/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150826.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, August 26, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 170 Headlines 013 NETVISION: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Customer Data 21ST CENTURY: Judge Report Clears Hurdle in Suit v. Auto Insurers 3D SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit ALABAMA ELECTRIC COOP: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefs ALLEN, TX: "Watson" Red Light Camera Suit Stays in N.D. Tex. ANGIE'S LIST: Must Face Suit Over Suppressed Negative Reviews ANTHEM INC: 4 Indiana Suits Included in Data Security Breach MDL ANTHEM INC: "McKinley" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL ANTHEM INC: Six Calif. Suits Included in Data Security Breach MDL APPLE: Calif. Court Grants Class Status to Bag Search Suit ARGENTINA: 2nd Circ. Reverses Bondholder Class Status Ruling ATLANTIC CENTRAL: "Alegre" Overtime Suit Stays in Federal Court ATP OIL: Court Tosses 2nd Amended Complaint in Suit v. D&Os BABCOCK & WILCOX: Judgment in Insurance Row Reinstated BANK OF NEW YORK: Oct. 20 Fairness Hearing on $180MM Settlement BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE: Faces Class Suit Over Body Part Trafficking BLUECREST CAPITAL: Sued in US Over LIBOR Rigging BP LLC: Brent Coon Wants Cases Moved to State Court CELLADON CORP: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Class Suit CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces "Mbaku" Discrimination Suit in Colorado COMENITY BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Robocalls CONTRA COSTA: Deal Has Conditional OK; Fairness Hearing Nov. 12 DISH ONE: Accused of Violating TCPA in "Couser" Suit DOCTORS DIRECT INSURANCE: CA Affirms Ruling in TCPA Suit DOLLAR TREE: Class Suit Deal Stopped Over "Lavish" Atty. Fees DUALSTAR ENTERTAINMENT: Interns File Class Suit Over Wage Theft DYNAMIC PET: Court Narrows Claims in Pet Food Class Action ELECTRONIC GAME: Court Grants Class Certification in "Petrie" ETHICON INC: Faces Suit Over Physiomesh(R) Mesh-Related Injuries GREEN TREE: Sued in Penn. for Violating Telecommunications Act ICONIX BRAND: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Oct. 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline JAMES HARDIE: Faces Class Suit Over Harditex Building Products JAMES HARDIE: CA Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in "Coe" Suit KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces Class Suit Over Huggies Advertising LIFELOCK INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Martin" Suit Added to Chinese Flooring MDL MDC PARTNERS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit MOBILE IRON: Faces Class Suit Over 2014 Data Breach MITSUBISHI FUSO: Suit Over BlueTec Emissions Allowed to Proceed MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM: Tousley Brain Appointed as Class Counsel NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Denied in "Alhassid" Suit NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Judge Seeks Guidance From Wash. High Court NEW YORK: Court Narrows Suit Against Housing Authority NEW YORK: Court Trims Lawsuit Against Health Department NORDSTROM INC: Court Dismisses "Shaulis" Complaint OCWEN FINANCIAL: Must Defend Against "Weiner" Lawsuit ONTARIO, CA: $325MM Class Suit Filed Over Abused Deaf Students PAIN THERAPEUTICS: KB Partners' Class Suit Remains Pending PANGBORN CORP: "Frazier" Suit Removed to Arkansas District Court PAPA JOHN'S: Records $123MM Pre-Tax Expense to Settle Suit PRECISION CASTPARTS: Berkshire Buyout Subject to Class Suit PREMERA BLUE: 7 Suits Consolidated in Data Security Breach MDL SAN ANTONIO HOSPITAL: Judgment of Nonsuit to Defendants Affirmed SHERMETA ADAMS: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Walker" Action SILVER WHEATON: Andrew & Springer Files Securities Class Suit SONAE INDUSTRIA: Kirby Residents' Class Suit Dismissed STANCORP FINANCIAL: Andrew & Springer Files Securities Class Suit STARLINE TOURS: "Harp" Suit Wins Conditional Certification TAO GROUP: Employees Files Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages TARGET BRANDS: "Sparks" Suit Moved From Arkansas to N.D. Illinois TIME WARNER: Must Defend Against "Groshek" Background Check Suit TRACFONE UNLIMITED: Challenge to Class Action Settlement Tossed TRINET GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit TRINET GROUP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit TRINET GROUP: October 6 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline TROTT LAW: Court Narrows Claims in "Wilson" Lawsuit UBER: Woman Sues Over Violation of TCPA UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ocean Cargo Suit UNITED STATES: Trial Date in Suit v. Immigration Set for May 2016 UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Cops' Suit USG7 LLC: Bid for Final Default Judgment Granted in Part VALENCIA HOLDING: Calif. SC Reverses Appeals Court Judgment VERMONT: Health & Human Services Must Defend Against "Ryan" Case WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Admits Testimony of Expert Witnesses ZEOBIT: Nov. 30 Deadline for Filing Claims in $2MM Class Deal * Financial Recovery Acquires Cypress Settlements * RG/2 Hires T. Chiango as Claims, Securities, Antitrust Director ********* 013 NETVISION: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Customer Data ---------------------------------------------------------- Cellcom Israel Ltd. (tase:CEL) (hereinafter:the "Company") announced that a purported class action was filed against 013 Netvision Ltd., or Netvision, the Company's wholly owned subsidiary and three other defendants, alleging that another defendant unlawfully sold the other defendants, including Netvision, private data of its customers, which was used by the other defendants to approach such customers with commercial proposals. The amount claimed from each of the defendants allegedly purchasing the data, including Netvision, if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, was estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 1000 for each customer whose private data it allegedly purchased and/or each approach made to such customers, the total of which was assessed by the plaintiff to be approximately 1.5 million customers. At this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success. About Cellcom Israel Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is the largest Israeli cellular provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 2.885 million subscribers (as at March 31, 2015) with a broad range of value added services including cellular and landline telephony, roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers abroad, additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile office etc. and most recently -- also television over the internet service in Israel, based on Cellcom Israel's technologically advanced infrastructure. The Company operates an LTE 4 Generation and HSPA 3.5 Generation networks enabling advanced high speed broadband multimedia services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE networks. Cellcom Israel offers Israel's broadest and largest customer service infrastructure including telephone customer service centers, retail stores, and service and sale centers, distributed nationwide. Cellcom Israel further provides through its wholly owned subsidiaries internet connectivity services and international calling services, as well as landline telephone communication services, in addition to data communication services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). For additional information please visit the Company's website http://www.cellcom.co.il Company Contact: Shlomi Fruhling Chief Financial Officer investors@cellcom.co.il Tel: +972-52-998-9755 Investor Relations Contact: Ehud Helft GK Investor & Public Relations, In partnership with LHA cellcom@GKIR.com Tel: +1-617-418-3096 21ST CENTURY: Judge Report Clears Hurdle in Suit v. Auto Insurers ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Gregory A. Presnell of the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida overruled Plaintiffs' omnibus objection to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in the case captioned, A & E AUTO BODY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. 21ST CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:14-MD-2557-ORL-31TBS (M.D.Fla.). The A&E suit is part of a multi-district litigation involving two dozen suits, consolidated for pretrial purposes. In the lawsuits, collision repair shops have accused most of the automobile insurers in their states of conspiring to suppress the reimbursement rates for collision repairs in violation of Section I of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state laws. On August 8, 2014, the MDL was created and four cases were transferred to the Court: one from Mississippi; one from Indiana; one from; and one from Utah. Nineteen other tag-along cases have been transferred to the Court. On March 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge Smith recommended that the complaints in the Louisiana cases be dismissed. The Court overruled Plaintiffs' objections to that recommendation and dismissed the complaints. In the R & R, Judge Smith concludes that to satisfy the notice requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), "at a minimum, Plaintiffs should allege sufficient facts specific to each Defendant, or at least to each corporate family of Defendants, to tie that Defendant to the wrongdoing alleged and that Plaintiffs have failed to state an actionable claim, generally because they have not alleged that the Defendants as opposed to the Defendants' insureds requested the work for which compensation or additional compensation is now sought. He recommended that all of the claims be dismissed without prejudice except for Plaintiffs' claims for quasi estoppel, which he recommended dismissing with prejudice. On June 29, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an omnibus objection. In his Opinion and Order dated August 7, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ZUNhK4from Leagle.com, Judge Presnell confirmed and adopted as part of the Order the R&R of Judge Smith except insofar as it recommended that the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act ("OUTPA") claim be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs are represented by: Scottie McPherson, Esq. Tucker H. Byrd, Esq. TUCKER H. BYRD & ASSOCIATES, PA 180 N Park Ave Ste 2A. Tel: (407)392-2285 Defendants are represented by Karl E. Sturge, Esq. -- kstruge@marlowadler.com -- Rosemary B. Wilder, Esq. -- rwilder@marlowwadler.com -- MARLOW, CONNELL, ABRAMS, ADLER, NEWMAN & LEWIS 3D SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a class action on behalf of investors of 3D Systems Corporation ("3D Systems" or the "Company") (NYSE:DDD) who purchased shares between October 29, 2013 and October 22, 2014 and have been damaged by the recent declines in the Company's stock price. 3D Systems investors have until August 14, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion. The complaint alleges that 3D Systems and certain of its executives failed to disclose material information to investors in violation of federal securities laws. The alleged false statements and omissions include, but are not limited to: (i) 3D Systems' ability to increase capacity; (ii) the true demand for the Company's products; (iii) the value of its acquisitions; and (iv) the Company's expected earnings. On October 22, 2014, 3D Systems announced disappointing preliminary results for the third quarter and lowered its guidance for the full year, stating that the poor results were due to capacity constraints. On this news, the price of 3D Systems' shares plummeted by over 15% on unusually high volume. If you purchased shares of 3D Systems between October 29, 2013 and October 22, 2014 and suffered a loss of over $1,000,000 you are encouraged to contact Casey Sadler of GPM to discuss your legal rights 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. Lesley Portnoy, Esq Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-free: (888) 773-9224 Fax: (310) 432-1495 info@glancylaw.com ALABAMA ELECTRIC COOP: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefs ------------------------------------------------------------ Chief District Judge William H. Steele of the United States District Court from Southern District of Alabama ordered the parties to file supplemental briefs in the case captioned, WILLIAM A. DAVIS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL ALABAMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, Defendant, Case No. 15-0131-WS-C (S.D. Ala.). William A. Davis, brought this putative class action against Central Alabama Electric Cooperative (CAEC) by filing a Complaint in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama, on January 26, 2015. Davis alleged that CAEC, a rural electric cooperative providing services to customers/members in Dallas County and elsewhere in Alabama, violated Alabama Code Sec. 37-6-20 and breached its contractual obligations by improperly retaining excess revenues rather than distributing them to members via patronage refunds or rate reductions. Davis purports to bring these claims on his own behalf, and also as representative of a class consisting of "all current and former members of Defendant who (1) currently reside in Alabama; and (2) have not been distributed all excess revenue rightfully owed to them under Ala. Code Sec. 37-6-20." CAEC subsequently removed this action to this District Court pursuant to the federal officer removal provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1). A separate group of plaintiffs consisting of Pamela Caver, Christine Grandison and Dexter Grandison filed a Class Action Complaint of their own against CAEC in Dallas County Circuit Court. The Caver Complaint was strikingly similar to that filed by Davis, inasmuch as it alleged that CAEC had violated Alabama Code Sec. 37-6-20 and breached a contract with its members by failing to refund excess revenues to its members on an annual basis. Caver and the Grandisons purported to bring their action on their own behalf, as well as two proposed member classes, one consisting of current members of CAEC who "(1) currently reside in Alabama, and (2) have not been paid all excess revenues (in the form of 'Patronage Capital' or 'Capital Credit') owed to them," and the other consisting of former members of CAEC who meet the same criteria. The net result of the foregoing is that there are now two virtually identical class action complaints pending against CAEC on the undersigned's civil docket. The alleged wrongdoing by CAEC is the same in both cases. The relief sought against CAEC is the same (or substantially the same) in both cases. And the proposed classes are the same (or substantially the same) in both cases. The only difference lies in the identities of the named plaintiffs and, perhaps more importantly, their counsel. CAEC has filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay in the Davis action. CAEC says Davis's Complaint should be dismissed or stayed as a second-filed class action. CAEC contends that this rule requires that Davis's lawsuit be dismissed or stayed pending a determination of whether class certification will be granted. In the Order dated August 10, 2015 available at http://is.gd/xbRFXzfrom Leagle.com, Judge Steele concluded that additional briefing is required to ensure that both sides get a fair opportunity tobve heard on what may be a pivotal legal question raised sua sponte because the the parties' failure to address them in their court filings. The parties were to file supplemental briefs on or before August 24, 2015. William Davis is represented by Andrew P. Campbell, Esq. -- andy.campbell@campbellguin.com -- John C. Guin, Esq. -- jay.guin@campbellguin.com -- CAMPBELL, GUIN, WILLIAMS, GUY & GIDIERE, LLC Central Alabama Electric Cooperative is represented by Dennis R. Bailey, Esq. -- DRB@rushtonstakely.com -- John Evans Bailey, Esq. -- ebailey@rushtonstakely.com -- Richard McConnell Freeman, Jr., Esq. -- RMF@rushtonstakely.com -- RUSHTON, STAKELY, JOHNSTON & GARRETT, P.A. ALLEN, TX: "Watson" Red Light Camera Suit Stays in N.D. Tex. ------------------------------------------------------------ District Judge John McBryde of the United States District Court for Northern District of Texas denied Plaintiff's motion to remand in the case captioned, JAMES H. WATSON, AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ALLEN, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:15-CV-335-A (N.D. Tex.). On April 23, 2015, plaintiff, a citizen of Louisiana, filed a class action petition in Texas state court against the State of Texas, 53 Texas cities (Cities), three private corporations, and a limited liability company in the 153rd Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, alleging that defendants were responsible for, and were participating in, the enforcement of red light camera ordinances in violation of the Texas Constitution. Plaintiff asserted causes of action for reimbursement of funds paid for red light camera violations, for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961-68, (RICO), for common law misrepresentation, and for violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Sections 17.41-.63, (DTPA). addition, the petition included class action allegations. On May 27, 2015, defendant Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc. f/k/a ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc. (Xerox)), filed its motion to dismiss asserting that plaintiff lacked standing to sue Xerox inasmuch as plaintiff's claims arose out of a red light camera ticket he received while driving in the City of Southlake, whose red light camera program is administered by defendant Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., and he suffered no injury at the hands of Xerox. City of Garland filed its motion to dismiss on May 29, 2015. On June 10, 2015, defendants American Traffic Solutions, Inc. and American Traffic Solutions, L.L.C., filed their motion to dismiss. On June 22, 2015, defendant City of Fort Worth filed its motion to dismiss. On June 26, 2015, more than 30 days after removal of this action and after 28 defendants had filed motions to dismiss, plaintiff filed a motion to remand. In the motion, Plaintiff contended that the court must remand, notwithstanding the discretionary language contained in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1367, now that he has abandoned his RICO claims, and that the local controversy, home state, and/or discretionary exceptions to the Class Action Fairness Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. Sections 1332(d) and 1453, (CAFA) apply. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2015 available at http://is.gd/42kaPMfrom Leagle.com, Judge McBryde was convinced that it is correct in retaining its jurisdiction for the resolution of the claims against those defendants who are entitled to have the claims against them dismissed because of plaintiff's lack of standing to assert them. As to the remaining claims, the court will review again the possibility of a remand of those claims after the court has devoted more attention to a definition of the issues involved in those claims, the weighing of the factors that would determine whether a remand to state court as to those claims would be appropriate, and the effect of CAFA on the possibility of a remand of those claims. Plaintiffs are represented by: Russell J. Bowman, Esq. Paul R. Smith, Esq. SCOTT BOWMAN & STELLA 3131 McKinney Ave., Ste 220 Dallas, TX 75204 Tel: (214)922-0220 - and - Scott A. Stewart, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT A. STEWART 777 E. Thomas Road, Ste 210, Phoenix, AZ 85014 Tel:(602)899-6086 Defendants are represented by Robert E. Hager, Esq. -- rhager@njdhs.com -- Peter G. Smith, Esq. -- psmith@njdhs.com -- Victoria W. Thomas, Esq. -- vthomas@njdhs.com -- NICHOLS, JACKSON, DILLARD, HAGER & SMITH, L.L.P. ANGIE'S LIST: Must Face Suit Over Suppressed Negative Reviews ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Thompson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that Angie's List must face claims from a woman who says it suppressed negative reviews on a contractor who bilked her, a federal judge ruled. Janell Moore claims she paid the contractor, Bravo Philadelphia, $4,000 to remodel her kitchen after seeing positive reviews on Angie's List. The contractor did not finish the work and refused to refund her money, she says. After leaving a negative review for Bravo on the site, she claims she was suddenly able to see scores of negative remarks that had previously been concealed. She claims that, had she seen the reviews, she never would have hired the contractor. Moore alleges that Angie's List representatives did not cite any technological error of the site. In its membership agreement and its FAQ section, the company purports to rank service providers based solely on the reviews given by customers, not by any payment to the company, she notes. After Moore relayed the event to an electrician he knew, however, he allegedly told her that "he pays 'to be at the top' of search results." With Moore hoping to represent a class of similarly situated consumers, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell found that she has standing to proceed with her counts of fraud and unfair trade practices. The 28-page ruling says Moore's allegations and the electrician's substantiation of her suspicions "inject precision and some measure of substantiation into Moore's allegations of fraud by spelling out circumstances that contradict certain Angie's List representations, including that service providers cannot influence their ratings and that businesses do not pay to be on Angie's List." Dismissing Moore's counts of unjust enrichment and breach of contract, however, Dalzell found that the user contract made no such promises as to the validity of the reviews, and that the existence of a contract itself was sufficient to nullify the unjust enrichment claim. ANTHEM INC: 4 Indiana Suits Included in Data Security Breach MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Four class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose): -- Keyser v. Anthem Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00178. The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02644-LHK to the proceeding; -- Kaslowitz v. Anthem Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00188. The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02647-LHK to the proceeding; -- Garson v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00180. The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02645-LHK to the proceeding; and -- Weinberger v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00201. The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02648-LHK to the proceeding. The cases are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK. The actions in the litigation arise from a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015. The breach allegedly resulted in the electronic theft of personally identifiable information and personal health information of, by one estimate, some 80 million current and former health insurance plan members and employees of Anthem or its affiliated health insurance companies. Plaintiff John Keyser is represented by: David J. Hensel, Esq. PENCE HENSEL LLC 135 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 1600 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 833-1111 Facsimile: (317) 833-1199 E-mail: dhensel@pencehensel.com Plaintiff Jeffrey Kaslowitz is represented by: James Piatt, Esq. Joseph N. Williams, Esq. William N. Riley, Esq. PRICE WAICUKAUSKI RILEY & DEBROTA, LLC 301 Massachusetts Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 633-8787 Facsimile: (317) 633-8797 E-mail: jpiatt@price-law.com jwilliams@price-law.com wriley@price-law.com - and - Lauren I. Dubick, Esq. Robert Kaplan, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 850 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 687-1980 Facsimile: (212) 687-7714 E-mail: ldubick@kaplanfox.com rkaplan@kaplanfox.com - and - Laurence D. King, Esq. Linda M. Fong, Esq. Mario M. Choi, Esq. KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP 350 Sansome Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 772-4700 Facsimile: (415) 772-4707 E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com lfong@kaplanfox.com mchoi@kaplanfox.com Plaintiff David Garson is represented by: Ari J. Scharg, Esq. Benjamin Thomassen, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com bthomassen@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Robert E. Duff, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. DUFF INDIANA CONSUMER LAW GROUP P.O. Box 7251 Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (800) 817-0461 Facsimile: (800) 817-0461 E-mail: robert@robertdufflaw.com Plaintiff Michael S. Weinberger is represented by: P. Gregory Cross, Esq. Danyel Struble, Esq. THE CROSS LAW FIRM Historic Riley-Jones House 315 East Charles Street Muncie, IN 47305 Telephone: (765) 747-1953 Facsimile: (765) 747-1991 E-mail: pgcross@thecrosslawfirm.com dstruble@thecrosslawfirm.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com Defendant Anthem Inc. is represented by: Allison M. Holt, Esq. Craig A. Hoover, Esq. E. Desmond Hogan, Esq. Peter R. Bisio, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th St NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com - and - Sally F. Zweig, Esq. KATZ & KORIN P.C. The Emelie Building 334 North Senate Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 464-1100 Facsimile: (317) 464-1111 E-mail: szweig@katzkorin.com ANTHEM INC: "McKinley" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled McKinley, et al. v. Anthem Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00096, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02650- LHK to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK. The actions in the litigation arise from a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015. The breach allegedly resulted in the electronic theft of personally identifiable information and personal health information of, by one estimate, some 80 million current and former health insurance plan members and employees of Anthem or its affiliated health insurance companies. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kimberly C. Young, Esq. Phillip A. Kuri, Esq. ELK & ELK, CO. 6105 Parkland Blvd. Mayfield Heights, OH 44124 Telephone: (440) 442-6677 Facsimile: (440) 442-7944 E-mail: kyoung@elkandelk.com pkuri@elkandelk.com The Defendant is represented by: Glenn Virgil Whitaker, Esq. VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP Great American Tower 301 E Fourth Street, Suite 3500 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 723-4000 E-mail: gvwhitaker@vorys.com - and - Robert Neal Webner, Esq. VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 52 E Gay Street PO Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43216-1008 Telephone: (614) 464-8243 Facsimile: (614) 719-5083 E-mail: RNWebner@vssp.com - and - Allison M. Holt, Esq. Craig A. Hoover, Esq. E. Desmond Hogan, Esq. Peter R. Bisio, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com ANTHEM INC: Six Calif. Suits Included in Data Security Breach MDL ----------------------------------------------------------------- Six class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose): -- Samantha Kirby v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00820. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02636-LHK to the proceeding; -- John Doe v. Anthem Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00934. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02638-LHK to the proceeding; -- Aswad Hood v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00918. