/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150806.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, August 6, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 156 Headlines 12185 CANADA: Court Raises Bar for Filing Securities Suits 347 LEX: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages 713 BOURBON: Faces "Fantahun" Suit Overt Failure to Pay Overtime ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces "Stevens-Bratton" FLSA Suit ACT II JEWELRY: Lia Sophia Shut Out 30K Sales Advisers, Suit Says AGP 111: "Santo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages AIR CARGO: Kaplan Fox Named Lead Plaintiff in Antitrust Suit ALLIED MEDICAL: Faces Suit for Alleged Unpaid Wages Under FLSA AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Mellen" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Reiber" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Watkins" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Friedman" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Horwitz" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing AMERICAN WATER HEATER: Texas Couple Sues Over Water Heaters AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Faces "Galerman" Securities Suit AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Pomerantz LLP Files Securites Class Suit BALTIMORE WINDUSTRIAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation BLACK FOREST: Sued for Unpaid OT Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy BLUE MOUNTAINS, NSW: Bushfire Attys to Launch Second Class Suit BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Class Suit Over Anticoagulant Drug BRANDREP INC: "Alan" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations BRASKEM SA: Aug. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline BREADS OF THE WORLD: Faces Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation C TECH: Settlement in "Babcock" Case Has Preliminary Approval CAMPUS MOTEL: Faces "Molina" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime CELLADON CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP: Judge Finalizes $119MM Royalty Settlement CHINA FINANCE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit CHRYSLER LLC: Says Warranty Shields from Paying Suit Damages CSX TRANSPORTATION: Sued in Tenn. Over Property Damages DELTA AIR: Accused of Conspiring to Fix Airline Ticket Prices EAST PARK MAINTENANCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ELETROBRAS: Faces "Franklin" Securities Suit in New York Court ESKATON VILLAGE: Former Execs Released from Homeowners Suit EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "Lord" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages EXPRESSWAY MOTORCARS: Removed "Lopez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida FAMOUS ITALIAN: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages FEDEX GROUND: "Blazonis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages FLEXSEDANS.COM: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FLORAL LOGISTICS: Faces Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation FOX SEARCHLIGHT: 2d. Circ. Weighs in on Unpaid Interns FRIENDLY'S ICE CREAM: Seeks Partial Dismissal of Workers' Suit GENT'S ENTERPRISES: Faces "Terrefe" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GOOGLE INC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit for Sale of Play Gift Cards IDI INC: Faces "Heim" Suit for Alleged Securities Law Violation JOSHUA MOTORS: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Business Practices K&G MENS: Judge Grants Conditional Certification on FLSA Suit KEURIG GREEN: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports KIA MOTORS: Panoramic Sunroofs Shatter Dangerously, Suit Claims LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Misleading Statements LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Judge Orders Plaintiff to Explain New Deal LYALL MANUFACTURING: Wis. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Faces Demand to Extend Protective Netting MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Hagens Berman Leads Grave Safety Suit MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Hillard Munos Files Safety Negligence Suit MARTHA STEWART: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Claims MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Ubom" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation MILLER CASTINGS: Faces "Parra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MITOROTONDA SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages MOVIE TAVERN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Kotchmar" Suit Claims MULLIGAN'S MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit for Allegedly Violating FLSA MYLAN NV: Action Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties NEANY INC: "Lewis" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ariz. Wage Act Breach NEANY INC: Faces 2nd "Lewis Suit Over FLSA, Wage Act Violations PACE CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages OCEAN EMPIRE: Accused of Violating FLSA, New York Labor Law OFFICE DEPOT: Accused of Violating Handicap Parking Regulations OTTAWA, CANADA: Farmers Group Shifts Strategy in Class Suit PDI INC: "Severine" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages PENNY NEWMAN: Judge Allows Parties to Amend Settlement Agreement PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Sued by NAACP for Violating Human Rights Law PJJK RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensations POLARK LTD: Accused of Violating FLSA, Illinois Min. Wage Law PRESTIGE CRUISE: Faces "Freixa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued in N.Y. Over Defective Laundry Detergent PUBLIX: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Box Label RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Cacioppo" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger RECON RESOURCES: "Summers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages SANOFI-AVENTIS SA: Plan Fiduciaries Sued Over Breach of Duties SAYBOLT LP: Faces "Fontenot" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SBM MAINTENANCE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims SDV LOGISTIQUE: November 2 Settlement Approval Hearing Set SIRIUS XM: Sued for Alleged Unlawful Telephone Solicitations SONY PICTURES: Hacking Lawsuit Claims ID Theft to Ex-Employees SOUTHERN PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Credit Card Info on Receipts SPORTS ENDURANCE: August 31 Claims Filing Deadline Set ST JUDE: Faces "Solak" Suit in Cal. Over Proposed Thoratec Merger STAR NAIL: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TEMPLETON RYE: Settles 3 Class Suits Over False Advertising TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Berkoff" Suit Over False Comparative Prices TOTAL WEALTH: Removed "Calderon" Class Suit to S.D. California TRI-DIM FILTER: "Davies" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT TRUGREEN INC: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged TCPA Violation TUMI INC: "Pinedo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages UBER: Georgia Class Suit Targets "Rogue" Ride Shares UNIFIRST CORP: Faces Suit Under FLSA, Oregon Wage, Hour Laws UNION PACIFIC: "Dorron" Suit Alleges Federal Rules Violation UNITED STATES: "Kelley" Claims Severed from "Finch" Suit US BANCORP: Fails to Pay Branch Managers OT, "Barker" Suit Says USPLABS LLC: C.D. Cal. Judge Remands Suit to State Court WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Suit Over Gay Discrimination WYNDHAM RESORT: Removed "McGrath" Class Suit to S.D. California * 11th Circuit Restores Class Suit Over Rotting Wood ********* 12185 CANADA: Court Raises Bar for Filing Securities Suits ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael D Schafler, Matthew Fleming and Thomas Wilson of Dentons Canada LLP, in an article for International Law Office, reported that introduction in Theratechnologies Inc v 12185 Canada Inc,(1) the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Section 225(4) of the Quebec Securities Act(2) -- which, as a condition precedent, requires plaintiffs to show that their claims have been brought in good faith and have a reasonable chance of success -- is no mere speed bump on the way to obtaining court authorisation to bring an action against reporting issuers, directors, officers or experts for damages resulting from the acquisition or disposition of securities in the secondary market. The decision directs courts in all Canadian provinces to more rigorously apply securities law requirements that oblige plaintiffs to obtain judicial authorisation before proceeding with secondary market securities class actions. In the wake of Theratechnologies, plaintiffs in such actions must present sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable chance of success, lest their claim be denied at the outset. Facts In 2010, Theratechnologies Inc -- a pharmaceutical research and development company based in Montreal and listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange -- was awaiting approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for a HIV drug then under development. Theratechnologies regularly updated its shareholders and Quebec's securities regulator with developments regarding the FDA approval process and had earlier disclosed clinical trial results indicating that the drug's negative side effects were clinically insignificant. As part of its approval process, the FDA referred a number of questions about the drug -- including questions about potential side effects -- to an expert advisory committee. These questions were posted to a public FDA website and Theratechnologies elected to make no related disclosure to investors. Upon learning about the questions, certain third-party stock quotation companies issued press releases stating that Theratechnologies' drug could cause unwanted side effects. The market reacted negatively to these reports and shares in the company lost 58% of their value in just two days. The plaintiff, 121851 Canada Inc, sold shares in Theratechnologies during this period, suffering a loss of C$271, 752. (3) The value of Theratechnologies' shares ultimately recovered and the drug received FDA approval. 121851 Canada took the position that the FDA's questions represented a material change in Theratechnologies' business, operations or capital which, pursuant to Section 73 of the Quebec Securities Act, should have been disclosed by the company. 121851 Canada sought judicial authorisation -- required under Section 225(4) of the act -- to bring a class action against Theratechnologies for damages. Section 225(4) of the act states, in part, that an action for damages with respect to secondary market securities may proceed only if the court "deems that the action is in good faith and there is a reasonable possibility that it will be resolved in favour of the plaintiff". At first instance, the motions judge noted that Section 225(4) is more stringent than Article 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires a court to find that "the facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought" before certifying a class action proceeding. (4) Despite this higher authorisation threshold for secondary market securities claims, the motions judge held that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the plaintiff's action had a reasonable chance of success. The Quebec Court of Appeal agreed. Decision The issue before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether 121851 Canada's claim had a 'reasonable possibility' of succeeding within the meaning of Section 225(4) of the Securities Act. In a unanimous decision, the court allowed Theratechnologies' appeal and held that the action should not be authorised. The court agreed with both lower courts that Section 225(4) contains a more stringent authorisation requirement than Article 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the court, this higher threshold reflects the legislature's desire to meaningfully screen claims in the securities context and avoid the strike suits common in the United States.(5) Justice Abella highlighted that Section 225(4) is part of a relatively new securities regime designed to address breaches of continuous disclosure obligations in the secondary market. (6) In the early 2000s, the Canadian Securities Administrators recommended a statutory cause of action to assist injured investors that face considerable challenges in proving that they relied on misinformation or the omission of information. The new regime, first implemented by Ontario in 2002, features a presumption in favour of investors that fluctuations in the value of a security are attributable to false declarations or failures to disclose. (7) Balancing against this presumption, all Canadian provinces have adopted a screening mechanism to ensure that only those claims with a reasonable chance of success are permitted to proceed -- Section 225(4) of the Securities Act is an example of one such screening mechanism.(8) The Supreme Court clarified that in order to establish that it has a realistic chance of success, a claimant must offer "some credible evidence in support of its claim".(9) A full analysis of the evidence is not required. Instead, a plaintiff must adduce "sufficient evidence to persuade the court that there is a reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved in the claimant's favour". (10) Applying these principles, the Supreme Court focused on whether Theratechnologies had failed to disclose a material change within the meaning of Section 5(3) of the Securities Act. (11) The court held that there was no evidence to suggest that by electing not to disclose the FDA's questions, Theratechnologies had failed to disclose a material change that had affected its business, operations or capital. The information that the company had elected not to disclose contained no new information about the drug or its side effects. There was no evidence to suggest that the FDA's questions departed in any way from its routine drug approval procedure. (12) Because the evidence did not credibly suggest that there had been a material change that required disclosure under Quebec's securities laws, the Supreme Court held that there was no reasonable possibility of success and, accordingly, 121851 Canada's action was not authorised. Comment Securities legislation in all Canadian provinces contains threshold requirements similar to Section 225(4) of the Securities Act -- a claimant must establish that its action is brought in good faith and has a reasonable chance of success. (13) Accordingly, Theratechnologies will have a far-reaching impact and, given the Supreme Court's decision, will likely result in courts approaching 'reasonable chance for success' requirements with increased analytical rigour. The message to plaintiffs is clear: evidence that illustrates the fundamental merits of a claim must be adduced before a court will authorise an action for damages in secondary market securities disputes. The Supreme Court provides general guidance regarding the evidence that will establish that a given claim has a reasonable chance of success. Although the authorisation stage for secondary market liability actions "should not be treated as a 'mini-trial'", (14) plaintiff's counsel should view Theratechnologies as a call for increased evidentiary diligence. According to the court, "a case with a reasonable possibility of success requires the claimant to offer both a plausible analysis of the applicable legislative provisions, and some credible evidence in support of the claim."(15) Only time and subsequent consideration and application by lower courts will bear out exactly how provincial authorisation threshold requirements have been affected by Theratechnologies. Finally, the Supreme Court emphasised that the timely disclosure obligations in Canadian securities legislation are designed to: "Increase fairness in the secondary market"; Support capital market efficiency "by helping investors target the most deserving securities"; and Enhance the accountability of corporate management. (16) Theratechnologies further demonstrates that the Supreme Court is engaged in balancing the rights of investors to bring secondary market claims against the rights of issuers to ensure that such claims are not baseless. For further information on this topic please contact: Michael Schafler, Esq. Matthew Fleming, Esq. Thomas Wilson, Esq. DENTONS CANADA LLP 900 Manulife Place 10180 - 101 Street Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3V5 Canada Tel: (416) 863 4511 Email: michael.schafler@dentons.com matthew.fleming@dentons.com thomas.wilson@dentons.com 347 LEX: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Moises Cortes, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees v. 347 Lex Bagel Corp. d/b/a Bagel Express, and Ho Nam Han, Case No. 1:15-cv-05783 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a Bagel Express restaurant located at 347 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, 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: pcooper@jcpclaw.com 713 BOURBON: Faces "Fantahun" Suit Overt Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Teferi Fantahun, Ariana Hollins, Mykael Badon, Sonya Anderson, Waynda Young, Artavius Edmond and Gail Veals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. 713 Bourbon, LLC d/b/a/ Bourbon Novelties and Bourbon Clothing Company and Subia Weber, Case No. 2:15-cv-02873 (E.D. La., July 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a retail store in Orleans Parish, Louisiana. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq. JACKSON & JACKSON 201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70170 Telephone: (504) 599-5953 E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces "Stevens-Bratton" FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Kasie Stevens-Bratton, individually and on behalf of all others Gary Boltinghouse, Jr., Robert Taylor, and Mark Canales, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case: 1:15-cv-06223 (N.D. Ill., July 16, 2015), was filed seeking damages and other relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defendant is a global healthcare company that maintains a portfolio of science-based offerings in diagnostics, medical devices, nutritionals, and branded pharmaceuticals. Its medical testing and diagnostic instrument systems are used worldwide by hospitals, laboratories, blood banks, and physician offices to diagnose and monitor diseases. Abbott employs over 10,000 employees and serves customers in more than 150 countries worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan Stephan, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP 205 North Michigan Ave. Suite 2560 Chicago, IL 60601 Tel: (312) 233-1550 E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com Timothy C. Selander, Esq. Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Reena I. Desai, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4600 IDS Center 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 256-3200 E-mail: selander@nka.com srey@nka.com rdesai@nka.com ACT II JEWELRY: Lia Sophia Shut Out 30K Sales Advisers, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Lia Sophia jewelry shut out 30,000 "sales advisers" by going online and refuses to honor its lifetime guarantee, a class action claims in Illinois Federal Court. Cynthia West and Kristine Hollander sued ACT II Jewelry LLC dba Lia Sophia and its sole member, Kiam Equities Corp.; CEO Victor Kiam III; and creative director Elena Kiam, on June 23. Lia Sophia, based in Roselle, Ill., is "one of the country's largest fashion jewelry sellers," according to the complaint. Lia Sophia used "sales advisers" who held "jewelry parties" in customers' homes. "At its peak, Lia Sophia had over 30,000 sales advisors who sold more than $300 million of costume jewelry a year," according to the complaint. "An essential part of that direct-sales model was Lia Sophia's 'unrivaled lifetime replacement guarantee,'" say the plaintiffs: a former saleswoman and a customer. Lia Sophia guaranteed it would replace any jewelry it sold, "for as long as the customer owned the jewelry," the complaint states. "The lifetime guarantee enabled Lia Sophia to charge more for its jewelry than the prices typically commanded in the market for fashion or costume jewelry." But after 40 years of business, Lia Sophia announced on Dec. 1, 2014, that it would wind down its U.S. and Canadian operations by Dec. 31, and would shut up shop completely by the end of February 2015, the plaintiffs say. It did not, according to the lawsuit. It simply became an online business, bypassing all of its "sales advisers." "Lia Sophia continues to sell off its old inventory directly to customers," the plaintiffs say. "However, as plaintiffs and numerous other customers will attest, Lia Sophia refuses to honor its lifetime guarantee on prior purchases, and ignores customer requests for replacements or repairs. Indeed, Lia Sophia posted the following statement on its own Facebook page in response to the scores of complaints: 'Unfortunately, the lifetime replacement guarantee that was offered on purchases prior to 12/28/2014 is no longer valid.'" They claim that Lia Sophia knew "for much of 2014" that it was going to go all-online, "eliminate its sales advisors, and repudiate the lifetime guarantees on all the jewelry previously sold." "Yet, Lia Sophia induced its sales advisors to continue to sell and recruit, and to purchase additional products and supplies from Lia Sophia, despite knowing that Lia Sophia would not be around for its sales advisors to ever recover on those purchases and recruitments. Similarly, Lia Sophia continued to sell jewelry to customers with its lifetime guarantee, all the while knowing it was going to close its business and attempt to extinguish the guarantee," the complaint states. West was a sales adviser for three years. She says she created "a network of customers" for Lia Sophia, which the company has "usurped" by selling to them directly. She and Hollander seek class certification and damages for two classes: sales advisers and customers. They also seek an injunction, restitution, disgorgement of unjust profits, and damages for breach of contract, consumer fraud and common law fraud, under state and federal laws. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 North State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 546-9963 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com AGP 111: "Santo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Alex Santo, and all others similarly situated v. AGP 111 St. Rest Corp. dba Cantina 1838, Mark Bernstein, and James Spence, Case No. 1:15-cv-05656 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor Law. Cantina 1838 is a restaurant owned by Marc Bernstein and James Spence located at 1838 Adam Clayton Powell Jr Blvd, New York, New York 10026. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2540 New York, NY 10165 Tel: (212) 317-1200 Fax: (212) 317-1620 E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com AIR CARGO: Kaplan Fox Named Lead Plaintiff in Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ On July 10, 2015, the Honorable John Gleeson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antirust Litigation, No. 06-MD-1775 (E.D.N.Y.). The court also appointed Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as one of four co-lead law firms. The ruling capped over three years of court battles to determine whether the class should be certified. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification in October 2011. In October 2013 there was a three-day class certification evidentiary hearing, including 20 hours of expert testimony before Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky. Kaplan Fox's Gregory K. Arenson handled the examination of three of the four testifying experts at the hearing. On October 15, 2014, Judge Pohorelsky issued a 114-page Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended that plaintiffs' motion for class certification be granted and certain portions of defendants' experts' testimony be excluded. Defendants filed their objections to the R&R before Judge Gleeson. In his ruling on, Judge Gleeson found "no merit to the objections [to] Judge Pohorelsky's thorough and well-reasoned Report and Recommendations" and adopted the R&R in its entirety. To date, plaintiffs have entered into settlements totaling over $1 billion with many of the original defendants. This litigation is still pending against four defendant groups, including Air China Ltd. and Air China Cargo Co. Ltd., Air India Ltd., Air New Zealand Ltd., and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc., Polar Air Cargo, LLC, and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. You may contact the following Kaplan Fox attorneys about the case and the settlement at (212) 687-1980: Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. Gregory K. Arenson, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel: (212) 687-1980 Fax: (212) 687-7714 Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com garenson@kaplanfox.com ALLIED MEDICAL: Faces Suit for Alleged Unpaid Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Wilker Bernadin, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. Allied Medical Transport Inc., Wayne Rowe, individually, and Rashelle Rowe, individually, Case 0:15-cv-61461- WPD (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Allied Medical Transport provides transportation services throughout Miami-Dade County, Broward County, Palm Beach County, and the South Florida region. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith M. Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 2300 Glades Road, Suite 360W Boca Raton, FL 33431 Tel: (561) 299-3703 Fax: (561) 288-9031 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Mellen" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Delia Mellen, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04286-BMC (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of domestic air travel services. The Defendants operate the largest commercial airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Damon J. Chargois, Esq. MASHAYEKH & CHARGOIS, PC One Riverway Suite 1700 Houston, TX 77056 Telephone: (713) 840-6313 Facsimile: (713) 622-1937 E-mail: damon@cmhllp.com - and - Noah Shube, Esq. 401 Broadway, Suite 2115 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 274-8638 Facsimile: (212) 966-8652 E-mail: nshube@nsfirm.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Reiber" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Judy Reiber, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. United Airlines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., and Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 3:15-cv- 03387-CRB (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2015), arises from the Defendants' unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for air passenger transportation services within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest commercial airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel R. Shulman, Esq. GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY 80 South 8th Street 500 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 632-3000 Facsimile: (612) 632.4444 E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Watkins" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Watkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-04287-WFK-SMG (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah Shube, Esq. 401 Broadway, Suite 2115 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 274-8638 Facsimile: (212) 966-8652 E-mail: nshube@nsfirm.com - and - Brian J. Schall, Esq. Michael Goldberg, Esq. GOLDBERG LAW PC 13650 Marina Pointe Dr., Ste. 1404 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Telephone: (800) 977-7401 Facsimile: (800) 536-0065 AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Friedman" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Solomon Friedman, and all others similarly-situated v. American Airlines Group, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05657 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2015), to recover damages and injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the antitrust laws of the U.S. The antitrust class action arises out of an alleged conspiracy among the largest U.S. airlines, who collectively account for over 80% of all domestic air travel, to unlawfully restrain competition on key airline routes throughout the United States. American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of Defendant American Airlines, Inc. Both American Airlines Group, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. The new American is the largest airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per day to 339 locations in 54 countries. Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries. Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six additional countries. United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of Defendant United Airlines, Inc. Both United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six continents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 545-4600 Fax: (212) 545-4653 E-mail: isquith@whafh.com - and - Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI&KORSINSKYLLP 733 Summer Street, Ste 304 Stamford, CT 06901 Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Horwitz" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Horwitz, and all others similarly-situated v. American Airlines Group, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-03100 (D. Minn., July 20, 2015), to obtain injunctive relief and treble damages, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising from the Defendants' alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act. American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of Defendant American Airlines, Inc. Both American Airlines Group, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. The new American is the largest airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per day to 339 locations in 54 countries. Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries. Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six additional countries. United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of Defendant United Airlines, Inc. Both United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. (collectively, "United") are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six continents. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Ste. 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Tel: (612) 333-8844 Fax: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Dr. Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Tel: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com AMERICAN WATER HEATER: Texas Couple Sues Over Water Heaters ----------------------------------------------------------- Carol Ostrow, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reported that two Harris County residents filed a class action lawsuit against two out-of-state manufacturers alleging that their products led to hazards, costly repairs and other issues beginning in 2014. Robert J. Rosa and Karen F. Posey filed a class action complaint against American Water Heater Company of Johnson City, Tenn., and A.O. Smith Corporation of Milwaukee in the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas on July 2, claiming "catastrophic failure" in September 2014 when the plaintiffs experienced a flood from the defendants' product and averring that they were not offered a satisfactory solution. According to the suit, "One of most critical components is the water heater's drain valve, which prevents the contents of the water heater's water tank from rupturing into the owner's home." The manufacturers made a poor choice by using plastic valves instead of metal ones, purportedly predisposing the heaters to malfunctioning. The plaintiffs allege breach of warranty and possible defective materials and workmanship. The suit also raises the question of whether the defendants had awareness of the risks involved with their heater's plastic valves and whether they intentionally neglected to correct the alleged safety flaw. The lawsuit defines the putative class(es) as consumers who purchased an American Water Heater Company branded residential gas water heater within four years of this filing. It estimates the cumulative amount in controversy to be more than $5 million exclusive of interest and costs. Claiming to have been damaged by the defendants' misconduct, the plaintiffs seek actual, exemplary, consequential or general compensation, attorney's fees, expenses and costs. They are represented by Willie Briscoe of The Briscoe Law Firm in Dallas and Jeffrey Krinsk, Mark Knutson, William Restis and Trenton Kashima of Finkelstein & Krinsk in San Diego. Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case 4:15-CV- 1898 AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Faces "Galerman" Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Galerman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc., Thomas W. Chalberg, Jr., and Linda C. Bain, Case 5:15-cv-03231-BLF (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Act. Avalanche is a biotechnology company that uses its proprietary Ocular BioFactory(TM) platform for discovering and developing novel medicines with the potential to offer therapeutic benefit. Avalanche's focus is to develop treatment to combat Age-Related Macular Degeneration. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Tel: (310) 285-5330 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. C. Dov Berger, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212-661-1100 Fax: 212-661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com cdberger@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Tel: (312) 377-1181 Fax: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Pomerantz LLP Files Securites Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. ("Avalanche" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-03231, is on behalf of all persons and entities, other than Defendants, who purchased Avalanche securities: (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus (defined below) issued in connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about July 31, 2014 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Avalanche securities during the Class Period, you have until September 8, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Avalanche is a biotechnology company that uses its proprietary Ocular BioFactory(TM) platform for discovering and developing novel medicines with the potential to offer therapeutic benefit. Avalanche's focus is to develop treatment to combat Age-Related Macular Degeneration ("AMD") which is a progressive disease affecting the retinal cells in the macula, the region of the eye responsible for central vision. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that Phase 2a of the AVA-101 study was not designed to show any statistical significance between the active and control groups in the secondary endpoints. On May 14, 2015, Avalanche issued the press release entitled, "Avalanche Biotechnologies Presents Three Posters at American Society of Gene & Cell Therapy (ASGCT) Annual Meeting." The press release discussed Phase 2a of the AVA-101 study. After the market closed on June 15, 2015, the Company issued a press release entitled, "Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. Announces Positive Top-Line Phase 2a Results for AVA-101 in Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration." Avalanche said that the company's treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration met its primary endpoint, however, in a conference call to discuss Phase 2 clinical trial results, the company indicated that the study wasn't designed to show statistically significant differences between active and control groups. On this news, the Company's stock fell $21.83 per share, or over 56%, the next day to close at $17.05 per share on June 16, 2015. BALTIMORE WINDUSTRIAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Hubley v. Baltimore Windustrial Co., Winwholesale Inc., Michael "Vince" Brown, and, Michael Rutkowski, Case No. 1:15-cv- 02145 (D. Md., July 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a private business that sells and transports a variety of plumbing materials. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Lanier, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 S Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: jlanier@nicholllaw.com BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation --------------------------------------------------------------- State-Boston Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15- cv-05794-ER (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged collusive manipulation of the market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, and derivative financial products based on these Treasury securities, including Treasury futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian financial services and banking company with its principal place of business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Scott Asciolla, Esq. Jay L. Himes, Esq. Michael W. Stocker, Esq. Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq. Matthew J. Perez, Esq. LABATON & SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0827 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com jhimes@labaton.com mstocker@labaton.com rvandermeulen@labaton.com mperez@labaton.com BLACK FOREST: Sued for Unpaid OT Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------- Hector Vargas, Jorge Andrade, and Amilcar Portillo, v. Black Forest Brew Haus, LLC, and Todd Waite, Case 2:15-cv-04288-LDW-ARL (E.D. N.Y., July 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the New York State Department of Labor Regulations. Black Forest Brew Haus, LLC is a restaurant and bar. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Delvis Melendez, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DELVIS MELENDEZ, P.C. 90 Bradley Street Brentwood, NY 11717 Phone: 631-434-1443 Fax: 631-434-1443 BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02002 (D.P.R., July 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation conspiracy by entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy, to significantly decreased competition in the markets for healthcare financing including the markets for healthcare insurance and in the health services. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names in Alabama. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq. W. Tucker Brown, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 2001 Park Place North 1000 Park Place Tower Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 488-1200 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com tbrown@whatleykallas.com - and - Edith M. Kallas, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7060 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com - and - Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 60 State Street, 7th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 573-5118 Facsimile: (617) 371-2950 E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com - and - Deborah J. Winegard, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 1068 Virginia Avenue, NE Atlanta, GA 30306 Telephone: (404) 607-8222 Facsimile: (404) 607-8451 E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com - and - Henry C. Quillen, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 159 Middle Street, Suite 2C Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 294-1591 Facsimile: (800) 922-4851 E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com - and - E. Kirk Wood Jr., Esq. WOOD LAW FIRM LLC P. O. Box 382434 Birmingham, AL 35238 Telephone: (205) 612-0243 Facsimile: (205) 705-1223 E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net - and - Debra B. Hayes, Esq. Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq. THE HAYES LAW FIRM 700 Rockmead, Suite 210 Kingwood, TX 77339 Telephone: (281) 815-4963 Facsimile: (832) 575-4759 E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com chunter@dhayeslaw.com - and - Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq. Peter Prieto, Esq. PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 358-2800 Facsimile: (305) 358-2382 E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com pprieto@podhurst.com - and - Dennis Pantazis, Esq. Brian Clark, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 Facsimile: (205) 254-1500 E-mail: dgp@wcqp.com bclark@wcqp.com - and - U.W. Clemon, Esq. J. Mark White, Esq. Augusta S. Dowd, Esq. Linda G. Flippo, Esq. WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, P.C. The Massey Building 2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 323-1888 Facsimile: (205) 323-8907 E-mail: uwclemon@whitearnolddowd.com adowd@whitearnolddowd.com mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com BLUE MOUNTAINS, NSW: Bushfire Attys to Launch Second Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Lithgow Mercury reported that the lawyers running a class action on behalf of hundreds of Blue Mountains October 2013 bushfire victims are on the cusp of launching a second class action; this one for victims of a second, smaller fire that burnt another part of the Blue Mountains on the same day. Bushfire class action solicitors Maddens Lawyers, who will go to trial in February on behalf of Springwood-Winmalee bushfire victims, are now considering launching a similar action for those affected by a blaze that burnt through the nearby Mt Victoria area, also on October 17, 2013. A public meeting to explain the firm's plans, and fire victim's options, was held in Mt Victoria at the Hotel Imperial, Mt Victoria. Maddens Lawyers Class Action Principal Brendan Pendergast said nine houses were destroyed, and another 60 properties damaged by a fire that burnt through the Mt Victoria region in the vicinity of Mt York Road, St Georges Parade and Darling Causeway on 17 October 2013 -- not far from where the Springwood-Winmalee blaze destroyed over 200 homes and damaged many more houses and businesses. He said the impact of the Mt Victoria fire had been somewhat overshadowed by the sheer size of the Springwood-Winmalee devastation -- but that early investigations suggested victims of the smaller fire had similar grounds to pursue compensation claims as their neighbours. "Our investigations, at this stage, suggest that, similar to the Springwood-Winmalee fire, the Mt Victoria fire started when a tree fell on to a powerline in Mt York Road," Mr Pendergast said. "It is important that even though the Mt Victoria fire's impact didn't occupy as many headlines as the Springwood-Winmalee fire, the victims of this blaze are also represented when it comes to recovering their losses." Maddens Lawyers appeared at a recent Coronial Inquiry into the October 2013 fires that affected the Mt Victoria and Spingwood/Winmalee residents. The hearing will continue in August. Mr Pendergast said new evidence presented at the Coronial Inquiry into the October 2013 fires indicated those affected by the Mt Victoria also had grounds to sue for compensation. Maddens Lawyers appeared at the June inquiry on behalf of a number of Springwood-Winmalee and Mt Victoria property owners, and will continue to appear on their behalf when it resumes. Mr Pendergast said he was concerned by anecdotal evidence suggesting some of the Mt Victoria fire victims had left the local area and may not be aware of the coronial inquiry or the possibility of recovering compensation for their property loss and damage. "Our enquiries to date suggest some of those that were burnt out in Mt Victoria have left the area, rather than face the challenge of rebuilding. Even if they haven't continued to live locally, the victims of this fire are still likely to have a claim for compensation to recover what they lost -- and need to let us know what that might be, sooner rather than later." Mr Pendergast explained that by registering with Maddens Lawyers, fire victims would be kept abreast of developments in investigations and legal action. "Registering your interest ensures that you will be kept informed of our progress and any new developments in legal action regarding these fires," he said. "Registration does not cost anything, and it doesn't mean anyone is locked in to legal action if and when it goes ahead," Mr Pendergast explained. "What it provides is options and access to information. The option to take part, or, as the case develops, withdraw at will." Maddens held a local public meeting on July 14 at the Imperial Hotel, Mt Victoria, to brief locals on their investigations to date. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Class Suit Over Anticoagulant Drug -------------------------------------------------------------- Business Vancouver reported that a North Vancouver couple is suing German pharmaceutical maker Boehringer Ingelheim, claiming in a class action that the husband would not have taken the company's anticoagulant Pradaxa knowing that it carried the risk of "uncontrollable, life-threatening bleeds." Michael and Debra Weddle filed a notice of civil claim in BC Supreme Court on June 30. The couple claims that Michael Weddle was prescribed Pradaxa in 2010 for a cardiac arrhythmia. He was hospitalized in November 2012 for a week in intensive care after "he experienced an episode of pericardial bleeding," the claim states. The claim says he had no prior bleeding condition before using Pradaxa and was allegedly never warned about the drug's risk of "uncontrollable bleeding and lack of reversal agent." Had he known about the "magnitude of risk" that Pradaxa carried, he would have never taken the drug, the couple claims. The company, meanwhile, allegedly knew of the dangers and misled consumers about its safety and efficacy and "failed to draw attention to the lack of effective reversal agent." Boehringer Ingelheim settled approximately 4,000 lawsuits related to Pradaxa patients in the United States in May 2014 for $650 million. The company did not admit liability and claims it did so to avoid protracted litigation. The Weddles seek class certification, $100,000 in damages for each family law claimant under the Family Compensation Act and $5 million in punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages. The defendants include Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH and Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. The allegations have not been tested or proven in court and the defendants had not filed responses by press time. BRANDREP INC: "Alan" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations ------------------------------------------------- Jason Alan, and all others similarly-situated v. Brandrep, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05473 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2015), seeks to obtain all treble damages for the Defendants' alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Brandrep, Inc. is a nationwide online marketing company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 S Beverly Drive No. 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com BRASKEM SA: Aug. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ----------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a shareholder class action has been filed against Braskem SA (NYSE: BAK) ("Braskem" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). According to the complaint, Braskem is a Brazilian petrochemical company and is the largest petrochemical producer in Latin America. Naphtha accounts for half of Braskem's production costs and is the main ingredient for making petrochemicals in Brazil. At relevant times during the Class Period, Braskem purchased naphtha from Petroleo Brasileiro ("Petrobras") under long-term agreements. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Braskem was involved in a massive scheme to funnel millions of dollars in kickbacks to Petrobras executives. As a result, during the Class Period Braskem and certain of its executive officers made a series of materially false and misleading statements to investors about Braskem's business, operational and compliance policies. On March 11, 2015, the truth emerged when a report from a local newspaper implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal surrounding Petrobras. As reported by the local paper, testimony from former Petrobras executives and others demonstrated that Braskem had routinely paid at least $5 million annually to Petrobras representatives between 2006 and 2012. Following this disclosure, Braskem's ADRs declined $1.80, or over 20%, to close on March 11, 2015 at $7.05. Members of the class may, no later than August 31, 2015, petition the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.ktmc.com BREADS OF THE WORLD: Faces Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation ---------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Woods on behalf of Himself and all others similarly situated, v. Breads of the World, LLC, d/b/a Panera Bread and Panera, LLC, Case: 2:15-cv-02618-GLF-NMK (S.D., Ohio), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Breads Of The World, L.L.C. owns and operates bakery-cafes. The company primary engages in the franchising of Panera Bread bakery- cafes in north and west Ohio and Denver and Colorado Springs in Colorado. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Spitz, Esq. Fred M. Bean, Esq. THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC 4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290 Warrensville Heights, OH 44128 Phone: (216) 291-4744 Fax: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: Brian.Spitz@SpitzLawFirm.com Fred.Bean@SpitzLawFirm.com C TECH: Settlement in "Babcock" Case Has Preliminary Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Marilyn Dolan Go of the Eastern District of New York granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of the class settlement agreement in the case JENNIFER BABCOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. C. TECH COLLECTIONS, INC., a New York Corporation, et al., Defendants. LINDA CAMPBELL-HICKS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. C. TECH COLLECTIONS, INC., Defendant, NOS. 1:14-CV- 3124 (MDG), 2:14-CV-3576 (MDG) (E.D.N.Y.) For settlement purposes, the court provisionally certifies the class of: -- all consumers to whom defendants mailed a written communication in connection with an attempt to collect a debt, which included a statement that a $3.00 convenience fee will be added for credit card payments, regardless of whether such fee was paid or not, during a period beginning May 19, 2013, and ending June 9, 2014 (Class #1) and -- all consumers to whom defendants mailed a written communication in connection with an attempt to collect a debt, which included a statement that a $3.00 convenience fee will be added for credit card payments, and who paid such a fee, during a period beginning May 19, 2011, and ending June 9, 2014 (Class #2). Plaintiffs Jennifer Babcock and Linda Campbell-Hicks are appointed as settlement class representatives. Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will establish a fund totaling $90,726.00. From the total settlement fund, the named plaintiffs will each receive a payment of $1,000.00 for their individual claims under the FDCPA, plus an additional payment of up to $3,500.00 subject to court approval for their service to the class members. Plaintiff Babcock will receive an additional $153.00 for her claims brought under New York General Business Law Section 349 for actual damages sustained. From the total settlement fund, $69,573.00 will be made available for class #2. Each member of class #2 who timely submits a claim form will receive a check for the $3.00 fee each paid to defendants. Any unclaimed portion of the $69,573.00 fund for class #2 and any disallowed service award to the plaintiffs will be added to the $12,000.00 fund for class #1. Each member of class #1 and each member of class #2 who timely submits a claim form is also entitled to a pro rata portion of the $12,000.00, plus any unclaimed portion of the funds for class #2 and any disallowed service award. To the extent that there are any funds from un- cashed, expired settlement checks, those funds will be paid over to a cy pres award to be distributed to the National Consumer Law Center. The court appoints Andrew T. Thomasson, Abraham Kleinman, Brian L. Bromberg and Joseph Maruo as class counsel. Defendants must provide the claims administrator selected by the parties, in electronic form, with the names, social security numbers and last known addresses of all class members within 10 days of the order. class counsel must mail, via first class mail, postage prepaid, the class notice to class members using the last known address as recorded in defendant's records by August 20, 2015. Class members will have until October 20, 2015 to submit claim forms, request exclusion or object to the settlement. All eligible individuals who sign and return a claim form by October 20, 2015 shall be included in the settlement class and shall be bound by the terms of the settlement agreement and the judgment and all orders entered by the court in connection with the settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable to the class. Plaintiffs must file a motion for final approval of the settlement and any application by class counsel for attorneys' fees or reimbursement of expenses by November 10, 2015. The motion must also include a list of the names and addresses of the class members who have filed claim forms and objectors, together with any response plaintiffs have received from the objectors. The court will hold a fairness hearing on November 17, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY, Courtroom 11C. A copy of Magistrate Judge Go's preliminary approval order dated July 24, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/eoJIXOfrom Leagle.com. Jennifer Babcock, Plaintiff, represented by: Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq. Stern Thomasson LLP 2816 Morris Avenue, Suite 30 Union, NJ 07083-4870 Telephone: 973-379-7500 - and - Abraham Kleinman, Esq. Kleinman, LLC 626 RXR Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556-0626 Telephone: 516-522-2621 Facsimile: 888-522-1692 Defendants, represented by: Arthur Sanders, Esq. Barron & Newburger, P.C. 30 S. Main St. New York City, NY 10956 Telephone: 845-548-2213 CAMPUS MOTEL: Faces "Molina" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Josefina Molina and Sugey Arenal Molina v. Campus Motel LLC, Tony Amin and Manharlal Amin, Case No. RG15779061 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants operate a motel located at 1619 University Avenue in Berkeley California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Martin Zurada, Esq. VENARDI URADA LLP 700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 937-3900 Facsimile: (925) 937-3905 E-mail: mzurada@vefirm.com CELLADON CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of a class of investors who purchased publicly traded securities of Celladon Corporation ("Celladon" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CLDN) between July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015, inclusive. Wolf Haldenstein encourages all shareholders who suffered losses on securities purchased within the Class Period to contact us immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735. Celladon is a clinical-stage biotechnology company which is focused on the development of cardiovascular gene therapy and calcium dysregulation. The Company's lead candidate is MYDICAR to treat inadequate pumping in heart failure patients. The investigation concerns whether the Company potentially misled investors regarding the design of its MYDICAR clinical trials; and otherwise misled investors regarding the successful FDA approval of MYDICAR. On April 26, 2015, Celladon issued a press release announcing that the Company's Phase 2b CUPID2 trial of MYDICAR did not meet its primary and secondary goals. As a result of this news, the price of Celladon stock plummeted $11.04 per share to close at $2.64 per share on April 27, 2015, a decline of 80% on volume of 32 million shares. On June 26, 2015, before the market opened, Celladon issued a press release announcing the suspension of its plans for further research or development of its MYDICAR program and other pre- clinical programs, and indicating the possibility that the Company could be liquidated with net cash available to shareholders of $25-$30 million. As a result of this news, the price of Celladon stock dropped $0.85 per share to close at $1.35 per share on June 26, 2015, a decline of 38% on volume of 9 million shares. If you purchased Celladon Corporation securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than August 31, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York, Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make reference to the "Celladon Investigation." CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP: Judge Finalizes $119MM Royalty Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Monies, writing for The Oklahoman, reported that a judge in Beaver County has finalized a $119 million class-action royalty settlement against Chesapeake Energy Corp. over marketing expenses and other deductions from Oklahoma natural gas royalties in the past decade. Royalty owners claimed Chesapeake Operating LLC improperly deducted expenses for marketing, processing, compression and other midstream services. The owners said they were owed about $313 million in underpaid royalties from Jan. 1, 2004, to Jan. 31, 2014, for more than 11,800 natural gas wells in Oklahoma. Beaver County District Judge Jon K. Parsley said just three of more than 168,000 royalty owners covered under the settlement opposed it. Another 640 royalty owners opted out of the settlement class. "The settlement amount of $119 million is among the highest recoveries in the history of Oklahoma royalty underpayment class actions," Parsley wrote in his order. "Months of mediation and negotiation led to the settlement, ensuring the arms-length nature of and the fairness of the process." Parsley awarded lead attorneys Rex Sharp, Joseph Gunderson and Arthur Schmidt about 40 percent -- $47.6 million -- of the settlement award for attorneys' fees. The judge also awarded another $310,000 in litigation expenses and about $357,000 as an incentive award. A handful of royalty owners opposed the award for attorney fees, but Parsley said they failed to provide adequate reasons why the legal fees should deviate from other class-action royalty underpayment cases in Oklahoma where the rate was about 40 percent. "To prosecute these claims against a well-financed defendant with vast resources, represented by well-known defense counsel, necessitated assembling a team of qualified, skilled and experienced oil and gas litigation attorneys," Parsley wrote in his order approving attorneys' fees and costs. "Settlement class counsel collectively have decades of experience in oil and gas litigation and have prosecuted numerous class actions and complex cases." Sharp could not be reached for comment. Chesapeake did not admit fault and denied it did anything wrong under the law. "We are pleased that the court approved the agreement and look forward to further strengthening our relationships with our Oklahoma royalty owners," Chesapeake spokesman Gordon Pennoyer said. The Chesapeake royalty case is just the latest in a line of class- action settlements alleging the underpayment of royalties by energy companies in Oklahoma. Almost 50 previous class-action settlements have netted royalty owners more than $1.2 billion during the past two decades. The lawsuits came about because of different interpretations by the courts of what "marketable" means in natural gas sales. A 1998 court decision found oil and gas lessees are to bear the costs for making gas "marketable," not royalty owners. The uncertainty has led to many cases over the dispute being settled rather than taken to trial. As well as the parties who opted out, the Chesapeake royalty settlement doesn't include federal agencies, tribes or royalty owners covered in previous settlements. CHINA FINANCE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray announces that a class action has been filed on behalf of investors of China Finance Online, Co. ("China Finance" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JRJC) who purchased shares of China Finance between May 6, 2014 through June 3, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have been damaged by the recent declines in the Company's stock price. China Finance investors must file a motion by August 4, 2015 for consideration as a class representative in this purported class action. The lawsuit concerns the Company's and its executives' alleged violations of the securities laws, based on recent reports alleging that: (1) the most current Chinese government records show that China Finance Chairman and CEO Zhiwei Zhao suddenly resigned from his positions at three key Chinese VIE subsidiaries of China Finance over the past few months; (2) Chinese media reports exposing the detention of the Company's independent director Rongquan Leng prompted China Finance to announce his resignation, without addressing his alleged detention; and (3) Ling Wang, a former long-time China Finance director and associate of Zhao, fled China in 2014, leaving his company indebted to China Finance for $25 million. The complaint alleges that when the truth was finally revealed regarding the above Company matters, shares of China Finance fell $1.28 per share, to close on June 3, 2015 at $5.67, a one-day decline of 22% on volume of over 3 million shares thereby damaging investors. If you purchased shares of China Finance during the Class Period, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll- Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. CHRYSLER LLC: Says Warranty Shields from Paying Suit Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ Jenna Reed, writing for GlassBytes,com, reported that Chrysler has asked the judge to strike plaintiffs' claims for damages and injunctive relief due to a Basic Limited Warranty former owners received when they purchased their vehicles. The class action lawsuit revolves around allegations that certain Chrysler models have a sunroof defect that causes them to leak. "In the event this court does not dismiss the complaint in its entirety, defendant Fiat Chrysler has moved to strike plaintiffs' prayer for consequential damages and plaintiffs' prayer for injunctive and equitable relief," according to court documents. "[P]laintiffs' opposition [to the motion to dismiss] does nothing to establish that plaintiffs have viable claims for consequential damages or equitable and injunctive relief. Fiat Chrysler's U.S. motion should be granted. . . . Fiat Chrysler seeks to strike the prayer for consequential damages as to all plaintiffs and class members because the Basic Limited Warranty covering the vehicles at issue unequivocally disclaims all liability for consequential damages. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the express disclaimer is a part of the warranty, but they argue that it should not be enforced because it is unconscionable and ambiguous," attorneys for Chrysler write in the court documents. Six Chrysler owners had filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against the automaker in U.S. District Court of New Jersey alleging that a defect in the sunroofs causes them to leak. Vehicles covered in the lawsuit include the Jeep Patriot, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep Commander, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Town and Country and Chrysler 300. The model years are 2009 to present. The plaintiffs include David Cox of Ohio, Melissa Doherty of Massachusetts, Teresa Hughes of Texas, Anthony Lombardo of New York, Andrew Manesis of New Jersey and Michael Newcomb of Massachusetts. They seek to represent themselves and all others similarly situated. The judge has not issued a decision in the case at press time. CSX TRANSPORTATION: Sued in Tenn. Over Property Damages ------------------------------------------------------- Charles Tipton, Billy Tipton, and Travis and Elizabeth Pruett, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of a class of other people similarly situated v. CSX Transportation, Inc. and Union Tank Car Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-0031-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn., July 22, 2015), is an action for property damages as a result of the catastrophic derailment of a train hauling toxic chemicals in Maryville, Blount County, Tennessee, that resulted fire and release of toxic chemicals, including acrylonitrile and hydrogen cyanide, into the air and soil. CSX Transportation, Inc. operates a train consisting of two locomotives, 45 loaded rail cars carrying mixed freight, and 12 empty rail cars, traveling from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Waycross, Georgia. Union Tank Car Company is a railway equipment leasing company with its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary A. Davis, Esq. James S. Whitlock, Esq. DAVIS & WHITLOCK, P.C. 21 Battery Park Ave., Suite 206 Asheville, NC 28801 Telephone: (828) 622-0044 Facsimile: (828) 398-0435 E-mail: gadavis@enviroattorney.com jwhitlock@enviroattorney.com - and - Jeffrey E. Friedman, Esq. Matt D. Conn, Esq. FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO, ZULANAS & BOWLING, PC 3800 Corporate Woods Drive Birmingham, AL 35242 Telephone: (205) 278-7000 Facsimile: (205) 278-7001 E-mail: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com mconn@friedman-lawyers.com - and - L. Jeffrey Hagood, Esq. Todd J. Moody, Esq. HAGOOD MOODY HODGE PLC 900 S. Gay St., Suite 2100 Knoxville, TN 37902 Telephone: (865) 525-7313 E-mail: JeffHagood@hagoodmoodyhodge.com ToddMoody@hagoodmoodyhodge.com - and - Beecher A. Bartlett Jr., Esq. KRAMER RAYSON LLP 800 S. Gay Street, Ste. 2500 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 525-5134 Facsimile: (865) 522-5723 E-mail: bbartlett@kramer-rayson.com - and - Craig L. Garrett, Esq. 607 Smithview Dr. Maryville, TN 37803 Telephone: (865) 984-8200 Facsimile: (865) 981-2833 E-mail: CGarrett@cgarrettlaw.com DELTA AIR: Accused of Conspiring to Fix Airline Ticket Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Pomeroy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co. and United Airlines, Inc., Case 1:15-cv- 02525-AT (N.D. Ga., July 15, 2015), arises from Defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline tickets through a number of means, including by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United States, and limiting access to competitive fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high in violation of the Sherman Act, and the Clayton Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Bain, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC 1050 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309 Tel: (404) 724-9990 Fax: (404) 724-9986 E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com - and - Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq. GILMAN LAW LLP 8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite 525 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Tel: (781) 307-2526 E-mail: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com EAST PARK MAINTENANCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Juan Salazar, and all others similarly-situated v. East Park Maintenance Corp., and 2102 Caton Properties LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-04250 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. East Park Maintenance is a New York-based corporation that provides full service real estate management services to its customers. It oversees the management of a number of properties throughout New York. 2102 Caton Properties is a New York based limited liability company created for the purpose of overseeing and managing a number of apartment complexes located on Caton avenue in conjunction with East Park Maintenance, including overseeing and managing the apartment complexes located at 2 104 & 2114 Caton Avenue. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd Dickerson, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES 1010 Northern Boulevard, Ste 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Tel: (516) 248-5550 Fax: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com ELETROBRAS: Faces "Franklin" Securities Suit in New York Court -------------------------------------------------------------- James Franklin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. - Eletrobras, Jose da Costa Carvalho Neto, and Armando Casado de Araujo, Case 1:15-cv-05754 (S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2015), is a purported federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Eletrobras ADSs between February 10, 2014 and April 29, 2015, inclusive. Defendant Eletrobras is a Brazilian electric company with its principal executive offices in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Eletrobras ADSs trade on the NYSE under the ticker "EBR." The Plaintiff is represented by: Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 ESKATON VILLAGE: Former Execs Released from Homeowners Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Keri Brenner, writing for The Union, reported that two former executives on the Eskaton Village Grass Valley homeowners association board of directors have been dismissed as defendants from the class action lawsuit pending in Sacramento County Superior Court. Mark Cullen, chief financial officer on the board from 2003 through November 2011, and Trevor Hammond, a former chief operating officer at Eskaton who also served on the HOA board, were both dismissed "with prejudice" by lead homeowner plaintiffs Ron Coley and Karen Lorini on May 11. Cullen said in a letter to The Union that "I was no longer on the EVGV HOA board of directors during the alleged claim of negligence. In short, neither plaintiffs nor their attorneys could prove the allegations in the complaint, as they related to me personally, and can never refile the alleged claims against me." Coley, whose class action suit represents approximately 130 owners of the "patio homes" at the Grass Valley complex, said that, after consultation with his attorneys, he is making the following statement in answer to Cullen's remarks: "Our formal position is we stand by the complaint. We believe everything in the complaint is accurate. "We released (the defendants) as a good faith measure, in the hopes that it would facilitate a more global settlement," he added. Other defendants still named in the suit include Eskaton CEO Todd Murch, COO Elizabeth Donovan, the homeowners association and other Eskaton corporate entities. The complaint, originally filed late, alleges nine counts of breach of fiduciary duties, financial elder abuse, unfair business practices and negligence. Most of the counts relate to alleged misrepresentation of services and amenities promised the homeowners but not delivered, or alleged discrepancies in fees charged to homeowners in relation to the same shared services charged for the community's rental unit lodge facilities for assisted living tenants. Cullen, in a follow-up email to The Union, said he was in charge of budgets and expenses for the HOA for eight years. As such, he said, he specifically objects to allegations of "breach of fiduciary duties." "I might add that in the eight years I served on the board, (in) not a single year was the budget ever exceeded and in many years, the HOA came in under budget and the surplus would be paid into the project reserves," he said. "In addition, during the entire time I served as CFO for the board, there was not a single special assessment." Hammond could not be reached for comment. The two sides in the suit have had two mediation sessions so far. Both plaintiffs and defendants in the suit are barred from discussing the mediation details or what items were on the table. At a town hall on June 24, Coley reached out to the other homeowners to get a sense of how they felt. Coley declined comment on the status of the case. EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "Lord" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Mandy Lord, and others similarly-situated v. Everbank Financial Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00596 (W.D. Tex., July 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendant is a diversified financial services company providing banking, mortgages, and investing services. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP 1801 N. Lamar St., Ste. 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Tel: (214) 749-1400 Fax: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com - and - Jack Siegel, Esq. SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC 10440 N. Central Expy, Ste 1040 Dallas, TX 75231 Tel: (214) 706-0834 Fax: (469) 339-0204 EXPRESSWAY MOTORCARS: Removed "Lopez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Alfonso Lopez and other similarly situated individuals v. Expressway Motorcars, Inc. d/b/a Toyota of South Florida, Case No. 15-013273 CA 01, was removed 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22731-MGC to the proceeding. The action asserts claims for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Saul Remer, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Court House Tower 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com The Defendant is represented by: Christine Lynne Wilson, Esq. Jason Daniel Berkowitz, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 2 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 3500 One Biscayne Tower Miami, FL 33131-1802 Telephone: (305) 577-7600 Facsimile: 373-4466 E-mail: wilsonc@jacksonlewis.com berkowitzj@jacksonlewis.com FAMOUS ITALIAN: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Morales, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated employees v. Famous Italian Village Inc. d/b/a Italian Village Pizzeria & Restaurant, and Joseph Notaro, Case No. 1:15-cv-05786 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant at 1526 First Avenue, New York, New York 10075. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Hans Cooper, 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: pcooper@jcpclaw.com FEDEX GROUND: "Blazonis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Paul Blazonis v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., and Publishers Circulation Fulfillment, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02144 (D. Md., July 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a private organization that packages and delivers mail to residential and business clients. The Plaintiff is represented by: James A. Lanier, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER T. NICHOLL 36 S Charles Street, Suite 1700 Baltimore, MD 21201 Telephone: (410) 244-7005 Facsimile: (410) 244-8454 E-mail: jlanier@nicholllaw.com FLEXSEDANS.COM: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Griffin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly- situated v. Kenneth Lucci, Erin Santiago, and Flexsedans.com, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-01717-RAL-MAP (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a real estate company based in Clearwater, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq. Christina Jean Thomas, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, PA Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (954) 333-3515 E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com cthomas@forthepeople.com FLORAL LOGISTICS: Faces Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation ------------------------------------------------------- Angel B. Mendoza, Julio C. Morera, and other similarly-situated individuals, v. Floral Logistics of Miami, Inc., Koubi Ronen, and Ralph Milman, individually, Case 1:15-cv-22668-DPG (S.D., Fla., July 16, 2015), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Floral Logistics is a third party logistics provider specializing in perishable commodities such as flowers, fresh produce, and meats. It provides full warehousing, transportation and related services to companies engaged in interstate commerce. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 3100 South Dixie Highway Suite # 202 Miami, FL 33133 Tel: (305) 446-1500 Fax: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com FOX SEARCHLIGHT: 2d. Circ. Weighs in on Unpaid Interns ------------------------------------------------------ In an article written by Dentons, in 2011, a pair of unpaid interns who worked for Fox Searchlight Pictures on the 2010 film Black Swan filed suit against Fox claiming they should have been compensated as "employees" under the US Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York labor law. Shortly thereafter, another Fox intern joined the case and filed a class and collective action against the company alleging the entire Fox unpaid internship program violated federal and state law. In June 2013, the district court granted the interns' motion for summary judgment, certified the class, and conditionally certified the collective action. These rulings led to a cascade of other lawsuits filed against media and entertainment companies, including a similar class action filed against The Hearst Corporation. There, the lower court granted the interns' motion for summary judgment, but denied their motion for class certification on the grounds that there was no common internship program at issue amongst the plaintiffs. On July 2, 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court decisions against Fox and The Hearst Corporation, rejecting their reliance on the United States Department of Labor's (DOL) six-factor test1 often used for determining when an intern is an "employee" under the FLSA. Instead, the Second Circuit adopted the "primary beneficiary" test; a test followed in large part by the Fourth, Sixth and Eighth Circuits.2 Contrary to the DOL's rigid six-part test, under the "primary beneficiary" test, the critical inquiry becomes whether "the intern or the employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship." To reach that conclusion, the Second Circuit suggests courts weigh a variety of non-exhaustive factors, including: The extent to which the internship is tied to a formal education program, The extent to which the intern's work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees, and The extent to which the intern and employer understand that the internship is conducted without being entitled to pay or the expectation of employment at the conclusion of the internship. The Second Circuit has remanded both cases back to the district court for further proceedings. Several commentators have suggested that the plaintiffs will most likely be able to satisfy the primary beneficiary test and move forward with their class certification efforts. The Second Circuit's opinion, however, calls that analysis into question. For example, the Second Circuit recognized that the question of an intern's employment status under the primary beneficiary test is a "highly individualized inquiry [.]" And individualized inquiry requirements are usually fatal to class and collective action certification efforts. Regardless of how these cases are ultimately resolved, there are two important takeaways for employers: There remains an open question as to whether the primary beneficiary test applies nationwide. Although other circuits may choose to follow the Second Circuit's guidance, they are not required to do so. Moreover, the DOL's six-factor test remains its official guidance, and therefore may apply in any DOL enforcement proceedings. To avoid confusion, and because the DOL's test and the Second Circuit's primary beneficiary test apply similar factors, employers should audit their current unpaid internship programs so as to comply with both. This could include not having unpaid interns displace regular employees, ensuring that the unpaid internship is tied to a formal educational program, and entering into a written agreement with the intern to memorialize the understanding that there is no expectation of remuneration during the course of the internship, nor is there a promise of permanent employment following the end of the internship. The US employment and labor team at Dentons is ready to help you navigate this complicated area of the law, and audit your current unpaid internship programs. We will also continue to monitor these unpaid intern cases for future developments. FRIENDLY'S ICE CREAM: Seeks Partial Dismissal of Workers' Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Wentz, writing for The Evening Sun, reported that attorneys for Friendly's Ice Cream hope to have part of a suit filed against the chain dismissed. Two former employees of Friendly's in Gettysburg filed a complaint against the restaurant in June, alleging that they and other employees were forced to work unpaid or underpaid hours. Their legal counsel sought to have the case certified as a class action suit, which could apply to anyone who works or has worked at any of Friendly's roughly 350 locations in the past three years and has not signed an anti-arbitration agreement. The chain, however, wants part of that complaint dismissed on the grounds that the Friendly's for which the plaintiffs worked is corporate-owned, unlike roughly half of the restaurant's locations, which are independently owned. The chain, represented by Fisher and Phillips LLP of Radnor, filed the motion for partial dismissal July 1. The plaintiffs -- represented by Kolman Ely, P.C. and Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson and Garber, LLP -- plan to oppose the request, according to court documents. Friendly's former employees Tisha Reed and Natasha Walker made the initial complaint against the restaurant after working as servers at a Friendly's Restaurant at 445 Steinwehr Ave., Gettysburg. They allege the chain required them and other servers to work during unpaid meal breaks, according to the complaint filed in United States District Court. They also state in the complaint that their employer forced them to spend part of their work time on non-tipped class while working at the tipped minimum wage of $2.83 per hour. The complaint alleges these practices stem from corporate policies and therefore warrant a class action suit. A phone conference between court officials and people involved in the case was scheduled for July 28. GENT'S ENTERPRISES: Faces "Terrefe" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT --------------------------------------------------------------- Samara Terrefe, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Gent's Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05774 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Gent's Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates Kabooz's Bar Grill in Penn Station, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Finn Walter Dusenbery, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF FINN W. DUSENBERY 12 Desbrosses St New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (646) 723-4376 Facsimile: (212) 226-7186 E-mail: finn@dusenberylaw.com - and - Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM 233 Broadway, 5th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548 Facsimile: (212) 688-5639 E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com GOOGLE INC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit for Sale of Play Gift Cards -------------------------------------------------------------- Lorena Hernandez and Malynda Hernandez on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Google, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation) and Google Payment Corporation, Case 5:15-cv-03303- HRL (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2015), alleges that the Defendants marketed, sold and issued Google Play Gift Cards in a deceptive and illegal manner in violation of California Civil Code, the Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code, the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law. Google is a U.S. multinational corporation that specializes in internet-related services and products. Google developed, manages, and oversees the Android operating system, which operates most non-Apple mobile devices. Google markets and sells digital media such as music, magazines, books, movies and television programs in its store, Google Play. GPC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Google and is the issuer of the Google Play Gift Cards. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE 600 West Broadway Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 230-0800 Fax: (619) 230-1874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (215) 963-0600 Fax: (215) 963-0838 - and - BRIAN FELGOISE FELGOISE LAW FIRM The Pavilion, 261 Old York Rd # 518 Jenkintown, PA 19046 Tel: (215) 886-1900 Fax: (215) 886-1909 IDI INC: Faces "Heim" Suit for Alleged Securities Law Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Garrett Heim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. IDI, Inc., Peter W.H. Tan, Derek Dubner, and Jacky Wang, Case 9:15-cv-81019-BB (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2015), is a purported federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class consisting of all persons other than defendants who purchased IDI securities between April 30, 2015 and July 21, 2015, inclusive. IDI, Inc., formerly Tiger Media, Inc., is an information solutions provider focused on the data-fusion market. The Plaintiff is represented by: Laurence Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10116 Phone: (212) 686-1060 Fax: (212) 202-3827 JOSHUA MOTORS: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------ Dezenia Negro, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Joshua Motors, Marisol Stahlberger and Joshua Doe, Case No. L-002837-15 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., July 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' unconscionable business practices in violation of the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract and Notice Act and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The Defendants own and operate an automobile dealership company in Vineland, New Jersey. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles N. Riley, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES N. RILEY, LLC 900 N. Kings Hwy., Ste. 308 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 667-4666 K&G MENS: Judge Grants Conditional Certification on FLSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gray H. Miller of the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, granted plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the case KENNETH HOPPENS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. K&G MEN'S COMPANY, INC., and K&G MEN'S COMPANY, INC., D/B/A K&G FASHION SUPERSTORE, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-2393 (S.D. Tex.) Kenneth Hoppens was an Assistant Store Manager for Defendants K&G Men's Company, Inc. and K&G Men's Company, Inc., d/b/a K&G Fashion Superstore (K&G). Hoppens claims that his manager at K&G instructed him to only work on-the-clock 40 hours a week, while he actually worked between 60-70 hours per week. Hoppens also contends that he did not receive any overtime pay for the 20-30 hours of off-the-clock work that he completed each week. Hoppens filed suit under the FLSA for overtime violations and retaliation. He asserts his overtime claim on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees. Hoppens moves for conditional certification so that he may issue notice to current and former Assistant Store Managers at K&G's stores across the nation about their right to opt-in to the class. K&G responded to the motion claiming that only Hoppens' manager violated company policy by making the personal decision to encourage him to only record 40 hours a week and to work off the clock for the rest. K&G further contends that there are not other similarly situated Assistant Store Managers who have faced the same issue. Additionally, K&G claims that class treatment is inappropriate because Hoppens' job duties were different from other Assistant Store Managers, and he worked significantly more hours than the others. Judge Miller granted plaintiff's motion for conditional certification and within 14 days of the date of the order K&G shall provide Hoppen's counsel a list of all individuals who have worked for K&G as an Assistant Store Manager from three years prior to the date of the order. The list shall only include the individuals' names and addresses. Also within 14 days of the date of the order, the parties are ordered to meet and confer about the language and timing of the notice. The parties are to file an agreed notice form with the court within 21 days of the date of the order. If the parties cannot agree to a notice form, Hoppens' counsel shall file its proposed notice form with the court within 21 days of the date of the order, and K&G shall respond with its objections within seven days after the notice is filed. A copy of Judge Miller's order dated July 24, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/RGybYrfrom Leagle.com. Kenneth Hoppens, Plaintiff, represented by: Andrew Lawrence Mintz, Esq. ANDREW LAWRENCE MINTZ, PLLC 2603 Augusta, Suite 880 Houston, TX 77057 Telephone: 713-961-8026 Defendants, represented by Linda Cooper Schoonmaker -- lschoonmaker@seyfarth.com -- Esteban Shardonofsky -- sshardonofsky@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP KEURIG GREEN: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------------- Edward Jazlowiecki, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Brian P. Kelley, and Frances G. Rathke, Case No. 5:15-cv-03396-BLF (N.D. Cal., July 23, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Waterbury, Vermont with an office in Castroville, California. Keurig is a specialty coffee and coffee maker business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Pafiti, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 468 North Camden Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (310) 285-5330 E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com jhood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com KIA MOTORS: Panoramic Sunroofs Shatter Dangerously, Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Kia Motors' thrice-recalled "panoramic sunroofs" shatter dangerously, a class action claims in California Federal Court. LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Misleading Statements ----------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Avila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LifeLock, Inc., Todd Davis, and Chris Power, Case No. 2:15-cv-01398-DKD (D. Ariz., July 22, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's services and compliance with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) settlement, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. LifeLock, Inc. provides identity theft protection services for consumers and fraud and risk solutions for enterprises. The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard G. Himelrick, Esq. TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A. Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II 2525 East Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 255-6000 Facsimile: (602) 255-0103 E-mail: rgh@tblaw.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. Robert V. Prongay, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com rprongay@glancylaw.com LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Judge Orders Plaintiff to Explain New Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of California, San Francisco, made an order on plaintiff's renewed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement in the case 4EC HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON LLP, a Texas limited liability partnership, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01944 VC (N.D. Cal.) Plaintiff 4EC Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and defendant Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP, a Texas limited liability partnership, made a stipulation through their respective attorneys of record that pertains to plaintiff's pending renewed motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. The parties have agreed upon an amended stipulation of class action settlement and the amended stipulation, including its exhibits filed with the court concurrently with the stipulation. Certain terms of the amended stipulation differ from those to which the parties had agreed as of the time that plaintiff filed its renewed motion. The parties have eliminated the claims-made feature of the proposed settlement and have streamlined the settlement administration process to substantially reduce administrative costs and eliminate the need for time-consuming and expensive claims processing. The settlement fund will now be $3.4 million, reflecting the non-contingent nature of the proposed settlement. Under terms of the proposed settlement, at least $2 million of that settlement fund will be available for distribution to the settlement class, and monies that go unclaimed by the settlement class and are not needed to pay costs of administration or any award of attorneys' fees and expenses to class counsel are to be donated to charity. The parties ask that the amended stipulation now be considered as jointly proposed to the court in the place and stead of the settlement terms that had been agreed-upon as of the time plaintiff filed the renewed motion, and that the court consider plaintiff's renewed motion as requesting preliminary approval of the proposed settlement as set forth in the amended stipulation. Judge Chhabria ordered plaintiff to file a reply brief that contains an explanation that clearly explains how the terms of the stipulation have changed from when the plaintiff filed its opening brief in support of preliminary approval. A copy of Judge Chhabria's stipulated order dated July 24, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/gwLes7from Leagle.com. Michael L. Charlson -- mcharlson@velaw.com -- Russell Yager -- ryager@velaw.com -- at VINSON & ELKINS LLP, Attorneys for Defendant, LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON LLP, a Texas limited liability partnership William McGrane -- william.mcgrane@mcgranellp.com -- at McGRANE LLP; Jonathan R. Bass -- jrb@coblentzlaw.com -- at COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP; Matthew J. Shier -- mshier@shierkatz.com -- at Shierkatz RLLP, Attorneys for plaintiff, 4EC HOLDINGS, LLC LYALL MANUFACTURING: Wis. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ James Johannsen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lyall Manufacturing Wi, Inc. d/b/a R.W. Lyall & Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00897 (E.D. Wis., July 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and any such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operates a manufacturing facility at 16875 W Ryerson Road, New Berlin, Wisconsin, 53151. The Plaintiff is represented by: Larry A. Johnson, Esq. Summer Murshid, Esq. Timothy Maynard, Esq. HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C. 222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442 Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442 Telephone: (414) 271-8650 Facsimile: (414) 271-8442 E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com smurshid@hq-law.com tmaynard@hq-law.com MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Faces Demand to Extend Protective Netting ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gail Payne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (d/b/a Major League Baseball); and Robert D. Manfred, Jr., Case 4:15-cv-03229 (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2015), seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendants, among other things, to adopt corrective measures regarding: the implementation of (1) a rule requiring all existing major league and minor league indoor and outdoor ballparks to be retrofitted to extend protective netting from foul pole to foul pole, by the beginning of the 2016-2017 MLB season; (2) a rule requiring any newly constructed ballpark intended to house major or minor league baseball games, to include at a minimum this amount of netting; (3) a program to study injuries and the rates of injuries amongst spectators, including the type and manner of injury and at what locations in ballparks they occur, in an effort to continually reevaluate whether additional measures should be taken, so that precautionary measures can continue to evolve as the sport continues to evolve. The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball is an office created pursuant to the Major League Agreement entered into by the member Clubs of Major League Baseball. Defendant Robert D. Manfred, Jr. is the Commissioner of the Major League Baseball Association. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. Jon T. King, Esq. 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202 Berkeley, CA 94710 Tel: (510) 725-3000 Fax: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com jonk@hbsslaw.