/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150831.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, August 31, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 173 Headlines AARP SERVICES: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Austin-Spearman" ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Brown" Suit for "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA ALLIANTGROUP: Court Reverses Order Granting Motion to Stay AMERICA BEST: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMERICA BEST: Faces "Touzout" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Gabriele" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Mazzio" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Price" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Riley" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Ware" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing AMERICAN EMPIRE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit AMERICAN EXPRESS: Zamansky LLC Files Class Action in N.Y. AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Sued Over Mesh Product's Side-Effects ARKANSAS: SC Affirms Dismissal of Claims in "Sanford" BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Court Denies Motion to Compel in "Cardoza" BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Motion to Remand Granted in Part BROADWAY STAGES: "Neira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages BUMBLE BEE: Faces Capitol Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Matthew" Suit Over Seafood-Price Fixing CALIFORNIA QI: Recalls Duck Head, Neck Products Due to Soy Sauce CAREER SOLUTIONS: CA Affirms Denial of Class Certification CARMAX AUTO: Court Trims "Malone" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit CHARLEY'S STEAKHOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: CA Affirms Summary Judgment in Part CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Rosen Law Firm Prepares Class Action Suit COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Plotnick" ERISA Suit Transferred to E.D. Va. CLAMAR CORP: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Banegas" CONAGRA FOODS: Court Rules in Suit Over Hunt's Tomato Products DETROIT: Suit by LaSalle Town Houses Coop Assoc Goes to Trial DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Drama Therapy Institute's Suit Dismissed EAST-LEX DINER: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ECHOSPHERE LLC: Tajonar Compelled to Arbitrate PAGA Claims EMERY FEDERAL: Faces Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA, MWHL, MWPCL ENVIROCLEAN: Wooster Residents' Class Suit Reaches Settlement ESPESETH INC: Faces "Pope" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime FCA US LLC: Motion to Dismiss "Tomassini" Case Granted in Part GENERAL MILLS: Court Narrows, Stays Proceedings in "Backus" Case IDAHO: Balla Case to Continue for at Least Another Two Years JUD PROPERTIES: Sued Over Handicap Inaccessible Parking Spaces KAPOWSIN MEATS: Recalls Pork Products Due to Salmonella KENTUCKY: Court Dismisses Suit v. Housing Authority as Malicious KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Parties Directed to Conduct Discovery KRAFT HEINZ: Recalls Turkey Bacon Products LOUISIANA: Class Certification in Suit v. Sheriff et al. Affirmed MANPOWERGROUP: "Enriquez" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California MDC PARTNERS: Firefighters Pension Plan Files Securities Suit MDC PARTNERS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit METROPOLITAN LIFE: Illegally Terminates Benefit Claims, Suit Says MEXICAN GASTRONOMY: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Workers Discharge MIDLAND FUNDING: Motion to Remand "Murray" Case Granted in Part MOBILEIRON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports MRM SUPERMARKETS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Olivares" Suit Says MUSIC GROUP MACAO: Court Denies in Part Motions to Seal Docs NATIONAL BEEF: Court Approves Settlement in "Barbosa" NESTLE INDIA: Confident on Defending Class Suit NEVADA: Health Dept. Sued Over Fees for Medical Marijuana Cards NICKA & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Degrassi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT NINE ENERGY: "Dooley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages NTELOS HOLDINGS: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Shenandoah Merger NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Nixed OHNH EMP: Faces "Kovalchuk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ON DECK: Faces "Malafsky" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports PERFORMANT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Simmons" Suit for TCPA "Breach" PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Class Cert Bid for Erotic Dancers Okayed PILOT CORP: Appeals Court Wants Evidentiary Hearing in Star Case PLAQUEMINES: East Bank Residents Set to Get Katrina Levee Deal PRECISIONS CASTPARTS: Sued Over Proposed Bershire Merger PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over Slack-Fill Deodorant Packaging PROTECTIVE SERVICE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL: Court Rules in LongPath Suit Over Merger REICHENBACH RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ROY'S PIZZA: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages SHUCKS MAINE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS: Final Approval Hearing in February 2016 SJAC FULTON IND: Court Rejects Class Cert. Bid in "Lovett" SO-CAL DOMINOIDS: CA Flips Order Denying Arbitration SOLARWINDS INC: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Securities Laws "Breach" SOUFUN HOLDINGS: Sued in Ohio Over False Business Advertisements SOUTHEASTERN ARCHEOLOGICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Court Trims Claims in "Digiacomo" Action TOWERS WATSON: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger TOYODA GOSEI: Sued in Michigan Over Brake Hose-Price Fixing TRICARE MANAGEMENT: Court Reopens "Flores" Class Suit UNITED AIRLINES: Dismissal of Senior Discount Class Suit Upheld UNITED STATES: DSHS Failures are Rarely Punished USAA CASUALTY: 11th Cir. Tosses Appeal in Insurance Refund Case VELOCITY EXPRESS: Court Grants Motion on Successor Liability VISION HOMES: Sued Over Breach of Home Improvement Contracts WHOLE FOODS: Faces "Markman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports WORLD EMBLEM: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Action Claims YELP: Class Suit Over "Employment Status" Dismissed * Employee Overtime Cases Could Wind Up Before Supreme Court ********* AARP SERVICES: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Austin-Spearman" --------------------------------------------------------------- Ethel Austin-Spearman, Plaintiff, v. AARP and AARP Services Inc., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-1288 (KBJ)(D.D.C.), alleges that defendants AARP and AARP Services Inc. violated the privacy policy because the AARP's website was configured to permit companies like Facebook and Adobe to collect personally identifiable information (PII) about the user. Austin-Spearman's class action complaint contained five counts: (1) breach of contract, (2) unjust enrichment, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) fraud by omission, and (5) violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (DCCPPA) She maintained that Defendants' breach of the AARP's own privacy promises injured her economically because she would not have tendered the fee to purchase an AARP membership had she known that the organization would permit the collection of her PII by Facebook and other third parties. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of Article III standing and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the Memorandum Opinion dated June 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ohLmGYfrom Leagle.com, granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint's allegations were insufficient to establish that Defendants' practices regarding user data violate the AARP's internet Privacy Policy and it was entirely implausible that Austin-Spearman suffered the injury she relied upon for standing (an economic injury) as a result of the AARP's purported violation of its internet-usage Privacy Policy. Plaintiff is represented by Alicia E. Hwang, Esq. -- ahwang@edelson.com -- Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq. -- bthomassen@edelson.com -- Jay Edelson, Esq. -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, Maria Christina Simon, Esq. -- msimon@thegellerlawgroup.com -- THE GELLER LAW GROUP, PLLC Defendants are represented by Thomas E. Gilbertsen, Esq. -- tegilbertsen@Venable.com -- Michael P. Bracken, Esq. -- mpbracken@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Brown" Suit for "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- Veronica Brown and others similarly-situated v. Abm Industries, Inc.; ABM Janitorial Services, Inc.; ABM Janitorial Services - North Central, Inc., Diversco, Inc., ABM Janitorial Services - Southeast, LLC, Case: 1:15-cv-06729 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2015) seeks relief for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own, operate and maintain a fleet of service vehicles that support all operations, including janitorial services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Ryan, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C. 35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650 Chicago, IL 60601 Tell: (312) 726-3400 - and - James X. Bormes, Esq. Catherine P. Sons, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C. 8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600 Chicago, IL 60602 Tell: (312) 201-0575 - and - Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq. Angel Bakov, Esq. Haig A. Himidian, Esq. GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD. 221 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1414 Chicago, IL 60601 Tell: (312) 546-5056 ALLIANTGROUP: Court Reverses Order Granting Motion to Stay ---------------------------------------------------------- Rachel Verdugo appealed from an order granting a motion to stay her lawsuit against AlliantGroup L.P. Plaintiff filed a wage and hour lawsuit against Alliantgroup alleging that her employer failed to pay overtime and other forms of compensation, provide meal and rest breaks, and provide accurate wage statements to all California employees, but also establish specific remedies for an employer's violation of these provisions, including recovery of unpaid wages, interest, civil penalties, and attorney fees. The trial court stayed the action based on the forum selection clause of the employment agreement which designated Harris County, Texas, as the exclusive forum and Texas law as governing all disputes. In the motion, Verdugo contended that the trial court erred because enforcing the forum selection clause and related choice- of-law clause violates California's public policy on employee compensation. Judge Richard M. Aronson of the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three, in the Opinion dated June 25, 2015 available at http://is.gd/cseRpefrom Leagle.com, reversed the order granting the motion to stay, holding that Verdugo's claims would not make Texas an unsuitable forum, and would not necessarily allow the trial court to resume proceedings on Verdugo's claims. The possibility the trial court could resume proceedings on Verdugo's claims fails to establish enforcing the forum selection clause would not diminish Verdugo's unwaivable statutory rights under the Labor Code. The appellate case is, RACHEL VERDUGO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALLIANTGROUP, L.P., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. G049139 (Cal. App. Ct.). Plaintiff is represented by: James M. Gilbert, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES M. GILBERT 23 Corporate Plz, Ste #150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 - and - Darren D. Daniels, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF DARREN D. DANIELS 8001 Irvine Center Dr # 1575 Irvine, CA 92618 Tel: (949)387-0011 Defendant is represented by Julie A. Dunne, Esq. -- jdunne@littler.com -- Khatereh S. Fahimi, Esq. -- sfahimi@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON AMERICA BEST: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Juan Sanchez and other similarly situated individuals v. America Best Car Rental KF Corp. d/b/a America Best Crkf Corp d/b/a Sunshine Rent-A Car, Fort Lauderdale Auto Leasing Corp., Kamal Fereg, Omar Fajardo, and Roberto Hiptyn, Case No. 1:15-cv-23162- CMA (S.D. Fla., August 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a car rental shop in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com AMERICA BEST: Faces "Touzout" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Touzout, and other similarly situated individuals v. America Best Car Rental KF Corp. d/b/a America Best Crkf Corp d/b/a Sunshine Rent-A Car, Fort Lauderdale Auto Leasing Corp., Kamal Fereg, Omar Fajardo, and Roberto Hiptyn, Case No. 0:15-cv-61767- DMM (S.D. Fla., August 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a car rental shop in Broward County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Martin Saenz, Esq. SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 503-5131 Facsimile: (888) 270-5549 E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Gabriele" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Rosemarie Gabriele v. Southwest Airlines Co., American Airlines Group Inc., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and Delta Air Lines, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01975-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline tickets through a number of means, including colluding to limit seat capacity and signaling other airlines on how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra seats in order to limit the capacity of passenger airline travel in the United States. The Defendants own and operate the largest commercial airline company in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Mussman, Esq. Brian Ku, Esq. KU & MUSSMAN, PA 6001 NW 153rd Street, Suite 100 Miami Lakes, FL 33014 Telephone: (305) 891-1322 Facsimile: (305) 891-4512 E-mail: louis@kumussman.com brian@kumussman.com - and - Allan Kanner, Esq. Cynthia St. Amant, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LO 70130 Telephone: (504) 524-5777 Facsimile: (504) 524-5763 E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com c.stamant@kanner-law.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Mazzio" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Kathleen Mazzio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-07422 (N.D. Ill., August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise and maintain the price of domestic air travel services in the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Tyler J. Story, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com mrm@wexlerwallace.com aek@wexlerwallace.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Price" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Sharon Price, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc. Delta Air Lines, Inc., United Continental Holdings, Inc., United Airlines, Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 0:15-cv-03358- PJS-BRT (D. Minn., August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise and maintain the price of domestic air travel services in the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlobby@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Mark R. Miller, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com mrm@wexlerwallace.com aek@wexlerwallace.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Riley" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- James J. Riley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc. Delta Air Lines, Inc., United Continental Holdings, Inc., United Airlines, Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 0:15-cv-03225-MJD-TNL (D. Minn., August 6, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise and maintain the price of domestic air travel services in the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq. Michelle J. Looby, Esq. Joshua J. Rissman, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 Facsimile: (612) 339-6622 E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com mlobby@gustafsongluek.com jrissman@gustafsongluek.com - and - David S. Corwin, Esq. Vicki L. Little, Esq. Bridget L. Halquist, Esq. SHER CORWIN WINTERS LLC 190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 721-5200 Facsimile: (314) 721-5201 E-mail: dcorwin@scwstl.com vlittle@scwstl.com bhalquist@scwstl.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Ware" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gail Ware, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc. Delta Air Lines, Inc., United Continental Holdings, Inc., United Airlines, Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 1:15-cv-07424 (N.D. Ill., August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise and maintain the price of domestic air travel services in the United States. The Defendants operate the largest airline companies in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. Tyler J. Story, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 Facsimile: (312) 346-0022 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com mrm@wexlerwallace.com aek@wexlerwallace.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com AMERICAN EMPIRE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company lost on its bid to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the case, JEFFREY J. VIENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICA EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INS. CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:14CV952(JBA)(D. Conn.). Plaintiffs Jeffrey Viens, Pamela Viens, Karen Wellikoff, Finney Lane Realty Associates, LLC, and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center filed a putative class action against Defendant Defendant American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company for alleged discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act, (FHA) and the Connecticut Fair Housing Act, (CFHA) by Defendant's insurance underwriting criteria that charged higher premiums or denied coverage to landlords who rented apartments to tenants receiving Section 8 housing assistance. Plaintiffs contended that such practice had a disparate impact on racial minorities and was impermissible discrimination under state law against those receiving housing assistance. In the motion to dismiss, Defendant contended that both the FHA and CFHA were limited to the initial acquisition of housing, and did not apply where, as here, the alleged wrongdoing occured after the dwelling already been sold. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in the Ruling dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/RrCfXIfrom Leagle.com, denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint concluding that the FHA and CFHA applied to post-acquisition claims, because (1) the words "privileges" and "services or facilities" in the statutes connote continuing rights beyond the acquisition of housing; (2) HUD regulations, which the Supreme Court has recognized as holding "great weight," recognized such claims, and (3) such claims were consistent with the "broad and liberal construction" given to the FHA and CFHA. Plaintiffs are represented by Jean Zachariasiewicz, Esq. -- jzachariasiewicz@relmanlaw.com -- RELMAN, & Stephen M. Dane, Esq. -- sdane@relmanlaw.com -- RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX, PLLC-DC, - and - Greg J. Kirschner, Esq. CONNECTICUT FAIR HOUSING CENTER 221 Main St Hartford, CT 06106 Tel: (860)-247-4400 Defendants are represented by Diane Curran Polletta, Esq. -- dpolletta@goodwin.com -- Jill M. O'Toole, Esq. -- jotoole@goodwin.com -- SHIPMAN & GOODWIN AMERICAN EXPRESS: Zamansky LLC Files Class Action in N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------- Zamansky LLC announces its investigation of the American Express Co. AXP, -0.36% ("Amex") Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") for possible violations of the federal Employment Retirement Securities Act ("ERISA"). ERISA imposes fiduciary duties to prudently manage and invest the assets of the Plan. These duties were potentially violated by AmEx's continued offering of its company stock while it allegedly knew that the stock price was artificially inflated. On July 30, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against Amex in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 15-CV- 5999, alleging securities fraud. The complaint alleges that from Oct. 16, 2014 and Feb. 11, 2015, Amex made material misrepresentations to investors about the status of the company's negotiations with Costco over the renewal or lapse of their co- branding agreement. Amex failed to disclose or warn investors that a loss of their partnership -- which was imminent, would have significant financial impact to investors. When Amex announced that it lost the deal with Costo and its partnership would expire, the company's stock price suffered a nine-percent drop. According to the complaint, Wall Street analysts lowered future price targets acknowledging the long-term impact to Amex's future profits. According to employee stock fraud attorney, Jake Zamansky, Amex's existing and former employees who purchased and held company stock through the Plan since at least October 16, 2014, have suffered damage and losses to their retirement savings. The allegations about securities fraud by Amex in its public disclosures raise serious issues for Amex Plan participants over the prudent monitoring and oversight of the Plan under ERISA for artificial inflation of the stock price, he states. What Amex Employees or Former Employees Can Do If you are an existing or former Amex employee who purchased or held Amex stock through the Retirement Savings Plan, please contact our firm for an evaluation of your rights. You can contact Jake Zamansky by telephone at (212) 742-1414 or by email at jake@zamansky.com. Jake Zamansky, Esq. Zamansky LLC 50 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 Phone:+1 212-742-1414 jake@zamansky.com www.zamansky.com AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Sued Over Mesh Product's Side-Effects --------------------------------------------------------------- 9News reports that a large group of Australian women are taking on a major US medical company after suffering devastating side- effects from products used to support weak pelvic floor muscles, with the products still available in Australia. Prolapse occurs when the connecting muscle and tissue which supports the bladder, uterus and bowel are weakened, causing organs to drop. It affects one in four Australian women. Patricia Stiles first suffered the traumatic but common condition after the birth of her third child more than 30 years ago. "Sometimes I'm in so much pain my legs swell, my hands swell, I can't even get out of bed with the pain," she said. Ms. Stiles' prolapse was allegedly made worse by the very thing that was meant to fix it, a mesh product used to help lift the organs back in place. She is now one of hundreds of Australians preparing to sue medical manufacturer American Medical