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02637-LHK to the proceeding; -- T.C. v. Anthem Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01106. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02651-LHK to the proceeding; -- Susan Morris, et al. v. Anthem Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00196. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02639-LHK to the proceeding; and -- David Liu v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00215. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02640-LHK to the proceeding. The cases are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK. The actions in the litigation arise from a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015. The breach allegedly resulted in the electronic theft of personally identifiable information and personal health information of, by one estimate, some 80 million current and former health insurance plan members and employees of Anthem or its affiliated health insurance companies. Plaintiff Samantha Kirby is represented by: Bradley K. King, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Robert Ahdoot, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Theodore W. Maya, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 370 Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A. 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com Plaintiff John Doe is represented by: Caleb Marker, Esq. Christopher Paul Ridout, Esq. RIDOUT MARKER & OTTOSON LLP 555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: clm@ridoutmarker.com cpr@ridoutmarker.com Plaintiff Aswad Hood is represented by: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq. Steven Augustine Lopez, Esq. Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com smg@girardgibbs.com aep@girardgibbs.com ehg@girardgibbs.com Plaintiff T. C. is represented by: Christopher Barton Dalbey, Esq. WEITZ AND LUXENBERG PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 Facsimile: (212) 344-5641 E-mail: cdalbey@weitzlux.com The Morris Plaintiffs are represented by: Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq. RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP 351 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 434-9800 Facsimile: (415) 434-0513 E-mail: adc@rezlaw.com - and - Aashish Y. Desai, Esq. DESAI LAW FIRM PC 3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (949) 614-5830 Facsimile: (949) 271-4190 E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com Plaintiff David Liu is represented by: Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq. Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: drobinson@rcrlaw.net mrobinson@rcrlaw.net The Defendants are represented by: Craig A. Hoover, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th Street Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5694 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 E-mail: craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com - and - Michael M. Maddigan, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4727 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 E-mail: michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com APPLE: Calif. Court Grants Class Status to Bag Search Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a 2013 California labor lawsuit against Apple alleging employees should be compensated for time taken to search their bags has been granted class-action status. The lawsuit alleged that up to 12,000 current and former employees at 52 stores in California should have been paid for security checks before they left their worksite. U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted class-action status to plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who alleged they are forced to undergo security screening every time they leave the worksite, including meal breaks and at the end of shifts. The lawsuit (case number CV 13 3451) was initially filed by Amanda Frlekin and Dean Pelle in 2013 on behalf of current and former employees of Apple in California. Plaintiffs argue that because the "personal package and bag searches" are done solely for Apple's benefit and are conducted in all Apple retail stores across the US, employees should be paid for time spent undergoing the bag checks. According to the lawsuit, time spent waiting for bag checks can add up for employees. Employees who leave the worksite at the same time are required to wait in line for security screenings. Plaintiff Amanda Frlekin alleges she waited between 5 and 10 minutes for all bag checks before meal breaks and 10 minutes before leaving at the end of her shift at every shift. "By conservative calculations, this equated over the course of one year to an aggregate amount of approximately $1,500 in uncompensated hours worked and overtime," the initial lawsuit argued. Employees who refuse to undergo a security check could face disciplinary action, including termination. In 2014, Judge Alsup dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, finding that the lawsuit would not survive a Supreme Court ruling in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk. When he dismissed the lawsuit, however, Judge Alsup gave plaintiffs the opportunity to present a second complaint, but complaints from New York, Massachusetts and Ohio were left off the second complaint. Apple has argued that not all store managers conducted bag searches and that the time spent in back checks was so insignificant that it should not be compensated. The lawsuit alleges employees are owed millions of dollars in unpaid wages and overtime. Plaintiffs seek damages, including overtime wages and benefits, attorneys' fees and interest. ARGENTINA: 2nd Circ. Reverses Bondholder Class Status Ruling ------------------------------------------------------------ Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reported that Argentina won the reversal of a U.S. judge's ruling that a group of bondholders suing over its defaulted debt said entitled them to $700 million. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled that U.S. District Judge Thomas Griesa had improperly expanded a class of bondholders who were seeking repayment following the country's $100 billion default in 2002. Circuit Judge Chester Straub, writing for a three-judge panel, said Griesa must return to a narrower definition of the class, limited to those who have continuously held the eight series of bonds in question, and to hold a hearing to determine the proper amount of damages. Carmine Boccuzzi, Argentina's lawyer, welcomed the ruling, saying the plaintiffs had "repeatedly failed to prove their alleged damages and are not entitled to the overstated judgments" they have sought in court. Jennifer Scullion, the plaintiffs' lawyer, declined comment. The ruling marked the latest development in long-running litigation by creditors seeking full repayment on Argentine bonds following its 2002 default. The country defaulted again in July 2014 after refusing to honor court orders to pay $1.33 billion plus interest to hedge funds including Elliott Management's NML Capital Ltd suing for full payment on its defaulted bonds. Griesa later in June ordered Argentina to pay $5.4 billion to another 500-plus holders of defaulted debt before it could pay the majority of its creditors. The ruling came in a related series of lawsuits by creditors seeking to pursue damages as a group in class action lawsuits rather than individually. The creditors initially sought to pursue claims on behalf of all holders of Argentina's bonds in eight bond series. Griesa granted class action status in 2005 but only on behalf of creditors who continuously held the bonds, a major restriction given secondary market trading in the bonds. He then entered judgment against Argentina for $2.2 billion. Argentina appealed. In 2010, the 2nd Circuit reversed, saying the judgments were inflated. Griesa entered judgment again, this time for $700 million, but the 2nd Circuit reversed once more and instructed him to hold a damages hearing and to assess them on an individualized basis if a reasonable approximation as a group was not feasible. Instead, Griesa in 2014 modified the class definition to encompass all holders of outstanding bonds, as the plaintiffs originally wanted. The creditors subsequently moved for an order blocking Argentina from servicing its debt unless the country paid them $700 million. ATLANTIC CENTRAL: "Alegre" Overtime Suit Stays in Federal Court --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District Court for District of New Jersey denied Leonardo Alegre's motion to remand to the Superior Courtof New Jersey the case captioned, LEONARDO ALEGRE, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC CENTRAL LOGISTICS, et al. Defendants, Case No. 15-2342(SRC)(D.N.J.). From about January of 2013 to the present, Plaintiff and other putative class members drove trucks for Defendants' operation as an international logistics company that arranges furniture deliveries. On January 8, 2015, Alegre filed a putative class action alleging that he and others delivered goods from Elizabeth, New Jersey, to customers in New Jersey and New York in violation of New Jersey's Wage and Hour Law. Plaintiff further asserts that the class members worked for well over 40 hours per week, entitling them to overtime pay that they have not received. Defendants contend that Plaintiff and his company, Atlas Freight Services, LLC, worked as independent contractors, rather than employees, and that they are accordingly not entitled to overtime pay. Defendant XPO Last Mile Inc. removed the case to Federal District Court on April 2, 2015. In its notice of removal, Defendant asserted that the Federal Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act because the action has a proposed class of over 100 members, the amount in controversy is over $5,000,000, and minimal diversity exists. Plaintiff seeks to remand this matter back to New Jersey Superior Court. In support of his motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendants cannot establish jurisdiction to a "legal certainty," particularly because Plaintiff specifically stated in the Complaint that the amount in controversy is not over $5,000,000. Plaintiff further asserts that even if Defendants could meet their burden, the Court should nevertheless remand the matter because the proposed class meets the "local controversy exception" and satisfies the standard for permissive remand. Defendant XPO opposes Plaintiff's motion. XPO urges that it need not prove jurisdiction to a legal certainty, but instead only by a preponderance of the evidence. Defendant further argues that it has satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites irrespective of which standard the Court applies. In his Opinion dated July 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/d15SaAfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chesler was not persuaded by Plaintiff's contention that CAFA's jurisdictional prerequisites are not met and that Defendant has demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. The amount in controversy turns on the following five variables: (i) the amount of overtime hours allegedly worked by the purported class members; (ii) the liability period; (iii) the applicable pay rate; (iv) the size of the class; and (v) attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs are represented by: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C. 116 Village Blvd. Princeton, NJ 08540, Tel: (609)799-1267 Defendants are represented by Homer B. Ramsey, Esq. -- HRamsey@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Joseph J. Michalowski, Esq. -- JMichalowski@chaselawnj.com -- CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC ATP OIL: Court Tosses 2nd Amended Complaint in Suit v. D&Os ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court from Eastern District of Louisiana -- at the behest of defendants -- dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice in the case captioned, FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RELIEF FUND OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. T. PAUL BULMAHN, ET AL., Section: R., Case No. 13- 3935, No. C/W 13-6083, 13-6084, 13-6233 (E.D.La.). The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of all persons who acquired ATP Oil and Gas Corporation 11.875% Senior Second Lien Exchange Notes traceable to an allegedly false and misleading Form S-4 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with ATP's December 16, 2010 exchange offer. ATP filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on August 17, 2012 and is not named as a defendant in this action. Instead, plaintiff sued ATP's senior executives and board of directors, alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Before ATP for bankruptcy in 2012, it engaged in the acquisition, development, and production of oil and natural gas properties. On April 19, 2010, ATP raised $1.5 billion by selling unregistered private notes to institutional investors in a transaction exempt from the registration requirements under the Securities Act. In 2010, the United States Department of the Interior issued two moratoria that halted all drilling at depths greater than 500 feet between May 6, 2010 and October 12, 2010 following explosion in the Gulf of Mexico and creating the largest oil spill in U.S. history. The Second Amended Complaint, among others, alleges that the Prospectus's projection of a "substantial increase in production over the next year as development wells are brought to production" was misleading because defendants did not believe, and had no reasonable basis to believe, that production would actually increase. Plaintiff also pointed out that (1) ATP did not submit permit applications for its Gomez #9 and #10 wells until June 2011, thereby ensuring that the Gomez wells would not contribute to the projected production increase in 2011; (2) ATP did not conduct "exploratory testing" at wells attached to the Telemark Hub and therefore could not "accurately estimate" production from these wells; (3) "connectivity" problems at ATP's Atwater well suggested that other wells attached to the Telemark Hub would also have less than anticipated production; and (4) ATP did not have the financial resources to complete the Telemark and Gomez projects. Defendants T. Paul Buhlman, Albert L. Reese, Jr., and Keith R. Godwin have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Defendants Chris A. Brisack, Arthur H. Dilly, Gerard J. Swonke, Brent M. Longnecker, Walter Wendlandt, Burt A. Adams, George R. Edwards, and Robert J. Karow have likewise filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Officer and Director Defendants asked the Court to dismiss plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. In the Order and Reasons dated August 14, 2015 available at http://is.gd/6JSHeufrom Leagle.com, Judge Vance found that plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to give rise to an inference that defendants possessed actual knowledge that the projection of a substantial increase in production was false or misleading at the time it was made and that ATP's projection of a substantial increase in production was accompanied by "substantive company-specific warnings thus, the projection therefore falls within the safe-harbor provision for forward-looking statements and defendants cannot be held liable under Section 11. 15 U.S.C. Sec. 77z-2(c)(1)(A)(I). Plaintiffs are represented by Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq. -- Andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com -- Irma L. Netting, Esq. -- irma@lemmonlawfirm.com -- LEMMON LAW FIRM Defendants are represented by Omer Frederick Kuebel, III, Esq. -- rjuebel@lockelord.com -- Alicia Fazzano Castro, Esq. -- acastro@lockelord.com -- Brent Benoit, Esq. -- bbenoit@lockelord.com -- Corby Davin Boldissar, Esq. -- cboldissar@lockelord.com -- Monique M. Lafontaine, Esq. -- mlafontaine@lockelord.com -- Philip Guy Eisenberg, Esq. -- meisenberg@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP BABCOCK & WILCOX: Judgment in Insurance Row Reinstated ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Max Baer of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Western District, reversed a superior court decision and reinstated a trial court judgment in the case captioned, THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY AND B&W NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. AMERICAN NUCLEAR INSURERS AND MUTUAL ATOMIC ENERGY LIABILITY UNDERWRITERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTY: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY. AMERICAN NUCLEAR INSURERS AND MUTUAL ATOMIC ENERGY LIABILITY UNDERWRITERS v. THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY AND B&W NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., AND ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY. APPEAL OF: BABCOCK & WILCOX POWER GENERATION GROUP, INC. (F/K/A THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY) AND BABCOCK & WILCOX TECHNICAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. (F/K/A B&W NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.), AND ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, Case No. 2 WAP 2014. The case started in 1994 with the filing of a federal class action lawsuit against Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) and Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) brought by plaintiffs claiming to have suffered bodily injury and property damage caused by emissions from nuclear facilities owned by Insureds. A 1998 jury trial of eight test cases resulted in an initial verdict totaling over $36 million or approximately $4.5 million per plaintiff. The federal court, however, granted a new trial due to evidentiary issues. The retrial was never held given the subsequent settlement. While the tort action was pending in federal court, disputes arose between Insureds and their insurers, American Nuclear Insurers and Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters. At the outset of the litigation, the Insurer acknowledged that it would defend Insureds but contested whether the policy covered aspects of the claims, and thus defended subject to a reservation of rights. Specifically, in 1994, Insurer, inter alia, asserted that the policy did not cover damages that were not caused by nuclear energy hazard, damages in excess of the policy limits, and claims for injunctive relief and punitive damages. The 1994 reservation of rights was supplemented as to B&W in October 1999, by a letter indicating, inter alia, that Insurer reserved its right to disclaim coverage for Insureds' liability based upon Insureds' pressuring of Insurer to settle, which Insurer viewed, in connection with other actions, as a breach of Insureds' duty to cooperate. Insurer filed a declaratory judgment action in state court days after the 1999 reservation of rights letter, raising challenges relating to the coverage limit, whether B&W and ARCO were entitled to separate representation, and bad faith and breach of contract allegations, including the breach of the duty to cooperate, against the Insureds. The Insureds counter claimed, raising bad faith allegations against Insurer. While staying various claims for future determination, including the breach of the duty to cooperate claim, the court decided issues regarding the trigger of coverage and held that B&W and ARCO were entitled to separate counsel. The Superior Court affirmed on appeal. Judge Baer concluded that the Superior Court erred by requiring an insured to demonstrate bad faith when the insured accepted a settlement offer in a reservation rights case. The court held "that when an insurer provides a defense under a reservation of rights and rejects a fair and reasonable settlement demand that a reasonable and prudent insurer would pay, the insured is free to consummate the settlement on terms that protect the insured from any personal exposure." If coverage is later found to apply, the insurer will be liable for the insured's settlement up to policy limits. A copy of Judge Baer's Opinion dated July 29, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/lqIAXg from Leagle.com. BANK OF NEW YORK: Oct. 20 Fairness Hearing on $180MM Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- A summary notice on In re: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP., MASTER FILE FOREX TRANSACTIONS LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12 MD 2335 (LAK), This Document Relates to: 11-CV-09175: SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who or which purchased the common stock of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation ("BNYM") during the period beginning on February 28, 2008 through and including October 4, 2011, and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above- captioned litigation (the "Action") has been preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $180,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on October 20, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 21B of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 23, 2015 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and the Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Securities Action, c/o Epiq Systems, P.O. Box 3410, Portland, OR 97208-3410, 1-877-819-9774. Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, www.BNYMFXSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim Form postmarked no later than December 11, 2015. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action. If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than September 29, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Representative Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than September 29, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, BNYM, or its counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim Form, should be made to Lead Counsel: John C. Browne, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 1-800-380-8496 blbg@blbglaw.com Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim Form should be made to: In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Securities Action c/o Epiq Systems P.O. Box 3410 Portland, OR 97208-3410 1-877-819-9774 www.BNYMFXSecuritiesLitigation.com BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE: Faces Class Suit Over Body Part Trafficking ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dan Harkins, writing for Cook County Record, reported that five individuals are filing a class action lawsuit against health centers and medical businesses, alleging a ruse to traffic in body parts. Pequeena Dixon, as representative of a class with Deborah McClain, Deveda Perkins, Diane Owens, William Perkins and others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit May 28 in Cook County Circuit Court against the Biological Resource Center of Illinois, Biological Resource Center of Phoenix, International Biological Inc., Arthroscopy Association of North America, Anatomical Service Inc., Cremation Services Inc., Waukegan Hospice Corp and Mercy Hospital and Medical Center, alleging fraud. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege "the mishandling, abuse and desecration of their deceased loved ones' body ... issuing a false certification of cremation and incomplete return of remains, and making false statements and promised concerning how and where donated bodies will be used." The suit says on Dec. 10, 2013, the plaintiffs received a certificate of cremation from the defendants concerning the remains of William Earl Perkins, which were, in part, to be donated to science. However, on April 4, 2015, the lawsuit states, Dixon and the other plaintiffs were informed by the FBI about a criminal investigation concerning the defendants, "stating the plaintiffs' loved one's body parts may have been identified during the execution of a search warrant," in a search related to a body part trafficking case. Not only can't the plaintiffs ensure the remains presented to them are authentic but they also can't be sure they are complete, the lawsuit states. It also is impossible to determine, how many members of the class there should be, the suit says. The plaintiffs allege fraud, conspiracy, negligence, tortious interference with a dead body, infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract. The plaintiffs seek to classify this case as a class action, to award damages equal to the cost of identification and location of remains, as well as unspecified actual, punitive and compensatory damages, attorney fees and court costs. They are represented by Clinton A. Krislov and Kenneth T. Goldstein of Krislov & Associates in Chicago. Cook County Circuit Court case number 2015CH08513. BLUECREST CAPITAL: Sued in US Over LIBOR Rigging ------------------------------------------------ Will Wainewright, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that BlueCrest Capital Management was sued by a group of investment firms over claims an employee at the hedge fund run by billionaire Michael Platt conspired with banks to rig the Swiss franc Libor rate. The allegations closely follow information disclosed by the New York Department of Financial Services in April as part of a record $2.5 billion fine against Deutsche Bank AG. The lawsuit cites a transcript released by regulators that indicated a BlueCrest employee asked a Deutsche Bank director to contribute a low interest rate to Libor submissions. BlueCrest and other defendants "rearranged their Swiss franc Libor-based derivatives desks to encourage cooperation among traders," investors said in the lawsuit filed June 19 in federal court in Manhattan. The world's largest banks have paid about $9 billion in fines since 2012 to settle allegations of rigging the London interbank offered rate, a key financial benchmark used to set interest rates. Jersey-based BlueCrest is the only hedge fund sued in the lawsuit filed by a group of investors including Sonterra Capital Master Fund and FrontPoint European Fund. Vigorous Defense BlueCrest said that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit and that it will vigorously defend itself. "We have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the communication mentioned in the complaint and are satisfied with our employee's continued suitability to serve at BlueCrest," the hedge fund said in the statement. The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, was initially filed in February against banks including Credit Suisse Group AG, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and UBS Group AG. BlueCrest and Deutsche Bank were added in June, two months after the New York Department of Financial Services fine against Deutsche Bank. In April, BlueCrest said it fired a money manager for allegedly asking an employee at Steve A. Cohen's investment firm to front run, or place a trade ahead of him. A Manhattan judge said in June that Nicholas O'Grady couldn't sue over his dismissal. The case is Sonterra v. Credit Suisse, 15-cv-00871, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. BP LLC: Brent Coon Wants Cases Moved to State Court --------------------------------------------------- Kyle Barnett, writing for SETexas Record, reported that more than five years after the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, attorney Brent Coon and over 3,000 of his clients have not received a hearing on their legal claims against BP PLC. Coon represents what may be the largest number of litigants who declined BP's settlement offer in 2012 to resolve thousands of private claims that resulted from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As of June 30, 2015, the claims administrators overseeing the settlement said a total of $5 billion had been paid to 91,984 claimants. Now Coon is seeking his day in court. Because his clients declined BP's settlement offer, they have yet to receive any damage award offer