/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150701.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 1, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 130 Headlines 1111 ROOF: "Nielsen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages 2 BROS: Faces "Aca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages 2 BROS: Faces "Flores-Altamirano " Suit Over Failure to Pay OT A.C.E. RESTAURANT: Faces Suit for Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ALLERGAN PLC: Teamsters File Suit Over Asacol(R) ALLIED WASTE: Settles Class Action Over Pay Deductions ALLSTATE CORP: No Discovery Yet on Value of Class Members' Claims ALLSTATE CORP: Defending Against 2 Wage & Hour Actions in Calif. ALLSTATE CORP: Trial Proceedings Begin in "Romero" Cases AMEDISYS INC: Wants High Court to Review Class Action Ruling AMERICAN INT'L SPECIALTY: Property Owners Sue Over Policy AMERICAN SALES: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Bag Check Policies APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces Suit Over Aetna Insurance Plan Terms ARCELORMITTAL MONESSEN: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Air Pollution ARCH COAL: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan Losses ATWELLS REALTY: Faces "Binieda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BFC FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $36.5 Million BLACK TOWNSHIP, IN: ACLU Files Suit Over Drug Testing BODYPLEX INC: Faces "Stone" Suit in Ga. Over TCPA Violation BONDS COMMERCIAL: Sued in Ala. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages BP PLC: Court Refuses to Invalidate $2.7MM Johnson Settlement BULLDOG CONNECTION: Faces Claims for Overtime Wages Under FLSA BUTLER & HOSCH: Faces Class Action Over False Invoices CADILLAC LOUNGE: Faces "Pizzarelli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CAJUN PRESSURE: Faces Claims for Unpaid Overtime Wage Under FLSA CALIBER HOME: Faces "Lee" Suit Over TCPA Violation CAPITAL ONE: Agrees to Settle With Merchant Plaintiffs CAPITAL ONE: Settlement in Overdraft Suit Preliminarily Approved CAPITAL ONE: TCPA Class Members File Appeal to 7th Circuit CASEY'S GENERAL: "Hot Fuel" Plaintiffs Seek Settlement Approval CHASE BANK: 9th Cir. Affirms Fee Award in "Herbison" Case CLARK INVESTIGATIONS: Sued Over Improper Use of Company Assets COGNATE BIOSERVICES: Sued Over Conversion Price Arrangement D' ARCHITECT: Sued Over Failure to Complete Construction Project DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wage and Hour Claim Pending DG MECHANICAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law Violations DIRECTV LLC: Doesn't Properly Pay Installers, "Bannett" Suit Says DUSARA CORP: Faces Suit for Alleged Phone Call Recording FEDEX CORP: Settles Independent Contractor Suit for $228MM FLYING FOOD: Food Safety Practices May Pose Risk to Passengers GENERAL MOTORS: Law Firm Accused of Conspiring to Cover Up Defect GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Berman Files Expanded Airbag Class Action GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Faces "Vega-Encarnacion" False Ad Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Cert. Bid Filed in Suit Over Disclosures GOLDMAN SACHS: Investor Moved for Class Certification GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants Moved for Summary Judgment GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of "Force-Placed" Insurance Case Sought GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in RALI Pass-Through Certs. Case Okayed GOLDMAN SACHS: Contributed to MF Global Securities Case Accord GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in FireEye Securities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Millennial Litigation GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Cobalt Securities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs' Counsel Wants 2 Females to Intervene GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaints Filed in Commodities Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Platinum Case GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of ISDAFIX-Related Litigation Sought GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Nixed Bid to Dismiss Currencies-Related Suit GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in Commodity Exchange Act Suits GOLFSMITH USA: Faces "Uyehara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime GVA INC: Removed "Hoffman" Class Suit to New Jersey Dist. Court HARRIS FUNERAL: "Newton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages HCC INSURANCE: Sued in Del. Ch. Over Unlawful Company Merger HEALTH CANADA: Medical Marijuana Users File Privacy Class Action HEALTH NET: Class Action Remains Stayed HOLIDAY INN: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime HONDA: Expects to Spend JPY45 Billion on Air Bag-Related Recalls HOOSIER RACING: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Racing Tires IAG: Christchurch Homeowner to Lead Earthquake Insurance Suit IDAHO: Mental Health Services Improved Following Settlement INSULET CORP: ATRS Alleges Violation of Securities Act INTEGRYS ENERGY: Says Settlement to Be Presented to Court IOWA: Adds More People to "Do-Not-Hire" List Despite Controversy ISORAY INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action JACK'S BAR-B-Q: "Whitehead" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages KEURIG GREEN: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports KLX ENERGY: Accused of Violating FLSA, Penn. Minimum Wage Act LINKEDIN CORP: Settles Privacy Class Action for $13 Million M & M ASPHALT: Accused of Failure to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA MASSACHUSETTS: Prisoners File Class Action Over Hep C Treatments MICHAEL KORS: Settles Class Action Deceptive Price Tags MIGAR CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MINNESOTA: Set to Rule on Sex Offender Program Class Action MISSISSIPPI: DOC Violated Eighth Amendment Rights, Court Says MUD MASTERS: Faces "Saenz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime NATIONAL HOCKEY: Settles Class Action Over TV Blackouts ORIENTAL BAKERY: Faces "Castaneda" Suit for Unpaid Wages PAPA JOHN'S: Trial Scheduled for August 2015 in "Perrin" Action PERKINS COIE: De Graff's Employment Suit Back in State Court PGA TOUR: July 23 Hearing on Motion to Transfer Venue of Suit PFIZER INC: Can See Expert Report in Zoloft Birth Defect Case PHILADELPHIA, PA: Judge Allows Civil Forfeiture Suit to Proceed PIZZA 18: Accused of Violating FLSA, Illinois Minimum Wage Law POLLO OPERATIONS: Sued in Fla. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website REGIS CORPORATION: Fong Gets OK to File 2nd Amended Complaint RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act ROSS STORES: Faces "Jacobo" Suit Over False Merchandise Prices SANOFI: Faces ERISA Class Action in New Jersey SOLID BUILDERS: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV: May Join Higher Educ Segregation Suit SOUTH FLORIDA COURIER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SOUTHEAST FORMWORK: Faces Suit for Violation of Overtime Wage Law SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Court Denied Motion Seeking Leave to Amend SUMMIT NURSING: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages TABLE FOR EIGHT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Wang" Suit Says TACO & BURRITO: Face "Pedroza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TAKATA CORP: Airbag Likely Involved in Car Crash in Louisiana TBC CORPORATION: Faces "Desimoni" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Class Cert. Hearings Set for Nov. 30 to Dec. 2 TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Canada Class Actions in Preliminary Stage TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: To Contest Products Liability/ Warranty Claim THAXTON INVESTMENT: Accused of Violating FLSA, S.C. Wages Act TOTAL MERCHANT: Faces "Detore" Suit Over Unlawful Company Sale TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Gillette" and "Mohamed" Suit May Proceed UNITED AIR: Ct. Rules on Bid for More time to File Amended Case UNITED FURNITURE: Court Appeal Uphold Class Action Dismissal UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies DHS Medicare Appeal Class Action UNITED STATES: Immigrants Sue Border Patrol in Tucson UNITED STATES: Immigrant Detention Policy Reforms Sought UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Faces Class Suit Over Soccer Concussions UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action VINCENZO DI: "Tamay" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages VITTAL ARGENTINA: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA WALMART STORES: May Owe Truck Drivers More $100+ Mil. in Back Pay WARNER MUSIC: Settles Intern Class Action for $4.2 Million WELLS FARGO: Challenges Class Action Certification WIPRO: Overtime Class Action Transferred to Federal Court YAHOO INC: Faces Eavesdropping Class Action in Illinois YAHOO INC: Fights Class Action Over Email Scanning Practices ZIRX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Wolfe" Suit Over FLSA Violations ********* 1111 ROOF: "Nielsen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Nielsen, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 1111 Roof Top, LLC and Jonas Millan, Case No. 1:15-cv- 22308-UU (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation, reimbursement for tips illegally taken, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate the Juvia restaurant in Miami Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert William Brock II, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN 17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 358-6800 Facsimile: (305) 358-6808 E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com 2 BROS: Faces "Aca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Ruben Aca, Luis Medina, Anibal Alifonso Polanco, Luciano Rosas, and Luciano Rosas on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 2 Bros Harlem 2, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04784-LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. 2 Bros Harlem 2, Inc. owns and operates a chain of pizza restaurants in various boroughs in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony R. Portesy, Esq. SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP 445 Broad Hollow Road Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 420-9300 Facsimile: (631) 465-7052 E-mail: anthony.portesy@gmail.com 2 BROS: Faces "Flores-Altamirano " Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Ramon Flores-Altamirano, et al. v. Yehoshua Halali, Eli Halali, 2 Bros 6th Ave Inc., 2 Bros Harlem 2, Inc., 2 Bros Harlem Inc., 2 Bros 8th Ave Inc. and 2 Bros Fordham Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04777- ER (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 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 a chain of pizza restaurants in various boroughs in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett Mathew Schatz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BRETT M. SCHATZ 352 7th Avenue Suite 1207 New York, Ny 10001 Telephone: (212) 631-7463 Facsimile: (646) 786-3325 E-mail: bschatz@bmsfirm.com A.C.E. RESTAURANT: Faces Suit for Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------- Erica Sargent, individually and on Behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. A.C.E. Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a Houlihan's and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case 1:15-cv-04013-JHR-AMD (D.N.J., June 13, 2015) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. A.C.E. Restaurant is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the restaurant business, and specifically operating "Houlihan's" franchises. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin M. Costello, Esq. Deborah L. Mains, Esq. COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C. 18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 Tel: (856) 751-3737 ALLERGAN PLC: Teamsters File Suit Over Asacol(R) ------------------------------------------------ Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Allergan, plc (f/k/a ACTAVIS, PLC), Warner Chilcott Limited; Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Cadila Healthcare Limited, Case 1:15-cv-12730-GAO (D. Mass, June 22, 2015), alleges that Warner Chilcott employed a multi-faceted scheme to frustrate generic competition with its name-brand drug Asacol(R). Defendant Allergan plc is a public limited company incorporated under the laws of Ireland. Allergan maintains a place of business within the United States at New Jersey. It markets branded and generic pharmaceuticals throughout the United States and has commercial operations in the United States and approximately 100 countries around the world. The Company became a successor in interest to Warner Chilcott plc and Proctor & Gamble Pharmaceuticals Inc. when it acquired Warner Chilcott plc on October 1, 2013. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glen DeValerio, Esq. Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Tel: (617) 542-8300 Fax: (617) 542-1192 E-mail: gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com norenstein@bermandevalerio.com - and - Tyler W. Hudson, Esq. Eric D. Barton, Esq. David Barclay, Esq. WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP 4740 Grand Avenue, Ste. 300 Kansas City, MO 64112 Tel: (816) 701-1100 Fax: (816) 531-2372 E-mail: thudson@wagstaffcartmell.com ebarton@wagstaffcartmell.com dbarclay@wagstaffcartmell.com - and - Peter J. Mougey, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Tel: (850) 435-7000 Fax: (850) 435-7020 E-mail: pmougey@levinlaw.com ALLIED WASTE: Settles Class Action Over Pay Deductions ------------------------------------------------------ Amelia Pak-Harvey, writing for, Lowell Sun, reports that Robert Swiderski had been working as a truck driver at Allied Waste Services for over a decade when he noticed something incorrect with his paycheck. Mr. Swiderski, who works at the company's Tyngsboro location, drives routes throughout Tewksbury, Bedford and Burlington picking up the recycling and trash for Allied's clients. He noticed his salary included a deduction of $4.75 every hour for health insurance, even though he didn't receive insurance benefits from the company. Six and a half million dollars later, Mr. Swiderski is one of 451 employees who will receive payment in a class-action settlement for miscalculated deductions. "I think it's fantastic," said Mr. Swiderski, who lives in Hooksett, N.H. "It's drastically going to change everybody's life, and I would say in a positive way." Allied, part of the waste company Republic Services, also has locations in Revere, Fall River and Plymouth. It will pay $6.5 million to Massachusetts employees who had the faulty deductions in a settlement that divided the recipients into two classes -- those that did not have company health insurance, and those with company health insurance that had more than the correct amount deducted. The 61 employees like Mr. Swiderski who didn't sign up for insurance will collectively take home $3.4 million, three times more than what they were originally owed. The other 390 will receive roughly $3 million, or 1.6 times more than what they're due. The increased payout conforms with a state law that mandates triple damages in unpaid wage cases, according to Mr. Swiderski's attorneys. Attorney Adam Shafran said Allied was very professional throughout the entire process and treated everyone well, but he expressed some doubt that the miscalculations were a mistake. "For the individuals that got health insurance, it may have been a bit of an oversight," he said. "For individuals like Rob that did not get health insurance, we don't really know one way or another. Although we do have a little bit of trouble believing it was completely innocent." Attorney Jonathan Friedmann, who also represented Mr. Swiderski in the class-action suit, said the decision was a good judicial process with professionalism on all sides. "If this matter had not been handled as a class action, there could've been 60 or 70 different lawsuits easily, and it would've taken up an exorbitant amount of court time," he said. Meanwhile, Allied Waste Services of Massachusetts said in a statement that it remains committed to complying with wage laws. "Because the law governing wage calculations is vague, particularly with respect to benefits calculations, we performed the calculations according to our best understanding of the law and the available agency guidance," the statement read. "We are happy to make this right with our valued employees and to put this matter behind all of us." Mr. Swiderski also said Allied has treated him very fairly. "I have no hard feelings for the company at all," he said. "They have treated me exceptionally well throughout this process." ALLSTATE CORP: No Discovery Yet on Value of Class Members' Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that to date no discovery has occurred related to the potential value of the class members' claims in the class action in Montana state court challenging aspects of its claim handling practices in Montana. Allstate is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit in Montana state court challenging aspects of its claim handling practices in Montana. The plaintiff alleges that the Company adjusts claims made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a manner that unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to claimants who were represented by attorneys. In January 2012, the court certified a class of Montana claimants who were not represented by attorneys with respect to the resolution of auto accident claims. The court certified the class to cover an indefinite period that commences in the mid-1990's. The certified claims include claims for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and punitive damages in an unspecified amount. Injunctive relief may include a claim process by which unrepresented claimants could request that their claims be readjusted. No compensatory damages are sought on behalf of the class. The Company appealed the order certifying the class. In August 2013, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, and reversed in part, the lower court's order granting plaintiff's motion for class certification and remanded the case for trial. The Company petitioned for rehearing of the Montana Supreme Court's decision, which the Court denied. In January 2014, the Company timely filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the Montana Supreme Court's decision. On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. The case will continue in Montana state court. The state trial court scheduled trial for November, 2016 and ordered the parties to mediation by May 15, 2015. To date no discovery has occurred related to the potential value of the class members' claims. The Company has asserted various defenses with respect to the plaintiff's claims, which have not been finally resolved. ALLSTATE CORP: Defending Against 2 Wage & Hour Actions in Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is vigorously litigating two class action cases in California in which the plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims. One case, involving two classes, is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court and was filed in December 2007. In this case, one class includes auto physical damage adjusters employed in the state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the- clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior to their first assignments. The other class includes all non- exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until January 2010 who received pay statements from Allstate which allegedly did not comply with California law. The other case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in September 2010. In April 2012, the trial court certified the class, and Allstate appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 3, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision to certify the class, and Allstate filed a motion for rehearing en banc. Allstate's motion for rehearing en banc was denied and on January 27, 2015, Allstate filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition to off-the-clock claims, the plaintiffs in this case allege other California Labor Code violations resulting from purported unpaid overtime. The class in this case includes all adjusters in the state of California from September 29, 2006 to final judgment. Plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery of unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs. In addition to the California class actions, a case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was filed in April 2011, and the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. On September 16, 2014, the court certified a class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault adjusters. ALLSTATE CORP: Trial Proceedings Begin in "Romero" Cases -------------------------------------------------------- The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is vigorously defending certain matters in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the Company's agency program reorganization announced in 1999. The current focus in these matters relates to a release of claims signed by the vast majority of agents who were participants in the reorganization program. These matters include the following: Romero I: In 2001, approximately 32 former employee agents, on behalf of a putative class of approximately 6,300 former employee agents, filed a putative class action alleging claims for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), interference with benefits under ERISA, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also assert a claim for a declaratory judgment that the release of claims constitutes unlawful retaliation and should be set aside. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief," including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status with all attendant benefits. Romero II: A putative nationwide class action was also filed in 2001 by former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA ("Romero II"). This action has been consolidated with Romero I. The Romero II plaintiffs, most of whom are also plaintiffs in Romero I, are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension Plan and seek to have service as exclusive agent independent contractors count toward eligibility for benefits under the Agents Pension Plan. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole" or other equitable relief, including loss of benefits as a result of their conversion to exclusive agent independent contractor status or retirement from the Company between November 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000. They also seek repeal of the challenged amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits revised and recalculated for thousands of former employee agents, and attorneys' fees and costs. The court granted the Company's initial motion to dismiss the complaint. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. Romero I and II consolidated proceedings: In 2004, the court ruled that the release was voidable and certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents who had signed the release, for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that the release was voidable. In 2007, the court vacated its ruling and granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed and in July 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the Company's favor, remanded the case to the trial court for additional discovery, and instructed the trial court to first address the validity of the release after additional discovery. Following the completion of discovery limited to the validity of the release, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment with respect to the validity of the release. On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiffs' and the Company's motions for summary judgment, concluding that the question of whether the releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed under a totality of circumstances test raised disputed issues of fact to be resolved at trial. Among other things, the court also held that the release, if valid, would bar all claims in Romero I and II. On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class as to certain issues relating to the validity of the release. The court denied plaintiffs' class certification motion on October 6, 2014, stating, among other things, that individual factors and circumstances must be considered to determine whether each release signer entered into the release knowingly and voluntarily. The court entered an order on December 11, 2014, (a) stating that the court's October 6, 2014 denial of class certification as to release-related issues did not resolve whether issues relating to the merits of plaintiffs' claims may be subject to class certification at a later time, and (b) holding that the court's October 6, 2014 order restarted the running of the statute of limitation for any former employee agent who wished to challenge the validity of the release. In an order entered January 7, 2015, the court denied reconsideration of its December 11, 2014 order and clarified that all statutes of limitations to challenge the release would resume running on March 2, 2015. On April 21, 2015, the court granted various motions to allow additional plaintiffs to join Romero I. There is now a total of 431 individual plaintiffs. Trial proceedings are scheduled to commence in the second quarter of 2015 for the original named plaintiffs in Romero I to determine the question of whether their releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed. AMEDISYS INC: Wants High Court to Review Class Action Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Y. Peter Kang and Ed Beeson, writing for Law360, report that Amedisys Inc. urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fifth Circuit decision reviving a shareholder putative class action accusing the home health care provider of defrauding investors by hiding a Medicare scheme, saying the pleading standard for loss causation is ripe for high court review. In a reply brief filed on June 9, Amedisys said the Fifth Circuit evaluated loss causation using a less-stringent plausibility standard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and not the heightened pleading standard "as it was obliged to do." "Because respondents' operative complaint fails to satisfy this Rule 9(b) requirement, the district court's dismissal should not have been reversed," Amedisys wrote in the brief. "If this court reverses the Fifth Circuit, then that court can decide on remand whether leave to amend the operative complaint should be granted." Amedisys said the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo left open the question of whether heightened pleading standards should apply for loss causation in securities fraud cases, on which it said the federal circuit courts are split. "Respondents are wrong to argue that the court has already resolved the question whether Rule 9(b) requires particularized pleading of loss causation," Amedisys said. "And they are wrong to argue that the court should not do so now." An attorney for the shareholders told Law360 on June 12 they were optimistic about their chances, in light of the Fifth Circuit reversal and subsequent denial of an en banc hearing last December. "We are very confident that, as the Fifth Circuit unanimously held, this case easily satisfies the pleading standards for loss causation," said John Browne -- johnb@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. A representative for Amedisys did not immediately respond to a request for comment on June 12. The recent brief is the latest in a case first filed in 2010 in which shareholders accused Amedisys and several executives of improperly inflating Medicare reimbursements by pressuring and intimidating nurses and therapists to provide unnecessary treatment to trigger higher fees. The complaint says Amedisys also made several false and misleading statements that artificially inflated the price of the company's stock. The plaintiffs, led by the Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi, have pointed to a number of partial disclosures that leaked into the market and caused the system great economic loss, including a 2008 report raising questions about Amedisys' Medicare billing practices, the 2009 resignation of the company's CEO and chief information officer, and a 2010 news story indicating the company might be taking advantage of the Medicare reimbursement system. The complaint also cites investigations into Amedisys' billing practices by the Senate Finance Committee, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice in 2010. In April 2014, the Justice Department announced that Amedisys agreed to pay $150 million to settle False Claims Act suits that accused some of its offices of billing Medicare for ineligible patients and services. U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson dismissed the shareholder suit in July 2012, finding that the plaintiffs did not provide the basis for a loss causation claim. In resurrecting the lawsuit last October, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the company's actions should have been considered collectively, rather than separately. The appeals panel criticized the district court for reviewing each partial disclosure of Amedisys' conduct alone, then concluding that none of them was sufficient to constitute a corrective disclosure for a loss causation claim. The panel endorsed a more holistic approach instead. "This holding can best be understood by simply observing that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts," the panel said. "The district court erred in imposing an overly rigid rule that government investigations can never constitute a corrective disclosure in the absence of a discovery of actual fraud." The retirement system is represented by John C. Browne of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. Amedisys is represented by Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, James P. Sullivan, Michael R. Smith and David E. Meadows of King & Spalding LLP. Former Amedisys executives Larry Graham and Alice-Ann Schwartz are represented by A. Paul LeBlanc Jr. -- paul.leblanc@phelps.com -- of Phelps Dunbar LLP. The case is Amedisys Inc. et al. v. Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi et al., case number 14-1200, in the U.S. Supreme Court. AMERICAN INT'L SPECIALTY: Property Owners Sue Over Policy --------------------------------------------------------- One Belle Hall Property Owners' Association, Inc., Marvin T. Meek and Francis E. Hill v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company (AISLIC) and Trammell Crow Residential Company A/K/A Trammell Crow Residential - CCIP a/k/a Trammell Crow Residential a/k/a TCR, 2:15-cv-02477-RMG (D. S.C., June 19, 2015), seeks full indemnity for AISLIC Policy. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Lucey, Esq. Dabny Lynn, Esq. 415 Mill Street PO Box 806 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Tel: (843) 849-8400 E-mail: jlucey@lucey-law.com dlynn@lucey-law.com AMERICAN SALES: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Lantigua Gomez, Amaury Gonzalez, Lieng Un Rey, Carlos Zelaya, Jose E. Mora Yera, and all others similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. American Sales and Management Organization, LLC d/b/a Eulen America, Eulen America, Inc., Case 1:15-cv-22327-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), requests double damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. American Sales And Management Organization Corporation provides ground handling and passenger services for domestic and foreign carriers including cargo, ramp, passenger, and security services. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Bag Check Policies ----------------------------------------------------- CNN reports that an Apple Store employee told Tim Cook that the company treats its staff like "criminals." That's according to a recently unsealed e-mail that is part of a lawsuit filed against Apple in 2013. The suit, filed in federal court in California, alleges that Apple Store employees were not paid wages for time spent waiting while managers checked the workers' personal bags for stolen iGizmos before they left the store. In an e-mail sent on April 2, 2012, with the subject line "Fearless Feedback from Apple Retail Specialist," an unnamed employee told Cook that the bag check policies are "both insulting and demeaning to Apple employees." The employee said Apple Store employees are issued a card with the serial numbers of all their personal Apple devices. Managers ask employees to present their iPhones and cards when they leave, and then they perform a bag check -- often in front of "gawking customers." "These procedures imply that Apple doesn't trust or respect their employees," the person wrote. "Managers are required to treat 'valued' employees as criminals." When Mr. Cook received the e-mail from the Apple Store employee, he forwarded it to the executives in charge of retail and HR, asking, "Is this true?" The court did not unseal Mr. Cook's reply to the Apple Store employee's email or the executive team's response to Cook. In another email to Mr. Cook, sent on January 28, 2013, a Beijing Apple Store employee said, "Apple treats employees as animals." The unnamed employee noted that the Sidan Joy City Apple Store in China's capital city has an emergency exit that's blocked by Apple products. The person also complained about the bag check policy in the email. After being forwarded the email from Mr. Cook, HR chief Denise Young Smith wrote to Apple's strategies head Carol Monkowski that the company should think about changing its policy. "I don't like that practice either, but I do understand why they believe it's necessary," Ms. Young wrote. "I'd like to explore other options, i.e, random checks like TSA. If it is simply a deterrent, there has to be a more intelligent and respectful way to approach." Ms. Smith proposed suspending the policy for three to six months and tracked how many more products were stolen. Ms. Montkowski replied that a review of the store's practices seemed prudent Apple still performs bag checks, but it's unclear if Apple ever actually changed its official policy. An Apple spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment. In the lawsuit, two former Apple store employees claim that the bag checks were performed after clocking out. Some days the wait was longer than five or ten minutes, which added up to $1,500 in unpaid wages per year for one worker. Apple Store employees typically make between $12 and $18 per hour. Apple also faces a separate class action lawsuit from retail employees who say they were denied meal breaks and rest periods in violation of California labor law. Among other things, the lawsuit claims Apple employees were forced to work for stretches of five hours or more without meals, and they didn't get breaks on shorter shifts. As part of that lawsuit, the Apple Store employees complained that the company restricts them from talking about Apple's labor conditions with one another, allowing the company to "invoke fear into the class members that if they so much as discuss the various labor policies, they run the risk of being fired, sued or disciplined." APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces Suit Over Aetna Insurance Plan Terms ------------------------------------------------------------- Maria and Neil Stewart, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Applied Materials, Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company; Aetna Health Of California, Inc. Case3:15-cv- 02632 (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2015) seek appropriate equitable and injunctive relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to compel Defendants to change their health insurance plans' language, policies and practices. Aetna Life Insurance Company ("Aetna Life") is a corporation with its principal place of business located in Hartford, Connecticut. Aetna Life is responsible for drafting and promulgating the internal level of care and coverage determination guidelines. Aetna Health of California, Inc. ("Aetna Health") is a corporation with its principal place of business located in Walnut Creek, California. Aetna Health is responsible for drafting and promulgating internal level of care and coverage determination guidelines. Defendant Applied Materials, Inc. is a corporation with its principal place of business located in Santa Clara, California, authorized to transact and transacting business in the Northern District of California. Applied Materials, Inc. is the Plan Sponsor of the Aetna medical plans. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Glenn R. Kantor, Esq. Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq. Andrew M. Kantor, Esq. KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 19839 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91324 Tel: (818) 886-2525 Fax: (818) 350-6272 E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net trozelle@kantorlaw.net akantor@kantorlaw.net ARCELORMITTAL MONESSEN: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Air Pollution --------------------------------------------------------------- Viktoryia Maroz & Edward Tolliver, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Arcelormittal Monessen LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Arcelormittal USA, Inc., Case 2:15-cv-00770- AJS (W.D. Fla., June 12, 2015) was brought because of the alleged release of noxious odors and air particulates onto Plaintiffs' property, causing property damage through negligence, gross negligence, public and private nuisance and trespass. Arcelormittal Monessen constructed, operate and maintain the ArcelorMittal Monessen Coke Plant in Monessen, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Depasquale, Esq. 1302 Grant Building 310 Grant Building 310 Grant Street Pittsburg, PA 15219 Tel: (412) 471-1415 - and - Steven D. Liddle, Esq. Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Brandon T. Brown, Esq. LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C. 975 E. Jefferson Avenue Detroit, MI 482017 Tel: (313) 392-0015 Fax: (313) 392-0025 E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com ncoulson@ldclassaction.com bbrown@ldclassaction.com * * * Chris Buckley, writing for TribLive, reports that two Mon Valley residents are pursuing a federal class-action lawsuit against the owner of the Monessen coke plant, citing alleged odors emanating from the facility. The suit against the ArcelorMittal-Monessen LLC Coke Plant was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of Viktoryia Maroz of Donora, Edward Tolliver of Monessen "and all others similarly situated." The complaint claims the residents of more than 100 nearby households have spoken with the plaintiffs' attorneys about their experiences. It notes that, based on the 2010 U.S. Census, more than 2,700 households are within a mile of the 345 Donner Ave. plant. The suit seeks to represent a class of residents living within 1-1/2 miles of the plant. The complaint claims ArcelorMittal "failed to install and maintain adequate technology to properly control its emissions." The suit states the plant "has been the subject of frequent complaints from residents." It claims noxious odors and air particulates emanate from the plant to neighboring homes "on occasions too numerous to identify." Ms. Maroz told The Valley Independent in February that she that she had been in contact with the state Department of Environmental Protection for months and that it had installed a monitoring device in her backyard. That month, the DEP acknowledged the plant was under investigation because of "continued unlawful emissions." DEP spokesman John Poister said at the time that the coke plant had been cited six times in 2014 for illegal emissions that potentially could cause health problems. At that time, ArcelorMittal spokeswoman Mary Beth Holdford said the company "has been working to continuously improve the environmental performance of our Monessen coke plant since the facility restarted operations last year." Reached by email on June 12, Ms. Holdford said, "ArcelorMittal has not been served with a lawsuit and, in any event, we do not comment on pending litigation." The suit seeks in excess of $75,000. ARCH COAL: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan Losses --------------------------------------------------------- Jacob Kirn, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports that a former Arch Coal employee is suing the trustees of the company's retirement plan, alleging they invested retirement savings in Arch stock though they should have known it was a risky investment. Douglas Roe's suit, which was filed on June 9 in U.S. District Court and seeks class-action status, says Arch Coal employees' mismanagement of the Arch Coal Inc. Employee Thrift Plan violates the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The suit comes as Arch, like other coal companies, is dealing with the effects of a depressed coal market; it reported a first- quarter loss of $113.2 million on revenue of $677 million and was recently warned by the New York Stock Exchange that it is out of compliance with the market's rule requiring an average price of $1 per share of common stock for 30 consecutive trading days. During the period covered by the lawsuit, from the beginning of 2012 to the present, Arch Coal has seen its stock price drop roughly 97 percent, from $13.87 per share to its current price of about 44 cents per share. From 2012 through 2014, the company reported losses totaling nearly $1.9 billion. The St. Louis-based company, which employed 5,000 full- and part-time employees as of Dec. 31, is headquartered at 1 CityPlace Drive in Creve Coeur. ATWELLS REALTY: Faces "Binieda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Binienda, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Atwells Realty Corp., and Gerard Disanto II, d/b/a all Club Desire and Lust VIP, Case No. 1:15-cv-00253 (D.R.I., June 20, 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 a strip club located in Providence, Rhode Island. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Brouillard, Esq. Brant Casavant, Esq. BIANCHI & BROUILLARD, P.C. The Hanley Building 56 Pine Street, Suite 250 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 223-2990 Facsimile: (877) 548-4539 E-mail: sbrouillard@bbrilaw.com brant@fairworklaw.com BFC FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $36.5 Million ----------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports that BFC Financial Corp. and its Woodbridge subsidiary agreed to pay former minority shareholders of Bluegreen Corp. $36.5 million after settling a class action lawsuit. Fort Lauderdale-based BFC announced a deal to acquire full control of timeshare developer Bluegreen in 2011. It closed the deal for $150 million, or $10 per share to the minority shareholders, in 2013. It previously owned 54 percent of Bluegreen and the other shares were on the public market. BBX Capital Corp. retained a 46 percent interest in Bluegreen in exchange for financing the deal. The other 54 percent belongs to BFC subsidiary Woodbridge. Soon after the Bluegreen deal was announced, multiple shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in Florida and Massachusetts courts. The suits alleged that the directors of Bluegreen and BFC breached their fiduciary duties by not obtaining fair compensation for selling Bluegreen and engineered a deal that allegedly benefited the directors at the expense of minority shareholders. Alan B. Levan is the chairman and CEO of both BFC and BBX and he was the chairman of Bluegreen as well. Mr. Levan and Vice Chairman John "Jack" E. Abdo had substantial voting control of all three companies through their stock ownership. BLACK TOWNSHIP, IN: ACLU Files Suit Over Drug Testing ----------------------------------------------------- Greensburg Daily News reports that a disabled, indigent Posey County woman has sued a local official who denied her access to necessary financial assistance because she could not take a drug test required by the official to submit an application for assistance, claiming the drug testing requirement violates the United States Constitution. The lawsuit against Black Township and Lindsay Suits, the Black Township Trustee, was filed on June 12 by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on behalf of Mary Neale, a resident of the township. Ms. Neale previously received aid from the trustee only after submitting a urine sample and passing a drug test. Last year, when Neale's physical disabilities made submitting the sample impossible, she was unable to apply for benefits. The Black Township Trustee's policy of requiring applicants for assistance to take a urine drug screen violates the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Further, the trustee's failure to accommodate Neale's disability when she sought to apply for assistance violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. "The Constitution prohibits this type of suspicionless search and seizure," said Ken Falk, ACLU of Indiana legal director. "It is wrong to condition the receipt of government benefits on the waiver of fundamental rights that protect all of us." The class action lawsuit, Mary Neale, et al., v. Black Township, Posey County, Ind.; Lindsay Suits, 3:15-cv-82-RLY-WGH, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on June 11, 2015. BODYPLEX INC: Faces "Stone" Suit in Ga. Over TCPA Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Devin Stone, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bodyplex, Inc. and Does 1-10 (inclusive), Case No. 1:15-cv-02220 (N.D. Ga., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sergei Lemberg, Esq. LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC 3rd Floor, 1100 Summer Street Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 653-2250 E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com BONDS COMMERCIAL: Sued in Ala. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jimmy Armstrong v. Michael Bonds, and Bonds Commercial Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01033-VEH (N.D. Ala., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime rates for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Based in Boaz, Alabama, Bonds Commercial Services, LLC is a provider of surety bond and insurance services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq. Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq. L. William Smith, Esq. Rachel L. McGinley, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 19th Street North Birmingham, AL 35203-3204 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com jcg@wigginschilds.com wsmith@wigginschilds.com RMcGinley@wigginschilds.com BP PLC: Court Refuses to Invalidate $2.7MM Johnson Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has refused to invalidate a nearly $2.7 million settlement that BP PLC reached with a member of a boat crew who went to court to enforce the award after he never got paid. However, in its ruling on May 15, the panel determined that claimant Elton Johnson will need to provide evidence to a lower court that he didn't exaggerate injuries sustained in the 2010 blast that caused the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The case presents a rare window into the process BP set up to compensate dozens of workers who were injured and the families of the 11 who were killed from the blowout. Most of those workers and their relatives have settled their claims confidentially out of court. It also is the latest circumstance in which BP has insisted that fraud has tainted the spill's claims process. BP has spent several years challenging its own $9.2 billion settlement for economic damages on grounds that fraudulent claims allowed businesses to receive inflated awards. "The issue of how to deal with claimant fraud remains a recurring and highly significant one in Deepwater Horizon litigation," wrote BP attorney Richard Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- a partner at Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis, in a July 11 appeals brief in Johnson's case. In that case, BP has asserted that Johnson didn't sign a release waiving his right to sue and that his employer, Tidewater Marine LLC, part of New Orleans-based Tidewater Inc., had provided evidence that he exaggerated the extent of his injuries. U. S. District Judge Carl Barbier. Last year, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans upheld the settlement, which came out to more than $3.6 million with interest. The Fifth Circuit on May 15 affirmed Judge Barbier's decision but remanded the case so that he could "determine whether Johnson fraudulently induced BP into" agreeing to the settlement. "We are pleased with the Fifth Circuit's decision vacating the judgment awarding Mr. Johnson more than $3 million in damages," wrote BP spokesman Geoff Morrell. Mr. Johnson's lawyer, Kurt Arnold of Arnold & Itkin in Houston, disputed any allegations of potential fraud. "They can throw around words like 'fraud' really easy in a legal pleading, but the reality is they know this isn't a fraud case," Mr. Arnold said. "They just dispute the extent of his injuries and the amount they're paying for it." The case shows the back-and-forth communications involving Mr. Johnson, his employer and the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, set up by BP and administered by Kenneth Feinberg to compensate for monetary damages, including for physical injuries, arising from the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Mr. Johnson was aboard a vessel that was roped to the Deepwater Horizon rig for offloading drilling mud. He claimed the explosion threw him against a bulkhead, causing injuries to his back and shoulder, a herniated disc and post-traumatic stress disorder. The Gulf Coast Claims Facility sent Mr. Johnson a letter in 2011 stating he was entitled to nearly $2.7 million, which included loss of income and medical expenses. Soon afterward, Tidewater wrote a letter to the Gulf Coast Claims Facility stating that the award was "excessive and unreasonable," according to the Fifth Circuit opinion. Tidewater later sent statements of other crew members indicating that Johnson might have exaggerated his injuries. Upon further investigation, the Gulf Coast Claims Facility denied Johnson's claim in 2012. On appeal, BP argued there was no agreement because Johnson hadn't signed a release. Mr. Johnson countered that BP never sent him the release. He also disputed potential fraud in a claim based on numerous medical records. "The only reason it's gotten to this point is Tidewater would have had to pay for it under indemnity obligations," Mr. Arnold said. "This is just an attempt of having to get out of paying the settlement they reached." The Fifth Circuit agreed that there was a settlement agreement but ordered that Judge Barbier conduct an evidentiary hearing on the fraud allegations. "Because BP's evidence suggests that Johnson may have submitted a wholly fabricated claim to the GCCF, BP may raise fraudulent inducement as a defense to enforcement of the settlement," the panel wrote. In a dissent, Circuit Judge Priscilla Owen concluded that there never had been a settlement because Mr. Johnson could have chosen not to sign the release had it been sent. BULLDOG CONNECTION: Faces Claims for Overtime Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Jaso, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bulldog Connection Specialists, LLC, Case 2:15-cv- 00269 (S.D. Tex., June 16, 2015), seeks to recover overtime wages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Bulldog Connection Specialists LLC is a Texas limited liability providing business services industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Craig M. Sico, Esq. SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH LLP 802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: 361/653-3300 Fax: 361/653-3333 E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com csico@swhhb.com - and - Timothy D. Raub RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C. 814 Leopard Street Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: 361/880-8181 Fax: 361/887-6521 E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com BUTLER & HOSCH: Faces Class Action Over False Invoices ------------------------------------------------------ Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that Robert Hosch, the attorney that oversaw the collapse of the Butler & Hosch law firm, created false billing and invoices to hide the firm's financial trouble, according to allegations filed in federal civil court on June 11. Mr. Hosch, of Dallas, formerly lived in the Orlando area where he ran the firm. The firm closed suddenly on May 14, throwing 700 employees out of work with little notice. Hundreds of employees in Florida and thousands of foreclosure cases were affected. Sudden collapse of Butler & Hosch law firm The sudden collapse of the Butler & Hosch law firm is already causing delays in some home foreclosure sales in Florida courts, including Orange and Collier counties. Mr. Hosch's name was added as a defendant on June 11 to a proposed class action lawsuit filed in South Florida by two former employees. "False client invoices were intended to create the appearance to the firm's lenders, and prospective lenders, that the firm's accounts receivables were millions of dollars more than the actual amount," the lawsuit states. Later, it continues, "Hosch orchestrated or, at a minimum, had knowledge of each of the four fraudulent billing schemes . . . " The South Florida suit was filed in the name of two former Butler employees as plaintiffs, Stephen Regal and Gianna Hills. The new allegations against Mr. Hosch personally allege that he had almost total control over the firm and its finances, and was a virtual alter ego for the firm. Attempts to reach Mr. Hosch or his spokeswoman about the new allegations were not successful on June 11. Mr. Hosch claimed the firm ran out of money, and he handed over the reins to a fiduciary who is responsible for trying to work out the firm's debts. Source close to the firm said Mr. Hosch was pulling at least $1.2 million annually from the firm and its related companies as a draft, and had an additional salary of $178,000. Further allegations against the firm and Mr. Hosch are as follows: Created more than $7 million in fictitious receivables through false invoices that were never delivered to clients. Mr. Hosch directed the firm to bill clients a bogus transfer fee of $350 per file when taking over other firms, including The Korn Firm, Pactific RTS and Morris Schneider Wittstadt. For MSW, there were 21,690 bogus invoices totaling more than $7.5 million. Mr. Hosch created a series of time entries in the firm billing system for senior partner year-end reviews, but did not perform any year-end review of the case files. The lawsuit in South Florida is handled by Fort Lauderdale-based Farmer Jaffe Weissing. CADILLAC LOUNGE: Faces "Pizzarelli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Marisa Pizzarelli, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Cadillac Lounge, L.L.C., Nancy Shappy, and Richard Shappy, all d/b/a The Cadillac Lounge, Case No. 1:15-cv-00254 (D.R.I., June 20, 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 a strip club located in Providence, Rhode Island. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen J. Brouillard, Esq. BIANCHI & BROUILLARD, P.C. The Hanley Building 56 Pine Street, Suite 250 Providence, RI 02903 Telephone: (401) 223-2990 Facsimile: (877) 548-4539 E-mail: sbrouillard@bbrilaw.com CAJUN PRESSURE: Faces Claims for Unpaid Overtime Wage Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cruz Ramirez, Ricardo Pena, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. Cajun Pressure Control, LLC, Case 2:15-cv-00264 (S.D. Tex., June 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Cajun Pressure is a Louisiana limited liability engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Josef F. Buenker 2030 North Loop West, Suite 120 Houston, TX 77018 Tel: 713-868-3388 Fax: 713-683-9940 CALIBER HOME: Faces "Lee" Suit Over TCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------- Wilmaleeta Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01212 (C.D. Cal., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com CAPITAL ONE: Agrees to Settle With Merchant Plaintiffs ------------------------------------------------------ Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that merchant plaintiffs and Capital One have agreed to settle all matters filed in Canada as to Capital One, subject to court approval. In March 2011, a furniture store owner named Mary Watson filed a proposed class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks, including Capital One (the "Watson Litigation"). The lawsuit asserts, among other things, that the defendants conspired to fix the merchant discount fees that merchants pay on credit card transactions in violation of Section 45 of the Competition Act and seeks unspecified damages and injunctive relief. In addition, Capital One has been named as a defendant in similar proposed class action claims filed in other jurisdictions in Canada. In March 2014, the court granted a partial motion for class certification. Both parties appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, which heard oral argument in December 2014. In April 2015, the merchant plaintiffs and Capital One agreed to settle all matters filed in Canada as to Capital One, subject to court approval. CAPITAL ONE: Settlement in Overdraft Suit Preliminarily Approved ---------------------------------------------------------------- Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has preliminarily approved the proposed settlement in the checking account overdraft litigation. In May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One Bank (USA), National Association ("COBNA") were named as defendants in a putative class action named Steen v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff challenges practices relating to fees for overdraft and non-sufficient funds fees on consumer checking accounts. Plaintiff alleges that our methodology for posting transactions to customer accounts was designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees, supporting claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices laws. Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. In May 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern District of Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi- district litigation ("MDL") involving numerous defendant banks, captioned In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. In January 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against CONA in the MDL court. In February 2011, CONA filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In March 2011, the MDL court granted CONA's motion to dismiss claims of breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Texas law, but denied the motion to dismiss in all other respects. In June 2012, the MDL court granted plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties reached an agreement to resolve the class claims in October 2014, and the court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement in January 2015. CAPITAL ONE: TCPA Class Members File Appeal to 7th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, some class members filed Notices of Appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in February and March 2015. In December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") Litigation Multi-district Litigation matter was created as a result of a transfer order issued by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation ("TCPA MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois three pending putative class actions-Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois); and Charles C. Patterson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois) and several individual lawsuits. In February 2013, the putative class action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed a Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint alleging that COBNA and/or entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by contacting consumers on their cellular telephones using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice without first obtaining prior express consent to do so. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief. In June 2014, the parties filed a settlement agreement resolving the litigation. The court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement in July 2014, and granted final approval in February 2015. Some class members filed Notices of Appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in February and March 2015. CASEY'S GENERAL: "Hot Fuel" Plaintiffs Seek Settlement Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- Samantha Oller, writing for CSP Daily News, reports that the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit over "hot fuel" have filed a motion requesting final approval of the proposed $24.5 million settlement. U.S. District Court Judge Kathryn H. Vratil recently began reviewing the proposed settlements. More than two dozen fuel retailers denied any wrongdoing but had settled on the case, which alleged that they were shortchanging customers who got less fuel than they paid for because of temperature changes. Plaintiffs alleged that because the volume of gasoline rises along with its temperature, consumers were paying a full gallon price for less than a gallon of fuel. These retailers' pumps did not have automatic-temperature- compensation (ATC) devices that would adjust the price based on the fuel volume. In the settlement, six of the defendants -- including major oils - - agreed to establish a $22.925 million fund to reimburse retailers for installing ATC equipment. Four of the defendants, including Casey's General Stores and Valero, agreed to install ATC devices on their fuel dispensers at their branded sites over time. The other 18 defendants -- including CITGO and Thorntons -- agreed to pay into a $1.577 million fund that would help state weights and measures agencies ensure ATC upgrades were done lawfully. Plaintiffs filed a motion arguing that the settlement is effective and ready for approval, according to class-action news source Top Class Actions. In the motion, they noted the retailers that have chosen to install ATC devices, which also include Sam's Club and Dansk Investment Group. "That relief is substantive, tangible and designed to benefit retail consumers by providing a fairer method of distribution of motor fuel," the motion states. "Temperature compensation is already systemic in the petroleum industry but ends at the station level; retail consumers are neither sold a gallon that accounts for the effects of temperature, nor told they are not receiving a uniform gallon." "Through this litigation, plaintiffs are making headway on changing the status quo," it concludes. The plaintiffs also note in the motion that out of 28 class-action settlements, four of the defendants are installing ATC equipment and 24 are paying into the two funds. More than 100 companies opted out of the settlement and there were three objections. In March, a group of large chains including 7-Eleven, QuikTrip, Circle K, Kum & Go, Sheetz and Wawa filed an objection to the proposed settlement, arguing that it created a "de facto slush fund" that would financially reward state governments for changing their laws to meet the plaintiffs' wishes. Another objection was filed by Theodore Frank, founder of the Center for Class Action Fairness, representing consumers. Despite this, plaintiffs argue that the settlements are fair. "Not a single federal or state official, which have been specifically informed about the details of the settlements, has voiced concerns or objections," the motion states. "That response speaks volumes about the fairness of the settlements." The Hot Oil Class Action Lawsuit MDL is In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:07-md-01840, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas. CHASE BANK: 9th Cir. Affirms Fee Award in "Herbison" Case --------------------------------------------------------- In In re: Chase Bank USA, N.A. "CHECK Loan" Contract Litigation. Daniel J. Herbison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chase Bank USA, N.A., Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-15637, Daniel Herbison was held in civil contempt by the district court for violating an order approving a class action settlement. He appealed from the contempt finding the fee award, but dismiss the appeal from the contempt finding for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Chase argued that the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review the fee award because the stipulated order fixing the fee amount was not mentioned in the notice of appeal. According to a June 12, 2015 memorandum entered by the Ninth Circuit, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1InVMcT from Leagle.com, the decision to impose fees was explained in the earlier contempt order, which is named in the notice of appeal, and Herbison challenged the fee award in his opening brief. Thus, there was no abuse of discretion in awarding fees. However, the Ninth added that it lacks jurisdiction to review the contempt finding. The district court ruling is therefore affirmed in part, and dismissed in part, the Ninth Circuit concluded. CLARK INVESTIGATIONS: Sued Over Improper Use of Company Assets -------------------------------------------------------------- Nelson Feliciano, individually and derivatively on behalf of Clark Investigations and Security Corp. v. Joseph J. Finn, Jr., Michael Accardi, Joseph J. Finn, Sr., Kaitlyn Finn, Clark Investigations & Security Corp., and Clark Security Services LLC d/b/a Tutis Group, Case No. 706410/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 18, 2015), alleges that the Defendants concealed the fact that Clark was improperly permitting Tutis to utilize Clark's assets and resources in the operation of its business, to support the growth and development of Tutis. The Defendants operates an investment company having a principal place of business at 34-10 56th Street, Woodside Queens, NY 11377. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael L. Macklowitz, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. MACKLOWITZ 299 Broadway, Suite 1405 New York, NY 10007 Facsimile: (212) 732-6972 Telephone: (212) 227-6655 E-mail: Law299@aol.com COGNATE BIOSERVICES: Sued Over Conversion Price Arrangement ----------------------------------------------------------- Teerrice Tharp and Clarence Henkel, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cognate Bioservices Inc., et al., Case No. 11179 (Del. Ch., June 19, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the minority stockholders of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc., to remedy the improper Conversion Price Arrangement and self-dealing Conversions, that was not entirely fair to NWBO and its minority stock holders. Cognate Bioservices Inc. provides full support to companies and institutions engaged in the development of cell-based products and therapies. Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused in developing immunotherapy products to treat cancers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4967 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com D' ARCHITECT: Sued Over Failure to Complete Construction Project ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yuanhua Tom Tang v. Chang Jie Lu, individually and d/b/a D' Architect, Inc. and Does 1 - 10, inclusive, Case No. 1-15-CV- 282071 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 19, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendant's breach of contract, specifically by failing to complete the construction project before or upon 8 months, performing work in a substantially defective and lower than standard workmanship manner, and demanding funds for the Project not agreed to in the contract and continuously prior to the schedule of the contract. D' Architect, Inc. is a California licensed construction company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kit V. To, Esq. Nathan C. Long, Esq. Chesterfield A. Spahr, Esq. TO, LONG & ASSOCIATES 311 9th Avenue San Francisco, CA 94118 Telephone: (415) 386-8136 Facsimile: (415) 386-8180 E-mail: lawoffice@sfjurist.com DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wage and Hour Claim Pending ---------------------------------------------- Davita Healthcare Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a wage and hour claim, which has been styled as a class action, is pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California. The Company was served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April 2008, and it has been amended since that time. The complaint, as amended, alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods, failed to pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal periods, failed to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain other California Labor Code requirements. In September 2011, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs appealed that decision. In January 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on some claims, but remanded the case to the trial court for clarification of its decision on one of the claims. The Company reached an agreement with the plaintiffs to settle the claim that was remanded to the trial court, and that settlement has been finalized. The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against the remaining claims. Any potential settlement of the remaining claims is not anticipated to be material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. DG MECHANICAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- Pedro Espinosa v. DG Mechanical Heating Inc., and David Goutman, Case 1:15-cv-03433 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law. Defendant DG Mechanical is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York. It is engaged in the commercial heating contracting business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Lawrence Office Park 168 Franklin Corner Road Building 2, Suite 220 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Tel: (201) 687-9977 Fax: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com DIRECTV LLC: Doesn't Properly Pay Installers, "Bannett" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryan Bennett, individually and on behalf of the general public and all aggrieved employees v. DirecTV, LLC and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. RG15774823 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Installers the applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked in violation of the California Labor Code. DirecTV, LLC provides direct-to-home digital television services and multi-channel video programming distribution services throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcvin E. Krakow, Esq. ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 394-0888 Facsimile: (310) 394-0811 E-mail: mkrakow@akgllp.com DUSARA CORP: Faces Suit for Alleged Phone Call Recording -------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Paredes, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dusara Corporation and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case 2:15-cv-04470 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2015) seeks damages and monetary relief on behalf of all persons located in California whose cellular telephone conversations were allegedly intentionally recorded without disclosure by the Defendant. Dusara Corporation is a Texas corporation that does business in California. It is a medical supplies facility. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. Richard H. Hikida, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP 4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tel: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com rhikida@trialnewport.com dreid@trialnewport.com vknowles@trialnewport.com FEDEX CORP: Settles Independent Contractor Suit for $228MM ---------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Chu, writing for San Francisco Business Times, reports that Fedex has agreed to pay $228 million to settle litigation claiming the company short-changed its drivers on pay and benefits by improperly labeling them as independent contractors. The settlement disclosed on June 12 is directly related to a decision against the Memphis, Tenn.-based package delivery company in August, when a federal appeals court in Oakland found that FedEx Corp. misclassified 2,300 FedEx Ground and FedEx Home Delivery drivers working in California from 2000 to 2007 as independent contractors. After that ruling, Fedex immediately sought a judicial review. The case was widely followed by tech entrepreneurs and lawyers because of implications for companies operating in the so-called "sharing economy," which provide services ranging from on-demand transportation to food delivery, maid service, grocery shopping and errand running. Beth Ross -- bross@leonardcarder.com -- of the Oakland law firm Leonard Carder says the FedEx settlement "sends a powerful message to employers in California and elsewhere." Uber, Lyft, Instacart, Homejoy, Taskrabbit and many similar businesses, most headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area, have become household names and have prospered by using a low-cost labor force staffed by hundreds of thousands of independent contractors. The startling amount of the settlement and capitulation by a well-established corporate giant such as Fedex shows the legal and operational challenges these newer smartphone app-driven companies may face in potential and current class- action lawsuits by their workers across the country. FLYING FOOD: Food Safety Practices May Pose Risk to Passengers -------------------------------------------------------------- Cathy Siegner, writing for Food Safety News, reports that conditions earlier this year at a food production facility operated by Flying Food Group at the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) could have posed a food safety risk to international airline passengers who consumed meals prepared there. That's according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspector's report from two unannounced January inspections made public by a LA-based union representing airline food workers. UNITE HERE reportedly got the inspection results through a Freedom of Information Act records request. At the time, the FDA inspector found temperature problems with prepared foods and machines used to sanitize equipment, dirty employee restrooms, and clutter in a storage area, which could possibly harbor pests without anyone noticing. However, the inspector added that there was no evidence of pests on the premises when the inspections took place. UNITE HERE said some Flying Food Group workers had reported seeing rodents and insects in an airline food production kitchen and had been ordered to change dates on food products. "Flying Food's employees report practices that may pose potential health risks to themselves and the flying public alike," the union stated. "Based on worker testimony and health inspection reports filed by the (FDA), Flying Food's sanitation record raises concerns for an airline caterer serving high-end airlines at a world-class airport." Flying Food Group responded by saying that the problems cited in the January FDA inspection had been fixed and that the report was part of the union's effort to cause problems for its business. "This so-called report is just the latest example of labor union UNITE HERE making false allegations and exploiting our employees in a desperate attempt to disrupt our business and advance their union agenda," the company said in a statement. "Ensuring the quality and safety of our food is of the utmost importance to us." The company noted that its LAX food production facilities had scored 96 out of 100 in a surprise two-day inspection last month done by a third party hired by some of its airline clients. The union would like to organize the 550 Flying Food Group workers at LAX with the stated goal of increasing wages and improving working conditions. A class-action lawsuit was filed earlier this year by nine LAX workers against the company alleging wage and health insurance theft. Flying Food Group prepares meals for 70 airlines in about 20 production kitchens around the country, including these carriers with international flights scheduled out of LAX: British Airways, Air France, Japan Airlines, China Southern Airlines and Etihad Airways. The company has had several food safety-related problems in recent years. It recalled food prepared at its facility in Lawrenceville, GA, in July 2011 after tests confirmed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes. There was another recall in December 2011 involving the same facility. In January 2012, FDA sent the company a warning letter noting that seafood HACCP-related problems were observed during 2011 inspections at its airline catering facility in Newark, NJ. The agency sent another letter to Flying Food Group in July 2013 stating that the problems at the Newark facility appeared to have been fixed. In 2014, Flying Food Group recalled 41 appetizer meals prepared for a British Airways flight from Miami because of possible Listeria contamination. GENERAL MOTORS: Law Firm Accused of Conspiring to Cover Up Defect ----------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Burden and David Shepardson, writing for The Detroit News, report that a Texas lawyer representing plaintiffs who are suing General Motors Co. over its ignition switch has filed a motion accusing the Detroit automaker and its outside law firm King & Spalding of conspiring to cover up the defect. Lawyer Bob Hilliard filed a motion on June 11 in the class-action lawsuits consolidated in U.S. District Court in Manhattan seeking additional documents from GM and Atlanta-based King & Spalding, accusing them of "burying what they knew" and settling cases that could have shed light on the deadly defect. The motion accuses King & Spalding of violating professional conduct rules after it learned of alleged "ongoing fraudulent concealment" regarding the ignition switch issue from GM. Mr. Hilliard wants documents that typically wouldn't be disclosable under attorney-client privilege rules. GM spokesman Jim Cain said the motion "is largely a rehash of issues discussed publicly over a year ago and previously reported in the media. Moreover, GM already has produced to plaintiffs substantial amounts of privileged material, including many of the very communications sought in their current motion. We strongly deny the accusations in the motion and will file an appropriate response." King & Spalding did not immediately comment. The automaker learned of issues with ignition switches in older Chevrolet Cobalts and other cars more than a decade ago, but only recalled 2.59 million Cobalts, Saturn Ions and other vehicles early last year. The ignition switch, which can turn to the "accessory" or "off" position while driving, has been linked to 111 deaths. GM admitted wrongdoing and paid a record $35 million fine to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over the delayed recall. It faces investigations by the Justice Department, 50 state attorneys general, the Securities and Exchange Commission and Transport Canada. The Justice Department is expected to seek criminal charges against GM and may seek a settlement topping the $1.2 billion paid by Toyota Motor Corp. to settle a felony wire fraud charge. GM CEO Mary Barra fired 15 and disciplined five, including many company lawyers, after an internal report blamed the delayed recall on a culture of incompetence and neglect. GM's general counsel, Mike Millikin, came under withering criticism from Congress -- as did its entire legal team -- and he opted to retire. The report found lower level lawyers kept large settlements from Mr. Millikin's attention and he wasn't informed of reported deaths linked to GM ignition switches. Employees told lawyer Anton Valukas -- who led the GM internal investigation -- that GM lawyers didn't want them to take notes in some safety meetings. GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Berman Files Expanded Airbag Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Consumers represented by co-lead counsel Hagens Berman and Lieff Cabraser on June 12 filed an expanded class-action complaint against General Motors, bringing RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) claims against New GM based on new information from the lawsuit's discovery phase that indicates New GM committed mail and wire fraud in connection with the ignition switch defect that causes cars to stall unexpectedly and disables the cars' airbags. Attorneys from the consumer-rights law firms allege that New GM's outside counsel, King and Spaulding, and its retained risk- assessment and claims management company, ESIS, were complicit in New GM's scheme to conceal the ignition switch defect that has been linked to hundreds of crashes and more than 100 fatalities. Neither ESIS nor King and Spaulding are defendants in the complaint. The amended lawsuit claims that, in part as the result of information New GM learned in defending personal injury claims resulting from the ignition switch defect, New GM was well aware of the defect and its deadly consequences many years before finally instituting a recall in February and March of 2014. The February and March ignition switch recalls were the first in a never-ending series of recalls affecting roughly 27 million vehicles. Some 12 million of the affected cars had ignition switch defects, and the remainder of the cars had many other defects, including serious safety defects affecting power steering, brakes, seatbelts, airbags and virtually every safety system in GM vehicles. The suit affects more than 20 million vehicle owners and seeks damages estimated in excess of $10 billion against GM, which factors damages at $500 per car -- a conservative estimate considering diminution of value has reached as high as $4,000 for certain vehicles, according to attorneys. The new information is the basis for the complaint's RICO charges, brought on behalf of a nationwide class of all persons who owned or leased a GM vehicle at the time New GM took over in July of 2009 and held onto their vehicles through 2014, and all persons who purchased GM-branded vehicles after the date New GM took over. The suit also alleges state law claims for the same class of owners. "This complaint shines a spotlight on New GM's deplorable conduct," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. "In 2014, GM CEO Mary Barra stated that no one at GM knew of a safety defect related to the ignition switch -- which is false. Senior executives at GM, along with its outside lawyers and others, knew of safety issues and concealed them." "New GM knew the day it was created that contrary to its promises of safety and reliability, its manufacturing process and company culture meant that GM could not produce safe and reliable cars, and that in fact GM was actively concealing safety defects," Mr. Berman added. Based on this new information, the suit states that New GM's responsibility upon its inception was to immediately issue a recall for the cars with defective ignition switches. "By delaying a recall concerning the ignition switch defect, New GM placed millions of owners at ongoing risk of crashes and injuries for years, and effectively barred millions of vehicle owners from making claims in Old GM's bankruptcy for billions of dollars in reimbursement they rightfully deserve. Those consumers would have still had time to make claims in the bankruptcy, as the deadline for filing bankruptcy claims had not yet passed," noted Elizabeth Cabraser, co-lead counsel. The lawsuit also states that New GM promised in the sale agreement it signed in taking over Old GM that it would comply with the federal Safety Act with respect to Old GM vehicles -- a promise the suit says New GM broke by failing to conduct timely, effective or comprehensive recalls. The suit affects owners of all GM models regardless of their having a defect, due to the brand's diminished value, according to the complaint. The complaint includes multiple examples of GM- branded vehicles that have suffered loss in value, including the 2011 GMC Denali that has a diminished value of $2,965 as of April 2015. Additional models named in the complaint include 2010 and 2011 Chevrolet Camaro, 2009 Pontiac Solstice and 2010 Cadillac STS, among others, which have diminished values ranging from $1,235 to $2,900. Attorneys state that a protective order requires the new complaint to be filed under seal with a redacted version being filed in public. "We believe that the public deserves to see what has been redacted in the filed complaint, but have abided by the requirement that it be filed under seal," Mr. Berman stated. "We believe the Court will require GM to explain its reasoning as to why this important information should be withheld from public eye." The Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint will be filed on June 12, 2015 and posted on the GM Ignition Switch Litigation official website, gmignitionmdl.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine cities. About Lieff Cabraser Described by The American Lawyer as "one of the nation's premier plaintiffs' firms," Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP -- http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a national plaintiffs' law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. U.S. News and Best Lawyers have selected Lieff Cabraser as their national "Law Firm of the Year" in the category of plaintiffs' mass torts and class actions for 2015. GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Faces "Vega-Encarnacion" False Ad Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Vega-Encarnacion, Individually on his own behalf and others similarly situated, v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, Case 3:15- cv-01821-CCC (D.P.R., June 16, 2015), arises for alleged violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, false advertising, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation. Ghirardelli is a manufacturer and marketer of premium chocolate products under the laws of the State of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel L. Morales-Schmidt, Esq. Urb. Sta. Cruz Esteban Padilla #47 Ste. 1-A Bayamon, P.R. 00961 Tel: (787) 993-2109 Fax: (787) 946-1767 E-mail: lcdo.manuelmorales@delgado-morales.com GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Cert. Bid Filed in Suit Over Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on January 30, 2015, the plaintiffs moved for class certification in the lawsuits challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s public disclosures. Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's activities in the CDO market, the firm's conflict of interest management, and the SEC investigation that led to Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), entering into a consent agreement with the SEC, settling all claims made against GS&Co. by the SEC in connection with the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO offering (ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction), pursuant to which GS&Co. paid $550 million of disgorgement and civil penalties. The consolidated amended complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names as defendants Group Inc. and certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and its affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages. On June 21, 2012, the district court dismissed the claims based on Group Inc.'s not disclosing that it had received a "Wells" notice from the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1 transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs' other claims to proceed. On January 30, 2015, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. GOLDMAN SACHS: Investor Moved for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an investor moved for class certification in the lawsuit related to mortgage pass- through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts established by the firm and underwritten by Goldman, Sachs & Co. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and GS Mortgage Securities Corp. and three current or former Goldman Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class action commenced on December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by various securitization trusts established by the firm and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. The complaint generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or rescissionary damages. By a decision dated September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's claims with respect to 10 of the 17 offerings included in plaintiff's original complaint but vacated the dismissal and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to reinstate the plaintiff's claims with respect to the other seven offerings. On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff served an amended complaint relating to those seven offerings, plus seven additional offerings (additional offerings). On July 10, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to the additional offerings. On March 23, 2015, the plaintiff moved for class certification. On June 3, 2010, another investor filed a separate putative class action asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one of the additional offerings and thereafter moved to further amend its amended complaint to add claims with respect to two of the additional offerings. On March 27, 2014, the district court largely denied defendants' motion to dismiss as to the original offering, but denied the separate plaintiff's motion to add the two additional offerings through an amendment. On March 20, 2015, the separate plaintiff moved for class certification. The securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote, approximately $11 billion principal amount of certificates to all purchasers in the offerings at issue in the complaints. GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants Moved for Summary Judgment ---------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants have moved for summary judgment in a class action filed on behalf of investors in $823 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). On September 30, 2010, a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Group Inc. and two former GS&Co. employees on behalf of investors in $823 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2). The amended complaint asserts federal securities law and common law claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages. The defendants' motion to dismiss was granted as to plaintiff's claim of market manipulation and denied as to the remainder of plaintiff's claims by a decision dated March 21, 2012. On May 21, 2012, the defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract and fraud. On June 27, 2014, the appellate court denied defendants' petition for leave to appeal from the district court's January 22, 2014 order granting class certification. On January 30, 2015, defendants moved for summary judgment. GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of "Force-Placed" Insurance Case Sought ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the defendants have moved to dismiss a putative class action challenging the procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance arranged by Litton. Group Inc., Litton, Ocwen and Arrow Corporate Member Holdings LLC, a former subsidiary of Group Inc., are defendants in a putative class action pending since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York generally challenging the procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for insurance as required by their mortgages. The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of Florida unfair practices law, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. An amended complaint, filed on November 19, 2013, added an additional plaintiff and RICO claims. On September 29, 2014, the court denied without prejudice and with leave to renew at a later date Group Inc.'s motion to sever the claims against it and certain other defendants. On February 20, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss. GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in RALI Pass-Through Certs. Case Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has preliminarily approved the settlement among Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), the other underwriter defendants and the plaintiffs in the RALI Pass-Through Certificates Litigation. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in a securities class action initially filed in September 2008 in New York Supreme Court, and subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering documents in connection with various offerings of mortgage-backed pass-through certificates violated the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI), Residential Funding Corporation (RFC), Residential Funding Securities Corporation (RFSC), and certain of their officers and directors. On January 3, 2013, the district court certified a class in connection with one offering underwritten by GS&Co. which includes only initial purchasers who bought the securities directly from the underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading days after the offering date. On April 30, 2013, the district court granted in part plaintiffs' request to reinstate a number of the previously dismissed claims relating to an additional nine offerings underwritten by GS&Co. On May 10, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint incorporating those nine additional offerings. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification as to the nine additional offerings but denied the plaintiffs' motion to expand the time period and scope covered by the previous class definition. On October 17, 2014, the plaintiffs and defendants moved for summary judgment. On February 19, 2015, the court preliminarily approved the settlement among GS&Co., the other underwriter defendants and the plaintiffs. The firm has paid the full amount of its contribution to the settlement. GOLDMAN SACHS: Contributed to MF Global Securities Case Accord -------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Goldman, Sachs & Co. has paid the full amount of its contribution to the settlements in the MF Global Securities Litigation. GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in class action complaints and an individual action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York commencing November 18, 2011. These complaints generally allege that the offering materials for two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd. (MF Global) convertible notes (aggregating approximately $575 million in principal amount) in February 2011 and July 2011, among other things, failed to describe adequately the nature, scope and risks of MF Global's exposure to European sovereign debt, in violation of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities laws. On December 12, 2014, the court preliminarily approved a settlement resolving the class action, and on January 5, 2015, the court entered an order effectuating the settlement of all claims against GS&Co. in the individual action. GS&Co. has paid the full amount of its contribution to the settlements. GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in FireEye Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint in the FireEye Securities Litigation. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed beginning in June 2014 in the California Superior Court, County of Santa Clara. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye) and certain of its directors and officers. The complaints generally allege misstatements and omissions in connection with the offering materials for the March 2014 offering of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common stock, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. On March 4, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering price of approximately $172 million. GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Millennial Litigation --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Millennial Media Securities Litigation. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as defendants in a putative securities class action filed on September 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants include Millennial Media, Inc. (Millennial Media) and certain of its directors, officers and shareholders. As to the underwriters, the complaint generally alleges misstatements and omissions in connection with Millennial Media's $152 million March 2012 initial public offering and the October 2012 offering of approximately $163 million of Millennial Media's common stock, asserts claims under the federal securities laws, and seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. On March 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. GS&Co. underwrote 3,519,000 and 3,450,000 shares of common stock in the March and October 2012 offerings, respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately $95 million. GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Cobalt Securities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Cobalt International Energy Securities Litigation. Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), shareholders of Cobalt (including certain funds affiliated with Group Inc.), affiliates of these shareholders (including Group Inc.) and underwriters (including GS&Co.) for certain offerings of Cobalt's securities are defendants in a putative securities class action filed on November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint asserts claims under the federal securities laws, seeks compensatory and rescissory damages in unspecified amounts and alleges material misstatements and omissions concerning Cobalt in connection with a $1.67 billion February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a $1.38 billion December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes, a $1.00 billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, a $1.33 billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, and a $1.30 billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes. The complaint alleges that Group Inc., GS&Co. and the affiliated funds are liable as controlling persons with respect to all five offerings. The complaint also seeks damages (i) from GS&Co. in connection with its acting as an underwriter of 14,430,000 shares of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of approximately $465 million, $690 million principal amount of convertible notes, and approximately $508 million principal amount of convertible notes in the February 2012, December 2012 and May 2014 offerings, respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately $1.66 billion, and (ii) from Group Inc. and the affiliated funds in connection with their sales of 40,042,868 shares of common stock for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $1.06 billion in the February 2012, January 2013 and May 2013 common stock offerings. On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs' Counsel Wants 2 Females to Intervene --------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs' counsel has requested that two female individuals be permitted to intervene as plaintiffs in employment-related class action. On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against female employees in respect of compensation, promotion, assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory, punitive and other damages. On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations in their entirety as premature. On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an arbitration agreement with the firm. On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class certification recommended that the motion be denied in all respects. On March 24, 2015, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of that recommendation. On April 13, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel requested that two female individuals, one of whom was employed by the firm as of September 2010 and the other of whom is a current employee of the firm, be permitted to intervene as plaintiffs. GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaints Filed in Commodities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that remaining plaintiffs have filed amended complaints in the commodities- related litigation. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs International (GSI), J. Aron & Company and Metro International Trade Services (Metro), a previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a number of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013 and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege violation of federal antitrust laws and other federal and state laws in connection with the management of aluminum storage facilities. The complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages. On August 29, 2014, the court granted the Goldman Sachs defendants' motion to dismiss. Certain plaintiffs appealed on September 24, 2014, and the remaining plaintiffs filed proposed amended complaints on October 9 and 10, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motions for leave to amend their complaints, rejecting their monopolization claims and most state law claims but permitting their antitrust conspiracy claims and certain parallel state law and unjust enrichment claims to proceed, and the remaining plaintiffs filed amended complaints on April 9, 2015. GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Platinum Case ------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Goldman Sachs International (GSI) is among the defendants named in putative class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed beginning on November 25, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint. GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of ISDAFIX-Related Litigation Sought ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the defendants named in several putative class actions relating to trading in interest rate derivatives, filed beginning in September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The second consolidated amended complaint, filed on February 12, 2015, asserts claims under the federal antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmark and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the second consolidated amended complaint on April 13, 2015. GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Nixed Bid to Dismiss Currencies-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action in the currencies-related litigation. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the defendants named in several putative antitrust class actions relating to trading in the foreign exchange markets, filed beginning in December 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange markets and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. On February 13, 2014, the cases were consolidated into one action, and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 31, 2014. On January 28, 2015, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action. GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in Commodity Exchange Act Suits ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that beginning in February 2015, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), and Group Inc. were named as defendants in separate putative class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange benchmark rates, which caused artificial foreign exchange futures prices. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and treble damages in an unspecified amount. GOLFSMITH USA: Faces "Uyehara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Lloyd Uyehara, on behalf of himself all others similarly situated v. Golfsmith USA, LLC, Case No. BC585579 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Golfsmith USA, LLC owns and operates 15 golf and tennis retail stores in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Hoffman, Esq. HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS 580 California Street, Suite 1600 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 362-1111 Facsimile: (415) 362-1112 GVA INC: Removed "Hoffman" Class Suit to New Jersey Dist. Court --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. GVA, Inc. and David D. Townsend, Case No. BER-L-02834-15, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned 2:15-cv-04188-CCC-JBC to the proceeding. The lawsuit asserts claims for Defendants fraudulent business practices. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raphael Mark Rosenblatt, Esq. ROSENBLATT LAW PC 21 Main Street, Court Plaza South, #305 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (551) 444-8100 E-mail: Raphael@rosenblattlegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Wayne D. Meehan, Esq. FREEHILL, HOGAN & MAHAR, LLP 549 Summit Avenue Jersey City, NJ 07306 Telephone: (201) 623-5514 E-mail: meehan@freehill.com HARRIS FUNERAL: "Newton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Currie Newton v. Harris Funeral Home, II, P.A., Harris Funeral Home, P.A., Joanne Harris, and Cullen Harris, Case No. 1:15-cv- 01809-JKB (D. Md., June 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a funeral home in Baltimore City, Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Lanier, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 S Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: jlanier@nicholllaw.com HCC INSURANCE: Sued in Del. Ch. Over Unlawful Company Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Susan Paskowitz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 11171- CB (Del. Ch., June 18, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the entities who purchased or acquired shares of the common stock of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., to enjoin the acquisition of HCC by Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. for unfair price and inadequate consideration. HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. is a specialty insurer with offices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and Ireland. Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. is the insurance holding company for Tokio Marine Group, which undertakes Domestic Non-Life insurance, Domestic Life insurance, International business, and Financial and General Businesses. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4967 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com - and - Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq. Samuel J. Adams, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 E-mail: gbruckner@pomlaw.com sadams@pomlaw.com HEALTH CANADA: Medical Marijuana Users File Privacy Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Clare Mellor, writing for Herald News, reports that lawyers representing plaintiffs in a proposed class action, claiming Health Canada breached privacy rights and jeopardized the safety of medical marijuana users, will be seeking damages of up to $20,000 per person, a court in Halifax heard on June 10. Federal Court Justice Michael Phelan is hearing a certification application for a proposed class action, put forward by medical marijuana users and growers across Canada, who were licensed under the previous federal medicinal marijuana program. The claim alleges that in November 2013 the department sent letters to about 40,000 people explaining changes to the federal medical marijuana access program, and because the return address on the envelopes clearly stated they came from the Health Canada medical marijuana program anyone who may have seem them knew the recipient was either licensed to possess or grow marijuana for medical purposes. The claim alleges that Health Canada was reckless, careless and negligent in sending the mail-out, which breached confidentiality and the personal security of medical marijuana program users. The allegations have not been proven in court and Health Canada has not yet filed a defense. The lead plaintiffs, a Nova Scotia man and an Ontario woman, are identified by the pseudonyms John Doe and Suzie Jones because a confidentiality order protects their identities. In court on June 11, Ted Charney, one of several lawyers representing the plaintiffs, read aloud copies of Health Canada emails, which he said indicate the federal department's use of the over-sized, non-discreet, envelopes in the mail-out, was not a simple clerical error. Instead, they indicate the decision received approval at "the director level" within the federal department, he said. The emails show a Health Canada staffer first asked a Canada Post employee for a quote for the cost of sending the envelopes by registered mail, however, it was decided not to send them that way, said Mr. Charney, of Charney Lawyers in Toronto. Health Canada sent its own envelopes to Canada Post to be used for the mail-out but they were damaged when they arrived there. An email from a Health Canada staffer to a Canada Post employee refers to a time pressure to get the mail-out done and in a subsequent email, the staffer, whose name is redacted from the emails, gives Canada Post the go-ahead to use the envelopes for the mail-out. About 1,800 people have registered with the proposed class action. Two hundred and forty one of those have reported a home invasion or security breach since the mail-out and 341 have reported they have changed residences because of the mail-out, Mr. Charney said One of the lead plaintiffs is a health professional in a small community in Nova Scotia. Following the mail-out, he believed that people in the community were aware he was licensed to use medicinal marijuana. He feared a home invasion and suffered anxiety and stress about possible career repercussions, Mr. Charney said. McInnes Cooper in Halifax and three other law firms, one in British Columbia and two in Ontario are jointly representing affected users. If the case moves forward, lawyers will argue that there was a breach of security of person under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, David Fraser, of McInnes Cooper told the court. "It will be alleged and argued . . . that Health Canada knew about the risks that would be presented by disclosing this information." The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada received more than 300 complaints about the mail-out, with recipients citing concerns such as job loss and damage to their reputations and safety. The commissioner's office investigated and, in March, released a finding that Health Canada violated the federal Privacy Act and mishandled personal information. Phelan has not yet decided whether the commissioner's report or parts of it, can be used in the certification application. Lawyers for Health Canada were expected to argue against the class action certification in court on June 12. HEALTH NET: Class Action Remains Stayed --------------------------------------- Health Net, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a suit will remain stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court's disposition of the Company's June 10, 2015 petition for writ of certiorari. The Company said, "We are a defendant in three related litigation matters pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Northern District of California") relating to the independent contractor classification of counselors ("MFLCs") who contracted with our subsidiary, MHN Government Services, Inc. ("MHNGS"), to provide short-term, non- medical counseling at U.S. military installations throughout the country under our Military and Family Life Counseling (formerly Military and Family Life Consultants) program." "On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors in the state of Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that they would have received had they been classified as non-exempt employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. We moved to compel the case to arbitration, and the court denied the motion on September 30, 2011. We appealed the decision. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on August 15, 2013. On February 26, 2014, we removed this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. "On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington action, as well as 12 other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has since transferred the case to the Northern District of California to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2, 2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also a subsidiary). "The third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico, Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October 24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. "On November 1, 2012, we moved to compel arbitration in the Northern District of California, and the court denied the motion on April 3, 2013. We noticed our appeal of that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 8, 2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification to allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective action members. The court stayed all other proceedings pending an outcome in the Ninth Circuit appeal. On December 17, 2014, a divided (2-1) Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the district court's decision denying our motion to compel arbitration. On January 14, 2015, we petitioned for rehearing en banc, and the Ninth Circuit denied the petition on February 9, 2015. On February 13, 2015, the Ninth Circuit granted our motion to stay the proceedings, and the proceedings will remain stayed until the final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court of our petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition for writ of certiorari is due on June 10, 2015. "On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred to the Northern District of California to relate it to the two FLSA suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, we moved to stay the suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. We also filed two alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case to arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims and California Labor Code section 226.8 claims. On June 3, 2014, the court granted our motion to stay, and denied the later alternative motions without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted. This suit will also remain stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court's disposition of our June 10, 2015 petition for writ of certiorari. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims; however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties." HOLIDAY INN: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Concepcion Hernandez, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated former and current non-exempt employees v. Holiday Inn of Burbank Media Center, Intercontinental Hotels Group, and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Case No. BC585657 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 18, 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 a hotel and resort in Los Angeles, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq. Lindsay Veronika, Esq. SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP 316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 814-4940 E-mail: grant@soloukisavoy.com lindsay@soloukisavoy.com HONDA: Expects to Spend JPY45 Billion on Air Bag-Related Recalls ---------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reports that the Japanese carmaker Honda has said it expects to spend almost 45 billion yen (GBP234 million; US$363 million) on recalling cars fitted with potentially dangerous airbags. The firm has been forced to recall millions of vehicles worldwide, to replace faulty airbag inflators made by automotive parts manufacturer, Takata. Six deaths have been linked to Takata airbags -- all in Honda cars. Honda says the costs will not affect its dividend or profit forecasts for the current year. In April, Honda cut its profit growth forecast after missing the mark last year on recalls and other issues. Several car manufacturers, including Toyota, Nissan, Daihatsu, Mazda and Mitsubishi, have recalled models fitted with Takata airbags, which have been connected to more than 100 injuries. The fault has led to 34 million cars being recalled in the US, the biggest auto-safety recall in US history, and Takata faces multiple class action lawsuits and criminal and regulatory investigations in North America. Globally, the number of vehicles affected is thought to be 53 million. Investigations found that Takata airbag inflators were not properly sealed and could be damaged by moisture. Some airbags burst under pressure, spraying shrapnel inside the car. Some scientists suspect that the ammonium nitrate propellant may have been part of the problem, because it can become unstable over time, particularly in extreme heat and humidity. Takata is working to replace all the faulty airbag kits. HOOSIER RACING: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Racing Tires --------------------------------------------------------------- Ronald Horton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., Case No. 8:15-cv-01453-EAK- TGW (M.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the consumers who purchased defective Hoosier D.O.T-Radial Racing Tires that caused massive vibration and ultimately blowout failure, leaving the car nearly uncontrollable. Headquartered in Indiana, Hoosier Racing Tire Corp. is a manufacturer and seller of tires throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C St NE Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 789-3960 Facsimile: (202) 789-1813 E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com - and - Craig S. Davis, Esq. Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq. Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq. Robert K. Shelquist, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P 100 South Washington Ave, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 339-0981 E-mail: csdavis@locklaw.com erodette@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com rkshelquist@locklaw.com - and - D. Michael Campbell, Esq. CAMPBELL LAW 1861 N Crystal Lake Dr Lakeland, FL 33801 Telephone: (863) 292-9929 Facsimile: (863) 292-9949 E-mail: dmcampbell@campbelllaw.com IAG: Christchurch Homeowner to Lead Earthquake Insurance Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Cecile Meier, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that after years of delays and heartache with her earthquake insurance claim, Christchurch homeowner Pip Coory has decided to take a stand. She wants to lead a class action against insurer giant IAG. The business analyst has created the Facebook group IAG class action lawsuit where Canterbury homeowners can register their interest in the action. Within nine days, she already had nearly 200 members. "These people are broken and have no energy left to fight," she said. She was in discussions with lawyers about leading the class action but was waiting to gather more members before proceeding. The Springston homeowner fought for more than three and a half years after the September 2010 quake to convince the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and her insurer State (part of IAG) that her house could not be repaired for less than the commission's $100,000 coverage cap. EQC first assessed the damage at $30,000. After years of delays and reports, the parties agreed the damage was over cap in May last year. Ms. Coory then decided to move into a caravan because her house was "damp, not watertight" and had a "horrible electrical pulse" running through it that made her sick. Vibrations running through the house woke her up every night with loud banging, she said. She thought the move would be temporary while she reached an agreement with IAG. But a year later she is still in the caravan, waiting for a resolution on her case. IAG initially assessed the repairs at $120,000 but Ms. Coory said her quantity surveyor had assessed the costs at more than $900,000. IAG spokeswoman Renee Walker said that the company was aware of the Facebook group and monitored its membership. "Our experience is that claims are progressed and settled much more quickly and successfully when we are able to engage with customers directly, and in person. If any member of the Facebook group, or any other IAG customers, would like to meet to progress their claim they should request this via their case manager or loss adjuster." Ms. Coory challenged IAG's additional engineering report done last year at her request and arranged her own engineer, who provided a report in April 2015, Ms. Walker said. IAG had since costed both the repair and rebuild of the property and a meeting was recently set up on site to agree scope, methodology and cost. "While IAG believe the home to be habitable, we were aware that [Coory] felt unsafe and so paid her her accommodation allowance to enable her to purchase the caravan that she moved into", Ms. Walker said. IDAHO: Mental Health Services Improved Following Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul Johnson, writing for KMVT-TV, reports that an estimated 9,000 Idaho children with serious emotional disturbances could have better access to community-based mental health services as a result of the settlement of a federal class action lawsuit initially filed in 1980, known as the Jeff D. lawsuit. Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter applauded the leadership and staff at all the State agencies impacted by the Jeff D. case for their perseverance and dedication to doing the right thing for the children of Idaho throughout a long and difficult legal process. "I'm proud of our people. I'm proud of the processes and priorities they have put in place. And I'm very pleased that their hard work and determination has brought us to this day," the Governor said. "The Jeff D. case has been part of Idaho's political and public policy landscape for decades. Changing cultures and overcoming tough challenges often takes time, but we understand that realizing success will mean a continuing commitment to upholding the letter and spirit of this agreement." The settlement provides an opportunity for the state of Idaho to resolve the long-standing lawsuit. "The settlement gives Idaho a clear path in delivering needed community-based mental health services," said Ross Edmunds, administrator of the Division of Behavioral Health at the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (DHW). "Most importantly, it provides an effective system to treat youth with serious emotional disturbances and their families. Our success with this settlement will ultimately bring an end to the Jeff D. lawsuit." "The Governor should be applauded for supporting collaborative improvement of Idaho's children's mental health system," said Patrick Gardner, an attorney with Young Minds Advocacy Project who helped negotiate the settlement. "Idaho is a model for other states in its commitment to serve children in need using a coordinated system of care." The settlement aims to address the gaps in Idaho's mental health system, making it more effective and efficient in meeting the needs of children with serious emotional disturbances and their families. The settlement commits the state to taking a number of concrete steps to develop and implement a sustainable, coordinated, and comprehensive mental health system, including: -- Creating a statewide process, across all child-serving systems, to identify and screen youths for unmet mental health needs -- Providing a comprehensive array of community-based services and supports to children when medically necessary -- Delivering services using a consistent approach that engages families, youths, and their support systems -- Monitoring and reporting on service quality and outcomes for youths "The settlement outlines a plan for Idaho to create an effective and meaningful system of care," said Howard Belodoff, the attorney for the children. "When successfully implemented, the agreement will lead to children throughout the state having access to a comprehensive array of mental health services and supports in their own homes and communities." The settlement is the result of more than a year of negotiations. Participants include key community stakeholders representing parents, advocates and private providers, along with representatives from DHW, the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections (IDJC), the Idaho State Department of Education (SDE), as well as attorneys representing the class members. "This is a positive step forward for coordinated community based mental health services," said Sharon Harrigfeld, Director of the Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections. "We know that collaborative efforts at the community level have positive outcomes for youth and we look forward to continuing these efforts to meet the needs of youth with serious emotional disturbances and their families through this Agreement." Access to appropriate mental health services is a critical component of children's healthcare systems. Research shows that half of all lifetime cases of mental illness begin by age 14 and three-quarters by age 24. The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare estimates that 20 percent of all youths will have a diagnosable mental disorder during childhood. Studies have shown that many children can experience long delays before their mental illness is identified and treated, which often result in negative outcomes for children. Early assessment, intervention and the delivery of community-based services and treatment will allow children to remain at home with their families, lessen the need for hospitalization resulting from a mental health crisis, and lead to improved functioning for children in their communities and schools. "When mental illness is treated, it can have a positive impact on all areas of a child's life, including their ability to learn, play, interact with others and handle emotions," Mr. Edmunds said. "Serious emotional disturbance in children can be treated effectively, especially when identified early. With treatment, these children can lead productive lives and succeed in school, at home, and in their adult lives. " Family members with children who suffer from mental illness praised the settlement as an important step forward in Idaho. "Our family experienced a lot of challenges and frustration as we tried to get our daughter appropriate care," said Jennifer Griffis, parent and chairwoman of the Idaho Behavioral Health State Planning Council. "The agreement provides a promising structure for Idaho's mental health system to be more responsive to the needs of children and families." "This settlement offers a service array that is broad enough to allow mental health service providers to better tailor treatment plans to their clients' individual strengths and needs," said Kelly Keele, president of the Mental Health Providers Association of Idaho. "We expect that, over the long run, the number of children hospitalized or needing expensive out-of-home placements will decrease." Advocates offered similar praise: "Working with parents of children with complex health disorders is often heartbreaking as Idaho has not had the services to support these families," said Carol Dixon, family support specialist for the Idaho Federation of Families. "The Federation of Families views the Jeff D. settlement as a very promising solution that has the potential to create a new and effective children's mental health system in Idaho. It will have the capacity to address the challenging mental health needs of our children and provide needed support to families." The settlement anticipates implementation over a four year period with three additional years of monitoring to ensure sustained performance of the service delivery system. Upon successful completion of implementation and monitoring, the lawsuit will be dismissed. The settlement agreement must be approved by the federal district court. INSULET CORP: ATRS Alleges Violation of Securities Act ------------------------------------------------------ Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Insulet Corporation, Duane Desisto, Patrick J. Sullivan, Allison Dorval, and Brian Roberts, Case 1:15- cv-12345 (D. Mass., June 16, 2015), was brought on behalf of purchasers of Insulet's publicly traded securities from May 7, 2013 to April 30, 2015, alleging violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. Defendant Insulet is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its principal executive offices at Billerica, Massachusetts. Insulet's primary business is the development, manufacture, and sale of its proprietary OmniPod Insulin Management System. The Plaintiff is represented by: Glen DeValerio, Esq. Leslie R. Stern, Esq. BERMAN DEVALERIO One Liberty Square Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 542-8300 Facsimile: (617) 542-1194 E-mail: gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com lstern@bermandevalerio.com - and - Avi Josefson, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 554-1400 Fax: (212) 554-1444 E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com INTEGRYS ENERGY: Says Settlement to Be Presented to Court --------------------------------------------------------- Integrys Energy Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company anticipates that a Stipulation of Settlement will be presented to the Court for approval after the merger closes. The Company said, "Since the announcement of the merger agreement with Wisconsin Energy Corporation (Wisconsin Energy), we and our board of directors, along with Wisconsin Energy, have been named as defendants in ten separate purported class action lawsuits filed in Brown County, Wisconsin (three of the cases - Rubin v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Blachor v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; and Albera v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (two of the cases - Amo v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al. and Inman v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.), Cook County, Illinois (two of the cases - Taxman v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., and Curley v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.), and the federal court for the Northern District of Illinois (three of the cases - Steiner v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., Tri-State Joint Fund v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., and Collison v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.)