Systems (AMS). It is claimed the mesh -- made of plastic called polypropylene -- can perforate organs and erode tissue, causing severe pain, bleeding and infection. Two warnings were issued by the Food and Drugs Administration in the United States in 2008 and 2011. However the 64-year-old grandmother said she was never told there was any risk of using the mesh product. A class action in the US has seen 30,000 claims settled, with the company paying out almost US$1 billion. Australian legal firm Shine Lawyers has been working on more than 100 claims. AMS told 9NEWS it cannot comment on the Australian cases while there is ongoing litigation. ARKANSAS: SC Affirms Dismissal of Claims in "Sanford" ----------------------------------------------------- Gary Sanford, Linda Yeager, Wayne Lilley, Lilley Paint Co., Inc., and Airmotive, Inc., appealed an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court dismissing their complaint brought against Richard Weiss, in his official capacity as Director, Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration (DF&A), in which they alleged illegal-exaction claims and due-process violations in the case captioned, GARY SANFORD; LINDA YEAGER; WAYNE LILLEY; LILLEY PAINT CO., INC., AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION; AND AIRMOTIVE, INC., AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION, APPELLANTS, v. LARRY WALTHER, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, APPELLEE, Case No. CV-14-1056 (Ark.). On November 1, 2013, appellants filed a Second Amended & Restated Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Against Illegal Exactions Imposed by DF&A. Appellants alleged that DF&A's method of imposing, levying, and collecting interest on certain state tax-delinquencies is unlawful, unconstitutional, and usurious and constitutes an illegal exaction in violation of article 16, section 13, of the Arkansas Constitution. DF&A filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), alleging that appellants had failed to plead facts necessary to establish subject-matter jurisdiction and that appellants had failed to plead facts on which relief may be granted. The circuit court entered an order dismissing with prejudice appellants' second amended complaint. Chief Justice Jim Hannah of the Supreme Court of Arkansas in the Memorandum Order dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Gmf9cyfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the dismissal of the claims finding that the circuit court correctly ruled that appellants failed to plead facts to support their due-process- violation claims. Appellants are represented by: Neil Deininger, Esq. Reba M. Wingfield, Esq. DEININGER & WINGFIELD, P.A. 920 W. 2nd Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Tel: (501)372-3843 - and - Eugene G. Sayre, Esq. Stephen L. Curry, Esq. HATFIELD & SAYRE 401 W Capitol Ave # 502 Little Rock, AR 72201 Tel: (501)374-9010 Appellees are represented by Joel DiPippa, Esq., ATTORNEY SUPERVISOR, REVENUE LEGAL COUNSEL BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Court Denies Motion to Compel in "Cardoza" ----------------------------------------------------------- Defendants filed a motion to compel in the case captioned, BROOKE CARDOZA, et al., Plaintiff(s) v. BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC., et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:13-CV-01820-JAD-NJK. Outback Steakhouse Restaurant employees filed a collective action and putative multi-state class action alleging that their employer failed to pay overtime and minimum wage to thousands of minimum- wage employees, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and various state employment laws. In the motion, Defendants sought more detailed responses from Plaintiffs regarding various contention interrogatories and detailed damages calculations from Plaintiff's initial disclosures. District Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada in the Order dated June 22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/PkhA3Jfrom Leagle.com, denied Defendants' motion to compel finding that an order compelling supplementation of Plaintiffs' initial disclosures unnecessary given the current stage of the case. Plaintiffs are represented by Bradley Scott Schrager, Esq. -- bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- Eric Levinrad, Esq. -- elevinrad@wrslawyers.com -- WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP, Jason J. Thompson, Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Jesse L. Young, Esq. -- jyoung@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C., Timothy J. Becker, Esq. -- tbecker@johnsonbecker.com -- Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. -- jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC Defendants are represented by Catherine A. Conway, Esq. -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Jesse A. Cripps, Jr, Esq. -- jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, Kevin David Johnson, Esq. -- kjohnson@tsghlaw.com -- Marquis William Heilig, Esq. -- mheilig@tsghlaw.com -- THOMPSON, SIZEMORE, GONZALEZ & HEARING, PA BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Motion to Remand Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted, in part, Plaintiff's motion to remand in the case captioned, KIERRE TOWNSEND, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRINDERSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV-14-5320 FMO (RZX)(C.D. Cal.). On June 3, 2014, plaintiff Kierre Townsend filed a class action complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants Brinderson Constructors, Inc. (Brinderson), BP America, Inc. (BP America), and BP Corporation North America, Inc. (BP NA). The Complaint asserted five claims for relief under California law: (1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest periods; (3) failure to pay hourly and overtime wages; (4) failure to timely pay final wages; and (5) unfair competition. Plaintiff sought to represent several subclasses of persons employed by Brinderson in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during the relevant time period, which was defined as the "time period beginning four years prior to the filing of this action until judgment is entered. The Complaint alleged that the individual claims of the purported class members are under $75,000 and that the aggregate claims were under $5,000,000. On July 8, 2014, Brinderson removed the case to the Federal district court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. Distrcit Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the United States District Court for the Central District of Claifornia in the Order dated June 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ZBIVz7from Leagle.com, granted in part, Plaintiff's motion to remand, sending the action back to the Superior Court of the State of California and denied as to Plaintiff's request Plaintiff's request for fees and costs finding that Birnderson did not lack an objectively reasonable basis for removal. Plaintiff is represented by: C. Shaun Setareh, Esq. Neil Michael Larsen, Esq. Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Blvd Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel: (310)888-7771 Defendants are represented by Kevin Dennis Sullivan, Esq. -- ksullivan@ebglaw.com -- Michael S. Kun, Esq. -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC BROADWAY STAGES: "Neira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Miguel Neira and Efrain Calle, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Broadway Stages Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04616 (E.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Broadway Stages Ltd. is in the film, television and music production facilities business with 27 studios in Brooklyn and Queens and operations in Connecticut and Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Bradford D. Conover, Esq. CONOVER LAW OFFICES 75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 588-9080 Facsimile: (212) 763-5001 E-mail: brad@conoverlaw.com BUMBLE BEE: Faces Capitol Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------------- Capitol Hill Supermarket, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Triunion Seafoods LLC, and Starkist Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-01867-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for shelf-stable packaged seafood products within the United States. The Defendants are the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Flannery, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 226-1015 Facsimile: (202) 789-1819 E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com - and - Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq. Joel Davidow, Esq. Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 507 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202)789-3960 Facsimile: (202)589-1813 E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com joel@cuneolaw.com danielc@cuneolaw.com - and - Taylor Asen CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP 16 Court Street, Suite 1012 Brooklyn, NY 11241 Telephone: (202)789-3960 Facsimile: (202)589-1813 E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Matthew" Suit Over Seafood-Price Fixing ---------------------------------------------------------- Louise Ann Davis Mathews, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Triunion Seafoods LLC, and Starkist Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-01878-L-JLB (S.D. Cal., August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for shelf-stable packaged seafood products within the United States. The Defendants are the three largest producers of packaged seafood products in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq. Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq. Chad A. Saunders, Esq. THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP 44 Montgomery St., Suite 1210 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 546-6800 Facsimile: (415) 546-6801 Email: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com krogers@kraloweclaw.com csaunders@kraloweclaw.com CALIFORNIA QI: Recalls Duck Head, Neck Products Due to Soy Sauce ---------------------------------------------------------------- California Qi Li's Braised Chicken, a Fremont, Calif., establishment, is recalling approximately 6,644 pounds of duck head and duck neck products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain soy sauce which is not declared on the product labels and has known allergens of soy and wheat. The duck products were produced on various dates between Feb. 11, 2015 and Aug. 13, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 10" x 8" vacuum sealed packages of "Chinese Brand Spicy Duck Heads" --- 10" x 8" vacuum sealed packages of "Chinese Brand Spicy Duck Necks" The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-40286" inside the USDA Mark of Inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations in California. The problem was discovered when an FSIS inspector reviewed product labels and noticed that soy sauce was not listed as an ingredient. Neither FSIS nor the company has received reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact Ling Li, Manager, at (408) 857-0901. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem CAREER SOLUTIONS: CA Affirms Denial of Class Certification ---------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Fernando Martinez appealed from the trial court's order denying his motion for class certification against defendants Stephan Stratton O'Hara formerly known as Stephen Jones O'Hara (O'Hara), Career Solutions and Candidate Acquisitions (CSCA), and Professional Realty Council, Inc. in the case captioned, FERNANDO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STEPHEN STRATTON O'HARA et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. G050710 (Cal. App. Ct.). Plaintiff sued defendants in November 2012, asserting individual causes of action for rape (later dismissed), sexual harassment, fraud, Labor Code violations, and wrongful termination. After several amendments, plaintiff filed a fifth amended (operative) complaint in August 2013, alleging causes of actions for fraud, false advertising, unfair business practices, Labor Code violations, sexual harassment, and a request for alter ego findings. The cause of action for false advertising contained class action allegations that had not been pled in the prior complaints. Defendants moved to strike the class allegations from the operative complaint because plaintiff had not filed a motion for class certification and the allegations were insufficient. The court denied the motion for class certification, based in part on the lack of an ascertainable class or a representative with claims typical of the class. On appeal, Plaintiff contended, among other things, that the court erred in finding he had failed to establish an ascertainable class and that his claims were not typical of the putative class. Acting Presiding Judge Rylaarsdam of the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division Three in the Opinion dated June 25, 2015 available at http://is.gd/EStGvsfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the order denying class certification because of lack of an ascertainable class and typicality of claims were valid reasons to deny certification of the class. Plaintiff is represented by: Kimberley Fonner, Esq. Benjamin Pavone, Esq. OFFICES OF PAVONE & FONNER 7676 Hazard Center Dr., 5th Floor San Diego, CA 92108 Tel: (619) 224-8885 Defendants are represented by Grant G. Teeple, Esq. -- grant@teeplehall.com -- Frederick M. Reich, Esq. -- fritz@teeplehall.com -- TEEPLE HALL CARMAX AUTO: Court Trims "Malone" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (FAC) or, in the alternative, to strike portions of it in the case captioned, Keeya Shaunta Malone, v. CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, et al, Case No. LA CV14- 08978 JAK (JCX)(C.D. Cal.). On October 6, 2014, Keeya Shaunta Malone (Plaintiff) filed the case in the Los Angeles Superior Court against CarMax. Defendant removed the action to the federal district court on November 20, 2014. On March 2, 2015, the parties stipulated to the filing of an amended complaint. On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First Amended FAC (FAC). The FAC advanced four causes of action: (1) violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2) violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200; (3) violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and (4) fraud and deceit. District Judge John A. Kronstadt of the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the Order dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/gslvj0from Leagle.com, granted in part, the motion to dismiss and denied in part, the motion to strike. The motion is denied as to Plaintiff's CLRA and Sec. 17200 claims for alleged violations of Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1770(a). The motion is granted without prejudice as to Plaintiff's CLRA and Sec. 17200 claims based on alleged violations of Cal. Veh. Code Sec. 11713.18(a)(6). The Court said any amended complaint must set out a good faith, non-conclusory basis for an allegation that CarMax inspected a component of the Lincoln that was not listed in the CQI. In addition, the Court said the motion is granted without prejudice as to Plaintiff's Sec. 17200 claim based on alleged violations of Cal. Veh. Code Sec. 11713(t). The motion is denied as to Plaintiff's implied warranty of merchantability claim; and granted without prejudice as to Plaintiff's express warranty claim; and the motion is granted without prejudice as to Plaintiff's fraud and punitive damages claims. Plaintiff is represented by: Hallen David Rosner, Esq. Joshua Charles Anaya, Esq. ROSNER BARRY AND BABBITT LLP 401 West A. St., Ste. 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619)231-0781 Defendant is represented by: Cynthia Yi-San Sun, Esq. Jamie L. Keeton, Esq. Steven C. Shonack, Esq. Valeria Golodnitska, Esq. Kurt A Schlichter, Esq. SCHLICHTER AND SHONACK LLP 3601 S Aviation Blvd # 2700 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Tel: (310)643-0111 CHARLEY'S STEAKHOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Keith Sherman, Michael Abraham, Sidney Jones, and William Byrd, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Charley's Steakhouse-Cypress Street, Inc. and Talk of the Town Restaurants, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01824-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla., August 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Charley's Steakhouse restaurant in Tampa, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Donna V. Smith, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: CA Affirms Summary Judgment in Part -------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff Michelle Falk appealed from the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in the case, MICHELLE FALK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B251182 (Cal. App. Ct.). Since May 2007, four class action complaints, including Falk's, have been filed against Children's Hospital raising wage and labor violations. The hospital moved for summary judgment on the ground that the her claims were time-barred. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Children's Hospital and against Falk on the ground her wage and labor claims were time-barred. The court rejected Falk's argument the filing of a prior class action tolled her limitations periods, under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah (1974) 414 U.S. 538 (American Pipe), which held that, under certain circumstances, the filing of a class action tolls a limitations period for class members who file subsequent actions. The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three, held that American Pipe tolling applies to some of Falk's claims, but not to others. The Appeals Court therefore affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment. In an Order dated June 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/2EzERgfrom Leagle.com, the Appeals Court affirmed in part as to claims subject to a one-year limitations period and reversed in part as to claims subject to a three- or four-year limitations period. Plaintiff is represented by Steven Bruce Gold, Esq. -- SGold@TheGoldFirm.com -- THE GOLD FIRM, Joseph Antonelli,Esq. -- jantonelli@antonellilaw.com -- Janelle Carney, Esq. & Jason Hatcher, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI Defendants are represented by Derek R. Havel, Esq. -- dhavel@sheppardmullin.com -- Daniel J. McQueen, Esq. -- dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com -- Marlene M. Nicolas, Esq. -- mnicolas@sheppardmullin.com -- Matthew A. Tobias, Esq. -- mtobias@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, Linda Miller Savitt, Esq. -- lsavitt@brgslaw.com -- BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Rosen Law Firm Prepares Class Action Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Christopher & Banks Corporation (NYSE:CBK) resulting from allegations that Christopher & Banks may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. On August 13, 2015, Christopher & Banks released its preliminary results for the second quarter. Christopher & Banks revealed that it currently expects to report net sales of approximately $94 million, which is below its previous guidance of between $100 million and $103 million. Consequently, Christopher & Banks no longer expects to meet its prior full year guidance. On this news, shares of Christopher & Banks fell $1.55 per share or over 47% to close at $1.69 per share on August 14, 2015, damaging investors. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover losses suffered by Christopher & Banks investors. If you purchased shares of Christopher & Banks on or before August 13, 2015, please visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-698.html for more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email 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. Phillip Kim, Esq. Kevin Chan, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm 204 Andover St, Andover, MA 01810, United States 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Phone:+1 978-474-0100 toll-free: 866-767-3653 pkim@rosenlegal.com kchan@rosenlegal.com COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Plotnick" ERISA Suit Transferred to E.D. Va. ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court for District of New Jersey adopted the Report and Recommendation (R&R) of Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor recommending that the Defendants' motion to transfer venue be granted in the case captioned, JEFFREY PLOTNICK, Plaintiff, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR KEY EXECUTIVES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-303 (KM)(D.N.J.). Jeremy Plotnick is a former employee of defendant Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC). Plotnick maintains residences in Jacksonville, Alabama, and Atlantic City, New Jersey. CSC is headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia. On January 15, 2014, Plotnick filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that CSC violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by retroactively applying an amendment to the benefits plan in which he participates. On March 21, 2014, the defendants moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia. In an R&R issued on December 23, 2014, Magistrate Judge Waldor found that the defendants had made the requisite showing under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a) in support of the transfer, and accordingly recommended that this Court grant the Defendants' motion. Plotnick opposed the transfer arguing that the R&R fails to afford sufficient weight to his choice of forum given that a significant portion of his tenure at CSC occurred while he was a New Jersey, that he participated in the benefits plan in question while he was a New Jersey resident, and that he continues to maintain a part- time residence in the state. In the Opinion dated August 7, 2015 available at http://is.gd/w51m6Efrom Leagle.com, Judge McNulty found that Judge Waldor correctly applied the private interest factors, and that a fortiori her application of them was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As the R&R concluded, Plotnick moved his permanent residence to Alabama and made his "diminished presence" in New Jersey weighing in favor of transfer. Plaintiff is represented by Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. -- sparis@smbb.com -- SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, PC Defendants are represented by Thomas Anton Linthorst, Esq. -- tlinthorst@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP CLAMAR CORP: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Banegas" ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Louisiana granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Class Certification and Judicial Notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) in the case captioned, JOEL BANEGAS v. CALMAR CORPORATION, Case No. 15-593 (E.D. La.). Plaintiff Joel Banegas (Plaintiff) was employed as a sprayer by Defendants Calmar Corporation, Don Allen, and Michel D. Richard (Defendants). Plaintiff's job duties consisted of