definitive assertions of environmental impact. The law on material omissions is more difficult and sticky." "They'll have to show that the facts would have made a material difference in the mind of a reasonable person," he added, "but the company will argue every consumer's experience is different and there is not enough commonality of issue." CHRISTMAS ISLAND: Lawyers May Access Center Ahead of Demolition --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Farrell, writing for The Guardian, reports that lawyers for asylum seekers who were held on Christmas Island are set to gain unprecedented access to the detention center after a judge ordered any demolition plans in the island be halted. Justice Stephen Kaye in the Victorian Supreme Court ordered that the federal government be restrained from demolishing any buildings on Christmas Island, after it emerged the government had planned to knock down some disused detention facilities. The class action -- which is being led by the law firm Maurice Blackburn -- has as its lead plaintiff a young girl who was held in detention and is making a range of claims relating to medical concerns, the impact of being held in detention and the quality of care received there. The lawyers will argue that the federal government breached its duty of care to the girl and other asylum seekers held in the center, which caused them serious physical and psychological harm. A copy of the order made on April 15, seen by Guardian Australia, granted the asylum seekers' legal team access to the Phosphate Hill Alternative Place of Detention, Construction Camp Alternative Place of Detention, the Lilac Alternative Place of Detention and the Christmas Island Detention Centre. The judge ruled that Lilac must not be demolished before May 1, or until it had been inspected by the plaintiff's lawyers. The order said the commonwealth must "take all reasonable steps to facilitate the solicitors for the plaintiff" to speak to personnel on the island. The solicitors cannot disclose any inspection evidence to people not involved in the trial, and must destroy any evidence gathered from the inspection on completion of the trial. The government can appoint two officers to escort them on the island, and may only decline them access to parts of the centre where asylum seekers currently live when it would be an "unreasonable intrusion on the privacy" of the detainees. Jacob Varghese, a principal at Maurice Blackburn's class action department, said a trial was set to go ahead in August. "This is a sad incident in Australian history and it is important in this case, and important for the nation in some sense, that we keep a good record of what happens there so we can make sure it doesn't happen in the future," he said. "We became concerned that because a lot of people have been moved off Christmas Island that the government might make a move to make another use for those facilities, so we wanted to do what we could to preserve the state of that evidence. "We're interested in documenting the facilities that are there and how appropriate they are for children in particular. "If these centers are demolished it would be very hard to go back in and create a record of what the conditions were like." The visit to the detention center was to allow lawyers to survey the center for four consecutive days. Serco and International Health and Medical Services have been joined in the proceedings along with the commonwealth. COLORADO: Pro Se Litigant May Amend Complaint v. Parole Board ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher of the District of Colorado directed plaintiff to amend his complaint in the case MICHAEL L. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. STEVE HAGER, Colorado's division of Adult Parole; WALT PESTERFIELD; BRANDON SCHAFER, Colorado Board of Parole; RICK RAEMISCH, Colorado's Department of Corrections, Exec. Dir.; WILSON, Sheriff, Denver Sheriffs Department; BECKY LUCERO, Former Parole Bd. Dir.; TIM HAND, Former Parole Bd. Dir.; GARY PACHECO, Community Parole Officer (CPO); MICHELLE ANDERSON, CPO; WES ALLEN, CPO; MARK YURKEY, CPO; MELISSA GALARDO, CPO Supervisor; BEVERLY GRAHAM, AVCF Case Manager; MARY CARELSON, Time Computation Super.; ARISTEDAS ZAVARES, Former Executive Director; RICK RAEMISCH, Exec. Dir.; JOHN SUTHERS, Attorney General; MICHELLE GELLER, Assistant Attorney General; JOHN/JANE DOE'S, Community Parole Officer; 2 CPO JOHN DOE'S; FORMER DIV. HEAD JOHN/JANE DOE; FORMER WARDEN OF DRDC JOHN/JANE DOE; and JOHN/JANE DOE, Former Denver Sheriff, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-CV-00602-GPG (D. Colo.) On March 24, 2015, Plaintiff Michael L. Thompson filed a complaint and a motion and affidavit for leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915. On March 26, 2016, Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed pursuant to Section 1915. Magistrate Judge Gallagher finds that the complaint does not meet the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P.8., and directed plaintiff to file within 30 days from the date of the order, an amended complaint and shall obtain the court-approved complaint form at http://www.cod.uscourts.gov A copy of Judge Gallagher's order dated April 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/igebyOfrom Leagle.com. Michael L. Thompson, Plaintiff, Pro Se COOPER VISION: Faces "Khanna" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gaurav Khanna, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., Bausch + Lomb, Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., and ABB optical Group, Case No. 0:15-cv-61084-WPD (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2015), alleges that the Defendants entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet-based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products. The Defendants are United States companies that are engaged in the business of making eye care product The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq. SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP 1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216 Weston, FL 33326 Telephone: (954) 515-0123 Facsimile: (866) 300-7367 E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com CYCLING SPORTS: Recalls Mountain Bicycles Due to Injury Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Cycling Sports Group Inc., of Wilton, Conn., announced a voluntary recall of about 160 GT downhill mountain bicycles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The front wheel hub can break and cause the disc brake system to fail, posing crash and injury hazards to the consumer. his recall involves all 2015 model year GT Fury Elite and GT Fury Expert downhill mountain bicycles. The recalled 2015 Fury Elite model is white with blue and red accents. The recalled 2015 Fury Expert model is metallic grey with lime green accents. The bicycles have front and rear disc brakes and come with rear shock absorbers and front suspensions. "Fury" is printed on the top tube, the GT logo is on the down tube and the chainstay. The model names are printed in small letters on the top tube of the bicycles near the word Fury. Cycling Sports Group has received two reports of broken hubs. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/X3agWL The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at Authorized GT dealers from November 2014 to March 2015 for between $3200 and $4400. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycles and return them to the nearest authorized GT dealer to have the complete front wheel replaced free of charge. DANOS AND CUROLE: Judge Grants Conditional Cert. in FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Carl J. Barbier of the Eastern District of Louisiana granted plaintiffs' motions for conditional certification in the case CASE v. DANOS AND CUROLE MARINE CONTRACTORS, L.L.C., Section "J" (2), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2775, NO. C/W 14-2976 (E.D. La.) Following the B.P. oil spill, Danos and Curole Marine Contractors, L.L.C. contracted with B.P. to provide various employees, including Vessel Inspectors and Safety Technicians, to assist with the clean-up efforts. Plaintiffs Jason Case and Lisa Bragg asserted that they assisted in these efforts as a salaried and non-exempt Vessel Inspector and Safety Technician, respectively. Both plaintiffs allege that Danos failed to pay them and other similarly situated individuals the proper overtime wages, as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs allege that these groups of workers, the Vessel Inspectors and Safety Technicians, were working far in excess of forty hours per week, and that Danos unlawfully deprived them of proper overtime compensation. As a result, plaintiffs seek unpaid back wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Case filed his complaint on behalf of himself and other Vessel Inspector employees and former employees similarly situated on December 8, 2014, while Bragg filed her complaint on behalf of herself and other Safety Technician employees and former employees similarly situated on December 30, 2014. The Court consolidated the matters on January 13, 2015. Both plaintiffs subsequently filed motions to certify Class, which the court denied as premature on February 25, 2015. Plaintiffs then filed motions for conditional certification of the collective actions and authorization, under court supervision, for notice to all similarly situated employees who were employed by Danos. Specifically, plaintiffs request court authorization for: "(1) defendant to provide plaintiffs with a list of all similarly situated hourly paid Vessel Inspectors and Safety Technicians within the last three years; (2) to send the proposed "Notification" letter to all similarly situated employees nationwide; and (3) to send the proposed "Notice of Consent to Join" form, which similarly situated employees can complete, sign, and file with the court." Judge Barbier granted the motions for conditional certification and for order permitting court-supervised notice. The conditionally-certified class in Civil Action No. 14-2775 shall be defined as: "Individuals who were day-rate paid Vessel Inspector employees at any time during the three years preceding December 8, 2014, and who were subjected to Defendant's practice of failing to pay full and proper time and one half overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek." The conditionally-certified class in Civil Action No. 14-2976 shall be defined as: "Individuals who were salaried Safety Technician employees at any time during the three years preceding December 30, 2014, and who were subjected to Defendant's practice of failing to pay full and proper time and one half overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) in a workweek." Defendant were given through and including May 18, 2015, to produce the full names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses of all potential class members, in both paper and electronic form accessible by Microsoft Office Suite. A copy of Judge Barbier' order and reasons dated May 4, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/JxTsYrfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Virginia Lynn LoCoco, Esq. Anthony LoCoco, Esq. LOCOCO & LOCOCO, PA 10243 Central Avenue D'Iberville, MS 39540 Telephone: 228-392-3799 - and - Andrew Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA 188 East Capitol St., Suite 777 Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: 601-949-3388 Defendants, represented by Leslie A. Lanusse -- leslie.lanusse@arlaw.com -- Lauren L. Tafaro -- lauren.tafaro@arlaw.com -- at Adams & Reese, LLP DENSO CORP: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Power Window Motors ------------------------------------------------------- Ifeoma Adams, et al., and all other similarly situated v. DENSO Corporation, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-11868-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich., May 22, 2015), asserts that the Defendants entered into an agreement, combination, or conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices, rig bids, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for Power Window Motors. DENSO Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in Kariya, Japan. DENSO through its subsidiaries manufactured, marketed, and sold Power Window Motors that were purchased throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Adam T. Schnatz, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com ats@millerlawpc.com - and - Steven N. Williams, Esq. Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth Tran, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 E-mail: fdamrell@cpmlegal.com swilliams@cpmlegal.com azapala@cpmlegal.com etran@cpmlegal.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Bernard Persky, Esq. William V. Reiss, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com - and - Terrell W. Oxford, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 901 Main Street, Suite 5100 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 754-1900 Facsimile: (214)754-1933 E-mail: toxford@susmangodfrey.com DEUTER USA: Recalls S1+ Avalanche Transceivers ---------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Deuter USA, of Longmont, Colo., announced a voluntary recall of about 3,000ORTOVOX S1+ Avalanche Transceiver. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The S1+ hardware can fail, resulting in an inability to transmit a discoverable signal during an emergency situation, even as the unit appears to be powered on and functioning properly. The ORTOVOX S1+ transceiver is used as a beacon to locate an individual in the event of avalanche burial. The flip-case design transceiver is black with green accent stripes on the top sides. ORTOVOX and S1+ are printed on the top of the device. In the open/receive position the top half of the transceiver displays a blue screen with green border that displays an image and distance reading of the buried individual. The transceivers measure about 5 inches long by 3 inches wide by 1 inch thick in the closed/transmit position. All transceivers manufactured from 2010 through 2014 are included in the recall. The manufacture date is printed inside the battery door on the back of the transceiver with a roman numeral representing the quarter of the year and a two digit number referring to the year. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/3uNhjX The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold at Outdoor specialty retailers, ski shops and directly nationwide from July 2010 through April 2015 for about $490. Consumers should stop using the recalled S1+ transceiver beacons immediately and return them to ORTOVOX for a free repair. DL MITCHELL: "Baldock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Ragan Lee Baldock and Ryan Ross v. DL Mitchell Landscaping, Inc. and David L. Mitchell, Case No. 2:15-cv-00160-J (N.D. Tex., May 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in landscaping business or services for commerce in the State of Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip R. Russ, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF PHILIP R RUSS 2700 S Western, Suite 1200 Amarillo, TX 79109 Telephone: (806) 358-9293 Facsimile: (806) 358-9296 E-mail: philiprruss@russlawfirm.com - and - Jerry Dan McLaughlin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JERRY DAN MCLAUGHLIN 2700 S. Western, Suite 1000 Amarillo, TX 79109 Telephone: (806) 371-9110 Facsimile: (806) 373-9029 E-mail: jmclaw@suddenlinkmail.com EBAY INC: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Green" Privacy Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Susie Morgan of the Eastern District of Louisiana granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case COLLIN GREEN, Plaintiff, v. EBAY INC., Defendant Section: "E" (4), CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-1688 (E.D. La.) eBay is a global e-commerce website that enables its over 120 million active users to buy and sell in an online marketplace. In its normal course of business, eBay maintains personal information of its users, including names, encrypted passwords, dates of birth, email addresses, physical addresses, and phone numbers. In February and March 2014, a data breach occurred and unknown persons accessed eBay's files containing user information. On May 21, 2014, eBay notified its users of the data breach and recommended that users change their passwords. Plaintiff Collin Green filed a consumer privacy putative class action against eBay on behalf of himself and all eBay users in the United States whose personal information was accessed during the Data Breach. Plaintiff alleges that as a direct and proximate result of eBay's conduct, plaintiff and the putative class members have suffered economic damages, actual identity theft, as well as (i) improper disclosures of their personal information; (ii) out- of-pocket expenses incurred to mitigate the increased risk of identity theft and/or identity fraud due to eBay's failures; (iii) the value of their time spent mitigating identity theft and/or identity fraud, and/or the increased risk of identity theft and/or identity fraud; (iv) and deprivation of the value of their personal information. The class action complaint asserts federal causes of action under the Federal Stored Communications Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and several state law causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract, and violation of state privacy laws. eBay moved to dismiss the class action complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Judge Morgan granted defendant's motion to dismiss and the class action complaint is dismissed without prejudice. A copy of Judge Morgan's order and reasons dated May 4, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/ZuclZ3from Leagle.com. ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Kenmore Elite Slide-In Ranges ------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Electrolux Home Products Inc., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 5,300 Sears Kenmore Elite slide-in ranges. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The stainless steel trim below the range control panel can have a sharp edge, posing a laceration hazard to consumers. This recall involves Sears Kenmore Elite stainless steel slide-in gas, electric and dual-fuel ranges with the following model and serial numbers. The model and serial numbers are located on the inside frame of the range door on the left side. Kenmore Elite is printed on the front of the oven door. Type Model Serial Numbers ---- ----- -------------- Gas 790.32623xxx AF41500007 - AF44902220 790.32633xxx AF41600811 - AF45004453 790.32643xxx AF41601928 - AF45003625 Electric 790.42553xxx AF41602002 - AF45006133 790.42563xxx AF42002743 - AF45005533 790.42623xxx AF42801297 - AF45000612 Dual Fuel 790.42603xxx AF40602184 - AF45004329 790.42613xxx AF42500541 - AF45003409 One consumer reported being cut by a sharp edge on the stainless steel trim below the range control panel and required stitches. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/fAjDlT The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Sears stores nationwide from May 2014 through April 2015 for between $2,400 and $3,700. Consumers should immediately contact Sears for a free inspection and free repair. ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls Kenmore Elite Dual Fuel Ranges ------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Electrolux Home Products Inc., of Charlotte, N.C., announced a voluntary recall of about 250 Sears Kenmore Elite dual fuel ranges. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The burner flame can go out while the gas is turned on. This can allow gas to escape and poses fire and burn hazards. This recall involves Sears Kenmore stainless steel slide-in ranges with gas cooktops and electric ovens. Model number 790.42603xxx with serial numbers ranging from AF42500601 through AF43000916 and model number 790.42613xxx with serial numbers ranging from AF42500541 through AF43103647 are included. The model and serial numbers are located on the inside frame of the range door on the left side. Kenmore Elite is printed on the front of the oven door. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/I4fvBJ The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Sears stores nationwide from June 2014 through October 2014 for between $3,200 and $3,700. Consumers should immediately stop using the ranges and contact Sears for a free inspection and free repair. ESPAR INC: Faces Davidson Suit Over Parking Heater-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Davidson Transfer, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Espar, Inc. and Espar Products Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03005-WFK-CLP (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015), alleges that from at least October 1, 2007 through at least December 31, 2012, the Defendants and their co-conspirators inflated the price for air and coolant parking heaters sold aftermarket for use in commercial vehicles. Espar, Inc. and Espar Products Inc. are sister corporations that directly and through its affiliates corporations, sold Parking Heaters in the United States for commercial use in the aftermarket. The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven N. Williams, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 40 Worth Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 201-6820 Facsimile: (646) 219-6678 E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com - and - Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Jason S. Kilene, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Daniel J. Nordin, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com jkilene@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com dnordin@gustafsongluek.com - and - Simon B. Paris, Esq. Patrick Howard, Esq. SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENEDESKY, P.C. 1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 496-8282 Facsimile: (215) 496-0999 E-mail: sparis@smbb.com phoward@smbb.com - and - Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. GRIES LENHARDT MICHENFELDER ALLEN P.L.L.P. 12725 43rd Street NE, Suite 201 St. Michael, Minnesota 55376 Telephone: (763) 497-3099 Facsimile: (763) 497-3639 E-mail: pat@glmalaw.com EVERLOOP INC: Swindler Blames Syracuse-Area Financial Advisor ------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that a man accused of running a massive Ponzi scheme blamed a Syracuse-area man for a failed Internet company that may have cost local investors thousands of dollars. Gregory Gray, of Buffalo, told Syracuse.com that Andrew Russo, a former state Senate candidate, was the chief financial officer of Everloop Inc. before the company failed. "He was the CFO," Mr. Gray said. "He worked for the company. We were investors in the company. He worked day-to-day with Everloop, every single day for a minimum of a year." Mr. Gray, 39, who grew up in the Syracuse area, was charged with securities fraud and perjury in connection with an alleged Ponzi- like scheme that defrauded $5 million from an investor in Uber Technologies. The Securities and Exchange Commission is suing Gray and his business, Archipel Capital, saying they "engaged in blatant Ponzi- type conduct." Mr. Gray said that Russo and his friend, Onondaga County Legislature Chairman Ryan McMahon, worked on their own to recruit some Syracuse-area people to invest in Everloop, a company that marketed itself as Facebook for children. "Andy Russo was the CFO," Mr. Gray said. "He brought some of those investors directly into Everloop, bypassing us." Mr. McMahon "was the one bringing the investors, along with Russo, through other entities without me knowing about some," Mr. Gray said. Mr. Russo, a concert pianist who unsuccessfully ran for state Senate in 2010, said Mr. Gray's past should be considered when assessing his credibility. "Greg Gray stands accused of perjury," Mr. Russo said. "Greg Gray is very comfortable not telling the truth. I would ask people to consider that when they listen to anything he is willing to say." Mr. Russo and Mr. Gray went to school together in the Syracuse area and played Little League on the same team. Mr. Russo was one of the investors in Everloop, along with Prufrock Ventures, in which he and McMahon were partners, according to court records. Mr. Gray also noted that another prominent Central New Yorker, former NFL star Tim Green, was a paid advisor to Archipel and was responsible for getting the NFL involved in Everloop. Mr. Green, who is also an author and lawyer, was supposed to use his connections to get the NFL and his publisher involved in Everloop. "Tim Green made a boatload of money," Mr. Gray said. He would not say how much. Mr. Green, who invested $100,000 in Everloop, could not be reached for comment. Mr. Gray also blamed Everloop's chief executive officer, Hilary DeCesare, for the company's failure. "The CEO couldn't close business," he said. "When we get teams on board and she can't bring users on after we get those brands involved, that's not our job to do business development." Everloop was the only business Archipel invested in that's not done well, Gray said. "Everloop was the only bad investment we had," he said. The SEC lawsuit alleges that starting in 2011, Mr. Gray and his company were commingling funds between Archipel's entities as needed, using nearly $20 million from at least 140 investors across the country. Among the SEC's allegations was that Mr. Gray received $650,000 from Everloop in a settlement with the company last year. Mr. Gray used $350,000 of that settlement to pay investors to give them their expected return on their investment, the lawsuit said. Instead of disbursing all of that settlement money, Mr. Gray in late June transferred $350,000 of it to the people who had invested in Twitter, to give them their expected return on investment, the SEC lawsuit said. The SEC lawsuit accused Mr. Gray of soliciting $5.2 million in investments for 230,000 shares of Twitter before it went public, when he had only bought 80,000 Twitter shares by the time of its initial public offering in November 2013. Mr. Gray said that all the investors received the Twitter shares they'd paid for. Russo and at least 17 other people who invested in Everloop and other businesses through Gray and his company are expected to file a class-action lawsuit. FORCEFIELD ENERGY: June 16 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC and KSF partner, the former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that they have until June 16, 2015 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against ForceField Energy Inc. if they purchased the Company's securities between the expanded period of September 16, 2013 through April 15, 2015, inclusive. This action is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. What You May Do If you purchased shares of ForceField and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by June 16, 2015. About the Lawsuit ForceField and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. These false statements and omissions included, in part, that: (ii) articles issued by independent authors touting ForceField were promoters ForceField paid; and (ii) ForceField's management reviewed these articles before publication. On April 15, 2015, Seeking Alpha published an article accusing ForceField of previously paying the now-shuttered stock promotion firm The DreamTeam Group to conduct a misleading campaign designed to boost ForceField's stock price in which the Company paid DreamTeam to publish purportedly independent, positive reports on the Company. On this news, the price of ForceField's shares plummeted by over 21%. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC To learn more about KSF, whose partners include the Former Louisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., and other lawyers with significant experience litigating complex securities class actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and individual shareholders. GERBER LEGENDARY: Recalls Cohort Folding Knives ----------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Gerber Legendary Blades of Portland, Oregon, announced a voluntary recall of about 150,000 Cohort Folding Knife in the United States and 11,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The locking mechanism can fail to hold the blade, posing a laceration hazard. The Cohort is an open frame folding clip knife with either a black or dark gray anodized aluminum handle. The tail end of the handle includes a lanyard hole. When the knife blade is fully extended, it is held in the open position with a liner lock function. When fully extended, the overall length of the knife is about 7 inches. When closed, the knife measures about 4 inches. The knife blade is 3 inches long, weighs less than 3 ounces and has the Gerber "sword and shield" trademark in silver on the non-clip side of the blade. The Gerber name appears on the knife clip. The following models are being recalled. Model numbers can be found underneath the UPC barcode on the lower right corner on the rear of the hanging blister packaging. For box packaging, the model number is found on the bottom of the box. Gerber Model Numbers -------------------- 30-000645N 31-002488NDIP 31-001714N 31-002722HDN 31-001714NDIP 31-002885HDN 31-001715N 31-002885HDQP 31-002488N Home Depot SKU Numbers ---------------------- 1000044211 1000246978 A product date code appears on the blade, beneath the thumb stud, on the clip side of the knife. The last figure in the code is a letter, and the recall applies to all Cohort knives with the letters "E" and "F." Gerber received six reports of laceration injuries, two of which required stitches. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/AlOTSB The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Bass Pro Shops, Cabela's, Home Depot, other retailers nationwide and online at www.gerbergear.com and other online sporting goods stores from January 2013 through March 2015 for about $30. Consumers should stop using the knife and contact Gerber for a replacement. GRATUS HOLDING: "Velsher" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Boris Velsher, Carlos Montoya and other similarly situated individuals v. Gratus Holding LLC and Rodolfo Gomez, Case No. 0:15-cv-61085-WJZ (S.D. Fla., May 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq. Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com agp@rgpattorneys.com GREAT STATES CORP: Recalls Electric Lawn Mowers Over Injury Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with The Great States Corporation, of Shelbyville, Ind., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,200ordless 17-inch electric lawn mower. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The mower can start when the key is not in the starting position, posing an injury hazard to the user. This recall involves Earthwise cordless electric push lawn mowers with a 17-inch mowing deck. The recalled mowers have a silver motor housing and deck with a side discharge chute, a black foldable handle and a bright green bail lever, height adjustment lever and handle knobs. The mowers have a 24-volt removable, rechargeable battery. Brand name "Earthwise" and "17" appear on the front of the mowers. Model number 60517 is on the name plate on the back of the motor cover. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/52ImTN The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Menards stores, Seventh Avenue catalogs and online at PowerSales.com and SeventhAvenue.com from January 2014 to May 2014 for about $250. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled electric mowers, remove the battery and contact Great States Corporation for a replacement mower. GULLIVER'S TAVERN: "Levi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Ruby Levi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Gulliver's Tavern, Incorporated, Solid Gold Properties, Inc., Thomas Tsoumas, and Patricia Tsoumas, all d/b/a The Foxy Lady, Case No. 1:15-cv-00216 (D.R.I., May 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a strip club located in Providence, Rhode Island. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Brouillard, Esq. BIANCHI & BROUILLARD, P.C. 56 Pine Street, Suite 250 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 223 - 2990 Facsimile: (877) 548 - 4539 E-mail: sbrouillard@bbrilaw.com - and - Brant Casavant, Esq. Stephen Churchill, Esq. FAIR WORK, P.C. 192 South Street, Suite 450 Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 607 - 3261 Facsimile: (617) 488 - 2261 E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com HANKYU EXPRESS: 9 Japanese Firms Settle Suit for $100MM ------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Bultman at Law360.com reports that nine Japanese corporations and their subsidiaries have agreed to pay $100 million to exit an antitrust class action alleging a conspiracy among freight companies to fix prices on their services, according to a filing in New York federal court. In a motion seeking preliminary approval of the deal, class members said the settlement would end all claims against a group that includes Hankyu Express International Co., Nippon Express Co. Ltd. and K Line Logistics Ltd. HARDEMAN COUNTY, TN: Inmate's Bid for Counsel, Class Cert. Denied ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James S. Todd of the Western District of Tennessee, Eastern Division, denied plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and for class certification in the case KENNETH L. STOREY, Plaintiff, v. DERRICK SCHOFIELD, ET AL., Defendants, NO. 14-1098- JDT-EGB (W. Tenn.) On April 24, 2014, plaintiff, Kenneth L. Storey, an inmate at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, accompanied by motions seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the appointment of counsel. The court issued an order on April 28, 2014 granting leave to proceed in forma pauperis and assessing the civil filing fee pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. Sections 1915(a)-(b). Aside from his motion for appointment of counsel, plaintiff also asked the court for class certification. Judge Todd denied plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel and for class certification, expressing that plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of demonstrating that the court should exercise its discretion to appoint counsel in this case. A copy of Judge Todd's order dated March 30, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/q3zyhHfrom Leagle.com. Kenneth L. Storey, Plaintiff, Pro Se HARVESTPRO AND SMITH: Truckers Consider Legal Action ---------------------------------------------------- Imran Ali, writing for The Northern Advocate, reports that Whangarei-based trucking companies owed nearly $200,000 by two failed logging firms are demanding a meeting with directors of both businesses. They are also calling for more detailed financial information -- and some answers. The non-secured creditors throughout the country have not ruled out a class action against HarvestPro and Smith and Davies New Zealand to recover $1.7 million they are owed. Seven Northland trucking companies are owed $192,916. The logging firms -- both 100 per cent-owned subsidiaries of Kiwi Forestry International -- owe about $26million to secured and non- secured creditors. Directors Andrew Chalmers and Zane Cleaver have proposed to pay non-secured creditors 20 cents for every dollar of debt as a full and final settlement to be paid within 20 working days of its approval. Whangarei trucker Simon Reid, who is owed $25,107, has written to both companies on behalf of the creditors. He expressed bitter disappointment at the failure of the companies to provide financial information. "We have been asked to sustain a significant loss on the basis of flawed information and procedures," he said in a letter to Brent Hempel, who has been appointed by the board to facilitate the proposal. Mr. Reid pointed to alleged flaws in the proposal and the way any postal ballot, which would determine whether they would accept the 20 per cent payment, was conducted. He said voting papers that were circulated to non-secured creditors gave a short response time and the results of the postal ballot were not available more than one week after voting closed. After having received professional advice from an experienced chartered accountant who specialized in insolvency matters, Mr. Reid said it was doubtful the directors' proposal met the criteria laid down in the Companies' Act. "It is our right to know why the business has failed and where the assets have gone. "Many of us believe there is more equity in the plant and equipment than we are being led to believe and we consider it appropriate that the directors front up and provide full and frank disclosures of why the business is in the state it is, what has happened to the money and why we should be asked to take such a substantial discount," he said. Mr. Reid warned the directors the issue would not go away and the creditors were considering options, including the involvement of a liquidator and legal action. Neither the board of directors nor Mr Hempel responded to written questions by edition time. HOLIDAY STATIONSTORES: Gas Station Coupons Not Gift Certificates ---------------------------------------------------------------- Minnesota Lawyer reports that after more than three years of wrangling, the Minnesota Court of Appeals has rendered its verdict: under Minnesota law, gas station car wash coupons are not gift certificates. In its second whack at the case, the appeals court affirmed the district court's dismissal of a class action brought by Donald Wells, a Blaine man who sued after purchasing a $7.99 car wash coupon at a Holiday gas station that included an expiration date. Wells claimed that violated a provision of 2007 consumer protection law that bars the use of expiration dates on gift cards. After the district court granted a motion to dismiss, Wells appealed and the appeals court remanded based "on the limited record." Following discovery, the district court again dismissed, and this time the appeals court affirmed the decision. In an 11-page decision that included linguistic minutiae involving distinctions between the dictionary definition of the word "value" and its use in the statute, Judge Michael Kirk took note of one seemingly salient point that was raised during discovery: Under Holiday's policy, customers with "expired" car wash coupons can still present their coupons to the cashier and get a new car wash code or a cash refund. So why include the 30-day expiration date? As it turns out, Kirk wrote, the use of expiration dates is designed "to prevent a practice called 'jackpotting,' which is when an individual randomly punches numbers into the code box to try to obtain a free car wash." Attorney Susan Coler said she has yet to discuss the ruling with her client, whom she described as an ordinary citizen who sued out of principle. But despite the apparently low stakes involved, Coler said the court's decision effectively undermines the consumer protections. "Under this court's interpretation of statute, if you go to ma and pa nail salon, get a hand written gift certificate with an expiration date, that would be just fine," she ventured. "It will eliminate a lot of the common paper forms of gift certificate." HEALTH CANADA: June 11 & 12 Hearings on Cert. Bid in Privacy Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sherri Borden Colley, writing for The Chronicle Herald, reports that lawyers will go before a Federal Court judge in Halifax in June to ask the court to certify a proposed class action on behalf of 40,000 medical marijuana users whose privacy was breached by Health Canada in 2013. There are 2,105 Nova Scotia class members in the case. A confidentiality order protects the real names of the two lead plaintiffs, a Nova Scotia man who works as a health-care professional and an Ottawa woman who works in the legal field. In court documents, they are identified under the pseudonyms John Doe and Suzie Jones. June 11 and 12 have been set aside for the certification hearing. The week of Nov. 18, 2013, Health Canada sent letters to about 40,000 people authorized under the Marijuana Medical Access Program to acquire the drug for medical use or who were licensed to grow it. The mail-out had the name of the program and the participants' names in clear view on the envelope. Health Canada said it was an administrative error. Before that, all correspondence sent by Health Canada in relation to the program was sent in plain envelopes and did not have sender information or use the word marijuana. "As soon as it was discovered, my phone started ringing off the hook with individuals who were very upset that Health Canada had, from what I understand, deviated from their previous standard practice of corresponding with members of the Marijuana Medical Access Program," David Fraser, of the Halifax law firm McInnes Cooper, said in an interview. "And the reason why people were very upset was because this exposed their name and their connection with the Marijuana Medical Access Program not only, for example, to Canada Post but also to their neighbors in some small communities. "We've heard a number of cases where the individual piece of mail was misdirected and went to the neighbor's house. This is very sensitive, private information." Three other law firms, one in British Columbia and two in Ontario, are also handling the case. The lawsuit alleges Health Canada was negligent, careless and reckless in sending out the mailing. None of the allegations have been tested in court. The government has not yet filed a defense. Since the lawsuit was filed in November 2013, the Federal Privacy Commissioner concluded an investigation that found Health Canada violated the Privacy Act, Fraser said. The irony, he said, is that Health Canada had sent the letters to permit holders because it was changing the program, as the then-current version exposed people to safety concerns like violent home invasions. "So in the process of telling individuals that they were subject to these risks, they, in fact, created those risks," Fraser said. Some of his clients have stopped growing marijuana and storing the plants in their homes and had to significantly increase security at their properties because of the breach, he said. The plaintiffs are seeking various damages. HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Illegally Sells Subcribers Info, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Suzanne Boelter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hearst Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-03934-AT (S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2015), arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of selling its subscribers' personal information, myriad other personal, lifestyle, and demographic information to data miners and other third parties without the written consent of its customers. Hearst Communications, Inc. is an international media company that publishes over 300 magazines throughout the world, including widely circulated magazines such as Country Living, Harper's Bazaar, Cosmopolitan, Esquire, Good Housekeeping, Redbook, Seventeen, and 0, the Oprah Magazine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: scott@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com HEWITT MACHINE: Recalls Chain Driven Winches Due to Injury Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Hewitt Machine & Manufacturing Inc., of Nicollet, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of about 1,700 chain driven winches. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The top and bottom roller chains in the winch can break, causing the winch and marine lift to fail. This can pose an injury hazard to the user or bystander. This recall includes Hewitt Machine & Manufacturing winches with model number 1501, 2001 and 2501 printed on the front label of the product. The winches can be used in various marine lifts. The products are silver, metal and measure 21 inches high by 12 inches wide by 8 inches deep. Recalled winches were manufactured December 2013 through September 2014 and have a date code in the MM YY format stamped on the front right side of the product. There have been six incidents of the roller chains breaking in the recalled winch housing. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/LRuvSn The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Independent boat and watersport dealers nationwide and internationally and online at buyhewitt.com from April 2014 through October 2014 for about $400. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled winches and contact Hewitt Machine & Manufacturing or their local dealer to arrange for a free replacement of the roller chains. HMSHOST CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Steven Liles & Frank Crump v. HMSHost Corporation and Host International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00935 (D. Ariz., May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiffs overtime for hours above 40 that they worked in a workweek. The Defendants manage and oversee the operations of food and beverage concessions at numerous United States airports and other travel facilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq. Fran L. Rudich, Esq. Michael H. Reed, Esq. KLAFTER, OLSEN & LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com jeff@klafterolsen.com fran@klafterolsen.com michael.reed@klafterolsen.com - and - Bradley I. Berger, Esq. BERGER & ASSOCIATES 321 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 571-1900 E-mail: bradberger29@gmail.com HTC CORPORATION: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Stephanie Rodriguez v. HTC Corporation, HTC America, Inc., and Aerotek, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-21948-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. are foreign corporations that manufacture and sell smart mobile devices. Aerotek, Inc. own and operate a staffing agency located in Miami- Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com IESI BETHELEHEM: State to Probe Landfill Odors ---------------------------------------------- Lynn Olanoff, writing for the Lehigh Valley Live, reports that the state has agreed to investigate complaints of odors at the IESI Bethlehem Landfill in Lower Saucon Township, which a law firm also is soliciting information on for a possible class-action lawsuit. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection plans to come out to the Applebutter Road landfill to investigate the odor complaints in the next few weeks, spokeswoman Colleen Connolly said. Lower Saucon asked first in September and then again earlier in April for an odor investigation. "They're polluting our air and we're breathing it and something has to change," said township Councilwoman Priscilla deLeon, who also lives in the Steel City neighborhood closest to the landfill. "We're not going to take it anymore." The neighborhood has been dealing with odor problems for about three years now and Mr. deLeon said she gets regular complaints from residents, including a recent one from a couple with a 5-month-old who can smell odors in their home. She said some residents had grown frustrated after not receiving any response for the state for many years but she's glad an inspection is now planned. "It's better than what we had before," Mr. deLeon said. "Something has to change." The township had requested that the state perform ambient air testing at the landfill, which the state will do depending on the outcome of some preliminary testing, Connolly said. The state plans to come out to the landfill in the next few weeks to evaluate IESI's gas collection system in its phase-four area as well as test the performance of the immediate cover in that area, Connolly said. IESI said the company expected the odor investigation as part of its expansion request. IESI has petitioned the state to allow for 6 acres of new disposal area as well as the 22 acres of additional new disposal area on top of existing landfill. "The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's upcoming inspection of Bethlehem Landfill is part of its overall process to review our southeast expansion permit request," Vito Galante, IESI's northeast regional engineer, said in a statement. "We look forward to working closely with PADEP to showcase our facility and operations." On the heels of the inspection news, thousands of Lower Saucon residents also received a solicitation from a Trenton, New Jersey, law firm gauging their interest in a possible class-action lawsuit against IESI. Kamensky, Cohen & Riechelson recently filed a lawsuit in federal court over odors at Tullytown Landfill in Bucks County and is poised to file another lawsuit over odors at Keystone Sanitary Landfill near Scranton, partner Kevin Riechelson said. The firm had both been contacted by a Lower Saucon resident about a possible lawsuit and also had read about the landfill's odor problems in the media, Mr. Riechelson said. Mr. Riechelson said he's gotten a lot of inquiries. "It sounds like it's been an ongoing problem for a while," he said. IESI is aware of Kamensky, Cohen & Riechelson's solicitation but hasn't received any communication from the firm, Galante said. "IESI Bethlehem Landfill remains dedicated and open to working closely with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Lower Saucon Township and Steel City residents to address any concerns regarding the operation of our facility," he said. IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bernstein Liebhard LLP disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all current public shareholders of Imperial Holdings, Inc. common stock for violations of Section 14 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breach of fiduciary duties in connection with a bylaw that requires current and former shareholders who wish to file a class or derivative action against or on behalf of Imperial, its directors, or its officers to first obtain written consent from other shareholders beneficially owning at least 3% (or over 642,000) of the Company's shares. The case is also brought as a derivative action on behalf of Imperial for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement. Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief on behalf of all Class members. If you hold Imperial common stock, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than June 22, 2015. A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. If you are interested in discussing your rights as an Imperial shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3 billion for its clients. The National Law Journal has recognized Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top plaintiffs' firms in the country. The firm can be reached at: Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. Bernstein Liebhard LLP Tel No: (212) 779-1414 E-mail: seidman@bernlieb.com IMPERIAL HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP disclosed that an action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida against the Board of Directors of Imperial Holdings, Inc. as a class action on behalf of all public holders of Imperial Holdings common stock for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breach of fiduciary duty in connection with the adoption by the Board of a bylaw that requires current and former shareholders who wish to file a class or derivative action against or on behalf of Imperial Holdings, its directors, or its officers to first obtain written consent from other shareholders beneficially owning at least 3% (or over 642,000) of the Company's shares, and as a derivative action on behalf of Imperial Holdings for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from April 22. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail at -- djr@rgrdlaw.com -- Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. The complaint charges the members of Imperial Holdings' Board with violations of the 1934 Act, breach of fiduciary duty and/or waste of corporate assets, abuse of control and gross mismanagement, and further seeks a declaratory judgment that the Bylaw is contrary to law and against public policy. Specifically, the complaint alleges the Bylaw was adopted on November 3, 2014 in breach of defendants' fiduciary duties because its sole intent is to reduce the Board's risk of being held accountable to the Company or its shareholders for any violations of law, including criminal law, breaches of fiduciary duties or other misconduct, and to protect the Board members' tenure by entrenching their control of the Company. In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants caused Imperial Holdings to file a false and misleading Proxy with the SEC in connection with defendants' attempt to obtain a shareholder "advisory vote" on the Bylaw. The Proxy is false and misleading and/or fails to disclose material information to the Company's shareholders and violates Sec.14(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder by: (a) creating a materially misleading impression that shareholder litigation serves no legitimate purpose; (b) failing to explain the meaning of the following sentence: "nor does it apply to claims . . . where a private right of action at a lower threshold . . . is expressly authorized by statute;" (c) creating a materially misleading comparison between the Bylaw and inapt statutes and laws; (d) failing to disclose material information concerning IRS and SEC investigations of Imperial Holdings; (e) failing to disclose the basis for the Board's stated belief that the Bylaw will not unduly deter the prosecution of meritorious litigation; (f) failing to disclose the basis for the Board's stated belief that current law (including Rule 11, the PSLRA, and the business judgment rule) is not adequate to deter unmeritorious litigation; (g) failing to disclose the Board's understanding -- in view of its own self- interest -- of what constitutes meritorious or unmeritorious litigation; (h) failing to disclose that of the purported nine shareholders who individually own at least 3% of the Company's outstanding shares, many are insiders; (i) failing to disclose what basis the Board has for choosing a 3% threshold of ownership, as opposed to any other percentage; (j) failing to disclose the basis for the representation that the Bylaw will reduce the cost of D&O insurance; (k) failing to disclose the existence of litigation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which could be grounds for future representative litigation against the Company and its directors and/or officers; (l) failing to disclose the fact that individual shareholder pursuit of "meritorious" litigation is disincentivized by the cost and complexity of such litigation, which is only tempered by the ability to pursue class and derivative litigation; and (m) being contradictory with respect to whether the vote on the Bylaw is "advisory" or not. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of all public holders of Imperial Holdings common stock (the "Class") and derivatively on behalf of Imperial Holdings. The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud. Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities and corporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largest securities class action recoveries in history, including the largest securities class action judgment. INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Alleged FCRPA Violations --------------------------------------------------------- Nieyshia Patrick, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals v. Interstate Management Company, LLC, Case No. 8:15- cv-01252-VMC-AEP(M.D. Fla., May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. Luis A. Cabassa, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com lcabassa@wfclaw.com INTUIT INC: Sued Over TurboTax Security and Identity Theft ---------------------------------------------------------- Robert W. Wood, writing for Forbes, reports that Intuit Inc. has been sued by several high profile plaintiffs' lawyers alleging that the company's lax security protections in TurboTax software helped enable fraudulent tax returns. This year's tax filing season got off to a bad start with huge security concerns that stopped TurboTax state filings for days and then spread to federal filings. The mess reportedly even triggered an FBI investigation. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in San Francisco by two women claiming they were hurt by TurboTax. The complaint alleges that, "Rather than protecting customers' personal and financial information by implementing stricter security measures, TurboTax has instead knowingly facilitated identity theft tax refund fraud by allowing cybercriminals easy access to its customers' most private information." The complaint says that Intuit has a duty to protect sensitive customer data, and that the TurboTax website promises that "all TurboTax platforms offer a secure, easy-to-use experience." Hardly, say the lawyers, who claim that security was poor until it was too late. The two plaintiffs are Christine Diaz and Michelle Fugatt, although it is clear the real prize the lawyers seek is class action status. Ms. Diaz last used TurboTax in 2011, when she used the online version of the software to file her joint return. But in March 2015, before filing her tax return, she received a bill for $242 from TurboTax for supposedly filing a federal tax return through the software, along with state returns in Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Oklahoma. Plaintiff Michelle Fugatt alleged that she received a similar bill in March despite having never used TurboTax. The complaint alleges that as a result, Ms. Fugatt now must file by paper and wait longer for her tax refund. The lawyers for the plaintiffs include Richard McCune of McCuneWright in Redlands, California; Michael Sobol of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein in San Francisco; and John Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan in Florida. They hope to represent a nationwide class of TurboTax customers (like Ms. Diaz) who had personal data stolen. They are even aiming for a second nationwide class of non-customers (like Ms. Fugatt) who were victims of fraudulent tax returns filed in their name through TurboTax. The complaint accuses Intuit of aiding and abetting fraud, breach of contract and violating California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Records Act. They plaintiffs also allege that Intuit failed to notify victims after their personal information was used to file fraudulent tax returns. The suit also alleges that Intuit insiders have accused the company of turning a blind eye to tax fraud. The IRS is well aware that tax fraud has exploded, and e-filing is one of the enablers. The complaint includes some impressive IRS statistics, including the jump in suspected electronic tax fraud. Incidents jumped from 500,000 in 2010 to almost two million in 2013. The IRS says it prevented an estimated $24.2 billion in fraudulent refunds in 2013, but it paid another $5.8 billion in refunds that were later deemed fraudulent. Intuit has denied the allegations. The company also advocates standards to clarify how much tax preparation software providers can do to prevent tax fraud. "We recognize that the industrywide problem of tax fraud has increased this tax season and our focus remains on playing our part in fighting it," the company said in a statement. "We intend to defend ourselves vigorously in the appropriate forum. ISORAY INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Bourbaki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Isoray, Inc., Dwight Babcock, and Brien Ragle, Case No. 2:15-cv-03890-BRO-AS (C.D. Cal., May 22, 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. Isoray, Inc. is a Minnesota Corporation that develops, manufactures, and sells isotope-based medical products and devices for the treatment of cancer and other malignant diseases in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 785-2610 Facsimile: (213) 226-4684 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com KALDI'S COFFEE: Recalls Disposable Cup Sleeves Due to Fire Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Kaldi's Coffee Roasting Company, of St. Louis, Mo., announced a voluntary recall of about 700,000 Disposable Cup Sleeves. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The cup sleeve can ignite if used in a microwave, posing a fire hazard. This recall involves Kaldis Coffee disposable paper cup sleeves used with 12- and 16-ounce paper cups. The black paper cup sleeves have the "Kaldis Coffee" and the company logo printed on the front, and "100% Recycled Paperboard" printed on the back. Kaldi's has received two reports of the cup sleeves catching fire when heated in the microwave. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/5yhInk The recalled products were manufactured in U.S.A and sold at Kaldi's Coffee Roasting stores in Missouri from February 2014 through March 2015 at no cost with hot drinks. Consumers should immediately stop using and discard the recalled cup sleeves. KEANE FRAC: "Stanek" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Stanek, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. Keane Frac NC, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01005 (M.D. Pa., May 22, 2015), 3:15-cv-01005-RDM (M.D. Pa., May 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Keane Frac NC, LLC is an energy services company that operates in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 Facsimile: (215) 884-2492 E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com KELSEY-HAYES: E.D. Mich. Judge Certifies UAW Case as Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge George Caram Steeh of the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE, AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW); JAMES WARD, MARSHALL HUNT, and RICHARD GORDON, for themselves and others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY, TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORP, and NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-14434 CLASS ACTION (E.D. Mich.) Plaintiff United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and defendant Kelsey-Hayes Company were parties to the February 2, 1998 CBA governing the now-closed Kelsey-Hayes Detroit, Michigan manufacturing plant and to the collectively-bargained April 17, 2001 plant closing agreement. James Ward, Richard Gordon, and Marshall Hunt retired from the UAW-represented bargaining unit at the Detroit plant in 1998, 2000, and 2001, respectively. Ward, Hunt, and Gordon sue for themselves and a class of similarly situated retirees and the retirees' surviving spouses and other eligible dependents. They sue for breach of collective bargaining agreement (CBA) under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Section 185, and for violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq. Plaintiff UAW sues for CBA breach under LMRA Section 301. Plaintiffs move, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, that the Court certify the case as a class action and appoint plaintiffs-retirees James Ward, Marshall Hunt, and Richard Gordon, and their counsel, to prosecute the class action. Judge Steeh granted plaintiffs' motion and appointed plaintiffs- retirees Ward, Hunt and Gordon as Rule 23(a)(4) class representatives and attorneys Israel, Wertheimer and Adam, and their law firms as Rule 23(g) class counsel. Judge Steeh certified the class as: "Employees who retired under the 1998 collective bargaining agreement from the UAW-represented unit at the now-closed Kelsey- Hayes/TRW Detroit, Michigan plant and the retirees' surviving spouses and other dependents eligible for company-paid retiree health insurance." A copy of Judge Steeth's order dated April 28, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/wn3iI1from Leagle.com. Plaintiffs represented by Stuart M. Israel -- israel@legghioisrael.com -- John G. Adam -- jga@legghioisrael.com -- at Legghio & Israel. P.C.; William A. Wertheimer, Jr. at William A. Wertheimer Assoc. Defendants, represented by Gregory V. Mersol -- gmersol@bakerlaw.com -- Todd A. Dawson -- tdawson@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker & Hostetler LLP KINGSDOWN INCORPORATED: Sued Over Plan Asset Mismanagement ---------------------------------------------------------- David Scott Cecil, Frank Hood, Martin Krumnacher, in their capacity as Trustees of the Kingsdown, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the ESOP), on behalf of the ESOP, and as participants in the ESOP, on behalf of a class of similarly situated participants in the ESOP v. W. Eric Hinshaw, George McLamb, Thomas McLean, Case No. 1:15-cv-00409 (M.D.N.C., May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to prudently and loyally manage plan assets under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Kingsdown, Incorporated is an employee-owned company that maintains a research and development center, training and distribution facilities, and two manufacturing facilities in Mebane Alamance County, North Carolina. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of Kingsdown, Incorporated. The Plaintiff is represented by: Norris A. Adams II, Esq. Edward G. Connette, Esq. ESSEX RICHARDS, P.A. 1701 South Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28203-4727 Telephone: (704) 377-4300 Facsimile: (704) 372-1357 E-mail: NAdams@essexrichards.com econnette@essexrichards.com - and - Daniel W. Koenig, Esq. Bruce H. Connors, Esq. CONNORS MORGAN, PLLC 609-B Eugene Court Greensboro, NC 27401 Telephone: (336) 333-7907 Facsimile: (336) 333-7909 E-mail: dkoenig@connorsmorgan.com bconnors@connorsmorgan.com KMART CORP: N.D. Cal. Judge Denies Bid to Compel Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the Northern District of California denied defendant's motion in the case ADRIAN LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. KMART CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 15-CV-01089- JSC (N.D. Cal.) Beginning in April 2012, Kmart implemented an arbitration policy/agreement under which participating employees and Kmart each waived the right to pursue employment-related claims in court, and instead agreed to submit such disputes to binding arbitration. Kmart hired plaintiff Adrian Lopez as a cashier in its Concord store on April 16, 2013, when plaintiff was 16 years old and a sophomore in high school. Before he began work, plaintiff received an email from Kmart notifying him that he needed to complete all online training requirements, including acknowledgement of the Agreement. Plaintiff completed the training at home on his laptop, including review of the Agreement. He notes that Kmart did not provide guidance or actual training about any of the forms, never requested his parents' consent, and never explained what an arbitration agreement was or that he could review the terms with an attorney. In any event, plaintiff acknowledged receipt of the agreement on May 20, 2013. Plaintiff did not opt out of the agreement by submitting the Opt Out form within his 30-day window to do so, nor did he do so any time thereafter. On January 20, 2015, one month after his 18th birthday, plaintiff filed a class action complaint in Contra Costa County Superior Court alleging violations of California wage and hour laws. Kmart timely removed the action to federal court. On March 16, 20145, Kmart filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay this action. Kmart seeks to compel arbitration consistent with the agreement that plaintiff electronically signed. Plaintiff contends that there was never any valid agreement in the first instance because plaintiff was a minor when he acknowledged receipt of the agreement, or in the alternative, because plaintiff was a minor when he acknowledged the agreement, he is now entitled to disaffirm it. In addition, even if the court finds that plaintiff's age is not fatal to agreement, plaintiff further argues that the agreement is nonetheless unenforceable as unconscionable. Judge Corley denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay action and directed defendant to answer the complaint by May 21, 2015. A copy of Judge Corley's order dated May 4, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/hP1TaIfrom Leagle.com. Adrian Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Raul Perez -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Alexandria Marie Witte --& Melissa Grant -- Melissa.Grant@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC; Arnab Banerjee -- at Initiative Legal Group APC KMART Corporation, Defendant, represented by Joseph Charles Liburt -- jliburt@orrick.com -- Lindsey Connor Hulse -- lhulse@orrick.com -- at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Steinmetz" Suit Over Toxic Flooring -------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Steinmetz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00316-JAG (E.D. Va., May 22, 2015), alleges that the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano, Virginia 23168, which retailer of hardwood flooring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A. Breit, Esq. Michael F. Imprevento, Esq. Allen W. Beasley, Esq. BREIT DRESCHER IMPREVENTO, P.C. Towne Pavilion Center II 600 22nd Street, Suite 402 Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Telephone: (757) 622-6000 Facsimile: (757) 670-3939 E-mail: jbreit@bdbmail.com mimprevento@breitdrescher.com abeasley@breitdrescher.com - and - Mitchell M. Breit, Esq. SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP 112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 784-6400 Facsimile: (212) 231-5949 E-mail: mbreit@simmonsfirm.com MEDPARTNERS INC: June 30 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set ---------------------------------------------------------- John Lauriello et al., Plaintiffs, vs. CVS Health et al., Defendants. No. CV-03-6630 Class Action If you bought MedPartners, Inc., common stock between October 30, 1996, and January 7, 1998, you may be a member of a certified class. Case Background. This Action, which was initially filed on October 22, 2003, arises out of the settlement of a nationwide class action styled Griffin v. MedPartners, Inc., et al. (Jefferson County, Alabama, Circuit Court; CV-98-00297, etc.). The Griffin case consolidated more than 20 securities and derivative lawsuits alleging that MedPartners had made a series of false and misleading statements concerning a planned merger between MedPartners and PhyCor Inc. and concerning MedPartners' overall financial condition. In 1999, a court approved the settlement of the 1998 MedPartners Securities Litigation for $56 Million. What Is This Case About? Plaintiffs here allege that during the course of the 1998 MedPartners Securities Litigation, they were told that liability insurance coverage was limited. Effective September 30, 1998, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company issued to MedPartners the "AISLIC Policy" -- the excess insurance policy that is at issue in this Action. The AISLIC Policy provided additional liability insurance coverage for the 1998 MedPartners Security Litigation. In this current certified class action, Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges two counts: (1) that Defendants misrepresented the amount of insurance available to settle the 1998 MedPartners Security Litigation; and (2) that Defendants suppressed information concerning the AISLIC Policy. Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations and have raised a number of affirmative defenses. The Court has not ruled on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims or Defendants' defenses. Who Is Included? The class is defined as, "All Persons who (i) purchased MedPartners, Inc. common stock (including, but not limited to, through open market transactions, mergers or acquisitions in which MedPartners issued common stock, acquisition through the company's employee stock purchase plan, and any other type of transaction in which a person acquired one or more shares of MedPartners stock in return for consideration) during the period from October 30, 1996 through January 7, 1998, inclusive (MedPartners employees who purchased shares through the ESPP in January 1998 being deemed to have purchased their shares on December 31, 1997); (ii) purchased call option contracts on MedPartners common stock during the period October 30, 1996 through January 7, 1998, inclusive; (iii) sold put option contracts on MedPartners common stock during the period October 30, 1996 through January 7, 1998, inclusive; (iv) purchased MedPartners threshold appreciation price securities in the September 15, 1997, offering or thereafter through January 7, 1998; or (v) tendered shares of Talbert Medical Management Holdings Corporation to MedPartners between August 20, 1997, and September 19, 1997; excluding all those members who opted out of the 1999 Class Settlement." What Are Your Options? If you believe that you may be a member of the Class, more detailed information about this Action and its potential effect on you and your rights is available online at AIGCVSClassAction.com or by calling toll-free to 1-888-564-1149. If you are a member of the Class and you want to exclude yourself from the Class and keep your right to sue the Defendants, you must take further action before June 30, 2015. By that date, you must request exclusion in writing to this address: AIG-CVS Class Action Claims Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040. Please do not telephone or address inquiries to the Court. If you choose to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgment in this Action, nor will you be eligible to share in any recovery that might be obtained in this Action. MERCEDEZ BENZ: Aug. 17 Fairness Hearing on "Seifi" Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion in the case MAJEED SEIFI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-05493-THE (N.D. Cal.) Mercedez-Benz USA, LLC joined in plaintiffs' request for an order preliminarily approving the parties' settlement. Aside for the requested order plaintiffs also asks the court to certify a settlement class, to appoint settlement class counsel, sets a hearing on the final approval of the settlement and to direct notice to the class. Judge Henderson granted preliminary approval of the settlement based upon the terms set forth in the settlement agreement and certified a class of: All current and former owners and lessees of Mercedes-Benz branded automobiles equipped with M272 or M273 engines bearing serial numbers up to 2729..30 468993 or 2739 ..30 088611, found in the Subject 2005-2007 Model Year Vehicles respectively, who purchased or leased their Subject Vehicles within the United States. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: Persons who validly and timely exclude themselves; Persons who have settled with, released, or otherwise had claims adjudicated on the merits against MBUSA that are substantially similar to those alleged in this matter; Persons with only claims relating to personal injury, wrongful death or property damage as a result of the defects alleged; employees of MBUSA; insurers or other providers of extended service contracts or warranties for the vehicles owned by settlement class members; and the Honorable Thelton E. Henderson and the Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley and members of their respective families. The court appoints Roy A. Katriel of the Katriel Law Firm, and Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., and the successors of these law firms as counsels for the settlement class. The Notice and provisions for disseminating notice substantially as described in and attached to the Settlement Agreement and the parties' Joint Statement submitted on March 30, 2015, are approved. KCC Class Action Services, LLC (KCC), selected pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, shall be responsible for providing notice of the proposed settlement to the Settlement Class Members in accordance with the provisions referenced above and as directed under the Class Action Fairness Act (28 U.S.C. Section 1715). MBUSA will pay KCC's fees and costs. KCC shall mail the Notice to the identified Settlement Class Members per the Notice Plan within 35 days of the entry of the Order. On the same date, KCC will make an informational settlement website available to the public, which website will include a copy of the Order, the Notice, the Settlement Agreement including all Addenda thereto, the Claim Form, and other important documents. Within 15 days after the deadline to mail the Notice, KCC shall file declarations to the court, attesting to the measures undertaken to provide Notice to the Settlement Class and as directed by CAFA. Anyone who wishes to be excluded from the Settlement Class must submit a written request for exclusion by sending it to KCC Class Action Services, LLC, by First-Class U.S. mail to the address provided in the Notice. The envelope containing the Request for Exclusion must be postmarked on or before the date set forth in the Notice, which shall be 45 days after the completion of mailing of the Notice pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. The Court shall rule on the validity of exclusions at the Fairness Hearing. Any Settlement Class Member who wishes to object to the proposed Settlement must send or file an Objection with the Court. The envelope containing the Objection to the Settlement must be postmarked on or before the date set forth in the Notice, which shall be 45 days after completion of mailing of the Notice pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Objections may otherwise be filed within 45 days after completion of mailing of the Notice pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Only Settlement Class Members may object to the Settlement. A copy of such papers being filed in support of any Objection shall also be mailed to Class Counsel and Defense Counsel within the 45-day period set forth. Any objecting Settlement Class Member may appear at the hearing on the fairness of the proposed settlement held by the court, in person or by counsel, to show cause why the Settlement Agreement should not be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, or to object to any petitions for attorney fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses; provided, however, that the objecting Settlement Class Member must mail or file with the Clerk of the Court, a notice of intention to appear at the Fairness Hearing on or before the date set forth in the Notice, which shall be 45 days after the completion of mailing of the Notice pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel shall file with the court their motion for payment of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses no later than 14 days before the expiration of the deadline for submitting opt-outs from and objections to the Settlement Agreement for Notices that were not returned undeliverable. Fourteen days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing, plaintiffs shall file a motion for judgment and final approval of the Settlement. The parties shall file their briefs in support of settlement approval, as well as any supplemental briefs supporting Class Counsel's motion for attorney's fees and reimbursement of litigation costs, at that time. The briefing shall include the parties' responses to any Objections, as well as a declaration setting forth the number of Settlement Class Members who opted-out of the Settlement Class. If any Settlement Class Members object or opt-out after plaintiffs files the motion for final approval, the parties shall file supplemental briefing no later than seven (7) days prior to the date set for the Fairness Hearing, setting forth the parties' responses to such Objections and the number of opt-outs. If appropriate, the parties shall include supplemental briefing on Class Counsel's motion for attorney's fees at that time. On August 17, 2015, at 10:00 AM, the Court will hold the Fairness Hearing. It shall be held in Courtroom 2, on the 17th floor of the United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. This time and place shall be set forth in the Mailed Notice. Pending further orders by the court, all proceedings in the case shall be stayed, except for proceedings pursuant to the order. A copy of Judge Henderson's order dated April 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/cc2KOGfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Roy Arie Katriel -- rak@katriellaw.com -- at The Katriel Law Firm - and - Gary S. Graifman, Esq. Michael L. Braunstein, Esq. Robert A. Lubitz, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 747 Chestnut Ridge Road Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977 Telephone: 845-459-0001 Facsimile: 845-356-4335 Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC, Defendant, represented by Troy Masami Yoshino -- tyoshino@cbmlaw.com -- Chad Allen Stegeman -- cstegeman@cbmlaw.com -- Matthew J. Kemner -- mkemner@cbmlaw.com -- at Carroll Burdick & McDonough LLP MICHAELS STORES: 3 FCRA Violations Centralized in NJ ---------------------------------------------------- Timothy St. George, David M. Gettings, John C. Lynch and David N. Anthony at Troutman Sanders, in an article for Mondaq, report that on April 9, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that three putative nationwide class actions against Michaels Stores Inc. be centralized in New Jersey. The actions accuse Michaels Stores of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") by failing to properly notify job applicants that the company would access their credit reports. Federal lawsuits are pending against Michaels Stores in New Jersey, Texas, and Missouri. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation said that the federal suits involve common questions over the arts and crafts retailer's online job applications and that centralizing the cases for pretrial proceedings would be most convenient for the parties and witnesses and would "promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation." The Panel noted that "[c]entralization will eliminate duplicative discovery on potentially complex factual inquiries such as the willfulness of defendant's conduct; avoid inconsistent pretrial rulings, particularly on class certification; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary." The first-filed action is pending in New Jersey, the Panel noted, adding that the district represents "a readily accessible and convenient transferee forum." In the New Jersey action, plaintiffs allege that Michael Stores fails to provide a "stand alone" disclosure that it will obtain the consumer reports. The lawsuit claims that Michaels Stores' current disclosure is buried among blank spaces for the applicant to fill in his or her previous work experience, ten different state law notices relating to conviction record protection laws, and other statements and proposed agreements. The same issue has been raised in the Texas and Missouri lawsuits. The suit is one of a number of such recently-filed lawsuits alleging that companies have violated this provision of the FCRA. For instance, as we previously reported, Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. also was recently hit with putative class actions for allegedly violating the FCRA. Troutman Sanders LLP has extensive experience in FCRA litigation and compliance with respect to challenged disclosure forms. This growing body of lawsuits challenging employer disclosure forms warrants careful review of such forms by companies. Troutman Sanders will continue to monitor this area of law. MIDLAND FUNDING: Denied Request for Reconsideration in "Hallmark" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Leslie G. Foschio of the Western District of New York, denied defendants' motions in the case MICHAEL HALLMARK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COHEN & SLAMOWITZ, MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendants, NO. 11-CV- 842S(F) (W.D.N.Y.) In a class action filed pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq.,(FDCPA), plaintiff seeks damages against defendants for the latter's unauthorized attempt to collect pre-suit filing fees of $140 for which defendant Cohen & Slamowitz (C&S) demanded payment by letter sent prior to the filing of any complaint. Plaintiff requested defendants to produce all credit card agreements and related documents which defendants assert authorize defendants to collect such fees from the 10,250 class members permitted under FDCPA Section 1692f(1). Defendants opposed plaintiff's motion claiming that the requested production would impose a prohibitively expensive compliance cost of at least $300,000, and would be unduly burdensome. In this estimate, defendant Midland stated that it would be required to obtain records for 3,200 class members from the original creditors as Midland did not already possess such records but could obtain them at a cost of $10 per credit cardholder or $32,000, plus Midland's other costs related to such request. In a Decision and Order filed January 8, 2015, the court directed defendants to produce responsive documents limited to a random 10% sample of the cardholder files for 7,050 class members, excluding the 3,200 class member account files which Midland averred it did not presently hold in its possession, thereby relieving Midland of $32,000 in acquisition fees to obtain such records and reducing Midland's production costs to less than 10% of its estimate of $300,000. Midland filed an objection to the Jan. 8, 2015 decision and order and requested the court to modify the decision and order to limit production to 680 (10% of 6,800) as a sample of class members' credit card agreements containing the contract authorization clause defendants assert in support to its authorization defense, applied to the 2,200 more accessible accounts to avoid approximately $25,000 in costs, that Midland claims would be incurred upon Midland's review of the remaining portion, 4,750, of the relevant account files representing the balance of cardholder agreement files for the class. District Judge Wolford, to whom the case was recently re-assigned, requested Magistrate Judge Foschio to consider the objection as a motion for reconsideration. Magistrate Judge Foschio considered Judge Wolford's directive and treated defendants' objections as motions for reconsideration of the January 8, 2015, decision and order and the same are denied. A copy of Magistrate Judge Foschio's decision and order dated April 28, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/jd0CsYfrom Leagle.com. Counsel for Plaintiff: Brian L. Bromberg, Esq. Jonathan R. Miller, Esq. BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C. 26 Broadway, 21st Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: 212-248-7906 - and - Seth Andrews, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER, PPLC 6000 North Bailey Avenue, Suite 1A Amherst, NY 14226 Telephone: 716-564-3288 Andrew C. Sayles, Esq. -- asayles@connellfoley.com -- at CONNELL FOLEY LLP, for Defendant Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP Thomas A. Leghorn, Esq. -- thomas.leghorn@wilsonelser.com -- at WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP, for Defendant Midland Funding, LLC MIRA SUSHI: Faces "Liem" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Selva Liem, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Mira Sushi Inc., Andy Lee, and Jinhee Cho, Case No. 1:15-cv-03970- AT (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 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 Mira Sushi Restaurant located at 46 West 22nd Street, New York, NY 10010. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander Todd Linzer, Esq. FREEMAN LEWIS LLP 228 East 45h Street-17th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 230-8543 Facsimile: (212) 980-4055 E-mail: alinzer@freemanlewis.com MULTIBAND CORP: Removed "Holloway" Suit to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Greg Holloway, Paul Whitman, Curtis Fournier, individually and on behalf of a group of individuals similarly situated v. Multiband Corp. and DIRECTV, LLC, Case No. 0101-5569655, was removed from the Massachusetts District Court to the U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts (Worcester). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.4:15-cv-40069-TSH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-rated claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Harold L. Lichten, Esq. Matthew W. Thomson, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com mthomson@llrlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Bronwyn L. Roberts, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 100 High Street, Suite 2400 Boston, MA 02110-1724 Telephone: (857) 488-4200 Facsimile: (857) 488-4201 E-mail: blroberts@duanemorris.com - and - Gregory S. Bombard, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP 28 State Street, 24th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 213-7000 E-mail: gbombard@duanemorris.com NANTUCKET DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Mason Jar Night Light Products -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Nantucket Distributing Co. LLC, Middleboro, Mass., announced a voluntary recall of about 12,000 Mason Jar Night Light. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The plastic around the base of the light bulb can melt, posing a burn hazard. The night light features a glass mason jar enclosing the 7-watt incandescent light bulb. The night light was sold with a clear glass mason jar enclosure or a silver glass mason jar enclosure. The glass jars have clear raised letters that read "frutta del prato." The night lights measure approximately 10.5 inches high by 3.5 inches wide. The light bulb has a plastic piece securing the light bulb to the glass mason jar. The affected Model No. is DGL0915. The SKU is 30732353. The Model No. and SKU appear on the price tag affixed to the product packaging. There have been two reported incidents involving the night lights with the silver jar in which the plastic around the base of the light bulb melted. No injuries or property damage has been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/KNLcmi The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Christmas Tree Shops, Christmas Tree Shops andThat!, and andThat! retail locations from December 2014 through March 2015 for approximately $5. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled night lights and return them to any Christmas Tree Shops, Christmas Tree Shops andThat!, or andThat! store to receive a full refund. NASDAQ OMX: Three Law Firms Reach Settlement of Class Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ The law firms of Entwistle & Cappucci, Finkelstein Thompson and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson disclsoed that they have reached an agreement to settle claims against The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., The NASDAQ Stock Market and certain individual defendants, on behalf of a class of investors who suffered losses caused by system-wide disruptions in the handling of the Facebook, Inc. initial public offering. In class action litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York before the Honorable Robert W. Sweet, plaintiffs alleged that the NASDAQ Defendants violated federal and state law by failing to disclose technology weaknesses in the Exchange's IPO systems and vulnerability to system failures, and by negligently designing and testing its IPO systems for the Facebook offering. In a landmark settlement, the first of its kind with a national securities exchange, NASDAQ has agreed to pay the sum of $26.5 million to compensate customers who were adversely impacted by the system failures on the day of the IPO, May 18, 2012. The settlement is in addition to the $62 million accommodation plan NASDAQ previously announced on March 22, 2013, following commencement of the class action. The settlement will be presented to Judge Sweet for approval following formal notice to the class. The parties will jointly request the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hold in abeyance the NASDAQ Defendants' appeal of the ruling by Judge Sweet denying their motion to dismiss, pending final approval of the proposed settlement. The case is captioned In re Facebook Inc. IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, (NASDAQ Actions) MDL No. 12-2389 (RWS). NASSAU COUNTY: Court Halts Strip-Search Payment ----------------------------------------------- Luca Marzorati, writing for Capital Network, reports that a three- judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stayed an $11.5 million settlement that Nassau County was slated to pay to thousands of plaintiffs who were strip-searched at a county jail. The ruling comes after a landmark Supreme Court decision threw the class-action suit into tumult, and may save Nassau County from paying the plaintiffs at all. The case stems from a policy in place from 1996 to 1999, when suspects charged with misdemeanors or non-criminal offenses were strip searched for contraband before entering the Nassau County Correctional Center. In a 2002 decision in a separate case, Shain v. Ellison, the Second Circuit found this policy unconstitutional. The current strip search case -- O'Day v. Nassau County -- has been ricocheting through the judicial system since it was originally filed 16 years ago. In 2003, following their loss in Shain, Nassau County lawyers admitted liability in the O'Day case in order to stop class certification, hoping to cap their payout at $35,000 each for the 10 named plaintiffs. However, an appellate court allowed for a class-action suit, enlarging the plaintiff pool to 17,000 people. After a bench trial in 2009, a federal judge determined that the plaintiffs should be awarded $500 per search in compensation for their loss of dignity -- over $11.5 million in total. Yet before a cent could be paid, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, ruling that jails were justified in using strip searches to root out contraband. "Correctional officials have a legitimate interest, indeed a responsibility, to ensure that jails are not made less secure by reason of what new detainees may carry in on their bodies," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. In light of the Supreme Court judgment, the case was reheard and overturned, as Judge Denis Hurley of the Eastern District of New York held that there were no federal or civil rights claims against Nassau County. But at the end of his April 2014 ruling, the judge held open the possibility that the plaintiffs had their state constitutional rights violated. Hurley ordered Nassau County to post the $11.5 million within 30 days. The unanimous decision issued by a three-judge panel both delays any turnover of the $11.5 million to a holding fund, and casts doubt upon the chances of the plaintiffs prevailing. The panel ruled that Nassau County -- which has a 2015 operating budget of roughly $3 billion -- is clearly able to pay the settlement sum if mandated by a court, and that the payouts will take a long amount of time regardless of whether the court gets the money now or later. "We are pleased that the court agreed with our arguments that a bond is not necessary. This will avoid wasting county resources on matters that we may prevail on appeal," Nassau County attorney Carnell Foskey said in a statement. Lawyers for Nassau County now hope that the Court will nullify the settlement altogether. In a brief, they argued that there are no similar cases before the state courts, and that the claim was "never enunciated by New York State, and . . . only briefly mentioned in the original complaint(s) but never argued, explored, or litigated to that point." Robert Herbst, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs, had written a letter to the court asking the judges to deliver an opinion after granting the hold last December. The delivery of the nine-page opinion now sets up the case to proceed to oral arguments. According to Herbst's brief, the case was down to tying up "loose ends" before the Florence decision invalidated the settlement and put $3.8 million in attorneys' fees in limbo. "We welcome the issuance of a decision on the state's pending appeal. We can now get a date for oral argument so that this appeal, which has been fully briefed since February, can be resolved as soon as possible," Mr. Herbst told Capital. The Second Circuit will hear their argument within months. At that point, the Court will either rule on the case in its entirety or send it the New York State Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, to evaluate whether any state constitutional claims were violated. Only then will the payouts, if any, begin. NAT'L FOOTBALL: Garretson to Negotiate Healthcare Lien Discounts ---------------------------------------------------------------- David Armstrong, writing for Bloomberg, reports that nearly a fifth of the National Football League settlement approved compensating former players with head injuries could go to their health insurers instead. As a result of federal laws and court rulings enabling insurers to recover costs of medical treatment for injuries, Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers will be reimbursed before players receive any money. Their share will reduce the value of a deal already criticized by some ex-players' lawyers as inadequate. "It is an enormous problem," said George Washington University law professor Alan B. Morrison, who filed an amicus brief in the case in federal district court in Philadelphia expressing concern about the payments to health insurers. It could take a year or longer to sort out how much is owed to which insurers, Morrison said. The settlement of the class-action lawsuit alleging that the NFL failed to properly investigate and respond to the risk of concussion-causing hits is expected to pay up to $1 billion to more than 20,000 retired players. The agreement allows for payments of up to $5 million to injured players, or their surviving family members, depending on the severity of the illness or injury. For instance, a player diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), or Lou Gehrig's disease, could collect up to $5 million, while someone with Parkinson's disease would be eligible for a maximum award of $3.5 million. Most of those awards will be reduced by payments to health insurers, often referred to as medical liens. Mark Wahlstrom, the president of a Phoenix company that helps administer class-action cases and reviewed medical billings in the NFL case, said insurers could end up taking 15 percent to 18 percent of the compensation set aside for the players. Among the biggest beneficiaries will be Medicare, the government insurance program for the elderly and disabled. Over the past decade, federal laws have enhanced Medicare's ability to recover treatment costs by mandating that it be notified of any legal settlements paid to beneficiaries. Last year, Medicare netted $2.5 billion from taking a cut of payments made to its beneficiaries by third parties. In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that some private insurers also have the right to recover payments made to treat injuries caused by a third party, a legal concept known as subrogation. Bloomberg News reported in April that an insurer is seeking to recoup $3.4 million from a San Francisco Giants fan who was left in a coma after being beaten by two Los Angeles Dodgers fans. To help minimize the losses for ex-players, the federal court in the NFL case appointed the Cincinnati-based Garretson Resolution Group Inc. to negotiate discounts of the health-care liens. Garretson said in a court affidavit that it typically negotiates a discount with Medicare and Medicaid on behalf of all the class members. The judge in the case, Anita Brody, said in her ruling that paying insurers before the players was "reasonable" given the significant penalties for failing to do so. Hiring Garretson will help streamline the process and speed up payments to the players, she wrote in her ruling. While he couldn't estimate the total payout to health insurers, Christopher Seeger, the lead counsel for the ex-players, said the discounts will save money for victims. "We are a few weeks away from finalizing discussions with the government and we will get substantial discounts on liens," he said. "This is going to be a huge success for players." NATIONAL RAILROAD: Judge Narrows Claim in "Campbell" Suit --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion in the case KENNETH CAMPBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 99-2979 (EGS) (D.D.C.) On March 1, 2012, the court entered an amended scheduling order that would permit National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to depose any individual who submits an affidavit, declaration, or statement in support of plaintiff's motion for class certification. Plaintiffs Robert Guerra and Terrence Whitesides each submitted declarations in support of plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Rather than deposing everyone who submitted a declaration, Amtrak selected 41 individuals, including Guerra and Whitesides. Mr. Guerra's deposition was noticed for 9:00 a.m. on June 7, 2012 in Washington, D.C. Shortly after 9:00 a.m., plaintiffs' counsel informed defendant's counsel by phone that Mr. Guerra would not be attending, reasoning that Mr. Guerra decided not to appear for his deposition out of personal concerns and fears of retaliation, including possible retribution by former co-workers if he were to testify. Amtrak's counsel had prepared for the deposition before it was cancelled. On the other hand, Mr. Whitesides was to be deposed in New York City on May 2, 2012 at 2:00 p.m., but on May 1, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel informed defendant's counsel that the deposition could not go forward. Plaintiffs' counsel received a phone call from Terrence Whitesides who experienced a death in his family this evening, apparently a relative to whom he was close. Plaintiffs' counsel later proposed that the deposition take place on May 23, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in Washington, D.C., but on May 22, 2012, plaintiffs' counsel cancelled Mr. Whitesides's deposition, due to their inability to contact Mr. Whitesides. Amtrak's attorneys had twice begun preparing for Mr. Whitesides's deposition. Amtrak filed a motion for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(d), which seeks exclusion of the legal claims of Guerra and Whitesides and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. Judge Sullivan granted in part and denied in part Amtrak's motion for exclusion of plaintiffs Guerra and Whitesides, and for related costs. A copy of Judge Sullivan's memorandum opinion dated May 4, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/X7Jcqwfrom Leagle.com. KENNETH CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC, Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C, Byron Perkins, GORDON, SILBERMAN, WIGGINS & CHILDS, P.C., Jon Goldfarb, GORDON, SILBERMAN, WIGGINS & CHILDS, P.C., Robert Childs, GORDON, SILBERMAN, WIGGINS & CHILDS, P.C. & Scott Gilliland, GORDON, SILBERMAN, WIGGINS & CHILDS, P.C. DONALD BATTS, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C PATRICIA YOUNG-BOSEMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C KENNETH MCDANIEL, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC VICKI JONES-WHITTIES, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C TREADWELL SMITH, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C SABRENNA MUMPHREY, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C RICKY MURDOCK, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C CHARMIN BARROW, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C TIMOTHY MCKISSIC, Plaintiff, represented by Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C CARLOS BELGRAVE, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C AUDLEY BOLAND, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C DONALD RODGERS, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C HAROLD REDFERN, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C REACHELLE FRANCIS, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C BERTHA KELLY, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C MICHAEL HELTON, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C WILLIAM MILLER, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C DARYL LATHAM, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C LYSA RIDLEY-JONES, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos, GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC, Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C DARRELL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos, GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC, Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C KIRK MARSHALL, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos, GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC, Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C CARL BETTERSON, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos, GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC, Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC & Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C PENNSYLVANIA FEDERATION OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos, GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC & Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC ALL PLAINTIFFS, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis A. Corkery, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, Matthew K. Handley, WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS,Timothy B. Fleming, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN PANTAZIS, PLLC, Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C, Robert Mark Bruskin, WASHINGTON LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & Russell W. Adams, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by Bryan C. Shartle, SESSIONS & FISHMAN, David Israel, Sessions, Fishman, Nathan & Israel, L.L.C., Grace E. Speights, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Jeffrey A. Bartos, GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC, Kevin G. Barreca, SESSIONS, FISHMAN & NATHAN LLP, Thomas Edward Reinert, Jr, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP, Joyce E. Taber, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKUS LLP, Krissy Anne Katzenstein, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Marianne Hogan, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & William E. Doyle, Jr., MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN & OILERS, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Bartos, GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN & BARTOS, PC, Joseph Guerrieri, Jr., GUERRIERI, EDMOND, CLAYMAN, & BARTOS PC & Michael Stephen Wolly, ZWERDING. PAUL, KAHN & WOLLY, PC INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHOP BUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, DROP FORGERS AND HELPERS, Defendant, represented by Michael Stephen Wolly, ZWERDING. PAUL, KAHN & WOLLY, PC AMTRAK INSPECTOR GENERAL, Movant, represented by Colin Christopher Carriere, AMTRAK AUGUSTINE GLASS, JR, Plaintiff, represented by Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C ARSHELL QUALLS, Plaintiff, represented by Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C ED CARR, Plaintiff, represented by Warren K. Kaplan, WASHINGTON LAWYER'S COMMITTEE FOR C NCS MULTISTAGE: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Mendez" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Tristan Mendez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCS Multistage, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01396 (S.D. Tex., May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. NCS Multistage, LLC is an oilfield services company with locations throughout the United States offering multistage completion services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com NISSAN: Class Action Filed by Altima Owners Over Rust Issue ----------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Yaeger, writing for 41 Action News, reports that a 41 Action News investigation has spurred a class action lawsuit on behalf of Nissan Altima owners who say they have a dangerous problem right beneath their feet. Many car owners may not even know they have a problem until they look underneath their car. In February, the 41 Action News investigators uncovered more than 400 complaints from Nissan Altima owners frustrated about rusting in their cars' floorboards. Some owners had rusting large enough to see through and in some cases, put their hands or feet through the hole in their car floor. The complaints came from model years 2002-2006 Nissan Altimas and logged in from all parts of the country, not just areas with snow where road salt might cause problems. Despite a large number of complaints, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration said the issue is not safety related and so would not be under their jurisdiction for action. They have had no reports of injuries or deaths related to the problem. Many owners have received estimates ranging from $2500 to $5000 to have the issue repaired. However, they may now have a legal channel to voice their concerned. A Kansas City law firm has filed a class action lawsuit in federal court in California, where Nissan's operations are incorporated in the United States. "There's a serious economic impact to these impacted consumers who are facing massive costs for repairs relative to the value of their vehicle," said Tim Dollar, an attorney with Dollar, Burns and Becker. The suit was just filed in federal court in April. Consumers who are interested in joining the suit can contact Dollar's firm directly. "This issue deserves attention and a fair hearing," Dollar said. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Feldman Shepherd Files Train Accident Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Valley Forge ParkFeldman Shepherd lawyers Alan M. Feldman, Daniel J. Mann and Edward S. Goldis have commenced a lawsuit on behalf of the family of Fenjin He, who was fatally injured on May 17, 2014 in the area of the shuttered Port Kennedy train station in Valley Forge, Pa. Mr. He and a friend, Zoujun Lin, were taking nature photographs early that Saturday morning when a Norfolk Southern freight train traveling in a westbound direction approached them from behind. Despite having a clear view of Mr. He and his friend on the tracks in front of them, neither the engineer nor the conductor sounded the train's horn in order to warn the pedestrians of the train's approach. They were killed instantly. Fenjin He was well-respected in the Chinese-American communities not only in Philadelphia, but in New York City, New Jersey, Delaware and Washington, D.C. Coming to the United States from a rural area of China, Mr. He became Vice President and CEO of Nature Soy, a company employing nearly 100 people and manufacturing a variety of soy products. Mr. He had a Master's Degree from Brigham Young University and a Ph.D. from Utah State in Food Science. In addition to his business activities, he was a singer in the Philly Pops Orchestra and a sponsor of many charitable activities and Chinese-American cultural events. Fenjin He is survived by his wife Sunfei Ye and his daughters Lily He and Marilyn He. OCWEN LOAN: Judge Denied Member's Bid for Discovery in "Lee" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman of the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, denied settlement class member's motion for discovery in the case JENNIFER LEE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., Defendants, CONSENT CASE NO. 0:14-CV- 60649-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.) Margo Perryman is a settlement class member in this lender-placed insurance class action case. Perryman seeks to compel the parties to provide her with discovery already produced to settlement class counsel. She says she needs the discovery to help her make an informed decision about whether to support, object, or opt out of the settlement. Her requested discovery relates to the necessity of the claims- made structure of the proposed settlement, which was agreed to by the parties. According to her, whether a claims-made structure is truly necessary to effectuate the settlement is one of the relevant factors the court will consider at the June 11, 2015 final approval hearing to determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. According to Perryman's argument, where it is possible to pay at least some claims automatically, those claims should be paid without requiring claims forms. Her sought-after discovery is designed to probe the view that no claims can be paid automatically. Magistrate Judge Goodman denied class member Margo Perryman's motion for discovery. A copy of Judge Goodman's order dated April 28, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/tB4Q8Jfrom Leagle.com. Jennifer Lee, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Jason L. Solotaroff, Anderson & Stewart, LLP, John Gravante, III, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Margery Ellen Golant, Margery E. Golant, P.A., Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck, Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan, Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC, Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Howard Mitchell Bushman, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Jeffrey N. Golant, Joseph Gurian, Gurian Group, P.A., Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Mary Kestenbaum Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Sean Michael Shaw, Merlin Law Group & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. Enrique Dominguez, TX, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. Frances Erving, FL, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. Lisa Chamberlin Engelhardt, VA, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. Johnnie Erving, FL, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. Douglas A. Patrick, NJ, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. Shelia D. Heard, IL, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. Gerald Coulthurst, NY, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. John Clarizia, MA, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A. OCWEN Loan Servicing LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian V. Otero, Hunton & Williams, Corey Anthony Lee, Hunton & Williams, Ryan A. Becker, Hunton & Williams, LLP, Stephen R. Blacklocks, Hunton & Williams, LLP & Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A. Assurant Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian P. Perryman, Cralton, Fields, Jorden, Burt, P.A., Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A., W. Glenn Merten, Carlton, Fields, Jorden, Burt, PA, Farrokh Jhabvala, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. & Irma T. Reboso-Solares, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Brian P. Perryman, Cralton, Fields, Jorden, Burt, P.A., Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A., W. Glenn Merten, Carlton, Fields, Jorden, Burt, PA, Farrokh Jhabvala, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. & Irma T. Reboso-Solares, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A. Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, Defendant, represented by Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A.. OILWELL GUIDANCE: "Barge" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- David Barge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Oilwell Guidance, L.L.C., Case No. 4:15-cv-01397 (S.D. Tex., May 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Oilwell Guidance, L.L.C. operates an oilfield service company, providing MWD services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP 1150 Bissonnet Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com OXO: Recalls Nest Booster Seats Due to Fall Hazard -------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with OXO, of El Paso, Texas, announced a voluntary recall of about 25,000 Nest Booster Seat in the U.S. and 130 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The stitching on the restraint straps can loosen which allows the straps to separate from the seat, posing a fall hazard to children. This recall involves the Nest Booster Seat sold in green (model 6367200), pink (model 6367300), taupe (model 6367500) and orange (model 6367400) with a white base. A sticker affixed to the underside of the seat reads "Nest Booster Seat" with the model number and manufacture date. The manufacture date code represents the month and year in MMYY format and recalled units have the code: 0714, 0814, 0914, 1014, 1114 or 1214. The formed plastic seats are about 13 inches wide by 14 inches tall by 12 inches deep and have a grey three-point child restraint strap system. The OXO logo is embossed on the restraint system's buckle. The firm has received five reports of the stitching coming undone releasing the straps following a child pulling on the strap or an adult tightening the straps. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/EnqwRm The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at buybuy Baby, Toys"R"Us/Babies"R"Us and independent specialty stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com from September 2014 through April 2015 for about $55. Consumers should immediately stop using the Nest booster seats and contact OXO for a free repair kit with redesigned safety straps and installation instructions. PALATINE, IL: 7th Cir. Keeps Judgment in Parking Ticket Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Circuit Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, affirmed the district court's judgment in the case JASON SENNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF PALATINE, ILLINOIS, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-3671 (7th Cir.) Plaintiff-Appellant Jason Senne filed a suit which he sought to be certified as a class action against the Village of Palatine and asks for statutory damages for the Village violation against the Dirver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2721 et seq.. Plaintiff alleges that the incident happened last 2010 when plaintiff parked his car in front of his house in the Village of Palatine and that around 1:35 a.m. police officer wrote a parking ticket and filled the ticket with plaintiff's name, date of birth, sex, height, weight, driver's license number, and address, plus information about the vehicle. Two years later, after a panel had affirmed the dismissal of the suit by the district court on the ground that the disclosure of Senne's personal information on the parking ticket was a permissible use, the court granted rehearing en banc. The en banc court agreed with the panel that placing the parking ticket on the windshield of Senne's car had been a disclosure within the meaning of the Act, 695 F.3d 597 (7th Cir. 2012), but remanded for a determination by the district court. On remand, following discovery and the filing of cross motions for summary judgment, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Village on the ground that the information disclosed on the parking tickets had furthered both of these purposes. Senne has again appealed. Circuit Judge Posner affirmed the district court's judgment. A copy of Judge Posner's decision dated April 28, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/SJkzMEfrom Leagle.com. The Seventh Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Richard Posner, Diane S. Sykes and Simon. PNC N.A.: Faces "King" Suit Over HAMP Eligibility Policies ---------------------------------------------------------- Roselia King, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. PNC N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-03013 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015), asserts a claim for relief against the Defendant for failing to correctly determine Plaintiff's eligibility under Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), denying her a modification to her detriment, and for failing to communicate the reasons for the loan denial. PNC N.A. owns and operates a financial service company with offices at 175 Mile Crossing Boulevard, Rochester, New York 14624. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd S. Garber, Esq. D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP 1311 Mamaroneck Ave., Suite 220 White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 298-3283 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com gblankinship@fbfglaw.com - and - Norah Hart, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF NORAH HART 305 Broadway, 9th Floor New York. NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 897-5865 Facsimile: (212) 320-0373 E-mail: nhart@hart-smart.net PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Defibaugh" Suit Removed to Md. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Thomas Defibaugh, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 21-C-001875-OT, was removed from the Circuit Court for Baltimore City to the U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01478-ELH to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Credit Reporting Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jane Santoni, Esq. Kathleen Hyland, Esq. WILLIAMS AND SANTONI LLP 401 Washington Ave Ste 200 Towson, MD 21204 Telephone: (410) 938-8666 Facsimile: (410) 938-8668 E-mail: jane@williams-santonilaw.com kat@williams-santonilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren M. Burnette, Esq. MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 651-3703 Facsimile: (717) 651-3707 E-mail: lmburnette@mdwcg.com PRECISION TRADING: Recalls Premium(R) Espresso Makers ----------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Precision Trading Corp., of Miami, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of about 4,700 PREMIUM(R) Espresso Makers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The filler cap at the top of the unit can crack and allow steam to escape, posing a risk of burns to the user. In addition, the cap can pop off unexpectedly as a result of pressure buildup, posing a risk of injury to a bystander. This recall involves Precision Trading Corp.'s PREMIUM(R) four-cup Espresso Makers manufactured in September 2014 and November 2014. The recalled units have model number PEM585 and product date code "0914" or "1114" printed on a rating label affixed to the bottom of the espresso maker. The Premium logo is printed on the bottom front of the espresso maker. Espresso makers with "2015" marked on the cap are not included in this recall. The firm has received one report of a consumer who sustained burns to her arm when the cap unexpectedly released steam from the espresso maker. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/wzLgLk The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Brand Mart U.S.A. and other retail stores in Florida and Puerto Rico between November 2014 and February 2015 for about $30. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled espresso makers and contact Precision Trading Corp. to request a free replacement cap. PYRAMID OPERATING: Sued Over Violation of Fair Labor Standard Act ----------------------------------------------------------------- Theodore Williams, John Mack, Chavez Lane and Bianca Faircloth on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Pyramid Operating Group Inc., Aramingo Operating Group Inc., Emad Elgeddawy, HEM Mgmt. 733, and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:15- cv-02401 (E.D. Pa., May 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz,Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com QEP MIDSTREAM: Sued Over Misleading Registration Statement ---------------------------------------------------------- W. Joss Sanderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs. QEP Midstream Partners, LP, Tesoro Logistics LP, Susan O. Rheney, Don A. Turkleson, and Gregory C. King, Case No. 5:15-cv-00428-XR (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2015), is an action for violations of of the Securities Exchange Act and Securities and Exchange Commission, specifically by making false and materially misleading Registration Statement. QEP Midstream Partners, LP is a Delaware Limited Partnership that provides natural gas and crude oil gathering and transportation services. Tesoro Logistics LP is a Delaware Limited Partnership that operates a full-service logistics company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq. Patrick W. Powers, Esq. POWERS TAYLOR LLP 8150 N Central Expwy, Suite 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-8900 Facsimile: (214) 239-8901 E-mail: meredith@powerstaylor.com patrick@powerstaylor.com - and - Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM 8117 Preston, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75225 Telephone: (214) 706-9314 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com QUALITY BLOW: Faces "Rucker" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Damien Rucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Quality Blow Molding, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01039 (N.D. Ohio, May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Quality Blow Molding, Inc. is a plastic product manufacturer. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. Sonia M. Whitehouse, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com sonia@lazzarolawfirm.com RESTAURANTE EL: Faces "Cardona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Veronica Cardona, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Restaurante El Gran Conquistador Inc. d/b/a el Conquistador restaurant and Silvio Mendia a/k/a Silvio Memdia, Case No. 1:15-cv-03943 (S.D.N.Y., May 22, 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 two restaurants in Westchester County, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick S. Almonrode, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: patalmonrode@jtblawgroup.com RHODE ISLAND: Retirees Invited to Weigh-in on Pension Case Accord ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tom Mooney, writing for Providence Journal, reports that notices are in the mail to some 60,000 public-sector workers and retirees asking whether they wish to weigh in on the proposed class-action settlement to the state's pension lawsuit. Superior Court Judge Sarah Taft-Carter granted preliminary approval of the deal, triggering the official notification process. Those who wish to speak at a May 20 "fairness hearing" on the settlement had until May 15 to notify the court they wish to be heard. In her decision, Taft-Carter said that "on a preliminary basis, the proposed settlement appears to be fair and within the range of settlements that could be worthy of final approval as fair, reasonable and adequate." Reaching a settlement, the judge said, would save the unions and retiree groups that sued the state over benefit cuts "the risks inherent in litigation as well as from the additional delays and expense of continued litigation and bring some finality to this long-running dispute over the plaintiffs' retirement benefits." The settlement, which relaxes some of the retirement-age requirements set in the 2011 pension law and provides for some small cost-of-living increases, still needs legislative approval. State lawyer John Tarantino said that he expected there would be ample time for the settlement to get necessary approval by both Taft-Carter and lawmakers before this year's legislative session ends. The 12-page notification letters explain the history of the lawsuit and go into great detail about the economic terms of the proposed settlement. The letters identify the various groups of state workers and retirees who have been approved as class-action participants and make clear that individual members of those groups cannot opt out of the settlement. They can only object to the judge and explain why they feel the settlement should not be approved for anyone. Tarantino said the two sides have set aside three days for that hearing but how long it goes will depend on how many people wish to speak. Not everyone has signed on to the agreement. About 800 public safety workers, including police officers and firefighters in Cranston and the members of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, which has locals in about 20 Rhode Island communities, have chosen to take their case to trial. That trial could begin in June. RIG POWER: "Morgan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Garland Morgan, Ruben Ramirez, Jorge Pinedo, David Duron, Alfelio Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rig Power, Inc. and M3P Energy, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv- 00073 (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants provide rental equipment and personnel for companies in the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua C. Borsellino, Esq. BORSELLINO, P.C. 1020 Macon St., Suite 15 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 908-9861 E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com SANDISK CORP: Faces Securities Class Action in N.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: "To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of SanDisk Corporation (NASDAQ: SNDK) between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired SanDisk Corporation ("SanDisk") securities between October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information click here: http://zlk.9nl.com/sandisk-infosheet The complaint alleges, among other allegations, that Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding quality control within the corporate organizational structure. On March 26, 2015, the Company issued a press release announcing that it expects its revenue for the fiscal first quarter to be approximately $1.3 billion, rather than the previously forecasted revenue of $1.40 billion to $1.45 billion. Upon this news, shares of SanDisk declined $14.98 per share to close at $66.20 per share. If you suffered a loss in SanDisk you have until May 29, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit http://zlk.9nl.com/sandisk-infosheet. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes." SEAWORLD INC: Texas Resident Sues Over Well-Being of Whales ----------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Danner, writing for San Antonio Express-News, reports that the latest suit was filed in San Antonio federal court by a Texas resident who alleges SeaWorld and related entities have violated state law by disseminating false information regarding the health and well-being of the whales at its San Antonio park. Similar lawsuits have been filed in recent weeks in federal courts in San Diego, California, and Orlando, Florida, where the company is based. The San Antonio suit seeks certification as a class-action and unspecified financial damages from the company. SeaWorld representatives didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. A lawyer for the plaintiff was unavailable for comment. SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Shabnam Vafaee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Securus Technologies, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-00809- JVS-JEM (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of placing calls to the consumers' cellular telephone using its automatic dialing equipment without prior express consent. Securus Technologies, Inc. a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Securus provides communication solutions for the corrections industry in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bob Semnar, Esq. Jared M. Hartman, Esq. SEMNAR & HARTMAN, LLP 400 S. Melrose Drive, Suite 209 Vista, CA 92081 Telephone: (951) 293-4187 Facsimile: (888) 819-8230 E-mail: bob@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com SLATER & ZURZ: Ohio Ct. App. Affirms Judgment in "Beck" Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Timothy P. Cannon of the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Summit County, affirmed the trial court's judgment in the case BECK ENERGY CORP., Appellant, v. RICHARD ZURZ, JR., et al., Appellees, C.A. NO. 27393 (Ohio Ct. App.) Attorneys James Peters, Richard Zurz and Mark Ropchock and their respective law firms, Slater & Zurz, LLP, Roetzel and Andress, LPA, and Peters Law Office Co., LPA filed a suit on behalf of certain clients, a class action suit against Beck Energy Corp. in Monroe County, Ohio, seeking a judicial determination as to the validity and enforceability of certain drilling leases between Beck and the members of the class. In 2012, Beck filed a complaint, assigned case No. CV 2012 01 0275, against the lawyers and their respective law firms. Beck alleged tortious interference with contractual relations and defamation. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C). The trial judge converted that motion to a Civ.R. 56(C) motion for summary judgment. Before the trial court issued its judgment, Beck voluntarily dismissed the case. Beck re-filed the complaint against the same aforementioned parties. In the re-filed complaint, appellant again alleged appellees engaged in tortious inference with contractual and business relations. Appellant also alleged civil conspiracy, defamation, and sought injunctive relief. Appellees filed answers, and Appellees Zurz, Slater & Zurz, LLP, and Ropchock, filed a Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings. After being granted two separate extensions, appellant filed a memorandum opposing the motions to dismiss. The trial court issued an order converting the motion for judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment. On April 25, 2014, appellant filed a motion for continuance pursuant to Civ.R. 56(F). The trial court granted appellees' motions for summary judgment. Appellant appealed. Judge Cannon affirmed the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. A copy of Judge Cannon's decision and journal entry dated April 29, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/5M8xTLfrom Leagle.com. Attorney for Appellant: Craig T. Conley, Esq. CRAIG T. CONLEY CO 220 Market Ave S #604 Canton, OH 44702 Telephone: 330-453-1900 Jason D. Winter -- JWinter@reminger.com -- Holy Marie Wilson -- hwilson@reminger.com -- Julian T. Emerson -- jemerson@reminger.com -- at Reminger Attorneys at Law, for Appellees Orville L. Reed, III -- oreed@stark-knoll.com -- at Stark & Knoll, Attorney at Law, for Appellees The Ohio Court of Appeals panel consists of Presiding Judge Donna Carr, Judge Carla Moore and Judge Timothy P. Cannon of the 11th District Court of Appeals. SONOMA, CA: Judge Barred Plaintiffs From Filing Amended Complaint ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the Northern District of California denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend in the case RAFAEL MATEOS SANDOVAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-05817-THE (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on December 2, 2011, challenging under both state and federal law defendants' enforcement of California Vehicle Code Section 14602.6, which authorizes the impoundment of a vehicle for thirty days under limited circumstances. Plaintiffs twice filed amended complaints pursuant to orders granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss, and which also granted plaintiffs leave to amend. Plaintiffs operative complaint is the third amended class action complaint for damages (TAC), filed on August 18, 2014. Since the TAC was filed, the court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff Ruiz on his claim that the extended duration of his vehicle's impoundment violated the Fourth Amendment, but also to the individual defendants based on their qualified immunity. The court also denied plaintiff Ruiz's motion for class certification, finding that he failed to prove numerosity, commonality, or typicality, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Finally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the court's denial of the Sonoma County defendants' motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds, lifting the stay against those defendants in this court. Plaintiff filed another motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. Judge Henderson denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the complaint. A copy of Judge Henderson's order dated April 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/tzO9jwfrom Leagle.com. Rafael Mateos Sandova and Simeon Avendano Ruiz, individually and as class representatives, Plaintiffs, represented by: Alicia Roman, Esq. ALICIA ROMAN LAW OFFICE 719 Orchard St Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Telephone: 707-526-4100 Facsimile: 707-573-1094 Email: aliciaromanlaw@yahoo.com - and - Cynthia Morrison Anderson-Barker, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CYNTHIA ANDERSON-BARKER 3435 Wilshire Blvd #2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: 213-381-3246 Facsimile: 213-252-0091 - and - Donald Webster Cook, Esq. Robert Frederick Mann, Esq. ROBERT MANN & DONALD COOK 3435 Wilshire Blvd #2910 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: 213-252-9444 Facsimile: 213-252-0091 County of Sonoma, Sonoma County Sheriff's Department, Steve Freitas, Defendants, represented by Richard William Osman -- rosman@bfesf.com -- Thomas F. Bertrand -- tbertrand@bfesf.com -- at Bertrand, Fox, Elliot, Osman & Wenzel City of Santa Rosa and Santa Rosa Police Department, Defendants, represented by Matthew James LeBlanc, Office of the City Attorney & Robert Lear Jackson, Office of the City Attorney SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS: Judge Narrows Claim in "Garcia" Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein of the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion in the case LUIS GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPECTRUM OF CREATIONS INC. et al., Defendants, NO. 14 CIV 5298 (AJN) (S.D. N.Y.) Spectrum of Creations operates a business called Food Trends. Plaintiff Luis Garcia was initially hired in December 2008 to work as a counter person, food preparer and delivery person, while Food Trends was still operating as a restaurant. Sometime in 2009, the restaurant closed its inhouse services and became a full-time catering business. Beginning with the changeover, Garcia worked as a food preparer and delivery person for the catering business, until his termination in March 2012. Plaintiff Miguel Flores was initially hired in June 2006 to work as a delivery person. From July 2009 until the end of his employment in March 2014, Flores worked as a delivery dispatcher and delivery person. Throughout the entire period of his employment, Flores also worked as a food preparer. Garcia filed a suit against his former employer, Spectrum of Creations, Inc. d/b/a Food Trends, and Alla Moskowicz for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. (FLSA), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL). On January 21, 2015, Flores joined the lawsuit, and three other individuals have joined the lawsuit since. Plaintiffs move to have the case conditionally approved as a collective action with notice being sent to all non-exempt employees. Plaintiffs seek an order granting the following: (1) Conditional certification of the FLSA claim as a representative collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) on behalf of Covered Employees; (2) Court-facilitated notice including Spanish translation of the FLSA action to Covered Employees, including a consent form or opt-in form as authorized by the FLSA; (3) Approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the consent form; (4) Production in Excel format of names, Social Security numbers, titles, compensation rates, dates of employment, last known mailing addresses, email addresses, all known and telephone numbers of all Covered Employees within 10 days of Court approval of conditional certification; and (5) Posting by plaintiffs' counsel of the notice, along with the consent forms, in defendants' place of business where Covered Employees are employed during regular business hours. Judge Gorenstein granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion for conditional approval of a collective action. A copy of Magistrate Judge Gorenstein's opinion and order dated May 4, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/UioL4gfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: 212-465-1180 Facsimile: 212-465-1181 Email: info@leelitigation.com Defendants, represented by David Brian Feldman -- dfeldman@mosessinger.com -- John Vincent Baranello -- jbaranello@mosessinger.com -- at Moses & Singer LLP SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Atty. Fees Granted in Right of Way Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton of the District of Massachusetts granted plaintiffs' motion in the case RICHARD KINGSBOROUGH et al., for themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS, LLC and WILTEL COMMUNICATIONS, LLC. Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-12049-NMG (D. Mass.) A class-action settlement resolves a property-rights dispute that arises out of the installation of fiber-optic cable on railroad rights of way by Sprint Communications Company L.P., CenturyLink Communications, LLC f/k/a Qwest Communications Company, LLC, and WilTel Communications, LLC. The claims resolved by the Settlement affect parcels of land in Massachusetts covering approximately 260 miles of rights of way throughout the state. On December 4, 2014, the court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, certifying the settlement class and approving the form and manner of notice. The settlement agreement provides in pertinent part: Settlement class counsel may seek from the court a cash award of fees and expenses from the Settling defendants, in an amount not to exceed the maximum attorneys' fee award, to which the settling defendants will not object. The settlement agreement defines the maximum attorneys' fee award as $868,000. By order dated November 13, 2014, the Court conditioned preliminary approval of the settlement on the reduction of the originally requested $868,000 fee-and-expense award to no more than 25% of the gross value of the settlement, to which plaintiffs' counsel agreed by reducing the request to $597,000. Plaintiffs moved for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to settlement class counsel. Judge Gorton allowed the motion for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses to settlement class counsel and approves a fee-and expense award of $597,000 to settlement class counsel. Defendants shall deposit the fee-and-expense award approved into the interest-bearing escrow account with U.S. Bank in New York, New York, no later than 10 days after the date on which the order and judgment becomes final, that any alleged or actual civil liability against the defendants for attorneys' fees arising out of the tort claims resolved by the Massachusetts Class Settlement Agreement approved by the court is satisfied and extinguished through the defendants' payment of the fee-and-expense award and that any interest earned on the escrow account shall be recognized as gross income of the Qualified Settlement Fund. A copy of Judge Gorton's findings of facts and conclusions of law dated April 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/GxGXfDfrom Leagle.com. Richard Kingsborough, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Cohen, Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP, Daniel J Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP & Katheleen Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC Corey Kingsborough, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Cohen, Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP, Daniel J Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP & Katheleen Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC Stephen A. Hagen, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Cohen, Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP, Daniel J Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP & Katheleen Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC Sarah A. Hagen, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Cohen, Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP, Daniel J Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP & Katheleen Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC Richard C. Caparso, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew W. Cohen, Koonz, McKenney, Johnson, DePaolis & Lighfoot, LLP, Daniel J Millea, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason & Gette LLP & Katheleen Kauffman, Ackerson Kauffman Fex, PC Sprint Communications Company L.P., Defendant, represented by David B. Chaffin, White and Williams LLP CenturyLink Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by Christopher J. Koenigs, Sherman & Howard, David B. Chaffin, White and Williams LLP, J. Emmett Logan, Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP,Joseph E. Jones, Fraser Stryker PC LLO & Michael B. Carroll, Sherman & Howard WilTel Communications, LLC, Defendant, represented by David B. Chaffin, White and Williams LLP SQUARE INC: Credit Card Firm Faces Class Suit by Shierkatz ---------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News, reports that a credit card processor closed a bankruptcy law firm's account as a business supposedly "prohibited" by its contract, Shierkatz RLLP claims in a class action. "The complaint is intended to apply civil rights law to a tech company that is in blatant violation of civil rights of 27 categories of person who are being arbitrarily being discriminated against because of their lawful occupation," William McGrane, an attorney for Shierkatz with McGrane LLP, said in a phone interview. Shierkatz filed the superior court class action on April 17 against Square Inc., a Delaware credit card company that allegedly describes its service is "fast and free -- no commitments or long- term contracts." Square allegedly revealed that it was terminating an account that Shierkatz opened nearly two years ago pursuant to supposed prohibitions in Square's seller agreement. The contract section in question purportedly has customers confirm that they will not accept payment in connection with business activities from bankruptcy attorneys, debt-collection agencies, credit-counseling services, bill-payment services and automated fuel dispensers. Square also lists "drug paraphernalia" and "occult materials" among its list of 28 prohibited business categories, according to the complaint, an amended version of which it filed on April 20. Shierkatz notes that, with the exception of the prohibition on accepting payment in connection with illegal business activity, "each and every other category" of supposedly prohibited businesses is either entirely vague or constitutes an entirely lawful occupation. When Shierkatz opened its account, the only way to access the seller agreement was by clicking a hyperlink at the bottom of Square's website labeled "Legal," according to the complaint. The firm notes that clicking this link was not required to open an account. Square allegedly changed its website later to "inferentially require" new customers to click on a hyperlink called "Seller's Agreement." Shierkatz claims there is "absolutely nothing" to suggest anyone who signed up when it did must click on "Legal," or which otherwise suggests that a person who clicks on "Sign Up" has thereby agreed to whatever separate content might have been accessed by first clicking on "Legal." For those who signed when Shierkatz did, there is "absolutely nothing to suggest that whatever separate content may be viewed by clicking on 'Seller's Agreement' is at variance with the earlier written representations that 'Signing up for Square is fast and free -- no commitments or long-term contracts,'" according to the suit. Shierkatz says the company's warranty moreover "entirely misrepresents the meaning and intent of the sixty-four paragraph long Square seller's agreement." The seller agreement is, "quite literally, a commitment" to, among other things, forever waive the right to jury trial or any access to the courts, Shierkatz claims. Shierkatz wants to represent a class that includes any people or companies whose accounts Square has similarly terminated under the seller agreement, though the business in question has no involvement in any "illegal activity or goods." In addition to damages, the class seeks an injunction against Square for violations of California's Unruh civil rights law and unfair competition law. A Square representative told Courthouse News, "This case is completely without merit and we will defend ourselves vigorously against it." TOP RANK: Faces "Bynum" Suit Over Pacquiao Injury Concealment ------------------------------------------------------------- Chamar Bynum, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Top Rank Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03016 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 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: Todd S. Garber, Esq. D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP. 1311 Mamaroneck Avenue White Plains, NY 10605 Telephone: (914) 298-3281 Facsimile: (914) 824-1561 E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com gblankinship@fbfglaw.com tgarber@fbfglaw.com TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: "Hayes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Teresa Hayes, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Transamerica Premier Life Insurance Company and Monumental Life Insurance Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-00313-JRS (E.D. Va., May 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an insurance company in Chesterfield, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Justus Dean, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM PLC 530 East Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-0808 Facsimile: (804) 767-6777 E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com - and - Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM PLC 530 East Main Street, Suite 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-0808 Facsimile: (804) 767-6777 E-mail: ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com TWEEN BRANDS: Sued For Advertising False Merchandise Prices ----------------------------------------------------------- Theresa Metoyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tween Brands, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01007 (C.D. Cal., May 22, 2015), asserts that the Defendant advertises false original prices, regular prices, and price discounts for its apparel and other merchandise, in its direct marketing to consumers via in-store advertising displays, print advertising, and via its internet website -- http://www.shopjustice.com/ Tween Brands, Inc. owns and operates 77 Justice Stores throughout the state of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Caiafa, Esq. DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION 11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 444-5240 Facsimile: (310) 312-8260 E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com - and - Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF 77-760 Country Club Drive, Suite G Palm Desert, CA 92211 Telephone: (760) 469-5986 Facsimile: (760) 345-1581 E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com UAG FAYETTEVILLE: Removed "Fletcher" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Natasha L. Fletcher, individually and on behalf of all others Similarly situated v. UAG Fayetteville II, LLC and Ally Financial, Inc., Case No. CV15-664- 5, was removed from the Circuit Court of Washington County to the U. S. District Court Western District of Arkansas (Fayetteville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-05117-PKH. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy F. Snively, Esq. SNIVELY LAW FIRM 135 W. Sunbridge Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 695-2444 Facsimile: (479) 695-1120 E-mail: timsnively@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Clifford W. Plunkett, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP 3425 N. Futrall, Suite 103 Fayetteville, AR 72703 Telephone: (479) 695-1103 Facsimile: (479) 695-2147 E-mail: plunkett@fridayfirm.com UBER TECH: Guide-Dog Users' Discrimination Suit May Move Forward ---------------------------------------------------------------- Laura Bliss, writing for CityLab.com, reports that in a ruling that could raise the accountability bar for all tech companies, a federal judge in San Francisco has allowed the National Federation of the Blind of California to pursue a lawsuit that accuses Uber of discrimination against visually impaired guide-dog users. The NFB states that Uber drivers have violated ADA laws on multiple occasions by refusing to serve passengers with service animals. Drivers have also denied transport to blind people without dogs, the organization maintains. In other cases, animals were allowed passage but were allegedly mistreated. According to the original civil complaint, filed in September of 2014: Plaintiffs are aware of more than thirty instances where drivers of UberX vehicles refused to transport blind individuals with service animals. UberX drivers that refused to transport these blind individuals did so after they initially agreed to transport the riders. The UberX drivers denied the requested transportation service after the drivers had arrived and discovered that the riders used service animals. In addition, some UberX drivers seriously mishandle guide dogs or harass blind customers with guide dogs even when they do not outright deny the provision of taxi service. For example, Leena Dawes is blind and uses a guide dog. An UberX driver forced Ms. Dawes' guide dog into the closed trunk of the UberX sedan before transporting Ms. Dawes. When Ms. Dawes realized where the driver had placed her dog, she pleaded with the driver to pull over so that she could retrieve her dog from the trunk, but the driver refused her request. Uber had requested the case to be dismissed, on the basis that its contracts require customers to take disputes to arbitration and argue their complaints as individuals, not in class-action suits, according to SF Gate. The ride-hailing company also argued that it is not a "public accommodation" and therefore not subject to ADA requirements. A federal judge tossed out that reasoning, stating that the NDF could move forward on behalf of its members who haven't signed Uber contracts (i.e., those who haven't necessarily used Uber yet). The ruling is part of a wave of accessibility complaints and lawsuits against Uber and similar companies. Uber came under fire in March after a software bug rendered the app effectively useless for blind users and went unfixed for months. An ongoing lawsuit in Texas debates whether Uber provides sufficient access to wheelchair users, according to the San Francisco Business Times. Lyft was also sued there, but settled privately. And in March, Chris Pangilinan, a former SF Muni engineer, filed a complaint with the DOJ against Leap, the San Francisco private bus start-up with a $6 fare but with no wheelchair access. Ars Technica reports: His complaint alleges that Leap "removed features that made the buses previously wheelchair accessible, such as the front door ramp, and wheelchair securement areas within the vehicle." "I don't want money or anything, what I want is to make sure that the spirit and the letter of the ADA [is considered] in the way that we build or change our transportation in the country," Pangilinan told Ars. "If services like Leap are going to become more popular, then it's harder to fight if we don't change it." It's important to remember that for many vision-impaired people, services like Uber are game-changers. The convenience, relative low cost, and integration (most of the time) with most new smartphones' built-in screen-reading functionality have given the blind community new ways of being independent when it comes to travel. The San Francisco ruling will hopefully set a precedent that shows newer, app-based businesses are accountable to the same civil rights laws as traditional ones. "As a blind person myself, these things [like Uber] are such a leveler of the playing field," Scott Blanks, deputy director of the San Francisco LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired, has said. "They're not a driverless car, but they're a lot closer . . . But, clearly there are some places where the service is not working for people. We're talking about the wheelchair users, people with service dogs, guide dogs, where something that should make life more convenient can in fact make it a lot more frustrating." UNIVERSAL PRESSURE: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice -------------------------------------------------------------- Cesar Soto, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Universal Pressure Pumping, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00424-DAE (W.D. Tex., May 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide 60 days' advance written notice in connection with recent a mass layoff and plant closing at the Defendant's Elmendorf, Texas site of employment. Universal Pressure Pumping, Inc. operates an oil well services company with its principal place of business located at or near 6 Desta Drive, Suite 4400, Midland, Texas 79705. The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen R. Vaught, Esq. BARON AND BUDD PC 3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 521-3605 Facsimile: (214) 520-1181 E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com URS CORPORATION: Sued Over Unlawful Background Check Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Hunter, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons v. URS Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-02300 (N.D. Cal., May 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, specifically by requiring job applicants to sign a standardized background check forms. URS Corporation owns and operates an engineering, design, and construction firm, headquartered at 600 Montgomery Street, 25th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq. TATAR LAW FIRM, APC 3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300 Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (323) 744-1146 Facsimile: (888) 778-5695 E-mail: Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com - and - James A. Francis, Esq. John Soumilas, Esq. FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C. Land Title Building, 19th Floor 100 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19110 Telephone: (215) 735-8600 Facsimile: (215) 940-8000 US BANK: Illegally Collects Post-Judgment Debt Cost, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen J. Todd, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated former and current homeowners in Pennsylvania v. U.S. Bank, National Association and McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C., Case No. 2:15-cv-02866 (E.D. Pa., May 22, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' systemic practices of using unfair means to collect or attempt to collect post-judgment debts costs and interest that were not expressly authorized by the mortgage. U.S. Bank National Association is a national bank with its principal place of business located at 425 Walnut Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, P.C. operates