/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150708.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, July 8, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 135 Headlines 2 BROS. PIZZA: Faces FLSA Class Action in New York 85 PEARL: "Mercado" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages & Damages AESTHETIC DESIGN: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile Ads, Suit Claims AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Await 8th Cir. Decision ANGIE'S LIST: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action ARKANSAS: State Supreme Court Upholds OT Class Action Status ARMAAN LLC: "Joha" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages ARS NATIONAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation ARTERIORS TOO: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Schacht" Suit Says ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: Recalls Chocolate Candies Due to Peanut B&R PRODUCTS: Removes "Concepcion" Suit to Florida District Court BAYER CORP: Faces "Taylor" Suit Alleging Avelox-Related Injuries BBD HOLDINGS: "Parra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BLCH 3RD: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 26,000 Product Liability Cases Pending BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Fretter and Korsgaard Class Actions Filed BOULDER DOG: Recalls Turkey Sprinkles Due to Salmonella CALIFORNIA: San Quentin Jail Death Row Prisoners File Class Suit CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Fire Prevention Fee Bills CANADA: Quebec Lawyer Mulls Legionnaire's Outbreak Class Action CANADA: Class Action Lawyer Willing to Continue Tar Pond Suit CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Note Holders Dismiss Class Action CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Filed Writ of Certiorari CHESWICK GENERATING: Pennsylvania Court Strikes Class Allegations CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: September 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set CLIFFS NATURAL: Amended Class Action Complaint Filed CLIFFS NATURAL: Rosenberg Action Referred to Insurance Carriers COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Softsoap Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK COLLINS & 74TH: Faces "Sarmiento" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Evidentiary Hearing Set for Class Cert Bid CORDISH COS: Judge Dismisses Racial Discrimination Class Action CROSSMARK INC: $1.4MM Tripp Settlement Gets Final Court Approval CTPARTNERS: Faces Sexual Discrimination Class Action DELCATH SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Securities Litigation DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Pending in Weinstat Class Action DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Motion Hearing Rescheduled DIRECTV: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over NFL Sunday Ticket E-Z-GO: Recalls Golf Cars, Shuttles and Off-Road Utility Vehicles EGS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation ELGIN, TX: Faces Red Light Camera Class Action ELITE BENEFIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Olson" Suit Claims ENERGY CORP: Magistrate Judge Upholds Verdict in Royalties Suit EXCELSIOR ELECTRIC: Faces Class Actions Over Capital Credits FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Court of Appeal Ends Privacy Class Action FANTASY FUN: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FIRST ALERT: Court Tosses Class Suit Over Defective Smoke Alarms FLOYD COUNTY, KY: Conn Appears in SSA Class Action Hearing FREE CONTINUING: Court Stays "Degnen" Case Pending FCC Ruling FRENCH QUARTER: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Hays" Suit Says FRESH AND PROCESS: Dec. 3 Final Hearing on Antitrust Suit Deal FRESNO, CA: Police Faces Suit Over Inaction on Domestic Violence GOLDEN EAGLE: Immigrant Farm Workers File Wage Class Action GRAND BK: Recalls Raw Cashew Products Due to Salmonella GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: "Morton" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas HEART SAVERS: Faces TCPA Class Action in California HERTZ CORP: Faces "Lee" Action in California Over FCRA Violations HERTZ CORP: Suit Over "Unethical Fees" Removed to Federal Court HILLS BANCORPORATION: Class Action Stayed Pending IA Court Ruling IDAHO: Police Misled States Officials in Prison Investigation JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Face Fax Advertising Class Action JUNIPER PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Action Affirmed KEURIG GREEN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action KEURIG GREEN: Reply Briefs Due in Class Action KTOWN TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LAKEWOOD CO: Recalls Nut and Fruit Mix Due to Salmonella LOGMEIN INC: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Electronic Fund Transfers LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Ex-CFO to Pay $2.3MM in U.S. Securities Suit LYFT INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, "Nokchan" Suit Says MANITOBA: Apologizes to Indigenous Families for Forced Adoptions MARRIOTT INT'L: Housekeepers File Class Action Over Chemicals MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Suit Remains Stayed MASIMO CORP: Motion for Summary Judgment Pending MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Defendants Entered Into MOU MEADOWLANDS RACETRACK: Faces Wage Class Action in New Jersey MEL S. HARRIS: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation MICHAEL KORS: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Price Tags MILANEZZA LLC: "Munoz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages MINNESOTA: Must Implement Sex Offer Program Changes, Judge Says MONSANTO CO: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California NEW LONDON, CT: Shooting Victims Mull Class Action NEW YORK, NY: Officials Agree to Sweeping Reforms at Rikers Island NEW YORK, NY: COBA Responds to Rikers Island Settlement NEWS CORP: Ordered to Face Ad Monopoly Class Action NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Aug. 21 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set OGDEN COUNTY: Aug. 4 Oral Argument in Trece Injunction Class Suit OGEMAW COUNTY, MI: Former Female Inmates File Class Action OTTEROO CORPORATION: Recalls Baby Floats Over Risk of Drowning OUTSOURCING USA: "Conti" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PARADISE FLOWERS: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PATRIOT ELECTRIC: Faces "Cirillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT PENNYSAVER USA: Removed "Benton" Class Suit to C.D. California POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To File Reply Brief in Securities Suit PRESIDIO INTERNATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages QUEBEC, CANADA: Class Action Over Legionnaire's Outbreak Launched REDBOX AUTOMATED: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa. REPUBLIC SERVICES: July 21 Cert. Hearing in Landfill Odor Case REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 6 Hearing on Motion to Remand ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Recalls Fruit & Nut Trail Mix Due to Salmonella SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Water Price Suit Mulled v. Water District SCHLUMBERGER NV: Faces "Ogle" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages SEVENTH GENERATION: Bid to Transfer Venue of Tsan Case Denied SHUTTERFLY: Faces Class Action Over "Faceprints" SIOUX CITY, IA: Paid Million to Settle Civil Lawsuits, Claims SONY PICTURES: May Sue Twitter Over Leaked Documents STATE AUTO: Plaintiffs Settled with State Auto Defendants STORED VALUE CARDS: Arbitration Bid Denial in Reagan Case Upheld TECHNOSPORT INC: Recalls Scuba Diving Mask Due to Injury Hazard THAINUM SOUP: Faces "Ventura" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TPC II LLC: Faces "Onorato" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Investor Class Action in Texas TRUECAR INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Share Price Decline TWIN AMERICA: Faces "Mirabel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court to Address Statistical Sampling Issue UBER TECH: Illegally Obtains Consumer Report, "Nokchan" Suit Says UBER TECH: To Appeal Employee Classification Ruling UBER TECH: Labor Commissioner Ruling to Impact "Sharing Economy" UNION PACIFIC: Sued Over Dispute on Pipelines Along Rail Lines UNITED POTATO: Settles Price-Fixing Cartel Class Action for $25MM UNITED STATES: Fed Overstep Authority in AIG Bailout, Court Ruled UNITED STATES: OPM Sued Over Alleged Cyber-Breach UNITED STATES: Doesn't Accept Liability for OPM Data Breach UNITED STATES: GLAD Files Preliminary Injunction Against SSA UNITED STATES: Eastern Kentucky Lacks Lawyers to Handle SSA Cases URANIUM ENERGY: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports US BANK: RMBS Investors File Class Action in New York VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages VIVUS INC: 9th Cir. Rejected Petition in Securities Class Action W.W. GRANGER: Obtains Final Approval of Stovall-Gusman Suit Deal WAL-MART STORES: Court Grants Partial Judgment in Sex Bias Suit WAL-MART STORES: Settles Action Over All-Natural Cornstarch Label WATTS WATER: Defending Against "Meyers, "Ponzo" & "Sharp" Actions WATTS WATER: Defendant in "Klug" Class Action WELLS FARGO: "Ponce de Leon Case" Dismissed in Its Entirety WELLS FARGO: 11th Cir. Vacated Order in "Order of Posting" Case WELLS FARGO: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed WELLS FARGO: Trial This Year for Pending Securities Lending Cases WEST AFRICA EXAMINATION: Kofi Adams to Lead BECE Class Action YAMAHA GOLF: Recalls Golf Cars and PTVs Due to Crash Hazard YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls SRViper Snowmobiles Due to Injury Risk ZEEKREWARDS.COM: Ponzi Scheme Victims to Get Check in August * CFPB Study Seen as Precursor to Arbitration Regulatory Action * FCC Rules on Telemarketing, Robocalls and Other TCPA Issues * Tech Companies Push for New Worker Classification Amid Lawsuits ********* 2 BROS. PIZZA: Faces FLSA Class Action in New York -------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Horney, writing for Law360, reports that a putative class action was launched against a popular pizza chain in New York district court on June 19, alleging that the chain violated the Federal Labor Standards Act by, among other things, failing to pay employees overtime wages. The suit, lodged by a host of current and former pizza makers and cashiers at the chain, alleges that 2 Bros. Pizza, along with a number of individual defendants who run particular locations in New York City, violated the FLSA by failing to pay them minimum wage and refusing to compensate for overtime. The suit also alleges that the pizza chain violated the New York Labor Law by improperly neglecting to provide proper wage statements, claiming that the workers were paid off the books. The plaintiffs named in the suit all either currently work at one the chain's locations or used to work there dating back to 2009, according to the complaint. "Plaintiffs . . . have been victims of a common policy and plan perpetrated by defendants that has violated their rights under the FLSA and [New York Labor Law] by denying them pay, including without limitation, minimum wage, overtime wages, spread of hours wages and the full amount of wages to which they are entitled," the complaint says. According to the complaint, between October 2012 and January 2014, plaintiff Ruben Aca worked as a pizza maker and cashier at a Lexington Avenue location for 72 hours a week but was paid only a flat fee of $480, equivalent to $6.66 per hour. The complaint lists a host of other named plaintiffs featuring similar stories relating to how much they were or are being paid by the pizza chain. According to the complaint, the workers in question were paid in cash off the books, and their hours were not recorded by the company. The complaint also alleges that beginning in September 2014, the pizza chain began deducting roughly $100 or more each week from the workers' wages, falsely telling the plaintiffs that the money was being taken out of their pay for tax purposes. "Upon information and belief, such amounts deducted have not been used for taxes and have been kept by the defendants for personal profit," the complaint says. "Defendants have substantially benefitted and profited from the work the plaintiffs . . . have performed." The plaintiffs are requesting class certification for any employee who worked as a pizza maker or cashier at a 2 Bros. Pizza location beginning from November 2011 and who were not paid their due overtime wages. The complaint estimates that the class consists of roughly 100 individuals. Additionally, the suit seeks a trial by jury, an award of "100 percent" of all wages owed and further damages in the amount of $100 per week for every workweek during which violations occurred, up to a maximum of $2,500 per worker. The suit also seeks attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other relief as deemed just by the court. A representative for the defendants could not immediately be reached for comment on June 19. The plaintiffs are represented by Adam Slater of Slater Slater Schulman LLP, and Christopher Marlborough of The Marlborough Law Firm PC. Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately available on June 19. The case is Aca et al. v. Halali et al., case number 1:15-cv- 04784, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. 85 PEARL: "Mercado" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages & Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Aixa Mercado and Chablis Quarterman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. 85 Pearl Street Venture Ltd. d/b/a Stone Street Tavern, and Ronan A. Downs, Case No. 1:15-cv- 05049 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Stone Street Tavern restaurant located at 85 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10006. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 Facsimile: (212) 481-1333 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com AESTHETIC DESIGN: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile Ads, Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Marcus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Aesthetic Design Dental Lab, Case No. 3:15-cv-04712 (D.N.J., June 29, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of transmitting one or more facsimiles advertising the commercial availability or quality of property, goods, or services, without having obtained prior express invitation or permission to transmit said facsimiles. Aesthetic Dsign Dental Lab owns and operates a dental laboratory located at 308 North Himes Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33609. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ross H. Schmierer, Esq. PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP 103 Eisenhower Parkway Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (973) 228-6667 E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 369 S. Doheny Dr., #415 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Await 8th Cir. Decision ----------------------------------------------------- AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has heard oral argument in an appeal related to the Makena Securities Litigation, and the parties are awaiting a decision from the Court. During October and November 2011, three complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri (the "Court") against K-V Pharmaceutical Company ("KV") (since renamed as Lumara Health) and certain individual defendants, alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly traded securities of KV between February 14, 2011 and April 4, 2011: Julianello v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. (filed October 19, 2011); Mukku v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. (filed October 31, 2011), and Cheong v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. (filed November 2, 2011). On March 8, 2012, the three cases were consolidated and the consolidated action is now styled In Re K-V Pharmaceutical Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:11-CV- 1816-AGF. On May 4, 2012, the Court appointed Lori Anderson as the Lead Plaintiff in the matter, and an amended complaint was filed on July 24, 2012. The amended complaint alleges class members were damaged by purchasing KV stock at artificially inflated prices due to defendants' purportedly misleading statements regarding KV's exclusivity over Makena. On April 22, 2013, the individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and oral argument was held before the Court on November 26, 2013. KV joined in the motion to dismiss on February 10, 2014. On March 27, 2014, the Court entered an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss the class action complaint without prejudice to the plaintiff's ability to file a second amended complaint with respect to a limited issue of whether defendants' statements about Lumara Health's financial assistance program for Makena were materially false or misleading. On April 16, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider asking the Court to reconsider its order restricting the scope of plaintiff's ability to amend its complaint. The Court denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider and entered a judgment granting defendants' motion to dismiss on June 6, 2014. On July 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on March 12, 2015 and the parties are awaiting a decision from the Court. In accordance with the Sixth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for K-V Discovery Solutions and Its Affiliated Debtors, which became effective on September 16, 2013, the recovery in this matter, if any, is limited to the "extent of any insurance and/or any proceeds therefrom (excluding any self- insured retention obligation or deductible) that may provide coverage for any liability of Lumara Health for the claims asserted in this litigation". ANGIE'S LIST: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action ------------------------------------------------------ Jeff Swiatek, writing for IndyStar, reports that a judge said he will throw out a potential shareholder class-action lawsuit against Angie's List that aimed to show a stock price drop in 2013 was caused by its executives' misconduct. Federal judge William Lawrence's ruling, made June 18, said the allegations in the lawsuit "are simply too vague and attenuated" to stand up in court. But he did give the plaintiffs 28 days to refile an amended complaint. The lawsuit in federal court in Indianapolis is a consolidation of several lawsuits filed by nine law firms from Indianapolis, New York and the Philadelphia area that alleged securities violations against Angie's List. The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is a United Food & Commercial Workers union pension fund. The Indianapolis company is an Internet-based provider of consumer reviews for home repair services, doctors and other providers. It went public in late 2011. Lawyers at four of the key plaintiffs' law firms in the case did not respond to a request for comment. Angie's List spokeswoman Cheryl Reed also declined to comment. Shareholder class-action lawsuits are common in the corporate world. They have led in some cases to multimillion-dollar judgments or settlements on behalf of shareholders. But Lawrence said the consolidated Angie's List s lawsuit fails to make a strong enough case to proceed in court. The plaintiffs built much of their case on the argument that Angie's List diluted the quality of its membership in 2013 by slashing its membership price from $40 to $10 in some markets, including Indianapolis. That disrupted the company's membership- based business model, plaintiffs said, and led to a sharp stock price decline. Angie's List stock price fell 50 percent between July and December 2013, from $28 a share to $14. "The problem," the judge said in his order, "is that these allegations . . . are nothing more than unfounded assumptions and speculation. . . . Simply put, the complaint is devoid of any facts regarding the outcome of the reduction in membership fee." In asking the judge to dismiss the case, Angie's attorneys said the plaintiffs failed to come up with any proof to back their argument. "No document supports this assertion; no witness purports to corroborate it. Plaintiffs are simply wrong." ARKANSAS: State Supreme Court Upholds OT Class Action Status ------------------------------------------------------------ John Lyon, writing for Times Record, reports that a divided Arkansas Supreme Court on June 18 upheld a circuit judge's decision to grant class-action status to a lawsuit alleging that employees of Arkansas veterans homes were required to work overtime hours without compensation. The suit, filed in June 2013 by a group of nurses and nursing assistants who worked for the Fayetteville Veterans Home and the now-closed Arkansas Veterans Home in Little Rock, alleges that their employer, the Arkansas Department of Veteran Affairs, often required the plaintiffs to work before and after their shifts and through their lunch breaks without overtime pay. The plaintiffs claim that the department automatically deducted 30 minutes per day from their work hours for a lunch break, even if, as they say was often the case, they were not able to take a lunch break because of chronic understaffing. The suit also alleges that the department did not allow the plaintiffs to report all the overtime hours they worked and did not respond to their frequent complaints about the alleged violations. The actions by the department violated the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, the suit claims. The plaintiffs are seeking damages equal to the amount of overtime pay they claim they were illegally denied during a period beginning three years before the suit was filed and ending on the date the case is resolved. The Arkansas Department of Veteran Affairs has denied the allegations. A Pulaski County circuit judge granted class-action status for the suit in August 2014. The judge defined the class as "all hourly, nonexempt nurses and certified nursing assistants of Arkansas Veterans Home and Fayetteville Nursing Home who were employed by ADVA at any time within the three years prior to the filing of the case through the date of the final disposition of this action." The state attorney general's office, representing the Arkansas Department of Veteran Affairs, appealed the ruling, arguing that it should be allowed to cross-examine each plaintiff and introduce specific evidence to refute each person's claim, which would make a single class-action suit unwieldy. In a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court sided on June 17 with the plaintiffs. "Certainly, ADVA should be permitted to defend as it sees fit, and the question is really more about how best to manage the case, something that the circuit court has broad discretion to determine," Justice Robin Wynne wrote in the majority opinion. Justice Rhonda Wood wrote in a dissenting opinion that the evidence presented at a hearing in circuit court on class-action status varied widely from employee to employee, and noted that two plaintiffs already have been dropped from the suit after it was discovered that they did not work more than 40 hours in a week. "When a case turns on highly individualized inquiries that differ from class member to class member, as in this one, our precedent has been to hold that the class-certification requirements are not satisfied," Justice Wood wrote in the dissenting opinion. Justices Karen Baker and Josephine Hart joined in the dissent. ARMAAN LLC: "Joha" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Joha and other similarly-situated individuals v. Armaan LLC a/k/a Groovy's Pizza, Abdullah V. Karpuz and Kaan Kaleli, Case No. 1:15-cv-22426-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Groovy's Pizza restaurant located at 332 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach 33139. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com ARS NATIONAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Blimie Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-03802-FB-RLM (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com ARTERIORS TOO: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Schacht" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Schacht, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Arteriors Too, LLC d/b/a Arteriors Home, and Mark Moussa, Case No. 3:15-cv-02173-G (N.D. Tex., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Arteriors Too, LLC is a provider of luxury residential and commercial lighting, wall decor, decorative accessories, and furniture. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL LLP 1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com forester@l-b-law.com ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: Recalls Chocolate Candies Due to Peanut ------------------------------------------------------------ Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall of a limited quantity of Atkins Chocolate Candies, 5 ct. sachets with UPC code 637480075558 - because it may contain sachets of Atkins Chocolate Peanut Candies. Although the inner sachets are properly marked as Chocolate Peanut Candies, there is a chance of consumer confusion. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanut products may run the risk of serious allergic reaction if they consume these products. PRODUCT UPC CODE LOT NUMBER BEST BEFORE DATE ------- -------- ---------- ---------------- Atkins 637480075558 A5118139439C April 28, 2016 Chocolate A5119139439A Candies 5 ct. A5119139439B sachets A5119139439C April 29, 2016 A5120139439A April 30, 2016 The affected product is marked with one of the following lot numbers A5118139439C (with a "best before" date of April 28, 2016), A5119139439A, A5119139439B, A5119139439C (with a "best before" date of April 29, 2016) and A5120139439A (with a "best before" date of April 30, 2016). A small quantity of Atkins Chocolate Peanut Candy individual sachets has been inadvertently placed into outer cartons of Atkins Chocolate Candies - 5 ct. sachets. Three consumers who purchased the mislabeled product alerted Atkins to the issue. To date, no illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported. Atkins has conducted 100 percent inspection of the remaining product on hand, and has found no instances of the mislabeling above. However, in an abundance of caution, Atkins is issuing a voluntary recall of the affected production lot to ensure the safety of consumers with peanut allergies and we apologize to consumers for this inconvenience. Consumers who have purchased Atkins Chocolate Candies UPC code 637480075558 should look for the manufacturing lot code A5118139439C, A5119139439A, A5119139439B, A5119139439C and A5120139439A on the bottom of the carton. No other Atkins products are affected by this recall. The affected product was distributed to a limited number of retailers across the United States. The quality and safety of our products are the top priority for our company. Atkins has notified its distributors and retailers and is taking this voluntary action as a precautionary measure. This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the Food and Drug Administration. Consumers who purchased affected product can request a full refund by contacting Atkins Consumer Services directly at 1-800-628-5467 Monday through Friday from 7 am to 6 pm MST to receive a pre-paid envelope for product return. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. is a leader in the weight control nutrition category, and offers a powerful lifetime approach to weight loss and management. The Atkins Diet focuses on a balanced diet with reduced levels of refined carbohydrates and added sugars and encourages the consumption of protein, fiber, fruits, vegetables and good fats. Backed by research and consumer success stories, this approach allows the body to burn more fat and work more efficiently while helping individuals feel less hungry, more satisfied and more energetic. Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., manufactures and sells a variety of frozen meals, nutrition bars, shakes and snacks designed around the nutritional principles of the Atkins Diet(TM). Atkins' three product lines: Advantage(R), Day Break(TM) and Endulge(TM) appeal to a broad audience of both men and women who want to achieve their weight management goals and enjoy a healthier lifestyle. Atkins products are available online at atkins.comdisclaimer icon and in more than 50,000 locations throughout the U.S. and internationally. For more information, visit atkins.comdisclaimer icon. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453181.htm B&R PRODUCTS: Removes "Concepcion" Suit to Florida District Court ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Concepcion v. B&R Products, Inc., Case No. 15-09876-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22126-KMW to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from alleged denial of overtime compensation. The Plaintiff is represented by: Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE 1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2 Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154 Telephone: (305) 448-9292 Facsimile: (305) 448-9477 E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com - and - Lowell J. Kuvin, 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: lowell@kuvinlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Alexander D. Del Russo, Esq. Allison Oasis Kahn, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A. PO Box 150 525 Okeechobee Boulevard, Suite 1200 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-0150 Telephone: (561) 659-7070 Facsimile: (561) 659-7368 E-mail: adelrusso@cfjblaw.com akahn@cfjblaw.com BAYER CORP: Faces "Taylor" Suit Alleging Avelox-Related Injuries ---------------------------------------------------------------- John R. Taylor v. Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 00468-SMV-SCY (D.N.M., June 4, 2015) is an action for damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result of his use of the pharmaceutical drug Avelox(R), also known as moxifloxacin. Avelox is a broad-spectrum synthetic antibacterial agent marketed and sold in oral tablet, IV solution, and ophthalmic solution, used to treat lung, sinus, skin, and urinary tract infections caused by certain germs called bacteria. Avelox is a member of the quinolone class of antibiotics. Bayer Corporation is an Indiana corporation headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Montville, New Jersey. Merck & Co., Inc. is New Jersey corporation headquartered in Whitehouse Station, New Jersey. The Defendants design, research, manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell and distribute Avelox. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin R. Kaufman, Esq. HEARD ROBINS CLOUD, LLP 505 Cerrillos Road, Suite A209 Santa Fe, NM 87501 Telephone: (505) 986-0600 Facsimile: (505) 986-0632 E-mail: jkaufman@heardrobins.com - and - Vance R. Andrus, Esq. David J. Wool, Esq. ANDURS WAGSTAFF, P.C. 7171 W. Alaska Drive Lakewood, CO 80226 Telephone: (720) 208-9414 E-mail: vance.andrus@andruswagstaff.com David.wool@andruswagstaff.com BBD HOLDINGS: "Parra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Angela Parra, and all others similarly situated v. BBD Holdings & Ventures, LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-80898-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. BBD Holdings & Ventures, LLC owns and operates various payday loan companies within the Southern District of Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Scott Norell, Esq. ROBERT S. NORELL P.A. 300 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 305 Plantation, FL 33317 Telephone: (954) 617-6017 Facsimile: (954) 617-6018 E-mail: robnorell@aol.com BLCH 3RD: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Isaac Gutierrez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. BLCH 3rd Ave. LLC d/b/a Brick Lane Curry House, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05053 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. BLCH 3rd Ave. LLC owns and operates an Indian restaurant known as Brick Lane Curry House, located at 1664 Third Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Giustino Cilenti, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C. 708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 26,000 Product Liability Cases Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of May 5, 2015, there were over 26,000 product liability cases or claims related to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending against the Company. The Company said, "The cases are pending in various federal and state courts in the United States and include eight putative class actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive of three putative class actions, and fewer than 10 claims in the United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products. The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims." "Over 2,500 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. "During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to those requests. During April 2015, solely by way of compromise and without any admission or concession by us of any liability or wrongdoing, we entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") with certain plaintiffs' counsel to settle substantially all of their inventories of cases and claims pending against us. The Agreement provides that we will pay approximately $119 million to resolve 2,970 of the over 26,000 pending cases and claims, including the case in the District Court of Dallas County (TX) for which there is a judgment of approximately $35 million that is currently subject to appeal. Under the terms of the Agreement, we will make two payments into a settlement fund held in escrow with full funding to be completed on or before October 1, 2015. The settlement and the distribution of settlement funds to participating claimants are conditioned upon, among other things, achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds. If the participation thresholds are not satisfied, we may terminate the Agreement." BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Fretter and Korsgaard Class Actions Filed ------------------------------------------------------------ Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 18, 2015, Denise Fretter and Maria Korsgaard, claiming to represent a class of current and former female field sales employees at Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation (BSNC), filed a lawsuit against BSNC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The plaintiffs allege gender discrimination in pay, promotions and differential treatment against them and the putative class. BOULDER DOG: Recalls Turkey Sprinkles Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------- Boulder Dog Food Company, L.L.C. is voluntarily recalling the Turkey Sprinkles (3 oz.) with a "Best By" date of "05/18/16, 05/28/2016 and 05/30/2016", a Lot Number of "743", and a UPC Code of 899883001224 because the product has the potential of being contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals eating the product, and there is risk to humans who handle the product, especially if the handler does not thoroughly wash his or her hands after having contact with the Product or any surfaces exposed to the product. Healthy people handling the product contaminated by Salmonella should monitor themselves for some or all of the following symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal cramping, and fever. Although rare, Salmonella may result in more serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact with the Product should contact their healthcare providers immediately. Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has consumed the Product and has exhibited these symptoms, you should contact your veterinarian immediately. This voluntary recall is regarding Turkey Sprinkles 3 oz with a "Best By" date of "05/18/16, 05/28/2016 and 05/30/2016", a Lot Number of "743", and a UPC Code of 899883001224. The product is in a clear poly bag. The UPC Code is located in the lower right hand corner of the product label on the front of the bag. The "Best By" date and Lot Number are a label on the back of the bag in the center. The recalled product consists of 7 bags that were distributed to one retail customer in the State of Colorado, one retail customer in the State of Virginia. Boulder Dog Food Company, L.L.C. has identified and notified the customers to whom the recalled product was sent. If you are in possession of the recalled product ("Best By" date of "05/18/16, 05/28/16 or 05/30/16", a Lot #"743" and a UPC Code of 899883001224 please discontinue use and return the unused product to either the retailer where it was purchased or directly to Boulder Dog Food Company L.L.C. The recall is a result of a routine sampling program by the Food and Drug Administration which revealed a "positive" test for Salmonella in Turkey Sprinkles (3 oz.) with a "Best By" date of "05/30/16", a Lot Number of "743", and a UPC Code of 899883001224. One complaint was received from a consumer who had contact with the product. Consumers with questions may contact Boulder Dog Food Company, L.L.C. at 303-449-2540 Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM (M.D.T.) CALIFORNIA: San Quentin Jail Death Row Prisoners File Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- San Francisco Bay View reports that six condemned men living in extreme isolation in San Quentin's Adjustment Center filed a class action lawsuit on June 19 seeking to end the inhumane and degrading conditions in which they are confined and challenging the complete absence of meaningful procedures by which they are placed and retained in those conditions. The class action lawsuit asserts violations of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiffs also assert that the denial by CDCR (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) of any meaningful review of their assignment to the Adjustment Center violates their right to due process granted by the 14th Amendment. Approximately 100 prisoners -- out of the 750 men condemned to death in California -- are confined in San Quentin's Adjustment Center. There, they are confined alone in windowless cells for up to 24 hours a day. Plaintiffs and the class suffer the deleterious mental and physical effects of extreme isolation and deprivation of basic needs including adequate recreation, sleep, sunlight and human contact. Adjustment Center prisoners receive no educational or vocational programming. Plaintiffs are not allowed to make phone calls, and all visits occur in booths that separate the prisoner from his loved ones and deny any physical contact. Plaintiffs are sentenced to this fate not as a court-imposed punishment for their criminal convictions but as an administrative assignment for their alleged affiliation with prison or streets gangs. California is the only state that subjects prisoners to these isolating and inhumane conditions for extended periods of time based solely on alleged gang affiliation. CDCR assesses this affiliation by a process that relies primarily on prison informants and does not require actual evidence that a prisoner has participated in gang activity. Nightmarishly, once confined in the Adjustment Center, plaintiffs are denied any meaningful review of the factors that condemned them to await the execution of their sentence in brutal isolation. The use of solitary confinement for even short periods is under great scrutiny worldwide. Isolation for as few as 15 days is widely accepted to cause irreversible psychological harm, and confinement in those conditions beyond 15 days is considered torture under international law. California is an outlier in the sheer length of time prisoners spend on death row. The average prisoner will spend nearly 25 years completing the appeals of his sentence. As a result, the men indefinitely confined in the Adjustment Center are faced with the potential for a quarter of a century in isolation, without ever being able to feel the caring touch of another human being. This new lawsuit comes as the Pelican Bay State Prison class action lawsuit, Ashker v. Brown, which alleges similar constitutional violations for prisoners held for prolonged periods in Secure Housing Units around the state, is set to go to trial in December before federal Judge Claudia Wilken. CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Fire Prevention Fee Bills ------------------------------------------------------------- Tori James, writing for Mymotherlode.com, reports that fire prevention fee bills have been arriving in mailboxes across the Mother Lode over the past several days. Although it has been two years since the annual charges were first mandated for over 800,000 rural Californians, it remains a hot topic. When the fee was instigated in August 2012 it immediately sparked criticism. In 2013, Senator Tom Berryhill and Assemblymember Frank Bigelow issued a joint statement promoting appealing it during the confusion that entailed early billing attempts by the Board of Equalization on behalf of CalFire. Early last year, Board of Equalization Vice Chair George Runner called on Governor Jerry Brown to eliminate the charge, as it was enacted while the state was facing multi-billion dollar deficits. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has initiated steps towards filing a class action lawsuit over the charge, which, according to Mr. Runner, is now scheduled for an August hearing. The suit's argument is, since collected funds are not used to provide an actual service, the charge is not a fee but an illegal tax. "It doesn't provide any hose, or firefighter, or helicopter -- it goes for fire prevention programs to instruct people how to clear around their properties," Mr. Runner states, further opining that rural residents are well aware of how to protect their homes and meet their insurance requirements. If legally recognized as a tax instead of a fee, Mr. Runner says it was passed illegally as the bill was handled through a simple majority vote instead of securing a two-thirds majority that a tax requires. Mr. Runner indicates those interested in joining the effort to squelch the fire prevention fee may review the process on one of two websites set up to educate the public and provide the necessary forms. "The only folks who will get the money back will be those who protest it," he explains. In order to qualify for the suit and to avoid penalties, residents should pay the bill before it is past due, he cautions. "It is important that people pay it. As much as we don't like to," he empathizes. "We believe that the system has to work out correctly and get this thing removed through the courts." CANADA: Quebec Lawyer Mulls Legionnaire's Outbreak Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Jocelyne Richer, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a lawyer is seeking permission to file a class-action suit on behalf of the families of 181 people who contracted legionnaires' disease in Quebec City three years ago. Fourteen of them lost their lives. A coroner's report in 2013 said public health authorities did not have the proper tools to combat the outbreak, which came 16 years after similar cases in 1996 prompted calls for change. Catherine Rudel-Tessier said not enough was done to bring about that improvement. Lawyer Jean-Pierre Menard said on June 18 he believes he will get the green light to proceed against local health authorities, the provincial Health Department and a teachers' union that owned the building where the disease originated in a cooling tower. The 2012 epidemic, Mr. Menard said, "was one of the biggest in modern times given the number of victims and how long it lasted." "The victims have a chance of being compensated," he told a news conference. "We can't guarantee it (but) there are a certain number of facts that are extremely telling." The request is based primarily on the argument that health authorities did not take the necessary steps to avoid the outbreak, with Menard saying they were slow to respond and that their management of the crisis was "chaotic and disorganized." It was filed in Quebec Superior Court on June 17 by Solange Allen, whose husband died in the outbreak. "I would have liked some empathy from public health officials," Allen told the news conference. She said the crisis never should have occurred. "That's what's annoying, that's what we can't accept. This can't be allowed to happen again." Mr. Menard said the suit, if it proceeds, could total as much as $6 million. A decision is expected in August. Legionnaires' disease is contracted by breathing in small droplets of water contaminated with bacteria. Symptoms include coughs, fever, chills and respiratory problems. The deadly bacteria grow in the stagnant water of cooling systems and spreads in little droplets through air conditioning. Heavy smokers and people with weak immune systems are most at risk of catching the disease, which is not contagious and cannot be transmitted from one person to another. It presents little or no risk to most people, although elderly people are more vulnerable. CANADA: Class Action Lawyer Willing to Continue Tar Pond Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- David Jala, writing for Cape Breton Post, reports that the lawyer behind a failed class-action lawsuit relating to the effects of pollution from Sydney's former steel plant and coke ovens says he is willing to continue the fight. But Ray Wagner says that depends on the interest of residents affected by the contamination from a century of steel production and coke ovens activity. "We still believe in the merits of the case," said Mr. Wagner, who spoke before a crowd of about 100 people at Menelik Hall in Whitney Pier on June 18. "But we can't do it if people in the community are not interested." The Sydney native, who now lives in Halifax, organized the meeting to outline the legal options now available to residents. In April, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an appeal of the decision to quash the class-action lawsuit that was started in 2004 and certified by the courts in 2011. However, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned the lawsuit's certification in December 2013. Mr. Wagner, who was joined by several members of his law firm, told the packed room of concerned residents that with the class- action route now closed, there are still options available to them. He said they could pursue individual actions, engage in a mass tort, form a registered society, or lobby politicians to make cleaning up polluted communities an election issue. But before any new action is taken, Mr. Wagner said it is imperative there is enough interest in the community to proceed. "It's not a question of sitting back and seeing what happens, because if we do that nothing will happen," he said. While Mr. Wagner wouldn't give an exact number of how many people would need to express interest before his firm continues the fight, he did say it would probably have to be in the hundreds. By the time the class-action lawsuit ended, approximately 450 people had signed on, including the four representative plaintiffs. Joe Pettipas, who is one of the four who collectively served as the face of the lawsuit, said he is willing to continue with the legal battle. "I guess it's really up to the community now to make a decision about whether they're going to band together," said Mr. Pettipas, who along with the other representative plaintiffs is on the hook for $736,000 in court costs. "I still think we can win, but we have to do it together." Meanwhile, Mr. Wagner has asked Sydney residents to let him and his legal team know if they are interested in pursuing the matter. He said they should know whether they will proceed or not by the end of July. TIMELINE * 1901 - Steel mill established in Sydney * 1967 - Black Friday, as owners announce closure of plant * 1967 - Sysco formed as province takes over mill * 1968 - Devco takes over coke ovens operation * 1980 - Studies indicate plant-related pollution in harbour * 2001 - Remaining steel plant operations permanently shut down * 2004 - Class-action lawsuit filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court * 2007 - Tar ponds cleanup announced * 2011 - Lawsuit certified by court * 2013 - Tar ponds cleanup completed * 2013 - Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturns lawsuit certification * 2015 - Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear plaintiffs' appeal * Today - Lawyer willing to continue legal fight, but only if there's enough interest from Sydney residents CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Note Holders Dismiss Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on December 30, 2014, six former holders of the Company's 2019 Notes filed a putative class action against the Company on behalf of all former holders who purchased their 2019 Notes before the Company issued its notice of special early redemption at par in March 2013 and sold their 2019 Notes after the Company issued the early redemption notice but before the notes were redeemed at par in May 2013. The plaintiffs alleged that the Company breached the indenture in connection with its special early par redemption, causing the market value of the notes to decline and injuring the class members when they sold their 2019 Notes. The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on March 2, 2015 and subsequently entered into a stipulation by which the action was dismissed with prejudice and without costs on March 16, 2015. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Filed Writ of Certiorari ------------------------------------------------------ Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the July 2008 Common Stock Offering Litigation have filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock offering. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 11, 2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on October 13, 2009. Chesapeake and the officer and director defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of loss causation and materiality on December 28, 2011, and the motion was granted as to all claims as a matter of law on March 29, 2013. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal on August 8, 2014 and denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing on November 12, 2014. On April 10, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. CHESWICK GENERATING: Pennsylvania Court Strikes Class Allegations ----------------------------------------------------------------- The National Law Review reports that underscoring the requirement that class action plaintiffs clearly and objectively define the putative class without reference to the underlying merits of plaintiffs' claims, a federal district court in Pennsylvania struck class allegations from a complaint in a suit against a power plant. The case was back in district court after the Third Circuit reversed the trial court's dismissal, ruling that the Clean Air Act did not preempt Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint asserting nuisance, negligence, trespass and strict liability claims arising from the plant's emissions. Plaintiffs defined the putative class as those living within a one-mile radius of the power plant "who have suffered similar damages to their property by the invasion of particulates, chemicals, and gases from defendant's facility which thereby caused damages to their real property." The district court struck the class allegations because the class definition contained two fatal flaws. First, the Court held Plaintiffs had proposed a prohibited "fail-safe" class, meaning that determining whether individuals fall within the class would turn on resolving "ultimate issues of liability -- damage and causation." Here, class membership would have turned on whether (1) that person was injured and (2) Defendant's emissions caused the injury. Second, the Court concluded that requiring class members' injuries to be "similar" to Plaintiffs' was too subjective a standard to apply, therefore falling short of the class "definiteness" requirement courts have found implicit in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: September 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION IF YOU PURCHASED CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS HOLDINGS, INC. COMMON STOCK OR CALL OPTIONS AND/OR SOLD CCME PUT OPTIONS FROM APRIL 1, 2010 THROUGH MARCH 11, 2011, INCLUSIVE, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A PAYMENT FROM THIS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on June 11 disclosed that a Settlement has been reached in a series of proposed class action lawsuits in connection with alleged misstatements in the financial statements and other public statements of China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. The Court in charge of the case is the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York, and the case is known as In re China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No.11-CV-0804 (VM). The entities that sued and represented the Class in this Action are Irrevocable Trust FBO Lansing Davis under agreement dated 10/1/1979 and the Davis Partnership LP, as well as John Haughton, Ethan Lamar Pierce, and John Shaffer and one of the defendants that has been sued, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (Hong Kong Partnership, has entered into a proposed settlement. DTT denies all of the allegations, and that it did anything wrong. DTT denies that any of the statements in its audit report were materially false and misleading, and further denies that DTT acted with scienter in making any of these statements. DTT also denies that any of its statements caused CCME shares to trade at artificially high prices, or that any Class Members suffered damages related to any of DTT's statements or conduct. The Court did not decide in favor of the Class Representatives or DTT. Instead, the lawyers for both sides of the Lawsuit, with the assistance of an experienced mediator, have negotiated a settlement that they believe is in the best interests of their respective clients. How Do I Know if I Am Part of the Settlement? The Settlement includes a "Class" of all Persons who purchased CCME common stock and/or call options, and/or sold put options between April 1, 2010 and March 11, 2011. You are a Class Member only if you purchased shares of CCME common stock and/or call options, and/or sold put options between April 1, 2010 and March 11, 2011 inclusive. If you sold shares of CCME common stock and/or call options, and/or purchased put options between April 1, 2010 and March 11, 2011, inclusive, that alone does not make you a Class Member. What Does the Settlement Provide? The Settlement provides for $12,000,000 in cash to be paid pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Based on the information currently available to the Class Representatives and the analysis performed by its damage consultants, it is estimated that if Class Members submit claims for 100% of the shares and options eligible for distribution under the Plan of Allocation, the estimated average distribution per share of common stock will be approximately $0.26 before deduction of Court-approved fees, charges and expenses. Historically, actual claims rates are less than 100%, which result in higher distributions per share. A Class Member's actual recovery will be a proportion of the Net Settlement Fund determined by that claimant's recognized claim as compared to the total "Recognized Claims" of all Class Members who submit valid Proof of Claim and Release forms. An individual Class Member's actual recovery will depend on, for example: (i) the total number of claims submitted; (ii) when the Class Member purchased CCME common stock or call options and/or sold put options during the Class Period; (iii) the purchase price paid for common stock or call options or the sales price of put options sold; and (iv) whether the CCME common stock, put options and/or call options were held at the end of the Class Period or sold during the Class Period or sold after the Class Period (and if sold, when it was sold and the amount received). How Do I Get a Payment? To qualify for payment, you must be an eligible Class Member and you must send in a Proof of Claim. Claim forms are available at www.ChinaMediaExpressSettlement.com by calling 1-866-985-7592, sending an email to info@ChinaMediaExpressSettlement.com or by writing to CCME Securities Litigation Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 40008, College Station, TX 77842-4008. Read the Proof of Claim instructions carefully, fill out the form, include all the documents the form asks for, sign it, and mail it so that it is postmarked no later than October 2, 2015. What are My Other Rights and Options? Unless you exclude yourself, you are staying in the Class, and that means that you cannot sue, continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against DTT about the same issues in this case or that could have been asserted in this case. All of the Court's orders will apply to you and legally bind you and you will release DTT and related parties from any and all claims and causes of action of every nature and description, whether arising under federal, state, statutory, regulatory, common, foreign or other law, that arise in any way from or relate to the Action or CCME. If you do not want a payment from the Settlement, but you want to keep any right you may have to sue or continue to sue DTT and related parties on your own about the legal claims released by this Settlement you must exclude yourself from the Class. Exclusion requests must be received no later than August 14, 2015. If you are a Class Member (and have not excluded yourself from the Class), you can object to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees, charges and expenses in representing the Class. You may also ask the Court for permission to speak at the Settlement Hearing. Objections and requests to appear and speak at the Settlement Hearing must be received no later than August 14, 2015. Specific information regarding these rights and options, and how to exercise them, are provided in the Settlement Notice and Settlement Agreement, both of which are available at www.ChinaMediaExpressSettlement.com When and Where Will the Court Decide Whether to Approve the Settlement? The Court will hold the Settlement Hearing at 9:30 a.m., on September 18, 2015, in Courtroom 11B of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007-1312. At this hearing, the Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court will also consider whether to approve the Plan of Allocation and Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of 33.33% of the Settlement Fund and expenses not to exceed $400,000 (to be paid from the Settlement Fund) plus interest. If these amounts are approved by the Court, the average cost per share of common stock will be approximately $0.09. How Do I Get More Information? You can call (206) 623-7292 or write to Class Counsel at the following address: Chris O'Hara, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300, Seattle, WA 98101, or by email at CCMEsettlement@hbsslaw.com You can also visit the Claims Administrator's website at www.ChinaMediaExpressSettlement.com call the Claims Administrator toll-free at 1-866-985-7592, or send an email to the Claims Administrator at info@ChinaMediaExpressSettlement.com CLIFFS NATURAL: Amended Class Action Complaint Filed ---------------------------------------------------- The Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. was ordered to file and did file an amended complaint on March 31, 2015, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company said, "In May 2014, alleged purchasers of our common shares filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against us and certain current and former officers and directors of the Company. The action is captioned Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and Its Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., No. 1:14-CV-1031. The action asserts violations of the federal securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements or omissions during the period of March 14, 2012 to March 26, 2013, regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine in Qu‚bec, Canada, and the impact of those operations on our finances and outlook, including sustainability of the dividend, and that the alleged misstatements caused our common shares to trade at artificially inflated prices. The lawsuit seeks class certification and an award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount, along with costs of suit and attorneys' fees. On October 21, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action, which was denied as moot. Plaintiff was ordered to file and did file an amended complaint on March 31, 2015. The lawsuit has been referred to our insurance carriers." CLIFFS NATURAL: Rosenberg Action Referred to Insurance Carriers --------------------------------------------------------------- Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action lawsuit by Rosenberg has been referred to the Company's insurance carriers. The Company said, "In June 2014, an alleged purchaser of the depositary shares issued by Cliffs in a public offering in February 2013 filed a putative class action, which is captioned Rosenberg v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., and after a round of removal and remand motions, is now pending in Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, No. CV-14-828140. The suit asserts claims against us, certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, and several underwriters of the offering, alleging disclosure violations in the registration statement regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine and the impact of those operations on our finances and outlook. This action seeks class certification and monetary relief in an unspecified amount, along with costs of suit and attorneys' fees. This lawsuit has been referred to our insurance carriers." COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Softsoap Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------------- Angeion Group disclosed that the parties on June 19 announced the preliminary approval of a settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit concerning the labeling and marketing of certain liquid hand soap products from 1992 to 2015, In re: Colgate-Palmolive Softsoap Antibacterial Hand Soap Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The hearing on final approval of the settlement is scheduled for September 28, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. at the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, 55 Pleasant Street Room 110, Concord, NH 03301. The Company denies the plaintiffs' allegations of deceptive labeling and marketing of liquid hand soaps, but the parties have agreed to resolve the class action to remove the burden, expense and uncertainty of litigation. Colgate's current Softsoap liquid hand soap products do not make use of the ingredient, labeling or marketing statements at issue in the action. The settlement applies to persons who purchased the affected products in the United States from January 1, 1992 to June 19. Additional information, including the deadline for submitting any objections to the settlement, is available at www.SoftSoapAntibacterialClassActionSettlement.com The proposed settlement will be reviewed by Judge Paul J. Barbadoro of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, where the consolidated class action lawsuit is pending. Further information concerning the details of the settlement are available from the court's docket, Case No. 1:12- md-02320-PB. COLLINS & 74TH: Faces "Sarmiento" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Ernesto Sarmiento, Jose L. Mendez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Collins & 74th Street, Inc. d/b/a M & L Food Market, and Mohamed S. Hossain, Case No. 1:15-cv-22429-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in retail business that operates a mini-market, groceries and food-to-go store in Miami Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Evidentiary Hearing Set for Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------------- Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification was set for evidentiary hearing on June 1, 2015. In November 2010, an alleged class action was filed against the Company alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The Company has responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a number of affirmative defenses. Discovery is ongoing and information and documents continue to be exchanged. The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action will have on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter. The class has not been certified. Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification was set for evidentiary hearing on June 1, 2015. Plaintiffs have indicated that if the class is certified they may seek damages in excess of $165 million which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which would be comprised of interest. The Company disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the case meets the requirements for a class action and is vigorously defending the case. CORDISH COS: Judge Dismisses Racial Discrimination Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Hendricks, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by two African-American men who alleged a pattern of racial discrimination at the Kansas City Power & Light District. Senior Judge Ortrie Smith threw out the second count of the two- count lawsuit filed last year on behalf of Dante A.R. Combs and Adam S. Williams. The other count was dismissed earlier. Combs, of Overland Park, and Mr. Williams, of Kansas City, claimed they were victims of discrimination while visiting the district in 2010 and 2011 -- Mr. Combs on three occasions and Mr. Williams once. Judge Smith, in his order filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, threw out the case on both a legal technicality and because he found no direct evidence to support their claims against Power & Light owner Cordish Companies and its affiliates. The Kansas City allegations recently became a matter of discussion in Philadelphia, where minority leaders are considering whether to oppose a casino that Cordish plans to build. Cordish spokesman Nick Benjamin said the company was pleased with the judge's ruling. Linda Dickens, the attorney representing Combs and Williams, said she will ask the judge to reconsider and intends to appeal to a higher court if he refuses. "This dismissal does not detract," Ms. Dickens said, "from the powerful testimony by multiple Power & Light ex-employees who describe under oath when and how they were told to keep blacks out of Power & Light." Her clients' case is based partly on testimony from former district employees who, in sworn depositions, testified that managers urged them to limit the number of black patrons in the downtown entertainment area's bars and restaurants. Among the supposed tactics was enforcement of a dress code allegedly aimed at excluding African-American men. City officials also found fault with enforcement of the dress code several years ago, but ultimately settled with the company. The city human relations director said there have been no complaints in recent years. Another alleged ruse, the federal suit contended, was to make up excuses for why black patrons were denied entrance to clubs, such as claims that the establishments were overbooked or that the customer's reservation had been lost. Mr. Combs alleged that he was the victim of both tactics. But the central allegation by both men was that Cordish and its affiliates employed so-called "rabbits": white men hired to start arguments with black men so that district security could intervene and order the latter to leave, while the white guy would go on to start more trouble with others. Both plaintiffs claimed to have been victims of the tactic. Mr. Combs claimed it happened to him outside a club in the area when a white man bumped into him and caused him to drop his cellphone. Mr. Williams contended that while he was inside the Maker's Mark bar and restaurant, a white man confronted him after Mr. Williams allegedly stared at the man's girlfriend. Judge Smith said that the men's attorney failed to prove that a rabbit was involved in either altercation. The man who scuffled with Mr. Williams testified that he worked for the city of Olathe and was not employed as a rabbit. At best, Judge Smith wrote, Ms. Dickens introduced evidence that a rabbit was allegedly used to pick fights at another club in the district, the Mosaic Lounge. But there were no allegations about the use of rabbits at Mosaic in the federal lawsuit. Ms. Dickens also represents a former Mosaic manager, Glen Cusimano, in a Jackson County lawsuit. Mr. Cusimano alleges that while working at Mosaic, his supervisor instructed him to hire a rabbit to help reduce the number of African Americans in the club. Cordish has previously denied it had anything to do with the practice and fired Mr. Cusimano, an African American, for other reasons. His case is scheduled for trial on Nov. 30. Jury selection in the federal case had been set to begin [in July]. The lawsuits' allegations of past racial bias at Cordish's Kansas City operations have recently become an issue in Philadelphia, where Cordish wants to build a $475 million hotel and casino complex on the city's south side. The NAACP chapter was recently on the verge of opposing the project by condemning the company's practice at a news conference and issuing a 21-page report titled "Unwelcome: History of Allegations of Racial Discrimination By the Cordish Cos." Much of the report was based on allegations contained within the two Kansas City lawsuits, as well as other complaints filed against Cordish for allegedly discriminatory practices in Kansas City and Louisville, Ky. Ms. Dickens flew in to attend the June 18 event. But as news media began to gather for the event at Philadelphia City Hall, the press briefing "unraveled," as The Philadelphia Inquirer reported, when NAACP chapter president Rodney Muhammad didn't show up. Mr. Muhammad later told The Inquirer that he decided to skip the event after getting calls from Mayor Michael Nutter and the national NAACP, whom Nutter had also contacted. Mr. Nutter denied trying to kill release of the report in advance of city approvals for the project, but rather asked to discuss the situation with the local NAACP president before he went ahead. According to the newspaper, Mr. Muhammad said he hadn't realized that the report, authored by a New York-based public policy firm, was commissioned by a labor union that represents hotel and casino properties. Jason Ortiz, the managing director of that firm, Metropolitan Public Strategies, declined The Star's request for comment. Some Philadelphia leaders speculated that by highlighting the allegations, the union, Unite Here, was seeking an advantage in representing future casino workers. A source with close ties to Unite Here told The Star that the real intent was to torpedo the Cordish casino, because building it will mean demolishing a Holiday Inn on the site that now employs 70 union workers. But Ms. Dickens said it was more complicated than that, now that she reflects back on her initial discussion with Mr. Ortiz a month ago when he called to ask about the lawsuits she had filed. "He said at that time he was doing some background for two labor unions, and said a hotel is going to be demolished in order to make room for a new hotel that Cordish would be putting up," Ms. Dickens said. She said Mr. Ortiz told her that a union had offered Cordish a deal: "We won't oppose your project if you agree to be a union shop and Cordish said no." A source within the company told The Star that Cordish fully expects that the casino's thousands of new employees will be represented by a union. But one part of Ms. Dickens' account rang true, he said. Unite Here had offered labor peace in each exchange for a leg up over other unions in representing the workforce, and Cordish refused. Again, Mr. Ortiz declined to address the issue and a spokesman for the Unite Here local representing hotel and food service workers in Philadelphia did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment. CROSSMARK INC: $1.4MM Tripp Settlement Gets Final Court Approval ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William H. Orrick issued on June 18, 2015, a judgment and order granting final approval of a class action settlement in CLAY TRIPP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CROSSMARK, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-03480-WHO, (N.D. Cal.), which provides that: No objection was filed to the settlement but three Settlement Class Members opted out of the Settlement. Accordingly, the Court determined that all Settlement Class Members other than the three opt-outs, Barbara Martin, Diane Bechtold and Kim Overbeck, are bound by the Judgment and Final Order. The Court held that settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects, and is the product of good faith, arm's length negotiations between the parties, and fully complies with all applicable provisions of law. The Court, therefore finally and unconditionally approved the Settlement, and specifically: a. Approves the Gross Settlement Amount of $1,400,000, plus the employer's share of payroll taxes, as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Within the deadline set forth in the Settlement Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement"), Defendants must deposit with the Claims Administrator the amount required to fund all payments required by the Judgment and Final Order; b. Approved that $15,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount be allocated to resolve PAGA claims, and that under Labor Code section 2699(i), 75% of that amount, or $11,250, be paid to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency; c. Approved that $8,000 each be paid to the named Plaintiffs and Settlement Class Representatives Tripp and Solberg and $5,000 to named Plaintiff and Settlement Class Representative Smith in exchange for each providing Defendants with a general release of claims and as a service award, which is justified by the time and effort expended by each of the named Plaintiffs on behalf of the Settlement Class and the risk each assumed in bringing this action. These amounts will be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; d. Approved Class Counsel's attorneys' fee request of $350,000, which represents less than Class Counsel's actual lodestar, as fair and reasonable. Class Counsel's attorneys' fees will be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; e. Approved Class Counsels' request for reimbursement of litigation expenses of up to $18,566.80, which will be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; f. Approved payment to CPT Group, the Claims Administrator, of $50,000 as costs and expenses of settlement administration. The requested payment is reasonable and will be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; g. Approved distribution of any funds represented by uncashed settlement checks to any later discovered Settlement Class Members or Settlement Class Members who submit late but otherwise valid clams. If there are no such recipients or if any funds remain, all remaining amounts will be paid to the California Department of Industrial Relations Labor Code Sec. 96.7 Unpaid Wage Fund; and h. Approved as timely any otherwise valid claims postmarked no later than June 17, 2015 and the payment from the Net Settlement Fund of amounts determined by the Claims Administrator to be due to Settlement Class Members who are determined to be Authorized Claimants in the time and manner specified in the Settlement Agreement. "This action shall be dismissed with prejudice," wrote Judge Orrick his order, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1JPxcAo from leagle.com. "The consolidated action Smith v. Crossmark, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04461 WHO, shall be dismissed with prejudice," he added. CTPARTNERS: Faces Sexual Discrimination Class Action ---------------------------------------------------- Kevin Dugan, writing for New York Post, reports that the hits keep coming for embattled Wall Street recruiter CTPartners. The executive search firm, whose stock has been battered by sexual discrimination allegations, is facing fresh accusations of wrongdoing in new court papers filed, adding to its litany of woes. Shareholders filed an amended class-action suit that claims former CEO Brian Sullivan and COO William Keneally withheld information about discrimination allegations to "artificially inflate" the stock price. The complaint, filed in Manhattan federal court, comes as the shares have been in a free-fall for six months. The stock, which closed at an all-time low of $1.34 on June 18, has plunged 93 percent drop since December, when The Post first reported the company is facing an investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission into whether senior executives stripped women of profitable accounts and discriminated against female employees. Mr. Sullivan, who stepped down amid the scandal, also subjected his employees to lewd behavior, including stripping naked at a boozy company event in 2012, workers alleged in the complaint filed with the EEOC. In the amended shareholder complaint, five former employees describe a den of discrimination where men did little work and saw few consequences, while women were let go when the company didn't want to pay them. One former employee claims that top executives would muscle into women's assignments in order to get a portion of the finder's fee even if they did no work. An unnamed male managing partner would read the newspaper during client calls and disparaged a woman to a client while they were both on a call -- and still he got a 65 percent cut of the fee, according to the complaint. When the woman complained to human resources, she was told, "It's going to be wasting your breath if you talk to Brian [Sullivan] about it," the suit said. Another former employee claims she was the 13th woman over the age of 40 to be let go in 18 months. Men who hadn't made billings in three years stayed on the company's dole while women who brought in $500,000 were let go without the pay they had earned, according to the suit. "We wouldn't comment on any pending litigation," Jennifer Silver, a CTPartners spokeswoman, told The Post. DELCATH SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Securities Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ Delcath Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties have agreed to a settlement in principle subject to the Court's approval in the Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 13-cv-3116). On May 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bryan Green, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv- 03116-LGS. On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS. At a hearing on August 2, 2013, the Court consolidated the Green and Connico actions under the caption In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116, appointed Lead Plaintiff, Delcath Investor Group, and approved Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel. On September 18, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming the Company and Eamonn P. Hobbs as defendants (the "Defendants"). The consolidated amended complaint asserts that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's New Drug Application for its Melblez Kit (Melblez (melphalan) for Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System), for the treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic ocular melanoma in the liver. The putative class period alleged in the amended complaint is April 21, 2010 through and including September 13, 2013. Lead Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. On October 31, 2013, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss, which was subsequently denied on June 27, 2014. On July 25, 2014, Defendants filed their respective answers to Lead Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint. On July 29, 2014, the Court held a scheduling conference setting forth a case management plan. The parties are proceeding with discovery. On October 15, 2014, Lead Plaintiff served Defendants with a Motion for Class Certification to which Defendants served an opposition on December 16, 2014. On February 4, 2015, Lead Plaintiff served Defendants with a reply in support of the Motion for Class Certification and the parties filed all class certification pleadings with the Court. The parties have agreed to a settlement in principle subject to the Court's approval. The Company believes that the In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation action lacks merit and to the extent the settlement does not become final intends to defend the case vigorously. DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Pending in Weinstat Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the appeal is pending in the class action filed by Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS. On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined as California dental professionals who, at any time during the period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012, purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients, which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for Use that "Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for all types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September 2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court issued its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company is defending against this appeal. DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Motion Hearing Rescheduled -------------------------------------------------------------- DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court rescheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion in the lawsuit filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS. On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named class representative). The case was filed by the same law firm that filed the Weinstat case in California. The Complaint asserts putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water. Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists"). The plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action, to which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court subsequently granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims, leaving only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to which the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court has rescheduled a hearing to early May 2015 on plaintiffs' class certification motion. DIRECTV: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over NFL Sunday Ticket ------------------------------------------------------------ Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that a big part of the success of DirecTV has been a deal with the National Football League for rights to carry broadcasts of all of the league's out-of-market games. The satellite giant pays $1.5 billion a year for these rights. They are now being challenged in a class-action lawsuit alleging violations of federal antitrust law. A class of fans led by Thomas Abrahamian launched the lawsuit on June 17. The case follows similar class actions targeting the broadcast arrangements made for professional baseball and hockey leagues. A federal judge agreed to certify those class actions in May, and afterward, the NHL came to a proposed settlement that would result in its fans having the option to purchase their favorite teams' out-of-market games at a discounted price. Now, it's time for the NFL to face the same sort of antitrust scrutiny over its TV rights deals. The wave of litigation can in some respects be traced to a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that NFL teams are capable of conspiring when making licensing deals. The newest lawsuit objects to the way that NFL teams divide markets, enforce blackouts, and end up costing consumers who might only wish to see certain games instead of bundles. "Thus, a Cleveland Browns fan living in California cannot watch the Browns play, except occasional games on network television, unless he purchases the entire package of League games from NFL Sunday Ticket," states the complaint. DirecTV -- which was also a co-defendant in the actions targeting NHL and MLB -- is said to have "joined the conspiracy" by enforcing regional blackout agreements. (Last September, the FCC voted to end a rule that gave the NFL cover for its blackouts.) In the absence of territorial restrictions, the lawsuit suggests that teams would be competing on the licensing front and increasing the availability of games "over a wider range of media, including cable, the internet, and wireless devices." If the lawsuit follows the path of the NHL case, fans of professional football might have have the option of having a cheaper way to watch their favorite team instead of their current "all-or-nothing" choice. And if the lawsuit follows the path of the MLB case -- which hasn't settled -- the NFL could be headed to trial to present the pro-competitive effects of bundled packages. When arguing with the FCC for the continuation of the blackout rule, for instance, the league said that territorial restrictions ensured more games are televised. The NFL reaps billions from DirecTV for satellite rights, billions more from Verizon for mobile rights, and most recently, a good chunk of money from Yahoo for the streaming rights to a single game between two of the league's worst-performing franchises. The newest lawsuit asks for an injunction that could put this at risk. E-Z-GO: Recalls Golf Cars, Shuttles and Off-Road Utility Vehicles ----------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with E-Z-GO, a division of Textron Inc. and Textron Specialized Vehicles Inc., of Augusta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 8,200, Golf cars, shuttles and off-road utility vehicles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The gas tank can leak, posing a fire hazard. This recall involves E-Z-GO gas-powered TXT Fleet golf cars, E-Z- GO Freedom TXT, TXT2+2 and Valor golf cars, E-Z-GO Express, E-Z-GO Terrain and Cushman Shuttle vehicles with bench seats for the driver and passengers. The E-Z-GO Terrain and the Cushman Shuttle have a cargo bed on the back. The recalled vehicles have date codes ranging from G2015 through L0515. E-Z-GO or Cushman and the model name are printed on the side and front panels of the vehicles. Date codes are printed on a plate or label inside the cab below the driver's seat. The first letter of the date code identifies the month of production in sequence, with G corresponding to January and L to May. There is no letter I. The first two numbers in the date code identify the two-digit day of production and the final two numbers identify the two-digit year of production. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/QlZYrF The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at E-Z-GO and Cushman dealers nationwide from January 2015 through May 2015 for between $5,300 and $12,100. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and contact E-Z-GO or an authorized dealer for a free repair. E-Z-GO and E-Z-GO dealers are contacting known owners. EGS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Rufo, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. EGS Financial Care, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04718-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant 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 ELGIN, TX: Faces Red Light Camera Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Patty Finney, writing for Elgin Courier, reports that Elgin City Council members on June 18 unanimously approved a letter of agreement for legal services with Taylor, Olson, Adkins, Sralla, Elam attorneys and counselors in defense of a recently filed class action case regarding red light cameras. James H. Watson vs. Allen, et al, filed April 28, in the 153rd Judicial District County in Tarrant County, names approximately 70 cities, including Elgin, in a class action suit contesting the constitutionality of red light cameras. The City Council action authorized City Attorney Charlie Crossfield to sign the letter of agreement on behalf of the City. Mr. Watson, a resident of Shreveport, La., was charged on Oct. 31, 2014, in Southlake for a red light camera ticket, a $75 penalty. He claimed the face shown on the camera cannot be proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt' to be him and that he was not even in Texas when the offense allegedly occurred. Mr. Crossfield told City Council members and guests at the meeting that the offense is not a criminal case. "It is just a civil case, which is not required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- just a more than likely not proven," said Mr. Crossfield. Among the 70 or more cities included in the class action suit are Austin, Bastrop, Hutto and Round Rock. Also names in the suit are the foreign-owned companies, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., American Traffic Solutions, Inc. (also American Traffic Solutions, LLC), Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc. and the State of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The red light camera laws were created on Sept. 7, 2007. According to the filed documents, Elgin received $1,510,328.63 over the last two years in red light camera penalties. Mr. Watson, in the documents filed, stated Chapter 707 of the Transportation Code changes the act of running a red light from being a misdemeanor criminal charge to being a civil penalty, which usurps the rights guaranteed under the Texas Constitution to a trial by an impartial jury, the right to cross examine, presumption of innocence, and the right against self- incrimination. The civil penalty seeks to impose a penalty on registered vehicle owner for criminal conduct without giving the owner the rights of one accused of a crime, stated the suit. The suit also claims mail fraud in that the penalty notice states the registered owner is liable for the penalty plus it fails to include the penalty, if not paid, can be turned over to a collection agency and possibly ruin the credit of the vehicle owner. Mr. Crossfield said he felt very positive Elgin would overcome the suit. He added that working with attorneys that are representing more than just Elgin would save the city money in attorney fees since the hourly rate would be split amongst several cities. Elgin has had red light cameras since 2007 according to Finance Director Buck LaQuey. He reported that in 2014, the city had $715,000 in gross income from red light camera penalties. Of the gross income, $498,000 was paid out in expenses, including the half the state gets and the administration expenses involved in the ticketing process. The leftover $218,000 has been used to purchase anything to do with police and traffic. "It has been very beneficial for the City of Elgin," said Mr. LaQuey. The city purchased two new police cruisers, ordered three for this coming year and purchased the speed trailer seen around town. The money has also been used for police officer overtime, radios and tazers. ELITE BENEFIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Olson" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Olson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Elite Benefit Group LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-80894-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to the cellular telephones of the Plaintiff and others using an automatic telephone dialing system and an artificial or prerecorded voice, as well as for marketing calls made to persons who have registered their telephone number on the National Do Not Call List. Elite Benefit Group LLC is a call-center based insurance agency engaged in the business of placing telemarketing calls to potential customers, and then attempting to sell them insurance products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott David Owens, Esq, SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Bret L. Lusskin, Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A 20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com ENERGY CORP: Magistrate Judge Upholds Verdict in Royalties Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a federal magistrate judge has upheld a verdict in favor of a class of landowners who claimed they were shortchanged on royalties from an oil and gas company drilling on their property. In the class action, Pollock v. Energy Corp. of America, U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell of the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Energy Corp. of America's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on an award of roughly $911,000 to the class members. According to Judge Mitchell's memorandum, the plaintiffs sued ECA for breach of contract, contending that the company improperly deducted gas transportation and marketing costs from the royalties set forth in their leasing agreements with the company. ECA argued there was no evidence that class members did not receive their full share of the royalties. Under Pennsylvania law, in order for a gas producer to be able to deduct those expenses, it must incur the expenses before taking the deduction. Judge Mitchell said that was not the case in the matter at hand. "Plaintiffs' theory for recovery was that it was illegal for ECA to deduct post-production charges incurred after it sold the gas. If the jury found that the post-production charges were incurred after the gas was sold and title passed, then ECA was not permitted to deduct the charges under any circumstances and regardless of whether ECA had to absorb the post-production costs," Judge Mitchell said. "Moreover, the jury received evidence that ECA deducted post- production charges from plaintiffs' royalties," he continued. "Funds paid for the gas were deposited into an ECA-controlled account, and plaintiffs' royalty statements reflected deductions taken for post-production costs including interstate transportation charges and marketing fees. Accordingly, ECA's argument is rejected." ECA also argued there was not enough evidence to conclude that it did not incur charges while it still had the gas title. "This argument conflates the issues before the jury, as the question posed was not whether charges were not incurred by ECA while ECA held title, but rather, whether ECA deducted charges incurred after it sold the gas and title passed or deducted charges it did not incur," Judge Mitchell said. "The court finds that there was sufficient evidence of record for a jury to determine that ECA breached the leases by improperly deducting these post-production charges." Judge Mitchell said testimony from a plaintiff's expert showed the title passed at the receipt pool and before interstate transportation expenses were incurred. "Therefore it was reasonable for the jury to determine it was improper for ECA to deduct interstate transportation charges, as such charges were incurred after title passed to the third-party purchasers," Judge Mitchell said. The plaintiffs also had to prove the marketing costs were incurred after the title had passed. According to Judge Mitchell, the jury learned that another company -- EMCO, with which ECA had a long-term sales contract -- incurred the marketing costs when it sold the gas to third-party purchasers. Judge Mitchell said it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that ECA never incurred marketing expenses in a way that would allow it to deduct from the royalties. In its final issue, ECA claimed it was entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the class members did not prove that the amount of royalties they received was any less than what they would have received if the gas had been sold directly to the buyers, Judge Mitchell said. But Judge Mitchell added the argument ignored the issues of the case. "Plaintiffs did not have to prove what ECA is arguing here -- they only needed to prove that the deductions were improper as they were incurred after the gas was sold, and thus could not be deducted from plaintiffs' royalties regardless if ECA directly sold its gas directly to an end user," Judge Mitchell said. William R. Caroselli of Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Coleman, representing the class members, did not return a call seeking comment. Nor did the defendant's attorney, Kevin Abbott of Reed Smith. EXCELSIOR ELECTRIC: Faces Class Actions Over Capital Credits ------------------------------------------------------------ Holli Deal Saxon, writing for Statesboro Herald, reports that two class action lawsuits filed in Candler County in May against Excelsior Electric Membership Corporation seek compensation for capital credits not refunded to members, past and present. One suit, filed by Bobbie Dismuke, representing the estate of the late Fred Dismuke Jr., and Norma June Bowen, on behalf of the estate of the late Fred Irwin Bowen Sr., is a class action suit for all deceased or former members of Excelsior EMC, based in Metter. Attorneys Bobby T. Jones and Julian B. Smith with Jones & Smith PC of Metter and Thomas B. Tucker and John B. Long with Tucker, Long PC of Augusta are representing Ms. Dismuke and Ms. Bowen. Fred Dismuke was a member since 1976, while Fred Bowen had been a member since 1953, until their deaths, according to the suit. A second suit, filed by Bulloch County resident John T. Hodges, MD, is a class action suit on behalf of current Excelsior EMC members. Mr. Hodges is represented by L. Gregory Hodges, with Oliver Maner, LLC in Savannah. Each suit states members and their representatives are seeking relief for "breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, violations of the Georgia EMC Act, and EMC bylaws." Excelsior EMC formed in 1938 as a nonprofit corporation owned by its members, serving portions of Bulloch, Bryan, Candler, Tattnall, Evans, Effingham, Emanuel and Jenkins counties. Capital credits Each suit claims capital credits have not been refunded to numerous members, alive and deceased, over a span of more than 50 years. According to the lawsuits, the Rural Electricification Administration (now known as the RUS - Rural Utilities Service) ruled in 1964 that capital credits must be returned to customers on a revolving basis as the financial condition of the EMC allows. However, "there is a reason for that," said Gary Drake, Excelsior EMC manager. "The cooperation has never returned capital credits." The money isn't "sitting in a bank account somewhere," but has been invested in the company through equipment, stations and other areas, he said. Excelsior EMC is being represented in the case by Steve Minor of Tisinger Vance, PC of Carrollton. As a non-profit cooperative, Excelsior EMC does not have "shareholders." Instead, Excelsior EMC is owned by its customers, referred to as "members." Each consumer who receives electric service from Excelsior EMC is a member. "EMC members include individuals, private entities and, upon information and belief, governmental entities," the suits read. According to the lawsuits, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association states an EMC has legal obligation to retire capital credits, but Excelsior EMC has "failed for decades to have a system of retirement or rotation." The EMC must retire capital credits to members in order to "obey its own bylaws and to remain a nonprofit" organization. Each EMC member has an account, creditor debit, that represents capital furnished for the cooperative's use, and federal law demands the capital be returned to users, the lawsuit states. Georgia law mandates that EMCs operate at cost by requiring they exist as nonprofits. The lawsuits allege that "EMC has $33 million in patronage capital on its books." Invest in company Mr. Drake said the Excelsior EMC board decided to invest back into the company, as there was not a way to locate so many past members. Capital credits are to be refunded "first in, first out," meaning credits are to be refunded to customers depending on the date of their initial service. Locating a member who may have had service a few decades ago would be virtually impossible, he said. Excelsior EMC has not returned capital credits to members since 1963, for years 1948, 1949 and 1950, he said. Since 1964, the cooperative has not returned any capital credits. Mr. Drake did not know reasons why. Credits, or money, owed to members that could not be located or who may be deceased would be treated as unclaimed money and must be returned to the state unless reinvested by the company, he said on June 17. "It's not the best situation in the world, but when you get lemons, you have to make lemonade out of it," he said. If not for the capital credits reinvested in the company, "We would have had to borrow money" to continue operation, Mr. Drake said. "Excelsior EMC rates are among the lowest in the state, and have been for many years. Our rates are much lower than Georgia Power, and I am very proud of that." Excelsior bylaws Greg Hodges said his clients hold a different view of the matter. "It is our position that Excelsior EMC is holding its customers' money," he said. "They've not given credits to anyone that we know of." He said the EMC's bylaws are clear in stating credits must be returned to members. Both he and Drake referred to similar lawsuits against other EMCs, including one settled in Cobb County for "a significant sum of money," Mr. Hodges said. Tommy Tucker, representing the Dismuke and Bowen suit, said the Cobb County case was settled awarding members with $98 million. He declined to speak further about the Excelsior EMC lawsuits. Neither Minor or other attorneys with Tisinger Vance, PC were available and did not return phone calls seeking comment. However, Minor told the Metter Advertiser in May that "cases like this are becoming more common. "This is the first time (Excelsior EMC) has been sued, but it is not the first time a lawsuit like this has been filed," he told the Advertiser. "There are a number of cases very similar in nature in Georgia and across the country with similar allegations." He said Excelsior's Board must decide how to balance their financial structure in a way that meets customer's needs. "The board routinely looks at these factors ---equity, debts and rates -- to determine how best to serve the needs of the community," he said, adding the EMC can opt to issue capital credits or to reinvest them into the business. No court date has yet been set for the cases, according to the Candler County Clerk of Courts Office. FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Court of Appeal Ends Privacy Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Johnson, writing for CBC News, reports that the B.C. Court of Appeal has sided with Facebook, ending a class-action lawsuit launched by a Vancouver woman, who claimed the social media giant was violating users' privacy by using their photos in paid ads without their consent. Videographer Debbie Douez sued Facebook, saying its now defunct "Sponsored Stories" program manipulated users for commercial gain. But in a unanimous decision on June 19, the Appeal Court didn't rule on the heart of the matter: whether Facebook broke B.C. privacy law. Instead, the court decided B.C. law doesn't apply to the California company, due to a clause in Facebook's terms of use -- which every user must agree to, whether they read it or not. Three years ago, after Facebook started the "Sponsored Stories" program, Ms. Douez had hit the "like" button on a couple of businesses, because it was the only way to get more information about them. Soon, she found her name and photo popping up in her friends' news feeds, in ads paid for by the companies -- as though she had endorsed them. Ms. Douez argued that was a violation of the B.C. Privacy Act, which says no one can use the name or portrait of another person for advertising or promotion without their consent. A B.C. Supreme Court judge certified her lawsuit last year, based on a section of the act that says "an action under this act must be heard and determined by the Supreme Court." But Facebook argued its terms of use said all claims and disputes must be dealt with in Santa Clara County, Calif. "I agree with Facebook," wrote Chief Justice Robert Bauman in the unanimous decision released on June 19. "The B.C. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to the exclusion only of other courts in B.C., not other courts worldwide." The ruling puts an end to the B.C. class-action case, though Judge Bauman notes, "Ms. Douez is at liberty to bring her action in California." FANTASY FUN: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Jodie Williams v. Fantasy Fun Wear Of Panama City Beach, Inc. and Dani Azoulay, Case No. 5:15-cv-00151-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla., June 29, 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 multiple retail store locations within Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP PA 1515 S Federal Hwy Ste 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 Facsimile: (561) 447-8831 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com FIRST ALERT: Court Tosses Class Suit Over Defective Smoke Alarms ---------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on June 15 dismissed with prejudice a class action against First Alert smoke alarms, for lack of standing. The case is Cynthia Bird v. First Alert, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-03585-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. FLOYD COUNTY, KY: Conn Appears in SSA Class Action Hearing ---------------------------------------------------------- Alix Casper-Peak, writing for WYMT, reports that Floyd County Lawyer Eric C. Conn made an appearance in court on June 19 to discuss a class action lawsuit that was filed against him. He did not speak at the proceedings. More than a dozen people in Floyd County were in the courtroom on June 19 in hopes of hearing Conn would speak. While Mr. Conn did not get his chance to speak in court, representatives from both sides argued about the class action lawsuit filed by two of his former clients after the social security administration suspended disability benefits for them and hundreds more. One of the biggest arguments was whether immediate harm was done to the 900 clients who received the letter from SSA. "Not one of those folks at this point in time lost one penny. The benefits are being paid on a monthly basis just as they've always been paid," says Joseph Lambert, Conn's attorney. As for the plaintiffs argument, "15-hundred people still facing a loss of benefits and for them to argue that my clients haven't been damaged is preposterous," says Ned Pillersdorf. Both sides were given about 15 minutes to make a statement. The judge continued the temporary restraining order that restricts Conn from moving his assets and prevents him from destroying potential evidence. Now due to an emergency in Pike County the judge had to postpone the hearing until June 24. The judge is allowing Conn to continue paying his employees working at his law office. FREE CONTINUING: Court Stays "Degnen" Case Pending FCC Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------- SUZANNE DEGNEN, D.M.D, P.C., Plaintiff, v. FREE CONTINUING EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, LLC d/b/a FCEA, et al., Defendants, NO. 4:15-CV-527-RLW, (E.D. Mo.) is a class action complaint alleging that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA) by faxing or having an agent send unsolicited fax advertisements without a proper opt-out notice as required by 47 C.F.R. Section 1200 (Class Action Junk-Fax Petition. Defendants requested that the action be stayed pending resolution of the Petition of Free Continuing Education Association, LLC d/b/a FCEA for Retroactive Waiver, filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on April 30, 2015 on behalf of Free Continuing Education Association, LLC, Daniel Nava, and Michael McHenry (collectively, FCEA). Defendants argued that resolution of their Waiver Petition by the FCC "will determine whether Plaintiff's claims are viable and will have a significant impact on class certification issues" and, therefore, Defendants argue that "this Court should not be forced to spend resources on this matter while the [Waiver] Petition is pending before the FCC." Plaintiff opposed saying it will be prejudiced by an indefinite or lengthy stay, particularly because witnesses' memories will fade. Plaintiff also pointed out that courts in other jurisdictions have refused to grant stays in TCPA junk-fax cases. In the interests of reaching consistent results in similar TCPA cases, District Judge Ronnie L. White granted the Defendants' motion to stay the case. The Court said it is not persuaded that Plaintiff will be unduly prejudiced by such a stay. The case is stayed until final rulings are issued by the FCC on the Petition of Free Continuing Education Association, LLC d/b/a FCEA for Retroactive Waiver, and on any appeals filed in connection with the ruling. "Every 90 days, beginning September 17, 2015, Defendants will advise the Court of the status of the proceedings before the FCC and any appeal filed in connection thereto," Judge White wrote in his June 17, 2015 memorandum and order, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1ReMypdfrom leagle.com. "Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification is denied, without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile this motion, if necessary, after the stay is lifted and pursuant to a Case Management Order entered by the Court." Judge White further ordered the Clerk of Court to administratively close this matter. Suzanne Degnen, D.M.D., P.C., doing business as Sunset Tower Family Dentistry, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Schultz -- rschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. & Ronald J. Eisenberg -- reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.. Free Continuing Education Association, LLC, doing business as FCEA, Defendant, represented by Cicely I. Lubben -- cicely.lubben@stinsonleonard.com -- STINSON AND LEONARD LLP & Kimberly Means Steuterman -- kimberly.steuterman@stinsonleonard.com -- STINSON AND LEONARD LLP. Michael Keith McHenry, individually and doing business as FCEA, Defendant, represented by Cicely I. Lubben, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP & Kimberly Means Steuterman, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP. Daniel Nava, individually and doing business as FCEA, Defendant, represented by Cicely I. Lubben, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP & Kimberly Means Steuterman, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP. John Does 1 - 10, Defendant, represented by Cicely I. Lubben, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP & Kimberly Means Steuterman, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP. FRENCH QUARTER: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Hays" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Amanda Hays, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. French Quarter Partners, LLC, d/b/a French Quarter, et al., Case No. 6:15-cv-06065-RTD (W.D. Ark., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper minimum wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. French Quarter Partners, LLC owns and operates an adult entertainment club at 903 Central Avenue, Hot Spring, Arkansas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC One Financial Center 650 South Shackleford, Suite 411 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com - and - Stephen Rauls, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC 1800 S. Fillmore St. Little Rock, AR 72204 Telephone: (501) 993-7857 E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com FRESH AND PROCESS: Dec. 3 Final Hearing on Antitrust Suit Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill granted preliminary approval of a settlement in IN RE: FRESH AND PROCESS POTATOES ANTITRUST LITIGATION, CASE NO. 4:10-MD-2186-BLW, (D. Idaho). The ruling applies to all indirect purchaser actions. The Court provisionally certified the case as a class action, for the purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(e). The Classes are defined as: "Injunction Class: All individuals and entities who purchased fresh potatoes from retailers in Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin for end use and not for resale, between October 14, 2004 and April 10, 2015. Monetary Relief Class: All individuals and entities who purchased fresh potatoes from retailers in Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin for end use and not for resale, between October 14, 2004 and April 10, 2015." The Court held that Plaintiffs Jonathan Rizzo; Trang Nguyen; Kelly Tschantz; John Brashears; Jeffrey Keel; Crystal Tschantz; Gary Tschantz; BreAnne Krabbenhoft; Paul Langer; Kory Pentland; Abigail Rizzo; Julie Ewald; Brendan Farrell; Robert Finch; Benedetto DiLorenzo; Suzy Ivey McCrory; Jeff Potvin; Navtej Bhandari; and Joyce Rizzo have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Classes and satisfy the requirements to be Class Representatives. Milberg LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, previously appointed by the Court as Interim Class Counsel for IPPs, are appointed Class Counsel. A Final Approval hearing will be held on December 3, 2015, at 3:30 p.m., before the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill in Courtroom 3 of the United States District Court for the District of Idaho, located in Boise, ID. At the Final Approval hearing, the Court will consider: a. the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Proposed Settlement, including timely objections, if any; b. whether the Court should grant its final approval to the Settlement; c. the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses; d. the application of service awards to the Class Representatives; and e. other matters as the Court may deem proper and necessary. The Court approved KKC as the Claims Administrator and authorizes Kurtzman Carson Consultants ("KCC") to perform the duties set for in the Settlement Agreement regarding settlement administration. Class Counsel must file their Application for Attorney's Fees and Costs and Service Awards for Class Representatives by August 28, 2015. Class Counsel must file their Motions for Final Approval and all supporting papers by November 27, 2015. A copy of the June 17, 2015 Order is available at http://bit.ly/1LKjuSEfrom leagle.com. FRESNO, CA: Police Faces Suit Over Inaction on Domestic Violence ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Ellis, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that a federal civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of two domestic abuse victims -- one deceased, the other living but paralyzed -- says Fresno police didn't do enough to help the women even though they were clearly in dangerous situations. Fresno attorney Kevin Little was flanked by a wheelchair bound Pamela Motley and the daughter of Cindy Raygoza, as well as other family members and supporters, at a June 19 news conference. He said the lawsuit was not only for them, but for "all the women who are suffering in silence." Fresno has a high rate of domestic violence, he said, and the true numbers are greater because many women don't report the abuse. "This is a community that desperately needs vigorous, full enforcement of the domestic violence laws," Mr. Little said. The lawsuit names specific Fresno officers, as well as the city, as defendants. It alleges police were slow to respond, and when they did, they failed to provide victims with information on domestic violence as required by state law. They also allegedly belittled one victim who reported domestic violence. Fresno police Chief Jerry Dyer said he hasn't seen the lawsuit, but he defended his department's actions on the issue. Last year, he said, the department recorded 7,974 domestic violence reports, made 2,632 arrests and issued 1,126 emergency protective orders for victims. In addition, he said the department does quarterly operations with the violent crime impact team to locate and arrest people wanted for domestic violence crimes, and works with Crime Stoppers on highlighting domestic violence. "We do everything that we possibly can to combat domestic violence and to prevent people from becoming victims of domestic violence," Mr. Dyer said. In Motley's case, her estranged husband had admitted to police he was aggressive and in physical confrontations with her, but he still wasn't arrested. Had he been, he likely would have remained in custody for violating bail conditions from an earlier incident where Motley, her husband and his mistress had a meeting. At that meeting, Paul Motley hit his mistress with a beer mug, seriously injuring her. He was then arrested, but released. The lawsuit documents several incidents of subsequent harassment by Motley, as well as calls to Fresno police and alleged law enforcement inaction. On April 12, 2014, Paul Motley was lying in wait for Motley as she returned to her parents' home after work. He shot his estranged wife in the face at close range and then shot himself. "I'm a victim of domestic violence, which has left me quadriplegic," Pamela Motley said on June 19. "My hope is for awareness, education and prevention of domestic violence and to educate the police department." In the case of Ms. Raygoza, the lawsuit says she called police in February 2014 because her ex-boyfriend, Michael Reams -- who had been terrorizing her -- broke into her home, attacked her, pinned her to the floor by her throat and choked her. He fled before police arrived. Ms. Raygoza told a Fresno officer that she was a domestic violence survivor from a prior marriage. The officer then allegedly criticized Ms. Raygoza for her "choices of men." He then told Ms. Raygoza that she now knew of Mr. Reams' tendencies, and so any additional calls to police would get no response because of that. But the incidents continued, and Ms. Raygoza never again called police because of that statement, the suit says. On July 14, 2014, a knife-wielding Reams again broke into Ms. Raygoza's home. He pinned Ms. Raygoza to the ground, and stabbed her repeatedly. Neighbors called police, but by the time officers got to the apartment, it was too late. Mr. Reams was still stabbing Ms. Raygoza's lifeless body when officers arrived, the suit says. They shot him in the head, killing him. Mr. Little on June 19 encouraged other women to come forward and said the lawsuit could be amended later to add more plaintiffs. If it gets large enough, Mr. Little even said he may seek class- action status for the lawsuit. GOLDEN EAGLE: Immigrant Farm Workers File Wage Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- The Associated Press reports that about 35 immigrant farm workers have filed a class action lawsuit against Golden Eagle Farms in Snohomish, claiming they planted blueberries last fall but haven't been paid. The complaint filed in King County Superior Court claims that Golden Eagle hired an unlicensed, unbonded labor contractor who failed to pay wages that were owed in 2014 or follow labor laws, such as keeping employment records, according to the Daily Herald of Everett reports. A state Department of Labor & Industries official said the contractor, Father Like Son Farm Labor Supply, and owner Alfredo Garcia Jr. did not have the proper license or surety bonds to hire workers. Golden Eagle's lawyer Adam Belzberg said the farm gave the contractor money to pay the workers. He wasn't sure if the farm checked the contractor's credentials. Now the farm can't find the contractor, Mr. Belzberg said. And Lourdes Margarito of Everett and her coworkers still haven't been paid. Their Wenatchee-based lawyer, Joe Morrison, said Golden Eagle is liable for paying the wages because it failed to check the contractor's credentials before the workers were hired. The lawsuit said most of the employees are immigrants with limited income, education, understanding of the U.S. court system and English-language proficiency. Many communicate primarily in Spanish or Mixtec, a dialect. Morrison declined to discuss the immigration status of his clients because whether they were working legally in the U.S. is not relevant to the court case. "Anyone is entitled to these protections under the law," he said. Speaking in Spanish, Ms. Margarito said she started working at the farm in late September. She and at least 20 others from Snohomish County planted blueberries from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. After working all day in the fields, Ms. Margarito went to a second job, washing dishes at a restaurant until midnight. The native of the southern state of Oaxaca, Mexico, said the schedule was exhausting but she needed the work. She is raising a son, 7, and a daughter, 1, in Everett. Ms. Margarito said the workers were verbally offered 10-hour shifts at $12 an hour. They were paid several days late for work in September, with cash in envelopes with names handwritten on the front, she said. The workers say they haven't been paid wages for October. Each person is owed about $650, according to their lawyers. GRAND BK: Recalls Raw Cashew Products Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------- GRAND BK CORP. of MASPETH, NEW YORK is recalling 450 UNITS OF GOODIES CASHEW RAW 9OZ, because it has the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. The product was labeled as "GOODIES BY NATURE RAW CASHEWS 9oz." and was packed in 9oz. clear plastic tubs. The recalled product has sell-by dates of 04.29.2016 and 05.02.2016 and a UPC code of 846034010055. Recalled items were sold in NY, NJ, PA, VA, MD, and GA in "H Mart "retail stores. No illnesses have been reported to-date. Based upon routine testing conducted by an FDA-contracted laboratory, it was determined that the raw cashew tested positive for Salmonella. Customers who have purchased this product should discard it and may bring in their receipt to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718- 417-5607, Monday through Friday 9am,-5pm, EST. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453007.htm GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: "Morton" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Morton v. Gyro Technologies, LLC d/b/a Vaughn Energy Services, Case No. 5:15-cv-00290, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Corpus Christi). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00244 to the proceeding. According to the complaint, Gyro Technologies, Inc., doing business as Vaughn Energy Services, required and permitted the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week but refused to compensate them properly for those hours -- in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachael Victoria Rustmann, Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C. 1001 S. Harrison St., Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331-1800 Facsimile: (806) 398-9095 - and - Jeremi K. Young, Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C. 112 W. 8th Avenue, Suite 900-D Amariool, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331-1800 Facsimile: (806) 398-9095 The Defendant is represented by: Frederick J. McCutchon, Esq. WOOD, BOYKIN & WOLTER, P.C. 615 N Upper Broadway, Suite 1100 Corpus Christi, TX 78477 Telephone: (361) 888-9201 Facsimile: (361) 888-8353 E-mail: fjm@wbwpc.com HEART SAVERS: Faces TCPA Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit claims a body imaging center in California illegally contacted people through their telephones. Kevin Amini and Mona Amini filed the lawsuit June 10 in U.S. District Court in California against Heart Savers, claiming the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting cellphone numbers soliciting services. The plaintiffs said in the lawsuit they were each contacted on their cellphones by Heart Saver at least five times over a seven-day period in April via an automatic telephone dialing system. Each time they were contacted, the plaintiffs left a message with the company asking to be taken off the company call lists, they say. The suit further said Heart Saver didn't have the plaintiffs' permission to contacting them using an automatic telephone dialing system. The plaintiffs are seeking class status for those who received unwanted solicitation calls from Heart Saver within the last four years. The plaintiffs are also seeking more than $5 million in damages plus court costs. The plaintiffs are represented by Todd M. Friedman, Suren N. Weerasuriya and Adrian R. Bacon of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. in Beverly Hills. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 8:15-cv-00916. HERTZ CORP: Faces "Lee" Action in California Over FCRA Violations ----------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that Peter Lee filed a lawsuit June 9 in federal court in California against The Hertz Corp., claiming the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it didn't hire him for its business at the Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group. The lawsuit claims Hertz used the credit reporting law when determining Lee's possible employment at the company. However, the company isn't using the information gathered in the report legally, it claims. Mr. Lee claims Hertz doesn't give potential employees a sufficient amount of time to challenge any adverse claims on the report before denying employment. Mr. Lee is seeking class status for those who were also denied employment by Hertz due to the consumer report. He is also seeking an unspecified amount in damages plus court costs. Mr. Lee is represented by Jahan C. Sagaif and Katrina L. Eiland of Outten & Golden LLP in San Francisco, and Meredith Desautels and Stephanie Funt of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area in San Francisco. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California-San Francisco Division case number 4:15-cv-02545. HERTZ CORP: Suit Over "Unethical Fees" Removed to Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that Dawn Cooks and Emma Bradley filed a lawsuit on May 1 in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Illinois against Hertz Corp., claiming they were "compelled" by Hertz to pay two types of fees. The defendant removed the case to federal court on June 10. One of the fees is the "energy surcharge" and the other is a fee to recover the cost of vehicle registration, the lawsuit said. The fees are charged in both Illinois and Missouri, and are "improper, deceptive and unethical," according to the lawsuit. Hertz said the fees are to reimburse it for some costs, but the plaintiffs claim the fees charged "greatly exceed" the costs and are meant to generate the company a profit. The lawsuit claims Hertz instituted the energy surcharge fee in order to offset rising energy costs. However, the fee was allegedly imposed when energy costs were going down, the lawsuit claims. The plaintiffs are seeking class action for those in Illinois and Missouri who rented cars from Hertz. The suit is also seeking an unspecified amount in damages. The plaintiffs are represented by Richard S. Cornfeld of the Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld in St. Louis; Richard S. Bender -- rbender@rgsz.com -- and David G. Bender -- dbender@rgsz.com -- of Rosenblum Goldenhersh in St. Louis; and Anthony S. Bruning and Anthony S. Bruning Jr. of Leritz, Plunkert & Bruning, P.C. of St. Louis. HILLS BANCORPORATION: Class Action Stayed Pending IA Court Ruling ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hills Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties and District Court have put a class action case on hold pending a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court in an appeal filed by West Bank on a similar issue under dispute in the Hills Bank case. On April 24, 2014, a suit was filed against the Bank in the Iowa District Court for Johnson County by a customer alleging that the fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in connection with its debit and ATM cards constitute unlawful interest in violation of Iowa's usury laws and that the collection of such interest violates the Iowa Debt Collection Practices Act. The suit seeks class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft fees arising from debit or ATM card transactions on their consumer accounts. The Bank filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the Court denied. The Bank filed an application for interlocutory appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, which the Court denied. The parties and District Court have put the case on hold pending a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court in an appeal filed by West Bank on a similar issue under dispute in the Hills Bank case. "At this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible for management of the Bank to determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss," the Company said. IDAHO: Police Misled States Officials in Prison Investigation ------------------------------------------------------------- The Idaho Statesman reports that in 2013, the Idaho Department of Correction's top investigator held off conducting his own inquiry into a private prison operator's staffing discrepancies because he was led to believe the Idaho State Police had already begun that investigation, according to public records recently obtained by the Idaho Statesman. The records -- released by the state police after a public records request from the Statesman -- offer new details on the year in which the state police allowed state and legal officials -- including a federal judge, lawyers for the ACLU, other IDOC officials and the attorney general himself and some of his key deputies -- to believe that its investigators were looking into possible criminal actions at the private prison: -- The documents help explain the widespread belief that ISP was investigating alleged fraud by Corrections Corporation of America. A state police major introduced himself to IDOC Deputy Warden Timothy Higgins as the investigator in the case, did an interview with Higgins and took IDOC's documents about the CCA allegations. -- A Feb. 10, 2014, ISP staff meeting document says: "The directors of ISP and IDOC met regularly from the time of the initial request (for an investigation) until now, and at each meeting Colonel Ralph Powell stated Idaho State Police was not conducting an investigation of CCA . . . . This appeared to be a breach of contract dispute, and therefore a civil, not a criminal matter." But Mr. Higgins, who attended the same meetings as Powell, told ISP detectives he never heard Powell making such statements. No minutes were taken at the meetings and ISP provided no documents showing that the agency had communicated its decision not to investigate the CCA case. -- While IDOC officials believed that ISP had investigated alleged fraud by CCA, prison officials reached a $1 million civil settlement with the company. Mr. Higgins said that if IDOC knew that ISP had not investigated CCA, that would have factored in the department's settlement negotiations. That sentiment was echoed by a member of the Board of Corrections who refused to sign off on the settlement; he said the board believed the State Police had investigated and found nothing wrong. -- In a Feb. 7, 2014, letter, Deputy Attorney General Paul Panther admonished ISP: "(T)he only entity really qualified to make a determination of whether criminal activity took place in this matter" was the county prosecuting attorney. "(T)he proper thing (for ISP) to do would be to complete the investigation, submit it to that office and let them decide if charges should or should not be filed." -- The State Police did not correct a year's worth of incorrect assumptions and multiple media reports about the existence of the criminal investigation. Why not? "No one contacted ISP to inquire whether or not ISP had a criminal investigation open in this matter," an ISP spokeswoman said in an email exchange with an Associated Press reporter contained in the public records. AFTER FALSE START, WASDEN URGES INVESTIGATION Once allegations about falsified CCA staffing documents were reported by The Associated Press, IDOC Director Brent Reinke formally asked in February 2013 that ISP Col. Ralph Powell launch a criminal investigation. That is the investigation that IDOC and other officials believed was underway for the next year. In February 2014, after the State Police announced it had not conducted the assumed investigation, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden urged Gov. Butch Otter to order one. Mr. Otter, after initial delay, agreed. But that investigation did not last long; detectives quickly determined that the ISP had a conflict because its investigation might entail examining State Police command staff or other employees. The investigation was turned over to the FBI. It is the documents and reports that State Police investigators assembled before they turned the investigation over to the FBI that were obtained by the Statesman in its public records request. As soon as they were assigned the case in February 2014, the first person ISP detectives interviewed was Higgins. He headed IDOC's investigation unit, oversaw prison contracts and was among the first people to uncover discrepancies in CCA staffing. Mr. Higgins declined to be interviewed by the Statesman; his account is drawn from the ISP records. Mr. Higgins told detectives he held off on continuing his investigation into CCA because he assumed the investigation was underway once Reinke had formally asked Powell to conduct the probe. "We saw the colonel all the time," Mr. Higgins told the detectives. "Every time we had a meeting discussing this, the colonel was present." Mr. Higgins also told detectives he was not the only one who assumed ISP was conducting the investigation. "Everybody, from the ACLU to us to my legal counsel -- every one of these meetings I had legal counsel present -- we were all frankly under the impression a criminal investigation was going," Higgins said. 'I AM THE DETECTIVE' Mr. Higgins told detectives he learned there was no criminal investigation from press accounts of ISP's Feb. 5, 2014, announcement that it had not done an investigation and had not assigned a case number or detective. "Up to that point, I had assumed somebody would be doing what you guys are doing here. Going in and interviewing the staff, taking the KPMG report and putting closure to this thing, because frankly I do not consider this closed," Mr. Higgins told the detectives. Mr. Higgins told detectives he had already provided documents six months previously to Major Steve Richardson, the ISP investigator he believed was assigned to the criminal investigation, according to the investigation report. "He said, 'I am the detective assigned to the case,'" Mr. Higgins told detectives. "He sat next to me in the meeting. . . . We talked quite a bit." While he was not personally involved in the settlement negotiations, Mr. Higgins said that knowing that ISP had not investigated CCA could have factored in the department's settlement negotiations. "If I had known there was not going to be any criminal investigation, you better believe I would be interviewing those people who falsified this . . . trying to find out how far this went, because that would have been a key item that we would have used in the discussions on settlement," Mr. Higgins told investigators. In declining to be interviewed, Mr. Higgins referred the Statesman to an IDOC spokesman who issued this statement: "The records you obtained from the Idaho State Police show that from the start we have fully cooperated with investigators. We have turned over tens of thousands of pages of documents and spent countless hours answering questions -- often the same questions multiple times. In fact, there's not a single question we have refused to answer nor a single document we have refused to produce." IDOC said that with the FBI investigation concluded, "we do not believe it is productive for us to go over this well-plowed ground yet again and speculate about what might have been." ISP did not respond to Statesman requests to comment on Richardson's role or answer what happened to the investigative materials Higgins turned over. MISCOMMUNICATIONS, NOT CRIMINALITY On May 20, U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson said that the subsequent yearlong FBI investigation into Corrections Corporation of America staffing discrepancies found evidence of false entries and understaffing, but "did not produce evidence of a federal criminal violation." The federal prosecutor also looked at whether the Idaho State Police, the governor's office or the Idaho Department of Correction had sought to delay, hinder or corruptly influence a state investigation into contract fraud at the prison. What Olson described as "miscommunications" and "uncorrected assumptions" created "suspicion," she said. But state officials' actions did "not rise to the level of criminal misconduct." While she declined to offer specifics, she did say "a number of other actions or inactions . . . may be of concern" to state agencies and Idaho voters. WHAT WERE THE RIPPLE EFFECTS? Why is this more than just an embarrassing misstep for the State Police and the governor who publicly defended the agency's work? What Olson described as miscommunication and "uncorrected assumptions" also slowed a federal lawsuit against CCA. It led state officials to withhold public documents, based on what they believed was a pending criminal investigation. A top IDOC official and a deputy attorney general had to explain why they had not committed perjury by telling a federal judge about an investigation that apparently did not exist. When the ACLU issued a subpoena for documents it needed for its class-action lawsuit against CCA over violence at the prison it ran, Idaho Department of Correction refused to provide ACLU the documents, saying such a release might interfere with the ongoing criminal investigation. The ACLU later got the documents. In that same case, the court declined ACLU's request for an order related to CCA staffing because the judge said he would "not intrude on CCA staffing decisions when a criminal investigation is ongoing." NEGOTIATING IN THE DARK? Even a member of the Board of Correction expressed concerns about being misled about the investigation. J.R. Van Tassel was the only board member to vote against the state's $1 million settlement agreement with CCA and the only one to talk about it. He told The Associated Press that at the time the board voted, it believed the State Police had done the criminal investigation and decided there were no crimes to prosecute. "I was at a loss for words," Mr. Van Tassel told The AP about the lack of an investigation. "I think that the board may have treated this a little differently had it been clear to us that Col. Powell wasn't going to present us with any factual findings pursuant to an investigation, which we felt were coming." JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Face Fax Advertising Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a Johnson & Johnson unit must face a class action accusing it of sending unsolicited advertisements by fax for its antibiotic Levaquin in violation of federal law, a New Jersey judge has ruled. U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson on June 19 denied Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc's motion for summary judgment, finding that there were disputed issues of fact about whether a pair of faxes the company sent in 2008 were advertisements. JUNIPER PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Action Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Juniper Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has affirmed the dismissal of securities class action complaints in a written opinion. Between February 1, 2012 and February 6, 2012, two putative securities class action complaints were filed against Juniper and certain of its officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. These actions were filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al. and asserted claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act on behalf of an alleged class of purchasers of the common stock during the period from December 6, 2010 through January 20, 2012. Both actions were consolidated into a single proceeding entitled In re Columbia Laboratories, Inc., Securities Litigation, under which Actavis and three of its officers were added as defendants. The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleged that Juniper and two of its officers, one of whom is a director, omitted to state material facts that they were under a duty to disclose, and made materially false and misleading statements that related to the results of Juniper's PREGNANT study and the likelihood of approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to market progesterone vaginal gel 8% for the prevention of preterm birth in women with premature cervical shortening. According to the amended complaint, these alleged omissions and misleading statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. On June 11, 2013, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, holding that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead facts supporting an inference of an intent to deceive investors. The Court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint, which they did on July 11, 2013. Juniper moved to dismiss the second amended complaint, which the court did on October 21, 2013. The Court ruled that changes the plaintiffs made to their first amended complaint "still do not create a strong inference that the Defendants acted with an intent to deceive, manipulate or defraud." The Court ordered that if the plaintiffs sought to attempt to plead a cognizable action in a third amended complaint, they must do so within thirty days and specifically address why the attempt would not be futile. The plaintiffs chose not to file any further amendments and the case was dismissed with prejudice on December 2, 2013. On December 20, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court heard oral arguments on December 9, 2014. On March 10, 2015, the Court affirmed the dismissal in a written opinion. Juniper believes that the action is without merit, and intends to defend it vigorously. At this time, it is not possible to determine the likely outcome of, or to estimate the potential liability related to this action, and Juniper has not made any provision for losses in connection with it. KEURIG GREEN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 19 disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. securities from February 4, 2015 through May 14, 2015, both dates inclusive. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Keurig Green Mountain investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Keurig Green Mountain class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-616.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) defendants' projections for sales were unrealistic and unattainable given the continuing consumer confusion over Keurig Green Mountain's Keurig 2.0 brewing system; (2) the retail distribution of Keurig Green Mountain's new cold brewing system, Keurig Kold, would be delayed; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about Keurig Green Mountain's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than August 18, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-616.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. KEURIG GREEN: Reply Briefs Due in Class Action ---------------------------------------------- Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the Company's reply briefs were due May 11, 2015, in a class action lawsuit. On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods, LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv- 00905-VSB). The TreeHouse complaint asserts claims under the federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee brewers and single serve coffee pods, including through its contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection with the launch of its next generation coffee brewer. The TreeHouse complaint sought monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD). The claims asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint were substantially similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse complaint. Beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed on behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of the Company's products in various federal district courts. On June 3, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted a motion to transfer these various actions, including the TreeHouse and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings. The actions are now pending before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern District of New York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB). On August 11, 2014, JBR filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which the Company opposed. The Court held a hearing on September 3-4, 2014, and by order dated September 19, 2014, denied JBR's motion for a preliminary injunction. On September 24, 2014, JBR filed a notice of appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction. JBR filed its opening appeal brief on November 17, 2014. The Company filed its answering brief on February 17, 2015, and JBR filed its reply brief on March 3, 2015. The Court of Appeals has not yet indicated whether oral argument will be heard. Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014. The Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints and the complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions on October 6, 2014. On November 25, 2014, all plaintiffs filed amended complaints and on February 2, 2015 the Company again moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed opposition briefs on April 10, 2015, and the Company's reply briefs were due May 11, 2015. KTOWN TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard R. Konarski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. KTown Transportation, Inc., Lynda Jean Orsburn, Jayne Phillips, and William Phillips, Case No. 2:15-cv-00781-DEJ (E.D. Wis., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. KTown Transportation, Inc. provides non-emergency medical transportation services in vehicles to individuals who are disabled and elderly and are in need of transportation assistance. The Plaintiff is represented by: Timothy P. Maynard, Esq. Barbara Zack Quindel, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL SC 222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: tmaynard@hq-law.com bquindel@hq-law.com LAKEWOOD CO: Recalls Nut and Fruit Mix Due to Salmonella -------------------------------------------------------- Lakewood, CO, Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets Inc., a Lakewood, Colo., based natural grocery chain, is recalling one lot of Natural Grocers brand Caribbean Nut & Fruit Mix as the product contains macadamia nuts that have the potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. This recall was initiated after being notified of positive Salmonella findings in product sampled by the FDA. The recalled product is packaged in clear plastic bags with the following Natural Grocers label: UPC Code Description Packed on Date -------- ----------- -------------- 000080444558 Caribbean Nut & Fruit Mix 10oz 15-148 The product was distributed to Natural Grocers' 97 stores located in Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Consumers can find the specific locations of Natural Grocers stores at: http://www.naturalgrocers.com/store-locationsdisclaimericon. Only packages bearing the Julian packed on dates listed above are subject to recall. To date, the company has received no reports of illness. Consumers who may have purchased this product should return it to the store for credit or refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company by calling Customer Service at (303)-986-4600, ext. 531, Monday through Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (MST). Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453518.htm LOGMEIN INC: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Electronic Fund Transfers ---------------------------------------------------------------- Britt Stoker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Logmein, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01258-PSG-JPR (C.D. Cal., June 29, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the Defendants illegal actions of charging the Plaintiff's and also the Class members' credit cards for unauthorized sums, on a recurring basis without obtaining proper written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers and without properly disclosing the price changes. Logmein, Inc. is a Delaware company that provides users remote access to their computers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - 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 LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Ex-CFO to Pay $2.3MM in U.S. Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that the former chief financial officer of Chinese technology company Longtop Financial Technologies has agreed to pay $2.3 million after a U.S. jury found that he acted recklessly in making untrue statements or omitting facts about the firm. The settlement with former CFO Derek Palaschuk was disclosed in papers filed in Manhattan federal court on June 19, seven months after the jury delivered its verdict in a rare securities class action trial. Neither a lawyer for Mr. Palaschuk nor the plaintiffs' attorneys responded to requests for comment. The lawsuit, filed in 2011, was one of several cases launched around that time amid accounting scandals at Chinese companies trading on U.S. stock exchanges. When the New York Stock Exchange halted trading in Longtop in May 2011, the Xiamen-based company had a $1.08 billion market value. Days later, Longtop's auditor, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd, resigned, citing "recently identified falsity" in the company's financial records. Mr. Palaschuk, who had joined Longtop in 2006, tendered his resignation the same day. Before resigning, Palaschuk spoke with Longtop Chief Executive Officer Weizhou Lian. In an email presented at trial that talked about the call, Palaschuk said Lian "informed me the company had been a fraud since 2004". In the lawsuit, lawyers for Longtop investors contended that Palaschuk missed "red flags" pointing to the fraud, but Mr. Palaschuck denied wrongdoing. In November, a jury found Mr. Palaschuk liable and ordered him to pay damages that lawyers for the plaintiffs estimate provided for a maximum recovery of $6.2 million, assuming all eligible investors submitted claims. The investors had also sued Longtop and Mr. Lian, but neither appeared in court. A judge entered a $882.3 million default judgment against Longtop and Mr. Lian in 2013. The trial was a rarity for a shareholder class action. Only 13 such securities cases have reached a verdict since 1995, when the laws governing them were changed, according to Adam Savett, director of class action services at Kurtzman Carson Consultants. The lawsuit was brought by Danske Invest Management A/S and Pension Funds of Local No. 1, IATSE, on behalf of holders of Longtop's American depositary shares traded from Feb. 21, 2008 through May 17, 2011. The settlement is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin. The case is In re Longtop Financial Technologies Limited Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-03658. LYFT INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, "Nokchan" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Nokchan, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v. LYFT, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-03008 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide the class members with stand- alone written disclosures before obtaining a credit or background report in connection with their hiring process. LYFT, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware that operates transportation network company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. SET AREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-01 09 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com tuvia@setarehlaw.com MANITOBA: Apologizes to Indigenous Families for Forced Adoptions ---------------------------------------------------------------- BBC News reports that the Canadian province of Manitoba has apologized to indigenous families for decades of forced adoptions. Premier Greg Selinger said on June 18 the practice left "intergenerational scars and cultural loss". The program sought to integrate children into mainstream Canadian society, but in doing so rid them of their native culture. The Canadian government apologized in 2008, but this is first time a province has taken responsibility. "I hope that we can join together down a new path of reconciliation, healing and co-operation," Mr. Selinger said. "There is a long road ahead of us. It takes time to heal great pain." Hundreds of thousands of indigenous children were taken away from their parents by welfare services and put into the care of mostly white families between the 1960s and 1980s in Canada. In some cases, the forced adoptions resulted in the rape and beatings of the indigenous children by their adoptive parents. Justice Murray Sinclair, head of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, said he was happy about the apology, but if there is no action, it is meaningless. The Commission's work recently concluded. Its report found rules that required Canadian aboriginals to attend state-funded church schools were responsible for "cultural genocide". The group was created in 2006 as part of a $5bn (GBP3.3bn) class action settlement between the government, churches and the surviving students. "The real question though is how are they going to change?" he said. "Everyone needs to accept the fact that they have been responsible for the perpetuation of the cultural genocide that we identified." Survivors are still healing. Survivor Joseph Maud was separated from his family when he was five and sent to a Canadian residential school for indigenous students in Manitoba, he told the BBC. The worst part was being separated from his parents, cousins, uncles and aunts, he said. "I cried going down on my knees, and my thoughts were 'when is this going to end? Somebody help me,' calling out for my parents." MARRIOTT INT'L: Housekeepers File Class Action Over Chemicals ------------------------------------------------------------- Noel Brinkerhoffand Danny Biederman, writing for AllGov, report that a group of housekeepers is suing Marriott International for forcing them to use hazardous chemicals to clean hotel rooms. Some of the chemicals used at Marriott hotels come with warnings to wear protective clothing such as a respirator, glasses or both, according to the class action lawsuit. The staff was allegedly made to transfer the chemicals into non-descript bottles that bore no warning labels. The complaint says Marriott not only required housekeepers to use the hazardous chemicals, but also denied they were dangerous and threatened to fire anyone who complained about them. Additionally, housekeepers who did not speak English were forced to sign documents written in English that they didn't understand. Among the documents were liability waivers, which the housekeepers were told they had to sign under threat of termination. Rosa Arias, the lead plaintiff, says the chemicals caused irritation in her eyes and throat, forcing her to see a doctor who diagnosed her with "heart or respiratory complications." Following her diagnosis, Ms. Arias asked for and received four months of leave from work at the hotel -- which then fired her the day before she was scheduled to return to her job. Two weeks earlier, she had given a deposition in a similar lawsuit that had been filed against Marriott. The complaint cites $10,000-per-day statutory damages for Marriott's violation of federal law, which would total $43.8 million in damages for violating Ms. Arias's rights alone. MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Suit Remains Stayed -------------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that on January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive relief. On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested in the petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's decision on the petition. On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on the appeal. The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. MASIMO CORP: Motion for Summary Judgment Pending ------------------------------------------------ Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that the Company's motion for summary judgment in a putative class action is currently pending before the Court. On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided at the request of study investigators for use in the trial. A previous version of the complaint also alleged a wrongful death claim, which the Court dismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney fees and injunctive and other relief. On January 30, 2015, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which is currently pending before the Court. The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the remaining claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Defendants Entered Into MOU -------------------------------------------------- Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and each of the other defendants have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs providing for the settlement of the Litigation. On December 30, 2014, the Company, entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Miracle Nova II (US), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Parent"), and Miracle Nova III (US), Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement provides for, subject to the satisfaction or waiver of specified conditions, the acquisition of the Company by Parent at a price of $8.65 per share in cash pursuant to a merger (the "Merger") of Merger Sub with and into the Company. Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, two purported shareholders of the Company each filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a purported class of shareholders. The complaints named Meadowbrook, each current director of the Company, a former director of the Company, Fosun International Limited, Parent and Merger Sub as defendants, and were subsequently consolidated (the "Litigation"). On April 20, 2015, the Company and each of the other defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs providing for the settlement of the Litigation. In the Memorandum of Understanding, the Company agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy statement of the Company dated March 25, 2015 relating to the Merger and the Merger Agreement (the "Proxy Statement"), which were made by issuance of a Form 8-K on April 21, 2015. The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates completion of certain confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs, following which the parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for settlement of the Litigation, subject to notice to the class, certification of the class by the court, and court approval of the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve and release all claims that were, or could have been, brought in any of the actions challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but excluding claims for appraisal made by shareholders of Meadowbrook in accordance with the Michigan Business Corporation Act), as more fully described in the notice to be provided to the class. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. If the court does not approve the settlement, such proposed settlement, as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding, may be terminated. MEADOWLANDS RACETRACK: Faces Wage Class Action in New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that the operator of Meadowlands Racetrack in East Rutherford, New Jersey, has been hit with a putative class action claiming the company has violated state law by failing to pay workers at the facility required hourly rates. Darlene Sharpe contends in a June 16 complaint in Bergen County Superior Court that New Meadowlands Racing and Entertainment LLC has run afoul of New Jersey's State Building Service Contracts Act. The law covers the company because it operates the racetrack on state-owned land through an agreement with a state agency, Sharpe suggests. The Lyndhurst, New Jersey, resident wants to represent a class of workers who have been with New Meadowlands or other, currently unidentified employers since June 2009 and whose duties are subject to compensation requirements under the law, including security positions, cleaners, painters, electricians, laborers and grounds workers, according to the complaint. "Defendants' ongoing illegal policies of failing to pay class members at the proper hourly rate has resulted in class members being denied substantial legally required compensation," the complaint said. The statute imposes prevailing wage requirements "only for building service workers and only when such services are performed under a contract with the state (not municipalities or counties) for the performance of same for a property or premises owned or leased by the state," according to information from the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Ms. Sharpe argues that the statute reaches New Meadowlands because it entered an agreement with the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority to operate the racetrack on land that the public agency owns within the Meadowlands Sports Complex, which also includes MetLife Stadium. Under the law, there are different wage rates for different classifications of employees and regions. For example, the current rate for a laborer in Bergen County is $14.74, while the rate for security guards in that area ranges from $17.98 to $20.36, according to information from the state. The complaint doesn't detail the size of the would-be class or the amount by which it has allegedly been underpaid. But Ms. Sharpe does contend that the value of the matter falls below the Class Action Fairness Act's $5 million threshold for removal to federal court. Representing New Meadowlands, Angelo J. Genova -- agenova@genovaburns.com -- of Genova Burns said in a statement on June 19 that the plaintiff is a security guard and that the complaint comes as a surprise "given the commitment of the Meadowlands ownership to pay competitive and fair wages and benefits to its union-represented security guards." That commitment is demonstrated by the racetrack's partnership with Hard Rock International to launch a casino at the site, which would include an estimated 4,000 "good paying" jobs, according to Mr. Genova. The establishment of a New Jersey casino outside of Atlantic City would require an amendment to the state constitution. "Never has the union, which is not a party to this suit but represents security guards, demanded the payment of New Jersey's 'prevailing wage' as condition of their contract," Mr. Genova said. "We think that is because the idea is so farfetched and without sound legal support, conclusions which we will surely test." "Or maybe its because many know that the cost of surviving in racing, like other entertainment ventures, has a tipping point. You need only look at the recent closing of the Izod Center to know when that tipping point topples," Mr. Genova added, referencing the currently shuttered entertainment venue at the Meadowlands. An attorney for Sharpe, Ravi Sattiraju, contended on June 15 that the claims are on firm legal footing. "We intend to rely on the plain language of the statute, which sets forth how these workers must be paid, as well as the underlying public policy behind this statute," he said. "We believe that the Court will rule that this employer failed to meet its legal obligations to this class of workers." Ms. Sharpe is represented by Ravi Sattiraju of the Sattiraju Law Firm PC. New Meadowlands is represented by Genova Burns. The case is Sharpe v. New Meadowlands Racing and Entertainment LLC, case number L-5665-15 in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County. MEL S. HARRIS: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------------- Joel Perlstein and Chany Perlstein, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers v. Mel S. Harris & Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03803 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Maxim Maximov, Esq. MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP 1701 Avenue P Brooklyn, NY 11229 Telephone: (718) 395-3459 Facsimile: (718) 408-9570 E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com MICHAEL KORS: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Price Tags ------------------------------------------------------------- Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a team of Fort Lauderdale attorneys helped their clients win a nearly $4.9 million nationwide settlement from Michael Kors in a class action suit over allegedly misleading price tags. Jason Alperstein -- alperstein@kolawyers.com -- Jeff Ostrow -- ostrow@kolawyers.com -- and Scott Edelsberg of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg represented shoppers who said price tags were misleading at the fashion retailer's outlet stores. The July 2014 lawsuit alleged the price tags in the outlet stores listed prices as discounts from "original prices" or manufacturer's suggested retail prices that were never used. "Michael Kors manufactures certain goods for exclusive sale at its Kors Outlets, which means that such items were never sold -- or even intended to be sold -- at the 'MSRP' price listed on their labels," according to the false advertising and deceptive sales complaint filed in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs, led by California shoppers Tressa Gattinella and Kristina Lengyel, settled with New York-based Michael Kors for $4.875 million June 12. The settlement requires court approval. "It's the first class action against an outlet retailer that has settled on a classwide basis as far as we know," Mr. Ostrow said. News organizations have highlighted the outlet pricing discrepancy in the past few years, leading consumers to contact lawyers, Mr. Ostrow said. He is in the midst of similar suits against Guess, Levi's and Nordstrom. "There definitely is misrepresentation in the manner in which most of the outlets are presenting their prices," he said. "They want you to think that you're getting a discount when in reality you might not be." Under the settlement, Michael Kors agreed to change its pricing practices. Prices on tags will no longer be called an "original price" or "MSRP." In-store signs will describe how pricing is determined for items sold in the outlets. "We think that's a significant achievement because it provides better information to consumers," Mr. Ostrow said. The settlement class could include thousands of people who shopped at Michael Kors Outlet Stores from July 25, 2010, to July 25, 2014. To be eligible for a settlement payment, shoppers must submit claim verification forms by mail or online by a deadline to be determined later. Other plaintiffs attorneys were Hassan A. Zavareei and Jeffrey D. Kaliel of Tycko, Zavaeei & Spiva in Washington and Wayne Scott Kreger of the Law Offices of Wayne Kreger in New York. The defendants were represented by Leslie Gordon Fagen -- lfagen@paulweiss.com -- Walter Rieman -- wrieman@paulweiss.com -- and Darren Wright Johnson -- djohnson@paulweiss.com -- of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York. The attorneys did not respond to requests for comment by deadline. Both sides reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit April 2 at a meeting in New York. Eric Green of Resolutions LLC in Boston served as a mediator. MILANEZZA LLC: "Munoz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Maria Munoz, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Milanezza LLC, Maxmiliano D. Waicman and Marco Moreno, Case No. 1:15-cv- 22428-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an Argentinian-Italian restaurant located at 700 Crandon Blvd., Key Biscayne Florida 33149. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com MINNESOTA: Must Implement Sex Offer Program Changes, Judge Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Red Wing Republican Eagle's Don Davis and The St. Paul Pioneer Press report that a federal judge says sex offenders have rights, too, and told state officials on June 17 to either make the Minnesota Sex Offender Program constitutional or he may release some offenders. It is a debate that began after the kidnapping and killing of Dru Sjodin in 2003, when the number of sex offenders committed to the treatment program began a dramatic increase. U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank did not order specific changes to the program and said no sex offenders will be released immediately. However, without changes, he indicated that closing the program or releasing sex offenders is possible. "The stark reality is that there is something very wrong with this state's method of dealing with sex offenders in a program that has never fully discharged anyone committed to its detention facilities in Moose Lake and St. Peter since its inception in 1994," wrote Judge Frank, who as a St. Louis County, Minn., prosecutor and state judge dealt with sex offender cases. "It is undisputed that there are civilly committed individuals at the MSOP who could be safely placed in the community or in less restrictive facilities," Judge Frank wrote about the program that keeps some sex offenders in prison-like hospitals for years after they finish serving prison terms. The ruling gives state officials one last chance, after several warnings, to change the program before the judge makes the decisions for them. "We are going to have to make it a real treatment program," said Sen. Tony Lourey, D-Kerrick, a key legislative player on the issue. Gov. Mark Dayton and Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson disagree with the ruling and pledged to defend the program. "He has not ordered any specific changes," Ms. Jesson said in an interview. "We are just continuing to run the program." Some changes that Judge Frank suggested already are in the works, she added, including putting some offenders in less restrictive facilities. Another Judge Frank idea matches one from Dayton, which did not pass the Legislature, to regularly evaluate the progress that sex offenders make in treatment. Judge Frank, who then-U.S. Sen. Dayton recommended be named a federal judge in 1998, asked state leaders to attend an Aug. 10 meeting to design a constitutional treatment program. He said that among those he wants at the meeting are Dayton, House Speaker Kurt Daudt and Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk. "There may be changes that could be made immediately, short of ordering the closure of the facilities, to remedy this problem," Frank wrote. Ms. Jesson said that legislators would have to change state law and appropriate money for most of Frank's ideas. If he insists that happen before the Legislature convenes next March 8, it would require a special session. Mr. Lourey said that Mr. Frank wants politicians reluctant to be seen as letting sex offenders go free to get the message "that we really do have to do something." Senators already have voted to make changes, some of which fit with Judge Frank's proposals. The House has not taken action. The attorney for sex offenders who brought the class-action lawsuit against the state was happy that Judge Frank said that offenders have rights. "This order highlights the complete failure of the political system in Minnesota with respect to these important issues but more importantly, it reaffirms that all people, no matter how disliked they are or how reprehensible their prior conduct, are entitled to constitutional protection," Dan Gustafson said. Judge Frank said in a 76-page ruling that the sex offender treatment in Moose Lake and St. Peter state hospitals gives sex offenders no "realistic hope of ever getting out," even though some offenders could live outside the treatment centers. Sjodin tragedy The debate about what to do with sex offenders after their prison terms end began when Ms. Sjodin was killed in 2003. Shortly before Ms. Sjodin disappeared, Mr. Rodriguez completed his 23-year prison term and was released, but was not committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program. Federal and state laws changed after Ms. Sjodin was kidnapped on Nov. 22, 2003, from a Grand Forks, N.D., mall parking lot. Her body was found five months later and Alfonso Rodriguez Jr. of Crookston, Minnesota, was convicted of her death. The fact that Mr. Rodriguez did not go into treatment raised such an uproar among Minnesotans that politicians, prosecutors and judges began putting more and more offenders into treatment, boosting the number of clients from 150 then to 714 today. Minnesota politicians increased prison terms for the worse sex offenders, but did little with the treatment program. In the past couple of years, legislators expected Frank to order major changes, but they mostly avoided voting to let sex offenders go free. Ms. Sjodin was a University of North Dakota student and a Pequot Lakes High School graduate. Future of Sex Offender Program Still Unclear Briana Bierschbach, writing for MinnPost, reports that last February, a federal judge warned Minnesota lawmakers that a state program to treat its most dangerous sex offenders probably didn't pass constitutional muster. If that wasn't clear enough, U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank drove the point home in the word choices peppered throughout his court order: "draconian," "clearly broken," "systemic problems" and "grave deficiencies." Despite his stern warnings to make changes before it was too late, two legislative sessions passed with no action from lawmakers. On June 17, Judge Frank issued a 76-page ruling on a class action lawsuit on behalf of offenders in the program to make his intentions crystal clear: The Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) is unconstitutional and must be changed. The crux of the constitutional problem is the program's low rate of release. MSOP currently houses more than 700 sex offenders in its maximum-security facilities in Moose Lake and St. Peter, where most of the offenders go after having already served their prison sentences. There, offenders become clients and receive treatment. But in the 20-year history of the program, only two people have ever been successfully released on a provisional basis. No one has ever been given full, unconditional release from MSOP, leading clients to liken the program to Minnesota's version of Guantanamo. On June 18, Minnesota commits more sex offenders per capita than any other state in the nation. "It is fundamental to our notions of a free society that we do not imprison citizens because we fear that they might commit a crime in the future," Frank wrote in his ruling. "This strikes at the very heart of what it means to be a free society where liberty is a primary value of our heritage." But while Judge Frank's intentions have become clear, the future of the program is not. The ruling didn't order any immediate changes to MSOP -- or direct the state to release any offenders. And it still leaves the solution to the problem partially in the hands of lawmakers, the very group that has repeatedly punted on finding a fix. Here's a breakdown of what the ruling means, and what's next for the program in Minnesota. So why, specifically, is MSOP unconstitutional? In his ruling, Judge Frank specifically argues with the way Minnesota's civil commitment statute for sex offenders is written. Among the problems: The law doesn't require periodic review of offenders in the program and how they are progressing through treatment; it's far easier for a judge to commit someone to the program than it is for an offender to petition to get out; and it puts the burden on the individual, not the state, to prove they are progressing through treatment. What's more, offenders must prove they are ready for a life outside the razor wire in less- restrictive facilities, when no less-restrictive options have been made available, he said. These things combined have made it nearly impossible for an offender to be released, violating their constitutional rights. It has also led to a hopeless "environment" and "emotional climate of despair" among clients at MSOP, he said. So what's the fix? In the ruling, the judge lays out 16 specific things he'd like to see changed. At the top of the list is a requirement for all current clients to be re-evaluated, starting with the oldest and moving on to those with substantive physical or intellectual disabilities; and then to the offenders in the program with no adult criminal record, only juvenile offenses. He also wants periodic reviews of offenders and the risk they pose to society. On top of that, Judge Frank says the state should create new, less-restrictive places to put offenders, and provide them with qualified defense counsel and experts as they are petitioning for release. All of these changes should be monitored by a "special master," he said. What's the next step? Big changes like that can't happen without the sign-off of lawmakers -- and probably some new funding. Judge Frank has ordered an Aug. 10 hearing where all stakeholders, including legislators and representatives of the executive branch, will be asked to present "suitable remedies" to the problems with the program. Specifically, Judge Frank wants to see DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, Republican House Speaker Kurt Daudt, and DFL Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk at the hearing. Does that mean politicians are now on board with making changes? Not exactly. While Judge Frank wants them to participate in finding a solution, lawmakers weren't enthusiastically jumping at the opportunity on June 17. In a statement, Mr. Dayton defended the program's constitutionality. The state has the option to appeal the ruling, but no one in Dayton's administration has said yet whether they will do that. "We continue to believe that both the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and the civil commitment statute are constitutional," Mr. Dayton said. "We will work with the attorney general to defend Minnesota's law. As the federal judge has not ordered any releases, there will be no immediate changes to this program as a result of this ruling." Republican House Health and Human Services Finance Chairman Matt Dean was even more dismissive, saying the Legislature is "not a party to this lawsuit and does not have any legal obligation to respond." "While we reject Judge Frank's opinion regarding the constitutionality of the program," Mr. Dean continued, "the Legislature will continue to work with MSOP to improve the program in a matter that protects our primary obligation to protect vulnerable Minnesotans." Dan Gustafson, the attorney representing MSOP clients, said he understands why politicians are wary of finding a fix, but time has run out. "Who wants to be the first person to stand up and say I'm in favor of releasing sex offenders?" he said. "There's just no reason why any political leader would do that." Do any lawmakers support changing the program? Support might be overstating it, but Bakk has acknowledged the state needs to make changes to the program. In 2013, the state Senate passed legislation that adopted many recommendations from a court-appointed task force set up to review program. The proposal would have put only the most dangerous offenders in the program, while others would be placed in a new, less-restricted environment. It also established a two-step hearing process that would determine if civil commitment to the program is needed and, if necessary, the terms of that commitment. But action on that legislation has repeatedly stalled in the House. Rep. Nick Zerwas, R-Elk River, who has worked with the administration on reforms in the past, said he could see bipartisan agreement in adopting recommendations to standardize the process of civil commitment across the state. Republicans also support moving some offenders who are less likely to be a danger to the public -- the elderly and those who have intellectual and physical disabilities -- into less-restrictive facilities: outside the razor wire but still on the campus of Moose Lake or St. Peter. Will any offenders be released? Not right away, but if lawmakers don't make changes, Judge Frank has the option to release people from the program. In his ruling, he calls out specific groups of offenders who are particularly concerning to him, including Rhonda Bailey, the only woman ever committed to the program. Ms. Bailey is currently being treated in MSOP with all men. He also mentions Eric Terhaar, an offender who is part of a class of more than 50 clients in the program who have no adult criminal record. Currently, there are about 40 offenders in the final phase of treatment before release, Department of Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson said. That's an increase from recent years, and her staff has also put out requests to halfway houses and group homes around the state for potential less-restrictive options. "I don't think it's ever easy to be a defendant in a lawsuit, but having said that, I don't think it should be awkward to continue to improve the program," Ms. Jesson said. "We have made efforts already and we will continue to make improvements." Will changing the program be expensive? The problem is expensive, and so is the solution. As of last July, the cost of housing an offender in MSOP was more than $120,000 per year, three times more than it costs to keep them in a correctional facility. And the number of people in the program has exploded since 2003, when North Dakota State college student Dru Sjodin was kidnapped and murdered by a Minnesota sex offender who was released after his prison sentence but not committed to the program. By 2022, officials anticipate the population inside MSOP will grow to 1,215 individuals. In Mr. Dayton's initial budget proposal, he recommended spending $6.8 million over the next two years to evaluate offenders every other year and cover one-time transitional costs for offenders to less-restrictive facilities. He also proposed $10.7 million in a bonding proposal to design and construct a community-based residential treatment alternative to MSOP. Neither proposal gained traction with legislators in the 2015 session. Will Mr. Dayton have to call a special session to deal with this? That part is unclear. Judge Frank didn't outline any specific timeline, outside of the Aug. 10 hearing, and he didn't lay out what should happen next. Mr. Gustafson said it will take time to come up with changes and implement them, but after three years of waiting for legislators to act, he doesn't expect the federal courts will let lawmakers "wring their hands" over a solution for much longer. "This is an indictment of the Minnesota political system," he said. "These issues are not new to the state of Minnesota, but the political system has failed to act on it." MONSANTO CO: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California --------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that Elvis Mirzaie, Edison Mirzaie and Romi Mirzaie filed a lawsuit April 20 in Los Angeles Superior Court against Monsanto Co., maker of Roundup. The defendant removed the suit to federal court on June 9. Roundup advertises that it targets an enzyme found in only plants and not people, but the lawsuit claims that isn't true and the enzyme is found in both. "Therefore, where (Monsanto) advertises that Round targets an enzyme 'not found in people,' such claim is objectively false and inherently misleading," the lawsuit said. The specific enzyme in question is called EPSP synthase, which is produced by "weeds, plants, bacteria, fungi, algae and other microbes," the lawsuit said. The suit added "over one hundred trillion bacteria" that produce the enzyme can be found in humans. The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to have that information taken off all Roundup labels. The plaintiffs are seeking class status for those that purchased Roundup within the last four years. The suit is also seeking an unspecified amount in damages plus court costs. The plaintiffs are represented by T. Matthew Phillips, an attorney in Las Vegas. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 2:15-cv-04361. NEW LONDON, CT: Shooting Victims Mull Class Action -------------------------------------------------- Greg Smith, writing for The Day, reports that the city and the New London Housing Authority are facing the possibility of a lawsuit related to a shooting at a high rise apartment complex off Crystal Avenue. New London Attorney Robert Reardon on June 18 filed a notice of intent to sue, claiming security and overall maintenance at the Thames River Apartments were neglected for years leading to dangerous conditions for residents. Police said a 17-year-old was shot in the arm and a 4-year-old sustained a minor graze wound to her leg on May 25 when two men fired multiple shots in a courtyard area of the apartment complex. No arrests have been made in the case, which remains under investigation. Mr. Reardon's notice of intent to sue, filed with the City Clerk's office, identifies the victims in the shooting as Tiyana Boyd and Serenity Reels. He claims Ms. Boyd suffered permanent injury to her arm and her mother, Kalilah Hightower, suffered severe emotional distress, he said. Reels suffered a leg injury and her mother, Sharandra Rickae, and sister, Skye Reels, both suffered emotional distress, Reardon claims. "They were just out there having a good time," Mr. Reardon said on June 18. "It appears, from what we've been told by witnesses, there were multiple shots being fired back and forth. Two men were shooting at each other." Mr. Reardon secured a judgment last year in a class action lawsuit against the housing authority on behalf of more than 300 tenants of the apartment complex. A judge has ordered the New London Housing Authority to follow a three-year schedule of rehabilitation of the 124-unit low income housing complex. "The New London Housing Authority and the City of New London have neglected to maintain this apartment complex for many years allowing it to be a known area for criminal activity, gang members, drug dealers and others intent on committing violent criminal activity exposing the tenants to risk of injury or death," Mr. Reardon wrote in his notice to the city. Among others security lapses Mr. Reardon cites in his notice are broken gate locks, a lack of security guards, inadequate lighting and slow responses to 911 calls. Criminals and trespassers are regularly allowed to loiter in the playground and plaza area, "providing them with an open invitation to use it as a base for criminal activities," Reardon wrote. "The Housing Authority aggressively defended a class action lawsuit brought by the tenants seeking safe, habitable housing . . . for over a decade," Reardon wrote. Reached by email, New London Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio said it is the policy of the city not to comment on pending litigation. NEW YORK, NY: Officials Agree to Sweeping Reforms at Rikers Island ------------------------------------------------------------------ Benjamin Weiser, writing for The New York Times, reports that New York City officials have tentatively agreed to sweeping reforms that would remake Rikers Island, including the appointment of a federal monitor to oversee the jail complex, explicit prohibitions against guards' striking prisoners in the head and even the introduction of body cameras worn by guards. Other reforms city officials are poised to endorse include the development of a computerized system to better track the use of force by correction officers, the implementation of an early warning program to flag guards who use force against inmates three or more times in six months, injuring at least one of them, and the installation of 8,000 new surveillance cameras throughout the jail complex. The measures are part of a far-reaching legal settlement that has been largely agreed upon, after months of negotiation, by lawyers for the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio and the office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, as well as the Legal Aid Society and a group of private lawyers who in 2011 filed a class-action lawsuit against the city, which Mr. Bharara's office joined in December, according to people who have been briefed on the talks. They cautioned that there was no final deal and that certain remaining disputes could still get in the way of a settlement. But Mr. Bharara's office and the city's Law Department told a federal magistrate judge two weeks ago that they expected a deal to be completed by Monday, June 22. Some of the measures that lawyers for the city have tentatively agreed to would have seemed unimaginable as recently as early 2014, underscoring the suddenness with which Rikers reform has leapt to the forefront of the agenda of the de Blasio administration over the last year. The city's Department of Correction has been under extraordinary scrutiny after articles by The New York Times, The Associated Press and The New Yorker, as well as reports by the city's Investigation Department, documented widespread brutality, corruption and dysfunction at Rikers. In August, Mr. Bharara's office, after a two-and-a-half-year investigation, issued a blistering report that found a "deep- seated culture of violence" directed toward adolescent inmates at Rikers, and a systematic deprivation of their civil rights. Saying he was frustrated with the pace of change at Rikers, Mr. Bharara announced plans in December to sue the city and seek court-ordered reforms. His office joined in an existing class- action lawsuit on brutality at Rikers, Nunez v. City of New York, filed by the Legal Aid Society and two law firms, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady and Ropes & Gray. There have been "dozens and dozens" of negotiating sessions, a city lawyer said recently in court. The sessions have been attended at times by Mr. Bharara; Zachary W. Carter, the corporation counsel for New York City; and Joseph Ponte, the correction commissioner, whom Mr. Bharara, at a news conference about charges being filed in a 2010 beating death of a Rikers inmate, praised as "dedicated to the cause of reform." But Mr. Bharara has also expressed impatience with the grinding progress of the talks. "Every day that goes by where we don't have enforceable and enduring reform at Rikers Island is one day too many," he said. Even as bigger issues were resolved, some of the obstacles in recent weeks were over finer points. The city objected, for example, to a provision that would require the Correction Department to notify United States prosecutors whenever it referred a potentially criminal occurrence involving the use of force to the city's Investigation Department. The agreement that now appears close would seem to address many of Mr. Bharara's concerns as well as those voiced by Mr. de Blasio, who, when he visited the jail in March, vowed to make Rikers a "national model of what is right again." A spokeswoman for Mr. de Blasio, in a statement on June 18, said the agreement would be "a major step" toward his administration's goal of reducing violence in the jails. She added, "We fully expect a successful conclusion to this process within a few days." The correction commissioner, Mr. Ponte, who came into the job a little over a year ago, has already undertaken major changes that track some areas of agreement between the parties. In December, for example, Mr. Ponte ended solitary confinement for 16- and 17- year-olds at Rikers. The tentative agreement mandates doing just that, and would also prohibit placing 18-year-old inmates with serious mental illness in isolation. Mr. Ponte, in a recent interview with The Times, expressed openness to the idea of a federal monitor, a remedy he once said he had hoped to avoid. "I don't think a monitor hinders anything we want to do," Mr. Ponte said. The city already has court-appointed monitors overseeing reforms in the Police Department's stop, question and frisk policies and the Fire Department's hiring practices. Under the proposed Rikers agreement, the monitor would have broad access to the jails and records, and the ability to interview inmates confidentially and to speak with staff members outside the presence of their colleagues or supervisors. The monitor would review all policies adopted under the settlement, including a new training curriculum for the staff. The monitor would report to the federal judge in Manhattan who is overseeing the Nunez lawsuit, Laura Taylor Swain, and the monitor, in publicly filed reports, would regularly evaluate the status of the department's compliance with the settlement. Judge Swain would be asked to approve any settlement. The agreement itself would end only when the court finds that the city has achieved and maintained substantial compliance with the terms of the settlement for two years. A critical part of the proposed deal is a requirement that the Correction Department, in consultation with the monitor, develop a comprehensive new policy on the use of force by guards. Another provision would require the use of hand-held video cameras to record the removals of prisoners from cells -- often a violent process -- and other actions. Such recordings would have to be continuous, and any breaks would have to be documented and explained. Staff members wearing or carrying cameras who repeatedly failed to capture sensitive incidents on video would be referred for discipline. Much of the proposed agreement focuses on bettering conditions for teenage inmates, which was the primary focus of Mr. Bharara's report last August. Additional video cameras would have to be installed in the jail for teenage inmates, the Robert N. Davoren Center, with a goal of ensuring total camera coverage of areas that are accessible to 16- and 17-year-olds. The agreement also pushes the city to look into taking teenage inmates off Rikers Island completely. City officials, in consultation with the monitor, would be required to make their best efforts to find a new location for inmates under age 18. The site should have access to recreation and educational services. And it should be accessible by public transportation, to make it easier for family members to visit. The city would be required, in periodic reports to the monitor, to detail its search process, the places under consideration and how long it would take before they would be available for housing inmates. But the proposal would allow the city to report that after a diligent search, it could not find a suitable location. NEW YORK, NY: COBA Responds to Rikers Island Settlement ------------------------------------------------------- Colby Hamilton and Gloria Pazmino, writing for Capital New York, report that the Correction Officers' Benevolent Association took to Twitter on June 19 to respond to details of a reported settlement between the city and plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit that alleges systemic violence directed at inmates by correction officers at Rikers Island. "We want real Rikers reform but @nytimes & other media fail to mention very real issues facing inmates, jail workers & their families," the official COBA account tweeted in the first of five tweets on June 19 in response to news reports about the deal. Much of the announced reform proposals that have come from Mayor Bill de Blasio and Department of Correction commissioner Joseph Ponte, including a 14-point plan to reduce violence at the city jail, have, until now, largely focused on inmates and visitors to Rikers. By contrast, the broad details of the settlement in the Nunez v. the City of New York suit are mainly focused on accountability measures for correction officers, including a new use of force policy for the D.O.C. and a federal monitor to oversee implementation of the settlement. The other tweets said: "There's no mention of inmates who commit crimes while jailed, of criminal justice system that begins in street & only ends in NYC jails." "no mention of a Dept of Health which uses City Jails as a dumping ground for overflow of mentally ill patients. "No mention of D.A's who hide away low-level street criminals. No mention of a system that uses NYC Jails as overflow homeless shelters." "We must address ALL aspects of system. Stand with @COBA to demand real action & real reform on Riker's Island" Norman Seabrook, the union president, did not return multiple phone calls from Capital. Mr. Seabrook regularly tweets out from the account, often adding the signature "NSeabrook" to tweets that provide proported details of corrections officers who were attacked on the job. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara has sent a letter to the judge in the case, Laura Taylor Swain, alerting her that the parties had agreed to a June 22 deadline for the settlement. COBA is not part of the settlement negotiations. NEWS CORP: Ordered to Face Ad Monopoly Class Action --------------------------------------------------- Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that News Corp. has been ordered by a Manhattan federal judge to face a class action lawsuit accusing it of monopolizing the market for in-store promotions at some 52,500 retail stores across the United States. U.S. District Judge William Pauley said consumer packaged goods companies such as Dial Corp, H.J. Heinz Co. and Smithfield Foods Inc. may pursue their antitrust claims as a group, potentially boosting overall damages. News Corp spokeswoman Laura Adams said the company, which is controlled by Rupert Murdoch, is reviewing the June 18 decision. The litigation is part of a long-running battle over News Corp's marketing operations. In January 2010, the New York-based company agreed to pay $500 million to end rival Valassis Communications Inc.'s antitrust lawsuit over the newspaper coupon market. News Corp. has an estimated 80 percent of the U.S. market for in- store promotion services, where it acts as a middleman to help companies promote goods through coupon dispensers, electronic signs, end-of-aisle displays and shopping cart ads. The plaintiffs said News Corp has monopolized this market since 2004 by locking up exclusive long-term contracts with retailers. They said this anticompetitive conduct has forced them to pay artificially high prices to promote such goods as Dial-brand soap, Heinz ketchup and Smithfield's Eckrich hot dogs. In certifying a class action from April 5, 2008, to the present, Pauley rejected News Corp.'s arguments that damages would be too hard to measure. He noted that the plaintiffs' damages expert estimated overcharges of 31 percent to 43 percent in the 2008-13 period. The judge also said "central questions regarding liability" for alleged supra-competitive prices were "susceptible to common proof" that could be addressed in a single trial. John Briody, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, declined to comment. Pauley said Valassis is News Corp's only remaining competitor in the in-store promotion services market. Valassis has also accused News Corp of unfairly dominating that market, and is suing the company in Detroit federal court. Heinz is owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc and Brazil's 3G Capital, and plans to merge with Kraft Foods Group Inc. Smithfield was bought in 2013 by the Chinese company now called WH Group Ltd. Dial is a unit of Germany's Henkel & Co. The case is Dial Corp et al v. News Corp et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-06802. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Aug. 21 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jason Morris, Esq. of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an article for JDSupra, reports that March 26 marked the beginning of the end for the storied 14-year litigation concerning Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Pre-MN annuities when the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted preliminary approval of a proposed class action settlement in LaPlant v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company. Plaintiffs in LaPlant alleged that, starting in 1985, Northwestern Mutual changed its dividend calculation methodology so that the amount of dividends credited to the class annuity accounts would be based on interest earned on "short-term bonds exclusively and secretly chosen by" the company, rather than on the purported contractually-required "share of Northwestern's annual profits or 'divisible surplus'" basis. If the settlement is ultimately approved by the federal judiciary, those who terminated or annuitized their policies prior to 1994, which is estimated to be over half of the 33,000 annuitant class members, will each be eligible for $250. The remaining $84 million fund, minus fees and costs, will be available for the rest of the class members, based on each annuity's average net cash value and number of years the annuity was held. LaPlant is not the first attempt by class counsel to recover funds from the company regarding this alleged change. In Noonan v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, a 2001 Wisconsin state court case, class certification status was denied, a result affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin in 2006. Nevertheless, Noonan remains pending as a stayed individual action. Cases brought by class counsel against Northwestern Mutual in Florida, California, and Washington also remain pending and will be dismissed if the settlement is ultimately approved. A hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled for August 21, 2015. OGDEN COUNTY: Aug. 4 Oral Argument in Trece Injunction Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Gurrister, writing for Standard-Examiner, reports that oral arguments are set for the class action lawsuit pending against Weber County and Ogden police over the now-defunct Ogden Trece Injunction and a judge has agreed to let prosecutors file a final brief in defense. Second District Judge Noel Hyde set oral arguments for Aug. 4 in the suit brought by the Utah branch of the ACLU and former Trece defense attorneys on behalf of the estimated 55 Trece gang members convicted under the injunction. Monetary damages could follow if the suit is successful. Modeled after similar efforts in use in California and elsewhere, the Trece injunction was designed to keep known members of the city's oldest street gang off the street, banning association and gun possession in public. It had imposed an 11:00 p.m. curfew on Treces in a 25-square mile area encompassing virtually all of Ogden. The injunction's supporting memoranda documented years of assaults, drug dealing, a car theft ring and several murders by Treces, considered the city's largest gang with over 300 members. After a three-year run, the injunction was voided by the Utah Supreme Court in September of 2013 on procedural grounds, the high court never ruling on the constitutional violations claimed by the ACLU and other critics. Fellow 2nd District Judge Michael DiReda formally overturned the conviction of former Trece LeLand McCubbin on two violations of the Trece injunction, for curfew and weapons possession, for which he served 180 days in jail. After a testy hearing in April, as the same lawyers pressing the class action suit sparred with prosecutors on the exact wording for the dismissals, Judge DiReda issued the final order, basically citing the Supreme Court's concerns with the injunction. The McCubbin lawsuit was filed in September of 2014, the class action suit a month later. Despite the lawsuits, Weber County Attorney Chris Allred has said his office is considering resurrecting the injunction, as it was successful in decreasing gang crime. A key issue in the class action suit, filed under Utah's Post Conviction Relief Act, or PCRA, is that the Treces missed a deadline by several weeks for filing the suit. The ACLU argues in pleadings that dismissing the suit for such a technical, administrative reason as PCRA deadlines would amount to an "egregious injustice." County and city lawyers had requested time, which Judge Hyde granted, to respond to those claims in a motion, writing, "This issue requires significant briefing as it is a request to consider the constitutionality of the PCRA's time limits . . . and the court should be fully apprised of all the legal issues." Judge Hyde, ironically, has just finished presiding over a two- week trial that resulted in the conviction on June 10 of Ruben Nava on manslaughter charges for fatally shooting a Trece during a brawl at an Ogden party. OGEMAW COUNTY, MI: Former Female Inmates File Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- Eric Young, writing for The Ogemaw County Herald, reports that three former Ogemaw County female inmates are representing all female inmates of the Ogemaw County Jail in a class action lawsuit against Ogemaw County, Sheriff Howie Hanft and former Sheriff's Work Crew Supervisor James Gustafston. The plaintiffs are seeking judgement "in an amount excess of $75,000 and whatever the trier of facts finds the plaintiff to be entitled," according to documents filed in U.S District Court. Gustafson pleaded no contest last year to two counts of criminal sexual conduct second-degree assault after being accused of engaging in sexual contact with two female inmates of the Ogemaw County Correctional Facility while he was serving as the work crew supervisor Sept. 16, 2003 and Oct. 2, 2003. He was later sentenced to 20 months to five years in prison on both counts. The class action suit claims Gustafson "unlawfully assaulted, battered and sexually harassed female inmates who were incarcerated in the Ogemaw County Jail," according to the filing. Mr. Hanft is joined as part of the lawsuit "for his failure to take corrective action against the employee," and the county is joined due to its "policy of indifference to inmate reports of inappropriate sexual contact between Gustafson and female inmates." The plaintiffs include Stacy McIntyre of Luzerne, Candy Ostrom of Jackson and Heather Miles of Beecher, all former inmates at the Ogemaw County Correctional Facility. They are suing on five counts, including deprivation of civil rights, gross negligence, assault and battery, invasion of privacy and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. No future court dates have been set at this time. Ogemaw County shuttered the sheriff's work program in May 2014, after District Court Judge Richard Noble eliminated participation in the program as part of a jail sentence. Circuit Court Judge Michael Baumgartner had already stopped allowing inmates to serve on the program at that time. Former inmate June Beach also sued the county, the sheriff and two sheriff's office employees, demanding $75,000. Ms. Beach alleged that a lack of supervision had led to her being sexually assaulted while serving on the Sheriff's Work Crew. That suit was settled out of court, though the amount of the settlement has not yet been disclosed. OTTEROO CORPORATION: Recalls Baby Floats Over Risk of Drowning -------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Otteroo Corporation, of San Francisco, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 3,000 Otteroo Inflatable Baby Floats. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The seam on the flotation device can leak air and deflate, posing a risk of drowning. The Otteroo Inflatable Baby Float is an inflatable round ring made of clear and blue plastic material. It has two air chambers that fasten around a baby's neck with a white buckle. The floats have a chin rest, two handles and two circular openings on the back of the ring to allow the device to expand as the child grows with age. There are three colorful balls that move freely around inside the ring. The name "Otteroo" is imprinted on the top of the float in large, orange letters with an Otter logo. The firm has received 54 reports of broken seams on the product. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/4G0D21 The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Otteroo.com and Amazon.com and Zulily.com from January 2014 through July 2014 for about $35. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled inflatable baby floats and contact the firm to receive a free replacement. OUTSOURCING USA: "Conti" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Alanna Conti, Angelina Matthews, Esteban Mercado, and William Dwyer v. Outsourcing USA, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01276-RDM (M.D. Pa., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Outsourcing USA, LLC is engaged in the business of advertising production for newspapers, with a principal place of business located at 1200 Twin Stacks Drive, Dallas, Pennsylvania 18612. The Plaintiff is represented by: George A. Reihner, Esq. WRIGHT & REIHNER, PC 148 Adams Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 961-1166 E-mail: gareihner@wrightreihner.com PARADISE FLOWERS: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Danilo Valdez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Paradise Flowers And Plants, L.L.C., Abbott Florist, L.L.C., and Raul O. Encio, Maximiliano A. Chaves, Myriam Chaves Encio, and Patricia L. Pineirua, Case No. 1:15-cv-22424-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are Florida corporations that own and operate plants and flowers shops in Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com PATRIOT ELECTRIC: Faces "Cirillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Louis Cirillo and Stylianos Politis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Patriot Electric Corp., Cititek Electrical Contractors, Inc., and Michael Tek, Case No. 2:15-cv- 03770 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are electrical contractors that maintain a principal executive office located at 58-71 57th Road, Maspeth, New York 11378. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq. JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A. Lawrence Office Park Building 2, Suite 220 168 Franklin Corner Road Lawrenceville, NJ 08648 Telephone: (201) 687-9977 Facsimile: (201) 595-0308 E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com PENNYSAVER USA: Removed "Benton" Class Suit to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Luann Benton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pennysaver USA, LLC, Opengate Capital, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-02015-00789540-CU, was removed from the Orange County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-01036 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Luann Benton PRO SE The Defendant is represented by: Kathryn Teresa McGuigan, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 Telephone: (213) 612-2500 Facsimile: (213) 612-2501 E-mail: kmcguigan@morganlewis.com POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To File Reply Brief in Securities Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Powersecure International, Inc. has been expected to file its reply brief in a securities class action, Powersecure said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and in July 2014, two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were filed against the same defendants in the United States District Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the other in the Western District of North Carolina. On October 10, 2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and a lead plaintiff was appointed." "As consolidated, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased our common stock during a purported class period from August 8, 2013 through May 7, 2014, which is the longer of the two different purported class periods used in the pre-consolidation lawsuits. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on December 29, 2014. The action alleges that certain statements made by the defendants during the class period violated federal securities laws and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February 26, 2015, to which plaintiffs responded on April 30, 2015. We expect to file our reply brief in June 2015, after which the court will rule on our motion to dismiss. We believe that the claims asserted in this class action litigation are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against all such allegations." PRESIDIO INTERNATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Ericka Zorrilla v. Presidio International, Inc., a/k/a Armani Exchange and Nikea Russell, Case No. 1:15-cv-22422-JAL (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate several high end fashion retail stores in Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com QUEBEC, CANADA: Class Action Over Legionnaire's Outbreak Launched ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that families of people who died or fell ill during an outbreak of Legionnaire's disease have filed a request to launch a class-action lawsuit. The 2012 outbreak in Quebec City killed 14 people. More than 180 others became ill from bacteria that was found to be in a cooling tower of a downtown office building. The lawsuit alleges public health director Francois Desbiens failed to inform the public quickly enough about the outbreak. It cites the building's owner, the CSQ union federation, for failing to properly clean its cooling towers. It also says the government failed to prevent the outbreak because it did not act on recommendations following a smaller outbreak in 1996. At the time, public health officials recommended creating a registry of all buildings with cooling towers. The suit is claiming $50,000 for people who fell ill, $140,000 for surviving spouses, and $30,000 for victims' children. "This gives me hope that finally things will be settled," said Nadia Champagne whose father died in the 2012 outbreak. "It's the best news I could get. I'll be able to have some closure." Brigitte Arbour's mother died in her arms. She says the class- action lawsuit is too little, too late. "I didn't expect anything," said Ms. Arbour. "If there's a suit, fine. If not, too bad. Whatever the outcome, it won't bring my mother back." A spokeswoman for the CSQ says the labor federation is analyzing the request for the class action. She said the CSQ will respond in court. The class action still has to be approved by a judge. REDBOX AUTOMATED: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa. -------------------------------------------------------------- April Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03100- JS (E.D. Pa., June 4, 2015) is brought under The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence Kalikhman, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Rd., Suite 102 Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 E-mail: lkalikhman@kalraylaw.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: July 21 Cert. Hearing in Landfill Odor Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Brianna Bailey, writing for NewsOK.com, reports that the Southeast Landfill in Oklahoma City has been the subject of an ongoing federal lawsuit by some homeowners in the neighborhood for the past three years. Records show the landfill, operated by the Arizona-based waste management company Republic Services Inc., has had ongoing problems with combustible methane gas levels that exceed regulatory limits. Operator is sued Complaining of "pollutants, air contaminants, dust, debris and noxious odors," southeast Oklahoma City residents Tommy McCarty and Beth Thomas moved to sue Republic Services in 2012 on behalf of all of their neighbors. The lawsuit claims the landfill is a nuisance and its operators have been negligent in the way they run the facility. Republic spokesman Russ Knocke said the landfill "is safe and well-managed." "It is closely monitored in coordination with the DEQ (Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality), and it is fully compliant with regulatory requirements," Mr. Knocke said. A hearing is scheduled for July 21 on whether to certify the case as a class-action lawsuit, which would allow the plaintiffs to sue on behalf of other neighborhood residents. McCarty declined to comment, because he said his attorney advised him not to talk to the media about the lawsuit until after the hearing. Mr. Knocke said landfill gas is a common byproduct of decomposing waste, and monitoring allows operators to react to any issues with the gas. "It is important to note the distinction between gas migration within the soil, which does not present an odor concern, and gas that might release into ambient air," Mr. Knocke said. "The landfill's surface emissions monitoring program helps ensure that there are no substantial gas emissions that could lead to odor." Mr. Knocke said Republic has not had an odor concern confirmed by state regulators in more than a year "or any notice of violation since 2011, and we are unaware of any or recent confirmed allegations." Thomas and three attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to multiple requests for comment. The plaintiffs are being represented by the Detroit environmental class action law firm Liddle & Dubin, which says on its website that it has won more than $100 million on behalf of its clients and class members nationwide. In landfill's shadow The neighborhood where the plaintiffs live is just north of the landfill near SE 59 and S Bryant Avenue -- where the Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. drilled the Oklahoma City Discovery Well that marked the opening of the Oklahoma City Oil Field in 1928. The homes in the area date back to the 1930s, when oil companies housed workers there in wooden homes that were hauled in on trailers. It's a quiet area filled with mature trees and modest bungalows, some more well kept than others. Some of the streets in the area, including Empire and Itio avenues, were named for the oil companies that pioneered the Oklahoma City Oil Field. Resident Gary Popel's yellow brick bungalow on Empire Avenue was once a general store and post office for the oil-field neighborhood. Mr. Popel, who has owned the house since the early 1980's, said the odor as well as the fine grit and dust that drifts over from the landfill have diminished the value of his property. "When I bought the house, that landfill was just a hole in the ground," Mr. Popel said. The same landfill now is a sizable mound of dirt that is visible from the end of his street. Red dust from the site drifts over to the homes on Empire and is a common complaint from area residents, he said. REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 6 Hearing on Motion to Remand -------------------------------------------------------- The putative class action captioned "City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc. et al.," Case No. CIV 533635 was filed on May 1, 2015, in San Mateo Superior Court alleging violations of the Federal Securities Laws. On June 5, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to federal court. The parties stipulated on June 9, 2015, under Civil L.R. 6-1(a) that, in light of the anticipated remand motion and opposition, and in the interests of judicial economy and preservation of the Court's and the parties' resources, Defendants need not respond to the pending Complaint, but would respond within 30 days of Plaintiff amending the Complaint or designating an operative complaint. The Plaintiff then filed a motion to remand the action to state court, indicating August 6, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. as the date and time for hearing on the motion. Defendants intend to oppose the remand motion. To accommodate scheduling conflicts and Counsel's travel commitments, Defendants require a brief extension of time to respond to the motion to remand. Accordingly, District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., signed a stipulation on June 17, 2015, which provides that: 1. Defendants' opposition to the motion to remand was to be filed July 2, 2015. 2. Plaintiff's reply to the opposition to the motion to remand must be filed on or before July 14, 2015. 3. The hearing on the remand motion will occur as currently scheduled on August 6, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at http://bit.ly/1HGc8yXfrom leagle.com. The case is CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC., L. DANIEL BROWNE, LAUREN P. SILVERNAIL, JACOB WAUGH, ROBERT BYRNES, RONALD W. EASTMAN, PHYLLIS GARDNER, JAMES GLASHEEN, JONATHAN TUNNICLIFFE, RONALD WOOTEN, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, LLC, AND DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-02512-HSG, (N.D. Cal.). JOHN C. DWYER -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- SHANNON M. EAGAN -- seagan@cooley.com -- ADAM C. TRIGG -- atrigg@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC., L. DANIEL BROWNE, LAUREN P. SILVERNAIL, JACOB WAUGH, ROBERT BYRNES, RONALD EASTMAN, PHYLLIS GARDNER, JAMES GLASHEEN, JONATHAN TUNNICLIFFE, and RONALD WOOTEN. Joshua D.N. Hess -- joshua.hess@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, LLC. JAMES I. JACONETTE -- jamesj@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLAR RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, San Diego, CA, and SHAWN A. WILLIAMS, Post Montgomery Center, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff. ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Recalls Fruit & Nut Trail Mix Due to Salmonella --------------------------------------------------------------- Rocky Mountain Foods, Inc. is voluntarily recalling certain lots of Island Fruit and Nut Trail Mix packaged under the Free Range Snack Co. Brand and certain lots of bulk Macadamia Nuts due to possible Salmonella contamination. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. Consumers who have recently purchased the items with the BEST BY DATES listed below at stores located in AZ, CO, KS, NM, OK, TX, UT, and WY should not consume this product and should return it to the store of purchase for a full refund or replacement. AFFECTED PRODUCT PACKAGE UPC CODE BEST BY DATE ---------------- SIZE -------- RANGE ------- ------------ Free Range Snack Co. 16 oz. Tub 0-76958-55077-5 11/15/2015 Island Fruit and Nut Trail Mix Free Range Snack Co. Macadamia Nuts Bulk None 4/15/2016 - 5/28/2016 No illnesses have been reported to-date. Based upon routine testing conducted by an FDA-contracted laboratory, the presence of Salmonella was detected in Macadamia Nuts. Rocky Mountain Foods, Inc. is communicating with distributors and stores that have received the affected product. Contact for Consumers: Consumers who have questions about the above recall may contact Rocky Mountain Foods, Inc. Customer Service at (303) 371-3511 Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Mountain Time. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453119.htm SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Water Price Suit Mulled v. Water District ------------------------------------------------------------ Kurtis Alexander, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports that Marin County California Attorney General Kamala Harris is going to battle over water conservation, seeking to ensure water agencies hold the power to sock big users with higher prices. In a recent letter sent to the state Supreme Court, the attorney general's office asked the high court to limit the scope of a lower court decision that struck down tiered water rates designed to penalize waste. The appellate court in April ruled that prices must be a reflection of the cost of water -- not a tool to entice savings. The attorney general's office is requesting that the Supreme Court "depublish" that decision, meaning the ruling would apply only to San Juan Capistrano -- the subject of the court case -- and couldn't be used as precedent to challenge water bills elsewhere. State attorneys warned of a "chilling effect" on the conservation efforts of agencies using tiered rates as California grapples with a fourth year of drought. A dust devil makes its way across hot land made white from dried minerals as a result of the natural lake-bottom buildup and evaporation process April 10, 2015 near Kings County, Calif. The land is situated in part of the San Joaquin Valley that used to contain the Tulare Lake, the largest freshwater lake in the western half of the continental United States. The lake was dried up by the year 1900 due to emerging agriculture in the region. Running dry: How the drought is forging a new California Hundreds of White-faced Ibis take off at dawn at Merced National Wildlife Refuge April 16, 2015 in Merced, Calif. The refuge is a restored wildlife area that reflects the habitat that used to be found in the Central Valley and provides much-needed breeding and wintering habitat for thousands of birds. Because of the drought, the refuge received no surface water allocation and were forced to pump groundwater to keep up the wetlands and the crops they grow for habitat. Wildlife refuges grapple with California drought's impact a micro sprinkler irrigates an almond orchard near Hillmar, Calif., as seen on Fri. April 3, 2015. California drought: Charge true cost of agricultural water Parched state rethinks water rights But it may be too late. Already, water rates in other places are being targeted in the wake of the ruling -- with the latest protest emerging in Marin County. "What we had with the Capistrano case is something that's very similar to what's going on in Marin," said attorney Beau Burbidge, who is representing a Mill Valley woman who filed suit against the Marin Municipal Water District over its four price tiers for water. "That (case) gives us some indication of how our case will be treated in the courts and gives us some precedential value." The suit in Marin County, like the Southern California case, rests on Proposition 218. The voter-approved measure doesn't allow public agencies to charge more for a service than what it costs to provide it. The Fourth District Court of Appeal deemed San Juan Capistrano's higher rates unconstitutional because the city didn't incur additional expenses delivering extra water. The city is in the process of reimbursing residents for charging too much. According to Mr. Burbidge, Marin County's tiered rates similarly don't reflect higher operating costs, only large and arbitrary price increases. The water agency bills single-family households $3.74 for each 748 gallons of water used -- about a two-day supply -- if usage every two months in the summer is below 19,500 gallons. If a household's consumption spikes to more than 75,000 gallons, it faces the top-tier rate of $22.45 for every 748 gallons. "It's purely a penalty or tax for excess water use," Mr. Burbidge said. "We're absolutely for any measure of conservation, including tiered rates. But there's a method in which the water district has to go about doing that." The agency, Mr. Burbidge said, must prove that its divergent charges are based on different costs -- or go to voters to get approval for higher rates. The lawsuit against the Marin Municipal Water District was filed in Marin County Superior Court on May 26 by Anne Walker. Mr. Burbidge, however, said he plans to turn the case into a class action on behalf of the agency's customers. The potential financial damages haven't been determined. Marin County water officials declined to discuss the litigation, as a matter of policy, but said they're reviewing their water prices to ensure they're in line with expenses. "Our understanding is that our current rate structure meets cost- of-service requirements, is legally defensible and follows Prop. 218 protocol," spokeswoman Libby Pischel wrote in an e-mail to The Chronicle. Statewide, more than half of all water agencies embrace some form of tiered pricing, which has been shown to dampen consumption. Most water providers, as of this month, are under state orders to cut back water use. Gov. Jerry Brown has urged the agencies to use pricing to help ensure the reductions, but the San Juan Capistrano case called the tactic into question. "The court's sweeping statement couldn't come at a worse time with the state trying to manage this drought," said Michael Lauffer, chief counsel for the State Water Resources Control Board, which asked the attorney general's office to come to its aid and petition the Supreme Court for depublication of the court decision. Mr. Lauffer said tiered water rates remain legal if agencies show that prices correlate with the cost of providing service. "In many respects, the decision is really a show-your-math exercise," he said. The Association of California Water Agencies, the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities also wrote a letter to the high court requesting that the appellate court opinion be depublished. Mr. Lauffer said he expects the Supreme Court to make a decision on the matter within two months. SCHLUMBERGER NV: Faces "Ogle" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- James Marty Ogle v. Schlumberger N.V. (Schlumberger Limited), Case No. 3:15-cv-02181 (N.D. Tex., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Schlumberger N.V. own and operates an oilfield services company located at 16055 Space Center, Suite 235, Houston, TX 77062. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL LLP 1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com SEVENTH GENERATION: Bid to Transfer Venue of Tsan Case Denied ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jon S. Tigar denied a motion to transfer venue filed in the case captioned MAGGIE TSAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SEVENTH GENERATION, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 15-CV-00205-JST, (N.D. Cal.). Seventh Generation filed the Motion to Transfer. According to Judge Tigar, although the Defendant sells products to putative class members in New York, Plaintiffs Maggie Tsan and Erica Wildstein are residents of the Northern District of California and the Southern District of Florida, and their claims are based on their purchases of Seventh Generation products in those districts. "Because there is no connection between the named Plaintiffs' claims and Defendant's activities in the Southern District of New York, that district could not exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Seventh Generation in this case," Judge Tigar wrote in his order entered June 17, 2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1emj5Yzfrom leagle.com. "The Court concludes that the Southern District of New York is not a district "where [this action] might have been brought" because venue there would be improper . . . Accordingly, the motion to transfer venue must be denied," Judge Tigar concluded. The Court set a case management conference for July 22, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. A case management statement is due by July 8, 2015. Maggie Tsan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei, LLP, Melissa Weiner Wolchansky -- wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen And Associates & Michael Robert Reese -- mreese@reeserichman.com -- Reese LLP. Erica Wildstein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Tycko & Zavareei, LLP, Melissa Weiner Wolchansky, Halunen And Associates & Michael Robert Reese, Reese LLP. Seventh Generation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Herling -- DJHerling@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo P.C. & Michelle Gillette -- MGillette@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo P.C. SHUTTERFLY: Faces Class Action Over "Faceprints" ------------------------------------------------ Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reports that a Chicago man claims the popular photo-book service Shutterfly is violating a law that restricts how companies collect biometric data, and is seeking at least $5 million on behalf of others whose faces have been added to the Shutterfly database without permission. The class action lawsuit, filed on June 17 in Illinois federal court, comes amid increased scrutiny over how companies are using facial recognition technology to create so-called "faceprints," which provide a unique identifier -- akin to a fingerprint -- based on a person's face. Faceprints are helpful for tagging photos on services like Facebook or Shutterfly, but also pose a privacy danger because they provide a way to identify a person on the internet or even in public. In the lawsuit, Brian Norberg claims he has never used Shutterfly but that someone else uploaded his photo and "tagged" it with his name; this led the company to add his face to an enormous biometrics database, and create a distinct profile based on biometric. Months later, when the other person uploaded more photos, Norberg claims Shutterfly automatically recognized pictures of him. Mr. Norberg argues Shutterfly is violating a state law that requires companies to inform people about when and how they use a person's biometric data. The lawsuit, which seeks $1,000 or $5,000 for every Illinois resident whose face was added to Shutterfly's database, resembles a similar case filed against Facebook in late March. Both lawsuits were filed in Chicago because Illinois is one of only two states in the country with a law that restricts how companies use biometric data (Texas is the other, while Washington state is exploring a similar measure). Shutterfly did not immediately respond to an email request for comment. The cases against Shutterfly and Facebook coincide with growing concern over the federal government's inaction over facial recognition technology. Nine consumer and privacy watchdog groups walked out of Commerce Department talks aimed at establishing guidelines on the use of faceprints, claiming that industry groups would not accept even basic limits on how they are used. Facebook rolled out a new app called "Moments," that makes it easier for users to use its facial recognition tools to identify people on their smartphone camera rolls, and share photos of them. SIOUX CITY, IA: Paid Million to Settle Civil Lawsuits, Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Kirby Kaufman, writing for Sioux City Journal, reports that city officials say there's a clear objective when settling a civil lawsuit or claim against the city -- prevent irreparable harm without admitting fault. Over the past five years, the city has paid out more than $8.7 million -- primarily in legal settlements -- to resolve conflicts between the city and other entities, according to city records provided to the Journal in response to a public records request. Not all attorney fees from the cases were immediately available, which means the city's total litigation costs were even higher during that time period. The single largest settlement in the past five years was the $6.5 million paid in 2012 to settle a class-action, franchise fee lawsuit on behalf of city residents and businesses who were overcharged on their city utility bills. At the time, lawyers for the plaintiffs said 61,948 people qualified for a payment. Earlier this year, the city paid $300,000 to settle a retaliation lawsuit a city employee filed against former city manager Paul Eckert. Like in some other cases, the city hired outside attorneys to represent the city in the Eckert suit. City Attorney Nicole Jensen told the Journal that she could not represent the city because she was a witness in the case. Donna Forker, the city's budget and finance director, said sometimes an ordeal can be so labor intensive that the city also will outsource attorneys if the city legal department does not have expertise in certain specialized areas of law. City officials have said some of the outside attorney fees in the Eckert case have not yet been billed. In April, Councilman Keith Radig said the total cost to the city was likely to exceed $600,000. PERSONNEL LAWSUITS City employee Brittany Scott sued Eckert and the city, claiming they had retaliated against her by not hiring her for a full-time administrative assistant position in the public works department in 2012 after she previously complained Eckert had sexually harassed her. Elizabeth Smith, an associate professor of political science at the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, said sexual harassment complaints and lawsuits often are settled prior to administrative or judicial action for a number of reasons. "Settlement saves a good deal of time and money, but it also resolves the employee and the employer's problem in a more timely way," Ms. Smith said. "Lawsuits, particularly, can take years to be resolved." She added that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has a long history of encouraging the resolution of sexual harassment complaints. "Sexual harassment litigation is often highly publicized during the process, which affects the complainant, the respondent and the organization in negative ways," Ms. Smith said. Ms. Forker said one other lawsuit involving a city employee happened in recent years. Brian Thiele, then 48, and a Sioux City fire rescue captain, sued the city in April 2012, saying that Fire Chief Tom Everett discriminated against him when he named a younger person as fire marshal. The city agreed to settle the lawsuit and pay Thiele $45,000, of which $15,750 went to his attorneys. CLAIMS AGAINST DEPARTMENTS The Journal's analysis of city settlements in the past five years found that while there was no direct link between civil lawsuits, Sioux City consistently paid out tort claims filed against the city for sewer backups and water main breaks. Sioux City paid a total of $352,389 for water main breaks and $369,276 for sewer backups, the two most costly types of claims. Jade Dundas, public works director and assistant city manager, said the tort fund acts somewhat as an insurance policy for the city because the money isn't always there to fix damaged properties. "We try to be as proactive as we can," Mr. Dundas said. "If we have a history of breaking, we might go in and do a directed project, (but) doing a whole change-out would be way too cost- prohibitive." The finance department bills department divisions based on claims history and payroll percentages, which are pooled into an insurance fund to pay out property, tort claims and worker's compensation, Ms. Forker said. She added city departments are billed for three separate premiums -- general liability, worker's compensation and property, which include homeowner and city properties. To pay into the liability tort fund, departments can use project funds from the capital improvement program budget, tax increment financing or other grants. Sioux City offers a voluntary insurance service against some types of property damage, but that isn't always enough to protect the city and homeowners from repair costs. Sometimes the result of a water main break can be disastrous, such as the January incident that left 15 homes without water service on Macomb Avenue in the city's Morningside neighborhood. Mr. Dundas described the Macomb incident as an "extreme example" that is not easily predicted. "It's going to happen without advance notice," he said. Other notable tort claims involved the Sioux City Police Department. Over five years, the city paid $191,020 for claims against the city's police department. Those claims involve incidents where a Sioux City police dog reportedly bit a woman, an officer who allegedly injured a woman while searching her purse and several accounts of police striking private vehicles with their cruisers. Police Chief Doug Young said claims against the department are always a possibility because policing is high risk for any municipality. He also said his department undergoes training and keeps track of state and U.S. Supreme Court rulings and how those could affect police activity. "We're a high liability because of the type of work we do which involves arrests, seizures of property and taking enforcement action," Mr. Young said. "These issues involve people's constitutional rights. It could involve taking away your freedom. It could involve taking away your property." SONY PICTURES: May Sue Twitter Over Leaked Documents ---------------------------------------------------- Venture Capital Post reports that WikiLeaks has discarded a second massive cache of 276, 394 internal documents from Sony into its searchable database. The update was publicized on WikiLeaks' Twitter account, "Sony Files 2 reveals Sony Pictures legal entanglements including an investigation for bribery." Last April, WikiLeaks had supplemented Sony emails that outclassed the internal works of the studio with regards of the decision making procedure involving projects, personal information of its employees, pay incongruities to male and female actors as well as racist and offensive comments from Sony officials. The updated 276,394 searchable documents contain overhead accounts, calendars and event preparation, spilled on Sky News. According to a Daily Mail report, Sony's leaked documents have been available on the internet from the time of the Guardians of Peace rift way back November 2014 in which 30,000 other documents were filched from Sony Pictures by a team from Korea. Searching through files was made easier by WikiLeaks. While disbursement reports are not that raving than email spills, Sony is certainly doomed on the circumstance as it was studying legal preferences when WikiLeaks updated the initial bunch of documents to the database. The company is also inclined to sue Twitter if it didn't prohibit other accounts tweeting the leaked emails. "Sony will have no choice but to hold Twitter responsible for any damage or loss arising from such use or dissemination by Twitter," Sony Pictures general counsel David Boies stated in an article from CNET. Then again, Sony is dealing with a class action lawsuit when previous employees took a legal action for not effectively keeping information about their employees, mentioned on Mashable. Billboard recently cleared that a California federal judge permitted previous employees to charge Sony Pictures about the global hack that has been attributed to North Korea. WikiLeaks is a liberated, non-profit media website that issues submissions of inaccessible documents from unidentified sources. The website started in 2006 by the Sunshine Press. It is just miserable that there are non-profit group in the internet who are exploiting the new media for personal advantage together with the hackers depleting technology to disrupt private information and lives. STATE AUTO: Plaintiffs Settled with State Auto Defendants --------------------------------------------------------- State Auto Financial Corporation, a majority-owned subsidiary of State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit settled with the State Auto Defendants for a nominal amount and dismissed their remaining individual claims with prejudice, thereby terminating the litigation. In April 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs. State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed against State Auto Mutual, State Auto Financial and State Auto P&C ("State Auto Defendants") in Federal District Court in Ohio. Plaintiffs claimed that, in connection with the homeowners policies of various State Auto companies, the coverage limits and premiums were improperly increased as a result of an insurance to value ("ITV") program and alleged that they purchased coverage in excess of that which was necessary to insure them in the event of loss. Plaintiffs' claims included breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement. Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by the court, as well as class certification. On February 2, 2015, the Court struck the class allegations, and on March 13, 2015, Plaintiffs settled with the State Auto Defendants for a nominal amount and dismissed their remaining individual claims with prejudice, thereby terminating the litigation. STORED VALUE CARDS: Arbitration Bid Denial in Reagan Case Upheld ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Reagan was jailed overnight in the Rockdale, Georgia, County Jail on a charge that later was dropped. When booked, he turned over $764.00 in cash to his jailers. When released the next day, he was given in lieu of his cash a pre-paid debit card worth $764.00 issued by Central National Bank through Stored Value Cards. He had no option to get cash or a check instead. Simultaneously, he received from the jailers a packet of documents that included the Agreement, which was printed in illegible five- point type. The jailers did not tell Reagan that the Agreement was in the packet. And, Reagan did not know that the Agreement was in the packet. The Agreement, which Reagan had no opportunity to read and did not sign, included an arbitration clause. After Reagan brought in state court his putative class action challenging fees attendant to using the card, Stored Value Cards and Central National Bank removed the case to federal district court and filed a motion to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion because there were factual disputes as to whether Reagan agreed to arbitrate. Stored Value Cards and Central National Bank appealed the district court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration. According to the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit's June 18, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1M5jQjXfrom leagle.com, it affirms the order of the district court denying the motion to compel arbitration as the district court correctly held that issues of fact exist to be resolved by the court or a jury as to whether Reagan agreed to arbitrate with Stored Value Cards and Central National Bank. "We need not add anything to the district court's opinion," ruled the Eleventh Circuit. The case is ROBERT REAGAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STORED VALUE CARDS, INC., CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ENID, OKLAHOMA, Defendants-Appellants, NO. 15-10364, NON-ARGUMENT CALENDAR. TECHNOSPORT INC: Recalls Scuba Diving Mask Due to Injury Hazard --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Technosport Inc., of Virginia Beach, Va., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,600O mersub Zero Cube scuba diving mask. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Non-conforming glass was used for the lens, which can shatter during normal use, posing an injury hazard. The diving mask is designed to cover the eyes and nose. The mask and strap are made with soft black rubber, with hard rubber around the two glass lenses. "O.M.E.R." appears on the forehead area of the mask in raised letters. The UPS Code 801 773 612 2298 and Omersub MFG Part #603NCF appear on the original packaging. Twelve incidents have been reported to the firm in which the lens has shattered. No injuries have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/9nmiMx The recalled products were manufactured in China and sols at Technosport Inc. and local diving equipment retailers, and online at amazon.com and www.omerdiving.com from April 2012 through June 2015 for about $80. Consumers should immediately stop using the mask and contact Technosport for a replacement mask. THAINUM SOUP: Faces "Ventura" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Fidel Ventura, Gabriel Ventura Diaz, and Izael Barrios, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Thainum Soup Inc., d/b/a Tum & Yum, Mung Mee Thai Inc., d/b/a PRIK THAI KITCHEN, Pop Perrer, Patti Bam Bam and Wachara Nittayarot, Case No. 1:15-cv-05057 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate two Thai restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com TPC II LLC: Faces "Onorato" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Christopher Onorato, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TPC II LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05079 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. TPC II LLC owns and operates a construction company with its principal place of business located at 140 35th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11232. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent Edward Pelton, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 111 Broadway , Suite 1503 New York, NY 10000 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Investor Class Action in Texas -------------------------------------------------------- Michael Lindenberger, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports that last September, shares of Dallas-based Trinity industries were on a roll, closing at over $50, a five-year high, on Sept. 19. But when word came down a month later that a federal jury in Marshall, Texas had sided with a whistleblower's claims that the company had defrauded the U.S. government, that price began a step dive. The June 19 price was just under $30, and now investors are suing to recoup some of the money they say they've lost during the ensuing sell-off. One such case was filed in a Dallas federal court June 19 on behalf of investor Richard J. Isolde and, if the lawyers can succeed in having the case certified as a class-action suit, all other similarly-situated investors. The suit alleges that during 2012 and 2013, as Trinity's shares' price was rising, the company made false statements that shielded the risk associated with its sale of the EZ-Plus guard rails. On June 9, a federal judge upheld October's jury verdict [in the whistleblower case], and ordered Trinity to pay $663 million. That amount included approximately $200 million to the whistleblower who had brought the case alleging fraud, a former competitor of Trinity's named Joshua Harman. The underlying complaint in the case was that when Trinity made cost-cutting changes to a guardrail design already Okayed by the Federal Highway Administration, it failed to tell the agency of the changes. States have begun looking into the question of whether the new designs have failed to perform as promised. Car crash survivors and victims' families have filed a number of suits alleging the new designs are defective. Trinity has denied it ever defrauded the government and vowed to appeal the judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It recently added to its executive and public relations staff. Trinity won't be the only entity answering questions in the wake of the massive judgment. Harman's $200 million take is roughly three times as high as it would have been, had the FHWA joined his suit against Trinity when he first brought it. Instead, the agency defended the company until just before the trial, and refused to participate in the suit. As a result, more than $100 million of money that would have otherwise gone to the government is slated to go to Harman and his attorneys. Early on, FHWA officials issued a statement, trumpeted at the time by Trinity and now part of the investors' suit, saying that even though Trinity had failed to tell the government of cost-cutting changes it made to the guardrail system, as required by law, the agency was convinced it would have approved the changes had it known about them. As the trial neared, however, and state departments of transportation began asking questions about the safety of the modified guard rails, the FHWA changed its tone. It demanded that Trinity submit the new design to intense testing and began soliciting opinions form state highway leaders nationwide about what they have learned about any connection between the modified guard rails and highway fatalities. The tests were concluded in the winter, and FHWA continues to review the guardrails. Texas Department of Transportation officials had also stuck by Trinity throughout the suit. The guardrails had been designed by the state-funded Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University. TRUECAR INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Share Price Decline ---------------------------------------------------- Doron Levin, writing for The Street, reports that TrueCar Inc., the online vehicle-buying website whose shares have been traded publicly for a little more than a year, is facing a spate of lawsuits from dealers, shareholders and trade organizations. The legal assault is symptomatic of the turmoil in automotive retailing as more and more consumers rely on the Internet -- as opposed to browsing at dealerships -- for shopping information, price discovery and, in some cases, vehicle purchasing. As such, profit margins on vehicle sales have shrunk, and dealers have been forced to adjust. TrueCar shares were priced at $9 a share in mid-May 2014, well below the expected range of $12-$14. Since peaking at near $24 in late 2014, the share price has declined steadily to the current level of about $13. In March, car dealers representing 117 franchises in New York filed a lawsuit accusing True Car of falsely advertising that consumers can buy vehicles without haggling or price negotiations. Some of the dealers formerly cooperated with TrueCar as affiliates. A TrueCar spokesman said the lawsuit, which seeks $250 million in damages, is "without merit." Another lawsuit, filed in California in May by the California New Car Dealers Association, accused TrueCar of acting as a dealer and a broker without the requisite license. The action asked the court to enjoin the company from operating without a license. The company plans to "vigorously" defend itself and expects to be vindicated, a spokesman said. In late May, a class action lawsuit by TrueCar shareholders was filed in federal court in Los Angeles, claiming that the company had misled investors about the way it conducted business by way of false statements about its compliance with the law. As in the other lawsuits, the company vowed to defend itself in the class-action suit by shareholders. "Disruptive technology and business models like Uber, Airbnb, and now TrueCar, have been challenged on many fronts, including legal," said Johnny Stephenson, TrueCar's chief risk officer. TrueCar calls itself a "negotiation free" site for buying vehicles, which lets consumers find out what prices others have paid for vehicles similar to the ones that interest them, based on recent transactions. TrueCar has business relationships with about 11,000 auto dealers nationwide, about a third of the total. After submitting the specifications of a desired vehicle, a shopper may buy a vehicle from a TrueCar dealer at an agreed price; if a sale is completed, the dealer pays TrueCar a commission. Edmunds.com, Kelley Blue Book and other online vehicle-buying sites dispense information about cars, including the market value of specific new and used models. They sell advertising and generate revenue by providing sales leads to dealers derived from visitors to their sites. Mike Jackson, chief executive officer of AutoNation, the biggest publicly owned chain of dealerships, has said that the traditional means of buying vehicles, by shopping at dealerships is ripe for disruption. In Mr. Jackson's view, shoppers should be able to begin researching potential purchases online, visit dealerships to test drive and inspect vehicles -- then complete the transaction online. AutoNation has been rolling out a site for its dealerships called SmartChoice Express. TWIN AMERICA: Faces "Mirabel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Mariano Mirabel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Twin America LLC, Twin America, LLC, d/b/a City Sights NY, Jad Transportation Inc., Janet West and Mark Marmurstein, Case No. 1:15-cv-05086 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 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 double-decker bus, motor-coach sightseeing, transportation and airport transfer company doing business in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Chukwuka Ofodile, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY OFODILE 498 Atlantic Avenue Brooklyn, NY 11217 Telephone: (718) 852-8300 Facsimile: (718) 852-7361 E-mail: acofodile@aol.com TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court to Address Statistical Sampling Issue ---------------------------------------------------------------- John Raffetto of Goodwin Procter LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the United States Supreme Court granted cert in Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") case with potentially wide reaching implications in federal class actions. In Bouaphakeo, plaintiffs alleged that they were entitled to overtime for time spent putting on ("donning") and taking off ("doffing") protective gear required for their jobs. Bouaphakeo, 765 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2014). Tyson added a set amount of time (four minutes) to each employee's daily time to account for donning and doffing. Plaintiffs alleged that Tyson Foods failed to properly account for donning and doffing time, and that plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated employees were undercompensated as a result. Id Buaphakeo presented a number of individualized issues. Employees in different departments -- and even different employees within the same departments -- wore different types of protective gear and spent different amounts of time donning and doffing it. Bouaphakeo, 765 F.3d at 797. Additionally, some employees who were members of the class did not actually work overtime even after accounting for donning and doffing. Id. Seeking to overcome these arguments, the plaintiffs presented statistical evidence regarding the amount of donning and doffing time. They asserted that employees in the "kill department" spent an average of 21 minutes donning and doffing protective equipment, while employees in the "fabrication department" spent 18 minutes. Id. at 797. Further, they alleged that individual damages could be determined by applying the average time spent donning and doffing to individual timecards. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa certified a class under Rule 23(b)(3) and a collective action under the FLSA, and Tyson was ultimately found liable. The Eight Circuit affirmed over a strong dissent by Judge Beam. The Supreme Court granted cert on two questions in Bouaphakeo -- whether putative class plaintiffs may meet their burden under Rule 23(b)(3) by using "statistical techniques that presume all class members are identical to the average observed in a sample," and whether certification is appropriate where members of the putative class have not been injured. Tyson Foods, Inc. Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Case no. 14-1146 at (i). The Court's answers to those questions could have a significant impact on class-action litigants. For instance, those answers may address how many or what types of individualized issues render a case inappropriate for class treatment, the extent to which statistical sampling can be used to demonstrate that a case is appropriate for class treatment, and the impact of including putative class members who have no independent claim to relief. The Supreme Court will hear oral argument during the October 2015 term. UBER TECH: Illegally Obtains Consumer Report, "Nokchan" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Nokchan, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv- 03009-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide the class members with stand- alone written disclosures before obtaining a credit or background report in connection with their hiring process. Uber Technologies Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a transportation network company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shaun Setareh, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. SET AREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (310) 888-01 09 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com tuvia@setarehlaw.com UBER TECH: To Appeal Employee Classification Ruling --------------------------------------------------- Carmel DeAmicis, writing for Recode, reports that the California Labor Commission said an Uber driver should be considered an employee and not an independent contractor, as Uber claims. While that seems like a big deal, the decision doesn't apply to all Uber drivers in the state. The Labor Commission isn't part of the court system, so it can't set a binding precedent. Uber has appealed its judgment, so the case is going to the Superior Court -- California's lowest court. Contrary to some of the breathless coverage, this is a minor ruling that applies to only one person, but it could become more broadly applied if Uber continues to appeal. That's important because a large part of Uber's value (maybe it's only true value) hinges on the fact that it doesn't employ its drivers -- that means no payroll taxes, benefits costs or insurance. If it had to treat drivers as employees, that would severely cut into its profits or result in massive losses. It would also have an impact on the broader on-demand startup world, e.g., Lyft, Handy, Homejoy, Postmates, DoorDash, etc. Here's an FAQ breaking down how Uber could ultimately lose this battle. The information comes from speaking with Don Polden, an employment law professor at Santa Clara University, and Shannon Liss-Riordan, the Boston-based lawyer representing Lyft and Uber drivers in two class-action lawsuits. The legal system is complicated and fragmented, so it will be tough to get to a concrete ruling, either national or state wide, on Uber's driver classification. What happens if the Superior Court rules against Uber? Does that set a precedent for all its California drivers? "No. But the decision could be used as a non-binding precedent in future cases, meaning judges in other courts could rely on it or ignore it when similar cases cross their desk. If Uber appeals the Superior Court ruling, the case will go up to the Court of Appeal. And if the Court of Appeal says this driver is an employee, then every court in California would be required to rely on that decision? "No. But other courts in that Court of Appeal's jurisdiction would be required to use it when judging future cases involving Uber driver classification. The jurisdiction covers twelve Northern California counties like Alameda, San Mateo and Humboldt. Why would Uber appeal at all then? Why not pay the $4,000 and let the case die in the lower courts with less of an impact? "Other courts and hearing officers might choose to consult the Labor Commission's opinion if it's not knocked down, and use it to inform their decisions. Uber wants to stop that in its tracks. Furthermore, employers tend to want to get ahead of an issue like this so they can structure the business in a stable way. Okay, so is there any decision about Uber's driver classification that would be binding precedent for the entire state? "If the state Supreme Court ruled that a driver is an employee. So if Uber just keeps appealing this up through the court system, then eventually we could get an entire state precedent? "Not exactly. The state Supreme Court can pick and choose what cases it wants to hear. If the case makes it to the appeals court and the Supreme Court thinks that the appeals court did a good enough job making a decision, then it would probably leave the case alone. Does that mean there will continue to be these one-off court cases here and there across California that don't add up to anything definitive? "Well, a pile of cases might eventually make the Supreme Court decide it's an important enough issue to tackle. And if the Supreme Court took on the issue and ruled that Uber drivers were employees, that would be a binding precedent for all courts in California. How would that ruling be enforced? Couldn't Uber just ignore it, since Uber has a habit of ignoring government bodies? "It would be fined by the government for ignoring the ruling. It would also open itself up to more lawsuits that it would likely lose. If it refused to pay these penalties, at some point Uber's assets could be seized, although it's highly unlikely it would get to that point. Not many companies ignore court judgments. But if Uber wins any of these rulings, is that it? End of story? "No. There are separate class-action suits in the federal court system now that could more directly affect Uber and how it classifies its employees. UBER TECH: Labor Commissioner Ruling to Impact "Sharing Economy" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Waters and Tim Bradshaw, writing for Financial Review, report that a tremor passed through the foundations of the "sharing economy" after it emerged that ride-hailing app Uber had lost a case before California's Labor Commissioner. For the venture capitalists who have rushed to back them, a big attraction of such companies has been their ability to act as simple middlemen in a market that matches people looking to buy a service with others who are providing it. But the Labor Commissioner in Uber's home state had other ideas. In a case involving a single driver seeking reimbursement of expenses, it ruled that the company should have taken on the full responsibilities of an employer. The ruling highlighted a potential Achilles heel in the approach of the internet companies which have sought to become marketplaces for independent contractors. From delivery start-ups such as Instacart to odd-job service TaskRabbit, they have pitched themselves as simple internet platforms, taking a slice of the transactions they help arrange. If Uber were forced to grant full employee status to the burgeoning army of freelance workers who look to its mobile app for work, the higher costs would put a dent in one of the consumer internet's most profitable new business models. It could also alter the pay and job security prospects of millions of workers. Their ranks could be significant: 10 years from now, 200 million unemployed or part-time workers are likely to be making extra cash by taking piecemeal work through online services like this, according to McKinsey, the professional services firm. Uber sought to brush off the decision as an isolated case that would not have any standing as a precedent in the California legal system. It also pointed out that decisions in five similar cases elsewhere had gone in its favor -- though it lost a sixth, in Florida. Labour law experts said it would not be so easy to distance itself from the consequences of the decision. Jonathan Handel, a lecturer at USC Gould law school, said the company's reaction was "a little bit like whistling past the graveyard". The decision "doesn't set a precedent that binds the courts, but it does indicate the way the Labor Commissioner would go if it received further cases from Uber drivers". Steve King of Emergent Research, a consulting firm focused on businesses that employ independent workers and freelancers, said the case would also embolden regulators. The decision set a potentially ominous mark ahead of two class action cases against Uber and Lyft, a rival ride-sharing company, also in California. The views of people joining the juries in those forthcoming trials would be shaped by this case, he said. The case highlighted a fundamental dilemma for internet companies built on the booming freelance sector. Establishing some level of control over the workers who use their platforms is often essential to ensuring a consistent level of service. But the further they go the more they lay themselves open to being forced to accept the full responsibilities of employers. For the California Labor Commissioner, Uber's control of pricing, tipping, driver ratings and the type of car made it look like an employer. Some have already decided that the legal risks are too high. Hello Alfred, a start-up whose workers provide personal services, turned its contractors into full employees last year. The stakes have been becoming steadily higher. Shortly before news of the California case, it emerged that Uber was looking to raise another round of funding that could value it at more than $US50 billion ($64 billion). "I'd be nervous if I was one of the last investors in," Mr. King said, referring to an investment round earlier this year. UNION PACIFIC: Sued Over Dispute on Pipelines Along Rail Lines -------------------------------------------------------------- Union Pacific Railroad sold rights to 1,871 miles of oil pipelines along rail lines in six states -- but the rights aren't the railroad's to sell, landowners say in a federal class action, reports Victoria Prieskop at Courthouse News Service. Lead plaintiffs Ernest and Hazel Terry sued Union Pacific and Kinder Morgan and its affiliated pipeline companies on June 12. They claim that though right-of-way laws allow a railroad to run a line across government land or by private landowner grant, the easements do not allow railroads to use land under the tracks except for purposes directly related to the railroad. But the Terrys say Union Pacific has charged SFPP (fka Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines) and Kinder Morgan millions of dollars in rent for 1,871 miles of pipeline through California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Oregon under the railroad's right-of-way. The lawsuit traces the fight back to the 1850s, when Congress gave enormous tracts of land to rail companies to encourage them to build transcontinental railroads. The plaintiffs claim these grants were "mere easements" that "created no right of possession in the subsurface." President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railroad Act into law in July 1862. More congressional rail acts followed, in 1871, 1875 and thereafter. Even more lawsuits followed, between landowners, states, the federal government and the railroads. By the 1950s, the railroad and the pipeline companies at issue were sister subsidiaries of Southern Pacific Corp. Citing decades of court rulings and federal legislation, the present lawsuit claims that the companies were granting and accepting subsurface easements they did not own. Corporate mergers and sales broke up the sister subsidiaries, and in 1991 the railroad sued the pipeline for higher rent. The pipeline settled by paying $5.5 million and both parties agreed the rent would be recalculated every 10 years based on fair market value, beginning in 1994. Another lawsuit followed that year, and the fair market value was set at $5 million a year, according to the present lawsuit. The next lawsuit came right on schedule, in 2004, by which time the fair market value had risen to $14 million a year, plus $100 million in back rent and interest, the new plaintiffs say. The pipeline appealed that judgment and won -- but actually both it and the railroad lost, the Terry plaintiffs say. "The 2nd District Court of Appeal of California agreed with the Pipeline and issued an opinion finding that, under the Congressional Acts, the Railroad did not have a sufficient interest in the land to collect rent from the Pipeline," according to the complaint. "The court explained that under the Pre-1871 Acts the Railroad could only use the subsurface for railroad purposes -- the pipeline was not for a railroad purpose -- and that under the 1875 Act the Railroad was granted a mere easement of the surface and had no rights to the subsurface. "The opinion specifically noted that the Railroad, in some instances, may have sought and collected rent for the use of property owned by others -- including private landowners." The landowners seek quiet title, back rent, a share of profits, and punitive damages for trespass, unjust enrichment, slander of title and fraudulent concealment of the years of trespass. Their lead attorney is Sara Berger, Esq., in Albuquerque. UNITED POTATO: Settles Price-Fixing Cartel Class Action for $25MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rebecca Boone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a federal judge has signed off on a $25 million settlement in a lawsuit between wholesale grocers and potato farming associations accused of forming a price-fixing cartel. Associated Wholesale Grocers filed the class-action lawsuit in 2010, contending that potato growers in Idaho and elsewhere conspired to raise prices by restricting the number of acres planted and taking other steps to limit production. They said such moves raised the cost of a 10-pound bag of potatoes from about $9 in 2007 to roughly $15 in 2008. The defendants -- including United Potato Growers of America, whose members produce about 75 percent of the potatoes grown in the U.S. -- denied the claims. They said they were simply running an effective cooperative, focused on helping their members navigate the fluctuating potato market, and that their actions were allowed under the 1922 federal Capper-Volstead Act. The law gives a limited exemption from antitrust rules for agricultural cooperatives. The Kansas-based Associated Wholesale Growers, a cooperative of more than 2,600 retail stores in 30 states, contended the potato growing groups strictly enforced their limitations using GPS, satellite imaging and even farmland fly-overs. The massive lawsuit pitted potato farmer against potato buyer, with high stakes on each side. The National Potato Council estimates that roughly 35 pounds of fresh potatoes per person were consumed in the U.S. in 2012. The estimated value of potato sales that year was $3.7 billion. The paperwork in the case was also massive. The documents produced by the defendants alone totaled more than 3.6 million pages, according to court records. Settlement negotiations have frequently stalled over the past five years, but on June 18, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in Idaho gave his preliminary approval to the settlement. Under the settlement, anyone who purchased fresh potatoes from stores in Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont and Wisconsin for end use and not resale in roughly a 10- year timespan will be eligible for part of a $5.5 million pot. Anyone in the U.S. who purchased potatoes directly from the growing groups or their members and subsidiaries will be eligible for a portion of a $19.5 million settlement. The growers groups are also barred from restricting acreage or taking other actions to reduce the number of potatoes grown by members for seven years. An expert for the grocers association estimates the ban will result in potential savings for potato consumers of about $250 million a year, for a total of about $1.75 billion, according to court documents. Associated Wholesale Grocers is still pursuing a separate antitrust lawsuit against United Potato Growers of Idaho. UNITED STATES: Fed Overstep Authority in AIG Bailout, Court Ruled ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Reserve had no authority to demand 80 percent of AIG's equity as a condition of its $85 billion bailout in 2008, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling. "There is no law permitting the Federal Reserve to take over a company and run its business in the commercial world as consideration for a loan," U.S. District Judge Thomas Wheeler said in a 75-page opinion. When the Federal Reserve bailed out American International Group, it took 79.9 percent of the company's equity in exchange for a loan of $85 billion to prevent the company's collapse. AIG had entered into credit default swaps to insure $441 billion worth of securities originally rated AAA. But $57.8 billion of these swaps were back by subprime loans that were unmasked as worthless in the 2008 financial crisis. As a result, AIG's credit rating was downgraded, and it faced a liquidity crisis that would have doomed the company if the Federal Reserve had not acted to save the insurance giant. Over the next three years, AIG required more funds from the government to stay afloat as its losses widened. The government loaned a total of $182.3 billion to the company, which paid back a total of $205 billion by the end of 2012. But former AIG chief executive Maurice Greenberg, who remains major shareholder of the company through his Starr International, filed a shareholder class action claiming that the Federal Reserve overstepped its authority when it demanded equity as a condition for the bailout, and effectively became its majority owner. Wheeler found for Greenberg on June 15, ruling that the Fed's actions constituted an "illegal exaction under the Fifth Amendment." "It is one thing for FRBNY [Federal Reserve Bank of New York] to have made an $85 billion loan to AIG at exorbitant interest rates under Section 13(3), but it is quite another to direct the replacement of AIG's Chief Executive Officer, and to take control of AIG's business operations," the judge wrote. Even so, the judge declined to award Greenberg any damages, because the Fed's actions did not injure shareholders -- rather, the bailout preserved some of their equity, when AIG's alternative was bankruptcy. The former CEO sought at least $40 billion from the government. "The inescapable conclusion is that AIG would have filed for bankruptcy, most likely during the week of September 15-19, 2008. In that event, the value of the shareholders common stock would have been zero," Wheeler said. "By loaning AIG $85 billion under the September 22, 2008 Credit Agreement, the government significantly enhanced the value of the AIG shareholders' stock." So even if the Fed's actions were illegal, the government did not cause shareholders any economic loss, the court concluded. After all, "[twenty] percent of something [is] better than [100] percent of nothing," the court said quoting government witness John Studzinski. In a statement, the Federal Reserve said it "strongly believes that its actions in the A.I.G. rescue during the height of the financial crisis in 2008 were legal, proper and effective." "The court's decision today in Starr International Company, Inc. v. the United States recognizes that A.I.G.'s shareholders are not entitled to compensation for that decision, and that the Federal Reserve's extension of credit to A.I.G. prevented losses to millions of policyholders, small businesses and American workers who would have been harmed by A.I.G.'s collapse during the financial crisis," the statement continued. Wheeler's ruling holds no immediate policy repercussions, as the Dodd-Frank Act, passed in 2010, now prohibits the federal government from bailing out a swaps entity such as AIG in the future. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Boies, Esq. Robert B. Silver, Esq. Robert J. Dwyer, Esq. Alanna C. Rutherford, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Abby Dennis, Esq. Julia C. Hamilton, Esq. Laura Harris, Esq. Ilana Miller, Esq. John Nicolaou, Esq. Matthew R. Shahabian, Esq. David L. Simons, Esq. Craig Wenner, Esq. William Bloom, Esq. James A. Kraehenbuehl, Esq. BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, NY 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com rdwyer@bsfllp.com arutherford@bsfllp.com amauser@bsfllp.com adennis@bsfllp.com jchamilton@bsfllp.com lharris@bsfllp.com imiller@bsfllp.com jnicolaou@bsfllp.com mshahabian@bsfllp.com dsimons@bsfllp.com cwenner@bsfllp.com wbloom@bsfllp.com jkraehenbuehl@bsfllp.com - and - John L. Gardiner, Esq. R. Ryan Stoll, Esq. Gregory Bailey, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 4 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 735-3000 Facsimile: (212) 735-2000 E-mail: john.gardiner@skadden.com ryan.stoll@skadden.com gregory.bailey@skadden.com The Defendant is represented by: Brian A. Mizoguchi, Esq., Assistant Director Benjamin C. Mizer, Esq., Acting Asst. Attorney General Robert E. Kirschman, Esq., Jr., Director Kenneth M. Dintzer, Esq., Deputy Director Scott D. Austin, Esq., Assistant Director Claudia Burke, Esq., Assistant Director Joshua E. Gardner, Esq., Assistant Director John Roberson, Esq., Senior Trial Counsel John J. Todor, Esq., Senior Trial Counsel Renee Gerber, Esq., Trial Attorney Matthew F. Scarlato, Esq., Trial Attorney Mariana T. Acevedo, Esq., Trial Attorney David D'Alessandris, Esq., Trial Attorney Vincent D. Phillips, Esq., Trial Attorney Zachary J. Sullivan, Esq., Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 The case is Starr International Company, Inc., in its own right and on behalf of two classes of others similarly situated v. The United States, Case No. 11-779C, in the United States Court of Federal Claims. UNITED STATES: OPM Sued Over Alleged Cyber-Breach ------------------------------------------------- American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Robert Crawford, and Adam Dale, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. United States Office of Personnel Management, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01015 (D.D.C., June 29, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the cyber-breach of OPM's systems that compromised the security of up to 18 million federal applicants' personnel and security files. United States Office of Personnel Management is a U.S. agency with headquarters at 1900 E. Street, NW, Washington, DC 20415. OPM handles many aspects of the federal employee recruitment process, including managing federal job announcements, conducting background investigations and security clearances, overseeing federal merit systems, managing personal retirement and health benefits, providing training and development programs, and developing government personnel policies. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Ste. 605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com - and - Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Christopher K. Hikida, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dcg@GirardGibbs.com aep@girardgibbs.com ckh@girardgibbs.com UNITED STATES: Doesn't Accept Liability for OPM Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Cory Bennett, writing for The Hill, reports that the government is distancing itself from legal culpability in a letter being sent to the millions of people affected by a massive government data breach. When initially revealing the hack, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) said it would offer 18 months of free identity theft monitoring services. But in its letter to federal workers whose data is considered at risk, the OPM included some clarifying sentences. "These services are offered as a convenience to you," said the letter, signed by OPM Chief Information Officer Donna Seymour. "However, nothing in this letter should be construed as OPM or the U.S. Government accepting liability for any of the matters covered by this letter or for any other purpose." This type of language echoes recent breach-notification letters sent out by most major private sector companies that have been hacked over the last year, said Adam Levin, chairman of identity security firm IDT911. "More and more," he said, "it's becoming standard." However, the government's wording does stand out, Levin added. "I've never heard that one before." On its face, the statements appear to be protection from employee lawsuits, experts said. In the wake of major data breaches on companies like Target and Sony, firms have had to weather numerous class-action lawsuits that cost the companies tens of millions of dollars in legal fees and payouts. But legal specialists point out that it's not as easy to bring a case against the government. In many instances, the government enjoys "sovereign immunity," meaning it cannot face civil suits or prosecution over most subjects, several people said. Essentially, you cannot sue the government unless it says you can. However, there are consumer protections written into law that enable individuals to file suit against the government for neglect. The Federal Tort Claims Act allows people to sue federal employees for negligence within the scope of their jobs. According to the Justice Department, people can sue for "property damage, personal injury, or death allegedly caused by a federal employee's negligence or wrongful act." That could apply to the OPM breach, Mr. Levin said. "They have your information. They have a fiduciary responsibility to protect that information," he explained. But as has been the case in past data-breach civil suits, it can be difficult to prove victims have suffered damage, Mr. Levin added. And in the case of the OPM breach, the pilfered data hasn't yet shown up on dark Web forums, significantly reducing the risk of quantifiable fraud. Chinese hackers are believed to have taken the data for intelligence purposes. Others have pointed to The Privacy Act of 1974, which requires the federal government to protect information it collects, providing some path for litigation if an agency fails to do so. The law doesn't specifically address cyberattacks, though. Still, the OPM has been lambasted for failing to heed the warnings of its inspector general that its systems were not secure and needed to be shut down, which some might consider a violation of the Privacy Act. The agency has defended itself, saying it was worried that shutting down those systems would mean a lapse in retirement benefits, employee benefits and worker paychecks. "The intrusions into OPM's systems were criminal acts committed by unknown adversaries for criminal purposes," OPM spokesman Samuel Schumach said in a statement. "As a result, we have done and continue to do everything possible to protect the security of OPM systems and the records contained in those systems. We will also continue to contact those who may have been affected, and to offer credit monitoring." UNITED STATES: GLAD Files Preliminary Injunction Against SSA ------------------------------------------------------------ The Rainbow Times reports that Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), Justice in Aging, and Foley Hoag LLP filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the Social Security Administration (SSA) on June 17. As the country awaits an historic Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodgesthat could bring marriage equality to all states, same-sex couples who are already married and living in poverty have faced extreme financial hardship because of discriminatory actions by the Social Security Administration. The parties seek to permanently stop SSA from withholding or otherwise pursuing funds from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients whose same-sex marriages the agency failed to recognize after the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The filing is the next step in Held v. Colvin, a class action lawsuit filed on March 10, 2015. Well after June 2013, SSA did not recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, even in cases where SSI recipients informed SSA that they were married. SSA continued to issue benefits as if the married individuals were single. This resulted in higher payments than they would have received if their marriage were taken into account. SSA has been demanding that recipients refund the benefits they were paid as a result of the discrimination. After the filing of Held, SSA issued an emergency directive instructing field SSI employees to put a stop to the practice going forward, but the solution is temporary. "The agency's directive was welcome, but inadequate," said Gerald McIntyre, Directing Attorney for Justice in Aging. "Though SSA appears to recognize that its actions have been harmful, it continues to hold the threat of future overpayment notices over an entire class." GLAD, Justice in Aging and Foley Hoag LLP are representing Kelley Richardson-Wright of Athol, Massachusetts, who is married to Kena Richardson-Wright; and Hugh Held of Los Angeles, who is married to Orion Masters. Both Ms. Richardson-Wright and Mr. Held have been subject to extreme financial harm as a result of SSA's discrimination. "The emergency action doesn't do anything to help people who have already received a notice of overpayment, or for those from whom SSA is withholding money from already small checks," said Vickie Henry, Senior Staff Attorney for GLAD. "Until the Social Security Administration waives overpayments or the courts order that they waive overpayments, the action only delays the date of reckoning and if anything allows harm and uncertainty to mount." Also, on June 16 plaintiffs also filed a motion for class certification. According to SSA's most recent statistical snapshot, 8.3 million people were receiving SSI benefits as of April 2015. Given that an estimated 3.5% of the population is lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and that the poverty rate in that community is higher than average, there are likely to be as many as a thousand putative class members. "Given the nature of this class -- elderly or disabled people living below the poverty level and scattered across the country- the likelihood of them having the means to file individual lawsuits is low," said Mr. McIntyre. The motions, which were filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, along with the complaint, can be read at www.glad.org/SSI In addition to attorneys Henry and McIntyre, the plaintiffs are being represented by Mary L. Bonauto of GLAD, Denny Chan and Anna Rich of Justice in Aging, and Claire Laporte, Marco Quina, Catherine Deneke, and Stephen T. Bychowski of the law firm Foley Hoag, LLP. Foley Hoag previously partnered with GLAD on its challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act. UNITED STATES: Eastern Kentucky Lacks Lawyers to Handle SSA Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ryland Barton, writing for WKMS, reports that Eastern Kentucky doesn't have enough lawyers to represent Social Security recipients who have been notified that their payments will be discontinued, according to attorneys in the region. Last month, the Social Security Administration sent suspension notices to 900 disability benefits recipients and 600 Supplemental Security Income recipients who had been clients of Eric Conn, an Eastern Kentucky attorney who has been under investigation for filing fraudulent disability claims. Benefits were restored on June 4 after a class-action lawsuit was filed against the SSA. Disability recipients were given 30 days to come up with medical records to prove their disability at the time they filed for benefits. Prestonsburg attorney Ned Pillersdorf said the agency's threat to take away benefits from all recipients at once led to a glut of people seeking legal services. "The problem is if they go with their plans to take away benefits from the 1,500 people, we have basically a representational crisis -- how do we get lawyers for all these folks?" said Mr. Pillersdorf, who filed the class action lawsuit against the SSA and another class action lawsuit against Conn. The Social Security Administration will hold individual hearings for all 1,500 recipients to determine if they are eligible for benefits. The Appalachian Research and Development Fund, or AppalReD, provides free legal aid to eastern Kentuckians. Lately, the fund has been trying to recruit pro bono lawyers to represent recipients. Most social security recipients can't afford a lawyer and there aren't many other organizations providing free legal services to recipients, AppalRed director Robert Johns said. "To have hundreds of additional people seeking services on one particularly issue is overwhelming for an organization like ours," Mr. Johns said. "We simply don't have the supply internally to meet, so we're looking outside our program so this is a very unusual set of circumstances that does not happen that often," Mr. Johns said. Mr. Johns said his non-profit has already screened about 400 clients, but will only be able to handle between 100 and 200. He says the organization will have to train pro bono lawyers in Social Security law, which relatively few Kentucky lawyers practice. A 2013 U.S. Senate investigation alleged that Conn used fraudulent information from four Eastern Kentucky doctors and shuttled claims to an SSA administrative law judge who gave rubber stamp approval to nearly all of Conn's claims. Conn has denied any wrongdoing. URANIUM ENERGY: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Heather M. Stephens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uranium Energy Corp., Amir Adnani, and Mark A. Katsumata, Case No. 4:15-cv-01862 (S.D. Tex., June 29, 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. Uranium Energy Corp. engages in the exploration, extraction, and processing of uranium concentrates on projects located in the United States and the Republic of Paraguay. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sammy Ford IV, Esq. ABRAHAM WATKINS NICHOLS SORRELS AGOSTO & FRIEND 800 Commerce St Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-7211 Facsimile: (713) 225-0827 E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. C. Dov Berger, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 US BANK: RMBS Investors File Class Action in New York ----------------------------------------------------- Daniel Siegal, Jessica Corso and Stephanie Russell-Kraft, writing for Law360, report that BlackRock Inc. and dozens of other investors filed a proposed class action in New York state court on June 19 alleging U.S Bank NA failed to properly oversee $743 billion in residential mortgage-backed security trusts under its purview, after the claims were tossed from federal court. In May, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest nixed a suit brought by BlackRock, Pacific Investment Management Co. LLC, TIAA- CREF Life Insurance Co. and dozens of other investors that bought into 843 trusts controlled by U.S. Bank. Judge Forrest ruled that the bulk of those trusts fell under state law, following a Second Circuit ruling in December. On June 19, BlackRock, PIMCO and the dozens of other investors brought to state court their claims that U.S. Bank failed in its duties as trustee of 794 private-label RMBS trusts securitized between 2004 and 2007 and worth roughly $743.8 billion at the time of securitization. "With this suit, plaintiffs re-file the claims relating to the trusts previously asserted against U.S. Bank in the initial state court action and the federal action," the complaint says. "U.S. Bank failed to discharge its duties and obligations to the trusts. Instead, to protect its own business interests, U.S. Bank ignored pervasive and systemic deficiencies in the underlying loan pools and the servicing of those loans and unreasonably refused to take any action." The suit seeks to recover "billions of dollars in damages" caused by an "abdication of responsibility." The Second Circuit's ruling in December determined that trusts governed by pooling and servicing agreements weren't covered by the federal Trust Indenture Act of 1939. Of the 843 trusts pinpointed by the BlackRock suit, 810 were governed pursuant to PSAs, and Judge Forrest said she saw no reason for dragging them into the suit simply because the remaining 33 trusts were governed by federal law. BlackRock, PIMCO and the other investors filed suit in New York state court in June 2014, then dismissed that suit voluntarily when they filed suit in New York federal court in November. Both suits saw the investors seeking to recover from U.S. Bank for what they said was shoddy oversight over the RMBSs included in trusts under its control. In a similar suit brought by BlackRock and other investors in New York federal court against HSBC Holdings PLC, however, U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in March ruled that the federal court can extend supplemental jurisdiction to the investors' state law claims arising out of the PSA trusts. Brought in June 2014, BlackRock's suit alleges HSBC knew the bonds it oversaw contained faulty loans because it saw evidence of widespread abuse by the loans' originators and substandard bond deals created by issuers. The suit was filed alongside five others against units of Deutsche Bank, U.S. Bancorp, Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Bank of New York Mellon Corp. In total, BlackRock sought damages for losses in more than 2,200 bonds issued between 2004 and 2008. Earlier this month, Judge Scheindlin rejected HSBC's motion to dismiss that case, ruling that the plaintiffs had so far met their burden of proof. The plaintiffs are represented by Jeroen Van Kwawegen -- jeroen@blbglaw.com -- Jai Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com -- Blair A. Nicholas, Timothy A. Delange, Benjamin Galdston, David R. Kaplan and Lucas E. Gilmore -- Lucas.Gilmore@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP. The case is BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al. v. U.S. Bank NA, case number not yet available on June 19, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Anglin, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v. Vitel Communications LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02318-LMM (N.D. Ga., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Vitel Communications LLC is a foreign corporation that provides cable installation business in DeKalb County, Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. P.O. Box 4979 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com VIVUS INC: 9th Cir. Rejected Petition in Securities Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vivus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Ninth Circuit has rejected a petition in a securities related class action. The Company, a current officer and a former officer were defendants in a putative class action captioned Kovtun v. VIVUS, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The action, filed in November 2010, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on allegedly false or misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with the Company's clinical trials and New Drug Application, or NDA, for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. The Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss both plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action Complaint; by order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal was with prejudice and final judgment was entered for defendants the same day. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following briefing of the appeal, the Court of Appeals held oral argument on January 16, 2015. On January 29, 2015, the Court of Appeals issued a Memorandum decision affirming the District Court's ruling. On February 12, 2015, plaintiff asked the Court of Appeals' panel to rehear the case or for the Court to rehear the case en banc. The Ninth Circuit rejected that petition on March 16, 2015. W.W. GRANGER: Obtains Final Approval of Stovall-Gusman Suit Deal ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., granted final approval of a settlement resolving the case captioned MARITZA STOVALL-GUSMAN, Plaintiff, v. W.W. GRANGER, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-02540- HSG, (N.D. Cal.). The Court approved the Gross Settlement Amount of $715,000.00 including payments of: attorneys' fees in the amount of $178,750.00; costs in the amount of $2,509.00; mediation costs in the amount of $9,250.00 (not to be deducted from gross settlement amount of $715,000.00); claims administration fees in the amount of $14,605.00; and a sum of $5,000 to be given to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA). A copy of the June 17, 2015 ruling is available at http://bit.ly/1dChpJFfrom leagle.com. Maritza Stovall-Gusman, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff, represented by Hunter Pyle -- hpyle@ssrplaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas & Pyle, J.D. Henderson -- JD@falveylaw.com -- Law Offices of J.D. Henderson, Mana Barari -- mbarari@ssrplaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas and Pyle, Michael Hagop Boyamian -- mike.falveylaw@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey & Thomas Walker Falvey -- thomaswfalvey@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey. W.W. Granger, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas J. Farmer -- doug.