spraying insulation, fireproofing, and handling other foam and coating products. As an employee of Calmar, Plaintiff earned a cash wage of $12.00-$13.00 per hour. Plaintiff often worked in excess of 40 hours per work week, but claims to have only received overtime for the first five hours he worked in overtime each week. Alleging that this arrangement violated the overtime provisions of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq., Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the instant action on February 25, 2015. In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that other employees were subjected to similar arrangements in violation of the provisions of the FLSA. Defendant filed an answer presenting defenses under Rule 12(b) and denying the plaintiff's allegations. In the motion, Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a class for the purpose of asserting claims for alleged violations by Defendants of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The class is defined to consist: "of all current and former employees of Defendants who are or have been employed by Defendants during the three years immediately preceding the filing of this suit as hourly or non-exempt employees and who, during that period, worked in excess of forty hours in any work week and failed to receive premium pay, at the rate of one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay, for all hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek." Plaintiff argues he has satisfied his burden of establishing that he and the potential class members are "similarly situated" for purposes of the first step of the two-step Lusardi class certification process generally applied by District Courts in the Fifth Circuit in the context of FLSA collective actions. Defendants contend Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of demonstrating that he and members of the proposed class are "similarly situated" for conditional certification purposes. Specifically, they argue Plaintiff must show both that other similarly situated employees exist and also that they intend to join the suit. In his Opinion dated August 7, 2015 available at http://is.gd/rxI1S6from Leagle.com, Judge Lemelle held that Plaintiff has established a likelihood that a group of individuals situated similarly to him exists and that the Court have the jurisdiction to exercise its discretion to facilitate notice of action to those individuals. The Defendant's argument is not a valid or recognized basis for denying conditional certification under the FLSA. Plaintiff is represented by: Roberto L. Costales, Esq. COSTALES LAW OFFICE 3801 Canal St New Orleans, LA 70119 Tel: (504)534-5005 - and - William Henry Beaumont, Esq. WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW 3801 Canal St New Orleans, LA 70119, Tel:(504)483-8008 Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey Alan Jones, Esq. Robert Anthony Contreras, Esq. D'AQUILA, CONTRERAS & VEGA, APLC 3329 Florida Ave # 100, Kenner, LA 70065, Tel: (504)469-6699 CONAGRA FOODS: Court Rules in Suit Over Hunt's Tomato Products -------------------------------------------------------------- Jared Gabriele brought a putative class action against ConAgra Foods, Inc., on behalf of Arkansas consumers pursuant to the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and other state law causes of action, regarding allegedly deceptive and misleading labels on Hunt's tomato products. Gabriele alleged violations of the Arkansas, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (AFDCA) which served as the factual predicate for five causes of action: (1) deceptive trade practices in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA); (2) unjust enrichment; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (4) breach of express warranty; and (5) negligence. ConAgra sought to dismiss the complaint due to express preemption by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA); failure to allege facts sufficient to support his claims; and Gabriele's lack of standing to pursue claims for products he never purchased. Before the court were ConAgra's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and brief in support, Plaintiff's Memorandum Regarding the Safe Harbor Provision of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and ConAgra's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. District Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado in the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/e3Gxnxfrom Leagle.com, granted in part ConAgra's motion with respect to Gabriele's claims for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and for violations of the ADTPA, dismissed without prejudice Gabriele's claim for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and for violation of the ADTPA. The Court concluded that Gabriele's state law claims effectively parallel the FDCA, and were therefore not expressly preempted. The case is captioned, JARED GABRIELE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:14-CV-05183. Jared Gabriele is represented by: Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq. SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC 3333 S Pinnacle Hills Pkwy # 603 Rogers, AR 72758 Tel: (479)250-4764 - and - Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq. Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM 3 Lakeway Centre Ct #100 Lakeway, TX 78734 Tel: (512)263-5400 - and - Sarah Sterling Starns, Esq. -- sstarns@barettlawgroup.com -- BARRETT LAW GROUP P.A. ConAgra Foods, Inc. is represented by Angela M. Spivey, Esq. -- aspivey@mcguirewoods.com -- Joan S. Dinsmore, Esq. -- jdinsmore@mcguirewoods.com -- Richard Trent Taylor, Esq. -- rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Kevin A. Crass, Esq. -- crass@fridayfirm.com -- Roger Christopher Lawson, Esq. -- lawson@fridayfirm.com -- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP DETROIT: Suit by LaSalle Town Houses Coop Assoc Goes to Trial ------------------------------------------------------------- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the case captioned, LASALLE TOWN HOUSES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, NICOLET TOWN HOUSES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, LAFAYETTE TOWN HOUSES, INC., JOLIET TOWN HOUSES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, ST. JAMES COOPERATIVE, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant, Case No. 12-CV-13747 (E.D. Mich). Plaintiffs filed this class action suit under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sec. 2 of the Michigan constitution. They contended that there existed no rational basis for charging the commercial rate to housing cooperatives with more than five residential units. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant, the City of Detroit (City), acting through its Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD), arbitrarily overcharged them for water drainage services. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant charged them the commercial rate for drainage services as opposed to the residential rate. Plaintiffs further asserted that the residential rates and the commercial rates were substantially different for structures with water meters that were either one-and-a-half or two inches in size. Ditrict Judge Gershwin A. Drain of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the Opinion and Order dated July 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/msRXxJfrom Leagle.com, denied both Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment because the parties did not overcome their burden in demonstrating that the City violated the Michigan Constitution's Equal Protection Clause. Plaintiffs are represented by Kerry L. Morgan, Esq. -- kmorgan@pck-law.com -- Randall A. Pentiuk, ESq. -- rpentiuk@pck- law.com -- PENTIUK, COUVREUR Defendant is represented by Kathryn J. Humphrey, Esq. -- khumphrey@dykema.com -- Lauren M. Phillips, Esq. -- lmphillips@dykema.com -- Robert J. Franzinger, Esq. -- rjfranzinger@dykema.com -- Thomas H. Trapnell, Esq. -- thtrapnell@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Drama Therapy Institute's Suit Dismissed -------------------------------------------------------------- The District of Columbia filed a motion to dismiss in the case, ART & DRAMA THERAPY INSTITUTE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-1604(TSC) (D.D.C.). Plaintiffs Art & Drama Therapy Institute, Inc. (ADTI) and its owners, Margaret M. Dickerson and Sirkku Hiltunen, sued the District of Columbia and two of its agencies for a variety of claims in connection with the District's termination of ADTI as a Medicaid waiver services provider. Count I alleged a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) on the basis of age and national origin; Count II alleged a violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA) for discrimination on the basis of age and national origin; Count III alleged a separate violation of the DCHRA for retaliation; and Count IV alleged a violation of 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for, among other things, the infringement of Plaintiffs' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment as a result of inaccurate or improper unreliable evidence manufacture. In the motion, defendants argued that all counts shoud be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the Memorandum Opinion dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/7Nywm7from Leagle.com, granted Defendants' motion to dismiss because Plaintiffs could not establish diversity of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. The Court denied Plaintiffs' mtion for eave to file amended complaint. Defendants are represented by Chad Wayne Copeland, Esq., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & Andrew J. Saindon, Esq., D.C. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL EAST-LEX DINER: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Noe Rojas and Carlos Corte, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. East-Lex Diner, Ltd. d/b/a Midtown Restaurant, Nicko Karadimas, Athina Kapouralos, and Vasillo [Lnu], Case No. 1:15-cv-06195-KBF (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate Midtown Restaurant located at 155 East 55th Street, New York, New York 10022. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq. C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1124 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com cklee@leelitigation.com ECHOSPHERE LLC: Tajonar Compelled to Arbitrate PAGA Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the United States District Court for Southern District of California granted DISH's unopposed request to dismiss the case without prejudice and denied as moot the pending motion to amend the first amended complaint in the case captioned, JOSE TAJONAR, Plaintiff, v. ECHOSPHERE, L.L.C., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14CV2732-LAB (RBB) (S.D. Cal.). Jose Tajonar is a former employee of DISH Network California Service Corporation (DISH) and during her employment signed three arbitration argreements. He filed an employment-related class action against Defendants, including DISH. He alleges violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of himself and a putative class of others similarly situated, and also seeks to bring a representative action under California's Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). DISH filed an unopposed motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. Defendants argue that: (1) the Court, not an arbitrator, may decide whether class arbitration is available under the Agreement; (2) the Agreement forecloses class arbitration; and (3) because class arbitration is foreclosed, so too is class arbitration of the PAGA claim. In his Order dated August 10, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ISR0RZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Burns held that Tajonar's claims are subject to arbitration and he has to arbitrate his claims individually. Since the motion to abitrate is granted, the Plaintiff's motion to amend the first amended complaint is denied as moot. Deborah Labaty is represented by: Carl Pipoly, Esq. PIPOLY & CO. 14100 San Pedro, Suite 308, San Antonio, TX 78232 Tel: (210)824-8000 - and - Jonathan E. Rawlins, Esq. HODGES RAWLINS, LLC 508 Twilight Tr., Ste. 99 Richardson, TX 75080 Defendants are represented by Robert L. Soza, Jr., Esq. -- rsoza@jw.com -- Matthew Eric Vandenberg, Esq. -- mvanderberg@jw.com -- JACKSON WALKER, L.L.P. EMERY FEDERAL: Faces Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA, MWHL, MWPCL ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Pavsner, Richard L. Yankelov, Larry Goren, Kevin M. Booker, Robert M. Schiller, Eduardo Gomez, Brett Barrow, Duncan Tucker, Jason Lippman, Ralph Unglesbee, Terrence S. Brennan, Howard Yankelov, Chris Haubner, Joseph F. Bracken, Jr., Larry H. Lynn, Jr., and Julian Kappelman v. Emery Federal Credit Union, Case 1:15-cv-02252-JKB (D.Md.,July 31,2015), seeks to be paid all earned overtime, minimum and at least twice in each month wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Defendants employ/employed loan officers in selling mortgage products. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel A. Katz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GARY M. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tell: (301) 608-0880 Fax: (301) 608-0881 E-mail: dkatz@ggilbertlaw.com - and - Lucy B. Bansal, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF GARY M. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tell: (301) 608-0880 Fax: (301) 608-0881 E-mail: Ibansal@ggilbertlaw.com ENVIROCLEAN: Wooster Residents' Class Suit Reaches Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- Steven F. Huszai, writing for The Daily Record, reported that the class action suit brought by Wooster residents against a company allegedly emitting a noxious odor in the air for the past decade has reached a settlement. The case against Enviro-Tank Clean, also known as Enviroclean, was settled in Wayne County Common Pleas Court, and allows the company to continue operating at 515 Industrial Blvd. ESPESETH INC: Faces "Pope" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Andrew Pope, On behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Espeseth, Inc. and Wendy Espeseth, Case No. 3:15-cv- 00486-jdp (W.D. Wis., August 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay to minimum wage and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate a franchisee of Fish Window Cleaning and performs window cleaning services for residential and commercial customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Yingtao Ho, Esq. PREVIANT, GOLDBERG, UELMEN, GRATZ, MILLER & BRUEGGEMAN, S.C. 1555 N. River Center Drive, S. 202 P. O. Box 12993 Milwaukee, WI 53212 Telephone: (414) 223-0437 Facsimile: (414) 271-6308 E-mail: yh@previant.com FCA US LLC: Motion to Dismiss "Tomassini" Case Granted in Part -------------------------------------------------------------- Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the alternative, to strike Plaintiff's class allegations in the case, ROBERT TOMASSINI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-CV- 1226(MAD/DEP)(N.D.N.Y.). In or about April 2012, Plaintiff purchased a used 2010 Town and Country minivan manufactured by Defendant (the Minivan) from a wholesale dealer in New York. Plaintiff commenced the putative class action on September 8, 2014, alleging violations of New York General Business Law (N.Y.G.B.L.) Sec. 349 and breach of express warranty related to Defendant's use of metal alloy valve stems within the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) on certain minivans. In the motion, defendants argued that Plaintiff's deceptive omission claim failed because Plaintiff did not plead facts plausibly alleging that Defendant in fact possessed information that the valve stems were defective at the time of its alleged failure to disclose and that Plaintiff had not established that Defendant had a duty to disclose the existence of a defect. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York in the Opinion dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/316ZH8from Leagle.com, granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss, dismissed with prejudice Plaintiff's affirmative misrepresentation claim pursuant to N.Y.G.B.L. Sec. 349 and breach of express warranty claim and denied Defendant's motion to strike the class allegations. Plaintiffs are represented by: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELMER, ROBERT KEACH III, P.C. 1 Pine West Plaza Suite 109 Albany, NY 12205 Tel: (518) 434-1718 Defendants are represented by John W. Rogers, Esq. -- jrogers@thompsoncoburn.com -- Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq. -- kwisniewski@rogerscoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'aunoy, Esq. -- sdaunoy@rogerscoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN LLP GENERAL MILLS: Court Narrows, Stays Proceedings in "Backus" Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District Court for Northern District of California granted in part General Mills' Motion to Dismiss and granted General Mills' Motion to Stay the case under the primary jurisdiction doctrine in the case captioned, TROY BACKUS, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-01964-the (N.D. Cal.). Troy Backus' putative class action challenges General Mills' practice of selling baking mixes that include trans fats in the form of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils ("PHOs"). Backus alleges that "Defendants manufacture, distribute, and sell a variety of baking mix products containing partially hydrogenated oil." He alleges that he purchased General Mills baking mixes "approximately 20 times a year over the past four years" and that he "repeatedly purchased and consumed" the mixes since 2008. The presence of partially hydrogenated oils is indicated on the ingredient list of various General Mills baking mixes. Backus seeks to represent a class defined as "All persons who purchased in the United States, on or after January 1, 2008 (the "Class Period"), for household or personal use, boxed baking mix products manufactured or distributed by Defendants containing partially hydrogenated oil. In the motion, General Mills first argues that the Complaint must be dismissed because Backus lacks standing to bring his claims. Specifically, General Mills argues that Backus has not pled a cognizable "injury in fact" that is sufficient for Article III standing in this case. Backus argues that he has standing in this case in three ways: first, that consumption of trans fats caused inflammation in and other damage to his organs; second, that he suffered an economic injury in purchasing the products; and third, that consuming trans fats caused an increased risk of certain diseases. In the Order dated August 18, 2015 available at http://is.gd/sP1um5from Leagle.com, Judge Henderson concluded that Backus has Article III standing and he has stated claims under the "unlawful" and "unfair" prongs of the UCL. His first two injuries posed by the Plaintiff are sufficient for standing in the case, but his third argument fails since he has failed to state claims for public nuisance or for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. The case is stayed pending the FDA's determination of the food additive status of PHOs. No later than 14 days after the FDA's determination, the parties shall file a joint statement of no more than 15 pages setting forth their respective positions on the effect of the FDA's determination and recommending a further schedule for litigation in the case. Troy Backus is represented by: Gregory Weston, Esq. David Elliot, Esq. THE WESTON FIRM 1405 Morena Blvd Suite 201, San Diego, CA 92110 Tel: (619)798-2006 Defendants are represented by David T. Biderman, Esq. -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Charles Christian Sipos, Esq. -- CSipos@perkinscoie.com -- Joshua A. Reiten, Esq. -- JReiten@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP IDAHO: Balla Case to Continue for at Least Another Two Years ------------------------------------------------------------ The Idaho Press reports that Kevin H. Kempf, director of the Idaho Department of Correction, said "[W]hen I was appointed director of the Idaho Department of Correction nine months ago, I hoped we could soon bring to an end the Balla case -- the 34-year-old class action lawsuit by inmates over the quality of health care at Idaho State Correctional Institution. But U.S. District Judge David O. Carter's recent decision to extend the court's oversight of the facility till September 2017 means we have more work to do. As we go forward, please know this: The actions that Judge Carter ruled IDOC took with "improper purpose" occurred in 2011 and 2012. We now have new people and new policies in place. In fact, Judge Carter and even the inmates' attorneys acknowledge the department has made progress over the past three years. Here are just a few things we have done: * IDOC administrators and health care professionals now meet monthly with the inmates who represent the Balla class and their attorneys to address health care-related issues at the facility and provide an open forum to identify and resolve concerns. * IDOC has assigned two registered nurses, one full time and another part time, to audit the health care practices at the facility and ensure compliance with national standards for inmate health care. The nurses also meet with inmates to assure that medical staff is addressing their concerns. * IDOC has added a full-time clinical supervisor at ISCI to oversee mental health staff and ensure consistent and sound mental health treatment is provided to all inmates. An additional clinical supervisor audits the facility to ensure compliance with national standards. * IDOC has expanded the pharmacy at ISCI to make the delivery of medication to inmates more efficient and to decrease the amount of time inmates spend waiting in line. We built a new building at ISCI to accomplish this. Over the past nine months, IDOC has made a renewed commitment to being open and transparent. As proof, we invited the ACLU to see how we operate our most restrictive housing units at our two highest-security prisons -- Idaho Maximum Security Institution and Idaho State Correctional Center. The day-long tour included a visit to IMSI's Death Row. We also invited the ACLU to attend the department's recent annual strategic planning meeting. Our message: We want to work with our critics instead of continuing to wage expensive legal battles against them in court. We have also sent letters to all 105 state senators and representatives giving them 24/7 access to all of our prisons, reentry centers and probation and parole offices. The lawmakers do not need to tell us they're coming. They can stop by any time and we will show them anything they wish to see. Why are we doing this? Because we have nothing to hide. Because we want our elected officials to see with their own eyes how we are spending taxpayer dollars. I am disappointed, of course, that the Balla case will now continue for at least another two years, but I remain determined to bring it to a close. To do so, we will need to work closely with lawmakers, inmates and the organizations that represent them. We must prove to them