a law firm with its principal office located at 123 South Broad Street, Suite 1400, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael P. Malakoff Jonathan R. Burns, Esq. 437 Grant Street, Suite 200 The Frick Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 281-4217 E-mail: malakoff@mpmalakoff.com burn@mpmalakoff.com UTI DRILLING: Settles Discrimination Claim for $14.5 Million ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Jaffe, writing for The Denver Post, reports that what started with Latino workers on a Western Slope oil rig being called "beaners" and "tacos" and escalated to fistfights and firearms has ended in a $14.5 million discrimination case settlement. Snyder, Texas-based Patterson-UTI Drilling Co. agreed to a no- fault settlement with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the nearly nine-year-long case. Denver Federal Court Judge Wiley Y. Daniel approved a consent decree settling the suit. Citing drill rigs in Colorado, South Dakota and Louisiana, the EEOC said Patterson-UTI engaged in a nationwide pattern of discrimination and harassment based on race and national origin. Pablo Ruenda, a Colorado oil field worker, was one of the three "charging parties" in the lawsuit. Ruenda went to work on a Patterson-UTI rig near Rifle in 2005, said his lawyer Karen Zulauf. "Pablo and the other Hispanics working on the rig were never addressed by their names but were called 'wetback,' 'taco' or 'beaner,' Ms. Zulauf said. The slurs escalated to physical harassment, with workers opening a portable toilet where a Hispanic worker was sitting and throwing a cleaning fluid on him, Ms. Zulauf said. An attempt to drag a Hispanic worker to a hot pipe by two workers led to a melee between white and Latino workers, Ms. Zulauf said. Soon after, one worker brandished a gun at the drill site, she said. Mr. Ruenda voiced his concerns about the deteriorating situation to his supervisor but eventually was fired. Many of these claims formed the bases of the lawsuit, said Andrew Winston, an EEOC senior attorney. "Work on drill rigs is hazardous, and they added to that elements that made it downright dangerous," Winston said. Under the settlement, Patterson-UTI will put nearly $12.3 million into a fund for discrimination victims, with another $2.2 million from separate out-of-court settlements added. As many as 1,000 Patterson-UTI workers and former workers are expected to make claims to the class-action fund, Winston said. The settlement also required Patterson-UTI to take steps to prevent discrimination in the future. These included anti-discrimination training, random interviews with minority employees to ensure there is no discrimination and a process to investigate complaints. The company also agreed to increase recruiting of qualified minority candidates. "We take this matter very seriously and are pleased to have reached a resolution," Andy Hendricks, CEO of Patterson-UTI Energy Inc., the drilling company's parent, said in a statement. "We are committed to providing a safe, welcoming and respectful work environment." UTICA: School District Sued Over Segregation of Refugee Students ---------------------------------------------------------------- John O'Brien, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that some refugee students in the Utica school district aren't allowed to attend the public high school and are shipped to their own school, according to a federal class-action lawsuit filed. Utica's school district won't allow refugees between the ages of 17 and 20 to attend Proctor High School, instead sending them to two alternative schools, the lawsuit said. One is the Newcomer Program at the Mohawk Valley Resource Center for Refugees, where the only class offered is English as a second language, the lawsuit said. Those students can't earn a high school diploma, said the lawsuit, filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union and Legal Services of Central New York. That program has no classes in math, science or history, the lawsuit said. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of six refugee students and a class of similar immigrant students. The district's policy violates a state law that guarantees a free public education anyone under 21, the lawsuit said. "Each came to the United States longing for freedom and opportunity, only now to be the subject of national origin discrimination," the lawsuit said. Utica schools Superintendent Bruce Karam said he hasn't seen the lawsuit and will respond more fully after it's been served on the district. "From what I have been advised, the allegations are totally unfounded and without merit," Karam said in an email to Syracuse.com. "We have never denied any student entry into our schools. We provide a quality education to all our students." The district's lawyer, Donald Gerace, said the district has never denied any eligible student admission to its schools. A "number of" refugee students ages 17 and older are attending the high school, he said. "The district is proud of its educational program for its (English language learner) students which has resulted in immigrant student graduates who have become doctors, lawyers, members of the US service academies and students at Ivy league schools," Gerace said. The school district's program has been recognized by the United Nations, he said. Utica is nicknamed "the second-chance city," partly because of its large refugee population, the suit said. Almost one out of every six residents is a refugee, the suit said. The school's refugee policy began eight years ago, according to lawyers who filed the lawsuit. The second alternate program for refugee students, APPLE, is a GED program located in New Hartford, the lawsuit said. The Utica school district doesn't allow refugee students into its own GED program, the suit said. One of the plaintiffs, Patrick Tuyizere, was born in a refugee camp in Rwanda after escaping conflict in the Congo. He attended a high school in Baltimore when he first arrived in the U.S., was placed in the GED program when his family moved to Utica, he said. "All I want to do is go to school and work hard to achieve my goals," Tuyizere said in a news release about the lawsuit. "But right now all I feel is that I am falling behind and it makes me very sad." VALOR ATHLETICS: Recalls Weight Bench Due to Injury Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Valor Athletics Inc., of St. Petersburg, Fla., announced a voluntary recall of 100 Weight bench. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The weld joining the front leg to the main frame can break, posing an injury hazard to the user. This recall involves Valor Fitness BF-38 Flat/Incline/Decline Olympic Benches. The benches are used to perform various free weight exercises. The recalled benches have a gray, steel frame that measures 53 inches long by 43 inches wide by 47 inches tall and have black, multi-position seat and back pads. They have adjustable bar supports with safety bar hooks and plate storage pegs on the rear of the uprights. The Valor Fitness logo and model number are on the main cross frame between the two uprights. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/WpOER6 The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Valorathleticsinc.com and Valorfitness.com from January 2014 to September 2014 for about $300. Consumers should immediately stop using the bench and contact Valor Fitness for a free repair. VELDOS LLC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Weissmandl" Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Janet Weissmandl, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. Veldos, LLC, Docket No. 1:15-cv-02999 (E.D.N.Y., May 22, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com VIKING RANGE: Recalls Gas Ranges Due to Burn Hazard --------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Viking Range LLC, of Greenwood, Miss., announced a voluntary recall of about 52,000 Gas ranges in the U.S. and about 8,300 in Canada. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The ranges' ovens can turn on by themselves, posing a burn hazard to consumers. This recall involves Viking Range freestanding gas ranges sold in stainless steel, black, white and 21 different colors and finishes. The ranges were sold in various surface configurations: All burners or burners with griddle and/or grill. The ranges are about 36 inches tall to the top of the side trim, 30, 36, 48 or 60 inches wide and 24.5 inches deep to the end of the side panel. The model and serial numbers can be found on a label in one of three locations: On the bottom of the control panel above the door, on the front of the oven cavity below the control panel, or on the inside of the left side panel; which can be seen by removing the left front grate and burner bowl. Consumers should only search for the model and serial number when the range is not hot. Model and serial numbers beginning with the following are included in this recall: Model Numbers Serial Numbers ------------- -------------- VGIC306 All VGIC308 All VGIC366 All VGIC368 All VGIC486 All VGIC488 All VGIC530 All VGIC536 All VGCC530 From 040108 through 010313 VGCC536 From 110108 through 010913 VGCC548 From 020109 through 010913 VGCC560 From 050111 through 010313 VGSC530 From 063008 through 063014 VGSC536 From 113008 through 063014 VGSC548 From 030109 through 063014 Viking Range has received 75 reports of gas ranges turning on by themselves, including three reports of burns and four reports of property damage claims, with one claim resulting in a payment of $850. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/5IUzzV The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at ABT, Ferguson, Morrison, Pacific Sales, PC Richard & Son and other stores nationwide from July 2007 through June 2014 for between $4,000 and $13,000. Consumers should immediately contact Viking Range to schedule a free in-home repair. While waiting for a free repair, consumers can contact Viking Range for steps to avoid a burn injury. VIVINT INC: Recalls Dimming Switch Modules Due to Shock Hazard -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Vivint, Inc. of Provo, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of about 213,000 Dimming switch modules. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The module wiring is incorrectly installed, posing a shock hazard to consumers. This recall involves Vivint's Remotec plug-in dimming and on/off switch module, model ZDS-100US. It was sold separately or in home automation alarm systems that remotely control lighting and home appliances and act as a repeater that amplifies wireless signals. The off-white module plugs into the wall and measures about 5 inches long at the top and 4 inches long at the bottom, 2.45 inches high at the center and 1.39 inches wide at bottom. It has electric outlets on both sides and signal strength indicators at the top. Recalled modules have the first four digits of the serial numbers ranging from 1115 through 1440. Remotec, model and serial numbers are printed in black on the rear of the dimming switch module. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/ncOtrS The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Authorized dealers nationwide and at www.vivint.com from April 2011 through October 2014 for about $50. Consumers should contact Vivint Inc. immediately for instructions for a free replacement module. Vivint is contacting consumers directly. VOLARIS AVIATION: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan & Morgan reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the American Depository Shares of Volaris Aviation Holding Company pursuant and/or traceable to its initial public offering on or about September 18, 2013, alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company and certain of its officers. If you purchased Volaris during the Class Period, you may, no later than April 27, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you want more information about the Volaris Shareholder Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts about the Company's business, operations and prospects. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Registration Statement issued in connection with the IPO contained financial statements that were presented in violation of applicable accounting standards and the Company's publicly disclosed accounting policies. As a result of defendants' materially false and misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. According to the Complaint, the Company's Registration Statement failed to disclose certain material events known to defendants that rendered the Registration Statement materially false and misleading. According to the suit, the misstatements and omissions include: (1) the financial effects ensuing from a change in the Company's airline reservation system; and (2) an expansion of competition in the Tijuana and Guadalajara, Mexico, markets, which was having a material adverse effect on the Company's revenues and profit margins at the time of the IPO. About Morgan & Morgan Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection, overtime, and product liability. WELLS FARGO: "Hallie" Suit Dismissed for Failure to Opt Out ----------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Philip P. Simon of the Northern District of Inidana, Hammond Division, granted defendants' motion in the case JUDITH HALLIE, individually and on behalf of a class, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WELLS FARGO INSURANCE, INC., AMERICAN SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, AND ASSURANT, INC., Defendants, NO. 2:12-CV-00235-PPS-APR (N.D. Ind.) Judith Hallie brought an action against defendants American Security Insurance Company, Wells Fargo Bank, and Wells Fargo Insurance over forced-placed insurance Wells Fargo put on Hallie's home when she didn't have insurance coverage as required by her mortgage agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss the case initially for failure to state a claim. The case was stayed in February 2014 pending the outcome of settlement proceedings in in Fladell v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 13-cv-60721-FAM (S.D. Fla.), that the parties informed the court might apply to the case as well. The Fladell class settlement was preliminarily approved on March 17, 2014, and with that approval came the class notice and the scheduling of deadlines for opting out and the final approval hearing were scheduled on September 18, 2014. In October 2014 the defendants notified the court of the approval of the class action settlement. The defendants' notification stated that the Fladell settlement encompasses Hallie's claims. The court ordered Hallie to file relevant dismissal papers based on the settlement. In December Hallie, through her counsel, filed a status report disputing the defendants' characterization of the Florida settlement. Hallie said she had filed a timely request for exclusion from the settlement in August 2014, so her claims weren't released. The defendants responded that Hallie failed to properly opt out of the Florida settlement because she hadn't personally signed her request for exclusion, and instead her counsel had sent the letter on her behalf. The defendants filed a new motion to dismiss. Judge Simon granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings since Hallie failed to properly opt out of the Florida class settlement, her case has been settled, and she cannot continue to pursue settled claims in the present court. A copy of Chief District Judge Simon's opinion and order dated April 27, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/U9x8FBfrom Leagle.com. Judith Hallie, Plaintiff, Pro Se Wells Fargo Bank NA and Wells Fargo Insurance Inc, Defendants, represented by Timothy J Abeska -- tim.abeska@btlaw.com -- Alice J Springer -- alice.springer@btlaw.com -- Joseph R Fullenkamp -- joseph.fullenkamp@btlaw.com -- at Barnes & Thornburg LLP American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by William G Beatty -- beattyw@jbltd.com -- at Johnson & Bell Ltd; Farrokh Jhabvala -- fjhabvala@cfjblaw.com -- Frank G Burt -- fburt@cfjblaw.com -- at Jorden Burt LLP WESTOWER COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Approves Settlement on Final Basis ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge John A. Mendez of the Eastern District of California granted plaintiff's motion for final approval of settlement in the case TROY W. CRAYTHORN, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WESTOWER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation and and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:12-CV-01328-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.) Plaintiff filed a motion for order granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Settlement Agreement and this Court's Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement filed December 5, 2014. Judge Mendez said the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate to the class and to each class member and that the settlement is ordered finally approved, and that all terms and provisions of the settlement are ordered to be consummated. Class counsel is entitled to a fee and accordingly, the court approves the application of class counsel, Law Offices of Cohelan Khoury & Singer and Vaughan & Associates for $342,000.00 for their attorneys' fees, and $16,282.46 for their litigation expenses. The court approves a class representative service payment in the sum of $5,000.00 to the named plaintiff, Troy W. Craythorn as an enhancement for his initiation of the action, work performed, the risks undertaken for the payment of costs had the case had an unfavorable outcome, and for the substantial benefit to be received by the 280-member class as a result of his efforts. The court further approves payment of the fees and costs of the appointed claims administrator, CPT Group, Inc., of $12,000.00 for services rendered and to be rendered in connection with the completion of its administrative duties pursuant to the settlement. The Court entered final judgment in the case. A copy of Judge Mendez's order dated April 8, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/0dyGMdfrom Leagle.com. Isam C. Khoury -- ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Michael D. Singer -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Diana M. Khoury -- dkhoury@ckslaw.com -- J. Jason Hill -- jhill@ckslaw.com -- at COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER, Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Conditionally Certified Class Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Conditionally Certified Class: Cris C. Vaughan, Esq. VAUGHAN & RING 6207 S. Walnut Street, Suite 800 Loomis, CA 95650-8930 Telephone: 916-660-9401 Facsimile: 916-660-9378 WORLD BANK: Sued Over Funding of Coal Plant in India ---------------------------------------------------- Michael Hudson and Barry Yeoman, writing for Huffington Post, report that the World Bank Group caused serious harm to fishers, farmers and villagers in northwest India by bankrolling a giant coal-fired power plant on an ecologically fragile stretch of coastline, a lawsuit filed in U.S. federal court in Washington argues. The suit accuses the World Bank Group's private-sector lending arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), of "irresponsible and negligent conduct" in handling its $450 million financing package for the coal plant. Lawyers for EarthRights International, an environmental group with offices in the U.S., South America and Asia, filed the case on behalf of people living and working near the coal plant, which is located along the Gulf of Kutch, an inlet of the Arabian Sea. The suit, which seeks class action status, argues that the Tata Mundra coal-fired plant has "fundamentally altered the local environment." Heated water pumped from the plant has drastically reduced catches for traditional fishing clans, and coal dust and fly ash from the plant has contaminated farms and homes, the suit claims. The plaintiffs in Jam v. IFC seek compensation for harm to local residents' livelihoods and a court order enforcing the IFC's standards for protecting people and the environment. The IFC would not comment directly on the lawsuit's claims. An IFC spokesperson provided a statement saying that the Tata Mundra plant "provides reliable power to rural and urban-based domestic consumers across the western states of Gujarat and Maharashtra and the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Rajasthan." The spokesperson said the IFC and the plant's operators have been working to address local community concerns. In previous statements, the IFC has said that area residents are better off because it helped finance the power plant. "IFC has played a critical role in the Tata Mundra project, both in terms of investing and in providing guidance on environment and social practices," it said. By developing guidelines to reduce harm to neighbors, and helping Tata implement them, "IFC ensured that the project's environmental and social impacts are in line with good international industry practices." The World Bank Group has two main lenders -- the World Bank, which lends to governments, and the IFC, which lends to corporations such as the Tata group, an Indian conglomerate that built and operates the coal power plant. The lawsuit comes amid reports by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, The Huffington Post, The Investigative Fund and other media partners that the World Bank and the IFC have regularly failed to enforce their rules for protecting people in the path of development projects. World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said in March that he had "deep concern" about how the bank is handling the social impact of its projects. He announced an action plan for dealing with the concerns. The IFC has said that its mission is to "carry out investment and advisory activities with the intent to 'do no harm' to people and the environment." The lawsuit argues that the IFC's handling of the Tata Mundra project represents a "mission failure" because the plant's construction and operations have "done substantial harm to local people and the environment." The suit charges that the IFC knew the plant would have serious social and environmental consequences but moved forward with financing "without taking reasonable steps to prevent the harms it specifically foresaw." International organizations such as the World Bank Group generally contend they have a high level of legal immunity, which makes it difficult to sue them. Rick Herz, EarthRights' litigation coordinator, said his group believes that the circumstances of the case and recent legal decisions will allow the litigants to defeat any claims of immunity. ********* 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 * * *