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Christopher M. Ahearn -- christopher.ahearn@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Henry Francis Galatz, W.W. Grainger Inc. WAL-MART STORES: Court Grants Partial Judgment in Sex Bias Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that after 14 years, an employee discrimination case against Wal-Mart "lives on to fight another day," a federal judge ruled, granting Wal-Mart only partial summary judgment. Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Edith Arana, Deborah Gunter and Christine Kwapnoski sued Wal-Mart in 2001 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, claiming the world's largest retailer has a "pattern and practice of gender discrimination in compensation and promotion," and that its policies "had a disparate impact not justified by business necessity on its female employees." Those quotes are from the Oct. 27, 2011, fourth amended complaint. The San Francisco Federal Court and California Supreme Court denied class certification, leaving individual Title VII claims brought by Surgeson, Arana and Gunter, according to Wal-Mart's April 2015 motion for summary judgment. That document claims that "After more than 13 years of litigation, each of these three plaintiffs now must support her claim against Wal-Mart with specific evidence of unlawful activity. But there is no such evidence." Wal-Mart argued that many of the allegations are time-barred, barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies and because they fail to show discrimination. It claimed that Surgeson's claims fail because she offered no evidence that Wal-Mart's actions "had anything to do with her sex." "Her promotion allegations fail because the only hourly positions she identifies were awarded to female employees, and because she did not apply to and was not qualified for the Manager-in-Training program," Wal-Mart argued. "Her pay allegations fail because she cannot identify a similarly situated male who was paid more. Her retaliation allegations fail because they are procedurally defective and lack merit." Wal-Mart made similar arguments regarding Arana and Gunter. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer on June 10 found that some of the plaintiffs' claims are time-barred because they are not protected by the "piggyback rule" allowing them to ride on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge filed by a former plaintiff in the case, Stephanie Odle. Breyer ruled that the plaintiffs' pre-Dec. 26, 1998 allegations "fall outside the 300-day range of Odle's Oct. 2, 1999 EEOC charge, and therefore are time barred." Surgeson's retaliation claim is also time-barred, in part, because she "did not allege retaliation in her EEOC complaint even under the most liberal reading, and thus did not administratively exhaust her claim" and she did not "respond to Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment on any retaliation claims and thus can be deemed to have waived any objections." Breyer granted summary judgment on Arana's race and pay claims. and Gunter's pay and hostile work environment claims. "As to every other argument by Wal-Mart in its motions for summary judgment, the court carefully considered the factual and legal bases advanced in support thereof and found them lacking," Breyer concluded. "This case, 14 years and counting, lives to fight another day." The case is Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:01-cv-02252-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. WAL-MART STORES: Settles Action Over All-Natural Cornstarch Label ----------------------------------------------------------------- Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit has been settled with Walmart over the labeling of one of its cornstarch products, the law firm DLA Piper LLP recently announced. The proposed settlement means those who purchased the Walmart brand Great Value All-Natural Cornstarch could be eligible for a cash refund. The lawsuit claimed Walmart mislabeled the cornstarch as "All-Natural," and the label misled customers into buying the product. The suit claimed the cornstarch actually contained genetically modified organisms. The Karlin Foods Corp., which was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, has denied any wrongdoing, and stated there are no state or federal regulations that prohibit products that contain genetically modified organisms from being labeled as "all-natural." Those who purchased the cornstarch product could be eligible for a $1 refund per purchased product, up to $2 without proof of purchase and up to $8 with a proof of purchase. Refunds are only eligible for those who purchased the cornstarch within the class period, which begins on Aug. 22, 2010, up until the present. There is $825,000 in the settlement fund. While a federal court authorized notifying potential class members, the court will still need to schedule a hearing to decide whether or not to approve the settlement with Walmart. WATTS WATER: Defending Against "Meyers, "Ponzo" & "Sharp" Actions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that in November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of water heater connectors. The complaints seek among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. WATTS WATER: Defendant in "Klug" Class Action --------------------------------------------- Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that in February 2015, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible loss for the above matters in which damages have not been specified because: (i) the proceedings are in the early stages; (ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being certified or the ultimate size of the class; (iii) there is uncertainty as to the resolution of certain legal and procedural motions; (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved; and (v) there are novel legal issues presented. WELLS FARGO: "Ponce de Leon Case" Dismissed in Its Entirety ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge S. James Otero dismissed in its entirety the case captioned MICHAELINE PONCE DE LEON, and MICHELLE KATRENICH, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, a National Association with its principal place of business in the State of California, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-02593-SJO (VBKX), (C.D. Cal.). The individual claims of Plaintiffs Michaeline Ponce de Leon and Michelle Katrenich are dismissed with prejudice, and the class action claims are dismissed without prejudice. Each party will bear her/its own costs and attorneys' fees. A copy of the Court's June 17, 2015 hearing is available at http://bit.ly/1IRqveafrom leagle.com. GLENN L. BRIGGS -- gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com -- THERESA A. KADING -- tkading@kadingbriggs.com -- ELLEN C. COHEN -- cohen@kadingbriggs.com -- KADING BRIGGS LLP, Irvine, California, Attorneys for Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. WELLS FARGO: 11th Cir. Vacated Order in "Order of Posting" Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Eleventh Circuit has vacated an order in the Order of Posting Litigation based on the District Court's lack of jurisdiction until class certification has been determined, and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. A series of putative class actions have been filed against Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many other banks, challenging the high to low order in which the banks post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. There are currently several such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank (including the Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo succeeded), most of which have been consolidated in multi-district litigation proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The bank defendants moved to compel these cases to arbitration under Supreme Court authority. On November 22, 2011, the Judge denied the motion. The bank defendants appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. On October 26, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion. Wells Fargo renewed its motion to compel arbitration with respect to the unnamed putative class members. On April 8, 2013, the District Court denied the motion and Wells Fargo appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit. On February 10, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the order based on the District Court's lack of jurisdiction until class certification has been determined, and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings. WELLS FARGO: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed -------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company has filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court related to a class action lawsuit appeal, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015. On August 10, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a case that was not consolidated in the multi-district proceedings, enjoining the bank's use of the high to low posting method for debit card transactions with respect to the plaintiff class of California depositors, directing the bank to establish a different posting methodology and ordering remediation of approximately $203 million. On October 26, 2010, a final judgment was entered in Gutierrez. On October 28, 2010, Wells Fargo appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On December 26, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order requiring Wells Fargo to change its order of posting and vacated the portion of the order granting remediation of approximately $203 million on the grounds of federal preemption. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that Wells Fargo violated a California state law prohibition on fraudulent representations and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On August 5, 2013, the District Court entered a judgment against Wells Fargo in the approximate amount of $203 million, together with post-judgment interest thereon from October 25, 2010, and, effective as of July 15, 2013, enjoined Wells Fargo from making or disseminating additional misrepresentations about its order of posting of transactions. On August 7, 2013, Wells Fargo appealed the judgment to the Ninth Circuit. On October 29, 2014, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment against Wells Fargo for approximately $203 million, but limited the injunction to debit card transactions. Wells Fargo filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on April 10, 2015. WELLS FARGO: Trial This Year for Pending Securities Lending Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that remaining securities lending cases expected to go to trial in 2015. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. was involved in four separate actions brought by securities lending customers of Wells Fargo and Wachovia Bank in various courts. In general, each of the cases alleges losses based on claims that Wells Fargo violated fiduciary and contractual duties in its investment of collateral for loaned securities. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota, et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. resulted in verdicts dismissing the claims against Wells Fargo. Plaintiffs have appealed the verdicts. Wells Fargo has resolved one of the other cases and the remaining cases are expected to go to trial in 2015. WEST AFRICA EXAMINATION: Kofi Adams to Lead BECE Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------- GhanaWeb reports that National Organizer of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) has promised to lead the campaign to sue the West Africa Examination Council [WAEC] for cancelling five papers in the ongoing Basic Education Certificate Examination (BECE). Kofi Adams who described the situation as unfortunate called for a thorough investigations into the issue, starting with officials of WAEC. "I also have my wards that have been seriously affected by this cancellation. I find it hard to understand how their systems work. Officials of WAEC need to be questioned because I believe they are the masterminds," he said on Accra-based Okay FM on June 18. WAEC cancelled five papers in the ongoing examination due to leakage of the papers. In a statement signed by the deputy director of public affairs Agnes Teye Cudjoe on June 17, WAEC is disappointed in the leakage of the Mathematics, Integrated science, Social Studies and English papers on social media platforms including Facebook and WhatsApp. But Kofi Adams believes the cancellation will not only affect the candidates but the parents as well therefore called on parents who are planning to sue WAEC to do so to prevent a recur. "I will lead a crusade to make sure they face the law. Why should they be so mean to students who have toiled so hard to learn? It is so frustrating" he noted. YAMAHA GOLF: Recalls Golf Cars and PTVs Due to Crash Hazard ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Yamaha Golf Car Company, of Newnan, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of about 2,000 Yamaha Golf Cars and Personal Transportation Vehicles (PTV). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The front wheel hubs on the golf cars and PTVs can crack causing the front wheels to detach, posing a crash hazard that could result in injury or death to the user or bystander. This recall involves five 2015 and one 2016 model-year golf cars and PTVs. Recalled models include 2015 "The DRIVE PTV", "The DRIVE EFI", "Adventurer One", "The DRIVE", "The DRIVE Electric" and 2016 "The DRIVE A.C." The Yamaha logo is printed on the front of the vehicle. The vehicles were sold in various colors including blue, green, red, white, tan and silver. The serial number can be found on a label under the driver's seat on the left or right side. Model Names Model Numbers Serial Numbers ----------- ------------- -------------- The DRIVE PTV YDRAX5 PTV JC0-606306 through 606698 The DRIVE EFI YDRAX5F JC2-209964 through 210300 Adventurer One YTF1AX5F JW6-700581 through 700600 The DRIVE YDRAX5 JW8-513800 through 514310 The DRIVE Electric YDREX6 AC JW9-515401 through 516300 2016 Model The DRIVE A.C. YDREX6 AC JC3-001701 through 001900 No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/G8k4Ls The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Yamaha Golf Car dealers nationwide from April 2015 through June 2015 for between $5,900 and $7,500. Yamaha is contacting all registered owners directly. Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled Golf Cars and PTVs and contact their local Yamaha Golf Car dealer to schedule a free repair. YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls SRViper Snowmobiles Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., of Cypress, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 200 Yamaha SRViper snowmobiles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The brake line and its components can come in contact with the clutch causing the brakes to fail, posing a risk of injury or death. This recall involves the 2015 SRViper L-TX (Model name SR10LSFO) and the 2015 SRViper M-TX 162 LE (Model name SR10M62LFO) snowmobiles. The recalled snowmobiles are blue and orange. The model name is on the left and right side of the fuel tank cowling. SRViper and Yamaha are printed on the side of the snowmobiles. The vehicle identification number (VIN) is stamped on the frame (tunnel) near the right foot well. The letter F in the 10th position of the VIN indicates that the unit was made in the 2015 model year. No consumer incidents have been reported. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/QISdmF The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold at Yamaha snowmobile dealers nationwide from February 2015 through April 2015 for between $13,000 and $14,100. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled snowmobiles and contact their local Yamaha dealer to schedule a free repair. Yamaha is contacting all registered owners directly. ZEEKREWARDS.COM: Ponzi Scheme Victims to Get Check in August ------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that most victims of the ZeekRewards.com Ponzi scheme who are qualified for reimbursement will get another check in early August. Kenneth Bell, receiver of the defunct Lexington company, said on June 19 the distribution amounts will vary by recipient. He did not say how much is being paid out beginning July 31. However, Mr. Bell said the average recipient should be at or near the 60 percent reimbursement mark of verified losses upon receiving the next check. In August 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Rex Venture Group LLC, Zeekler, ZeekRewards.com and Paul Burks, their principal owner, of raising $850 million through unregistered securities. The companies were shut down and their assets frozen. The companies raised the money from at least 2.2 million customers, including more than 230,000 in the United States and 47,000 in North Carolina. Mr. Burks had pleaded not guilty on federal charges of wire and mail fraud conspiracy, wire and mail fraud, and tax fraud conspiracy. He was indicted in October 2014 by a federal grand jury. His trial date has been set for May 2016. Mr. Bell has recovered $336.3 million in assets and had $324.1 million in available assets after paying administrative and other costs. He has paid a combined $157 million from distribution rounds done in September and January. He said up to another $134 million is available for dispersal if all potential recipients complete their eligibility requirements. Mr. Bell cautioned the upcoming distribution could be the last for some time. "We are in negotiations or litigation with financial services firms to recover tens of millions of dollars for affiliates," Mr. Bell said in a statement on www.zeekrewardsreceivership.com. "The litigation against U.S and foreign net winners -- those who took more money out of the scheme than they put in -- is progressing. I remain confident that we will succeed in all of these efforts." Mr. Bell has defined net winners as those who had a net gain of at least $1,000 from the Ponzi scheme. He said the largest net winners each received more than $1 million. In February, Mr. Bell gained U.S. District Court permission to certify about 9,400 net winners as defendants in a class-action lawsuit. The list contained 15 individuals from Forsyth County, 105 from the Triad and Northwest N.C., and 390 statewide. Mr. Bell has said the potential recovery from the net winners could be as much as $283 million. Judge Graham Mullen acknowledged much of the net winnings for some defendants may have been dissipated, and the receiver will be required to help the defendants pay for their defense costs. Mr. Bell said about 50,000 claimants still have not completed all necessary steps to receive a check. Mr. Bell -- and the Journal -- have been inundated at times by individuals claiming to have completed the qualification steps and wondering why they haven't received their reimbursement check. For those who accept the amount that Bell has assigned to their claim, which has been approved by a federal judge, they need to provide their release and certification to the receivership. Mr. Bell said most of the 50,000 claimants have not completed those steps. To file a claim or check on the status of your claim, go to https://cert.gardencitygroup.com/zrwdet/fs/home He said he will add an instructional video to the website. "We have received calls and emails asking that we cut off the recovery rights of the 50,000 recognized claimants who have not completed the process and distribute their share of distributions to those who have," Mr. Bell said. "Sometime before the end of the receivership I will have no option but to ask the court for permission to distribute all remaining receivership assets to only those recognized claimants who have completed the process." * CFPB Study Seen as Precursor to Arbitration Regulatory Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Will Routt, Esq. of Baker Donelson, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) released a study in March 2015 criticizing the use of mandatory, pre-dispute arbitration agreements in financial contracts with consumers. As expected, the CFPB found arbitration to be detrimental to consumers' interests when compared to litigation, particularly class action litigation. The study is widely perceived as a precursor to regulatory action that will substantially curtail or even eliminate the use of arbitration agreements in the consumer financial space. The CFPB was established by Congress through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010. Through Dodd- Frank, Congress empowered the CFPB to review the use of pre- dispute arbitration agreements in consumer financial markets and restrict their use if deemed necessary. The CFPB conducted a study of the use of mandatory arbitration provisions in contracts for checking accounts, credit cards, prepaid cards, payday loans, private student loans and mobile wireless contracts. A primary emphasis in the March 2015 report concerns the prohibition of class action lawsuits, a standard component in consumer arbitration provisions. The CFPB found that consumers recover substantially less in arbitration proceedings than in traditional litigation, particularly when compared to class action lawsuits. Moreover, consumers were found to be generally unaware of whether their financial services contracts contain arbitration provisions and often wrongly believe that they have the right to sue in court. The CFPB cites a host of additional concerns including the contention that there is no evidence that arbitration clauses lead to lower prices for consumers and that, contrary to traditional wisdom, arbitration is not cheaper and more efficient than litigation. In the coming months, the CFPB will likely take action based on the report and could, for instance, bar class action bans or bar the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements with consumers entirely. If the CFPB bans arbitration provisions, consumer arbitration will likely all but disappear in the financal markets space. Moreover, the CFPB's actions could influence other regulatory bodies, such as the Securities & Exchange Commission, to implement similar bans on mandatory arbitration provisions, thereby broadly impacting dispute resolution with consumers across the entire financial industry. If such regulatory bans are put into place, the industry will face additional uncertainty as any ban will undoubtedly be challenged in court. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that pre- dispute arbitration agreements involving interstate commerce -- such as those used in the consumer financial industry -- are valid and enforceable as written. Whether the CFPB can be delegated the power to unilaterally restrict the provisions of a U.S. law such as the FAA will be a substantial hurdle for the CFPB to overcome. While the outcome of any such litigation is uncertain, the limited powers of administrative agencies and the pro-arbitration policies adopted by the courts suggest that any CFPB action may be unenforceable without Congressional action and a Presidential signature. The only thing we know for sure is that we'll be watching this issue for quite some time. * FCC Rules on Telemarketing, Robocalls and Other TCPA Issues ------------------------------------------------------------- Wilson Barmeyer, Esq., Irene Firippis, Esq., Lewis Wiener, Esq. of Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that in its most significant action on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) since its revised TCPA rules took effect in late 2013, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued a package of declaratory rulings resolving almost two dozen petitions seeking clarification on TCPA issues. These rulings, proposed by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and adopted during an open meeting on June 18, 2015, begin to address the long backlog of TCPA petitions that had been awaiting FCC action as a wave of TCPA class action litigation has flooded courts across the country. Businesses seeking to comply with unclear rules and conflicting court rulings sought clarification on many issues which had not been previously addressed by the FCC. In a press release, the FCC indicated that it views the TCPA as an essential consumer protection tool against unwanted telemarketing and robocalls and stated that the package "strengthens consumer protections against unwanted calls and texts." As a result of this view, the business community was denied in its efforts to seek change and/or clarification on a number of issues, and several aspects of the TCPA will continue to be an issue for legitimate businesses seeking to comply with the statute. As indicated in its press release, the FCC is taking the following action, among others. Definition of Autodialer. More than half a dozen petitions had been filed seeking clarification on the definition of autodialer. The FCC reiterated that under its rules an autodialer is technology with the capacity to automatically dial random or sequential numbers or call from a list. Calls to Reassigned Numbers. Numerous petitions requested that the FCC create a safe harbor for calls to reassigned numbers. Businesses have no reliable way to identify reassigned numbers and may continue to make calls to numbers where the former subscriber consented to receive calls. Several courts have held that such calls constitute a violation of the TCPA even where the prior subscriber consented to the calls, and the business did not know the number had been reassigned. The FCC declined to create a complete safe harbor and instead adopted a rule that the first call to a reassigned number will not trigger liability under the TCPA. This new rule, however, fails to address the core problem, because a business could make multiple calls before learning that the number has been reassigned. Revocation. The FCC increased the compliance burden on revocation of consent by adopting a rule that a consumer may revoke consent to be contacted by any reasonable means and at any time. The new rules have also brought changes regarding Do Not Disturb technology, which is now expressly permitted. Also, the FCC has adopted a new limited exemption to consent standards for "urgent calls," such as a fraud alert on a bank account. Other core consumer protections in the TCPA and FCC rules remain unchanged. These consumer protections include: The National Do-Not-Call Registry will be unchanged by this proposal. Prior express written consent will still be required for telemarketing robocalls to both wireless and landline home phones. Autodialed and prerecorded calls and texts to wireless phones require prior consent, whether they are telemarketing or informational calls. Political calls to wireless phones are subject to the general restrictions on prerecorded and artificial voice calls and autodialed calls. Political calls are not subject to the National Do-Not-Call Registry because such calls do not include telephone solicitations. Ruling May Spur Abusive Class Actions Anne Flaherty, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the Federal Communications Commission on June 18 agreed that Verizon, AT&T, and other telecommunication carriers aren't duty-bound to connect those annoying "robocalls" if a consumer doesn't want them. Consumer groups and several states had asked the agency to clarify this point because phone companies have said they worried about running afoul of rules that require them to connect every call. FCC commissioners mostly agreed that call blocking technology or "do not disturb" services should not only be allowed but encouraged. Several companies already offer consumers the chance to block individual numbers. But that approach doesn't help much because callers can easily spoof their identification and make it appear as though they are calling from a different phone number. USTelecom, a trade group that represents many of the major phone companies, said there is "no single technical solution" to the problem because of spoofed numbers. "USTelecom's members will continue to develop and deploy tools to their customers in order to address these unwanted calls," said Jonathan Banks, senior vice president at US-Telecom, in a statement. "We look forward to continuing collaboration with government, law enforcement, and technology providers to eliminate illegal robocalls," he said. Echoing the sentiment of many Republicans, the US Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform said it opposed the move by the FCC, because the group said it would "accelerate the growth of abusive and costly class-action lawsuits against businesses." Unwanted phone calls, many of which are scams, remain a top consumer complaint even 12 years after Congress passed a law setting up the Do Not Call registry. The problem has gotten so bad nationwide that the FTC has offered cash prizes for technical solutions. Consumers groups say that the emergence of new antirobocalling technologies suggest that phone companies have the technical ability to spot robocalls. They say that the phone companies have been dragging their feet, probably because it's easier to allow the calls than to try to find a way to stop them. One big impact of the new rules could be seen next year in the run-up to the presidential election. When creating the Do Not Call Registry, politicians exempted themselves: Campaigns are allowed to blast your landline with the automated calls, but not your cellphone. While that rule won't change, phone companies will be allowed at the consumer's request to drop or send to voice mail any automated phone calls to their landline, including political calls. If phone companies find a workable solution and enough consumers sign on, campaign volunteers will have to place calls in person, limiting their reach to voters. Most often, robocalls are scams that originate overseas. But spoofing techniques allow the scammers to make the number on the caller ID appear to be local. One common example of a scam is "Rachel from cardholder services." The automated voice recording encourages listeners to press a number, which connects them with someone who might promise to lower their interest rates in exchange for an upfront fee. The FTC traced the original "Rachel" to multiple people in the United States and demanded refund checks, but the copycat scams have continued. * Tech Companies Push for New Worker Classification Amid Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------------------- Caroline O'Donovan, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that faced with lawsuits that could threaten their business models, tech companies are pushing for a new classification of worker that would combine the flexibility afforded to contractors with the protections afforded to employees. How that new worker is defined could impact American labor for years to come. The tech industry prides itself on innovation: Startup founders and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are praised for their capacity to create entirely new things we never knew we needed. Tech's latest creation, however, is more social policy than sci-fi: an entirely new type of worker, the first of its kind in America in decades. Over the last few years, the on-demand, Uber-for-x economy has created an enormous need for cheap, flexible labor -- a demand that heretofore has been satisfied by a growing number of contract workers. But increasingly, some of those contract workers have become dissatisfied, putting legal pressure on the founders of companies like Lyft, Handy, Homejoy, and Instacart to take better care of them. The California Labor Commission found that Uber driver Barbara Ann Berwick should legally have been classified as an employee all along, with all the protections (minimum wage, overtime) and benefits (unemployment, workers' compensation) that an employee is legally guaranteed. Cases like Berwick's could portend very bad news for the on-demand industry: Employees cost a business roughly 30% more than contractors do. The finding in her case could create precedent for class-action lawsuits across the country and seriously threaten the sustainability of these companies. Faced with this possibility, the tech industry has set about doing what it does best: disrupting the status quo. Throughout the on-demand industry, chatter about creating a new legal designation -- one that blends the protections afforded employees with the flexibility afforded contractors -- has grown increasingly noisy. At a recent on-demand economy event, Simon Rothman, a venture capitalist and advisor to companies like Lyft and Taskrabbit, said, "I think it's not 1099 versus W-2. I think the right answer is a third class of worker." The rise of companies like Uber have created thousands of new on-demand jobs around the world that, so far, have failed to offer a single person the protections that employment is supposed to guarantee. As questions about whether or not those workers are being treated fairly grow louder, the possibility of creating a new worker -- sometimes called a "dependent contractor," based on an existing designation in some European countries -- is beginning to garner national attention. If the proliferation of on-demand labor is actually revolutionizing work in America, defining this new classification -- which could allow multiple employers to pool funds to cover a worker's benefits, or extend basic wage protections to contractors -- is an opportunity to ensure fair treatment for future generations of laborers. But as the debate is unfolding now, it's more likely to benefit the businesses, who are lobbying aggressively in Washington, than the workers, whose voices, outside of the courtroom, are going unheard in regulatory conversations. The idea of introducing a dependent contractor in the U.S. has been rapidly gaining momentum. When the news of the finding in the Berwick case broke, U.S. Senator Mark Warner immediately released a statement calling for new legislation around classification, rather than allowing the issue to be "litigated on a case-by-case and state-by-state basis." Just a few weeks prior, Warner gave a speech at the New America Foundation in Washington, D.C., calling for a new worker classification. Meanwhile, the Department of Labor recently announced that it will issue new guidelines for determining who is and isn't an independent contractor, and the Federal Trade Commission held a workshop on the law and the so-called "sharing economy" that touched on misclassification. But as the drumbeat grows louder in Washington, there's a risk that workers' voices will be drowned out. It's easy to assume, given the lawsuits, that Uber drivers and Instacart delivery people don't want to be contractors. But just because they're suing for some of the benefits and protections of employment doesn't necessarily mean they want to be employees. In fact, according to a recent survey, 63% of on-demand workers consider themselves independent contractors. By and large, they want what all workers want -- money and a degree of stability without having to sacrifice their independence and flexibility. Sometimes, those contradicting desires and reality come to a head. Before Jose Galvez became a driver for Uber and Lyft, he worked in a restaurant in Santa Barbara, a job that afforded him benefits and even vacation time. But when he got into an accident as an on-demand driver, he didn't get any kind of compensation. "I had no income for two months," he told BuzzFeed News. "That's something I really worry about." Having to pay out of pocket for things like gas and car washes is also a frustration for Mr. Galvez. If he doesn't wash his car, he worries that his rating on Uber could drop below 4.6, which could get him booted off the platform. He's also concerned about making payments on his new car, which he bought before Uber cut rates in L.A.; right now he's making around $500 to $600 a week, but without any guarantee of stability, he's not sure he can afford it. "I do understand that it would be a little more expensive to have everyone as employees," he said. "At the same time, it's not fair the way it's set up right now." Mr. Galvez said that if a third classification could offer him the benefits and protections of his old job, he'd be all for it. "I think that would be progress." But while a third classification sounds progressive, nobody's really sure what it would mean in practice. The hope is to find find a way to distribute the responsibility of employment over multiple employers, making it possible for them to jointly contribute to a single benefits package that is linked to the individual, wherever that person happens to be working at any given time. Senator Mark Warner has yet to make any formal policy proposals, but he has laid out a few possible models for a third classification. Mr. Warner told BuzzFeed News that he's considered everything from a health care exchange-type system for workers' comp and unemployment to somehow trying to incorporate tips into contractor compensation. He also raised the possibility of an hour bank, based in part on the historical structure of some labor unions, in which both employee and employer would pay into a fund managed by a third party. "I don't think this is one where we leap to judgment tomorrow," Warner told BuzzFeed News. "But I don't think that we're just going to punt on this and let the courts litigate it. That doesn't make sense either." Ken Davis, founder of an on-demand lawn-mowing company called TaskEasy, thinks an hour bank could definitely help. "If a 1099 contractor individual works for four different on-demand companies, that person can't receive 25% health care coverage from each of them, and no single on-demand company can afford to cover 100% of health care for a 25% work effort," he said. Creating a "nationally standardized" system for withholding funds for worker benefits could make the lives of workers better, without crushing the companies they work for. Meanwhile, as federal policymakers weigh a third classification, private companies are already taking action. In 2013, after stepping down at Relayrides, Shelby Clark founded Peers, a startup that builds tools and products for workers in the on-demand industry. Mr. Clark says the current laws make it impossible for employers to treat contractors well. "Even if they wanted to provide insurance to these workers, they c an't, because as soon as they do, they became employees," he said. "This is one area a dependent contractor could make a lot of progress on." In Mr. Clark's vision for this dependent contractor, government remains responsible for protecting workers, while benefits remain disaggregated from the employer. For example, Peers offers a service called Keep Driving that costs drivers $20 a month; in exchange, when a driver's car is out of commission for repairs, Peers will provide them with a loaner, allowing them to continue working for Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, or whatever on-demand platform they choose. "In a world where you don't get unemployment and you don't get workers' comp, can we create products that people can buy individually?" Clark asked. "What I don't want is for someone's benefits to change based on the app they have open." Another big headache for contract workers that a new classification could make easier is income taxes: 1099 forms are much more complicated than a W-2 employee's annual filing; companies like Zen99 and Intuit have stepped in with software meant to make this process easier. Intuit's Quickbooks Self- Employed product, for example, helps workers track deductions for things like gas and maintenance. But Alex Chriss, Intuit's general manager, said a technological solution alone is not enough, pointing out that France has a new classification of "auto-entrepreneurs" who are not quite employees, but have fewer tax requirements than small business owners. As Intuit's policy team steps up its advocacy efforts for self-employed workers, he said they'll be keeping those policies in mind. Exactly how new policies could come into being, however, is hard to predict -- the path toward standardization is a long and winding one. Diane Ring, a tax law professor at Boston College and author of Can Sharing be Taxed?, explained that there's no one-stop shop in terms of creating new labor regulations; to begin with, there's state labor law, federal labor law, state tax law, and federal tax law, and "no obligation for them to be the same." "It's not as if all we have to do is change 'blank' and, boom -- it will all flow through the system in an instant," she said. On top of that, some experts, including National Employment Law Project Deputy Director Rebecca Smith, believe any meaningful regulation will be initiated on the state and local levels. "That's where change is happening nowadays in terms of policy," she said. The court system also has a role to play in this debate, especially given the number of lawsuits that are currently ongoing. It's possible that, given the number and variety of cases, the misclassification issue could ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. While the courts can't create a new classification on their own, what a string of litigation can do is light a fire under the owners of the businesses that are being sued. On-demand companies, led by Uber, have increasingly begun to lobby lawmakers in hopes of finding a solution that won't cripple them. Given the recent attention given to the issue in Washington, it would seem that the lawmakers are starting to listen. If there's going to be action on the third classification issue at the federal level, it's essential that the perspective of workers, and not just industry, be incorporated into that process. But workers themselves tend to be underrepresented during higher-level conversations, such as the FTC's gig economy workshop in June. ********* 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 * * *