from the oil giant. Instead, these opt-out claimants have been thrown into a sort of legal limbo, awaiting a instructions from U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing the case against BP in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, on how to proceed. Coon said altogether somewhere around 10,000 litigants opted out of the settlement and have yet to be told how their cases will proceed. "Everybody [has] been sitting there for three or four years," Coon said. "BP has no desire to settle any of them, because there is no pressure to, and the court hasn't entertained any other pathway to resolution." In the past Barbier has consistently ruled against Coon on motions involving opt-out claimants, but Coon said the situation has now becoming dire and deserves to be addressed. "Those guys are unfortunately sitting there. A lot of the business owners couldn't outlast it, they were starving and couldn't get any recourse and some of them went under," he said. "Some of these folks are getting old, five years later. Some of them you lose - some of these people die off." But Barbier may not be the only obstacle to moving the opt-out cases. Coon said the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC), a group of 17 trial lawyers overseeing the settlement, is still angry that he opposed the 2012 settlement. Moreover, he said, the opt-out claimants, unlike members of the settlement class, pay no fees to the PSC members. The PSC members already stand to split a minimum of $600 million in fees for overseeing the settlement. "[The PSC was] personally mad at us because I put their $600 million settlement bill at risk," Coon said. Coon said his claimants had good reason to opt-out of the class settlement the PSC struck with BP. He said his firm ran litigation test case scenarios on 1,000 claims based on information they were given and found damage awards were likely to be far higher if his clients took BP to court individually. According to Coon, class action settlements, such as the Deepwater Horizon settlement, are often times inefficiently run and pay out large legal fees, sometimes to lawyers who do not represent any claimants, that minimize the settlements of individual class members. "They beat most of the plaintiffs to death with paper," Coon said. In addition, Coon said the PSC has willfully ignored opt-out claimants for the past several years while several other claimants who are part of the settlement class action are given precedence. "I think they are basically looking at it as trying to resolve big blocks of cases and saying if you chose not to participate in these deals for whatever reason you'll just have to go to the back of the line," he said. Due to inaction of the PSC and the court on behalf of opt-out claimants, Coon has requested the claims be removed from federal court so they can be tried separately in state courts. Coon said allowing such an alternative pathway would allow his clients, as well as the roughly 7,000 other opt-outs, some relief. In any case, Coon said so much time has passed that his clients have suffered not only from the oil spill, but from a lack of the due process to which they are entitled. "They won't have their claims resolved in a timely manner," Coon said. "It has already been over five years. If it does happen you are still probably looking at a year or two down the road before things develop enough to really resolve any significant numbers of those cases." That is why Coon has encouraged the court to allow the cases to be tried separately in state courts and beyond the reach of the PSC. Court records show that Barbier has not yet ruled on Coons' motion and has not set a date for doing so. CELLADON CORP: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of California on behalf of investors who purchased Celladon Corporation securities between July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse information regarding the Company's prospects for its lead drug candidate, MYDICAR, for treating enzyme deficiency in heart failure patients that results in inadequate pumping of the heart. On April 26, 2015, Celladon announced that the Company's Phase 2b CUPID2 trial of MYDICAR did not meet its primary and secondary goals. Then on June 1, 2015, Celladon issued a press release announcing the abrupt resignation of the Company's Chief Executive Officer. Then, on June 26, 2015, Celladon announced the suspension of its plans for further research or development of its MYDICAR program and other pre-clinical programs, indicating there was a possibility that the Company could be liquidated with net cash available to shareholders of $25-$30 million. If you suffered a loss in Celladon you have until August 31, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/CLDN-Info- Request-Form-839. Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Vincent Wong, Esq. The Law Offices of Vincent Wong 39 East Broadway Suite 304 New York, NY 10002 Tel. 212.425.1140 Fax. 866.699.3880 E-Mail: www.wongesq.com/ CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces "Mbaku" Discrimination Suit in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------- Jolie Mbaku v. Adecco USA, Inc.; Adecco Employment Services, Inc.; Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.; Charles Schwab Bank; Charles Schwab Bank, National Association; and, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01301 (D. Colo., June 18, 2015) arises from alleged discrimination against the Plaintiff as a result of her age, race, ethnicity, and national origin. Ms. Mbaku is a citizen of the state of Colorado. She was employed as a Customer Service Representative by the Defendants from October 2014 to November 26, 2014. She alleges that she ultimately was constructively terminated due to the severe and pervasive discrimination she faced at work. During her time at the Company, she asserts that she was subjected to comments about her accent, her birthplace, and her nationality. She was regularly tormented for not only the way she pronounced words but also the fact that her first language is French. Adecco USA is a corporation with its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. Adecco Employment Services, Inc., is a corporation with its principal place of business in Melville, New York. Charles Schwab & CO. Inc. and Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., are corporations with their principal place of business in San Francisco, California. Charles Schwab Bank and Charles Schwab Bank, National Association, are corporations with their principal place of business in Reno, Nevada. The Plaintiff is represented by: Claire Munger, Esq. HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP 1444 Blake Street Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 883-6933 E-mail: cmunger@hkm.com COMENITY BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Robocalls ---------------------------------------------- Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reported that Comenity Bank, which manages credit card programs for major U.S. retailers, has been hit with a proposed class action accusing it of violating federal law by using a debt collection firm that made robocalls to consumers' cellphones without consent. Filed, the lawsuit said the bank subjected thousands of consumers to harassing cellphone calls, invading their privacy and violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit was filed by Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, the Kim Law Firm and Meyer Wilson. CONTRA COSTA: Deal Has Conditional OK; Fairness Hearing Nov. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the United States District Court for Northern District of California preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreements and set the schedule for related deadlines in the case captioned, G. F., et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-03667-MEJ (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs G.F. (by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.), W.B., and Q.G. filed this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, alleging discrimination against a proposed class of youth with disabilities who are detained, or will be detained, at the Juvenile Hall located in Martinez, California. They originally filed the action on August 8, 2013 and subsequently filed their FAC on December 24, 2013, bringing six causes of action against Defendants: (1) violation of Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA); (2) violation of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (3) violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; (4) violation of California Government Code section 11135; (5) violation of California Education Code for Special Education Requirements; and (6) violation of California Education Code for General Education Requirements. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification contemporaneously with their original complaint, and subsequently re-filed their motion for class certification following the filing of the FAC. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants' solitary confinement policies and practices deny youth educational and rehabilitative services, which disproportionately burdens youth with disabilities who require additional assistance to access the general education curriculum and rehabilitative programs. On September 4, 2013, Plaintiffs made their first written settlement proposal to the County and Defendant Contra Costa Office of Education (CCCOE). Plaintiffs made their second written settlement proposal to both Defendants that same day. All parties met for a two-day in-person settlement conference before the Honorable James Warren (Ret.) on November 4 and November 7, 2013. Id. Although the parties were unable to reach agreement at that conference, they continued to discuss settlement options and exchanged written settlement proposals until the final agreement with the County was fully executed on May 19, 2015. In the motion, the parties seek an order(1) certifying the proposed class for settlement purposes, (2) granting preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement, (3) directing notice to the Settlement Class, and (4) setting a Fairness Hearing and related dates. In her Order dated July 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/p3KYtW from Leagle.com, Judge James held that the settlement agreements are approved as fair, adequate and reasonable pursuant to Fedral Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and appoints and designates Plaintiffs G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.; W.B.; and Q.G as class representatives and Disability Rights Advocates and Public Counsel as Class Counsel. She scheduled the fairness hearing on November 12, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel Simon Mason, Esq. & Mary-Lee Kimber Smith, Esq. -- DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES, Heather T. Rankie, Esq. -- hrankie@zelle.com -- ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP Contra Costa is represented by Kimberly Anne Smith, Esq. -- ksmith@f3law.com -- David Reis Mishook, Esq. -- dmishook@f3law.com -- FAGEN FRIEDMAN AND FULFROST, LLP DISH ONE: Accused of Violating TCPA in "Couser" Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Carrie Couser, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Dish One Satellite, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04622 (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2015) alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason A. Ibey, Esq. Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: jason@kazlg.com ak@kazlg.com - and - Jessica R.K. Dorman, Esq. Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. HYDE AND SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: jessica@westcoastlitigation.com josh@westcoastlitigation.com - and - Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Todd M. Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com DOCTORS DIRECT INSURANCE: CA Affirms Ruling in TCPA Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Justice Maureen E. Connors of the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division, affirmed a lower court order that granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Section 2-615(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case captioned, DOCTORS DIRECT INSURANCE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID BOCHENEK, Defendant-Appellant, and Beaute'e'mergente, LLC, doing business as McAdoo Comestic Surgery, Defendant, Case Nos. 1- 14-2919. In his original federal complaint, in which McAdoo and others who are not parties to this appeal were named as defendants, Bochenek alleged that in September and October 2013, he received unsolicited text messages on his cellular phone. Bochenek asserted that defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 2012. In addition, Bochenek alleged that defendants "engaged in unfair acts and practices" that violated section 2 of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The circuit court granted granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to section 2-615(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure finding that the Defendant failed to to establish that the collection of names and telephone numbers implicates the control and use of personally identifiable financial, credit, or medical information. On appeal, Bochenek contends that his federal claim under the TCPA alleged a privacy wrongful act under the Doctors Direct policy and argued that the Doctors Direct policy does not require that a statute or regulation expressly state an intent to regulate the control and use of personally identifiable financial, credit, or medical information. In the Opinion dated August 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/0E8RINfrom Leagle.com, Justice Connors agreed with the circuit court that nothing in the plain language of the Consumer Fraud Act itself suggests that the statute is associated with personally identifiable financial, credit, or medical information so that a claim under the CFA that in turn relies on the TCPA is not covered under the Doctors Direct policy. DOLLAR TREE: Class Suit Deal Stopped Over "Lavish" Atty. Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Scott Daugherty, writing for The Virgininan Pilot, reported that a federal judge in Norfolk refused to let Dollar Tree pay a group of current and former employees $300,000 to settle a class-action lawsuit -- in part, he said, because the 4,209 plaintiffs were getting too little and their 11 attorneys too much. In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson referred to the proposed settlement as "miniscule" and the proposed attorney fees as "excessive." He chastised the lawyers for not providing more documentation to support their request for $1.9 million in fees and noted that most attorneys receive compensation in the range of 20 to 30 percent of the settlement -- not 633 percent. "The Court is unable to assess the reasonableness of what appears to be, at first blush, an exorbitant fee request," said Jackson, who also said the agreement lacked any injunctive relief that would prevent the Chesapeake-based retailer from requiring hourly employees to work off the clock in the future. He asked the attorneys representing the employees to file supplemental motions, prompting the lawyers to file 406 pages of new court documents. They offered several changes to the agreement to address some of the judge's concerns, but they largely defended the size of the settlement and how much money they should make on the case. The attorneys noted that the number of plaintiffs had dwindled over time to 4,209 from more than 6,000 and that Dollar Tree was poised to have nearly 3,700 more plaintiffs kicked out of the suit. As the case currently stands, the documents said, the "best case scenario" for the employees at trial would be an award of roughly $340,000 in wages. The attorneys argued that the $1.9 million in fees was a bargain, noting that they and their clerks and paralegals have spent more than 10,600 hours on the case. Among other things, they sent out more than 275,000 notices, traded more than 17,000 phone calls with clients, drafted and served hundreds of court documents and conducted 77 depositions. They estimated the true value of their work at more than $3.7 million. In an affidavit, lead attorney Dennis Pantazis Jr. noted that of the 4,209 plaintiffs contacted about the settlement agreement, only five questioned the size of the settlement or the attorney fees. And of those, only one remains concerned, he said. A spokesman for Dollar Tree -- the nation's largest operator of stores selling everything for $1 -- declined to comment on the case. Class-action lawsuits involve a large number of people with similar experiences dealing with an organization they say did them wrong. They usually help people whose cases, on their own, garner too little money to make them worth the cost or effort to push through the legal system. In the Dollar Tree lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed they were required to work during their lunch breaks and after their shifts had ended. It amounted to about 30 or 45 minutes each day. Court documents indicated about 270,000 current and former workers could have qualified for the lawsuit. The suit initially estimated the damages at more than $5 million. In 2012, Jackson dismissed part of the lawsuit involving assistant store managers. He allowed an "opt-in collective action" on behalf of hourly sales associates to move forward, though. According to court documents, attorneys hammered out the settlement agreement on March 2 during a meeting with Magistrate Judge Lawrence Leonard. The meeting was requested by the employees' attorneys and was the case's second such settlement conference. Under the terms of the settlement, plaintiffs would receive checks between $10 and $3,142, documents said. The bulk of the payments, however, would be between $10 and $361. DUALSTAR ENTERTAINMENT: Interns File Class Suit Over Wage Theft --------------------------------------------------------------- Snejana Farberov, writing for Daily Mail, reported that former child stars-turned-entertainment moguls Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen have found themselves on the receiving end of a class-action lawsuit filed by dozens of their unpaid interns claiming wage theft. The 29-year-old twins, best known for their shared role as Michelle Tanner on the beloved 80s sitcom Full House, have built a billion-dollar empire under the brand name Dualstar Entertainment Group, churning out videos, books, hair care products, cosmetics and clothing. But according to a lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, the Olsens, whose combined personal net worth is estimated at $300million, have been reluctant to share some of them profits with their interns. Court papers allege that Dualstar has failed to pay about 40 past and present interns working long hours performing menial tasks. Dualstar has since denied the allegations to Daily Mail, calling them 'groundless.' The lead plaintiff in the case in Shahista Lalani, who worked as a design intern for five months in 2012 as part of the Olsens' fashion label, The Row. In court documents obtained by Page Six, Lalani is quoted as saying that her supervisor, The Row's head technical designer, was 'very demanding.' 'I was doing the work of three interns. I was talking to her all day, all night,' Ms Lalani states in the lawsuit. Lalani claims that at one point, she landed in the hospital with dehydration after working 50-hour weeks. 'It was like 100 degrees outside. I'd just be sweating to death. I probably carried like 50 pounds worth of trench coats,' she alleges. Her other responsibilities at the company included inputting data into spreadsheets, running personal errands for her paid co- workers, sewing and cutting patterns, among other tasks. During down time at work, the interns were required to clean and organize buttons by color without getting even a 15-minute break, the class-action suit alleges. 'You're like an employee, except with not getting paid,' Lalani writes. According to Lalani, she had witnessed fellow interns cry while performing menial tasks like going on coffee runs and making photocopies for their supervisors, some of whom she described as 'kind of mean.' The main charge in the suit is that unpaid interns were performing the same tasks as paid employees, and that they were wrongly classified as exempt from minimum wage requirements. Dualstar's interns were also denied college credits for their work, the court paper claim. Lalani is a native of Canada who graduated from the Parsons School of Design in Manhattan in 2013. She noted in the filings that she never worked directly for the Olsen sisters. On her personal website, Lalani writes: 'Interning with Zac Posen as well as The Row greatly impacted her knowledge about the local garment district and ethical manufacturing processes as well as mastering care and quality in design.' The Olsens launched Dualstar Entertainment Group in 1993, when the sisters were just 6 years old. In 2007, Forbes ranked the former child stars as the 11th richest women in entertainment. In a statement to Daily Mail Online, a public relations firm representing Dualstar said the company 'is committed to treating all individuals fairly and in accordance with all applicable laws.' Dualstar spokeswoman Annett Wolf went on to dismiss the allegations outlined in the lawsuit as 'groundess' and said Dualstar will 'vigorously defend itself' against the claims in court. 'Dualstar is confident that once the true facts of this case are revealed, the lawsuit will be dismissed in its entirety,' the statement concluded. DYNAMIC PET: Court Narrows Claims in Pet Food Class Action ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge William Q. Hayes of the United States District Court for Southern District of California granted, in part, Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims in the case captioned as, KHRISTIE REED, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC PET PRODUCTS; and FRICK'S MEAT PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15CV0987-WHQ-DHB (S.D. Cal.). Khristie Reed purchased the Real Ham Bone for Dogs from Wal-Mart in Ocenaside, California on March 1, 2015 and fed it to her dog. The next day, her dog fell ill and was euthanized. On May 1, 2015, Plaintiff commenced the action on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, for alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by Dynamic Pet Products and Frick's Meat Products, Inc. The Complaint alleges that the Food and Drug Administration stated that bones such as the Real Ham Bone For Dogs are not safe for dogs. The Complaint also alleges that the Missouri Better Business Bureau "specifically warned Defendants about the dangers posed by their Real Ham Bone For Dogs product," but "Defendants ignored this notice." The Complaint quotes 13 complaints made by pet owners online or to Dynamic directly. The Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: (1) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of California Business and Professions Code (UCL); (3) breach of implied warranty; (4) fraud; and (5) negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiff requests general damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, corrective advertising; and attorneys' fees and costs. In the motion, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's CLRA, UCL, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims for failure to allege fraud with the particularity required by Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 9(b). Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's CLRA and UCL claims on the ground that Defendants' alleged misrepresentations are not likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's CLRA claim for failure to comply with its 30- day notice requirement. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's proposed class, with respect to Plaintiff's CLRA, UCL, and implied warranty claims, to the extent the class includes members who reside outside of California. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's implied warranty claim on the ground that there is no vertical privity between Plaintiff and Defendants. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's declaratory and injunctive relief requests on the ground that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to request declaratory and injunctive relief. In his Order dated July 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ee1YeP from Leagle.com, Judge Hayes concluded that the allegations of each defendant's involvement are specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong and as a matter of law that the Real Ham Bone For Dogs label would not mislead a reasonable consumer. Because the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's UCL, CLRA, and implied warranty claims to the extent that they are brought on behalf of non-California residents and Plaintiff's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, Defendants' motion to strike is denied as moot. Khristie Reed is represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. -- lhurst@bholaw.com -- Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com -- BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP Defendants are represented by David Joseph Aveni, Esq. -- david.aveni@wilsonelser.com -- Gregory Dean Hagen, Esq. -- gregory.hagen@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER LLP ELECTRONIC GAME: Court Grants Class Certification in "Petrie" ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned, DALTON PETRIE, Plaintiff, v. ELECTRONIC GAME CARD, INC.; LEE J. COLE; LINDEN BOYNE; KEVIN DONOVAN; PAUL FARRELL; EUGENE CHRISTIANSEN; ANNA HOUSSELS; ESTATE OF LORD LEONARD STEINBERG, Defendants, Case No. SACV 10-0252 DOC (RNBX)(C.D. Cal.). The case is a putative securities fraud class action against Electronic Game Card, Inc. (EGC), Linden Boyne (Boyne), Lee Cole (Cole), Eugene Christiansen (Christiansen), Kevin Donovan (Donovan), Paul Farrell (Farrell), Anna Houssels (Houssels), and the Estate of Lord Leonard Steinberg (Estate of Lord Steinberg). In the Consolidated Third Amended Complaint (TAC), the operative complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants EGC, Cole, and Boyne violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act and that Defendants Cole, Boyne, Christiansen, Donovan, Farrell, Houssels, and the Estate of Lord Steinberg should be held liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. Plaintiffs allege that, during the class period (April 5, 2007 to May 18, 2010), EGC engaged in a fraud to conceal from and misrepresent to EGC's investors the true financial condition and performance of EGC. The alleged misrepresentations included statements about EGC's finances made in EGC's 2006, 2007, and 2008 10KSBs; quarterly reports from 2007, 2008, and 2009; earnings conference calls in May, August, and November 2009; and a press release dated August 6, 2009. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class described as "All persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded common stock Electronic Game Card, Inc. (EGC) between April 5, 2007 and May 18, 2010, inclusive, and who held such shares on or after February 10, 2010. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the present and former officers and directors of EGC and any subsidiary thereof, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. The Defendants opposed the proposed class, arguing that the class period should be shortened by moving up the end date from May 18, 2010 to February 19, 2010 because the EGC failed to meet the factors in Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F.Supp. 1264, 1280-84 (D.N.J. 1989), after February 18, 2010 and that the plaintiffs failed to met the standard requirement of class certification. In his Order dated July 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/uw2DPP from Leagle.com, Judge Carter was convinced that Plaintiffs have met their burden of proving that they are entitled class certification since the predominance requirement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b) has been complied. The Court does not find it appropriate to shorten the class period on the ground that Plaintiffs cannot use the fraud-on-the-market presumption during the three-month period given Plaintiffs' direct evidence of reliance and the dearth of precedent for modifying the length of a class period based on failure to meet the Cammer factors in certain sub-periods. Dalton Petrie is represented by: Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. BOTTINI AND BOTTINI INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue #102, La Jolla, CA 92037, Tel:(858)914-2001 - and - Jonathan Stern, Esq. -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Phillip Kim, Esq. -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA Defendants are represented by Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq. -- shibbard@shearman.com -- Jerome S. Fortinsky, Esq. -- jfortinsky@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN AND STERLING LLP ETHICON INC: Faces Suit Over Physiomesh(R) Mesh-Related Injuries ---------------------------------------------------------------- Charlene McDonald v. Ethicon, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00519 (W.D. Tex., June 18, 2015) is a negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty action arising out of the alleged serious personal injuries of the Plaintiff as a result of the Ethicon Physiomesh(R) Flexible Composite Mesh. The Mesh is an implantable tissue-separating mesh designed to be physiologically compatible with the abdominal wall. Ethicon, Inc., is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the state of Texas. The Mesh was manufactured, designed, tested, and marketed by Ethicon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Stroup, Esq. DAN STROUP, PC 3400 W. Marshall Ave., Suite 403 Longview, TX 75604 Telephone: (903) 295-2200 Facsimile: (903) 295-2171 E-mail: dstroup@danstroup.com - and - Blake C. Erskine, Esq. ERSKINE & McMAHON, LLP P. O. Box 3485 Longview, TX 75606 Telephone: (903) 757-9435 Facsimile: (903) 757-9429 E-mail: blakee@erskine-mcmahon.com GREEN TREE: Sued in Penn. for Violating Telecommunications Act -------------------------------------------------------------- Brenda Herndon, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01202-MWB (M.D. Pa., June 18, 2015) alleges violations of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The Plaintiff is represented by: Cynthia Levin, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC 1150 First Avenue, Suite 501 King of Prussia, PA 19046 Telephone: (888) 529-9111 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com ICONIX BRAND: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors thata class action complaint has been filed on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of the securities of Iconix Brand Group, Inc. ("Iconix" or the "Company") between February 20, 2013 and April 17, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Iconix is a brand management company and owner of a diversified portfolio of global consumer brands across women's, men's, entertainment and home. The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) that the Company had underreported the cost basis of its brands; (2) that the Company engaged in irregular accounting practices related to the booking of its joint venture revenues and profits, free-cash flow, and organic growth; (3) that, as a result, the Company's earnings and revenues were overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Iconix's business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On March 30, 2015 after the market closed, the Company announced that its Chief Financial Officer Jeff Lupinacci had resigned effective March 30, 2015. Following this news, shares of Iconix fell $2.72 per share, or 7%, to close on March 31, 2015, at $33.67 per share on unusually high volume. On April 17, 2015, after the market closed, Iconix announced that the Company's Chief Operating Officer ("COO") Seth Horowitz had resigned after serving for approximately one year. The Company stated that it did not intend to name a new COO. Then, on, April 20, 2015, Roth Capital Partners, published an Equity Research Note, criticizing the Company's alleged accounting irregularities concerning free-cash flow accounting, organic growth, and gains on licensing fees. Following this news, shares of Iconix declined $6.62 per share, over 20%, to close on April 20, 2015, at $25.41 per share, on unusually heavy volume. If you purchased Iconix securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than August 22, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. Howard G. Smith, Esq. The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 Toll Free: 1-888-638-4847 http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Oct. 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline --------------------------------------------------------- Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Investment Technology Group Inc. ("ITG" or the "Company") (NYSE: ITG) between February 28, 2011 and July 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). ITG shareholders may, no later than October 5, 2015, move the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of ITG and would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/itg. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Information Technology's AlterNet Securities, Inc. subsidiary operated a proprietary trading operation in 2010 through mid-2011 inside of Information Technology's POSIT dark pool, a private stock trading platform, against some of its broker clients; (2) the proprietary trading operation used information from customer stock orders within Information Technology's dark pool, as well as information from Information Technology's clients that used the firm's algorithms to execute trades on other trading platforms, which should not have been available; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On July 29, 2015, after the close of trading, the brokerage firm announced that it is in talks to settle allegations that its equity dark pool ran afoul of U.S. regulations and may pay a record penalty of $20.3 million to the Securities and Exchange Commission. "In hindsight, I recognize that our client disclosures about the pilot were insufficient," Bob Gasser, chief executive of Information Technology said in an email to clients on July 29, 2015. On this news, shares of Information Technology closed at $18.36, down $5.64, or 23.5%, in trading on July 30, 2015. If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October 5, 2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas, LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide. To learn more about the class action process, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com. Ryan & Maniskas, LLP 995 Old Eagle School Rd, Wayne, PA 19087 Phone:+1 877-316-3218 www.rmclasslaw.com/ JAMES HARDIE: Faces Class Suit Over Harditex Building Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Harris, writing for Stuff.co, reported that victims of leaky homes are being urged to join a class action being formed against James Hardie over one of its cladding product, HardieTex. Law firm Parker & Associates has filed a High Court case on behalf of a Wellington couple, who claim HardieTex was the cause of their $200,000-plus leaky home problem. The claim alleges James Hardie was negligent in the design, manufacture and supply of HardieTex which was used to build thousands of houses through the 1990s and early 2000s. Building owners who have suffered damage have until December to join the action. James Hardie's head office in Sydney has not responded to request for comment, but the country manager for James Hardie in New Zealand, Justin Burgess, said the product was no longer on the market. He declined to comment further. The plaintiffs, Tracey Cridge and Mark Unwin, said they were shocked to recently find their home has widespread water damage. "We called in experts to look at what we first thought was a little leak and then discovered widespread internal water damage in our home and now we are looking at repair costs of over $200,000," said Cridge. Cridge said they bought their Island Bay home 10 years ago and it had a good building report at the time. It was a "little bit scary" being a potential test case "but hopefully it's for the better good". Parker & Associates partner Dan Parker said they were looking for similarly affected property owners to form a class action or bring a test case. "Anyone whose property was built after 1990 using HardieTex cladding and has suffered damage as a result of the alleged system defects, may be eligible to join the claim." He said many homeowners would have no idea of potential problems with their properties, and claims would require investigation by building experts. Owners would need to move quickly as after December 31 there would be a bar on claims based on acts or omissions that occurred more than 15 years ago, Parker said. A recent Court of Appeal judgment in a leaky schools battle held that a product liability claim against a cladding manufacturer was not subject to the 10-year limitation period under the Building Act. Parker said this left open the ability to claim against a cladding manufacturer for negligent design and manufacture work that occurred more than 10 years later. Another litigator, Adina Thorn, has also launched a class action against the makers of various plaster cladding products including HardieTex. She expects the damages could reach $100 million or more, depending on the number of claims she received. Auckland building consultant William Hursthouse is an executive member of the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors which had been heavily involved in "hundreds" of cases involving HardieTex and James Hardie. James Hardie had argued it had simply provided sheets of fibrous cement but its critics argued that the sheets were part of a system. Hursthouse said cladding manufacturers had struggled to find a waterproof alternative to asbestos cladding after they were abolished in the 1980s. It was one of a range of products made of wood fibre and cement which were "inherently" flawed. Joints between the sheets were filled with plaster which cracked when the house moved., Hursthouse said. "So inherently it's a pretty bad idea really," he said. JAMES HARDIE: CA Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in "Coe" Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Acting Presiding Judge Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian of the Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District affirmed the trial court's order granting James Hardie Building Products, Inc. (JHBP)'d motion for summary judgment in the case, THOMAS U. COE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JAMES HARDIE BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. H040160 (Cal. App. Ct.). In 1999 Plaintiffs Thomas U. Coe and Norma Coe entered into a contract with James Kramer Construction, Inc. (Kramer), a general contractor, to build a new house on their property in Saratoga. Kramer hired a subcontractor, Raindance Roofing, to install the roof on the house. Raindance Roofing used a roof shake product called Hardislate, which was manufactured or distributed by JHBP and had a 50-year warranty. The new house was completed in 2001. In 2011, appellants Thomas U. Coe and Norma Coe filed the instant action against respondent James Hardie Building Products, Inc. (JHBP), in which they alleged that JHBP was liable for supplying the defective roofing product, Hardislate, that was installed when their house was built about 10 years earlier. JHBP moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Coes' action was barred under the doctrine of res judicata, since all claims against JHBP arising from that roofing product had been resolved by the final order and judgment in a prior nationwide class action against JHBP in Washington state court. The trial court granted JHBP's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in JHBP's favor on the ground that the Coes' action was barred by the affirmative defense of res judicata. The court took judicial notice that the Washington state court in the Read class action had previously determined that "[t]he notice provided fully and accurately informed the Class Members of all material elements of the proposed Settlement and their opportunity to participate in or be excluded from it; was the best notice practicable under the circumstances; was valid, due and sufficient notice to all Class Members; and complied fully with Superior Court Civil Rules 23, the United States Constitution, due process, and other applicable law. On appeal, the Coe's primary contention is that the trial court erred in granting JHBP's motion for summary judgment because there are triable questions of fact as to whether the notice given in the Read class action was adequate to make them members of the class and bar their action against JHBP under the doctrine of res judicata. In the Order dated July 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/yJGhRM from Leagle.com, Judge Bamattre-Manoukian concluded that the undisputed facts established that the Coe action is barred as a matter of law under the doctrine of res judicata. KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces Class Suit Over Huggies Advertising --------------------------------------------------------- Adam Klasfeld, writing for The Courthouse News Service, reported that marketed in a soft-green font and tree imagery, Huggies "pure & natural" diapers market themselves safe and environmentally sound, but they have a synthetic ingredient that can "strip skin of pigment," a federal class action claims. Christina Franjul and Veronica Brenner, of New York and California, respectively, filed the federal complaint against Huggies parent Kimberly-Clark Corp. and two subsidiaries. The 32-page filing accuses the Fortune 500 company of deceiving consumers who are growing more conscious of the dangers of mass- marketed household products. "In recent years, consumers have become significantly more aware and sensitive to the toxicity and impact of household products on their health, the health of their children, and the general environment," the complaint states. "As a result, demand has increased for so-called 'green' products that are naturally derived, environmentally sound, and non-toxic." The Huggies diapers appeal to this demographic with promises of "soft organic cotton," and healthy green leaves providing a canopy over a smiling baby who has the words "pure & natural" hovering over his belly. The diapers, however, are "neither pure nor natural" because they contain ingredients such as polypropylene, sodium polyacrylate, sodium methylparaben and methylisothiazolinone, the class says. A Washington-based watchdog called the Environmental Working Group (EWG) describes sodium methylparaben as a "human endocrine disrupter," and the European Union has banned the substance for its potential to "strip skin of pigment," according to the lawsuit. The EWG has also linked methylisothiazolinone to skin toxicity, immune system toxicity and allergic reactions. "Furthermore, until around June 2010, Huggies Natural Wipes contained a substance called DMDM hydantoin, which is a 'formaldehyde releaser' - i.e., over time, it releases formaldehyde, which is a preservative classified as a carcinogen by the United States Department of Labor's Occupational Safety & Health Administration," the complaint states. In addition, the women say, the "organic cotton" advertised on the packaging refers only to the material on the outside of the diaper. "The organic cotton, thus, never actually comes into contact with the ultimate user, the baby," according to the complaint. The class seeks punitive damages for 10 violations of federal and state law, including the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty, and California, Florida and New York consumer protection statutes. It is represented by attorney Joseph Marchese of Bursor & Fisher. Kimberly-Clark actually discontinued Huggies Natural Diapers and removed methylisothiazolinone from Huggies Natural Wipes after two other women hit it with a similar federal class action in San Francisco. A footnote in the new complaint notes that the company has not recalled the products, which are "still available for purchase online and on shelves nationwide." Kimberly-Clark declined to comment on pending litigation. LIFELOCK INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law firm, reminds investors of the September 21, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed against LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock" or "the Company"). If you have losses in LifeLock securities during the Class Period contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling (510) 725-3000, emailing LOCK@hbsslaw.com or visiting http://hb- securities.com/investigations/LOCK. On July 21, 2015 the FTC revealed in a press release that LifeLock violated a 2010 settlement by continuing to make deceptive claims about the Company's identity theft protection services and by failing to take the agreed-upon steps to protect users' data. On this news, shares of LifeLock declined $7.91 per share, nearly 50%, to close at $8.15 per share on July 21, 2015. The stock has not recovered. The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, is filed on behalf of investors who purchased LifeLock securities between July 30, 2014 and July 20, 2015, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). No class has been certified in this case. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and/or misleading statements as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts including that it did not establish or maintain an information security program that adequately protected its subscribers' sensitive, personal data in spite of advertising that it protected this data with the same high-level safeguards used by banks and other financial institutions. Additionally, the Company failed to meet the recordkeeping requirements that arose from a 2010 settlement with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"). If you were negatively impacted by your investment in LifeLock between July 30, 2014 and July 20, 2015, and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, please contact us for your no-cost evaluation. Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding LifeLock should consider their options to help in the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein at (510) 725-3000 or email LOCK@hbsslaw.com. About Hagens Berman Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is an investor-rights class-action law firm headquartered in Seattle, Washington with offices in nine cities. The firm represents investors, whistleblowers, workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the firm and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Read the firm's Securities Newsletter at http://www.hb-securities.com/newsletter. The firm's blog is located at www.meaningfuldisclosure.com. For the latest news from Hagens Berman, visit http://www.hbsslaw.com/newsroomor follow us on Twitter at @hagensberman. Reed Kathrein, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel. (206) 623-7292 Fax. (206) 623-0594 http://www.hbsslaw.com/ LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Martin" Suit Added to Chinese Flooring MDL --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit titled Martin, et al. v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00233, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria). The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02636-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding. The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR. The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements governing the emissions of formaldehyde. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Fletcher D. Handley, Jr., Esq. FOGG FOGG & HANDLEY P O Box 310 421 S Rock Island El Reno, OK 73036 Telephone: (405) 262-3502 Facsimile: (405) 262-3531 E-mail: fdh@handleylaw.com MDC PARTNERS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of MDC Partners Inc. (NASDAQ:MDCA) securities during the period from September 24, 2013 through April 27, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MDC Partners investors under the federal securities laws. To join the MDC Partners class action, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-595.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made or caused to be made a series of materially false or misleading statements about MDC Partners' business, executive compensation, related-party transactions, goodwill, prospects and operations. These material misstatements and omissions had the cause and effect of creating in the market an unrealistically positive assessment of MDC Partners and its business, prospects and operations, hence causing MDC Partners' common stock to be overvalued and artificially inflated. Consequently, MDC Partners' common stock traded at artificially elevated prices and shareholders sustained damages. On April 27, 2015, MDC Partners announced in a press release its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015. MDC Partners also announced that: (1) since October 5, 2014, MDC Partners has been actively cooperating with an SEC investigation relating to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the CEO, Miles Nadal; (2) Mr. Nadal agreed to reimburse MDC Partners $8.6 million which MDC Partners had sought for reimbursement; (3) during the quarter ended March 31, 2015, the Company incurred approximately $5.8 million in legal fees and other related expenses relating to the SEC inquiry; and (4) MDC Partners reassigned its CFO, Michael Sabatino, to a new role in MDC Partners. On this news, shares of MDC Partners fell $9.09 per share to close at $18.89 on April 28, 2015. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September 29, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-595.htmlor to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com MOBILE IRON: Faces Class Suit Over 2014 Data Breach --------------------------------------------------- Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reported that a Silicon Valley company that touted the security of its mobile platform is facing a shareholder class action related to a 2014 data breach. MobileIron Inc. sells software intended to help companies securely manage their employees' mobile devices. A suit filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court claims the company failed to disclose before launching its June 2014 initial public offering that hackers had infiltrated the MobileIron platform used by British insurance company Aviva PLC. MobileIron went ahead with its IPO, raising almost $100 million, but "omitting crucial realities," plaintiffs lawyers wrote. MobileIron failed to disclose that the company's platform was vulnerable to hackers, according to the complaint, information which was likely to hurt the company's ability to continue to close deals. "The registration statement's representations were materially inaccurate, misleading and/or incomplete," wrote John Jasnoch of Scott + Scott's San Diego office. "Accordingly, the price of MobileIron shares was artificially and materially inflated at the time of the offering." MobileIron revealed subpar earnings on April 22, according to the suit. Stock prices fell more than 25 percent on that news, and have "continued to languish" at levels below their IPO. The same day, the company's chief financial officer resigned. Jasnoch said an online insurance journal broke the news of the Aviva cyberattack the day after MobileIron's IPO. A second article by The Register revealed a hacker infiltrated the MobileIron server and wiped many Aviva devices, costing the insurance company millions. Aviva, which had used MobileIron's platform to manage more than 1,000 mobile devices, moved its impacted personnel onto a service offered by MobileIron competitor BlackBerry Ltd., and started discussions about ending its MobileIron contract. Jasnoch's complaint follows a federal suit filed by The Rosen Law Firm, which also accuses the company of misleading investors, but doesn't address the Aviva breach. MobileIron is represented in that case by Cooley partner John Dwyer, who declined to comment on the new litigation. A representative from MobileIron didn't respond to a request for comment. Data breaches are becoming increasingly frequent, but while plaintiffs lawyers have had some luck with privacy class actions, securities lawyers have mainly stayed on the sidelines. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro partner Reed Kathrein said he's researched data breaches to see if there's potential for a securities class action, but he's passed on every one. Plaintiffs need a significant breach-related stock drop to prove damages, and so far that hasn't been the case. Keker & Van Nest partner Michael Celio said that may be because data breaches have become the norm. "These breaches are such common events these days, unfortunately for all of us," he said, "that I'd be surprised if the markets reacted consistently negatively to every allegation that there's been a breach." Reed Kathrein, Esq. Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP 1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101 Tel. (206) 623-7292 Fax. (206) 623-0594 http://www.hbsslaw.com/ MITSUBISHI FUSO: Suit Over BlueTec Emissions Allowed to Proceed --------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Martinez, writing for Trucking Info, reported that a judge has allowed a class action against Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America to continue after the truck maker made motions to dismiss the case involving BlueTec emissions control technology. Mitsubishi Fuso moved to dismiss all five counts brought against it. However, after reviewing the arguments, the judge ruled three out of the five could continue. The manufacturer also moved to strike the class allegations, which were also denied. Grocery chain Q Plus Food LLC claims that the engines in Mitsubishi's 2012 FE125 truck were defective due to a faulty emissions control system. The BlueTec ECU was designed to reduce emissions in the trucks to keep the engines in compliance with the EPA's 2010 emissions standards using selective catalytic reduction technology. The ECU software caused the engines to shut down without any apparent reason, according to the lawsuit. The software allegedly issued shutdown commands requiring immediate maintenance, which took the trucks out of service. The trucks were purchased in 2011 and were covered under a five- year emission control system warranty. According to court documents, the owner of the truck brought it in on 13 different occasions in the first three years, placing the truck out-of- service for at least 250 days of the 790 days it was owned. Q Plus Food alleges that it received an email from Mitsubishi's product support manager in 2014 explaining that no further assistance would be provided for the problem. Because of this, the grocery company alleged that the warranty had failed its essential purpose. The case was originally brought before the New Jersey court claiming that Mitsubishi was in violation of New Jersey's Fraud Act and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices act as well as other claims of a breach of warranty, good faith and declaratory relief. A spokesperson for Mitsubishi Fuso said the company's policy was not to comment on pending litigation. MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM: Tousley Brain Appointed as Class Counsel ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District Court for Western District of Washington certified Plaintiff's TCPA class and appointed Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC as class counsel in the case captioned, JUMAPILI IKUSEGHAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Defendant, Case No. C14-5539 BHS (W.D. Wash.). In 2008, MultiCare contracted with Hunter Donaldson, a California company, to identify payment sources for patients who received treatment at MultiCare's facilities and provided patient telephone numbers from its records. Hunter Donaldson then used automated dialing systems to call these numbers. Hunter Donaldson made 55,091 phone calls to 3,041 unique cell phone numbers. In June 2013, Ikuseghan received treatment at a MultiCare hospital in Tacoma, Washington. MultiCare asks its patients to sign a Financial Agreement. This agreement provides that MultiCare may use and release a patient's protected health information, including telephone numbers, in order for MultiCare to get paid for the patient's treatment. Following her treatment at MultiCare, Ikuseghan received at least seven automated calls to her cell phone from Hunter Donaldson regarding payment options for her medical treatment at MultiCare. On July 7, 2014, Ikuseghan filed a class action complaint against Defendant MultiCare Health System (MultiCare). Ikuseghan alleges that MultiCare (1) violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and (2) invaded her privacy by intrusion under Washington law. In the motion, Ikuseghan seeks to certify a nationwide class under the TCPA. MultiCare opposes the motion, arguing that Ikuseghan lacks Article III standing and has not satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In his Order dated July 27, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ewWBEK from Leagle.com, Judge Settle certified the TCPA class as "All persons who received medical treatment at a MultiCare facility, who signed MultiCare's Financial Agreement and Conditions of Treatment forms, and to whose cellular telephone number Hunter Donaldson made a call on behalf of MultiCare through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice at any time on or after July 7, 2010." Jumapili Ikuseghan is represented by Kim D. Stephens, Esq. -- kstephens@tousley.com -- Jessica Therese Stevenson, Esq. -- jstevenson@tousley.com -- Chase Christian Alvord, Esq. -- calvord@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS MultiCare Health System is represented by Justin A. Steiner, Esq. -- Jsteiner@bbllaw.com -- Michael Madden, Esq. -- mmadden@bbllaw.com -- Timothy E. Allen, Esq. -- tallen@bbllaw.com -- BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Denied in "Alhassid" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Beth Bloom of the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida denied Plaintiffs Sarah Alhassid and Sarah Drennen's motion to certify a class action in the case captioned, SARAH ALHASSID and SARAH DRENNEN, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similar situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC (d/b/a CHAMPION MORTGAGE), Defendants, Case No. 14-CIV-20484-BLOOM/VALLE (S.D. Fla.). Both Alhassid and Drennen obtained mortgages originally owned and serviced by Bank of America, N.A., which were later sold to Nationstar. Both Plaintiffs defaulted on their loans by failing to make the required payments. They intiated a putative class action against the Defendant for alleged improper imposition of fees in connection with mortgage loans it owned and/or serviced including property inspection fees, property preservation fees, property appraisal fees, property taxes and attorney's fees first by placing or maintaining the loans in some form of default status and then, using the default status as a pretext, assessing the unauthorized fees which resulted in windfall profits at its borrowers' expense. The Third Amended Complaint asserts six causes of actions against Nationstar on behalf of all putative classes: breach of contract resulting from unnecessary and excessive servicing fees and charges (Count I); breach of contract resulting from unauthorized foreclosure proceedings (Count II); breach of contract resulting from unauthorized charges for attorneys' fees and costs (Count III); breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count IV); violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, (FDUTPA) (Count V); and violation of the Fair Dent Collection Practices Act, (FDCPA) (Count VI). In her Order dated July 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/D7kaLI from Leagle.com, Judge Bloom found that Plaintiffs' failure to establish predominance mirrors their failure to establish commonality hence, failure to satisfy the four requirements of Rule 23(a). Plaintiff is represented by Maury Lorne Udell, Esq. -- mudell@bmulaw.com -- BEIGHLEY, MYRICK & UDELL, P.A., Geoff Hirshberg, Esq. -- ghirshberg@hersseinlaw.com -- Iris Joy Herssein, Esq. -- iris@hersseinlaw.com -- Reuven T. Herssein, Esq. -- reuven@hersseinlaw.com -- HERSSEIN LAW GROUP National Mortgage LLC is represented by Alan Graham Greer, Esq. -- agreer@richmangreer.com -- Nathaniel Mark Edenfield, Esq. -- nedenfield@richmangreer.com -- RICHMAN GREER, P.A., Erik Kemp, Esq. -- ek@severson.com -- John B. Sullivan, Esq. -- jbs@severson.com -- Jonah S. Van Zandt, Esq. -- jvz@severson.com -- Mark Douglas Lonergan, Esq. -- mdl@severson.com -- SEVERSON & WERSON NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Judge Seeks Guidance From Wash. High Court --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Thomas O. Rice of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Washington deferred ruling on Nationstar Mortgage LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the case captioned, LAURA ZAMORA JORDAN, as her separate estate, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV- 0175-TOR (E.D.Wash.). Judge Rice said the motions present questions of state law that have not been clearly determined by either the Washington Supreme Court or the Washington appellate courts and that answers to these questions are necessary to dispose of these motions. Pending a decision by the Washington Supreme Court, the proceedings in the Jordan case is stayed. In 2007, Ms. Jordan bought a home in Wenatchee, Washington, and, like other class members, secured her home loan by signing a deed of trust. Homecomings Financial was the original lender named in the deed of trust; however, it subsequently assigned the loan to Fannie Mae. The deed of trust contains the following provision, which permits the lender to enter, maintain, and secure the property after the borrower's default or abandonment. Ms. Jordan made her last loan payment in December 2010 and subsequently went into default. In March 2011, Nationstar -- whom Fannie Mae had hired to service the loan in 2008, hired a vendor to perform an exterior inspection of Ms. Jordan's property and the vendor preliminarily determined that it was vacant. Nationstar then ordered entry of Ms. Jordan's property. The vendor changed the lock on the front door and posted a sign that the property is unsecure and vacant. On April 3, 2012, Ms. Jordan filed her Complaint in Chelan County Superior Court against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, alleging numerous state law causes of action, including trespass, breach of contract, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, as well as violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Nationstar subsequently removed the case to the federal district court. The parties then filed cross motions for partial summary judgment on two similar, but distinguishable, legal issues. Nationstar's motion asked the Court to hold as a matter of law that the so-called Entry Provisions within the deed of trust are enforceable under Washington law. Ms. Jordan's motion, on the other hand, asked the Court to hold as a matter of law that, before the lender can lawfully act upon the Entry Provisions, the lender is first required to obtain the borrower's post-default consent or permission from a court. In his Order dated August 10, 2015 available at http://is.gd/opKVq0from Leagle.com, Judge Rice certified the question of law as follows: "(1) Under Washington's lien theory of mortgages and RCW 7.28.230(1), can a borrower and lender enter into a contractual agreement prior to default that allows the lender to enter, maintain, and secure the encumbered property prior to foreclosure?(2) Does RCW chapter 7.60, Washington's statutory receivership scheme, provide the exclusive remedy, absent post- default consent by the borrower, for a lender to gain access to an encumbered property prior to foreclosure?" The Court further acknowledged that the Washington Supreme Court may, in its discretion, reformulate the questions if it decides to answer these certified questions. If the Washington Supreme Court accepts review of the certified questions, the District Court designates Ms. Jordan and others similarly situated to file the first brief, and the parties shall file a joint status report every six months from the date of the acceptance, or more frequently if the circumstances so warrant. Laura Zamora Jordan is represented by: Beau C. Haynes, Esq. Michael D. Daudt, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 936 N 34th St #300, Seattle, WA 98103 Tel: (206)816-6603 - and - Clay M. Gatens, Esq. Michelle A. Green, Esq. JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN AND AYLWARD PS 2600 Chester Kimm Rd, Wenatchee, WA 98801 Tel: (509)662-3685 Nationstar Mortgage, Inc. is represented by John Alan Knox, Esq. -- jknox@williamskastner.com -- WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS, Andrew W. Noble, Esq. -- awn@severson.com -- Jan T. Chilton, Esq. -- jtc@severson.com -- Mary Kate Sullivan, Esq. - mks@severson.com -- SEVERSON & WERSON PC NEW YORK: Court Narrows Suit Against Housing Authority ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the United States District Court for Southern District of New York granted in part New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA)'s motion to dismiss and denied in part Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend in the case, BRIAN WYNN, JOHN WILLIAMS, AWILDA GUZMAN, JOSE OTERO, and KEVIN FULTON, Plaintiffs, v. THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-2818 (SAS)(S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiffs Brian Wynn, John Williams, Awilda Guzman, Jose Otero, and Kevin Fulton, all minorities either Black or Hispanic who reside in New York, brought a class action alleging that their employer, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), has been systematically under-compensating them due to their race and/or ethnicity. All plaintiffs are currently employed by NYCHA and perform the job duties of Plasterer Tenderers, also known as Plasterer Helpers. Plaintiffs have held their respective jobs at NYCHA for varying lengths of time, ranging from a low of approximately twelve to a high of approximately seventeen years. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for violations of their civil rights under section 1981 of title 42 of the United States Code as well as the New York City Human Rights Laws (NYCHRL). Plaintiffs contend that NYCHA discriminated against them on the basis of their race or ethnicity by failing to pay them prevailing wages. Further, plaintiffs alleged that NYCHA attempts to disguise its employment practices by assigning to plaintiffs the job title "Caretaker P" instead of Plasterer Tenderer. In the motion, NYCHA argued plaintiffs' claims are governed by the grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between NYCHA and the Union. According to NYCHA, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs have failed to exhaust the grievance procedures under the CBA. In her Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2015 available at http://is.gd/FwuJ6rfrom Leagle.com, Judge Scheindlin held that NYCHA failed to cite any case linking the existence of a collective bargaining agreement to depriving federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim of employment discrimination. Plaintiffs' proposed claim under Section 1981 is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs are represented: Lee Sam Nuwesra, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEE NUWESRA 60 E 42nd St. New York, NY 10165 Defendants are represented by: Diana Marie Murhpy, Esq. Marni Blank, Esq. NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY 647 Columbus Ave New York, NY 10024 Tel: (212)799-9400 NEW YORK: Court Trims Lawsuit Against Health Department ------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Claims III and IV and also dismissed Claim V with respect to the Youth Exclusion but denied defendant's motion to dismiss the entire Amended Complaint in the case captioned, ANGIE CRUZ, I.H., AR'ES KPAKA, and RIYA CHRISTIE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the Department of Health [of the State of New York], Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-4456 (JSR)(S.D.N.Y.). Each of the three named plaintiffs in this class action has been diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria (GD) -- formerly known as Gender Identity Disorder. They allege that GD is recognized by the medical community as "'an identifiable, severe and incapacitating disease". Prior to 1998, medical coverage was available under New York's Medicaid program for the treatment of GD, including hormone treatment and sex reassignment surgery. However, in 1998, the New York State Department of Health (DOH), which is responsible for administering the state's Medicaid program, promulgated 18 N.Y.C.R.R. Sec. 505.2(1), which barred payment for all "care, services, drugs or supplies rendered for the purposes of gender reassignment" treatment or for "promoting" such treatment. On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint. In it, plaintiffs allege that the Amended Section 505.2(1) violates various provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the Medicaid Act), the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), and the New York State Constitution. Specifically, plaintiffs assert six causes of action: (I) violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396a(a)(10)(A) and its implementing regulation, 42 C.F.R. Sec. 440.210 (the "Availability Requirement" of the Medicaid Act); (II) violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396a(a)(10)(B) and its implementing regulation, 42 C.F.R. Sec. 440.240(b) (the "Comparability Requirement" of the Medicaid Act); (III) violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396a(a)(17), 1396a(a)(10)(B)(i) and their implementing regulation, 42 C.F.R. Sec. 440.230(c) (the "Reasonable Standards Requirement" of the Medicaid Act); (IV) violation of Article I, Section 11 of the New York State Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws; (V) Section 1557 of the ACA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 18116, which prohibits sex discrimination in the provision of healthcare; and (VI) violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396a(a)(43), which requires states to provide "early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services" for eligible persons under the age of 21(the "EPSDT Requirement" of the Medicaid Act). In the motion, Defendant argued that provisions of the Medicaid Act cited by the plaintiffs do not create private rights of action under Section 1983. In his Opinion dated July 29, 2015 available at http://is.gd/v9fndNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rakoff found that the Availablity, Comparability, and EPSDT Requirements create private rights enforceable via Section 1983 and that the defendant's motion has merit regarding plaintiffs; claim that Amended Section 505.2(1) violates the Reasonable Standards Requirement (Count III). Plaintiffs are represented by Christopher James McNamara, Esq. -- cmcnamara@willkie.com -- Lee Larson Hulsebus, Esq. -- lhulsebus@willkie.com -- Norman Paul Ostrove, Esq. -- nostrove@willkie.com -- Wesley Railey Powell, Esq. -- wpowell@willkie.com -- Mary Jane Eaton, Esq. -- meaton@willkie.com -- WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP Defendant is represented by John Peter Gasior, Esq. Peter W. Beauchamp, Esq. & Zoey Chenitz, Esq., at the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NORDSTROM INC: Court Dismisses "Shaulis" Complaint -------------------------------------------------- District Judge F. Dennis Saylor of the United States District Court for District of Massachusetts reversed the July 1, 2014 order of the district court which granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case captioned, JUDITH SHAULIS, Plaintiff, v. NORDSTROM INC., d/b/a NORDSTROM RACK, Defendants, Case No. 15- 10326-FDS (D.Mass.). Judith Shaulis has filed suit against Nordstrom, Inc., doing business as Nordstrom Rack. The complaint alleges that Nordstrom "misrepresented the existence, nature, and amount of price discounts on products" by "purporting to offer discounts off of fabricated former prices." Specifically, the complaint alleges that the price tags of Nordstrom Rack products represented "Compare At" prices that did not represent a bona fide price at which Nordstrom formerly sold these products or at which these products were sold elsewhere. The complaint alleges that plaintiff purchased a cardigan sweater at Nordstrom Rack for $49.97. The price tag included a "Compare At" price of $218.00. The complaint alleges that the sweater had never been sold at Nordstrom, or anywhere else, for $218.00, and that therefore the pricing language was illegal. On February 18, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. In support of its motion to dismiss, defendant submitted an affidavit from its attorney Joseph Duffy with attachments. Plaintiff has moved to strike the affidavit and its attachments. In his Memorandum and Order dated August 14, 2015 available at http://is.gd/m7Rp5Pfrom Leagle.com, Judge Saylor concluded that the complaint does not allege a legally cognizable injury. Judith Shaulis is represented by: S. James Boumil, Esq. BOUMIL LAW OFFICES & KONSTANTINE W. KYROS 17 Miles Rd. Hingham, MA 02043 Nordstrom Inc. is represented by Joseph Duffy, Esq. -- jduffy@morganlewis.com -- Julie V. Silva Palmer, Esq. -- julie.palmer@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP OCWEN FINANCIAL: Must Defend Against "Weiner" Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the United States District Court for Eastern District of California denied Ocwen Financial Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned, DAVID WEINER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-02597-MCE- DAD (E.D. Cal.). David Weiner alleges that his mortgage servicer, Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (OLS) and OLS' parent company, Ocwen Financial Corporation (collectively referred to as "Ocwen" unless otherwise indicated), improperly assessed default-related service fees that contained substantial, undisclosed mark-ups which violated the terms of his mortgage contract. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants misapplied his payments in violation of the terms of the applicable deed of trust. Plaintiff also purports to represent a class of borrowers who have been similarly damaged by Defendants' allegedly improper actions. Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint alleges violations of: 1) California's Unfair Competition Law, (UCL); 2) The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); and 3) the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). Plaintiff also includes state law claims for unjust enrichment, fraud and breach of contract, and he further seeks to bring his claims on behalf of both himself and others similarly situated by way of a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23. In the motion, Ocwen moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in accordance with Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, with respect to Plaintiff's claims premised on fraud, Ocwen further assert those claims fail because they are not pled with the particularity required by Rule 9(b). In the Memorandum and Order dated July 28, 2015 available at http://is.gd/1IOvvhfrom Leagle.com, Judge England, Jr. concluded that Ocwen's request for dismissal of Plaintiff's Seventh Cause of Action for breach of contract is misplaced, Plaintiff's fraud claims are factually grounded on allegations that Ocwen marked up BPO and title search fees by as much as 100 percent without disclosing the vendor's markup and Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is premised on the same facts underlying Ocwen's alleged fraudulent concealment of its marked-up default related fees. The Court squarely rejects Ocwen's claim that Plaintiff's complaint utterly fails to state any specific evidence to supports its claims of misrepresentation and/or omission. Plaintiffs are represented by Mark Pifko, Esq. -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- BARON & BUDD Defendants are represented by Ashley Pavel, Esq. -- apavel@omm.com -- Catalina Joos Vergara, Esq. -- cvergara@omm.com & Elizabeth Lemond McKeen, Esq. -- emckeen@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP ONTARIO, CA: $325MM Class Suit Filed Over Abused Deaf Students -------------------------------------------------------------- AM 980 reported that a proposed $325 million class action lawsuit has been filed against the provincial government for alleged abuses that took place at four Ontario schools for the deaf. The lawsuit alleges that the province failed to operate or supervise the four schools -- Ernest. C. Drury School for the Deaf in Milton, Robarts School for the Deaf in London (pictured), Sir James Whitney School for the Deaf in Belleville, and Centre Jules- L‚ger in Ottawa -- so as to ensure the safety and well-being of its vulnerable students, most of whom lived in residence during the school year. "There are three different forms of abuse that are being alleged," said Rob Gain, an associate at Toronto-based Koskie Minsky LLP. "They are sexual abuse, physical abuse, and psychological abuse." The legal action was commenced by Christopher Welsh, a former student who attended both Ernest C. Drury School for the Deaf and the Robarts School and Koskie Minksy LLP. The alleged abuse dates back to as early as 1950, and covers past conduct, according to Gain. "This is another unfortunate example of the Province of Ontario failing to protect vulnerable students from abuse," said Kirk Baert, co-lead counsel at Koskie Minsky LLP. "Parents of deaf children trusted the Province to protect their kids, who often lived at these schools far from home." Anyone who was a student or knows any former students at any of the schools are being encouraged to contact Koskie Minsky LLP toll free at 1-877-309-9111 or at www.kmlaw.ca/SchoolAbuse or by email at SchoolAbuse@kmlaw.ca The lawsuit is seeking $300 million plus punitive damages of $25 million. The allegations have not been proven in court. Koskie Minsky LLP 20 Queen St W #900, Toronto, ON M5H 3R3, Canada Phone:+1 416-977-8353 www.kmlaw.ca PAIN THERAPEUTICS: KB Partners' Class Suit Remains Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- The following notice was filed: Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action. KB Partners I, L.P. v Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav Friedmann, and Peter S. Roddy, U.S. District Court Western District of Texas, Case No. 1-11-CV-01034 (SS). TO: ALL PURCHASERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF PAIN THERAPEUTICS, INC., DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 27, 2010 AND JUNE 26, 2011, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD"). Excluded from the Class are defendants, officers and directors of Pain Therapeutics, Inc., members of their immediate families, heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants have or had a controlling interest. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION. Notice is hereby given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (the "Court"), entered June 4, 2013, certifying the above action as a Class Action. This Action has not been settled and continues to be litigated. Accordingly, no claim form need be filed at this time. If you are a member of the Class, your rights are affected by this action and you may have the right to participate in any recovery. You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in accordance with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice of Pendency of Class Action, which was mailed separately to persons and entities identified from the records of defendant Pain Therapeutics, Inc. as members of the Class. That Notice of Pendency of Class Action describes the Class Action and your rights with respect thereto. If you have not received a more detailed Notice by mail, please contact in writing: Pain Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation Notice Administrator PO Box 43372 Providence, RI 02940-3372 info@paintherapeuticslitigation.com Telephone: 1-866-348-7651 Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Class Counsel: Tamar A. Weinrib,Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Telephone: 212-661-1100 Facsimile: 212-661-8665 PANGBORN CORP: "Frazier" Suit Removed to Arkansas District Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant American Optical Corporation removed the lawsuit styled Frazier v. Pangborn Corporation, et al., Case No. CV2014-280-2, from the Jefferson County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00202-DPM to the proceeding. The case alleges personal injury/product liability. The Plaintiff's alleged injury is lung disease and silica related conditions, caused by exposure to respirable crystalline silica while working for the Defendants or their predecessors. The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick C. Malouf, Esq. Timothy W. Porter, Esq. John T. Givens, Esq. PORTER & MALOUF, PA Post Office Box 12768 Jackson, MS 39236-2768 Telephone: (601) 957-1173 Facsimile: (601) 957-7366 E-mail: patrick@portermalouf.com tim@portermalouf.com johnny@portermalouf.com - and - R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq. THE SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC 681 Towne Center Blvd., Suite B Ridgeland, MS 39157 Telephone: (601) 952-1422 Facsimile: (601) 952-1426 E-mail: allen@smith-law.org Defendants Pangborn Corporation and Precision Packaging Inc. are represented by: John P. Parsons, Esq. FORMAN WATKINS KRUTZ & TARDY LLP 2001 Bryant Street, Suite 1300 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 905-2924 Facsimile: (214) 905-3976 E-mail: parsonsjp@fpwk.com Defendant American Optical Corporation is represented by: Alex T. Gray, Esq. Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq. Megan D. Hargraves, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 688-8800 E-mail: agray@mwlaw.com lpruitt@mwlaw.com mhargraves@mwlaw.com - and - Ginger C. Hyneman, Esq. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C. 100 East Huntington, Suite C Jonesboro, AR 72401 Telephone: (870) 336-9295 Facsimile: (870) 336-9787 E-mail: ghyneman@mwlaw.com PAPA JOHN'S: Records $123MM Pre-Tax Expense to Settle Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Janet Sparks, writing for Blue MauMau, reported that in its second quarter results, Papa John's International, Inc. (NASDAQ: PZZA) touted that its "better ingredients, better pizza" promise is resonating more than ever with loyal customers. The company said it is hopeful that in itself will differentiate its chain by enhancing the quality of its pizza. But one black cloud hoovering over Papa John's second quarter results is the company's announcement that it also recorded a pre- tax expense of $12.3 million for a preliminary legal settlement, subject to court approval. In the collective and class action lawsuit, Perrin v. Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA, Inc., approximately 19,000 delivery drivers alleged they were not reimbursed in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Despite the possible settlement, Papa John's states that it continues to deny any liability or wrongdoing in the matter. Court Order in Lawsuit The legal settlement now appearing in Papa John's second quarter report for 2015, surrounds a complaint filed in August 2009 by Timothy Perrin, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated delivery drivers employed by Papa John's. It was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The driver claimed that Papa John's violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and the minimum wage laws of five states, Missouri, Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Maryland. All states mandate a higher minimum wage than that under federal law, and the pizza chain failed "reasonably to approximate the delivery drivers' automotive expenses for reimbursement purposes. That meant Papa John's failed to pay the minimum wage. The long, drawn out litigation resulted in a court order on December 31, 2013, which granted class certification for drivers in the five states. Notices were mailed to affected drivers in each state on April 30, 2014. Drivers who worked for Papa John's company-owned stores were advised not to remain in the class action. Drivers remaining in the class were told that they would be bound by the court judgment, win or lose, and would be eligible to participate if there was a settlement in the future. The matter was to go to trial in early 2015, "as a class and representative action." Papa John's settlement finalized with drivers In reviewing the Missouri district court docket, Papa John's settlement with pizza delivery drivers has now been finalized. An order was filed on July 8, 2015, granting the drivers motion for summary judgment regarding Papa John's reliance on tips to achieve the minimum wage. Other motions for summary judgment were denied and granted in part on both sides, plaintiffs and defendants. After the Alternative Dispute Resolution conference was held on July 24, the judge stated the parties participated in good faith and achieved a settlement on August 3. The court then asked the parties to submit documents by September 8, to have the case dismissed. The exact amount of the settlement is not known at this time. Stueve Siegel Hanson and Weinhaus & Potashnick were appointed by the court to represent the drivers in the class action litigations. Ogletree and Deakins in Kansas City are the lead counsel for Papa John's International. In spite of having to report the preliminary $12.3 recorded legal settlement, Papa John's founder, chairman and CEO John Schnatter was happy with the results. "We are pleased to have maintained our excellent sales momentum and completed another successful quarter," he stated. PRECISION CASTPARTS: Berkshire Buyout Subject to Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- The fairness of the proposed acquisition of Precision Castparts Corp. ("PCP" or the "Company") by Berkshire Hathaway Inc. ("Berkshire") is the subject of an investigation by WeissLaw LLP, a national class action, shareholder rights law firm. The investigation focuses on possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of law by the Board of Directors of PCP for agreeing to sell the Company to Berkshire. On August 10, 2015, the Company announced it had reached a definitive agreement for Berkshire to acquire PCP in a transaction valued at approximately $37.2 billion. Under the terms of the agreement, PCP shareholders will receive $235.00 for each PCP share they own. WeissLaw is investigating whether PCP's Board acted to maximize shareholder value. Notably, analysts have set a target price of $252.00 per PCP share, or $17.00 above the offer price. Additionally, the offer price represents a mere 5.8% premium over the Company's May 22, 2015 trading price of $221.91. Given these facts, WeissLaw is investigating whether PCP's Board acted in the best interests of PCP's public shareholders by actively shopping the Company to maximize shareholder value. If you own PCP shares and would like more information about your rights or our investigation, or if you have information to share with us, please contact Joshua Rubin by telephone at (888) 593- 4771 or by email at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com. WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary duties. We have recovered over a billion dollars for defrauded clients and obtained important corporate governance relief in many of these cases. If you have information or would like legal advice concerning possible corporate wrongdoing (including insider trading, waste of corporate assets, accounting fraud, or materially misleading information), consumer fraud (including false advertising, defective products, or other deceptive business practices), or anti-trust violations, please email us at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com or fill out the form on our website, http://www.weisslawllp.com/contact/report_fraud/. PREMERA BLUE: 7 Suits Consolidated in Data Security Breach MDL -------------------------------------------------------------- Seven class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland): -- Blackwolfe, et al. v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00429. The Oregon District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01102-SI to the proceeding; -- Archibald v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00505. The Oregon District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01107-SI to the proceeding; -- Guenser v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00441. The Oregon District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01103-SI to the proceeding; -- Hoirup, et al. v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00445. The Oregon District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01104-SI to the proceeding; -- Cossey, et al. v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00472. The Oregon District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01105-SI to the proceeding; -- Cushnie v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00413. The Oregon District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01101-SI to the proceeding; and -- Forseter, et al. v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00499. The Oregon District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01106-SI to the proceeding. The cases are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 3:15-md-02633-SI. The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between May 2014 and January 2015, resulting in the electronic theft of personally identifiable information and personal health information of, by one estimate, some 11 million current and former health insurance plan members of Premera or its affiliated health insurance companies. Plaintiff Ann Michelle Blackwolfe is represented by: Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. 627 208th Avenue SE Sammamish, WA 98074 Telephone: (425) 281-8217 Facsimile: (425) 732-3752 E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com Plaintiff Sandy Archibald is represented by: Matthew James Ide, Esq. 7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500 Mercer Island, WA 98040 Telephone: (206) 625-1326 Facsimile: (206) 622-0909 E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com Plaintiff Bradd Guenser is represented by: James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Swathi Bojedla, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K. Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com sbojedla@hausfeld.com - and - Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Chase C. Alvord, Esq. Kim D. Stephens, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1700 Seventh Ave., Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com calvord@tousley.com kstephens@tousley.com The Hoirup Plaintiffs are represented by: Darrell L. Cochran, Esq. Kevin M. Hastings, Esq. PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC 911 Pacific Ave., Suite 200 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (253) 777-0799 E-mail: darrell@pcvalaw.com kevin@pcvalaw.com The Cossey Plaintiffs are represented by: James J. Bilsborrow, Esq. Robin L. Greenwald, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG (NY) 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com rgreenwald@weitzlux.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com - and - Beth E. Terrell, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL, DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816-6603 Facsimile: (206) 350-3528 E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com Plaintiff Lawrence Cushnie is represented by: Ari J. Scharg, Esq. Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Esq. Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300 Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6379 E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com bthomassen@edelson.com rbalabanian@edelson.com - and - Clifford A. Cantor, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101-1688 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Plaintiff Eric Forseter is represented by: Irwin B. Levin, Esq. Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Richard E. Shevitz, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com ltoops@cohenandmalad.com rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com - and - Robert S. Schachter, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP 767 Third Avenue New York, NY 10017-2023 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com - and - Sona R. Shah, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (221) 223-3900 E-mail: sshah@zsz.com - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING 1904 3rd Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 Facsimile: (206) 223-2053 E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel R. Warren, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 East 9th Street, Suite 3200 Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 861-7145 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740 E-mail: dwarren@bakerlaw.com - and - Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1801 California Street Denver, CO 80202-2662 Telephone: (303) 764-4013 Facsimile: (303) 861-7805 E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com - and - Randal L. Gainer, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 757-8047 Facsimile: (206) 757-7047 E-mail: randygainer@dwt.com SAN ANTONIO HOSPITAL: Judgment of Nonsuit to Defendants Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Thomas E. Hollenhorst of the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court's order granting nonsuit to defendants and respondents San Antonio Community Hospital (SACH) and Michael J. Mammone, M. D. in plaintiffs' action concerning Brandon's misdiagnosis of a spinal tumor. The appellate case is, BRANDON FOSS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SAN ANTONIO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. 10-13487 (Cal. App. Ct.). On June 23, 2002, Brandon Foss, a minor at the time, was taken to SACH by his father, Ronald, with complaints of extreme pain in the groin and genital area and numbness in his legs, along with weakness and giving way of his legs. SACH's emergency room doctor, Dr. Mammone, ordered an x-ray of Brandon's sacral (tailbone) area, diagnosed Brandon as having a fractured coccyx, and released him that same day. Three days later, on June 26, 2002, Brandon returned to SACH because he could not feel anything from his waist down. An MRI revealed Brandon was "acutely paralyzed" from the waist down due to a tumor in the L1-L2 area of his spine that was compressing on his spinal cord. He had surgery to remove the tumor and then was treated with chemotherapy, proton radiation, and daily physical therapy at Loma Linda University Medical Center. On June 18, 2003, plaintiffs initiated this action against defendants. Pursuant to their third amended complaint filed on February 10, 2004, plaintiffs alleged general negligence, concealment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). On or about May 3, 2006, plaintiffs served their designation of expert witnesses, including Marshall T. Morgan, M.D. whose was expected to testify concerning Brandon's emergency medical care and treatment on June 22, 2003, along with the standard of care for emergency medicine. Plaintiffs failed to produce their emergency medicine expert for deposition over a two-year period of time, despite repeated efforts from defense counsel, including a court order, to schedule such deposition. On April 3, 2008 the trial court granted defendants' motion to exclude the expert's testimony. In June 2008, one of the defendants filed bankruptcy, which resulted in the action being automatically stayed which was lifted on March 27, 2012 where the trial commenced. Defendants moved for nonsuit on the ground that plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence that Dr. Mammone's or the nursing staff's treatment of Brandon fell below the standard of care for emergency room doctors and nurses. Furthermore, Dr. Mammone argued that plaintiffs failed to prove causation that Dr. Mammone's negligence, if any, caused Brandon's injury. Trial court granted nonsuit and entered judgment in favor of defendants. On appeal, Plaintiffs contended the trial court erred in (1) precluding their expert's testimony, (2) granting nonsuit, (3) denying their motion to strike and/or tax costs, and (4) granting SACH's motion for attorney fees. In the Opinion dated July 28, 2015 available at http://is.gd/vbSwFIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hollenhorst concluded that the exclusion sanction was properly applied to prohibit Dr. Morgan's expert testimony because plaintiffs unreasonably failed to make the doctor available for deposition and that there is no evidence to show that any act or omission on the part of defendants was the proximate cause of Brandon's injuries. Judge Hollenhorst further concluded that there was no error in granting the nonsuit in favor of defendants Dr. Mammone and SACH. Plaintiffs are represented by: Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis, Esq. Timothy D. Rand-Lewis, Esq. GARY A. RAND PRO LAW CORP. 5990 Sepulveda Blvd # 330, Van Nuys, CA 91411, Tel: (818)779-1720 Defendant is represented by Stacy K. Brigham, Esq. -- Stacy@david-grass.com -- Jeffrey W. Grass, Esq. -- Jeff@david-grass.com -- DAVIS, GRASS, GOLDSTEIN, FINLAY & BRIGHAM SHERMETA ADAMS: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Walker" Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Allan E. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of the class action suit and remanded the action to the district court to allow Plaintiff to seek leave to amend the complaint in the case captioned, IAN WALKER, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHERMETA, ADAMS, VON ALLMEN, PC; TRICIA N. McKINNON; KYLE J. VON ALLMEN; GRUCA P. TERRI Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-1543. Defendants sent a series of debt collection letters to Plaintiff for allegedly past-due student loans. Plaintiff brought a class action against the law firm of Shermeta, Adams & Von Allmen P.C., its shareholders, and certain attorneys of the firm. Plaintiff maintains that Defendants' debt collection letters violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Michigan's analogous state statute. Plaintiff maintains that because Defendants did not have the legal right or intention to add interest or other charges, the letters as written were deceptive and threatening in order to create confusion and cause Plaintiff and other consumers to incorrectly believe they will benefit financially by immediately sending payment for the full amount demanded. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's suit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the letters on several grounds were false, deceptive, and misleading, in violation of the FDCPA and the analogous Michigan Collection Practices Act. In his Opinion dated August 7, 2015 available at http://is.gd/CvFEiEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Norris held that Plaintiff's pleadings are deficient and dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) was proper because Plaintiff maintains that because Defendants did not have the legal right or intention to add interest or other charges, the letters as written were deceptive and threatening in order to create confusion and cause Plaintiff and other consumers to incorrectly believe they will benefit financially by immediately sending payment for the full amount demanded. SILVER WHEATON: Andrew & Springer Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of investors of Silver Wheaton Corp. ("Silver Wheaton" or the "Company") that held shares between March 30, 2011 and July 6, 2015 (the "Class Period"). If you purchased Silver Wheaton securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than September 8, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from Andrews & Springer LLC. If you would like to join the class action, please visit our website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800- 423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -- www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. The lawsuit alleges that Silver Wheaton officials failed to disclose that the Company's financial statements contained errors concerning income tax owed from the income generated by its foreign subsidiaries. The class action further alleges that Silver Wheaton officials issued annual reports, SEC filings, and other statements that failed to disclose material adverse information and misrepresented the truth about Silver Wheaton's finances. These reports and filings were allegedly designed to influence the market for Silver Wheaton securities, and as a result, artificially inflated the market price of Silver Wheaton securities. Additionally, the complaint states that the company lacked adequate internal controls over its financial reporting. On July 6, 2015, the company issued a press release announcing that the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") was proposing to reassess Silver Wheaton under various rules of the Income Tax Act (Canada). CRA determined that Silver Wheaton's taxable income should be increased by approximately $567 million for the years 2005 to 2010 for income generated by its foreign subsidiaries. As a result, Silver Wheaton estimates it would be subject to taxes of approximately $150 million and transfer pricing penalties of approximately $57 million, as well as interest and other penalties of an unknown amount. Silver Wheaton executives caused Silver Wheaton securities to trade at artificially inflated prices by improperly concealing this information. As a result of this news, Silver Wheaton's stock price fell approximately 12% (equivalent to $2.08 per share) on July 7, 2015, causing shareholders to incur millions in losses. Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to prosecute. For more information please visit our website at www.andrewsspringer.com Craig J. Springer, Esq Andrews & Springer LLC 3801 Kennett Pike #305, Wilmington, DE 19807 1-800-423-6013 cspringer@andrewsspringer.com www.andrewsspringer.com. SONAE INDUSTRIA: Kirby Residents' Class Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------------ Margot Miller, writing for World Socialist Website, reported that some 16,626 residents of Kirkby, in northwest England, lost their class action for damages against the Portuguese firm Sonae Industria. Sonae was founded in Portugal in 1959, beginning in the wood derivative business and expanding into retail, IT, and the media and other businesses. It operates in 60 countries. Residents took out the claim, the largest class action of its kind in UK legal history, following a huge fire at the factory in June 2011. Smoke from the blaze blew over the area, and residents complained of skin irritation and breathing difficulties. The fire burned for eight days, after 1,500 tonnes of woodchips ignited and stopped production at that part of the plant until the end of the following month. The High Court judge in the case, Mr Justice Jay, admitted, "Many claimants -- it is not clear to me how many -- suffered some symptoms of shortness of breath, lacrimation and soreness of the throat." He added, "It is difficult to say for how long the smoke and these mild symptoms lasted, but I have in mind a maximum period of about one week." Despite this, in a blatant act of class justice, the judge found in favour of Sonae, which has a history of health and safety violations, including the death by negligence of two of its former employees. The judge justified his ruling on the grounds of what he called "serious weaknesses", including a delay in bringing the case. However, according to the Limitation Act 1980, applicable in England and Wales, cases are actionable up to six years following breaches of ordinary contract and 12 for breaches of deed. The case was heard four years after the fire, well within the statute of limitations. The judge also cited "recall bias" and stated the following: "Human beings are naturally susceptible and suggestible, particularly if they are made to believe that they form part of a coherent group with shared experiences, and if they risk none of their own resources in bringing a claim." The insinuation that some form of collective hysteria induced the residents to somehow imagine their symptoms following the fire is not only an insult to the integrity of the claimants, but defies the well-documented history of health and safety abuses at the factory. Neither were the lawyers, who dared to bring such a case on behalf of a working class community, exempt from the judge's ire. "Many months later," he continued, "lawyers arrived on the scene and sensed the opening of a business opportunity ... preying on human susceptibility and vulnerability." He suggested that the veracity of the accounts of the claimants may have been compromised because, "there was a lot of ill-feeling in the neighbourhood directed towards Sonae, and many people genuinely believed that they must have been harmed in some way." The ill feeling in the neighbourhood towards Sonae was entirely justified and, had justice prevailed, would not have undermined their claim. Sonae, which claims to be one of the largest chipboard manufacturers in the world, began operations in Kirkby in the year 2000, supported by GBP2 million of taxpayers' money. Before the company located to Kirkby, Knowsley council failed to carry out a Health Impact Assessment, despite many countries refusing Sonae building permission. Within a year, local residents were complaining of symptoms associated with exposure to formaldehyde, including irritation of the eyes, nose and throat, irritation of the skin and breathing problems. Formaldehyde is used in the manufacture of chipboard, and is a known carcinogen. White dust from the manufacturing process in the factory coated cars, gardens and washing hanging out to dry. Local farmers began to protest, complaining that they were unable to work the fields when the wind, bearing contaminants from the factory, was blowing in their direction. There had been a number of previous explosions and fires at the plant since it opened. In September 2001, 70 firefighters battled for three hours to bring under control a blaze that followed an explosion. By February 2007, Knowsley council had served 17 enforcement notices on Sonae under environmental legislation. Even worse than the repeated pollution of the surrounding environment were the avoidable accidents at work. In December 2010, two employees, James Bibby, 25, and Thomas Elmer, 27, tragically lost their lives while working at the factory. Sonae and the subcontractor Metso Paper Ltd were charged with failing to carry out safe and suitable risk assessments towards an employee, in contravention of the Management of Health and Safety at Work regulations 1999. The companies are awaiting sentence, having pled guilty, such was the weight of evidence against them. The circumstances of the deaths of these young men were horrific. A conveyor belt they were maintaining started automatically, dragging them into a huge silo machine. The conveyor belt should have been properly isolated, but as prosecutor Nigel Lawrence said, "there was no safe system of work" and confusion reigned. "Everyone seems to have had a different view of who should do what, how they should isolate and when it should occur," he explained. The company has a long history of injuries due to criminal negligence. According to the Liverpool Echo, between 2000 and 2010, "The Health and Safety Executive . . . have said they had been called to 22 serious incidents in 10 years including fires and an explosion." Between 2003 and 2006, it was successfully prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on four occasions, for which it paid just GBP132,000 in fines. In April 2000, the HSE began a prosecution against Sonae after employee Ian Fairclough suffered serious crush injuries after being trapped in the clamping mechanism of a hydraulic press. The outcome was that Sonae was fined GBP15,000 and ordered to pay GBP16,703 in costs. The judge in the case declared, "It is important that firms such as Sonae do not sacrifice safety for profit." In April 2001, Michael McNamara broke his leg after it was caught in a piece of machinery. Sonae was fined GBP3,500 and ordered to pay costs of GBP6,417. In June 2002, John Thomas was rescued by firefighters after a dust explosion at the factory, suffering serious injuries to his head, chest and back. The explosion resulted in 20,000 litres of pollutant escaping into local waterways. Again, Sonae was fined and ordered to pay costs. In 2011, demolition worker James Kay, 62, lost his life while working for a firm that was demolishing part of the site damaged by the June fire. He died after being crushed by industrial machinery. Speaking to the Liverpool Echo after Kay's death in 2011, a local resident, Helen Moss, said, "Sadly I am not surprised. . . . I tell you the Health and Safety Executive had better set up an office at Sonae they are there so often. If that factory isn't closed down over this then I would like to know why." Such was the decade-long "ill feeling in the neighbourhood" towards Sonae, for its disregard for health and safety, that in 2011, Knowsley MP George Howarth tabled an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons. He called for the closure of the factory until safety could be guaranteed. Following another factory fire in January 2012, Howarth called for the rescinding of Sonae's environmental permit and for it to be closed. The company terminated operations in Kirkby in September 2012, with a loss of 220 jobs. It reported a rise in profits for the year 2014 to GBP144 million. STANCORP FINANCIAL: Andrew & Springer Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on behalf of stockholders of StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. (NYSE:SFG) ("StanCorp" or the "Company") seeking to challenge the Company's recently announced merger. If you would like to join the class action, please visit our website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423- 6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn - www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -- www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. On July 23, 2015, StanCorp and Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company ("Meiji Yasuda") announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Meiji Yasuda will acquire StanCorp in a merger worth $5.0 billion. As a result of the merger, StanCorp shareholders are only anticipated to receive $115.00 per share in cash in exchange for each share of StanCorp. The process leading up to the announcement of the merger appears to have significant conflicts of interest, thus making the process and consideration unfair. StanCorp's senior leadership is expected to remain in place and continue their employment after the consummation of the merger. Additionally, StanCorp's management will receive millions of dollars in change-of-control payments for currently unvested stock options, performance units and restricted shares upon consummation of the merger. On August 3, 2015, a StanCorp shareholder represented by another law firm filed a class action complaint challenging StanCorp's merger with Meiji Yasuda. The complaint was filed in the Oregon Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Case No. 15-CV-20372. If you own shares of StanCorp and want to receive additional information and protect your investments free of charge, please visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases- investigations/stancorp-financial-class-action-investigation or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn - www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook -- www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates. Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge, experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving positive results for investors. For more information please visit our website at www.andrewsspringer.com Craig J. Springer, Esq Andrews & Springer LLC 3801 Kennett Pike #305, Wilmington, DE 19807 1-800-423-6013 cspringer@andrewsspringer.com www.andrewsspringer.com. STARLINE TOURS: "Harp" Suit Wins Conditional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Christina A. Snyder of the United States District Court for Central District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification in the case captioned, JOAN HARP ET AL. v. STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC. ET AL, Case No. 2:14-CV-00704-CAS(EX)(C.D.Cal.). Joan Harp initially filed a putative class action against defendants Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc., Starline Sightseeing Tours, Inc., Starline Tours USA, Inc., Vahid Sapir, Farid Sapir, and Does 1 through 150 (Starline) in Los Angeles County Superior Court on December 28, 2012. Soon thereafter, the state court struck plaintiff Harp's class allegations, and dismissed Harp as class representative. William Brockman and Andres Reyes were subsequently substituted as named plaintiffs, and EHM Productions, Inc., (EHM) was added as a named defendant. On September 29, 2014, the state court granted plaintiffs leave to file the operative Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The SAC asserted the following claims against Starline and EHM: (1) failure to compensate for all hours worked; (2) failure to pay reporting time pay; (3) failure to pay overtime compensation; (4) failure to pay overtime; (5) failure to provide meal and rest periods; (6) failure to provide itemized wage statements; (7) failure to maintain accurate records; (8) failure to pay wages upon discharg; (9) violation of the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA); (10) conversion; (11) failure to reimburse expenses; (12) unfair competition. Defendants removed the action to this Court on October 3, 2014 which was denied and the court but declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims. The only claim pending before the Court is plaintiffs' claim that defendants failed to pay its hourly employees overtime compensation, in violation of the FLSA. In the motion, Plaintiffs argued that to remedy the alleged miscalculation of hours and resulting underpayment of overtime wages, they sought to certify a collective action consisting of "All individuals who have been employed or are currently employed by the Defendants, or any of them, as hourly workers performing work relating to tours or carrying paying passengers in California at any time since December 28, 2009, and continuing while this action is pending." In her Civil Minutes dated July 27, 2015 available at http://is.gd/CE59Ubfrom Leagle.com, Judge Snyder concluded that plaintiffs have only established that they are similarly situated to other hourly drivers employed by defendants. Further, as to EHM, conditional certification may only include drivers who worked the TMZ Hollywood Tour defined as "All current and former hourly drivers who, within three years preceding the date of their decision to opt in to this action, were employed by the Starline defendants in the State of California. Starline and EHM Driver Subclass: All current and former hourly drivers who, within three years preceding the date of their decision to opt in to this action, were employed by both the Starline defendants and EHM in the State of California." Plaintiffs are represented by: Dennis Patrick Wilson, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS P. WILSON 3322 W Victory Blvd Burbank, CA 91505 Tel: (818)843-1788 - and - Julia Alicia Aparicio-Mercado, Esq. APARICIO-MERCADO LAW LC 315 W 9th St #905 Los Angeles, CA 90015 Tel: (213)627-0770 Defendants are represented by: Mohammed K. Ghods, Esq. Sandra J. Vivonia, Esq. Jeremy A Rhyne, Esq. GHODS LAW FIRM 2100 N Broadway Santa Ana, CA 92706 Tel: (714)558-8580 - and - Eric M. Schiffer, Esq. -- eschiffer@schifferbuus.com -- William L. Buus, Esq. -- wbuus@schifferbuus.com -- SCHIFFER AND BUUS APC TAO GROUP: Employees Files Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- Greg Morabito, writing for NY Eater, reported that the owners of 58th Street monster Tao are the latest restaurateurs to be slapped with a class action wage suit, Law 360 reports. The lawsuit alleges that Tao neglected to pay minimum wages to some employees and that certain tipped workers were required to share their gratuities with staffers that were ineligible for tips. According to the suit, Tao Uptown had non-tipped, back of the house "polishers" and "stockers" who allegedly got money from the front-of-the-house gratuity pool. The suit also alleges that sometimes the tipped bussers were asked to do the polishing and stocking work, even though they weren't paid minimum wage. According to the suit, Tao changed up the operations around 2012, so that the polishers and stockers are paid at an hourly rate above minimum wage now, and they're not in the tip pool. 100 + workers are eligible for the suit. The complaint demands the unpaid wages plus attorney costs and damages for the employees that were allegedly shorted, although no word yet on how much they're seeking, total. According to Law 360, the suit lists Tao Licensing LLC, Madison Entertainment Associates LLC, Asia Five Eight LLC, and Strategic Hospitality Group LLC as defendants. The entity currently known as Tao Group operates over 20 venues spread across New York, Las Vegas, and Sydney. Its biggest hits in NYC are Tao Uptown (the subject of the suit), Tao Downtown, Lavo, Beauty & Essex, and Stanton Social. TARGET BRANDS: "Sparks" Suit Moved From Arkansas to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Sparks v. Target Brands, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-05033, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05110 to the proceeding. The lawsuit arose from alleged personal injury/product liability. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kenneth Robert Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Telephone: (479) 845-3305 E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com - and - Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq. Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A. 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 Facsimile: (501) 374-2222 E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com tomthrash@sbcglobal.net The Defendants are represented by: Judy Simmons Henry, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Telephone: (501) 212-1391 Facsimile: (501) 376-9442 E-mail: jhenry@wlj.com TIME WARNER: Must Defend Against "Groshek" Background Check Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Time Warner Cable, Inc.'s motion for leave to file a sur-reply and denied Time Warner's motion to dismiss in the case captioned, CORY GROSHEK, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER CABLE, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 15-C-157. Groshek applied for employment at Time Warner Cable in September of 2014. Groshek received an offer of employment conditioned upon his completion of 30-plus pages of online documents, including multiple background screening disclosures and authorizations. Time Warner required Groshek to consent to three separate background disclosure/authorization forms including liability release. Groshek contends that the release violates 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681b(b)(2)(A). Groshek alleges that Time Warner Cable willfully violated the under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by procuring a consumer report for employment purposes without first providing a clear and conspicuous written disclosure in a document consisting solely of the disclosure. Groshek moved for class certification at the same time that he filed his complaint -- in accordance with the procedure set forth in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011) ("[t]he pendency of that motion protects a putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs"). Time Warner moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Time Warner argues further that the release language is permissible because it actually draws attention to and enhances the disclosure. In support, Time Warner cites FCRA Sec. 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii), infra, which expressly permits the inclusion of a consumer authorization on the disclosure form, but this is the only item that can accompany the disclosure. Time Warner also asserts that Groshek cannot show that the violation was willful. Time Warner also pointed out Groshek's pre-suit settlement demand, which demonstrates that he is an inadequate class representative. Time Warner said Groshek is inadequate because he attempted to sell out the putative class for his own financial gain. Time Warner added Groshek could be charged with extortion. Judge Randa, however, said he doubts the Milwaukee County District Attorney would devote time and resources to prosecuting Groshek on the tenuous theory that a pre-suit settlement demand qualifies as extortion. In any event, the judge said, Time Warner can renew these arguments when Groshek's motion is ripe for decision. Judge Randa said Time Warner's motion to dismiss is denied, and the motion for class certification will remain pending as a placeholder motion pursuant to the "Damasco" procedure. In his Decision and Order dated July 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/oYYKAtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Randa set a telephonic scheduling conference for September 16, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. (Central Time). The Court will initiate the call. The purpose of the conference call is to establish a scheduling order which will limit the time: (a) to join other parties and to amend the pleadings; (b) to file motions; (c) to complete discovery. Judge Randa added he is participating in the Seventh Circuit Electronic Discovery Pilot Program and has adopted the Principles Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. He said counsel should be fully prepared to discuss methods and techniques to accomplish cooperative fact-finding in their case at the initial status conference. Before the initial status conference, counsel must also meet and discuss the Principles Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. At the initial status conference, Judge Randa said counsel must be prepared to discuss what agreements they have reached regarding discovery of Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") and what area of disagreement they have with regard to discovery of ESI. After discussing the matter with counsel, the Court will determine whether to enter the Standing Order Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information in their particular case. Cory Groshek is represented by Heath P. Straka, Esq. -- straka@gcllawyers.com -- Robert J. Gingras, Esq. -- gingras@gcllawyers.com -- GINGRAS CATES & LUEBKE SC, John C. Mitby, Esq. -- jmitby@hbslawfirm.com -- HURLEY BURISH & STANTON SC Time Warner Cable is represented by Emery K. Harlan, Esq. -- Emery_Harlan@gshllp.com -- Michael Mishlove, Esq. -- Michael_Mishlove@gshllp.com -- GONZALEZ SAGGIO & HARLAN LLP TRACFONE UNLIMITED: Challenge to Class Action Settlement Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion for reconsideration that challenged the approval of the class action settlement reached in the case captioned, IN RE TRACFONE UNLIMITED SERVICE PLAN LITIGATION, Case No. C-13-3440 EMC (N.D. Cal.). Alexander Birner, who objected to the settlement, asked Judge Chen to reconsider his prior order and judgment on the merits granting final approval of the class action settlement, awarding class counsel the full amount of their requested attorneys' fees, and awarding the named class representatives service awards. Birner has also filed a separate motion for reconsideration of the Court's order denying Birner's request for additional time to conduct further discovery regarding his status as a class member. The Court previously determined that Birner does not have standing to object to the settlement because he is not a class member, and further concluded that Birner was not entitled to additional time or additional discovery because "Birner has made an insufficient showing that it [is] likely that he will ever find evidence in the discovery provided to him that contradicts TracFone's direct assertion that he was never throttled. Birner argues that the class definition is improper because "as a practical matter it permits TracFone to exclusively 'adjudicate' class membership and that the class definition is impermissibly under-inclusive because it does not include individuals like Birner himself whose data was never throttled, suspended or terminated is equally meritless. In his Order dated August 10, 2015 available at http://is.gd/eIzIcsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chen held that Birner's motion for reconsideration does not make any additional showing that he has found (or is likely to ever find) evidence that demonstrates that he is a class member. And even if he did somehow prove his standing as a class member, it would not change the Court's decision. The Court has already considered all of Birner's objections on the merits as if he was a class member, and found them to be without merit. Plaintiffs are represented by Michael W. Sobol, Esq. -- msobol@lchb.com -- Nicole Diane Sugnet, Esq. -- nsugnet@lchb.com -- John Tate Spragens, Esq. -- jspragens@lchb.com -- Roger Norton Heller, Esq. -- rheller@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Defendants are represented by Joel Steven Feldman, Esq. -- jfeldman@sidley.com -- Lisa Schwartz, Esq. -- lschwartz@sidley.com -- Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq. -- rsandrock@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN, LLP & Steven J. Brodie, Esq. -- sbrodie@cgjblaw.com -- CARLTON FIELDS TRINET GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Bernstein Liebhard LLP alerts investors that a class action has been commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of common stock of TriNet Group, Inc. ("TriNet" or the "Company") (NYSE: TNET) during the period of May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015 (the "Class Period") alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint"). The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (a) the Company's processes and methodologies for analyzing and accruing claims failed to properly account for historical claims trends; (b) the Company's forecasting process failed to properly incorporate relevant historical and current claims trends; and (c) the Company was experiencing growing claims trends in medical and workers compensation that negatively affected the Company's current and future business prospects. On August 3, 2015, after the market close, TriNet issued a press release reporting a second-quarter loss of $1.3 million, after reporting a profit in the same period a year earlier. The Company also reported earnings per share of $0.14, greatly missing Wall Street analyst expectations of $0.27 per share. Burton Goldfield, TriNet CEO, attributed these results to a higher than usual number of large medical claims and stated the Company needed to address the volatility and visibility of these large claims. Following this news, the price of TriNet common stock fell 38%, or $10.36 per share, to close at $16.33 per share on August 4, 2015. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members who invested in TriNet common stock during the Class Period. If you invested in TriNet common stock as described above, and either lost money on the transaction or still hold the security, you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than October 6, 2015. A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in this action. If you are interested in discussing your rights as a TriNet shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or seidman@bernlieb.com. Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities, consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3 billion for its clients. The National Law Journal has recognized Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top plaintiffs' firms in the country. You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. Esq Bernstein Liebhard LLP 10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016 Tel. 212.779.1414 Fax 212.779.3218 Toll Free 877.779.1414 www.bernlieb.com TRINET GROUP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action has been filed on behalf of investors of TriNet Group, Inc. ("TriNet" or the "Company") (NYSE:TNET) who purchased shares between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). TriNet investors and are encouraged to contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. to discuss their legal rights in the pending class action. On August 3, 2015, after the market close, TriNet reported a second-quarter loss of $1.3 million, after reporting a profit in the same period a year earlier. TriNet, a human resources services outsourcing company, said it had a loss of 2 cents per share during the quarter, and earnings, adjusted for one-time gains and costs, of 14 cents per share. The results missed Wall Street analyst expectations where expectations were for earnings of 27 cents per share. On this news shares of TriNet dropped significantly during after-hours trading on August 3, 2015. The complaint alleges that TriNet misled investors by failing to adequately disclose that (a) the Company's processes and methodologies for analyzing and accruing claims failed to properly account for historical claims trends; (b) the Company's forecasting process failed to properly incorporate relevant historical and current claims trends; and (c) the Company was experiencing growing claims trends in medical and workers compensation that negatively affected the Company's current and future business prospects. If you purchased shares of TriNet during the Class Period, have information regarding these allegations, and/or would like to learn more about your legal rights in connection with this notice please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com. Howard G. Smith, Esq. The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 Toll Free: 1-888-638-4847 http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/ TRINET GROUP: October 6 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline --------------------------------------------------- The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP: To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of TriNet Group, Inc. ("TriNet") TNET, +0.75% between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015. You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Northern District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired TriNet securities between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go to: http://zlk.9nl.com/trinet-groupor contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363- 7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted material information including that: (a) the Company's processes and methodologies for analyzing and accruing claims failed to properly account for historical claims trends; (b) the Company's forecasting process failed to properly incorporate relevant historical and current claims trends; and (c) the Company was experiencing growing claims trends in medical and workers compensation that negatively affected the Company's current and future business prospects. If you suffered a loss in TriNet you have until October 6, 2015, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in securities and shareholder lawsuits. Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Levi & Korsinsky, LLP 30 Broad St., 24th FL New York, NY 10004 Toll free. 877-363-5972 T. 212-363-7500 F. 212-363-7171 jlevi@zlk.com TROTT LAW: Court Narrows Claims in "Wilson" Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------- District Judge David M. Lawson of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Michigan granted in part the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the part of the amended complaint based on 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f in the case captioned, EARL D. WILSON, Plaintiff, v. TROTT LAW, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 15- 10747 (E.D. Mich.). Earl D. Wilson, who now lives in Fenton, Michigan, obtained a loan on September 8, 2004 in the amount of $160,000 from Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. As security for the loan, he granted a mortgage on his home in Redford, Michigan to Countrywide and its successors and assigns. Plaintiff fell behind on his mortgage. The note holder hired the Trott law firm to collect the debt. As part of its routine practice, the law firm sent Wilson a letter that itemized the various charges included in the total amount of $196,642.54, which Trott claimed was owing. One of the listed items was denominated "corporate advances," a term not used in any of the loan documents. In that category, Trott apparently lumped together certain charges such as property inspection fees and attorney fees and costs incurred when the plaintiff fell behind on his mortgage. Wilson says Trott's letter violated the two sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the term "corporate advances" masked the nature of the charges, and he was unable to determine why and if he actually owed the money. On March 2, 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that the defendant violated the FDCPA and Michigan Collection Practices Act (MCPA). He filed an amended complaint on April 14, 2015. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has a policy and practice of sending consumers, like the plaintiff, demands for "corporate advances" without defining what a corporate advance is in the debt collection letters. The plaintiff, noting that corporate advances are not referenced in his mortgage, believes that the defendant is either manufacturing the fees or billing for future costs in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692f(1), and 1692e(10). In the motion, Defendant argued that its practice did not violate the FDCPA. In his Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2015 available at http://is.gd/XZakv2from Leagle.com, Judge Lawson held that the use of the term "corporate advances" in the dunning letter in the case to describe costs and expenses actually incurred by the creditor is not an unfair or unconscionable practice within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f(1). The Court concluded that Trott's letter was not "unfair or unconscionable," because the mortgage actually requires the plaintiff to pay the charges Trott was attempting to collect. Therefore, there was no violation of section 1692f. However, a fact question remains whether the use in a collection letter of a term of art "corporate advances" unconnected to any corresponding term in the note or mortgage, is materially misleading and therefore runs afoul of section 1692e(2)(A) which prohibits a "false representation of the character of any debt" or section 1692e(10) which prohibits the use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect any debt. Earl D. Wilson is represented by: Brian P. Parker, Esq. BRIAN P. PARKER ASSOC. 30700 Telegraph Rd., Suite 1580 Bingham Farms, MI 48025 Tel: (248) 642-6268 Trott Law, PC is represented by Richard Welke, Esq. -- trott_general@trottlaw.com -- TROTT LAW, PC UBER: Woman Sues Over Violation of TCPA --------------------------------------- Alejandra Cancino, writing for Chicago Tribune, reported that an Illinois woman is accusing Uber of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act when it erroneously sent her multiple text messages, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Chicago. Maria Vergara allegedly received at least eight text messages in June from an Uber-owned number about an account she didn't create. She didn't provide consent to receive the messages, which the lawsuit calls spam. The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, alleges the ride- hailing company does not confirm the accuracy of information it receives from customers or potential customers who sign up for its app. As a result, people like Vergara are forced to pay for text messages and calls they did not authorize, the suit stated. Those people, the lawsuit alleges, are entitled to a minimum of $500 in damages for each time Uber violated federal law. Uber said it was reviewing the lawsuit. UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ocean Cargo Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Richard C. Clifton of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed a district court's dismissal, with prejudice, of a lawsuit against the United States government over domestic ocean cargo shipping services on west coast Hawaii routes. The Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy what it framed as prudential standing requirements because they alleged only generalized grievances shared with all residents and businesses in Hawaii. Plaintiffs are six individuals and one corporation. All reside in Hawaii and claim to have suffered pecuniary injury when they purchased "domestic ocean cargo shipping services on west coast Hawaii routes." They sued the United States, claiming that the root of their problem is found in the cabotage provisions of the Jones Act, formally known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. According to Plaintiffs, these provisions violate the basic tenets of the Commerce Clause because they have effectively "impaired, hindered, and substantially affected and completely cut off Hawaii from interstate commerce. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss the action with prejudice, holding that Plaintiffs failed to establish standing on prudential grounds because they alleged only generalized grievances. Specifically, the court concluded that "Plaintiffs assert only generalized claims on behalf of an extremely broad class of persons or entities that pay for interstate shipping or are consumers of goods that have been shipped in interstate commerce. On appeal, Plaintiffs have argued that, even if the Jones Act is a valid exercise of congressional power derived from the Commerce Clause, it violates protections guaranteed under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In his Opinion dated July 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/BU9Jydfrom Leagle.com, Judge Clifton found that the Plaintiffs have alleged more than generalized grievances and have demonstrated an "injury in fact," but have not met their burden to show causation or redressability, the other two elements of Article III standing. The appellate case is captioned, PATRICK NOVAK; DANIEL ROCHA; LARRY KENNER, DBA Kenner, Inc., a Hawaii corporation; KEN SCHOOLLAND; BJORN ARNTZEN; PHILIP R. WILKERSON; WILLIAM AKINA, PH.D., Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DOES 1-1000, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-16383 (9th Cir.). Plaintiffs are represented by: John S. Carroll, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN CARROLL 810 Richards St., #810, Honolulu, HI 96813 Tel: (808) 526-9111 Defendant is represented by: Rachel S. Moriyama, Esq. Florence T. Nakakuni, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY UNITED STATES: Trial Date in Suit v. Immigration Set for May 2016 ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion to modify the class certification order and to file supplemental complaint in the case, AUDLEY BARRINGTON LYON, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No. C-13-5878 EMC (N.D. Cal.). Audley Barrington Lyon, Jr.; Jose Elizandro Astorga-Cervantes; and other similarly situated immigration detainees filed a putative class action against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and certain employees of both agencies on the grounds that their constitutional and statutory rights are being violated while they are held in government custody awaiting deportation proceedings. Plaintiffs challenge the practices that they claim restrict their ability to make telephone calls necessary to prepare for their removal proceedings in the San Francisco Immigration Court. In March 2015, ICE opened a new detention facility in Bakersfield and began housing certain aliens and class members there. Plaintiffs alleged that the telephone policies and practices at the Bakersfield facility do not allow detainees adequate access to resources necessary to prepare for their removal proceedings. On April 16, 2014, the Court certified a class of "all current and future immigration detainees who are or will be held by ICE in Contra Costa, Sacramento, and Yuba Counties". In the motion, Plaintiffs moved to: (1) modify the Court's Class Certification Order to include detainees housed at the newly opened Bakersfield facility as class members; (2) file a supplemental complaint that would add allegations regarding the Bakersfield facility and add a new representative plaintiff; and (3) extend all deadlines in the Case Management Scheduling Order (Scheduling Order) by 75 days or longer to allow for necessary discovery regarding the Bakersfield facility. In his Order dated July 27, 2015 available at http://is.gd/IUZxka from Leagle.com, Judge Chen found that Plaintiffs have shown due diligence in seeking to supplement their complaint and therefore satisfy the good cause requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 16. The Corut sets a new trial date for May 23, 2016 and extends all corresponding deadlines in the Scheduling Order by 16 weeks. Plaintiffs are represented by Charles J. Ha, Esq. -- charlesha@orrick.com -- David S. Keenan, Esq. -- dkeenan@orrick.com -- Robert P. Varian, Esq. -- rvarian@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP Defendants are represented by Jennifer A. Bowen, Esq., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION, Brian Christopher Ward, Esq., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Katherine J. Shinners, Esq., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Cops' Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned, Federated University Police Officers' Association et al. v. The Regents of the University of California et al, Case No. SACV 15-00137-JLS (RNBX) (C.D. Cal.), District Judge Josephine L. Staton of the United States District Court for Central District of California denied separate motions to dismiss filed by Johnson Controls, Inc., and by The Regents of the University of California ("RUC"), Police Chief Paul Henisey, and Assistant Police Chief Jeffrey Hutchison -- "UC Defendants" -- to the extent they seek to dismiss Federated University Police Officers' Association ("FUPOA")'s claims for lack of standing, granted JCI's motion to the extent JCI moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claim, and granted in part the UC Defendant's motion to the extent that the UC Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' first claim against RUC and Henisey in his official capacity. In December 2013, Plaintiffs discovered that a "surreptitious network of advanced audio/video recording devices" had been installed at the UC Irvine Police Department Building located at 410 East Peltason Drive, in Irvine, California. JCI allegedly installed and maintained the recording system, enabled and used the audio recording feature, and instructed the UC Defendants on how to use the system. Plaintiffs claim that JCI installed the listening devices to record private communications without Plaintiffs' knowledge or consent and was "a direct participant in the audio recording scheme." Plaintiffs also assert that JCI "installed the system in concert with and with the knowledge, participation and approval of each and every Defendant." On November 6, 2014, Plaintiffs on behalf of itself and its members filed a putative class action Complaint in Alameda County Superior Court against Defendants asserting (1) violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2520 (the Wiretap Act) asserted by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants; (2) violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 asserted by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants; (3) violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) under Cal. Penal Code Sec. 637.2 asserted by all Plaintiffs against Henisey, Hutchison, and JCI; (4) invasion of privacy/intrusion asserted by Lopez and the putative class against all Defendants; and (5) writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651 asserted by all Plaintiffs against RUC. Defendants present several arguments as to why Plaintiffs' FAC should be dismissed in its entirety. Defendants also contend that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for each of the five distinct causes of actions alleged in the FAC and that FUPOA lacks standing to sue on its own because it has not suffered any injury itself and lacks standing to sue under associational standing because its members must individually participate in the suit. In her Civil Minutes dated July 29, 2015 available at http://is.gd/bn9Ne2from Leagle.com, Judge Staton held that FUPOA has standing to assert its Wiretap Act, CIPA, and Sec. 1983 claims against Defendants because FUPOA has satisfied the requirements for individual standing in regards to those claims and that Sec. 2520 provides no cause of action against a municipality for violations of Sec. 2511(1) and Henisey cannot be held liable under the Wiretap Act because he is an employee of RUC and is acting in his official capacity. Petitioners are represented by Kevin Anthony Flautt, Esq. -- kflautt@mastagni.com -- David Emilio Mastagni, Esq. -- davidm@mastagni.com -- David Philip Mastagni, Esq. -- dmastagni@mastagni.com -- MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, MILLER, JOHNSEN Respondents are represented by Kristina Doan Gruenberg, Esq. -- kgruenberg@bwslaw.com -- Susan E. Coleman, Esq. -- scoleman@bwslaw.com -- Daphne M. Anneet, Esq. -- danneet@bwslaw.com -- BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP USG7 LLC: Bid for Final Default Judgment Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida granted in part Plaintiffs' motion for final default judgment in the case captioned, RICHARD LEBLANC, Plaintiff, v. USG7, LLC and USDS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 6:12-CV-1235-ORL-41TBS (M.D. Fla.). Richard Leblanc brings a Collective Action against USG7, LLC (USG7) and USDS, LLC (USDS) and former Defendant Mike Keen alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Florida Constitution. Plaintiffs Leblanc, Warren Willets, and Jason Pietarila also filed Consent to Join Collective/Class Action Notices. Plaintiffs allege that while employed by Defendants they were not paid overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and were not compensated at a rate equal to the minimum wage as required by the FLSA and article X, section 24 of the Florida Constitution. USG7 never made an appearance in the case or otherwise defended the litigation, and a Clerk's default was entered against USG7 on May 21, 2013. On the other hand, USDS and Keen initially appeared and filed an Answer, but after their attorney withdrew in March 2014, neither Defendant made any further appearances in the case. As a result of USDS's and Keen's failure to proceed in the litigation or obey Court orders, the Court struck their Answer from the record and directed the Clerk to enter a Clerk's default as to each. Clerk's defaults were entered against USDS and Keen on September 8, 2014. Plaintiffs moved for the entry of default judgment against all Defendants. In a November 6, 2014 Order, Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Default Judgment was denied because the Amended Complaint failed to adequately allege either enterprise or individual coverage under the FLSA. The November 6, 2014 Order granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the Amended Complaint to address the issues concerning coverage. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs effected service of process of the Second Amended Complaint on Defendants USG7 and USDS. However, Plaintiffs were unable to serve the Second Amended Complaint on Defendant Keen, and all claims against him were dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to the May 15, 2015 Order. Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Default seeking the entry of a final default judgment against the remaining Defendants and the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. In his Order dated August 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/6gDBOO from Leagle.com, Judge Mendoza held that Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Final Default Judgment is granted in part. To the extent Plaintiffs' seek the entry of a default judgment against Defendants USG7, LLC and USDS, LLC, the Motion is granted. In all other respects, the Motion is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is represented by: N. Ryan LaBar, Esq. Scott C. Adams, Esq. LABAR & ADAMS, PA 2300 E Concord St, Orlando, FL 32803, Tel: (407)835-8968 VALENCIA HOLDING: Calif. SC Reverses Appeals Court Judgment ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Goodwin Liu of the Supreme Court of California reversed the judgment finding the Court of Appeal erred as a matter of state law in finding the agreement unconscionable in the case captioned, GIL SANCHEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VALENCIA HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. S199119 (Cal.). Plaintiff Gil Sanchez purchased a 2006 "preowned" Mercedes-Benz S500V in 2008 for $53,498.60 from Valencia Holding Company. Sanchez alleged that Valencia violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) by making false representations about the condition of the automobile. Sanchez also alleged that Valencia violated several other California laws by (1) failing to separately itemize the amount of the down payment that is deferred to a date after the execution of the sale contract, (2) failing to distinguish registration, transfer, and titling fees from license fees, (3) charging the optional Department of Motor Vehicles electronic filing fee without discussing it or asking if he wanted to pay it, (4) charging new tire fees for used tires, and (5) requiring him to pay $3,700 to have the vehicle certified so he could qualify for the 4.99 percent interest rate, when that payment was actually for an optional extended warranty unrelated to the interest rate. In this dispute over the sale of a car, Sanchez filed a class action lawsuit against Valencia. The defendant moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, finding the class waiver and, in turn, the entire arbitration agreement unenforceable. In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California's unconscionability rule prohibiting class waivers in consumer arbitration agreements. In deciding Valencia's appeal from the trial court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration, the Court of Appeal declined to address whether the class waiver was enforceable and instead held that the arbitration appeal provision and the arbitration agreement as a whole were unconscionably one-sided. On appeal, Valencia broadly contends that under Concepcion, "absent exceptional circumstances, states either judicially or legislatively may not, under the guise of unconscionability, judge the supposed fairness of the parties' agreed arbitration process." In support of that assertion, Valencia cites "the examples of arbitration-process unconscionability evaluations (ranging from discovery to evidentiary requirements) that the FAA precludes. In the Order dated August 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/mYlhMU from Leagle.com, Judge Liu concluded in light of Concepcion that the FAA preempts the trial court's invalidation of the class waiver on unconscionability grounds, the agreement's poison pill provision is inoperable. Plaintiffs are represented by Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. -- Gnelson@kreindler.com -- Jacob H. Mensch, Esq. -- Gmencch@kreindler.com -- KREINDLER & KREINDLER Defendants are represented by: David R. Sidran, Esq. Thomas M. Cromwell, Esq. TOSCHI, SIDRAN, COLLINS & DOYLE 5145 Johnson Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 Telephone: (510) 835-3400 VERMONT: Health & Human Services Must Defend Against "Ryan" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford of the United States District Court for District of Vermont denied Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint in the case, MARCELLA RYAN and JOHN HERBERT, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant, Case No. 5:14-CV-00269 (D. Vermont). Plaintiffs in the instant case are "dual eligible" recipients of both Medicaid and Medicare who receive home health care services. They allege that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has systematically failed to follow her own regulations and guidance governing appeal of Medicare coverage for home health care services, resulting in the improper denial of their claims. In the motion, the Secretary moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). The Secretary argued that (1) plaintiffs lack standing to sue; (2) plaintiff Herbert has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (3) neither plaintiff has established the basis for mandamus jurisdiction; (4) the alleged failure to follow the provisions of the MPIM will not support a cause of action; (5) the availability of the administrative review process renders any error by the MACs harmless; and (6) the relief sought by plaintiffs exceeds the court's powers. In his Opinion and Order dated July 27, 2015 available at http://is.gd/dpXzXdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Crawford concluded that Plaintiffs allegations were sufficient to state a claim under the "long-settled principle that the rules promulgated by a federal agency, which regulate the rights and interests of others, are controlling upon the agency". Plaintiffs' claims involved the improper application of a specific policy promulgated by the agency itself in a fashion that has harmed plaintiffs, a situation that the Lujan decision recognizes as actionable. Plaintiffs are represented by: Alice Bers, Esq. Gill Deford, Esq. CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY, INC. P.O. Box 350 Willimantic, CT 06226 Tel: (860) 456-7790 - and - Michael Kelly Benvenuto, Esq. Rachel L. Seelig, Esq. Sean P. Londergan, Esq. VERMONT LEGAL AID, INC. 264 N Winooski Ave., Burlington, VT 05401 Tel: (800)-889-2047 Defendant is represented by Daniel Bensing, Esq., U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Owen C.J. Foster, Esq., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Admits Testimony of Expert Witnesses -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Lyle E. Strom of the United States District Court for District of Nebraska denied (1) Defendants' motion in limine to exclude damage calculations and expert testimony by Richard Kroon, a Business Intelligence Developer of Kurtzman Carson Consultants; and (2) Plaintiffs' motion in limine to exclude defendants' proposed rebuttal expert Dr. Robert Topel and to strike under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26 in the case captioned, PHILLIP PETRONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., and DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants. PHILLIP PETRONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., and DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 8:11CV401; 8:12CV307 (D. Neb.). The Defendants argue that Kroon's damage calculations and the opinions he seeks to offer at trial fail to meet the requirements of Fed.R.Evid. 702 and should be excluded under Daubert. The plaintiffs asked the Court to exclude the testimony of Dr. Topel, defendants' rebuttal expert and a Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Director of the George J. Stigler Center of the Study of the Economy at the University of Chicago, and State and Co- Director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago. The plaintiffs claim that Dr. Topel does not have the requisite training or knowledge to be admissible under Fed.R.Evid. 702 and failed to submit a report in compliance with Rule 26. In the Memorandum and Order dated July 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/pNi3SCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Strom held that Dr. Topel is qualified to testify as a rebuttal expert in this action. Dr. Topel studied the same materials as the plaintiffs' expert Kroon, and it is offered to rebut Kroon's testimony and calculations and found that Richard Kroon is qualified to testify as an expert in the action but limit his testimony in scope to address only damage calculations under plaintiffs' theories of liabilities. Kroon may not testify outside of his expertise as a data analyst. Werner's objections to Kroon's testimony and calculations go more to the weight to be afforded rather than admissibility. Plaintiffs are represented by Justin L. Swidler, Esq. -- jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- Richard S. Swartz, Esq. -- rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- SWARTZ, SWIDLER LAW FIRM Defendants are represented by Elizabeth A. Culhane, Esq. -- ECULHANE@FraserStryker.com -- Joseph E. Jones, Esq. -- JJONES@FraserStryker.com -- Patrick J. Barrett, Esq. -- PBARRETT@FraserStryker.com -- FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM ZEOBIT: Nov. 30 Deadline for Filing Claims in $2MM Class Deal ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Kirk, writing for PC World, reported that customers of the oft-criticized security and performance program MacKeeper have until Nov. 30 to file a claim for reimbursement, the result of a proposed class-action suit settlement. Those who bought MacKeeper before July 8 are eligible, according to the settlement website where claims can be filed. The class action suit accused MacKeeper's original developer, ZeoBIT, of deceptively advertising the program and making false claims about what it could fix. It was filed in May 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Under the proposed settlement, ZeoBIT will put US$2 million into a fund for those who want a refund. But ZeoBIT will admit no fault as part of the agreement. According to court documents, 513,330 people bought MacKeeper in the U.S. for as much as $39.95 per copy. Those people will be contacted by email to be notified of the proposed settlement. Rust Consulting, the company contracted to administer the settlement, also plans to buy millions of ad impressions through providers such as Xasis, an advertising platform, and Facebook. As few as 1 to 2 percent of eligible people file claims resulting from class-action suits. That makes it likely that the MacKeeper customers who make the effort to make a claim will be fully reimbursed. But as the number of applicants rises, the refund value will proportionally fall from $39.95. One-third of the $2 million will go towards attorney fees, leaving the remainder for refunds and other administration costs. Those who object to the proposed settlement must contact the court by Sept. 21. The court will hold a final approval hearing on Oct. 16 where MacKeeper customers will be allowed to speak. ZeoBIT, which was founded in Kiev, Ukraine, but now lists a California headquarters, no longer owns MacKeeper. The product was sold in April 2013 to a company called Kromtech Alliance of Cologne, Germany. Kromtech isn't a released party in the settlement, and it still could be sued over MacKeeper. Jeremiah Fowler, a Kromtech spokesman, recently said the company was addressing some of the criticisms about MacKeeper. He said the company has toned down some of the warnings MacKeeper displays during trial scans. A test of MacKeeper in early May showed the application warned of performance problems on a fresh, fully patched version of OS X Yosemite, Apple's latest operating system. Fowler also said Kromtech had severed relationships with affiliate advertising partners who were too aggressive. * Financial Recovery Acquires Cypress Settlements ------------------------------------------------- Financial Recovery Technologies, LLC, a leader in securities class action recovery, announced the acquisition of Cypress Settlements, a respected competitor in the claim filing industry founded by Patrick Horsman, Drew Lambert and Sean Brennan. Upon closing, all of Cypress' clients and partners will have immediate access to FRT's state of the art class action claims monitoring and filing platform, while FRT and its clients will benefit from Cypress' industry knowledge and expertise. "FRT is excited about the acquisition of Cypress," said Rob Adler, president of FRT. "We believe that this partnership will strengthen FRT, allowing us to further expand our market share and industry-leading presence. The Cypress brand is well-respected in the securities class action industry and FRT looks forward to servicing Cypress' existing client base." "I am extremely proud of what Cypress has accomplished over the last six years, as well as being proud to partner with the industry's leading provider in Financial Recovery Technologies," said Patrick Horsman, Cypress' Founder and Managing Partner. "I am confident FRT will provide our clients with the technology platform, industry expertise, and dedicated leadership that will serve them best into the future," said Sean Brennan, Cypress' Director of Operations. Terms of the deal are not being announced. About Cypress Settlements Cypress Settlements offers its clients a simple solution to a complex problem: how to stay on top of and maximize awards from securities class action settlements in which they have eligible claims. Cypress provides a fully automated, end-to-end claims submission system, utilizing our comprehensive database of current, pending, and historical class action settlements. For more information, visit cypressettlements.com. About Financial Recovery Technologies Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT) is a leading technology- based services firm that helps the investment community identify eligibility, file claims and collect funds made available in securities class action settlements. Offering the most comprehensive range of claim filing and monitoring services available, we provide best-in-class eligibility analysis, disbursement auditing and client reporting, and deliver the highest level of accuracy, accountability and transparency available. Financial Recovery Technologies is a Cross Country Group company (http://www.crosscountrygroup.com).For more information, go to http://www.frtservices.com * RG/2 Hires T. Chiango as Claims, Securities, Antitrust Director ----------------------------------------------------------------- RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, a national boutique class action claims administration firm, announced the recent addition of Tina Chiango as the Director of Claims, Securities and Antitrust. Specializing in securities and anti-trust litigation administration, Chiango brings to RG/2 Claims over 20 years of rich experience in class and collective action claims administration. Most recently serving as Project Manager at a regional class action administrator, Chiango worked on a broad spectrum of class actions settlements, including securities, antitrust, employment, consumer, and mass tort among others, while distinctively managing and co-leading each phase of the claims administration process. "This is an exciting growth time for RG/2," said Mike Lee, COO of RG/2 Claims. "Chiango brings exceptional technical expertise to our firm. Our coordinated expertise and personal approach makes us distinct in the market and Chiango's proven experience and personal touch will extend our ability to provide the guidance and administrative services our clients need." "This union enhances our ability to deliver truly personal and quality-based administrative services to both existing and ever expanding clients," said Michael A. Gillen, President of RG/2 Claims. "We are committed to delivering high quality and cost- effective administration services to clients with whom we have built and are building trusted relationships. We are thrilled that Chiango has joined our team and will be serving in a leadership role which will bring immediate value to our clients." "I am very excited to have the opportunity to be working with the talented and dedicated professionals at RG/2 Claims. With years of experience in Claims Administration, I look forward to growing an already successful practice by continuing my current client relationships and establishing new ones. This opportunity gives me the ability to grow both personally and professionally by sharing my knowledge and working with their cutting edge technology to help RG/2 Claims advance even further in this competitive industry. I am extremely fortunate to be joining such a well- respected company." About RG/2 Claims Administration Whether engaged as a court-appointed settlement administrator, claims agent or disbursing agent, RG/2 Claims Administration LLC offers a complete range of claims, settlement administration and investment management services. Our principals combine experience with cutting-edge proprietary technology to make RG/2 unique in the field of claims administration. There is a depth and breadth of knowledge to be found among our team of class action attorneys, certified public accountants, management and communications professionals, with decades of experience handling complex claims from inception through final distributions. It is this background, along with our transformative approach, technical proficiency, personalized attention, range of services and competitive fees, that sets us apart from other claim administrators. SOURCE: Melissa Baldwin RG/2 Claims Administration LLC 30 South 17th Street, Suite 400 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 1-215-979-1611 Facsimile 1-215-979-1695 Email: mbaldwin@rg2claims.com ********* 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 * * *