." "In the Tri-State Joint Fund case, Wisconsin Energy's Chief Executive Officer was also named as a defendant. The cases were brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of shareholders of Integrys Energy Group. The complaints allege, among other things, that our board members breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize the value to be received by our shareholders, that Wisconsin Energy aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty, and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus contains material misstatements and omissions. The complaints seek, among other things, (a) to enjoin defendants from consummating the merger; (b) rescission of the Merger Agreement; and (c) to direct the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain the highest value possible for Integrys Energy Group's shareholders. The Brown County and Cook County cases have been dismissed in favor of the Milwaukee County actions. "On November 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, which provides the basis for a complete settlement of these actions. We anticipate that a Stipulation of Settlement will be presented to the Court for approval after the merger closes." IOWA: Adds More People to "Do-Not-Hire" List Despite Controversy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Clayworth, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that Iowa has added 67 people to its "do-not-hire" list in the past year through a process that a legislator and some public employee advocates believe is unethical or illegal. The state now maintains a list of 943 people who are ineligible to work for some or all executive branch departments or agencies, records obtained last week by The Des Moines Register show. State officials insist the list is important to help protect the public and keep problematic employees off Iowa's payroll. But critics contend the process leads to arbitrary and inconsistent decisions that create inherent inequities among some former employees. "I really think we're getting ourselves set up for a lawsuit," said Sen. Janet Petersen, D-Des Moines, who this year led an unsuccessful legislative effort to limit Iowa's use of the so- called "blacklist." The debate centers on due process. Some former workers have said they didn't know their separations from the state would result in being added to the list preventing them from being eligible for future state employment. In some cases the former employees had voluntarily resigned and maintain that leaving their jobs was not the result of final disciplinary action. State leaders for months denied such lists existed, despite widespread allegations that worker rights were being consistently violated. After ongoing pressure from media and some legislators, the Iowa Department of Administrative Services -- better known as DAS -- released in April 2014 the list of 975 names of workers disqualified since 1990 from future state employment because they were fired or resigned. The publication of the list was followed by government oversight hearings and a lawsuit filed by Des Moines attorneys Roxanne Conlin and Tom Duff on behalf of three former employees. Seventy-seven others last year expressed interest in joining the lawsuit had it become a class-action complaint against the state. As a result, Iowa yanked 91 names from the list less than a month after the lawsuit, dozens of them because the DAS determined their separations from the state didn't meet the legal criteria. The lawsuit was dismissed in October, but Ms. Conlin and Duff contend that future litigation is possible, particularly if the state's practices continue. Ms. Conlin and Mr. Duff have argued that people who are found to be guilty of serious crimes or professional malfeasance deserve to be on the list. But they also believe that many -- if not the majority -- of the people on the list were added for relatively innocuous reasons, such as tardiness that might be explained, or might be undeserving of a lifetime unemployment ban. "It's draconian that an innocuous workplace issue could follow you forever in every job in the state," Mr. Duff said. "And there also ought to be some uniformity about what sort of offense gets you put on the list." Newton resident Sarah Zaruba told the Register that she voluntarily resigned her position as a correctional officer at Iowa's prison in Newton for personal reasons following the February death of her husband. She was added to the state's do-not-hire list in April, which she believes is unjustified. Ms. Zaruba, who had worked for the state for 17 years, noted that the general process to launch an administrative appeal of an Iowa do-not-hire listing involves first applying for a job and waiting for the state to reject the application. It's unlikely the position would remain open throughout an appeal, which means lost opportunity for someone who was unfairly added to the list, she said. Iowa's do-not-hire list began in 1987, during Gov. Terry Branstad's first term as governor. The practice essentially remained the same since, Michelle Minnehan, a human resources officer, testified before lawmakers last year. Caleb Hunter, a spokesman for the Iowa DAS, said last week that the department will review anyone's status on the list upon request. The list is part of data drawn from personnel files and is intended to protect the public, he said. "It's important for DAS to protect taxpayers' interest and not pass around employees that have a known malfeasance from one agency to another," Hunter said. LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION FAILS TO PASS HOUSE The Iowa Senate this year passed a measure in a 35 to 11 vote to limit the use of the state's do-not-hire list. The bill, Senate File 332, died in the House where it failed to make its way through the legislative process. Here are a few of the highlights of the bill: -- A person may be considered ineligible to apply for a state job for set reasons. Some of those reasons include if the applicant knowingly misrepresented facts on such documents as a job application, have been terminated for creating a hostile work environment in a previous state position, or convicted of a crime that would have a direct relationship to the position they desire. -- Iowa's state government would be required to notify a person within five business days following their designation on the do- not-hire list. -- The state must provide information to applicants placed on the do-not-hire list about how they may appeal. SUPREME COURT IMPLICATIONS A judge in October dismissed the lawsuit against the state's do- not-hire list, saying workers must appeal through the executive branch. But more options to seek damages from the state might be made available pending an ongoing case involving Iowa's former workers' compensation commissioner Chris Godfrey. In the Godfrey case, the Iowa Supreme Court is being asked whether he can invoke the Iowa Constitution to win monetary damages following Gov. Terry Branstad's decision to cut his annual salary by roughly $40,000. If Godfrey is successful, the case could open the door for people who believe they've been wrongly added to Iowa's do-not-hire list to seek damages from the state, Godfrey's attorney Roxanne Conlin said. ISORAY INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman on June 11 disclosed that a class action against IsoRay, Inc. has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of IsoRay publicly traded securities during the period between May 20, 2015, and May 21, 2015. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from May 22, 2015. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Hagens Berman at 206-623-7292 or via e-mail at ISR@hbsslaw.com If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join this class action. 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 IsoRay and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. IsoRay develops, manufactures and sells isotope-based medical products and devices for the treatment of cancer and other malignant diseases in the United States. The Company produces Proxcelan Cesium-131 brachytherapy seeds for the treatment of prostate, lung, head and neck, colorectal, brain, pelvic/abdominal, and gynecological cancers, as well as ocular melanoma. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading statements in a press release issued before the markets opened on May 20, 2015, regarding the results of the first major peer reviewed study showing improved results using IsoRay's Cesium-131 seeds in the treatment of lung cancer. The press release reported what the Company termed "outstanding" results in the treatment of lung cancer, including a 96 percent success rate in local control (meaning control of the tumor in the lung) and 100 percent survival at five years in high risk patients. The Company's CEO stated that they were "extremely excited to have [their] Cesium- 131 isotope seeds and mesh used in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancers with such outstanding patient outcomes," and that "[p]ublished studies are the final step to commercialization . . . . This latest publication . . . [is] proving Cesium-131's time is now." As a result of these statements, IsoRay's stock price increased from $1.61 per share to $3.12 per share in one day. Then, later in the day on May 21, 2015, TheStreet.com published an article asserting that IsoRay had selectively edited the findings from the study disclosed in its May 20, 2015, press release to make its Cesium-131 product seem better than it really was and to prop up its stock price. The article stated that IsoRay "does a poor job selling radioactive 'seeds' for use in cancer radiation therapy. To make up for the inability to deliver revenue growth -- and prop up its stock price ---IsoRay issues a lot of promotional press releases, some of which take liberties with clinical data using clever, selective editing." The article went on to state that the study authors "do not endorse IsoRay's Cesium-131 or call the results 'outstanding.' They conclude that early-stage lung cancer patients may benefit from surgery plus Cesium-131 or an alternative form of radiation therapy compared to surgery alone." On this news, the price of IsoRay shares fell $1.77 per share from the stock's intraday high trading price of $3.79 per share to close at $2.02 per share on May 21, 2015, a one-day decline of 35 percent, on volume of 52.8 million shares. The stock subsequently dropped to below $1.60 per share, essentially the same price it had traded at prior to the May 20, 2015, press release. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of IsoRay publicly traded securities during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Hagens Berman, which has extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving financial fraud. Investors who purchased ISR stock during the period between May 20, 2015, and May 21, 2015, can contact a Hagens Berman attorney about this case by emailing ISR@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine cities. The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. JACK'S BAR-B-Q: "Whitehead" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Donathan Whitehead v. Jack's Bar-B-Q Smokehouse, Inc. and Jackie Mays, Case No. 0:15-cv-61302-JIC (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Jay Militzok, Esq. MILITZOK LAW, P.A. 4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 780-8228 Facsimile: (954) 719-4016 E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com KEURIG GREEN: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports ------------------------------------------------------------ Edward Blasco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Brian P. Kelley, and Frances G. Rathke, Case No. 5:15-cv-02766-RMW (N.D. Cal., June 19, 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. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that produces and sells specialty coffee, coffeemakers, teas, and other beverages in the United States and Canada. 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 KLX ENERGY: Accused of Violating FLSA, Penn. Minimum Wage Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Carpenter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. KLX Energy Services, LLC and Blue Dot Energy Services, LLC, Case 2:15-cv-00807-LPL (W.D. Penn., June 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to Defendants' salary and day rate employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. Blue Dot Energy Services, LLC and KLX Energy Services, LLC are enterprises engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua P. Geist, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C. 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Tel: 412-766-1455 Fax: 412-766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com - and - Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Pennsylvania Bar No. 308410 Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS&JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet St. Houston, TX 77005 Tel: (713) 751-0025 Fax: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Tel: 713-877-8788 Fax: 713-877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com LINKEDIN CORP: Settles Privacy Class Action for $13 Million ----------------------------------------------------------- Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that LinkedIn Corp. has agreed to pay $13 million to settle a proposed privacy class action claiming the company used site users' names and likenesses to shower their contacts with repeated spam-like invitations to join the professional networking site. The proposed settlement filed on June 11 is subject to approval from U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh. If approved, the deal would rank among the largest payouts to settle a privacy case filed in the Northern District of California. The June 11 settlement comes after Judge Koh twice last year denied LinkedIn's attempts to knock out the LinkedIn privacy lawsuit. Plaintiffs first sued LinkedIn in September 2013 claiming the company violated the federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, and California privacy and right of publicity laws by harvesting email addresses from users' contacts to send repeated invitations through its "Add Connections" feature. Plaintiffs claimed that the reminder emails, which included information and images users shared as part of their LinkedIn profiles, appeared as if they were sent directly by users rather than from the company. Although Judge Koh denied the claims brought under federal laws, which carry statutory penalties of up to thousands of dollars per violation, plaintiffs were still pursing right-of-publicity claims under California law when the settlement was reached. According to settlement papers, the parties agreed to the $13 million figure after a session with San Francisco mediator Antonio Piazza in January but didn't finalize the full terms of the deal until June 10. The settlement figure could go up by as much as $750,000 to increase the per-plaintiff payment to $10 depending on the number of claims filed. Settlement papers indicate that there are more than 20 million potential class members. Privacy class actions, by and large, have fizzled or settled for smaller sums in the Northern District. But there have been a few notable exceptions. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg signed off on the largest such settlement in August 2013, a $20 million deal Facebook Inc. entered to settle privacy claims stemming from its "sponsored stories" feature. Google Inc. has paid out a pair of $8.5 million settlements in the past few years and Netflix Inc. agreed to pay $9 million in 2013 to settle claims the company improperly held onto records of customers who canceled their accounts. In seeking approval of the LinkedIn deal, plaintiffs counsel say the Facebook settlement is a "relevant point of comparison." The Facebook case also settled after the case survived a motion to dismiss but before class certification. Seeborg approved a $20 million cash payout for an estimated class of 124 million members -- or about 16 cents per potential class member. The proposed LinkedIn settlement provides about $6.25 per class member. As part of the deal, LinkedIn also agreed to revise its disclosures related to the "Add Connections" feature, and to allow LinkedIn members to stop reminder emails from inadvertently being sent. Plaintiffs counsel at Russ August & Kabat; Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Olavi Dunne are asking for up to 25 percent of the settlement, or $2.35 million, in attorney fees. Lieff Cabraser's Michael Sobol didn't respond to messages on June 12. LinkedIn is represented in the case by Munger, Tolles & Olson. A spokesperson said in an email that the company is "pleased to resolve this case, and we will continue to look for additional ways to improve our members' experiences on LinkedIn." M & M ASPHALT: Accused of Failure to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ Kenneth A. Dyer, Jr., Henry L. Kemp, Jr., Marquis D. Grooms, and Kirk Sandy, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. M & M Asphalt Maintenance Inc. d/b/a All County Paving, Case 6:15-cv-00959-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla., June 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendant fails to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. M & M Asphalt maintains and operates an asphalt paving, repair and sealcoating business in Orlando, Florida. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Scott C. Adamas, Esq. N. Ryan Labar, Esq. LABAR & ADAMS, P.A. 2300 East Concord Street Orlando, FL 32803 Tel: (407) 835-8968 Fax: 835-8969 E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com rlabar@labaradams.com MASSACHUSETTS: Prisoners File Class Action Over Hep C Treatments ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bob McGovern, writing for Boston Herald, reports that two Bay State prisoners are suing the state for allegedly withholding potentially lifesaving Hepatitis C treatments from hundreds of inmates suffering from the virus. "Over 1,500 state prisoners in Massachusetts have Hepatitis C, but as of the present time only three are being treated for it," attorney Jonathan Shapiro wrote in a 17-page complaint. "For many of them, including plaintiffs and the members of their class, the illness may progress toward end stage liver disease and death." Emilian Paszko and Jeffrey Fowler, two currently incarcerated prisoners, filed the class action in federal court on June 10. Their suit accuses the Department of Corrections and the Massachusetts Partnership for Correctional Healthcare -- the health-care provider for the DOC -- are violating prisoners' constitutional rights. Lawyers for the National Lawyers Guild and Prisoners Legal Services brought the suit on the prisoners' behalf. "It is the responsibility of the state, which spends millions to incarcerate thousands of people, to provide adequate medical care for them," Urszula Masny-Latos, executive director of the Massachusetts chapter of the NLG, said in a statement. "Without such care, many of them will develop serious complications of this disease, and some will die. These people were sentenced to incarceration, not to death." The DOC's protocol for selecting what prisoners get treatment has long been flawed, according to the suit. Prisoners "too close to their release date would not receive treatment" and others "who received certain types of disciplinary reports" would also be deemed ineligible, according to the complaint. The number of prisoners receiving Hepatitis-C treatment fell from 81 in 2009 to three currently, according to the lawsuit. "Hepatitis C afflicts over 1,500 of the Department of Correction's 10,000 prisoners," said Leslie Walker, executive director of Prisoners' Legal Services, in a statement. "The Department used to treat up to 100 prisoners at a time with the best available medication. Today that number is two or three, even though the new regimens are superior in every way to the old medications." MICHAEL KORS: Settles Class Action Deceptive Price Tags ------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Michael Kors Holdings Ltd. agreed to pay U$S4.88 million and change its sales practices to settle a class action lawsuit claiming it used deceptive price tags at its outlet stores to fool shoppers into believing they were getting big bargains. The preliminary settlement was filed on June 12 in Manhattan federal court, and requires court approval. Michael Kors was accused of creating an "illusion" of deep discounts by using tags containing made-up "manufacturer's suggested retail prices," or MSRP, and offers to sell the products at lower prices, termed "our price." Shoppers said the suggested retail prices were artificial because the tagged products had been made exclusively for Michael Kors outlets, and the London-based fashion house never intended to sell them at those prices. As part of the settlement, Michael Kors will replace "MSRP" with "Value" on its price tags and display signage explaining that term, or stop using reference prices for products made exclusively for its outlets. In a court filing, the plaintiffs' lawyers said the lawsuit is among several accusing well-known retailers of deceptive marketing in outlet and factory stores that violates state consumer protection laws. Michael Kors denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. It did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The June 12 settlement covers shoppers who bought products from Michael Kors outlets in the four years ending July 25, 2014. The plaintiffs' lawyers plan to seek legal fees of up to 30 per cent of the settlement fund, court papers show. The case is Gattinella v. Michael Kors (USA) Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-05731. MIGAR CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Heduwar Dali Colmenares Mena, a/k/a Heduwar D. Colmenares, and all others similarly situated v. Migar Corporation, d/b/a Luis Galindo Latin American #2 and Alberto Elias, Case No. 1:15-cv-22324-JAL (S.D. Fla., June 19, 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 a restaurant in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Olivia Hueber, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300-71st Street, Ste 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: elizabeth.hueber.esq@gmail.com MINNESOTA: Set to Rule on Sex Offender Program Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Chris Serres, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Minnesotans could see more convicted sex offenders moving into their communities in coming months if a federal judge this week rules, as expected, that the state's controversial system of confining offenders indefinitely violates the U.S. Constitution. U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank, presiding over a class- action suit against the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP), already has signaled his deep-seated displeasure with the system, calling it "clearly broken" and "draconian" in an earlier ruling. In a lengthy and contentious trial early this year, state officials admitted they may be detaining untold numbers of sex offenders who no longer meet the state's legal requirement for confinement. The ruling, due June 17, was expected to set off a series of monumental changes to a program that has long been criticized as inhumane for indefinitely confining sex offenders after their prison terms have ended and without regular reviews. It is unlikely that Judge Frank will order the immediate release of any offenders, though legal experts say he could demand a prompt evaluation of the program to identify those who no longer pose a threat to society. Perhaps anticipating a decision against MSOP, the state of Minnesota has been busy laying the groundwork for the transition of more offenders into the community. Since 2013, the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS), which oversees MSOP, has executed contracts with nine outside agencies to provide housing and treatment to sex offenders. The program has also moved a record number of offenders, 67, to the final phase of treatment within MSOP. In two decades, no one has been unconditionally discharged from the program, which confines about 700 rapists, pedophiles and other offenders at prisonlike treatment centers in Moose Lake and St. Peter. Experts on sexual deviancy who have worked with offenders at MSOP estimate that as many as 25 percent to 35 percent of those confined at Moose Lake and St. Peter no longer meet the state's statutory criteria for confinement. Those most likely to be considered for expedited release, say these experts, are some 60 detainees who have no adult sex-crime convictions but were committed to the program based solely on their behavior as juveniles; and another 70 offenders who are over age 65. "There is a perception that offenders at MSOP represent the 'worst of the worst' -- but that's simply a myth," said Jon Brandt, a clinical social worker and board member of the Minnesota chapter of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers. "These guys have done some horrible things in the past, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be locked up indefinitely." Nevertheless, local opposition to any releases is likely to be fierce. Last year, Gov. Mark Dayton pulled the plug on plans to move about a dozen frail and low-functioning sex offenders to a facility in Cambridge, Minn., after hundreds of residents showed up at community meetings protesting the plan. "There will be tiny uprisings across the state," predicted Dr. Budd Renier, a Cambridge resident who spoke out against the state's plan. "DHS will try to walk into these communities and do a song and dance about how these guys need to be treated fairly, but it's going to be difficult. . . . Who in their right mind wants a sex offender moving in next to their kid?" And early this year, after a convicted rapist, Robert Jeno, was approved for supervised release to a group home in Le Center, a number of upset residents called for restrictions on where sex offenders can live. The Le Center City Council unanimously passed an ordinance prohibiting Level 3 offenders from living near schools and other places where children congregate. "Of course there will be a backlash" to the ruling, said Warren Maas, executive director of Project Pathfinder, a St. Paul nonprofit that provides outpatient sex offender treatment. "There is a small but vocal minority who will argue that these are awful people who should never be released into the community." No exit Minnesota has long stood out among states for confining sex offenders indefinitely after their prison terms without conducting periodic risk evaluations. Most states, including Wisconsin, require that all offenders be assessed at least annually to determine if they still pose a serious enough risk to the public to justify confinement. Only three offenders have been provisionally discharged in MSOP's history, and no offenders have been completely released without ongoing supervision. By comparison, Wisconsin has unconditionally discharged 118 clients, California has discharged 181, and Massachusetts has discharged 186, according to a 2014 survey. Dan Gustafson, the lead attorney representing a class of offenders in the case before Judge Frank, said MSOP's admission during the trial that it was failing to perform regular evaluations of offenders was "the linchpin of our case." "If you're going to take away someone's liberty, you better be damn sure you take it away for the proper reason and the proper amount of time," Gustafson said. Few reoffend At Moose Lake and St. Peter, offenders say the mood has turned anxiously hopeful in recent weeks as Frank nears a ruling. "The anticipation is huge," said Leon Preston, 39, who has been confined at MSOP for 15 years. "There are guys here who think the judge is going to overturn this and everyone is going to get out." Numerous studies have shown that sex offenders who undergo treatment pose very little risk of reoffending after being released. Since 2008, Florida has unconditionally discharged more than 40 offenders, with a reoffense rate of less than 5 percent. Only a tiny fraction of sex crimes are committed by repeat offenders, which has caused some treatment specialists to question the wisdom of spending money on high-security treatment centers. In 2014, the cost of operating MSOP, including treating, housing and feeding offenders, totaled $90.3 million -- or about $120,000 per offender. The risk of reoffense is even lower for offenders who continue to receive treatment after they are released into the community. Such outpatient programs are already well-established in Minnesota. The state Department of Corrections contracts with outside agencies that provide treatment to more than 2,200 offenders covering 83 of Minnesota's 87 counties. "The embarrassing irony," said Maas of Project Pathfinder, "is that we are professionally one of the best states to release [civilly committed] offenders, but we have almost never done so." MISSISSIPPI: DOC Violated Eighth Amendment Rights, Court Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Kourtney Moncure, writing for MSNewsNow, reports that U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves has ruled that the Mississippi Department of Corrections is violating the Eighth Amendment rights of the prisoners at Walnut Grove Correctional Facility by failing to protect them from violence. In his decision, Reeves noted that gangs controlled Walnut Grove and that prison guards plotted with them, which lead to leaving prisoners vulnerable to attack and fostering conditions for two riots in the past year. The judge ordered the department and MTC, which is the for-profit prison corporation the State pays to operate Walnut Grove, to implement basic safety measures to end gang control as well as violence by guards against prisoners at Walnut Grove. The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center and McDuff & Byrd represented the prisoners in the class action suit over the violence. "We are very pleased with the court's decision," said Jody Owens, managing attorney for the SPLC's Mississippi office. "This is an important ruling for all current and future prisoners held inside the privately operated facility. We look forward to the continued role the court will play to ensure that prison officials uphold their constitutional obligations to provide a safe and humane environment for inmates at Walnut Grove Correctional Facility." "With this federal court ruling, the Mississippi Department of Corrections must step up to its responsibility under the Constitution and protect the prisoners of Walnut Grove from violence," said Margaret Winter, Associate Director of the ACLU's National Prison Project. "The department can no longer sit back and let a for-profit prison company neglect the prisoners' safety on the state's dime. We will make sure that this historic judgment is enforced, and we hope its impact will be felt not only at Walnut Grove but at prisons throughout the state." MUD MASTERS: Faces "Saenz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Micah Saenz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Mud Masters Group, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01762 (S.D. Tex., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Mud Masters Group, Inc. owns and operates an oilfield equipment services company in Houston, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com NATIONAL HOCKEY: Settles Class Action Over TV Blackouts ------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that The National Hockey league will permit fans to watch their favorite teams play outside their home markets, without having to pay extra for a league-wide bundle of games, as part of a settlement of a class action antitrust lawsuit. The preliminary accord made public on June 11 resolves claims that the league, several teams, Comcast Corp, DirecTV and Madison Square Garden Co, used blackouts to limit out-of-market broadcasts of games. Fans said this forced them to buy costly bundles of games they did not care about, rather than spend less to buy games "a la carte," if they wanted to want their preferred teams. Under the settlement, the NHL will, for the next five years, offer a "Game Center Live" Internet package enabling fans to buy single- team packages for at least 20 percent below the cost of bundled packages. The league will also discount "early bird," renewal and full season prices by an additional 17.25 percent for the 2015-2016 season, allowing a fan who now pays $159 for a game bundle to instead buy a single-team package for about $105. The June 11 settlement requires approval by U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan. It came after the judge on May 14 dealt fans a setback by ruling they could not pursue damages in a class action, though they could pursue antitrust claims as a group. A similar lawsuit against Major League Baseball, several teams and broadcasters has not been settled. In a court filing, Howard Langer, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the accord "fair, reasonable and adequate." He said it was first time in any U.S. major league sport that consumers could choose between buying a league-wide out-of-market game bundle, or watching only their favorite teams, on a season-long basis. The team defendants included the Buffalo Sabres, Chicago Blackhawks, New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders, New York Rangers, Pittsburgh Penguins, San Jose Sharks and Washington Capitals. Shepard Goldfein, a lawyer for the NHL and teams, declined to comment. The league, Comcast, DirecTV and MSG were not immediately available for comment. Lawyers for the plaintiffs would receive $6.5 million to cover fees and costs under the settlement. The cases are Laumann et al v. National Hockey League et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-01817; and Lerner et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al in the same court, No. 12-03074. ORIENTAL BAKERY: Faces "Castaneda" Suit for Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Luis Alfonso Castaneda and other similarly situated individuals, v. Oriental Bakery and Grocery Enterprises, Inc., Okash Abdel Monem, and Rafat A. Monem, Case 1:15-cv-22226-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2015), seeks damages exceeding $15,000 excluding fees or costs for unpaid wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act. Oriental Bakery is engaged in interstate commerce from its office in Miami Dade Country, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: 305-416-5000 Fax: 305-416-5005 PAPA JOHN'S: Trial Scheduled for August 2015 in "Perrin" Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that the trial is scheduled for August 2015 in the Perrin class action. Perrin v. Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA, Inc. is a conditionally certified collective action filed in August 2009 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, alleging that delivery drivers were not reimbursed for mileage and expenses in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Approximately 3,900 drivers out of a potential class size of 28,800 have opted into the action. In late December 2013, the District Court granted a motion for class certification in five additional states, which added approximately 15,000 plaintiffs to the case. The trial is scheduled for August 2015. PERKINS COIE: De Graff's Employment Suit Back in State Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that almost three years ago Perkins Coie successfully pushed a federal employment suit targeting the firm into arbitration. But now the case is back -- this time in state court -- and it looks like the firm will be forced to fight the battle over again. Securities lawyer Harold DeGraff sued Perkins Coie in San Mateo County Superior Court on June 11, claiming his former workplace illegally forced him to foot the bill for employment expenses such as Medicare costs, which he says Perkins Coie should have covered. The claims echo a suit Mr. DeGraff filed in 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Jeffrey White sent that case to arbitration, ruling Mr. DeGraff was barred from litigating in court by the Perkins Coie partnership agreement. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined the federal district court never had jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, and remanded the case for dismissal. Mr. White dismissed the case on June 10, opening the door for DeGraff to try again in state court. Mr. DeGraff is represented by Monique Olivier and Thomas Duckworth of Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier. Ronald McIntire, managing partner of Perkins Coie's Los Angeles office, represented the firm in the federal suit. A Perkins Coie attorney hasn't entered an appearance in the new case, and McIntire declined to comment publicly. Mr. DeGraff, now one of three partners at San Francisco firm Hayden Bergman, claims Perkins Coie gave him the option in 2007 to join the firm as a partner or an employee. He says he chose to be an employee, and as a result was managed by an executive committee that could fire him at any time. His employee status meant Perkins Coie was prohibited from making unauthorized deductions from Mr. DeGraff's paychecks, according to the complaint. In a federal filing, McIntire contended Mr. DeGraff chose to join the firm as a corporate partner, not an employee. "Despite the repeated reference in the complaint to his purported 'employee' status, it is undisputed that Mr. DeGraff was a partner in Perkins Coie LLP from 2007 to 2010," Mr. McIntire wrote. Mr. DeGraff claims Perkins Coie regularly withheld money for extraneous employment expenses, including workers' compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Social Security. In 2008 the firm took $11,803 from Mr. DeGraff's wages as a "shareholder loan," and $20,297 for "mandatory retirement" deductions, according to the complaint. Mr. DeGraff claims Perkins Coie also deducted about $1,500 a year for its charity fund. "Plaintiff and class members were induced by defendants by promises of high guaranteed income to become attorneys at Perkins Coie," Mr. DeGraff's lawyers wrote. "Defendants hired plaintiff and class members, deducted thousands of dollars for business expenses and unlawfully failed to indemnify business expenses in order to deny them wages and benefits to which they are lawfully entitled under California law." Mr. DeGraff's lawyers seek to represent a class of lawyers who have been treated as shareholders or employees of Perkins Coie California from 2008 through the suit's final judgment. While plaintiffs were appealing White's decision on arbitration, the lawyers for both sides realized there weren't enough class members to keep the case in federal court. The Class Action Fairness Act allows claims to proceed in federal court if the proposed class includes at least 100 people. The Ninth Circuit panel, made up of Judges Diarmuid O'Scannlain and Morgan Christen and U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright of Hawaii, were skeptical of the federal court's jurisdiction from the beginning and asked both sides to address the issue. Perkins Coie determined the class could have no more than 60 members, and both sides agreed to dismiss the case. PGA TOUR: July 23 Hearing on Motion to Transfer Venue of Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Garry Smits, writing for Jacksonville.com, reports that the next step in a $50 million class action lawsuit filed by more than 150 caddies against the PGA Tour will be a hearing on July 23 on the Tour's motion for a change of venue from the Northern California U.S. District Court to the Middle Florida District, which includes Jacksonville. Eugene Egdorf of the Lanier Law Group, which is representing the caddies on a contingency basis, said the Tour, whose headquarters are in Ponte Vedra Beach, wants a home-field advantage. "They don't dispute the filing of the lawsuit but they said it's too inconvenient for them to have the case go forward in San Francisco," said Mr. Egdorf, whose firm has offices in Houston and Los Angeles. "I find that a little preposterous. They had a tournament in San Francisco [the Dell Match Play last month] and [commissioner] Tim Finchem and the rest of the Tour executives managed to get there." The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 3, noted that the Tour had an office in San Francisco, owned or managed several courses in California and operated five tournaments in the state. The caddies are demanding compensation for being required to wear bibs with the logos of tournament title sponsors. The suit said the $50 million figure is calculated by the amount of air time on network TV and webcasts of the caddies with the logos visible. The suit also states that the Tour "has treated caddies as second- class participants of the game," and listed grievances such as lack of health care coverage and access to pension plans and the treatment at specific Tour events, including inadequate shelter during dangerous weather situations. The Tour does not comment on pending litigation. However, commissioner Tim Finchem said in an interview with the Times-Union in May that while the Tour leaves caddie amenities and services up to the individual tournament committees, efforts have been made predating the lawsuit to improve conditions. Mr. Egdorf said depositions of Tour officials were scheduled to begin on June 26. PFIZER INC: Can See Expert Report in Zoloft Birth Defect Case ------------------------------------------------------------- Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that lawyers bringing the case alleging that Zoloft caused birth defects in babies born to women who took the antidepressant have to turn over the report that their expert produced in similar litigation over Prozac, the federal judge handling the case has ruled. The plaintiffs have to turn over the report and testimony given by Dr. Nicholas Jewell in the Prozac case that is proceeding in the Western District of North Carolina by May 21, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in a short, two-page order. Judge Rufe is handling the roughly 600 cases brought against Pfizer, which makes Zoloft, that were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in her court. The North Carolina suit was brought by a single plaintiff against Eli Lilly & Co., which makes Prozac. The two cases share several of the same plaintiffs lawyers. Dr. Jewell is the second expert on causation that the plaintiffs have offered in the Zoloft case. The first one, Anick Berard, was tossed after a week-long Daubert hearing last year. It was an unusual move for the judge to allow a second expert in the case. Jewell is scheduled to have a Daubert hearing -- which allows parties in a case to challenge expert testimony before the start of trial and is named for the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals -- starting July 7. If he gets through that hearing, the case will likely focus on just cardiovascular defects, since that is Dr. Jewell's area of research. Dr. Berard's research had tied Zoloft to a plethora of birth defects, but Judge Rufe rejected her testimony, finding several problems with her methodology. "Dr. Jewell and plaintiffs' counsel, who are also counsel in the Prozac litigation, insist that the entirety of Dr. Jewell's expert report and deposition are confidential and thus subject to a protective order," Pfizer said in its motion to compel the report. "That blanket assertion is highly suspect and implausible. Dr. Jewell is a general causation expert who presents a statistical analysis of data. He typically does not review or discuss plaintiff-specific information or medical records and has not done so in this matter. His opinions in the Prozac litigation, as they are in this litigation, are presumably based primarily upon publicly available, peer-reviewed literature." Judge Rufe agreed and ordered the plaintiffs to turn over the report with portions that Eli Lilly has identified as confidential redacted, as well as information that would reveal personal health information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. In the Prozac case, Angela Shoemake alleged her son was born with a supracristal ventricular septal defect, a problem in the wall between the left and right sides of the heart, because she took Prozac while she was pregnant, according to her complaint in the case. About 60 percent of the more than 600 cases that are currently part of the Zoloft MDL involve claims of cardiac defects. "In making a blanket assertion of confidentiality over the entire deposition and report, plaintiffs' and Dr. Jewell's motives are transparent: They do not want the defendants or the court to ascertain and explore whether there are any inconsistencies in his methodologies in the different SSRI litigations," Pfizer had argued in its motion to compel the report. Both Zoloft and Prozac are antidepressant drugs that operate as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, and the parties disagree about how similarly the drugs operate. "The real issue for this court . . . hotly debated by both sides [is] when we're talking about birth defects, is there a difference between SSRI drugs" or can you lump them together and treat them as a class, Sheila Birnbaum -- sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com -- said during the Daubert hearing for Berard last year. Ms. Birnbaum is a partner with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in New York who is on Pfizer's defense team. "They're very different," Ms. Birnbaum said, building the defense's argument that SSRI drugs can't be treated as a class of medicines with shared characteristics and effects. After Judge Rufe rejected Dr. Berard as an expert and allowed the plaintiffs to offer a second one, she emphasized that it is not to be considered an acceptable legal strategy to petition for a second expert after losing in a Daubert hearing, but, in this case the lawyers for the plaintiffs had acted in good faith. "The court in no way suggests seeking to present an additional expert only after an unfavorable Daubert ruling is an appropriate litigation strategy," she had said. "However, the court has no reason to conclude that the [plaintiffs steering committee] has acted in bad faith or that its present predicament is the result of deliberate strategy instead of a miscalculation as to the persuasiveness of Dr. Berard's testimony," Judge Rufe said. PHILADELPHIA, PA: Judge Allows Civil Forfeiture Suit to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a federal judge has allowed a civil suit to go forward against a Philadelphia assistant district attorney and his supervisor over their conduct during civil forfeiture proceedings. The ruling marks the second win in as many months for critics of the city's civil forfeiture process. On June 11, U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled an assistant district attorney and the chief of the district attorney's Public Nuisance Task Force Unit are not immune from claims by the administrator of an estate that they failed to properly notify him of civil forfeiture proceedings until after the subject property had been sold for "pennies on the dollar." Kevin Floyd, the administrator of the estate of Randolph Tyler and the plaintiff in Tyler v. Grossman, is a son of a property owner who died a year before civil forfeiture proceedings began. Mr. Floyd alleged Fourth, Fifth and 14th amendment violations for denial of due process and unlawful taking of property. The ruling came a month after U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno allowed a class action lawsuit to go forward against the city of Philadelphia alleging that several of the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office's practices violated their rights. That suit, Sourovelis v. City of Philadelphia, said that, among other things, the city's civil forfeiture procedures failed to provide prompt post-deprivation hearings, allowed prosecutors to "essentially act like judges in running forfeiture proceedings," and required property owners to surrender constitutional rights in order to have their property unsealed, or to settle or dismiss the forfeiture claims. The city had contended in Sourovelis, among other things, that a 1996 decision from the Eastern District had been interpreted in numerous other cases by the district court as holding that district attorney offices cannot be liable for Section 1983 violations. However, Judge Robreno said the passage the other decisions relied on was "arguably dicta." "This court declines to walk down this unexamined path -- a path not supported by a close reading of Reitz [v. County of Bucks]," Judge Robreno said. David Rudovsky -- drudovsky@krlawphila.com -- of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing & Feinberg, who represented the plaintiffs in the class action, said the rulings are an indication that the courts are taking these claims seriously. "I think courts are starting to look much more carefully at civil forfeiture proceedings, particularly those in Philadelphia," he said. "That's because very credible allegations are being raised concerning constitutional violations." Noting a portion of Judge Robreno's opinion that said the District Attorney's Office recently changed its ex parte "seize and seal" order practice that the plaintiffs claimed failed to provide adequate constitutional protections, Judge Rudovsky said he felt the city should get some recognition for making recent adjustments to some its policies. However, he added that the changes were likely due in large part to litigation. Cameron Kline, spokesman for the District Attorney's Office, declined to outline any additional internal policies that may have changed, but said the office is taking steps to ensure that the process is a "narrowly tailored" tool. "Issues of forfeiture process and policy are something we take very seriously," Mr. Kline said. Bryan C. Hughes, a lawyer in the District Attorneys's Office who is defense counsel in the Tyler case, added that the department will have to evaluate whether Judge Beetlestone's opinion will impact how the office handles these proceedings. Noting the department's recent changes to the "seize and seal" procedures, he said that office leaders "continue to look at things we can do to improve our forfeiture program separate and apart from any ongoing litigation." Richard Long, executive director of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, said the rulings did not signal to him that courts are viewing civil forfeiture-related claims more favorably, but rather only suggest that the plaintiffs met certain procedural requirements for their cases. "While there may be some tweaking that may be appropriate [for civil forfeiture procedures], as with many other programs, overall, it serves an important purpose in helping to boost public safety," Mr. Long said. According to Judge Beetlestone, Tyler died in May 2009, but left no will or written instructions regarding a plot of land he owned in Philadelphia. The District Attorney's Office commenced a civil drug forfeiture proceeding on Tyler's property, Judge Beetlestone said. At the time the forfeiture proceedings were begun, Tyler's estate had not been raised. Therefore, no legal representative was available and no one could be served with a copy of the drug forfeiture complaint, Judge Beetlestone said. Notice that a suit had been filed was likewise not served on anyone representing Tyler's estate. After notice of the drug forfeiture action was mailed to the property, assistant district attorney Clarence Dupree, who had been assigned the case, was allegedly told that Tyler was dead and there was no estate. Judge Beetlestone in her opinion said an unknown individual in the District Attorney's Office allegedly misinformed the state forfeiture court that an estate for Tyler had been raised. Mr. Dupree appeared several times between June 2011 and April 2012 before the Court of Common Pleas in the forfeiture proceedings, and the property was eventually sold for $5,500, Judge Beetlestone said. About five months later, Tyler's estate was raised after Floyd received letters of administration by the register for the probate of wills regarding the property. Floyd sued the city, the District Attorney's Office, Mr. Dupree and Beth Grossman, the former task force chief, but the defendants contended that the District Attorney's Office, as well as Ms. Grossman and Mr. Dupree in their official capacities, could not be sued. The defendants also argued that Dupree and Grossman had absolute immunity for actions taken in their individual capacities. Judge Beetlestone dismissed with prejudice the claims against the District Attorneys's Office, and Ms. Grossman and Mr. Dupree in their official capacities, but she allowed the claims to proceed against Grossman and Dupree in their individual capacities. According to Judge Beetlestone, the question of whether the two had immunity came down to the nature of the officials' allegedly offending conduct. Judge Beetlestone found that, although Dupree had immunity for sending the notice of forfeiture proceedings, he was not immune for his alleged failure to inform the court that an estate had not been raised. "This action was not in any way connected to the initiation or conducting of the forfeiture trial, and cannot be considered either judicial or quasi-judicial," Judge Beetlestone said. "This court concludes accordingly that Dupree's failure to notify the forfeiture court of the fact that Tyler's estate had yet to be raised was a purely administrative act not entitled to the shield of absolute prosecutorial immunity." She found likewise for Ms. Grossman's supervision of Mr. Dupree. Geoffrey V. Seay, who represented the estate, did not return a call seeking comment, but Judge Rudovsky said Judge Beetlestone's ruling could impact the way these civil forfeiture cases are processed. "It's an important sign that they really have to be more careful in the way they can proceed in these cases," Judge Rudovsky said. PIZZA 18: Accused of Violating FLSA, Illinois Minimum Wage Law -------------------------------------------------------------- Juventino Ambros, Fidel Flores, Gabriel Castillo Garcia, and Nabor Jara Villegas, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated known and unknown v. Pizza 18, LLC d/b/a Benny's Pizza and Benny's Pizza II, Enrique Salcido, individually, Juan C. Fajarado Macedo, individually, and Octavio Rodriguez, individually, Case: 1:15-cv-05315 (N.D. Ill., June 16, 2015) lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Defendant Pizza 18, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company doing business within this judicial district. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carlos G. Becerra, Esq. Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq. BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC 332 South Michigan, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60604 Tel: (312)753-6967 Fax: (888)826-5848 E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com pgonzalez@law-rb.com POLLO OPERATIONS: Sued in Fla. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Pollo Operations, Inc. d/b/a Pollo Tropical, Case No. 1:15-cv-22312-KMM (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2015), asserts that the Defendant's website does not provide screen reader software or other means to accommodate the visually impaired, nor does it interface with screen reader software in order that visually impaired individuals can comprehend the website. Pollo Operations, Inc. owns and operates a fast food restaurant chain that conducts business within the State of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Richard Dinin, Esq. SCOTT R. DININ, P.A. 4200 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (786) 431-1333 Facsimile: (786) 513-7700 E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com REGIS CORPORATION: Fong Gets OK to File 2nd Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vince Chhabria signed a joint stipulation allowing the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint in the case captioned MELISSA FONG, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees and all aggrieved employees of Defendants in the State of California, Plaintiff, v. REGIS CORPORATION d.b.a. MINNESOTA REGIS CORPORATION, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 13:CV:004497-VC, (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff wishes to amend her First Amended Complaint to amend previous allegations and assert new allegations, class action claims, causes of action, to add Christina L. Salas as an additional Plaintiff, and to add Regis Corp. as an additional Defendant. The Defendant has reviewed Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended Complaint and contends that Plaintiff's new allegations, class action claims, and causes of action are without factual or legal merit, but agreed, in the interests of efficiency, to the Plaintiff's filing of her proposed Second Amended Complaint. A copy of the court-approved stipulation dated June 12, 2015 is available at http://bit.ly/1LQIsNgfrom Leagle.com. GRAHAMHOLLIS APC, Marta Manus -- mmanus@grahamhollis.com -- Graham S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com -- San Diego, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff MELISSA FONG. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Catherine M. Dacre -- cdacre@seyfarth.com -- Michael W. Kopp -- mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Ari Hersher -- ahersher@seyfarth.com -- San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant REGIS CORPORATION. RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act --------------------------------------------------------------- Kyun Bum Oh, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-04194 (D.N.J., June 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yongmoon Kim, Esq. KIM LAW FIRM LLC 411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl. Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 273-7117 Facsimile: (201) 273-7117 E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com ROSS STORES: Faces "Jacobo" Suit Over False Merchandise Prices -------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Jacobo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ross Stores, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-04701-MMM-AGR (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2015), is a class action against Defendants for labeling the products it sells in its California stores with false and misleading comparative prices and corresponding false discounts and savings for its apparel and other merchandise. Ross Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates approximately 240 Ross stores throughout the state of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas Caiafa, Esq. DOUGLAS CAIAFA, APLC 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, California 92211 Telephone: (760) 469-5986 Facsimile: (760) 345-1581 E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com SANOFI: Faces ERISA Class Action in New Jersey ---------------------------------------------- Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that stockholders in drugmaker Sanofi's group savings plan claim in a putative class action that the plan's administrators violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by providing misleading information about Sanofi's alleged payment of kickbacks to health- care professionals to induce purchases of its drugs. The suit, filed in federal court in Newark, claims the company's stock price dropped 20 percent in December 2014 when a company paralegal accused Sanofi of making at least $34 million in illegal payments to induce purchases of the company's drugs. The defendants in the suit are the U.S. Pension Committee, Administrative Committee and Investment Committee of the Sanofi US Group Savings Plan. Also named as defendants are Richard Johnson, the plan administrator and senior director of compensation and benefits for Sanofi, and Edgar Grass, treasurer for Sanofi. The plaintiff is Joseph Forte of Ambler, Pennsylvania, a former employee of a company acquired by Sanofi and a participant in the plan. He held shares of the stock fund in a retirement savings account. The suit concerns allegations that the company paid illegal kickbacks to get Walgreen Co., Rite-Aid Corp. and other companies to buy Sanofi's products, and that it contracted with consulting firms Deloitte and Accenture to illegally promote the use of the company's drugs. The suit was brought on behalf of participants and beneficiaries in the Sanofi US Group Savings plan who invested in company stock between March 21, 2013, and Dec. 4, 2014. During that time, as a result of past violations of federal health-care laws, Sanofi was subject to a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which required it to comply with federal health care laws, and which prescribed mandatory investigation and reporting of illegal activities by the company, the suit says. The former company paralegal, Diane Ponte, filed a whistleblower suit in Essex County Superior Court in December 2014, claiming she was fired after raising concerns about the alleged kickbacks. The savings plan suit says Sanofi's stock began to trade at an artificially inflated price due to the company's misrepresentations to the public regarding corruption in its business. Mr. Ponte claims in her suit that Sanofi had a policy that no employee could sign contracts on behalf of the company unless the contracts were first reviewed by the finance, purchasing and legal departments. Mr. Ponte claims that she determined Christopher Viehbacher, the then-CEO of Sanofi, either directly or through instructions to others, ensured that such illegal payments were miscoded on the company computer system so they could be executed without approval of the finance, purchasing and legal departments. According to the savings plan suit, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA for continuing to allow employees to buy company stock through the group savings plan even after they knew it had become an imprudent investment. The suit says Sanofi publicly announced in October 2014 that it was investigating allegations that the company made improper payments to health-care professionals in Africa and the Middle East from 2007 to 2012. But the announcement was a "woefully incomplete disclosure" because it did not mention the allegations by Ponte concerning payments to U.S. pharmacies or the lack of internal controls to ensure legal compliance, the suit claims. The savings plan had approximately $3.9 billion in various investments, including $102 million in the stock fund, the suit says. Sanofi, headquartered in Paris, has its U.S. base of operations in Bridgewater. The class suit brings claims for failure to prudently and loyally manage the plan's assets, and failure to adequately monitor the plan fiduciaries and provide them with accurate information. The suit seeks a declaration that the defendants breached ERISA fiduciary duties owed to the plan and its participants, an order compelling defendants to make good to the plan all losses resulting from breaches of the defendants' fiduciary duties, and imposition of a constructive trust on any amounts by which defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of the plan as the result of breaches of fiduciary duty. The savings plan suit is the third filed in New Jersey over the alleged kickback scheme. In addition to Mr. Ponte's whistleblower suit, a putative class action was filed in federal court in February on behalf of consumers and third-party payors, who claim the company engaged in unjust enrichment and consumer fraud. That suit includes the company as well as Accenture and Deloitte as defendants. Mr. Forte and the class are represented by Jacob Zamansky and Justin Sauerwald of Zamansky in New York, who did not return calls. Sanofi said in a statement issued by spokeswoman Mary Kathryn Steel, "These allegations are without merit, and Sanofi will vigorously defend the suit." SOLID BUILDERS: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Leonardo Cruz Torres and all others similarly situated v. Solid Builders, Inc. and Ignacio Hernandez, Case No. 1:15-cv-22326 (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. Solid Builders, Inc. owns and operates a construction company that regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rivkah Fay Jaff, Esq. Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300-71st Street, Ste 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 E-mail: Rivkah.Jaff@gmail.com ZABOGADO@AOL.COM SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV: May Join Higher Educ Segregation Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Smith, writing for The Associated Press, reports that South Carolina State University will be part of a lawsuit alleging the state still has a segregated system of higher education. The only question is whether the school will be a plaintiff or a defendant, the attorney who filed the suit said on June 12. Current and former S.C. State students have sued the state and the Commission on Higher Education, saying duplication of S.C. State programs at other public universities has hurt enrollment and the bottom line at the Orangeburg school. The suit alleges that if white students can receive the courses elsewhere, they are not likely to attend the state's only historically black public university. The debt at the financially troubled school is expected to reach almost $24 million by month's end. State lawmakers earlier this year removed its board of trustees and a new board was put in place. The lawsuit, filed earlier this year in federal court in Columbia, seeks monetary damages for the plaintiffs and a special mediator to recommend a remedy for what it calls a segregated higher education system. Orangeburg attorney Glenn Walters said if the university doesn't join as a plaintiff because the school isn't getting adequate state funding, he will name the school as a defendant. "We certainly want S.C. State University joining our lawsuit" as a plaintiff, he said. Charles Way, the chairman of the new S.C. State board, said the board has been handling other matters and has not been briefed on the case. If the school is named as a defendant, Mr. Walters said, "the students will argue their degrees were diminished by negligence and improper management of the school by the university itself." Attorneys for the state and the commission have responded to the lawsuit saying South Carolina was required decades ago to dismantle its segregated system of higher education. They argue in court documents that the U.S. Justice Department's Office of Civil Rights determined in 1988 that the state's desegregation complied with federal law. Wilkes said the issue of S.C. State's role in the lawsuit must be resolved before other matters, including whether the case will be made a class action suit, can be addressed. The lawsuit is not expected to go to trial until next year. SOUTH FLORIDA COURIER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Eusse and all others similarly situated v. South Florida Courier Systems, Inc. and Gonzalo Ochoa, Case No. 1:15-cv-22328- MGC (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. South Florida Courier Systems, Inc. operates a courier services company that regularly transacts business within Palm Beach County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: 865-7167 E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM SOUTHEAST FORMWORK: Faces Suit for Violation of Overtime Wage Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alejandro Palma, and all others similarly situated v. Southeast Formwork Construction, LLC, Clarence L. Whiteside, Case 1:15-cv- 22229-JLK (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2015), was brought for alleged Federal Overtime Wage Violation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Southeast Formwork is a corporation that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300 71st Street, Suite 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Tel: (305) 865-6766 Fax: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Court Denied Motion Seeking Leave to Amend ------------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has denied the plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties. On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL (the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as a putative class action with respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks, including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim that Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it intends to vigorously defend the action. On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request to certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect to plaintiffs' usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties, which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion. Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action. However, in the first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi Case (the "Notice"). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question were made by Bank SNB. Bank SNB has substantial defenses with respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend against any such claims. Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of the class, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii) the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans made by Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late fees charged to particular class members, (vi) the time period that will ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the Ubaldi Case, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs might prevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against us for indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood that Sallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannot estimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as a result of the Ubaldi Case. SUMMIT NURSING: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Marquita Davis v. Summit Nursing Services, Inc. and Melva Barrett, Case No. 0:15-cv-61301-BB (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), seeks to recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operates a living assisted facility in in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Jay Militzok, Esq. MILITZOK LAW, P.A. 4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402 Hollywood, FL 33021 Telephone: (954) 780-8228 Facsimile: (954) 719-4016 E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com TABLE FOR EIGHT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Wang" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Wei Ping Wang, Wei Chun Gao, Individually And On Behalf Of All Other Employees Similarly Situated v. Table For Eight, Inc. d/b/a M Noodle Shop, M Shanghai, LLC d/b/a M Shanghai, May Liu, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-03594 (E.D.N.Y., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek. The Defendants own and operate M Shanghai restaurant located at 292 Grand Street, Brooklyn, New York 11211. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jian Hang, Esq. HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 353-8588 Facsimile: (918) 353-6288 E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com TACO & BURRITO: Face "Pedroza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Placido Pedroza, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons, known and unknown v. Taco & Burrito House #4, Inc., d/b/a Taco & Burrito House, and Fermin Salinas, Case No. 1:15-cv-05483 (N.D. Ill., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant called Taco & Burrito House, located at 3038 N. Broadway St., Chicago, Illinois 60657. The Plaintiff is represented by: Raisa Alicea, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 800-1017 E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com TAKATA CORP: Airbag Likely Involved in Car Crash in Louisiana ------------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that the top U.S. auto safety regulator has said a ruptured Takata air bag was probably involved in the April 5 car crash that killed a 22-year-old Louisiana woman, which would make her death the seventh linked to an air-bag defect. Kylan Rae Langlinais died four days after her 2005 Honda Civic struck a utility pole in an early morning accident, according to a lawsuit filed by her family this week in U.S. District Court. The suit alleges that the vehicle's driver-side Takata air bag exploded, sending shards of metal into the passenger compartment and severing her carotid artery. "After examination of the vehicle and other evidence, NHTSA has concluded that a ruptured Takata air bag inflator is likely to have been involved," Mark R. Rosekind, administrator for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said in a statement. The lawsuit names Honda Motor and Takata as defendants. Officials from neither company were available for comment on Rosekind's statement. Defective Takata air-bag inflators have been linked to six other deaths and hundreds of injuries worldwide. All of the deaths have occurred in vehicles manufactured by Honda. TBC CORPORATION: Faces "Desimoni" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Corey Desimoni & James Reiter, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated v. TBC Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00366-UA- CM (M.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. TBC Corporation is a Delaware corporation that markets tires for the automotive replacement market. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. Christina Jean Thomas, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com cthomas@forthepeople.com TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Class Cert. Hearings Set for Nov. 30 to Dec. 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the hearing of the Plaintiffs' certification motion will take place from November 30, 2015 to December 2, 2015 in London, Ontario, in the Canadian Horsepower label litigation. The Company said, "On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against us and several other defendants (including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act." "Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either the lawn mower or the engine contained within the lawn mower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them. "A settlement involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court. It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it determinative of their liability, if any. A schedule leading to the hearing of the Plaintiffs' certification motion has been established. Pursuant to this schedule, the hearing will take place from November 30, 2015 to December 2, 2015 in London, Ontario. "At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows." Cert. Motion in Quebec Action Not Scheduled Tecumseh also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the certification motion in the Quebec action has not been scheduled. "On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish against us and several other defendants (including those listed above) advancing allegations similar to those outlined immediately above," the Company said. "Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, and equitable relief. As stated above, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them." "As was the case with the Ontario litigation described above, a settlement involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki, American Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by the court. It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it determinative of their liability, if any. "The certification motion in the Quebec action has not been scheduled. It is unlikely, however, that it will be heard before the certification in the Ontario action. "At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential future settlement, but the amount could be material to our financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash flows." TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Canada Class Actions in Preliminary Stage ------------------------------------------------------------ Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in Canada, the class actions related to Compressor industry antitrust investigation are still in a preliminary stage. The Company said, "On February 17, 2009, we received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") and a formal request for information from the Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil ("SDE") related to investigations by these authorities into possible anti- competitive pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in the compressor industry. The European Commission began an investigation of the industry on the same day." "We have entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with the DOJ under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy. Pursuant to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any criminal prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to the investigation against us as long as we, among other things, continue our full cooperation in the investigation. We have received similar conditional immunity from the European Commission and the SDE, and have received or requested immunity or leniency from competition authorities in other jurisdictions. On December 7, 2011, the European Commission announced it had reached a cartel settlement under which certain of our competitors received fines for the conduct investigated. As a result of our conditional immunity, we were not assessed any fine. "While we have taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and other sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions brought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of these investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups. In Canada, the class actions are still in a preliminary stage. All of the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") procedures. Our settlements with the direct and indirect plaintiffs were approved by the court in April and June 2014." TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: To Contest Products Liability/ Warranty Claim ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously contest Atlantic's Products Liability/Warranty Claim. The Company said, "On July 31, 2014, Tecumseh Europe S.A. was served a writ (on the merits) before the Commercial Court of La Roche-sur-Yon by the five companies of the Atlantic Industrie SAS group. The dispute alleges product failures associated with the supply by Tecumseh Europe of evaporating units mounted on Atlantic's thermodynamic water heaters pursuant to a November 2009 purchase agreement. The writ seeks the payment of 16,715,109 Euros as damages alleging our failure to satisfy our obligation of information, hidden defects, lack of conformity and breach of the purchase agreement. We have informed our insurance company about this dispute. Under our insurance policy, we are responsible for the first 60,000 Euros, with our insurance covering up to the next 3.5 million Euros. Our insurance company has assumed the defense of this claim, subject to a reservation of rights. We intend to vigorously contest Atlantic's claim. A judicial expert will be appointed by the Commercial Court of La Roche-sur-Yon. The decision should be issued in May, 2015." THAXTON INVESTMENT: Accused of Violating FLSA, S.C. Wages Act ------------------------------------------------------------- Roger DeBenedetto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Thaxton Investment Corporation, Southern Management Corporation, Southern Finance of South Carolina, Inc. d/b/a Southern ) Finance, Quick Credit, Covington Credit, SoCo Finance, Case No. 6:15-cv-02475-MGL (D. S.C., June 19, 2015), seeks to recover for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the South Carolina Wages Act, and/or equitable remedy of unjust enrichment. Thaxton Investment Corporation, Southern Finance of South Carolina, Inc., and Southern Management Corporation d/b/a Southern Finance, Quick Credit, Covington Credit, and SoCo Finance is a small loan consumer finance company with over 250 branch locations throughout the Southeast. The Plaintiff is represented by: John G. Reckenbeil, Esq. Lawrence E. McNair, III, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOHN RECKENBEIL, LLC 215 Magnolia Street (29306) Post Office Box 1633 Spartanburg, SC 29304 Tel: (864) 582-5472 Fax: (864) 582-7280 TOTAL MERCHANT: Faces "Detore" Suit Over Unlawful Company Sale -------------------------------------------------------------- John Detore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Total Merchant Limited, et al., Case No. 11177-VCL (Del. Ch., June 19, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Metalico, Inc. to enjoin the company's agreement and plan of merger with Total Merchant Limited through an unfair sales process. Headquartered in Cranford, New Jersey, Metalico, Inc. is a leading full service scrap metal recycling and processing facility operating in the northeastern region of the U.S. Total Merchant Limited is purportedly an investment vehicle formed for the purpose of seeking investment opportunities in the U.S. metals and commodities market. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------- Richard J. Isolde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace and James E. Perry, Case No. 3:15-cv-02093-K (N.D. Tex., June 19, 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 in press releases and filings with the SEC and in oral statements to the media, securities analysts and investors. Trinity Industries, Inc. owns and operates an industrial company that owns businesses providing products and services to the energy, transportation, chemical and construction sectors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Balon B. Bradley, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF BALON B. BRADLEY 5473 Blair Road, Suite 100 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (972) 991-1582 Facsimile: (972) 755-0424 E-mail: balon@bbradleylaw.com - and - David C. Walton, Esq. Nathan R. Lindell, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Facsimile: (619) 231-7423 - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON BOTTINI LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonbottini.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- Lori Kellett and David Cotoi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. BC585704 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay all minimum, regular and overtime wages in violation of the California labor Code. Uber Technologies, Inc. owns and operates a transportation network company headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Gillette" and "Mohamed" Suit May Proceed ------------------------------------------------------------ Lauren Weber, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a federal judge in California allowed lawsuits by two drivers for Uber Technologies Inc. to proceed in court, rebuffing the ride- sharing company's attempt to resolve the actions in closed arbitration proceedings. U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, in the Northern District of California, ruled on June 9 that the arbitration policies Uber had in place during 2013 and 2014 were unenforceable because, among other things, they were overly burdensome to drivers. The plaintiffs, Ronald Gillette and Abdul Mohamed, claim that Uber violated federal and state background-checking laws when it terminated them based upon information that appeared in their credit checks. Mr. Gillette also alleged that Uber -- currently valued at $41 billion -- wrongly classifies drivers as independent contractors, and not employees. In a statement, Uber said, "We disagree with this ruling and plan to appeal it." Arbitration policies -- which require conflicts to be resolved by a private third party rather than through the public courts -- have become a powerful tool for companies to keep employment disputes confidential and avoid expensive class-action lawsuits. Compared with lawsuits, individual arbitration tends to be speedier and less expensive for employers, but critics say that it puts workers at a disadvantage and rarely results in organizational change. In March, Judge Chen and another San Francisco judge issued similar rulings in two other cases involving Uber and its rival Lyft, focused on the employee-versus-contractor question. By determining that the drivers' claims should go before juries, the judges may be setting the stage for trials that decide the blurry but increasingly important question of how workers should be classified in the so-called on-demand economy. In the ruling, Judge Chen wrote, "It remains to be seen whether drivers like Gillette are, or are not, Uber's employees under California law." In the March ruling, he had written that the question of drivers' employment status "presents a mixed question of law and fact that must typically be resolved by a jury." UNITED AIR: Ct. Rules on Bid for More time to File Amended Case --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vince Chhabria issued on June 22, 2015, an order on a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint in the following cases: * KEN HANEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00474-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1GJQq6mfrom Leagle.com * ANTHONY MANSWELL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00469-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1NuPs2Dfrom Leagle.com * LEO SHERMAN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00473-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1LSrH4jfrom Leagle.com * GLEN ROANE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00464-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1Hvvx5zfrom Leagle.com * TERENCE HARTSFIELD, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00477-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1eglIuSfrom Leagle.com * DARRYL WILSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00472-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1GJRKGrfrom Leagle.com * RICHARD JOHN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00475-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1eXGqADfrom Leagle.com * JOHNNIE E. JONES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00462-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1Ns0gPLfrom Leagle.com * LEON MILLER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00457-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1duqtQRfrom Leagle.com * DAVID RICKETTS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00465-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1Ns0pCEfrom Leagle.com * SAL CROCKER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00468-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1GM6hSKfrom Leagle.com * KARL MINTER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00470-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1GJW7B9from Leagle.com * PAUL C. NOBLE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00461-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1HvvQ02from Leagle.com * ELDRIDGE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-02730-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1C4H9ucfrom Leagle.com * LESTER TOM, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00466-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1LFBmhwfrom Leagle.com * ERWIN WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00471-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1KqEgX4from Leagle.com * XAVIER PALMER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00458-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1LFBz4pfrom Leagle.com * ODIE BRISCOE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00476-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1RPEsOPfrom Leagle.com * MARIO ECUNG, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00456-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1LFBH3Vfrom Leagle.com * FREDERICK ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00463-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1JoahvWfrom Leagle.com The plaintiffs in these cases requested for an extension of time to file a Sixth Amended Complaint. In 2012, the lawyers in these cases, Spencer Smith and Dow Patten, filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California on behalf of 23 plaintiffs. The lawsuit was not a proposed class action. The plaintiffs, mostly pilots and all African American employees of United Airlines, alleged that United had denied them promotional opportunities because of their race. After three years' worth of multiple motions to dismiss, the previously-assigned judge ruled that the Fourth Amended Complaint stated a claim for disparate treatment discrimination on behalf of all the plaintiffs, but that the plaintiffs were improperly joined. The previously-assigned judge ordered the plaintiffs to file new, individualized complaints. Each plaintiff then filed an individual Fifth Amended Complaint. Each plaintiff continues to be represented by the same lawyers (except for one plaintiff who was represented by different counsel and whose case has since been transferred to another district). The cases were randomly assigned to various judges of this district. Then the Chief Judge, in her capacity as chair of the Court's Executive Committee, reassigned all the cases to Judge Chhabria for efficiency's sake. While the complaints were individual (in the sense that each plaintiff was no longer improperly joined with another plaintiff), they were not individualized. Rather, they were mostly cut-and- paste jobs. Some plaintiffs included individualized allegations about promotional opportunities for which they applied but which they did not receive. But all plaintiffs included boilerplate allegations about "unposted" promotional opportunities (and some of the plaintiffs included only such boilerplate allegations). These allegations bore no indicia of individual race discrimination. Each complaint merely alleged that the plaintiff was "precluded from participating in the filling of vacancies" for promotional opportunities. And each complaint alleged that each plaintiff was precluded from "participating" in the filling of every single "unposted" promotional opportunity available for managers at United throughout the country from 2008 to the present. None of the complaints indicated whether any plaintiff actually wanted any particular position, and none of the complaints indicated whether any plaintiff had communicated to United an interest in a particular position or a particular class of positions. In light of this, in each case (except a couple that were transferred for improper venue), the Court issued an order to show cause. In cases where a particular plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint only relied on these boilerplate allegations, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In cases where a particular plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint also included individualized allegations about positions to which the plaintiff had applied, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the boilerplate claims relating to unposted positions should not be stricken. In all the cases, the Court made clear that, in light of unusual circumstances surrounding these cases, each plaintiff would receive another opportunity to amend his complaint to state an individualized claim for race discrimination, based on the denial of promotional opportunities for which the plaintiff had actually made himself available. The Court also informed counsel that the plaintiffs could simply amend their complaints in response to the order to show cause, rather than taking the time to brief and argue the question. Each plaintiff responded to the order to show cause. The responses by the plaintiffs (as well as the defendants' brief in response to the order to show cause) only confirmed that the boilerplate allegations relating to unposted promotional opportunities did not state a claim for individual race discrimination. Therefore, with respect to the plaintiffs who relied solely on those boilerplate allegations, the Court dismissed the Fifth Amended Complaint with leave to amend. With respect to the plaintiffs who made some individualized allegations but then also relied on the boilerplate allegations, the Court dismissed the claims relating to the boilerplate allegations. In each case, the dismissal occurred on May 22, 2015. And the Court gave each plaintiff until June 12, 2015 to file a Sixth Amended Complaint. The day before the amended complaints were due, counsel for the plaintiffs filed, on behalf of each plaintiff in each case, a request for an extension of the deadline to file a Sixth Amended Complaint. The requests were filed late, because the Court's standing order for civil cases provides that any request for extension of a filing deadline must be filed 72 hours before the deadline. The Court did not immediately rule on the extension requests (because they were filed late), but counsel for the plaintiffs nonetheless failed to file a Sixth Amended Complaint on behalf of any plaintiff on the date it was due. And as of June 22, 2015, more than one week later, counsel for the plaintiffs still have not filed a Sixth Amended Complaint on behalf of any of their clients. "Counsel for the plaintiffs have therefore exposed their clients to potential dismissal of their civil rights claims relating to unposted promotional opportunities with prejudice," ruled Judge Chhabria. "This means that, for each plaintiff who relies solely on the boilerplate allegations about unposted positions, counsel have exposed the client to potential dismissal of his entire lawsuit with prejudice." As for the substance of the requests for an extension, Judge Chhabria held that the briefs submitted by the plaintiffs' lawyers are barely understandable. To the extent the requests can be understood at all, they seem to relate primarily to the fact that counsel has, on behalf of at least one plaintiff, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit seeking: (1) reversal of the Court's dismissal of the Fifth Amended Complaint (or claims within the Fifth Amended Complaint) with leave to amend; and (2) a stay of proceedings in this Court pending resolution of the petition for a writ of mandamus. "There are two things to say about this proposed rationale for an extension," ruled Judge Chhabria. "First, the petition for a writ of mandamus and accompanying stay request was obviously frivolous. (It has been denied.) Second, and more importantly, this attempt by the lawyers to delay the proceedings seems contrary to the interests of their clients." "Overall, it is unclear why the lawyers for these plaintiffs are engaging in such dilatory conduct. Once the cases were severed, the lawyers needed to sit down with their clients and figure out whether, and if so how, each one can state a claim for race discrimination on an individual basis. But it appears the lawyers for the plaintiffs have, since the severance, done everything possible to avoid that task. In any event, their conduct has put the Court in a difficult position. Should the Court dismiss with prejudice all claims by all plaintiffs that allege discrimination in connection with unposted positions, on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to amend their complaints in a timely manner? This would penalize these civil rights plaintiffs for the conduct of their lawyers. Should the Court retroactively grant the extension request, thereby giving the plaintiffs one more chance to pursue their claims? This seems unfair to the defendants, and allows the lawyers for the plaintiffs to get away with blowing an important deadline," he continued. "The parties should come to the case management conference prepared to discuss this issue. The parties should also be prepared to discuss whether Spencer Smith and Dow Patten should be sanctioned for their failure to timely file Sixth Amended Complaints on behalf of their clients," Judge Chhabria concluded. UNITED FURNITURE: Court Appeal Uphold Class Action Dismissal ------------------------------------------------------------ Brad W. Dixon and Michelle T. Maniago, in an article for Lexology, report that in Marshall v. United Furniture Warehouse Limited Partnership, a unanimous division of the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's refusal to certify a claim where consumers received varied combinations of written and oral representations. This decision is critical for any business whose front-line staff engage directly with consumers. The Plaintiffs' Claim The plaintiffs attempted to certify a class action against the respondents, the United Furniture and Brick group of companies (and certain predecessor organizations), on the basis that they misled consumers into believing that a "cash voucher" program, administered by a third party, was guaranteed by them. The plaintiffs alleged that this was a deceptive act or practice under the British Columbia Business Practices and ConsumerProtection Act("BPCPA"). The plaintiffs alleged that the guarantee was created by a combination of certain parts of the text on the vouchers, newspaper advertisements, in-store signs and tags, and oral representations by sales people. The evidence before the court was that every customer had to deal with a sales person in making his or her purchase and that each sales person gave differing amounts of detail about the program to consumers. Counsel for the plaintiffs acknowledged that different plaintiffs would have been exposed to different sources of information. Certification Judge's Refusal to Certify The certification judge, in refusing to certify the claim, held that the claim failed to establish necessary commonality of experience for the consumer to justify a class action. She wrote: . . . while there is some commonality in the written sources, the evidence demonstrates that different customers received a varying amount of information from sales staff, both written and oral. The fact that the plaintiffs rely on varying combinations of written material and oral representations to prove a deceptive act or practice renders a determination of this issue one for individual inquiry. The Court of Appeal Reasons for Judgment The Court of Appeal held that the certification judge's finding that oral representations were in the "mix for every customer" was supported by the evidence, and was owed deference. The Court upheld the refusal to certify. The Court of Appeal concluded: Each customer had a different experience in the store(s). Under the BPCPA, each class member would have to demonstrate that he or she fell within the Act. The appeal can be disposed on this basis. There is no error in the chambers judge's findings on this aspect of the case, and that alone is enough to uphold her decision that certification is not the preferable procedure. The full decision of the Court of Appeal is available online, and is indexed as 2015 BCCA 252. Impact of Decision This decision affirms that the certification analysis still must be robustly applied to protect the courts from unwieldy class actions that are devoid of commonality. UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies DHS Medicare Appeal Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge has certified a class action accusing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of failing to observe the statutory 90- day time limit on Medicare appeals. U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Meyer in Connecticut ruled on June 10 that six Medicare beneficiaries could represent a nationwide class even though their own appeals had been resolved since they filed their lawsuit last August. UNITED STATES: Immigrants Sue Border Patrol in Tucson ----------------------------------------------------- Fox News Latino and The Associated Press report that a lawsuit filed on behalf of three immigrants claims that the U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector routinely breaks its own policies by holding immigrants in dirty and extremely cold cells for more than 24 hours without access to food, water, medical care or legal counsel. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three immigrants who said they were held in inhumane conditions while waiting to be transferred to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which handles long-term detainment and deportations. "It shocks the conscience," Nora Preciado, staff attorney with the National Immigration Law Center, told the Tucson Sentinel. "They're not providing food, water, or sleeping arrangements for thousands of people, including women and children." "Our plaintiffs were detained for civil matters, but there is nothing civil about being deprived of water, provided inadequate or expired food, and being subjected to sleep deprivation," Ms. Preciado said. "We filed this lawsuit because the federal government has systemically failed to adhere to its own meager standards and constitutional requirements and thousands of people have suffered as a result." The groups interviewed over 75 former detainees who described cells as freezing, filthy and lacking basic needs, such as beds. In a statement issued on June 10, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Border Patrol's parent agency, said it takes the safety and welfare of detainees seriously. "On a daily basis, agents make every effort to ensure that those in our custody are given food, water, and medical attention as needed. CBP investigates all allegations of misconduct, and is committed to making continued progress in detainee treatment and the emphasis of policies that protect human life and treat individuals with dignity and respect," the statement said. CBP said its facilities are designed to be short-term in nature and house detainees until they can be processed. According to the lawsuit filed in Arizona, the Border Patrol does not adequately screen for dangerous medical conditions or provide access to medical personnel. In one example, a detainee asked agents to help her 7-year-old daughter, a U.S. citizen, for help with what she thought was an ear infection. The agent told the detainee, "There is no medicine here." The lawsuit also alleges that detainees are subjected to sleep deprivation while held in overcrowded, foul-smelling cells. "Border Patrol seems to think these brutal conditions, and the human suffering that results, will deter immigration," James Duff Lyall, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times. "The fact is that many of these people are fleeing persecution and violence." The Tucson Sector has apprehended over 200,000 people in the past two fiscal years, although the Rio Grande Valley Sector in south Texas has seen more migrants cross through there recently. UNITED STATES: Immigrant Detention Policy Reforms Sought -------------------------------------------------------- Richard Gonzales, writing for NPR, reports that the Obama administration is under growing pressure to change its policies governing the detention of thousands of migrants who came to the United States illegally. Maybe it is a coincidence, but consider what has happened recently: -- The American Immigration Council and the American Civil Liberties Union announced a class-action lawsuit challenging the conditions of detention in Border Patrol facilities in the Tucson, Ariz., region. Scores of detainees report being held in unsanitary and frigid cells while being denied adequate food, water, hygiene, medical attention, or access to legal counsel. The lawsuit alleges the Border Patrol's facilities violate constitutional due-process guarantees. It seeks no monetary damages, but rather court-ordered reforms, according to ACLU attorney James Lyall. -- The Center for Constitutional Rights and Detention Watch Network published a report calling for the end to so-called "guaranteed minimums" which require Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to fill all 34,000 detention beds it contracts in 15 facilities across the country. They say the requirement creates the perverse incentive to lock-up people who are not dangerous or a flight risk in privately owned facilities at a great cost to taxpayers. -- Meanwhile, the ACLU and Obama administration officials have just a few days left to settle a lawsuit challenging the detention facilities for more than 2,000 women with children, who came here during last summer's border surge. The families are being held in detention centers in Texas and Pennsylvania. A federal judge in Los Angeles issued a preliminary ruling finding that the administration is violating an 18-year-old court settlement, Flores v. Meese. The settlement requires the government to house migrant children in "the least restrictive environment" or release them to relatives. The judge gave federal officials and the ACLU time to reach an agreement on how to implement her ruling before she makes it final. -- Administration officials have agreed to release a handful of immigrant mothers from a detention center in Karnes City, Texas. But one migrant advocate, Jonathan Ryan, executive director of San Antonio-based RAICES, charged that news of the limited release "is purely political." Mr. Ryan told the Los Angeles Times the move is designed to "avoid added scrutiny from members of Congress." A hundred-and-thirty-six House Democrats recently called on the administration to stop detaining immigrant families. "I don't know think it is a coincidence," said Silky Shah, co- director of the DC-based Detention Watch Network, a group against the detention of immigrants. "This issue of detaining immigrants unlawfully is finally coming to a head and the administration is learning that its policy of family detention is backfiring." Ms. Shah added she believes pressure is growing on the administration given the New York Times wrote an editorial against the detention centers and Democratic presidential candidate Hilary Clinton has spoken out against them. UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Faces Class Suit Over Soccer Concussions ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jared S. Hopkins and Shannon Ryan, writing for Chicago Tribune, report that the University of Illinois is facing a class action over concussions. Casey Conine normally spent her days on a soccer field. She played the sport most of her life, eventually earning a scholarship to the University of Illinois. But after receiving a diagnosis of a complex concussion that brought on the chaos of constant headaches, Ms. Conine now prefers the serenity and calmness of a different activity: fishing. "It's not a high-concentration thing," she said. "So that's been something I've relied on." Ms. Conine sued the University of Illinois in Champaign County, accusing the school of negligence and alleging that it mishandled her concussion last year when she was a sophomore, resulting in the possible end of her soccer career. The suit seeks damages of at least $50,000, but a final amount may be larger. Ms. Conine, 20, is the latest Illinois athlete to accuse the school's athletic program of improper medical treatment and playing conditions -- and the first to sue. More than a dozen former football players and former women's basketball players have raised concerns, forcing the university to launch two independent inquiries. Ms. Conine cautioned that her decision wasn't influenced by the other Illini allegations. But she said the school mishandled her injury under the pressure of playing in a Division I sports environment. "When you're in the moment, and you're part of that culture, you're obligated to live up to what they want and what they want you to do," she said in an interview. "Looking back, I realize (the concussion) wasn't handled correctly at all." Ms. Conine is recovering in her native Leslie, Mich., but suffers from post-concussion syndrome and concentration and memory problems, according to her lawsuit and an interview. "There isn't an ibuprofen or a pain reliever that I've tried that can help take the edge off or make the headaches go away," she said, adding that she must take a nap to avoid them worsening. A talented recruit at an imposing 5-foot-11, Ms. Conine participated in the Olympic Developmental Program and starred on an elite travel club while home-schooled. Her size helped her excel at headers. She enrolled for the spring 2013 semester at 17. But as a freshman defender, she played in 21 games, and scored the game-winner that sent Illinois into the Big Ten Tournament. Last October, in a game against Northwestern, Ms. Conine tried a header off a corner kick and came into contact with the opposing goalie. "I remember going up and getting the ball," she said. "The next thing I know I got whacked the head." According to her and her lawyers, she collapsed to the ground and struggled to get up. When she did, she stumbled, grabbed her head and felt wobbly. She remained in the game. "When I got off the field, I just went and sat down on the bench," she said. "I just was completely out of it. I just knew something wasn't right." Two days later, a doctor evaluated Ms. Conine and diagnosed her with a concussion, ruling she could not play until she was medically cleared. School doctors must check players diagnosed with a concussion before letting them return to full-contact practice or games, according to Illinois concussion policy. But the soccer team's trainer, Brittany Scott instructed Ms. Conine to travel to face Rutgers on Oct. 17, and told Ms. Conine she was allowed to play, despite a doctor not examining her again, according to the lawsuit. Ms. Conine logged 25 minutes coming off the bench. Two days later, the team played Maryland in College Park, Md. She took at least one header in that game, and was hit in the back, leading to pain in her neck and head, according to the suit. After two overtimes, the game ended in a tie. Ms. Conine said she left the field feeling like she was going to vomit. A trainer, she said, chalked it up to the length of the match. "Right after I came off the field, I told the trainer, 'I feel nauseous, I feel really bad,'" said Ms. Conine, who had played 65 minutes. "And she told me, 'This was just a really long game; it is what it is.'" A doctor examined her three days later and decided to keep her out of further workouts. But her symptoms worsened. The next day, she saw a doctor. According to her suit, it was unclear if her symptoms had worsened due to the most recent concussion or from earlier ones. She suffered one concussion in high school and doctors diagnosed two in 2013. In December, a school doctor decided Ms. Conine would not return to play soccer at Illinois, she alleges. She returned to school for the spring but was unable to concentrate. She reduced her courseload to two classes, but even that proved burdensome, and now is withdrawing from the school. Ms. Conine said she was once a voracious reader who would gobble up books on long trips in the car or plane rides. Now she has to stop after 30 minutes. "I used to read a novel a day," she said. "I was a very big reader. I know I can't do that because it just gives me headache." Ms. Conine also sued Ms. Scott; her coach, Janet Rayfield; and Athletic Director Mike Thomas. In a statement, Illinois Chancellor Phyllis Wise said, "Our trainers and affiliated medical professionals are trained to watch for, recognize and quickly treat concussions. In this instance, a preliminary review of our records does not support the claims of negligence stated in the complaint. Because the student-athlete involved has not signed a waiver that would allow us to share publicly her medical records, we are unable to provide specific additional information at this time. We are reviewing the complaint and relevant related documentation with our legal counsel and will respond accordingly." Ms. Conine's attorney declined to allow the university to release her medical records to the Tribune. Noelle Leary, a senior on last year's team, contacted the Tribune after Ms. Conine's lawsuit was filed and said that she also was diagnosed with a concussion last October. She said she waited a day or two before notifying a trainer she didn't feel well, and that she was sidelined for two weeks before being medically cleared. "I was trying to push back to make a scrimmage and they wouldn't let me until I was completely recovered," said Ms. Leary, 23, of Naperville. "I think they handled it the best way possible." Ms. Conine's Chicago attorney, Joseph Siprut, is co-lead counsel in a federal class-action head-injury lawsuit against the NCAA. A proposed settlement waiting judge's approval includes $70 million for medical screenings of former players, but it doesn't prohibit athletes from bringing claims against schools in the future. Ms. Siprut's also sued the Illinois High School Association to force changes on concussion policy. "What happened at U. of I. with our client's case is really egregious," Ms. Siprut said. "We're passionate about it, not just because of what it represents more globally but also because she's got a real problem that we're trying to help solve." He says the case shows concern over concussions is not limited to football. In fact, women playing college soccer suffer almost two concussions per 1,000 games -- a rate higher than high school football, according to the American Academy of Neurology. Earlier this year, Ms. Conine committed to transfer and play at University of Tennessee at Martin, a 7,000-student campus about 200 miles south of St. Louis. But Ms. Conine scrapped her plan to transfer because her symptoms worsened, Mr. Siprut said. A University of Tennessee spokesman said on June 11 that Ms. Conine informed the school she no longer planned to attend due to unspecified medical reasons. Ms. Conine is coming to terms with the fact that she likely won't play soccer again. "I'm really focused on trying to heal," she said. "I'm really focused on trying to get better at this point." UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Noone, Esq. of Cozen O'Connor, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in 2014, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center's computer system was hacked, resulting in the disclosure of sensitive personal information of current and former employees, including names, addresses, birthdates, social security numbers and banking account numbers. Allegedly, the stolen information was used to file fraudulent tax returns for as many as 800 employees. A class action was filed on behalf of current and former employees against the hospital and its payroll company. On May 28, 2015, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas applied the economic loss doctrine to dismiss the class action. The Court in Dittman v. UPMC refused to adopt a duty of care that would require employers to protect the confidential information of its current and former employees. And it refused to find that there was an implied contract between the hospital and its employees that would require the hospital to protect its employees' confidential information from data breaches. The Court's holding in UPMC decided one key point: Pennsylvania companies whose computer systems are hacked will not be liable to the persons whose confidential information was compromised. Plaintiffs claimed that "UPMC had a duty protect the private, highly sensitive, confidential and personal financial information [of is current and former employees]." The plaintiffs also alleged that, as a result of the breach, they incurred damages relating to fraudulently filed tax returns and "are at an increased and imminent risk of becoming victims of identity theft crimes, fraud and abuse." The hospital argued that the plaintiffs' negligence claim was barred by the economic loss rule. Noting that the only losses that the UPMC employees sustained were economic, the trial court applied the economic loss doctrine and dismissed the plaintiffs' negligence count. The Court wrote: "The Economic Loss Doctrine provides that no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical or property damage." No doubt realizing the futility of their negligence claim in light of the economic loss rule, the plaintiffs also urged the Court to impose a duty of care upon UPMC to protect the confidential information of its employees. Specifically, the plaintiffs proposed that the court create "a private negligence cause of action to recover actual damages, including damages for increased risks, upon a showing that the plaintiff's confidential information was made available to third persons through a data breach." The Court refused, finding that "the public interest is not furthered by this proposed solution." The Court then cited a laundry list of reasons to justify its refusal to adopt the new duty of care, including the lack of a safe harbor for entities storing confidential information, the inability of the state judicial system to handle the volume of potential lawsuits, the difficulty in establishing a minimum standard of care required, and the substantial resources that for-profit and non-profit entities would be required to spend in defending these lawsuits. Another reason for the Court's refusal to adopt a new duty of care was the Pennsylvania General Assembly's recent consideration of the issue in connection with Pennsylvania's Breach of Personal Information Notification Act. The legislative history shows that the General Assembly considered adopting an expansive civil liability provision as part of the Act, but the final bill contained only a notification requirement. In refusing to adopt the new duty urged by the UPMC employees, the Court observed, "It is not for the courts to alter the direction of the General Assembly because public policy is a matter for the Legislature." As definitive as the ruling in UPMC appears to be, there are two caveats. If the hacked company is "in the business of supplying information for economic gain," then it may be liable to the people whose information is compromised. See Sovereign Bank v. BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., No. 06-3405 (filed July 16, 2008 by U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals). And there are many different iterations of the economic loss rule; a victim of a security breach could possibly sue a company whose system was compromised if the breach occurred in a state that has a more expansive rule. Other than that, however, Pennsylvania is one state that will shield companies from liability in data breach events resulting in economic loss. VINCENZO DI: "Tamay" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Manuel Patricio Tamay v. Pasquale Di Diana and Vincenzo Di Diana d/b/a Bacci Pizzeria, Case No. 2015-L-006196 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Bacci Pizzeria restaurant at 163 W. North Avenue, Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos G. Becerra, Esq. Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq. BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC 332 South Michigan, Suite 1020 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312)957-9005 Facsimile: (888)826-5848 E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com pgonzalez@law-rb.com VITTAL ARGENTINA: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Natalia Gimenez, and other similarly situated individuals v. Vittal Argentina, S.A., an Argentinian Company; ZPH Healthcare LLC d/b/a Vittal d/b/a Vittal2You; Claudio Waisbord; and Andrea Cobo, Case 1:15-cv-22230-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2015), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Vittal Argentina and ZPH Healthcare are companies engaged in interstate commerce and doing business in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Tel: (305) 503-5131 Fax: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com WALMART STORES: May Owe Truck Drivers More $100+ Mil. in Back Pay ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cole Stangler, writing for International Business Times, reports that Walmart's payment policies for truck drivers violated California minimum wage law, a federal judge ruled. The lawyers who brought the class-action suit say the retail giant could now owe more than $100 million in back pay. While Walmart opposes the ruling, the company did not say whether it plans to file an appeal. Truckers sued Walmart in 2008, arguing the company failed to adequately compensate them for non-driving tasks such as inspections, rest breaks, fueling and washing trucks, waiting at weigh scales and taking mandatory "layover" periods intended to reduce fatigue. Walmart doesn't pay drivers by the hour. They pay by miles driven and activities performed -- for example, the delivery of a trailer loaded with cargo. In her May 28 ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said the pay manuals failed to comply with the state's minimum wage law. "Here, certain required tasks are specifically designated as unpaid activities," Judge Illston wrote. "The court finds that the pay policies detailed in the manuals violate California minimum wage law by failing to pay drivers at least minimum wage for all the time they work." The manuals in the lawsuit date from 2001, 2006 and 2008. When asked if the ruling would impact Walmart's current driver pay manual, company spokesman Randy Hargrove said "it would not be appropriate get into that level of detail" because the topic is a matter of ongoing litigation. With 1.4 million workers, Walmart is the nation's largest private- sector employer. Compared to the rest of its workforce, many of whom make just over state and federal minimum wages, truck drivers are paid handsomely. The company says drivers make, on average, $80,000 to $100,000 per year, and job survey site Glassdoor puts the annual compensation figure around $84,000. Labor advocates tend to talk about "wage theft" -- a situation in which an employer illegally withholds compensation -- in the context of low-paid workers, such as janitors who are deprived of overtime or fast-food workers not being paid during breaks. These practices tallied up to nearly $1 billion in 2012, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The Walmart lawsuit is unusual because it frames generally well-compensated employees as victims of the trend. It also sheds light on the labor practices of the trucking industry. In a separate labor dispute, truck drivers at major ports in Southern California have accused companies of incorrectly categorizing them as independent contractors instead of employees. Truckers have organized several walkouts there since 2013 as they try to organize a union. A jury in the Walmart case will weigh in next April to determine damages. WARNER MUSIC: Settles Intern Class Action for $4.2 Million ---------------------------------------------------------- Reuters reports that Warner Music Group Corp. has agreed to pay hundreds of former interns more than $4.2 million to resolve a class action lawsuit accusing the company of underpaying them. The settlement, disclosed in papers filed in Manhattan federal court on June 9, is the latest in a series struck by media and entertainment companies over claims they paid interns little or nothing for their work. Warner Music in a statement said it was pleased to settle. "We continue to stand by our internship program as an invaluable educational experience for students looking to obtain hands-on, real-world training," it said. The settlement requires court approval, and covers interns who were paid nothing or less than minimum wage, in periods dating as far back as June 2007 for those working in New York. Warner Music, owned by billionaire Len Blavatnik's Access Industries, reserved the right to terminate the settlement if the number of claimants exceeds 1,135, according to court papers. Lawyers for the interns may seek up to 18.6% of the settlement amount as attorney fees, or $787,500. They did not respond to a request for comment. Many lawsuits over intern pay were filed after a major June 2013 decision in which U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan said Twenty-First Century Fox Inc. should have paid two interns who worked on the 2010 movie "Black Swan." Other companies to settle with interns include Comcast Corp.'s NBCUniversal, for $6.4 million; Cond‚ Nast, for $5.85 million, and Viacom Inc., for $7.21 million. The case is Grant v. Warner Music Group Corp., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-04449. WELLS FARGO: Challenges Class Action Certification -------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that Wells Fargo is facing trial in an Illinois class action 14 years old and can't gain appellate review on its own as it could in a case with shorter history. A motion from the bank to reach appellate judges the old way, through circuit court order, remains pending before Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder. The Illinois Supreme Court amended its class action rules in 2003, so defendants could directly petition for review of class certifications. "If this case was filed now, or any time after 2003, Wells Fargo's request for interlocutory appeal would not even be necessary," Catherine Schroeder of St. Louis wrote for the bank in March. She wrote that the current rule ensures review, "before devoting immeasurable amounts of time and resources necessary to prepare for a class action rules." Wells Fargo has tried for five years to overturn a class certification order that former circuit judge Daniel Stack signed on his last day at work, in 2010. Fifth District appellate judges in Mount Vernon previously reversed a class certification order Stack signed in a separate case on the same date. The suit against Wells Fargo started in 2001, with many defendants. Lucco Brown law firm of Edwardsville filed the suit after nursing home developers defaulted on bond issues in Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan. Lucco Brown and associates at Ness Motley in South Carolina, now Motley Rice, sued developers, lawyers, accountants, and banks. Wells Fargo defends itself as successor to the indenture trustee, Norwest Bank. Most defendants resolved the claims as nine years passed, leaving Wells Fargo and three others on the hook when Stack certified the class. Stack left behind a puzzle, for he separately granted summary judgment to Wells Fargo on its argument that Norwest played no role in the bond issues. In 2011, after Stack retired, defendants moved for reconsideration. Defendants asked the court to treat the case as dormant in 2012, but they brought it to a hearing before Circuit Judge Tom Chapman in 2013. He took it under advisement and ordered more briefs. Later that year, three defendants agreed to settle for a total of $525,000. Judge Chapman denied Wells Fargo's motion for reconsideration last year, finding Stack's orders "are not irremediably contradictory." He agreed with Stack that Illinois law should apply across 38 states, even though fewer than three percent of bond buyers lived in Illinois. He wrote that there is an issue of fact as to whether Norwest Bank failed to enforce covenants requiring separation of accounts. He wrote that there is an issue of fact as to whether Norwest notified borrowers of default events. Judge Chapman did not resolve Wells Fargo's plea for appellate review, so the bank moved for clarification or a supplemental ruling. Last September, Chief Judge Dave Hylla assigned Crowder to the case. She held a hearing on the bank's motion March 18, and took it under advisement. She still has not approved the settlement agreements of the other three defendants. Their lawyers assembled at the courthouse on May 28, to obtain final approval from Judge Crowder, but she didn't show up. WIPRO: Overtime Class Action Transferred to Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------- Sujeet Rajan, writing for The American Bazaar, reports that the lawyers for Wipro, a leading global IT, consulting and business process services company, has got a class action suit filed against it by a former employee, Suri Payala, transferred from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, on the grounds that the dispute exceeds more than $5 million, as required by law for the transfer. The class action lawsuit was brought by Payala, who worked in the California office of Wipro. He alleges several egregious violations by the company -- misclassification of employees; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay all wages owed every pay period; failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statement; violation of California's Unfair Competition Act; and failure to pay all wages upon separation. He also alleges that he and other employees in a similar situation like himself, were not paid for meal and rest breaks. Mr. Payala alleges that he and more than 200 other employees like him were not paid for overtime and travel time, even though he was paid less than $7,000 per month for his services, or under the $84,130 salary threshold considered exempt for overtime pay in California. Mr. Payala says he was employed by Wipro as a computer technician with the title of Architect, and was outsourced to DirecTV in California. The lawsuit states he was not paid overtime and was not paid for his travel time to the outsourced job site. At the heart of the dispute is also Mr. Payala's allegation that Wipro conveniently never told him and other employees the overtime laws of California which would have apprised him of his rights to such compensation over and above his salary. The class action lawsuit seeks to represent any employee, apart from Mr. Payala, who may have performed services for Wipro within a four-year period prior to March 30, 2015. "Wipro's business model is extremely profitable, in no small part because it does not pay its employees overtime for work in excess of 40 hours per week as required by the California law," the lawsuit states. Mr. Payala says Wipro makes more than two times what it pays to its employees when they take on outsourcing work. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, the lawyers for Wipro, based in Los Angeles, California, in their submission to transfer the case -- a copy of which is with The American Bazaar -- cite the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), which gives authority to have the federal court to hear cases where the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. In fact, they pegged the total exceeding $7 million, at the least. The lawyers for Wipro also made the case giving a breakdown of how they reached that amount, in the scenario where the class action suit entails more than 200 aggrieved current or former employees, like Mr. Payala claims, who may be eligible for compensation. Wipro also gave testimony that Mr. Payala's lowest hourly wage at Wipro was $34.28. The lawyers for Wipro wrote in the transfer appeal: "Although Defendant denies Plaintiff's allegations or that he or the putative class are entitled to any relief, based solely on the forgoing calculations for wage statement penalties and overtime wages, the aggregate amount in controversy for the putative class is $7,143,180. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims for failure to pay overtime and wage statements alone exceed the amount in controversy required under CAFA." YAHOO INC: Faces Eavesdropping Class Action in Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that seven days after a California judge rejected a national class action on an eavesdropping claim against Yahoo, Kaylynn Rehberger of Highland started a similar suit on behalf of an Illinois class. She claims Yahoo violates state law by intercepting messages between its users and persons like her with other email providers. Thomas Rosenfeld and Kevin Green, of Goldenberg Heller in Edwardsville, Ill., filed her complaint at U.S. district court on June 2. A week earlier, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of San Jose had ruled that certification of a national class action against Yahoo would be improper. She found she could neither apply California law to all states nor apply laws of all states at once. That suit will proceed as a California class action. According to the Illinois complaint, Yahoo claims the right to scan and analyze all incoming and outgoing messages from a user's account. "Plaintiff is not a Yahoo Mail user and not a party to the purported contract between Yahoo and Yahoo Mail users," Mr. Rosenfeld wrote. The suit claims that Ms. Rehberger did not consent and did not know Yahoo intercepted and disclosed the information. Mr. Rosenfeld wrote that Yahoo Mail claims more than 75 million users in the United States and more than 275 million globally. Yahoo does not charge customers for basic service. "In exchange for the 'free' email service, Yahoo users are subject to advertising when using the Yahoo Mail service," Mr. Rosenfeld wrote. He wrote that Yahoo can charge advertisers more to target certain demographic groups and individuals, and it can increase revenues by obtaining details about users. "Yahoo conceals information about its practices from the general public," Mr. Rosenfeld wrote. He wrote that in California, information about Yahoo's interception and scanning practices is filed under seal. The class certification motion in Judge Koh's court sported black bars over most of the words in a stretch of seven pages, with many short redactions on other pages. That case started in 2013, after Judge Koh consolidated six complaints. Last year she dismissed allegations that Yahoo violated the California constitution and that it lacked consent under state wiretap law. Judge Koh denied a motion to dismiss an allegation that Yahoo invaded privacy. She further denied a motion to dismiss an allegation that Yahoo violated the Stored Communications Act. And, she denied a motion to dismiss an allegation that Yahoo violated state wiretap law by intercepting messages before they reached the server. YAHOO INC: Fights Class Action Over Email Scanning Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Yahoo wants an appellate court to block consumers from bringing a class-action privacy suit over the company's email scanning practices. In papers filed on June 10, Yahoo argues that the consumers aren't entitled to class-action status, because the key issue in the privacy dispute -- whether people consented to the email scans -- will require individualized assessments. The company is asking the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to immediately review a decision by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California, who has ruled that the consumers could proceed as a class. The dispute dates to 2013, when four Web users -- Cody Baker, Brian Pincus, Halima Nobles, and Rebecca Abrams -- alleged that Yahoo violates email users' privacy by scanning their messages in order to surround them with ads. They say that Yahoo violated the federal wiretap law and a California privacy law by allegedly intercepting messages without the consent of both the sender and recipient. Yahoo's terms of service provide that the company analyzes email in order to display ads, but the people who are suing didn't have Yahoo email accounts themselves, and therefore never explicitly agreed to the company's terms of service. Yahoo argued to Judge Koh that the dispute doesn't lend itself to class-action treatment, asserting that questions about whether people agreed to the email scans need to be decided on a user-by- user basis. Judge Koh rejected that position, ruling that the consumers raised the kinds of "common" questions that don't require separate determinations for every affected Web user. Yahoo now argues to the 9th Circuit that Judge Koh's decision was wrong and should be immediately reversed. "Consent is a central issue in this case," Yahoo says in its newest court papers. "A class member who has consented to Yahoo's practices has no claim . . . Yet determining who has not consented (and thus is part of the class) requires an individualized, fact- specific inquiry." Yahoo also argues that it won't be possible to identify every non- Yahoo Mail user who exchanged email messages with Yahoo account holders. "Plaintiffs sought certification of a sprawling class of unidentifiable non- Yahoo Mail subscribers who have emailed or may in the future email Yahoo Mail users. Yahoo does not have records that would even provide a way to identify each and every non-Yahoo Mail subscriber that has sent an email to or received an email from a Yahoo user," the company says. Last year, Judge Koh refused to allow a group of Web users to proceed as a class in a privacy lawsuit involving Gmail. Web users in that matter argued that Google violated privacy laws by scanning messages in order to surround them with ads. Judge Koh ruled in the Gmail dispute that the consumers could proceed with their allegations, but refused to allow them to do so in a class-action. Instead, she said they could only proceed as individuals. The users settled their dispute with Google soon after that decision. ZIRX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Wolfe" Suit Over FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Wolfe, on his own behalf and on behalf of a Class of Similarly Situated Employees of Defendant v. Zirx Technologies, Inc., Case 2:15-cv-00962 (W.D. Wash., June 16, 2015), seeks relief on a class-wide basis, including unpaid wages, return of wages unlawfully rebated, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington's Minimum Wage Act. Defendant Zirx Technology, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and does business in King County, Washington. It owns and operates a valet parking service in seven locations nationwide, including Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Washington, DC, and Brooklyn, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen P. Connor, Esq. Anne-Marie E. Sargent, Esq. CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC 999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98104 Tel: (206) 654-5050 (206) 654-4011 E-mail: aes@cslawfirm.net ********* 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 * * *