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Anthea Grivas, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel: (206) 623-7292 Fax: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com antheag@hbsslaw.com - and - Robert C. Hilliard, Esq. Marion Reilly, Esq. HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES L.L.P. 719 S Shoreline Blvd., Suite #500 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Tel: (361) 882-1612 Fax: (361) 882-3015 E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com marion@hmglawfirm.com * * * Craig Calcaterra, writing for NBC sports, reported that two consumer rights law firms filed a putative class-action lawsuit against Major League Baseball and Commissioner Rob Manfred for their alleged failure to act to protect ballpark spectators against foul balls and bat injuries. The suit seeks no monetary relief -- only to force Major League Baseball to install safety netting from foul pole to foul pole at all major and minor league parks by the beginning of the 2016-2017 MLB season. The complaint alleges that despite Manfred and MLB's statements about caring about fan safety above all else, "Manfred and the Office of the Commissioner have failed to act." It claims that Manfred and MLB "have failed to follow the path of other professional sports in the United States and in other countries that have taken readily-available and relatively inexpensive steps to protect its spectators." The suit goes on to cite players' concerns about fan safety, saying "tellingly, those who know the game and its dangers best -- the players -- have demanded since at least 2007 that protective measures be put in place -- something Manfred and the Office of the Commissioner have never disclosed to the public." This is something we at HBT have noted recently. The suit alleges that every year "fans of all ages, but often children, suffer horrific and preventable injuries, such as blindness, skull fractures, severe concussions and brain hemorrhages, when they are struck by a fast-moving ball or flying shrapnel from a shattered bat," and that Manfred has "continued to make statements that promote Major League ballparks as safe and family-friendly and has sought to increase attendance of young fans -- a demographic that is highly at risk for foul ball and bat injuries." The suit, filed on behalf of season ticket holders, with an Oakland A's fan named Gail Payne as the lead plaintiff, was filed in federal court in the Northern District of California. The plaintiffs' law firms are from Seattle and Corpus Christi, Texas. The 48 page complaint recounts the evolution of spectator protection, the risks posed by foul balls and shattered bats, injury rates among fans -- under the colorful heading "The Modern Day Slaughter Pen." Interestingly, Payne, the lead plaintiff has not suffered any injuries from foul balls or broken bats. Rather, she alleges the following: "Gail Payne, is an individual residing in Alameda County, in Oakland, California. She has been a devout fan of Major League Baseball's Oakland A's for nearly 50 years, since her aunt took her to her first A's game in 1968. She loves attending games, has attended many, and purchased tickets for the first time. She bought tickets in section 211, which she believes is less expensive than the sections covered by protective netting. At her seats, which are in an exposed section along the first base line, she fears for her and her husband's safety and particularly for her daughter. Due to the fact that at Oakland Coliseum, the protective netting behind the backstop is minimal, and does not extend to her seat, foul balls have shot into the stands around her more times than she can count. Gail estimates that at every game, at least three or four balls enter her section alone, and she is constantly ducking and weaving to avoid getting hit by foul balls or shattered bats. On one occasion Gail ducked to avoid a foul ball flying her way, but as alleged herein there is no guarantee she can duck the next time. In addition, due to the fact that at Oakland Coliseum, there are many, many distractions, such as a giant screen across from her section, and fan-participation contests that involve texting or using applications on mobile devices, she believes she and other fans are at increase risk of injury." The theory is that Payne and everyone else who might join this suit are all in a "Zone of Danger," and thus have standing to assert the claims. While the claims and the copious data cited by the plaintiffs regarding the risk of injury to fans is compelling on a certain level, it's another thing altogether to say that this suit has any kind of chance to force action by Major League Baseball, legally speaking. For one thing, the manner in which the case has been brought -- by people who could be injured, but have not yet been - - could sink this thing before it every got going. And, at the very least, could take years to be put through its procedural paces. More fundamentally, it runs smack up against the so-called "Baseball Rule." What is "the Baseball Rule?" Glad you asked! In most walks of life, whether someone is liable to you for injuries caused by alleged negligence is determined by a judgment call: was the harm foreseeable and did they act reasonably to prevent the harm from occurring? That's a matter for a jury to decide, and the jury can take all of the specific facts of the case into account in making that determination. Ballpark operators, however, have typically had a safe harbor that shields them from having a jury decide whether they acted prudently. It's called "The Baseball Rule," and it's a legal doctrine which underpins those little "we're not liable for you getting injured by flying balls and bats" disclaimers on the back of your ticket. The way it's usually formulated by the courts is that stadium owners and operators must provide "screened seats for as many spectators as may be reasonably expected to call for them on any ordinary occasion," and that if they do that, they're legally absolved of liability. Typically, providing screens behind home plate and around to each side to some degree puts owners in the safe harbor. In that case, it's a matter of law, not fact, and the judge will usually dismiss the case before it ever gets to a jury. That rule has been challenged more and more in recent years but it still, generally speaking has legal currency. You're more or less assuming the risk of injury at the ballpark. As I wrote, the ballpark experience has changed a lot. Seats are closer than they used to be. Balls are hit harder and bats shatter more easily. There are more distractions in the form of entertainment on the big screen, music and the like. The price of seats behind the screen can be prohibitive in many parks, putting a lot of fans in a situation to where they have to choose between spending a ton of money or sitting in unprotected seats. It's possible, in the right case, that a plaintiff could successfully challenge the Baseball Rule on grounds that what was once considered reasonable protection -- say, netting from dugout to dugout -- is no longer reasonable, and more netting is required. This lawsuit seems to be aiming at that specifically, seeking a declaration that, as of now, the netting is insufficient and that more must be put up. But given that the suit is casting so wide a, um, net, in terms of plaintiffs I have a hard time seeing them getting what they want out of this. Which, of course, it's possible the plaintiffs' lawyers know quite well and are using this as a means of highlighting the dangers of foul balls and broken bats so that, when someone is seriously injured, it will be much harder for Major League Baseball to claim that the risk was unforeseeable or adequately protected against. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Hagens Berman Leads Grave Safety Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Some of major league baseball's biggest fans -- season ticket holders -filed a class-action lawsuit against the commissioner of Major League Baseball (MLB) association Rob Manfred, and the office of the commissioner, alleging Manfred has failed to uphold his duties to enact safety measures against the danger of foul ball and bat injuries through a widespread pattern of negligence, misrepresentations and omissions toward baseball spectators at MLB games, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman and Hilliard Munoz and Gonzales LLP. The lawsuit alleges that tens of millions attend a Major League Baseball game annually, and every year fans of all ages, but often children, suffer horrific and preventable injuries, such as blindness, skull fractures, severe concussions and brain hemorrhages, when they are struck by a fast-moving ball or flying shrapnel from a shattered bat. The complaint filed on July 13, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleges that at the same time that the commissioner has failed to act to protect spectators, he has continued to make statements that promote Major League ballparks as safe and family-friendly and has sought to increase attendance of young fans -- a demographic that is highly at risk for foul ball and bat injuries. "Every type of fan is constantly at risk of serious injury or death. From infants to the elderly to anyone in between -- all are just one pitch away from a line drive foul ball heading at them at lightning speed," said Robert Hilliard, partner at Hilliard Munoz and Gonzales LLP. "If that foul ball is hit hard enough, reaction time is basically zero and life-threatening injury is certain." "This is a needless risk. Extending the nets will, as a fact, save lives," Hilliard added. "The MLB has stated that fan safety is its 'foremost goal,' but the league and commissioner's inaction and negligence to this growing risk have spoken much louder," Hilliard said. "It is the duty of the MLB commissioner to make change, and despite his responsibility and awareness of the pattern of spectator injuries, he has failed to uphold that duty to the detriment of millions of baseball's biggest fans." "What's more alarming is that MLB players -- who know the risks of baseball better than anyone -- have demanded since 2007 that safety netting at MLB fields be expanded to protect near the foul ball lines, something that the commissioner failed to disclose to the public," added Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. The nationwide class action seeks to change current MLB rules and practices, including requiring the MLB to retrofit all existing major league and minor league indoor and outdoor ballparks to extend protective netting from foul pole to foul pole by the beginning of the 2016-2017 MLB season. Relief sought also stipulates that all future ballparks intended to house major or minor league baseball games need to include at minimum this amount of safety netting. Plaintiffs also seek to create a program to study spectator injuries in an effort to continually reevaluate whether additional measures should be taken, so that precautionary measures can continue to evolve as the sport continues to evolve. Individuals who have purchased season tickets to any major or minor league park may contact Hagens Berman by emailing MLB@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against the MLB. "The seats in the exposed areas just past the netting, along first and third base, between the foul poles, where most foul balls are hit, are often occupied by families because they are more affordable and/or protected seats are sold out," the complaint alleges. "These seats are often occupied by young fans . . . However the area along the foul lines poses a particular danger to spectators. It is particularly dangerous because it is not protected from flying balls and bats by protective netting, and because traditionally, line drive fouls are normally hit flush, and send the ball at a higher velocity down the lines." According to the suit, the combination of right-handed power pitchers and left-handed hitters that are likely to swing late at fastballs tends to make the area behind and near the third base dugouts particularly dangerous. The first and third base lines are also dangerous because of their proximity to the bases, where players often throw at high velocity toward the bases in attempts to tag out runners. The suit also alleges that the commissioner has actively increased distractions and entertainment in the parks to appeal to younger fans, including enhanced larger JumboTron screens and displays. "It is time for the commissioner to take action, to protect spectators sitting between the foul lines along first and third base, where fans are suffering serious and entirely preventable injury," Berman said. "The MLB currently generates $9 billion in revenue annually. We think that asking the league and commissioner to be responsible for increased netting and basic protection for the fans who fill the seats is the MLB's duty to baseball's most dedicated." Hagens Berman has been a pioneer in national sports litigation and has filed class-action lawsuits against FIFA, the NFL, the NCAA and other sports governing bodies concerning risks to players' safety, concussions and brain injuries, rights to player likenesses in video games and rights to fair scholarships. Hilliard Munoz and Gonzales LLP has led the push for various reforms for decades, filing suits to protect residents of state schools from "fight clubs," suing to protect the innocent killing of Mexican citizens by U.S. Border Patrol agents, and stopping predatory lenders from wrongly foreclosing on lower income homeowners. Individuals who have purchased season tickets to any major or minor league park may contact Hagens Berman by emailing MLB@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against the MLB. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Hillard Munos Files Safety Negligence Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Some of major league baseball's biggest fans -- season ticket holders -filed a class-action lawsuit against the Major League Baseball (MLB) association, the commissioner of MLB Rob Manfred, and the office of the commissioner, alleging Manfred has failed to uphold his duties to enact safety measures against the danger of foul ball and bat injuries through a widespread pattern of negligence, misrepresentations and omissions toward baseball spectators at MLB games, according to Bob Hilliard of Hilliard Munoz and Gonzales LLP. The lawsuit states that tens of millions attend a Major League Baseball game annually, and every year fans of all ages, but often children, suffer horrific and preventable injuries, such as blindness, skull fractures, severe concussions and brain hemorrhages, when they are struck by a fast-moving ball or flying shrapnel from a shattered bat. The complaint filed on July 13, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleges that at the same time that the commissioner has failed to act to protect spectators, he has continued to make statements that promote Major League ballparks as safe and family-friendly and has sought to increase attendance of young fans -- a demographic that is highly at risk for foul ball and bat injuries, according to the complaint. "Every type of fan is constantly at risk of serious injury or death. From infants to the elderly to anyone in between -- all are just one pitch away from a line drive foul ball heading at them at lightning speed," said Robert Hilliard, partner at Hilliard Munoz and Gonzales LLP. "If that foul ball is hit hard enough, reaction time is basically zero and life-threatening injury is certain." "This is a needless risk. Extending the nets will, as a fact, save lives," Hilliard added. "The MLB has stated that fan safety is its 'foremost goal,' but the league and commissioner's inaction and negligence to this growing risk have spoken much louder," Hilliard said. "It is the duty of the MLB commissioner to make change, and despite his responsibility and awareness of the pattern of spectator injuries, he has failed to uphold that duty to the detriment of millions of baseball's biggest fans." "What's more alarming is that MLB players -- who know the risks of baseball better than anyone -- have demanded since 2007 that safety netting at MLB fields be expanded to protect near the foul ball lines, something that the commissioner failed to disclose to the public," added Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman. The nationwide class action seeks to change current MLB rules and practices, including requiring the MLB to retrofit all existing major league and minor league indoor and outdoor ballparks to extend protective netting from foul pole to foul pole by the beginning of the 2016-2017 MLB season. Relief sought also stipulates that all future ballparks intended to house major or minor league baseball games to include at minimum this amount of safety netting. Plaintiffs also seek to create a program to study spectator injuries in an effort to continually reevaluate whether additional measures should be taken, so that precautionary measures can continue to evolve as the sport continues to evolve. Individuals who have purchased season tickets to any major or minor league park may contact Hagens Berman by emailing MLB@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against the MLB. "The seats in the exposed areas just past the netting, along first and third base, between the foul poles, where most foul balls are hit, are often occupied by families because they are more affordable and/or protected seats are sold out," the complaint states. "These seats are often occupied by young fans... However the area along the foul lines poses a particular danger to spectators. It is particularly dangerous because it is not protected from flying balls and bats by protective netting, and because traditionally, line drive fouls are normally hit flush, and send the ball at a higher velocity down the lines." According to the suit, the combination of right-handed power pitchers and left-handed hitters that are likely to swing late at fastballs tends to make the area behind and near the third base dugouts particularly dangerous. The first and third base lines are also dangerous because of their proximity to the bases, where players often throw at high velocity toward the bases in attempts to tag out runners. The suit also alleges that the commissioner has actively increased distractions and entertainment in the parks to appeal to younger fans, including enhanced larger JumboTron screens and displays. "It is time for the commissioner to take action, to protect spectators sitting between the foul lines along first and third base, where fans are suffering serious and entirely preventable injury," Berman said. "The MLB currently generates $9 billion in revenue annually. We think that asking the league and commissioner to be responsible for increased netting and basic protection for the fans who fill the seats is the MLB's duty to baseball's most dedicated." Hagens Berman has been a pioneer in national sports litigation and has filed class-action lawsuits against FIFA, the NFL, the NCAA and other sports governing bodies concerning risks to players' safety, concussions and brain injuries, rights to player likenesses in video games and rights to fair scholarships. Hilliard Munoz and Gonzales LLP has led the push for various reforms for decades, filing suits to protect residents of state schools from "fight clubs," suing to protect the innocent killing of Mexican citizens by U.S. Border Patrol agents, and stopping predatory lenders from wrongly foreclosing on lower income homeowners. Individuals who have purchased season tickets to any major or minor league park may contact Hagens Berman by emailing MLB@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit against the MLB. About HMG Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP (HMG) specializes in mass torts, personal injury, product liability, commercial and business litigation, and wrongful death. HMG has been successfully representing clients in the United States and Mexico since 1986. Bob Hilliard obtained the Largest Verdict in the country in 2012 and the #1 verdict in Texas in 2013. More about the firm can be found at www.hmglawfirm.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at @hmglawfirmcc MARTHA STEWART: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Martha Stewart is selling her Living Omnimedia company too cheaply through an unfair process, for $6.15 a share or $353 million, a shareholder claims in a class action in Delaware Chancery Court. MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Ubom" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation -------------------------------------------------------------- Ibanga M. Ubom, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-05705-WHW-CLW (D.N.J., July 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph K. Jones, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC 375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100 Fairfield, NJ 07004 Telephone: (973) 227-5900 E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com MILLER CASTINGS: Faces "Parra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Parra, an individual and on behalf of other similarly situated v. Miller Castings, Inc., Case No. BC589105 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Miller Castings, Inc. is a California corporation that produces and supplies structural and integral components for aerospace and industrial gas turbine industries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Matern, Esq. MATERN LAW GROUP 1230 Rosecrans Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901 E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com MITOROTONDA SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Romero and Juan Muniz, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Mitorotonda Services, Inc., d/b/a Chief Fire Prevention, and Frank Mitorotonda., Case No. 1:15-cv-05778 (S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate several companies that perform cleaning services, installations and or fire safety services. The Plaintiff Jose Romero is represented by: Jose Romero PRO SE 329 Mt. Pleasant Ave, Apt 2 Mamaroneck, NY 10543 The Plaintiff Juan Muniz is represented by: Juan Muniz PRO SE 2527 Holland Ave, 2nd Fl. Bronx, NY 10467 MOVIE TAVERN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Kotchmar" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Tianna Kotchmar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Movie Tavern Partners, LP, Southern Theaters, LLC, and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-04061-CDJ (E.D. Pa., July 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a string of movie theaters throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq. KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC 1051 County Line Road, Suite A Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Telephone: (215) 364-5030 Facsimile: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com MULLIGAN'S MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit for Allegedly Violating FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- Exobe Vilneard, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Mulligan's Management Group, LLC and George Hart, Case 2:15-cv- 14248-RLR (S.D.Fla., July 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mulligan's Management and George Hart own and operate six Mulligan's Beach House Bar and Grill locations. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq. MORGADO, P.A. 382 NE 191st Street #84164 Miami, FL 33179 Tel: (855) 899-9121 x102 Fax: (855) 499-9191 E-mail: rer@morgado.us MYLAN NV: Action Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties --------------------------------------------------- Roofers Local 149 Pension Fund, and all others similarly-situated v. Mylan, N.V., Heather Bresch, and Robert J. Coury, Case No. 2:15-cv-00941 (W.D. Pa., July 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to the shareholders of Mylan, Inc. ("Old Mylan") by: (a) misrepresenting that, in seeking approval for the Tax Inversion, the Director Defendants knew -- but failed to disclose -- that they had already agreed to incorporate a foundation and grant it such a call option at the time they solicited the vote of Old Mylan shareholders in favor of the Tax Inversion; and (b) falsely representing that New Mylan would be bound by and would comply with NASDAQ's listing rules, which required specific shareholder approval prior to the issuance of securities that would result in a change of control. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the grant of the call option to the Stichting was not authorized in conformity with applicable law, and therefore is invalid. Alternatively, the vote should be rescinded or, if declaratory relief is unavailable, shareholders of Old Mylan should be awarded damages. Mylan N.V. ("New Mylan") is a public limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the Netherlands, with its principal place of business at Albany Gate, Darkes Lane, Potters Bar, Herts EN6 1AG, United Kingdom. New Mylan was incorporated on July 7, 2014, as New Moon B.V. ("New Moon"), a private limited liability company organized under the laws of the Netherlands, for the purpose of holding Old Mylan and the Abbott Business. Upon consummation of the Tax Inversion, New Moon was renamed Mylan N.V. Pursuant to the Tax Inversion, New Mylan is the successor in interest, and assumed all the rights, assets, liabilities and obligations of Old Mylan. Defendant Heather Bresch was the Chief Executive Officer and member of the Board of Directors of Old Mylan; and currently is the CEO and a director of New Mylan. Defendant Robert J. Coury was a member of the Board of Directors of Old Mylan, and currently is a director of New Mylan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP 115 Federal Street, Ste 210 Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Tel: (412) 322-9243 Fax: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com - and - Mark Lebovitch, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Tel: (212) 554-1400 Fax: (212) 554-1444 NEANY INC: "Lewis" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ariz. Wage Act Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Neany, Inc., Case 8:15-cv-02068 (D. Md., July 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant denied its logisticians wages and overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act. Neany is a defense contractor headquartered in Hollywood, Maryland with operations in Arizona, Florida and Virginia. It creates tactical surveillance aeronautical solutions, specifically military avionics systems, unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned aerial systems, surveillance and video/imagery solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Bloom, Esq. 751 Rockville Pike, Suite 11-B Rockville, MD 20852 Tel: (443) 691-7930 (202) 265-7755 Fax: (240) 235-4418 - and - Peter R. Rosenzweig, Esq. KLEINBARD LLC One Liberty Place, 46th Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (267) 443-4120 Fax: (215) 568-0140 NEANY INC: Faces 2nd "Lewis Suit Over FLSA, Wage Act Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael A. Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Neany, Inc., Case 8:15-cv-02069 (D. Md., July 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant denied its logisticians wages and overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act. Neany is a defense contractor headquartered in Hollywood, Maryland with operations in Arizona, Florida and Virginia. It creates tactical surveillance aeronautical solutions, specifically military avionics systems, unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned aerial systems, surveillance and video/imagery solutions. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Bloom, Esq. 751 Rockville Pike, Suite 11-B Rockville, MD 20852 Tel: (443) 691-7930 (202) 265-7755 Fax: (240) 235-4418 - and - Peter R. Rosenzweig, Esq. KLEINBARD LLC One Liberty Place, 46th Floor 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Tel: (267) 443-4120 Fax: (215) 568-0140 PACE CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Salvador Zuniga, and all others similarly-situated v. Pace Construction Services, LLC and Tommy Pace, 3:15-cv-00479 (M.D. La., July 21, 2015), seeks restitution of unpaid wages, an award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pace Construction Services, LLC provides construction services throughout the greater Baton Rouge area and elsewhere in Louisiana. Defendant Tommy Pace is the member and manager of Pace Construction Services. The Plaintiff can be reached at: Daniel Brian Davis, Esq. ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC 850 North Boulevard Baton Rouge, LA 70802 Tel: (225) 336-3394 Fax: (225) 384-5419 E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com - and - John H Smith, Esq. SMITH SHANKLIN SOSA 16851 Jefferson Highway, Suite 5A Baton Rouge, LA 70817 Tel: (225) 223-6333 Fax: (888) 413-8345 OCEAN EMPIRE: Accused of Violating FLSA, New York Labor Law ----------------------------------------------------------- Yevhen Lizanets, Vitalie Ladighin, Viktor Metenko, Jose Castro Tellez, and Carlos Juarez-Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Ocean Empire Management LLC, Shyraz Management Co. LLC, Samuel Hertz, Joseph Hertz, and John Doe, Executor in the Matter of the Estate of Ivona Hertz, Deceased, Case 1:15-cv-04161 (E.D. N.Y., July 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre-and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants own, operate and manage approximately ten large residential apartment buildings in New York City, including residential buildings located on Lincoln Road, Linden Avenue, and Ocean Avenue, among others. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Harrison, Esq. 110 State Highway 35, Suite #10 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Tel: (718) 799-9111 Fax: (718) 799-9171 E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com OFFICE DEPOT: Accused of Violating Handicap Parking Regulations --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Sliv Ak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Office Depot, Inc. d/b/a/ Office Max, Case 2:15-cv-03869-PBT (E.D. Penn., July 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendant failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act's regulations regarding handicap parking. Office Depot, Inc. is a supplier of office products and services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq. Demetri A. Braynin, Esq. 1051 County Line Road, Suite "A" Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006 Tel: (215) 364-5030 Fax: (215) 364-5029 E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com dbraynin@kalraylaw.com - and - Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. Robert J. Gray, Esq. CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP 2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308 King of Prussia, PA 19406 Tel: (610) 822-3700 Fax: (610) 822-3800 E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com rgray@cwg-law.com OTTAWA, CANADA: Farmers Group Shifts Strategy in Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Johnstone, writing for The Star Phoenix, reported that despite some legal setbacks, the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board is continuing to pursue its class action lawsuit against the federal government, filing an amended statement of claim in Federal Court in Ottawa. The amended statement of claim filed by four western Canadian farmers alleges Ottawa "shortchanged" farmers by $720 million from the Canadian Wheat Board in the 2011-12 fiscal year. The Harper government eliminated the board's legislative monopoly over export sales of western wheat and barley on Aug. 1, 2012. In April, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal decisions rejecting the Friends' claim that western farmers suffered a collective loss of $17 billion as a result of the elimination of the board's singledesk marketing authority. "The original class action was looking for compensation for the (CWB) assets that the farmers had paid for," said Stewart Wells, a former elected director of the CWB and currently chair of the Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board. "The courts couldn't provide that remedy, but what they did agree to was to have this (alleged $720-million loss) for the operations of 2011-12 looked at." Wells said the "missing" $720 million represents the difference between the average returns to producers from the CWB from the 11 years prior to 2011 and the return achieved in 2011-12,the CWB published audited financial statements. Well contends when "the elected farmers were running the CWB," about 93 per cent of sales revenue was returned to farmers between 1998 and the 2010-11. But under the government-run CWB, farmers received just 83 per cent of sales revenue to farmers in 2011-12. "That (10 per cent difference) doesn't sound like a lot of money, but the difference is $720 million," Wells said. "It wasn't as though the expenses stayed the same and the revenues dropped. These revenues were the third-highest (during that 11-year) time frame," he added. "We are concerned the CWBs expenses more than doubled for the 2011-12 crop year after the farmer directors were removed on Dec. 15, 2011." Wells noted the government allocated $349 million from its own coffers to cover restructuring costs at the CWB. However, it appears the government-run CWB decided not to use all of the taxpayer money in 2011-12. "In fact, it appears the governmentrun CWB even used money from pooling accounts to cover some of the restructuring costs," Wells said. Under the CWB Act, only the costs of the CWB's operations to sell a crop can be deducted from pooling accounts. PDI INC: "Severine" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------- Jim Severine, and others similarly-situated v. PDI, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05617 (D.N.J., July 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act and New Jersey Wage Laws during the new-hire training period and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. PDI, Inc. provides outsourced commercial services to established and emerging pharmaceutical, biotechnology and healthcare companies in the United States. The Company is a provider of outsourced sales teams that focus on healthcare providers, offering a range of complementary sales support services designed to achieve its customers' strategic and financial product objectives. The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew D. Miller, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Highway North, Ste 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Tel: (856) 685-7420 Fax: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com PENNY NEWMAN: Judge Allows Parties to Amend Settlement Agreement ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of California approved the parties' stipulation in the case JESUS PALACIOS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. PENNY NEWMAN GRAIN, INC., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01804-KJM-SAB (E.D. Cal.) The court issued an order granting preliminary approval to the parties' class settlement agreement. The settlement agreement and the July 6, 2015 order both assumed, based on representations made throughout the settlement process by Universal Ag, that it had employment records showing the addresses of all identified class members. In preparing for the mailing of the notices to class members, Universal Ag provided addresses for 62 individuals, but informed the other parties for the first time that it does not have addresses for 18 class members. Universal Ag also informed the parties that the missing class members are Spanish-speaking and most, if not all, are monolingual Spanish-speakers. All of them worked a fairly short period of time. The parties now agree and stipulate that their settlement agreement be amended to provide, in addition to the mailed class notice previously agreed-upon and ordered, notice to the missing class members through publication. The cost to publish the full notice is $5,388. The costs of the publication will be advanced by the claims administrator. Judge Mueller approves the foregoing Stipulation amending the Settlement Agreement and orders that the additional forms of notice to those class members set forth in that stipulation will be provided. In addition to the mailing class notice of the proposed settlement to all class members whose addresses are known, notice by publication to the remaining class members will be provided in accordance with the parties' stipulation. The cost of these additional measures will be advanced by Gilardi & Co., the claims administrator, and paid out of the $30,000 maximum allocated to the costs of claims administration in the proposed settlement agreement and preliminarily approved by the court in its July 6, 2015 order. A copy of Judge Mueller's stipulation and order dated July 24, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/Z4lFNefrom Leagle.com. Attorneys for Defendant Penny Newman Grain Co.: David R. McNamara, Esq. Christina C. Tillman, Esq. McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 7647 N. Fresno Street Fresno, CA 93720 Telephone: 559-433-1300 Facsimile: 559-433-2300 Attorneys for Ag Universal, Inc. And Juan Zavala Paul J. Bauer, Esq. WALTER & WILHELM LAW GROUP, 205 E River Park Cir #410 Fresno, CA 93720 Telephone: 559-892-0465 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: John E. Hill, Esq. ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, Esq. Law Offices of John E. Hill 333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 500 Oakland, CA 94621 Telephone: 510-275-4947 Facsimile: 510-729-6333 - and - Della Barnett, Esq. CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION 2210 K Street, Suite 201 Sacramento, CA 95816 Telephone: 916-446-7904 Facsimile: 916-446-3057 PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Sued by NAACP for Violating Human Rights Law ----------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that the NAACP claims Philips Electronics, Monster Worldwide et al. violate New York City human rights law by excluding people with felony convictions from jobs, in a New York federal class action. PJJK RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensations ----------------------------------------------------------- Josue Ramos, Teodulo Vazquez, and all others similarly situated v. PJJK Restaurant Corp. dba Blondies Sports, Patricia McGreevey and Jill Homorodean, Case No. 1:15-cv-05672 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2015), seeks to recover all unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor Law. The Defendants operate a restauranct under the trade name "Blondies Sports" located in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, Second Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 465-1188 Fax: (212) 465-1181 POLARK LTD: Accused of Violating FLSA, Illinois Min. Wage Law ------------------------------------------------------------- Armando Minon and Johanna Rivera, individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated, v. Polark, Ltd. d/b/a Sarpinos Pizzeria and Arkadiusz Szulik, Case: 1:15-cv-06122 (N.D. Ill., July 13, 2015), seeks payment for the Defendant's alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees overtime wages for hours worked in excess in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Polark Ltd. is in the food business. The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Stevens, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Office: 312-219-6838 E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com PRESTIGE CRUISE: Faces "Freixa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Freixa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Prestige Cruise Services LLC, Prestige Cruise Holdings, Inc., Prestige Cruises International, Inc., and XYZ Entities 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-22732-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a business specializing in the sale and provision of cruise services with call centers at multiple locations in Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Keith Michael Stern, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A. 2300 Glades Road Suite 360W Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (888) 505-9941 Facsimile: (561) 807-0020 E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued in N.Y. Over Defective Laundry Detergent --------------------------------------------------------------- Lisa Guariglia, Micheline Byrne and Michele Emanuele, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company, and The Procter & Gamble Distributing LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04307 (E.D.N.Y., July 23, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the persons in the United States who purchased Tide Pods laundry detergent, that were manufactured, marketed, distributed, promoted, and sold by the Defendants with serious design defects that cause them to produce permanent blue/purple stains on white and light colored laundry, even when used as directed by P&G on Tide Pods' packaging. The Defendants are engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and distributing health care and branded consumer products under various brand names including Charmin, Bounty, Vicks, Tide Pods, Tide, Always, Oral-B, Crest, Gillette, Braun, Pantene, Bounty, Dawn, Gain, Olay, Cover Girl, Ivory, Secret, and Downy. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Levine, Esq. Melissa Emert, Esq. STULL, STULL & BRODY 6 East 45th Street-5th floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 687-7230 Facsimile: (212) 490-2022 E-mail: mlevine@ssbny.com memert@bellsouth.net PUBLIX: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Box Label -------------------------------------------------- Wftv.com reported that a class-action lawsuit was filed against Publix over a box of toaster pastries. Based on the documents, it appears Amber Jackson of Seminole County believes the label on the boxes that shows "made with real fruit" is just a way to trick people into the buying the pastries. Jackson's suit points out some of the toaster pastry boxes read "made with real fruit" and invite people to indulge in the sweetness of "juicy strawberries." But Jackson claims that's misleading, because she believes the sweet treats don't contain any "real fruit." The ingredient list shows they contain fruit from concentrate. If a federal judge allows the suit to move forward, people impacted would be anyone who bought the pastries. WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the case would be a tough one to win, but if successful, the payoff could be big for the lead plaintiff and even bigger for the attorneys. "These types of lawsuits may be a chance to make money, but it's also a chance for the little guy to get some measure of justice," he said. The plaintiff believes the case is worth more than $5 million and involves countless people. Publix has asked for more time to respond to the lawsuit. They told Channel 9 the company doesn't comment on pending litigation. RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Cacioppo" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Cacioppo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Receptos, Inc., et al., Case No. 11324 (Del. Ch., July 23, 2015), seeks to enjoin Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a sale of the Company to Celgene Corporation at an unfair price through an unfair process. Receptos, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing therapeutic candidates for the treatment of immune and metabolic diseases. Celgene Corporation is an integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily in the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for cancer and inflammatory diseases. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter B. Andrews, Esq. Craig J. Springer, Esq. ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC 3801 Kennett Pike Building C, Suite 305 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 504-4967 Facsimile: (302) 397-2681 E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com cspringer@andrewsspringer.com - and - Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Edward B. Gerard, Esq. Justin D. Rieger, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com soddo@robbinsarroyo.com egerard@robbinsarroyo.com jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rudy Rosenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Receptos, Inc., et al., Case No. 11325-CB (Del. Ch., July 23, 2015), on behalf of the public stockholders of Receptos, Inc., to enjoin the Defendants' attempt to sell the Company to Celgene Corporation for inadequate consideration. Receptos, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that develops therapeutic candidates for immune and metabolic diseases. Celgene Corporation is an integrated global biopharmaceutical company engaged primarily in the discovery, development, and commercialization of therapies for cancer and inflammatory diseases. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - J. Brandon Walker, Esq. Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq. KIRBY McINERNEY LLP 825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 371-6600 E-mail: bwalker@kmllp.com mfortunato@kmllp.com RECON RESOURCES: "Summers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Summers, and all others similarly-situated v. Recon Resources, LLC, Adapt Exploration, LLC dba Adapt Resources and Adapt Resources LLC, Anacapa Holdings, LLC, and Adapt Appalachia LLC, 3:15-cv-02426 (N.D. Tex., July 21, 2015), seeks to recover back wages and for liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants are in the business of performing support services in connection with domestic oil and natural gas exploration, development, and production. This includes, but is not limited to, acquiring or leasing oil and gas interests and performing mineral rights due diligence and other research, lease analysis and administration, and GIS/mapping. The Defendants have offered and performed these services in states with active oil and gas production, including but not limited to, Texas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and elsewhere in the United States. The Plaintiff can be reached at: Barry S. Hersh, Esq. HERSH LAW FIRM, PC 3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800 Dallas, TX 75219-5133 Tel: (214) 303-1022 Fax: (214) 550-8170 E-mail: barry@hersh-law.com SANOFI-AVENTIS SA: Plan Fiduciaries Sued Over Breach of Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- Sanofi-Aventis employees whose retirement plans took a hit from the 20 percent drop in company stock say in federal court that the pharmaceutical company had been quietly investigating kickbacks for years, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service. Joseph Forte filed a class action on June 24 in Manhattan against four fiduciaries of the Sanofi U.S. Group Savings Plan, plus two individual representatives of those defendants. On behalf of other former Sanofi-Aventis employees, Forte seeks "to recover[] millions of dollars of damage suffered in [employee] retirement accounts due to breaches of fiduciary duties owed to them." "Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by continuing to permit the Stock Fund to be an investment option for Plan participants despite knowing that it had become an imprudent investment," the complaint states, abbreviating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Sanofi allegedly failed to inform investors of an internal investigation into massive illegal kickbacks related to the sale of its lucrative diabetes drugs, especially in the Middle East and Africa. The company began its internal investigation in March 2013 and ultimately fired Sanofi CEO Christopher Viehbacher on Oct. 29, 2014, but the truth was not made public until a former paralegal filed a whistle-blower lawsuit this past December. Diane Ponte's lawsuit sent Sanofi's stock price on a nearly 20 percent drop, from approximately $54 per share to $45 per share. The new lawsuit summarizes Ponte's action as alleging that "Sanofi's executives knowingly paid illegal kickbacks to induce purchases of its drugs by U.S. retail pharmacies, and concealed the payments by miscoding them as various expenses." Ponte "alleged that the false coding of the payments was done intentionally to escape detection and avoid the required financing, purchase and legal departmental approvals," the complaint states. "She also alleged that at least $34 million in illegal payments were made, and raised an issue over possibly $1 billion in 'missing funds.'" Forte claims that representatives with the pension plan's fiduciaries, the U.S. Pension Committee and the Administrative Committee, knew about the illegal cash payments before Ponte blew the whistle. Such knowledge told the plan administrator and Sanofi treasurer that company stock was inflated and was an imprudent investment. "Based on their knowledge, defendants could have, and should have, taken action to protect the plan and its participants," the complaint states. "They could have made the Stock Fund unavailable as an investment option while the stock remained artificially inflated. They also could have disclosed what they knew regarding the imprudence of the Stock Fund to their co- fiduciaries as well as to the Sanofi Board of Directors, which was responsible for overseeing the U.S. Pension Committee." Such disclosure might led Sanofi to go public sooner, corrected its misrepresentations sooner thus preventing the stock from trading at as high a price as it did, according to the complaint. "The longer the artifice continues uncorrected, and the more delayed the disclosure of the truth, then the greater the damage when the truth is finally revealed," Forte says. "Here, plan participants who purchased stock fund shares at an artificially high price were harmed regardless of what happened to the stock in the future; their losses were greater than they otherwise would have been, and even any future profits they might earn will be less than they otherwise would have been, all because they bought their shares at an artificially inflated price." Forte claims that disclosure delay cost Sanofi's employees millions of dollars in retirement savings, for which defendants should be held responsible. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel Bonderoff, Esq. ZAMANSKY LLC 50 Broadway, 32nd Floor New York NY, 10004 Telephone: (212) 742-1414 Facsimile: (212) 742-1177 SAYBOLT LP: Faces "Fontenot" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis Fontenot, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Saybolt LP and Core Laboratories LP, Case No. 4:15-cv-02113 (S.D. Tex., July 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours a week. The Defendants provide inspecting, sampling, and inventory control services to their clients in the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donny J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES LLP 711 W Alabama St Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com SBM MAINTENANCE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ Andres Jimenez-Carranza, Ana Maria Pina-Rosales, Rigoberto Barreto, Ramon Duran, Reyna Maria Madera-Diera, Maria I. Mondragon, and Jose Perez, and individually and on behalf of other employees similarly situated v. SBM Maintenance Contractors, Inc. and Robert Norton, Case No. 1:15-cv-06457 (N.D. Ill., July 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees at least Illinois mandated minimum wages for all hours worked in a workweek. The Defendants own and operate a janitorial services company in Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Valentin Tito Narvaez I, Esq. CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC 6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200 Chicago, IL 60646 Telephone: (312) 878-1302 Facsimile: (888) 270-8983 E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com SDV LOGISTIQUE: November 2 Settlement Approval Hearing Set -------------------------------------------------------------- If you or your company used the services of certain freight forwarders, you may be entitled to a potentially significant cash payment from class action Settlements. This is the second notice in this case. Settlements have now been reached with 19 additional Defendants. Settlements were previously reached with 10 Defendants. The Settlements involve a lawsuit claiming that certain freight forwarding companies secretly agreed to prices for their freight forwarding services worldwide, including on routes in the U.S. and between the U.S. and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, India, Germany, the U.K. and other parts of Europe. Some of the companies ("Settling Defendants") that were sued have agreed to Settlements. The Settling Defendants deny that they did anything wrong. The lawsuit continues against the Non-Settling Defendants. Freight Forwarders provide transportation, or logistics services for shipments relating to the organization or transportation of items via air and ocean, which may include ancillary rail and truck services, both nationally and internationally, as well as related activities such as customs clearance, warehousing, and ground services. Who is Included? You may be included in one or more of the Settlements (as a Class Member) if you: 1) Directly purchased Freight Forwarding Services; 2) from any of the Settling or Non- Settling Defendants, their subsidiaries, or affiliates; 3) from January 1, 2001 through January 4, 2011; 4) in the U.S., or outside the U.S. for shipments within, to, or from the U.S. All you need to know is in the full Notice, located at the settlement website: www.FreightForwardCase.com including information on who is or is not a Class Member. What Do the Settlements Provide? The Settling Defendants will establish a Settlement Fund with a minimum of $197.6 million. The amount of your benefits will be determined by the Plan of Allocation, which is posted on the settlement website at www.FreightForwardCase.com A Claim Form has been provided with this Notice. How to Get Benefits? You need to submit the enclosed Claim Form by March 31, 2016 to get a payment from the Settlements. You can also file a claim at the website listed below. If you already submitted a Claim Form for the first round of Settlements, you do not need to file a new claim. You will automatically be paid from this second round of Settlements. Your Other Rights. Even if you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions. If you want to keep your right to sue a Settling Defendant yourself, you must exclude yourself by September 18, 2015 from that Settlement. If you stay in a particular Settlement, you may object to it by September 18, 2015. The Detailed Notice, available at the website, explains how to exclude yourself and object. The Court has appointed lawyers to represent you at no charge to you. You may hire your own lawyer at your own cost. The Court will hold a hearing on November 2, 2015 to consider whether to: (1) approve the Settlements and (2) a request for attorneys' fees up to 33% of the Settlement Fund, plus interest, and reimbursement for litigation expenses. You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at the hearing. At the end of this litigation Class Counsel may ask the Court to award each Class Representative an amount not to exceed $75,000 in recognition of each Class Representative's service in recovering funds for the Class. Notice of any such request will be provided at the website www.FreightForwardCase.com This notice is only a summary. For detailed information: Call U.S. & CANADA: 1-877-276-7340 (Toll-Free) INTERNATIONAL: 1-503-520-4400 (Toll) or Visit www.FreightForwardCase.com The "Settling Defendants" are SDV Logistique Internationale ("SDV"); Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd. and Panalpina, Inc. ("Panalpina"); Geodis S.A. and Geodis Wilson USA, Inc. ("Geodis"); DSV A/S, DSV Solutions Holding A/S, and DSV Air & Sea Ltd. ("DSV"); Jet Speed Logistics, Ltd., Jet-Speed Air Cargo Forwarders Inc. (USA), and Jet Speed Logistics (USA), LLC ("Jet Speed"); Toll Global Forwarding (USA), Inc., Baltrans Logistics, Inc., and Toll Holdings, Ltd. ("Toll"); Agility Holdings, Inc., Agility Logistics Corp., Geologistics Corp., and Geologistics International Management (Bermuda) Limited ("Agility"); United Parcel Service, Inc. and UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. ("UPS"); Dachser GmbH & Co., KG, doing business as Dachser Intelligent Logistics, and Dachser Transport of America, Inc. ("Dachser"); Deutsche Post AG, Danzas Corporation, DHL Express (USA) Inc., DHL Global Forwarding Japan K.K., DHL Japan Inc., Exel Global Logistics, Inc., and Air Express International USA, Inc. ("DHL") for the severed, Japanese claims only; Hankyu Hanshin Express Holding Corporation f/n/a Hankyu Express International Co., Ltd. and its subsidiary, Hankyu Hanshin Express Co., Ltd., and its U.S. subsidiary, Hanshin Air Cargo USA, Inc. ("Hankyu Hanshin"); Japan Aircargo Forwarders Association ("JAFA"); Kintetsu World Express, Inc. and its U.S. subsidiary, Kintetsu World Express (U.S.A), Inc. ("Kintetsu"); "K" Line Logistics, Ltd., and its U.S. subsidiary "K" Line Logistics (U.S.A.), Inc. (""K" Line"); MOL Logistics (Japan) Co., Ltd., and its U.S. subsidiary MOL Logistics (USA) Inc. ("MOL Logistics"); Nippon Express Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary, Nippon Express USA, Inc. ("Nippon Express"); Nissin Corporation and its U.S. subsidiary, Nissin International Transport U.S.A., Inc. ("Nissin"); Yamato Global Logistics Japan Co., Ltd., and its U.S. affiliate, Yamato Transport U.S.A. Inc. ("Yamato"); Yusen Air & Sea Service Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary, Yusen Air & Sea Service (U.S.A.), Inc. ("Yusen"). SIRIUS XM: Sued for Alleged Unlawful Telephone Solicitations ------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony Parker, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated individuals, v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Case 8:15-cv- 01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2015), seeks to obtain redress for all persons injured by Defendant's alleged unauthorized telephone solicitation calls using an automatic telephone dialing system, and to stop Defendant's alleged unlawful telephone solicitation practices. Defendant Sirius XM Radio, Inc. is a nationwide provider of a paid subscription satellite radio service. The Plaintiff is represented by: David P. Healy, Esq. DUDLEY, SELLERS & HEALY PL SunTrust Financial Center 3522 Thomasville Road, Suite 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32300 Tel: (850) 222-5400 Fax: (850) 222-7339 E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com SONY PICTURES: Hacking Lawsuit Claims ID Theft to Ex-Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reported that thousands of dollars in unauthorized credit card charges, attempts to open accounts under their names, and personal data showing up all over the Internet are just a few of the claims that Michael Corona, Christina Mathis and others are making in court documents. The former Sony Pictures staff members are saying that some of the things they were most afraid of happening as a result of the massive hack that savaged the company have already happened. The lawsuit comes less than a month after Sony failed in its attempt to get the consolidated case tossed. "Class members are at a heightened risk of credit card fraud, financial identity fraud, medical identity fraud, social identity fraud, and income tax fraud," noted a memorandum backing up the eight plaintiffs' desire to get class action certification on their case. "Not surprisingly, several of the plaintiffs have already been victims of identity fraud. Ms. Bailey and Ms. Archibeque were notified that their PII was available for purchase on black market websites. An identity thief attempted to open a PayPal credit card using Mr. Forster's PII. Plaintiff Shapiro was notified by Chase that someone tried to make a large purchase using his account, and discovered credit card accounts opened in his name on his credit report. And an identity thief charged a $3,845.50 purchase to Mr. Corona's credit card." As they have before, the ex-employees lawyers slapped the blame for the hack -- supposedly prompted by Sony's film The Interview - - of November 24, 2015 and the fallout fully on Sony Pictures Entertainment's shoulders. "SPE knew its data security was inadequate. SPE and its sister companies experienced multiple prior data breaches that exposed significant weaknesses in the Sony companies' security measures, including the 2011 breach of the Sony PlayStation Network that compromised information from over 75 million customer accounts, and which experts attributed to an unsophisticated method of hacking that would not have been successful if the most basic security measures had been in place." SOUTHERN PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Sintia J. Castillo-Caceres aka Sinthia Castillo-Caceres, Carlos Roberto Sanchez-Romero, and all others similarly-situated v. Southern Produce Distributors, Inc., David Stewart Precythe, Kelly Stewart Precythe, The Coastal Group, Inc. fka Coastal Temporary Services, Inc., Southeast Farm and Agriculture, LLC, and Howard Fisackerly, Case No. 7:15-cv-00149 (E.D.N.C., July 17, 2015), seeks to recover back wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Southern Produce Distributors, Inc. is a corporation that is organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina, for the purpose of, among others, producing, processing, packing, and/or marketing peppers, sweet potatoes and other agricultural products within and without North Carolina. At all times relevant to this action, David Stewart Precythe was and is the registered agent for service of process on Southern. The Coastal Group, Inc. formerly known as Coastal Temporary Services Incorporated is and has been a corporation that is organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina, for the purpose of, among others, referring and supplying workers to various agricultural and non-agricultural employers in and around eastern North Carolina. At all times relevant to this action, the President of Coastal was Sandra L. Gore. Southeast Farm and Agriculture, LLC is a corporation that is organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina, for the purpose of, among others, working with Coastal to refer and supply workers to various agricultural and non-agricultural employers in and around eastern North Carolina. The defendant David Stewart Precythe has been and continues to be a principal, part-owner, and co-operator of Southern's packing house facilities in Faison, North Carolina. During that same time period, upon information and belief, defendant David Stewart Precythe has been and continues to be the President of Southern. The defendant Kelley Stewart Precythe has been and continues to be a principal, part-owner, and co-operator of Southern's packing house facilities in Faison, North Carolina. During that same time period, upon information and belief, defendant Kelley Stewart Precythe has been and continues to be the Vice- President of Southern. The defendant Howard Fisackerly has been and continues to be a day-to-day manager and co-operator of Southern's packing house operations in Faison, North Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. Willis, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A. P.O. Box 1269 Raleigh, NC 27602 Tel: (919) 821-9031 Fax: (919) 821-1763 E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Credit Card Info on Receipts ------------------------------------------------------------- Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reported that Miramar-based Spirit Airlines is facing two class action lawsuits for allegedly printing more credit card information on customer receipts than federal law allows. The lawsuits claim the company violated the 2003 Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, which aims to prevent identity theft by forbidding companies from printing more than the last five digits of a card number or its expiration date on a receipt. Christopher W. Legg filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and a similar suit filed by Joseph Rosen in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois was transferred to U.S. District Judge James Cohn in Fort Lauderdale on July 2. Both suits were filed last August. Legg claims that when he paid a $45 baggage fee at a self-service kiosk at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, his receipt issued last Aug. 28 contained the first seven digits of his credit card number as well as the last four. Rosen's suit alleges a Spirit Airlines receipt he got at Chicago O'Hare International Airport contained more than the last four digits of his credit card number. Spirit did not respond to a request for comment by deadline. In its answer to Legg's complaint, the airline said it complied with the credit transactions act and challenged Legg to produce evidence that he used his personal credit card for the transaction. Business credit cards are not protected under the act. "To date, although this case has been pending for more than 10 months and although Spirit has served three production requests, plaintiff has produced only three sheets of paper," the company's lawyers wrote in a July 6 motion to compel production of other documents. Spirit also asked Legg to provide documents explaining his relationship with one of his lawyers, Scott D. Owens of Hollywood, and details about other lawsuits in which Legg has been a plaintiff. The company said it sought the documents because of concerns that Legg might not be an adequate class representative. Legg is listed as a plaintiff in at least two other federal lawsuits in South Florida, including a credit transactions act class action against Laboratory Corp. of America in which Owens is representing him. Legg is also an attorney in Hollywood. A message left with the Law Office of Christopher W. Legg was not returned by deadline. Spirit Airlines was also sued in 2010 for credit transactions act violations. Jonas Seider filed a federal class action claiming his receipt contained the first four and last four digits of his credit card as well as the expiration date. The case settled within two months. On July 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer in Fort Lauderdale urged Legg and Spirit to confer again to solve documentation issues. The parties have held one mediation session, and they have another session planned with retired U.S. District Judge Wayne R. Andersen of Chicago. Trial is set for Aug. 31. In addition to Owens, Legg's attorneys are Michael Hilicki of Keogh Law in Chicago and Patrick Crotty of the Law Office of Scott D. Owens. Spirit is represented by Akerman attorneys Christopher Carver, Michael Mena and Valerie Greenberg in Miami; Jason Oletsky in Fort Lauderdale; and Kasey Dunlap in Chicago. SPORTS ENDURANCE: August 31 Claims Filing Deadline Set ------------------------------------------------------ Attention purchasers of Sports Endurance, Inc. ("SENZ") stock between June 2010 and December 2010 and FrogAds, Inc ("FROG") stock between December 2011 and October 2012: Charges have been filed against Regis Possino, Grover Henry Colin Nix IV, Tarun Mendiratta, Edon Moyal, Mark Harris, Julian Spitari, William Mackey, and Joseph Scarpello in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for their alleged involvement in a pump-and-dump scheme to manipulate artificially the price and trading volume of certain stocks. Sport Endurance (ticker symbol "SENZ") and FrogAds (ticker symbol "FROG") were traded on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board, an inter-dealer electronic quotation and trading system. The indictment charges these defendants with, among other offenses, conspiracy, securities fraud, and wire fraud. If you lost money from the purchase or sale of Sport Endurance stock from June 2010 and December 2010, or FrogAds stock from December 2011, to October 2012, you may be entitled to restitution from the defendants. Additionally, if you were a victim of these offenses, you may also submit information to the Court in connection with sentencing for these defendants. If you would like to submit a claim for restitution, submit written information to the Court in connection with the sentencing for any defendant, or would otherwise like to receive notice of future developments in the case, please contact Katherine Ferguson in the Victim/Witness Unit at the United States Attorney's Office for the Central District of California at telephone number 1-888-228-0315, or write to the Victim Witness Unit at the United States Attorney's Office at 312 North Spring Street, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90012. In order to submit a claim for restitution, you will need to submit information to the Victim/Witness Coordinator by no later than August 31, 2015. ST JUDE: Faces "Solak" Suit in Cal. Over Proposed Thoratec Merger ----------------------------------------------------------------- John Solak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. RG15779109 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 23, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Thoratec Corporation, to enjoin the Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a sale of Thoratec at an unfair price through an unfair process that was tilted in favor of St. Jude Medical, Inc. Thoratec Corporation is the worldwide leader in mechanical circulatory support technology for the treatment of advanced hem1 failure, which includes ventricular assist devices ("VADs") that are used for both chronic and acute patient support. St. Jude Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and distributes cardiovascular medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm management, cardiovascular and atrial fibrillation therapy areas, and interventional pain therapy and neuro stimulation devices for the management of chronic pain and movement disorders. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. Stephen J. Oddo, Esq. Edward B. Gerard, Esq. Justin D. Rieger, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com soddo@robbinsarroyo.com egerard@robbinsarroyo.com jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com STAR NAIL: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Reinaldo Padilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Star Nail Prods, Inc., Case No. BC589045 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Star Nail Prods, Inc. is a California corporation that manufactures cosmetic products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Nourmand, Esq. THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC 8822 West Olympic Blvd Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 553-3600 Facsimile: (310) 553-3603 TEMPLETON RYE: Settles 3 Class Suits Over False Advertising ----------------------------------------------------------- Grant Rodgers, writing for The Des Moines Register, reported that Iowa whiskey maker Templeton Rye has settled three class-action lawsuits accusing the company of intentionally misleading imbibers with claims about the homegrown origins of its spirit. The settlement agreement requires the company to change labeling on its bottles and the language on its website, according to an update filed in Polk County District Court. The agreement also requires Templeton Rye to set aside a cash pool that could be used to refund customers who bought bottles of the whiskey. Specific details about the settlement are not yet public, as the document hasn't been filed in an Illinois chancery court where two of the three lawsuits were filed. Templeton Rye co-founder Keith Kerkhoff said he could not comment because the agreement hasn't been approved by a judge. Attorneys for Chicago resident Christopher McNair filed the first lawsuit in September, seeking class-action status to represent "all individuals in the United States who have purchased a bottle of Templeton Rye." His lawsuit was followed by a second from Chicago-area restaurant owner Mario Aliano and another from attorneys for two Iowa residents seeking to represent a class of only Iowa drinkers. The plaintiffs' attorneys from three separate firms cooperated in seeking a settlement. All three lawsuits brought similar claims: That Templeton Rye marketed its whiskey as "made in Iowa," when its recipe was actually based on a stock spirit made in a Lawrenceburg, Ind., distillery. The lawsuits said the Carroll County company intentionally deceived consumers by labeling their product as a "small batch rye." Templeton Rye's producers have argued the controversy amounts to a misunderstanding about the company's production process. The whiskey is not distilled following an exact Prohibition-era recipe, but the company hired a Kentucky flavor engineering company to develop a list of ingredients that replicates the taste of a recipe passed down through the Kerkhoff family, the co- founder has said. Those ingredients are blended with the stock whiskey at the Templeton distillery to create a unique product. "Templeton Rye is very unique," Kerkhoff told the Register in October. "To say it's a stock whiskey made in Indiana that goes directly into the bottle is totally false. It couldn't be further from the truth." The company had already committed to changing its bottles' packaging before the lawsuits were filed to include information about the whiskey's Indiana origins. The Des Moines Register in August published a story questioning whether the labels complied with federal law that requires distillers to disclose such information. Attorneys for the two Illinois plaintiffs did not return a Register reporter's phone calls. West Des Moines attorney Randy Wilharber, one of the attorneys handling the Iowa lawsuit, referred all questions to Templeton Rye. The next step in the lawsuits will be getting a judge's approval of the settlement agreement and getting class certification, a move that will determine exactly how many people could be eligible to receive refunds. The attorneys who filed each of the three lawsuits will also be paid from the same pool, according to the Polk County update. TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Berkoff" Suit Over False Comparative Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robin Berkoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Marshalls of CA, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-01475 (C.D. Cal., July 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' practice of using deceptive comparative prices to trick its customers into mistakenly believing they are saving specific and substantial amounts on name brand items. The Defendants own and operate a chain of so called "off-price" department stores in California known as Marshalls stores. The Plaintiff is represented by: Greg K. Hafif, Esq. Michael G. Dawson, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF HERBERT HAFIF 269 W. Bonita Avenue Claremont, CA 91711 Telephone: (909) 624-1671 Facsimile: (909) 625-7772 E-mail: ghafif@hafif.com - and - Douglas Caiafa, Esq. DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A Professional Law Corporation 11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310) 444-5240 Facsimile: (310) 312-8260 E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com - and - Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF 77-760 Country Club Drive, Suite G Palm Desert, CA 92211 Telephone: (760) 469-5986 Facsimile: (760) 345-1581 E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com TOTAL WEALTH: Removed "Calderon" Class Suit to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit captioned Albert Calderon, et al. v. Total Wealth Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-02014-00015682, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01632-BAS-NLS to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs assert personal injury-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Aguirre, Esq. AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1050 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 876-5364 Facsimile: (619) 876-5368 E-mail: maguirre@amslawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Lauren J. Katunich, Esq. LATHROP & GAGE 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 789-4615 Facsimile: (310) 789-4601 E-mail: lkatunich@lathropgage.com TRI-DIM FILTER: "Davies" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT -------------------------------------------------------- John Davies, and others similarly-situated v. Tri-Dim Filter Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00426 (E.D. Va., July 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tri-Dim was founded in 1968, and for over 40 years has been a leading manufacturer of HVAC filtration products, offering a full range of HVAC products and services. Its principal office is in Louisa, Virginia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Justus Dean, Esq. CURWOOD LAW FIRM PLC 530 East Main St., Ste. 710 Richmond, VA 23219 Tel: (804) 788-0808 Fax: (804) 767-6777 E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com TRUGREEN INC: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged TCPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------ Kasie Stevens-Bratton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Trugreen, Inc., Case 2:15-cv-02472-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn., July 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant made telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. TruGreen is a national lawn care service provider headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. Seamus T. Kelly, Esq. BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Blvd., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com seamusk@bsjfirm.com Tel: 615-254-8801 Fax: 615-255-5419 - and - Adam Gonnelli, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 983-9330 Fax: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq. Mary B. Reiten, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103-8869 Tel: (206) 816-6603 Fax: (206) 350-3528 E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com jmurray@tmdwlaw.com mreiten@tmdwlaw.com TUMI INC: "Pinedo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Elise Pinedo, and all others similarly-situated v. Tumi, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05520 (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2015), to recover overtime compensation, unpaid wages, compensatory damages, litigation expenses, expert witness fees, attorneys' fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, liquidated damages, applicable penalties, all other available statutory remedies, equitable remedies and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code. Tumi, Inc. is a foreign corporation that conducts business in the State of California and has its corporate headquarters at South Plainfield, New Jersey. Tumi was founded in 1975 and is a well- known manufacturer of high-end suitcases and bags for travel. Tumi is a publically traded corporation on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: TUMI). The Plaintiff is represented by: George P. Moschopoulos, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS APC 34197 Pacific Coast Highway Ste. 100 Dana Point, CA 92629 Tel: (714) 904-1669 Fax: (949) 272-0428 E-mail: g.moschopoulos.esq@gmail.com UBER: Georgia Class Suit Targets "Rogue" Ride Shares ---------------------------------------------------- Aimee Sachs, writing for Courthouse News Service, repoted that Uber and other ride-share companies are illegally operating as "unlicensed rogue taxicabs" in the state of Georgia, a class action filed by taxi medallion holders claims. The named plaintiffs in the case are Dmitriy Abramyan, Abdilahi Awale, Lenny Benuihis, Mohamed A. Hussein, and Dmity Mogilevich, all of whom drive taxis in the Atlanta area. In a complaint filed in Fulton County Superior Court, they complain the state and the Georgia Department of Public Safety are doing nothing to reign in a significant threat to their livelihoods. The plaintiffs say Uber, Lyft and other ride-share companies have "flooded the Atlanta market with thousands of vehicles for hire which charged customers metered fares based on distance and time, the same criteria used for taxicab fares." The plaintiffs each own a city-issued tax medallion license called Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience. The CPNC medallions give the plaintiffs "exclusive rights to originate metered fares within the corporate limits of the City of Atlanta based on time and distance." But in May, the state Legislature passed House Bill 225, which will allow ride-share companies like Uber to operate an unlimited amount of vehicles in Atlanta, ignoring the exclusivity of the CPNCs. "After the enactment of [HB 225] and its effective date," the complaint says, "CPNC holders no longer have the exclusive right to originate metered fares based on time and mileage within the corporate limits of the City of Atlanta." According to the complaint, lawmakers who sponsored the legislation "stated that it was their desire to 'phase out' CPNCs and make them worthless." Furthermore, the bill's enactment "constitutes an unconstitutional taking of vested property rights of Plaintiffs under the Georgia Constitution which provides that "private property shall not be taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate compensation being first paid." The plaintiffs are represented by Atlanta-based attorneys William Pannell and Keith E. Fryer. Representatives for Uber and Lyft could not immediately be reached for comment. UNIFIRST CORP: Faces Suit Under FLSA, Oregon Wage, Hour Laws ------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Beemer, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Unifirst Corporation, a Massachusetts Corporation, Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC (D. Ore., July 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and statutory penalties under Oregon Wage and Hour Laws. UniFirst Corporation operates a uniform rental and janitorial supply services company based in Wilmington, Massachusetts with facilities throughout the United States, including Eugene, Oregon and Portland, Oregon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alan J. Leiman, Esq. Oregon State Bar No.: 980746 44 W. Broadway, Suite 326 Eugene, OR 97401 Tel: (541) 345-2376 Fax: (541) 345-2377 E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com - and - Drew G. Johnson, Esq. 44 W. Broadway, Suite 326 Eugene, OR 97401 Tel: (541) 345-2376 Fax: (541) 345-2377 E-mail: drew@leimanlaw.com - and - Stacy A. McKerlie, Esq. 44 W. Broadway, Suite 326 Eugene, OR 97401 Tel: (541) 345-2376 Fax: (541) 345-2377 E-mail: stacy@leimanlaw.com UNION PACIFIC: "Dorron" Suit Alleges Federal Rules Violation ------------------------------------------------------------ Sandra Dorron, Estate of Lulu Bookman, Rodolfo C. Garza and Debbie P. Harold, and all others similarly situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, SFPP, L.P. fka Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D", and Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-02079 (S.D. Tex., July 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the defendant Union Pacific lacks sufficient legal right or title in the subsurface of its right-of-way to grant easements or to collect rents associated with the occupancy of the subsurface, and SFPP, Kinder Morgan D, Kinder Morgan GP lack sufficient legal right or title to occupy the subsurface of the railroad's right-of-way. Plaintiffs also seek to quiet title in the subsurface real property in Plaintiffs' and the Class members' respective names, free and clear of any claimed interest by Defendants. Plaintiffs further seek an award of damages, restitution, and disgorgement of benefits or profits received by Union Pacific and for a constructive trust in favor of Plaintiffs to be placed upon the benefits and proceeds received by the Defendants. The Union Pacific Railroad is a Class I line haul freight railroad that operates nearly 9,000 locomotives over 32,000 route-miles in 23 states in the western two-thirds of the United States. Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline Partners, L.P., through SFPP, was engaged in the transportation of refined petroleum products and related services. As of March 6, 1998, Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP. Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" operates as a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. operates as a general partner for Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, which owns and manages energy transportation and storage assets in North America. The company was formerly known as Enron Liquids Pipeline Company and changed its name to Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. in February, 1997. The company was founded in 1966 and is based in Houston, Texas. Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thane Tyler Sponsel, III, Esq. SPONSEL MILLER GREENBERG PLLC 50 Briar Hollow Ln., Ste 370 West Houston, TX 77027 Tel: (713) 892-5400 Fax: (713) 892-5401 E-mail: sponsel@smglawgroup.com - and - Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Tel: (858) 914-2001 Fax: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com UNITED STATES: "Kelley" Claims Severed from "Finch" Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Judge Marian Blank Horn of the United States Court of Federal Claims granted the parties' motion in the case CLIFFORD L. FINCH et al., For Themselves as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, NOS. 12- 92L, 12-9203L, 12-9204L (Fed. Cl.) On November 21, 2014, the court issued an order instructing the clerk of the court to enter a judgment of $2,020,120.06 in principal and $294,000.00 for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The court indicated that, the plaintiffs would receive interest on the principal at a 3.75% interest rate, and compounding annually for the period between November 19, 2010 and the date of payment. The court also awarded class counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $820,140.36, or a 35% fee of the award, excluding statutory attorneys' fees. Defendant filed a notice of appeal of the court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but the Federal Circuit issued a mandate dismissing defendant's appeal after the defendant filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its appeal. Within a week of the mandate, plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the judgment. Plaintiffs alleged that class counsel asked current counsel for the government when the class members could expect payment from the judgment fund. Based on counsel for the government's response, it appears that, at best, the government does not intend to make payment for another 9-11 weeks In response, defendant argued that there has been no breach of any term of the parties' settlement, nor has there been any undue delay in the submission of the judgment for payment, and claims that the judgment was not final and eligible for payment until after the dismissal of the appeal. In a May 13, 2015 order, the court indicated that there has not been a breach of the settlement and further, there has not been an undue delay in the submission of the judgment to the judgment fund. The court ordered defendant to file a status report on May 20, 2015, and every other week thereafter, updating the plaintiffs and the court of the progress defendant has made in submitting the judgment to the judgment fund at the Department of the Treasury for payment, and an estimated time frame for payment to the plaintiffs. Defendant, however, has failed to file the five required status reports, and has not offered an explanation for why the status reports have not been filed. The parties filed a joint motion to vacate and amend the November 24, 2014 judgment. The parties indicate in their motion that because 3 of the 183 remaining plaintiffs have not provided social security numbers or tax identification numbers, and the government asserts that payment cannot be made until information is received from all parties, the parties ask the court to enter separate judgment. The parties ask that one amended judgment provide for just compensation and full attorney's fees and costs to be payable to the 181 responsive plaintiffs. The parties ask that two additional judgments be entered for the Kelley plaintiffs and Cindy Uhrich-Northcutt, which provide only for just compensation awards payable to each of the remaining plaintiffs. Judge Horn granted the parties' joint motion to vacate and amend the November 24, 2014 judgment. The claims associated with Estate of Charlie & Betty Kelley and Kelley's Upholstery are severed from the case of Clifford L. Finch, et al. v. United States, Case No. 12-92L, and shall be reorganized, for case management purposes, into the case, Estate of Charlie & Betty Kelley, et al. v. United States, and assigned Case No. 12-9203L. The Court directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in the amount of $6,977.04, plus interest at 3.75% compounded annually for the period between November 19, 2010 and the date of payment, for Estate of Charlie & Betty Kelley and $12,196.80 plus interest at 3.75% compounded annually for the period between November 19, 2010 and the date of payment, for Kelley's Upholstery. Moreover, the claims associated with Cindy Uhrich-Northcutt are, severed from the case of Clifford L. Finch, et al. v. United States, Case No. 12-92L, and shall be reorganized, for case management purposes, into the case, Cindy Uhrich-Northcutt v. United States, and assigned Case No. 12-9204L. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judment in the amount of $4,275.00, plus interest at 3.75% compounded annually for the period between November 19, 2010 and the date of payment. For the remaining 181 plaintiffs in the case of Clifford L. Finch, et al. v. United States, Case No. 12-92L, the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in the following amounts: $1,996,671.22 in principal and $294,000.00 for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Additionally, the remaining 181 plaintiffs shall receive interest on the principal at a 3.75% interest rate, and compounding annually for the period between November 19, 2010 and the date of payment. Class counsel is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $820,140.36, or a 35% fee of the award, excluding statutory attorneys' fees. A copy of Judge Horn's order dated July 24, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/SPggvRfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs, represented by Steven Mathew Wald -- Wald@swm.legal -- at Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC USA, Defendant, represented by Kristine Sears Tardiff, U. S. Department of Justice US BANCORP: Fails to Pay Branch Managers OT, "Barker" Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth Barker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. U.S. Bancorp, Case No. 3:15-cv-01641-CAB-WVG (S.D. Cal., July 23, 2015), seeks redress for the Defendant's misclassification of Branch Managers as employees exempt from overtime pay, resulting in a systematic and class-wide failure to pay for training hours, minimum wages and overtime pay. U.S. Bancorp operates U.S. Bank throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Travis Jang-Busby, Esq. SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAW OFFICES 2173 Salk Ave., Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Telephone: (760) 206-3566 Facsimile: (760) 888-3575 E-mail: tjbusby@sdlawoffices.com - and - Alisa A. Martin, Esq. AMARTIN LAW, PC 600 West Broadway, Suite 700 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 308-6880 Facsimile: (619) 308-6881 E-mail: alias@amartinlaw.com USPLABS LLC: C.D. Cal. Judge Remands Suit to State Court -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Manuel L. Real of the Central District of California granted plaintiffs' motion to remand in the case ISSAM TNAIMOU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USPLABS, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. CV 15-3276-R (C.D. Cal.) The action is one of sixteen cases that were joined into a California state court coordinated proceeding in Los Angeles County Superior Court, In re JCCP 4808, USPlabs Dietary Supplement Cases (JCCP). Plaintiffs' Petition for Coordination was made on the ground that the actions, with roughly 129 separate plaintiffs, share common questions of law and fact, and are eligible for coordination under California Code of Civil Procedure section 404. After plaintiffs requested coordination within the JCCP, defendants subsequently removed the action on April 30, 2015, pursuant to the mass action provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(11). Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to remand the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Real granted plaintiffs' motion to remand and defendants' motion to dismiss is deemed moot. A copy of Judge Real's order dated July 23, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/QwhMjQfrom Leagle.com. Issam Tnaimou, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews & Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton, Michael C Valdez, Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton Benita Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews & Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton, Michael C Valdez, Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton Marcel Macy, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews & Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton, Michael C Valdez, Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton. Joseph Worley, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews & Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton, Michael C Valdez, Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton Joanne Zgrzepski, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews & Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton, Michael C Valdez, Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton Caron Jones, on behalf of Joshua Jones on behalf of The Estate of James Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews & Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton,Michael C Valdez, Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton USPLabs, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor Jonathan Vincent Doyle, an individual, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor Jacob Geissler, an individual also known as Jacobo Geissler, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor USPLabs Oxyelite, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor USPLABS Oxyelite PN, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor GNC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor &Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor The Vitamin Shoppe, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor Vitamin World, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor S.K. Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew L Marshall, Morris Polich and Purdy LLP & Peter J Lucca, Jr, Morris Polich and Purdy LLP Vita-Tech International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kathleen Anne Stricklin, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall, LLP, Lisa M Rice, WFBM LLP & Nathan C Yu, WFBM LLP WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Suit Over Gay Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------- Neal Broverman, writing for Advocate.com, reported that GLAD is teaming with the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs on the suit, which includes an unnamed number of Walmart employees. One of the plaintiffs is Jaqueline Cote, a Massachusetts Walmart employee who was denied the ability to put her female spouse, Diana Smithson, on her medical plan -- Walmart's rules meant that the couple was hit with a $150,000 medical bill when Smithson developed cancer. "It is the first class action filed on behalf of gay and lesbian workers since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges in June," according to a statement from GLAD. The lawsuit is a setback for Walmart, which has a reputation as a company unfriendly to LGBT employees but been working to appear more accepting. The Arkansas-based company recently scored a 90 out of 100 on HRC's Corporate Equality Index. "We are committed to fostering an inclusive work environment for our more than 2 million associates around the world," Walmart spokesman Kevin Gardner told Bloomberg. And when employees at a Las Vegas Walmart refused to decorate a cake with the word "gay" on it, the corporate offices said the local store's policy was wrong. WYNDHAM RESORT: Removed "McGrath" Class Suit to S.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Michelle Renee McGrath, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wyndham Resort Development Corporation, Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc., and Does 1-10 Inclusive, Case No. 37-02015-00019959-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County, Central Division to the U.S. District Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01631-JM-KSC to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Geraci, Esq. COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER 605 C Street, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 595-3001 Facsimile: (619) 595-3000 E-mail: jgeraci@ckslaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Sabrina Layne Shadi, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90025-7120 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: sshadi@bakerlaw.com * 11th Circuit Restores Class Suit Over Rotting Wood ---------------------------------------------------- Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reported that despite a prohibition on private class actions under Alabama state consumer- protection law, a federal appeals court said a proposed class action alleging that a lumber company broke that law by selling prematurely rotting wood can proceed. The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on unanimously reversed a lower court and reinstated the lawsuit brought by attorneys from Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's fractured 4-1-4 ruling in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance. As in Shady Grove, the 11th Circuit held that the state law in question was trumped by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which authorizes federal class actions. ********* 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. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, 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 * * *