through our actions that we are worthy of their trust. That will take time. I am hopeful the recent court ruling does not overshadow the sincere efforts of the many dedicated correctional professionals who have made so much progress over the past three years to finally put Balla to rest." JUD PROPERTIES: Sued Over Handicap Inaccessible Parking Spaces -------------------------------------------------------------- Leland Foster v. Jud Properties, LLC d/b/a Arby's, Case No. 2:15- cv-12985-MAG-MJH (E.D. Mich., August 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide handicap accessible parking spaces. Jud Properties, LLC operates and owns a fast food restaurant in Wixom, Michigan. The Plaintiff is represented by: Owen B. Dunn Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICE OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR. The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center 4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222 Toledo, OH 43615 Telephone: (419) 241-9661 Facsimile: (419) 241-9737 E-mail: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net - and - Matthew B. Bryant, Esq. BRYANT LEGAL, LLC 6600 W. Sylvania Ave., Suite 260 Sylvania, OH 43560 Telephone: (419) 340-3883 E-mail: mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com KAPOWSIN MEATS: Recalls Pork Products Due to Salmonella ------------------------------------------------------- Kapowsin Meats, a Graham, Wash. establishment, is recalling approximately 523,380 pounds of pork products that may be contaminated with Salmonella I 4,[5],12:i:-, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. FSIS has been conducting intensified sampling at Kapowsin Meats while this establishment took steps to address sanitary conditions at their facility after the original recall on August 13, 2015. Sampling revealed positive results for Salmonella I 4,[5],12:i:- on Whole Hogs for Barbeque, associated pork products and throughout the establishment. FSIS has deemed sanitary improvement efforts made by the Kapowsin Meats insufficient, and the scope of this recall has been expanded to include all products associated with contaminated source material. The establishment has voluntarily suspended operations. The whole hogs and associated items were produced on various dates between April 18, 2015 and August 26, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: - Varying weights of boxed/bagged Whole Hogs for Barbeque - Varying weights of boxed/bagged fabricated pork products including various pork offal products, pork blood and pork trim. The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "Est. 1628" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The product was shipped to various individuals, retail locations, institutions, and distributors in Alaska, Oregon and Washington. On July 15, 2015, the Washington State Department of Health notified FSIS of an investigation of Salmonella I 4,[5],12:i:- illnesses. Working in conjunction with the Washington State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), FSIS determined that there is a link between whole hogs for barbeque and pork products from Kapowsin Meats and these illnesses. Traceback investigation has identified 36 case- patients who consumed whole hogs for barbeque or pork products from this establishment prior to illness onset. These illnesses are part of a larger illness investigation. Based on epidemiological evidence, 152 case-patients have been identified in Washington with illness onset dates ranging from April 25, 2015 to August 12, 2015. FSIS continues to work with our public health partners on this ongoing investigation. Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea, abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after eating the contaminated product. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health care provider. FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen and in consumers' freezers. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them, and should throw them away or return the products to the place of purchase. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume pork and whole hogs for barbeque that have been cooked to a minimum internal temperature of 145ø F with a three minute rest time. The only way to confirm that whole hogs for barbeque are cooked to a temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.For whole hogs for barbeque make sure to check the internal temperature with a food thermometer in several places. Check the temperature frequently and replenish wood or coals to make sure the fire stays hot. Remove only enough meat from the carcass as you can serve within 1-2 hours. Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact John Anderson, Owner, at (253) 847-1777. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem KENTUCKY: Court Dismisses Suit v. Housing Authority as Malicious ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boris Nickolaevich Skudnov, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis complaint and amended complaint asserting neglect and violation of the statute of limitations when the Court allegedly dismissed his case against the Housing Authority of Kentucky. Chief District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville in the Memorandum Opniion dated June 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/tcKOM6from Leagle.com, dismissed Plaintiff's claims finding the claims as malicious and that the allegations in his complaint was within the doctrine of judicial immunity. The case is captioned, BORIS NICKOLAEVICH SKUDNOV Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEP'T OF HUD et al. Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-100-JHM (W.D.Ky.). KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Parties Directed to Conduct Discovery -------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Wendy Bettlestone of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania has given parties three months to conduct discovery in the case captioned, JENNIFER GORDON, VALERIE TANTLINGER, and JENNIFER UNDERWOOD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 15-730 (E.D. Pa.). Plaintiffs Valerie Tantlinger and Jennifer Underwood were cardholders of private label credit cards branded and serviced by Defendant Kohl's and originally issued by Chase Bank America, N.A. In connection with their credit card accounts, Tantlinger and Underwood were enrolled in a payment protection plan called Kohl's Account Ease (KAE). The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action arises out of the issuance of credit cards by Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. (Kohl's) and Capital One Financial Corporation (Capital One) to Jennifer Gordon, Valerie Tantlinger, Jennifer Underwood and, more particularly, out of certain payment protection and credit monitoring programs in which Defendants enrolled Plaintiffs in connection with those credit cards. Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that they were enrolled in the programs without informed consent and that the programs had little or no value. They claim violations of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act of 1977, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, rescission, and declaratory relief. In the motion to resolve the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b)(6), Kohl's contends that the Plaintiffs' claims are based on their enrollment in KAE and, therefore, that the claims accrued at the time of their enrollment. Because the Plaintiffs' enrolled in KAE at a time when their credit card agreements contained the Arbitration Provision, Kohl's argues that they are bound by that provision. Under Kohl's view, the October 10, 2010 change in terms letter, which removed the Arbitration Provision from the agreement, did not apply retroactively to claims that had already accrued before the letter was sent. In the Memorandum Opinion dated August 10, 2015 available at http://is.gd/3gem5Vfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bettlestone held that the record submitted by the parties were insufficient to allow the Court to determine which state's contract law to apply to the parties' agreements in order to decide the Plaintiffs' claims accrued. The Court revised the May 18, 2015 Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs are represented by Charles J. Kocher, Esq. -- ckocher@smbb.com -- Patrick Howard, Esq. -- phoward@smbb.com -- SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY & BENDESKY PC, Lee S. Shalov, Esq. -- lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- Wade C. Wilkinson, Esq. -- wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com -- MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP Defendants are represented by Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq. -- bryce@ballardspahr.com -- Daniel J.T. Mckenna, Esq. -- mckennad@ballardspahr.com -- Joseph J. Schuster, Esq. -- schusterj@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP & Sarah Schindler- Williams, Esq. -- swilliams@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS, LLP KRAFT HEINZ: Recalls Turkey Bacon Products ------------------------------------------ Kraft Heinz Foods Company, a Newberry, S.C. establishment, is recalling approximately 2,068,467 pounds of turkey bacon products that may be adulterated because it may spoil before the "Best When Used By" date, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The turkey bacon was produced between May 31, 2015, and August 6, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 56 oz. cardboard boxes (containing four plastic wrapped packages) marked Oscar Mayer "Selects Uncured Turkey Bacon" bearing the plant number P-9070, the line number RS19 and Product UPC 0 4470007633 0, and with "Best When Used By" dates of 24 AUG 2015 through 26 OCT 2015. --- 36 oz. cardboard boxes (containing three plastic wrapped packages) marked Oscar Mayer Turkey Bacon "Smoked Cured Turkey Chopped and Formed" bearing the plant number P-9070, the line number RS19 and Product UPC 0 7187154874 8, and with "Best When Used By" dates of 28 AUG 2015 through 20 OCT 2015. --- 48 oz. cardboard boxes (containing four plastic wrapped packages) marked Oscar Mayer Turkey Bacon "Smoked Cured Turkey Chopped and Formed" bearing the plant number P-9070, the line number RS19 and Product UPC 0 7187154879 3, and with "Best When Used By" dates of 3 SEPT 2015 through 30 OCT 2015. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P- 9070" inside the USDA mark of inspection, as well as the line number "RS19". These items were shipped nationwide and exported to the Bahamas and St. Martin. The problem was discovered by the establishment during an investigation into spoilage-related consumer complaints. FSIS has not received any confirmed reports of adverse reactions related to the consumption of these products. However, the company has received reports of illness related to the consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls. Consumers with questions about the recall can contact the Kraft Heinz Consumer Relations Center at (800) 278-3403. Media with questions about the recall can contact Jody Moore, Head of Communications, at (847) 646-4538. Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem LOUISIANA: Class Certification in Suit v. Sheriff et al. Affirmed ----------------------------------------------------------------- The defendants, a sheriff and five of his deputies, appealed the trial court's judgment certifying a class action suit against them in the case, CHERYL HILL, ET AL, v. SHERIFF SID HEBERT, ET AL, Case No. 15-11 (La. App. Ct.). The case involves the defendants' use of tear gas to disburse a crowd on September 24, 2006, during the Sugar Cane Festival in New Iberia, Louisiana. Various deputies deployed the tear gas three separate times at three different locations. The plaintiffs filed a class action petition for damages in April 2009. Their motion for class certification was filed in August 2011. Following hearings in the summer of 2013, the trial court granted the class certification. On appeal, defendants argued that the trial court erred in (1) finding the plaintiffs satisfied the commonality requirement; (2) finding that questions of law and fact common to the class predominate over questions affecting only individual members; (3) finding that a class action is superior to other available methods of fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy; (4) finding the typicality requirement was satisfied; and (5) finding that the class representatives fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. Judge Shannon J. Gremillion of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third District, Division Three, in the Opinion dated June 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/NvnasPfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the class certification because despite the substandard definition, the trial court could remedy the error on remand and remanded the action to the trial court to redefine the class based on the evidence that was put forth at the certification hearing. Plaintiff is represented by: James Patrick MacManus, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JAMES P. MACMANUS 225 West Main Street Lafayette, LA 70501 Tel:(337)234-1720 Defendants are represented by James L. Pate, Esq. -- jpate@neuner.com -- Ben L. Mayeaux, Esq. -- bmayeux@neuner.com -- Sara Rodrigue, Esq. -- srodrigue@neuner.com -- NEUNER PATE MANPOWERGROUP: "Enriquez" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Felipe Enriquez, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. ManpowerGroup, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. BC 585745, was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv- 05998-JAK-E to the proceeding. The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims. The Plaintiff is represented by: Haik Hacopian, Esq. Zorik Mooradian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ZORIK MOORADIAN 5023 North Parkway Calabasas Encino, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 876-9627 Facsimile: (888) 783-1030 E-mail: haik.hacopian@gmail.com zorik@mooradianlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Frank L. Tobin, Esq. James Patrick Allen, Esq. Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Timothy L. Johnson, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMIOAK AND STEWART PC 4370 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 990 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (858) 652-3100 Facsimile: (858) 652-3101 E-mail: frank.tobin@ogletreedeakins.com Patrick.Allen@ogletreedeakins.com spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com MDC PARTNERS: Firefighters Pension Plan Files Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighter Pension Plan and on Behalf of all others similarly-situated, v. MDC Partners, Inc., Miles S. Nadal, David B. Doft, and Michael C. Sabatino, Case 1:15-cv-06034 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2015), seeks relief and judgments pursuant to the U.S. Securities Exchange Act on behalf of all persons who purchased MDC Class A subordinate voting shares (referred to herein as "common shares" or "common stock") between September 24, 2013 and April 27, 2015, inclusive. MDC is a holding company that provides a range of customized marketing, activation, communications and consulting services via its subsidiaries. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Tel: 631/367-7100 Fax: 631/367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Robert A. Sugarman SUGARMAN & SUSSKIND, P.A. 100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Tel: 305/529-2801 Fax: 305/447-8115 MDC PARTNERS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm, reminds investors in MDC Partners, Inc. ("MDC" or the "Company") MDCA, +0.40% of the September 29, 2015 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company and certain officers. The lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased MDC securities between September 24, 2013, and April 27, 2015 ("Class Period"). The complaint alleges that MDC's SEC filings materially understated the Company's executive compensation while its financial statements failed to disclose certain related party transactions. The complaint also claims that the Company's reported goodwill was materially overstated. Specifically, on April 27, 2015, MDC announced its financial results for the period ended March 31, 2015 and disclosed that the SEC had been conducting a formal investigation into the Company's reporting of executive compensation and goodwill. The Company also announced the creation of a Special Committee to conduct an internal investigation in regards to the reimbursement of expenses purportedly incurred by defendant Miles Nadal, MDC's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and President during the Class Period. After this announcement, the MDC share price fell from a closing price of $27.98 per share on April 27, 2015 to a closing price of $20.20 on August 8, 2015 -- $7.78, or a 27.9% drop. Request more information now by clicking here: www.faruqilaw.com/MDCA. There is no cost or obligation to you. Take Action If you invested in MDC stock or options between September 24, 2013 and April 27, 2015 and would like to discuss your legal rights, visit www.faruqilaw.com/MDCA. You can also contact us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com. Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding MDC's conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others. Richard Gonnello, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (877) 247-4292 FAX 212) 983-9330 www.faruqilaw.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Illegally Terminates Benefit Claims, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Calogero Croce v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-13212 (D. Mass., August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful termination of Long-Term Disability Policy Plan benefits, specifically by failing to ensure that its claim procedures contain administrative processes and safeguards designed to ensure that benefit claim determinations are made in accordance with governing plan documents. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company operates a life insurance company doing business in Massachusetts. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan T. Macedo, Esq. Vincent A. Murray Jr., Esq. MURRAY LAW OFFICE 2 Center Plaza, Suite 620 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 720-4411 Facsimile: (617) 723-5370 E-mail: Macedo.jonathan@gmail.com vmurray@murraylawoffice.com MEXICAN GASTRONOMY: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Workers Discharge ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alix Pierre, and other similarly situated individuals v. Mexican Gastronomy International LLC d/b/a Cantina La Veinte, Case No. 31241223 (D. Fla., August 24, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's alleged wrongful, retaliatory discharge of employees. Mexican Gastronomy International LLC owns and operates a restaurant and hotel in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305) 416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com MIDLAND FUNDING: Motion to Remand "Murray" Case Granted in Part --------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiff filed a motion for remand to state court in the case captioned, CASSANDRA A. MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, Defendant, Case No. JKB-15-0532 (D. Md.). Plaintiff Cassandra A. Murray filed her Class Action Complaint & Request for Jury Trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Maryland, on April 25, 2014. The complaint alleged that "Midland engaged in collection activities in more than 1,000 occurrences in the State of Maryland during the class period by taking actions, in the form of collection lawsuits, to collect debts from Plaintiff Class members." The case was removed on February 24, 2015, by Defendant under the auspices of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d) and Sec. 1453 (2015). In the motion, Plaintiff claimed that the removal was untimely, and argued that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. District Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in the Mamorandum dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/OlYXqUfrom Leagle.com, granted in part the motion to remand as to Counts I and II as required by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and denied in part as to the Counts III, IV and V. Plaintiff is represented by Phillip R. Robinson, Esq., at CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC, - and - Scott C. Borison, Esq. LEGG LAW FIRM LLP 5235 Westview Dr. Suite 100 Frederick, MD 21703 Tel: (301) 620-1016 Defendant is represented by Amy Estelle Askew, Esq. -- aaskew@kg-law.com -- James P. Ulwick, Esq. -- julwick@kg-law.com -- Steven Andrew Book, Esq. -- sbook@kg-law.com -- KRAMON AND GRAHAM PA MOBILEIRON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports -------------------------------------------------------------- Chaile Steinberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mobileiron, Inc., et al., Case No. 115-cv- 284761 (D. Cal., August 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading registration statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Mobileiron, Inc. provides a purpose-built mobile information technology platform that enables enterprises to secure and manage mobile applications, content, and devices while providing their employees with device choice, privacy, and a native user experience. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian J. Robbins, Esq. George C. Aguilar, Esq. Jay N. Razzouk, Esq. ROBBINS ARROYO LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com MRM SUPERMARKETS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Olivares" Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- Hector Olivares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MRM Supermarkets, Inc. d/b/a Constantin's Breads and also d/b/a Dallas Gourmet Bakery and Mark R. Molter, Case No. 3:15-cv-02760-L (N.D. Tex., August 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly. The Defendants own and operate a bakery in Dallas Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: J.H. Zidell, Esq. Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq. Joshua A. Petersen, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.C. 6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112 Dallas, TX 75240 Telephone: (972) 233-2264 Facsimile: (972) 386-7610 E-mail: zabogado@aol.com rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net josh.a.petersen@gmail.com MUSIC GROUP MACAO: Court Denies in Part Motions to Seal Docs ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned, MUSIC GROUP MACAO COMMERCIAL OFFSHORE LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. DAVID FOOTE, Defendant, Defendant(s), Case No. 14-CV-03078-JSC (N.D. Cal.), parties filed administrative motions to seal documents submitted in connection with the briefing on certain motions. The case stemmed from a cyber attack on the global computer network and communication systems of Plaintiff Music Group Macao Commercial Offshore Limited. Plaintiff asserted that the cyber attack occurred due to the failures of Defendant David Foote. The Court recently issued an Order denying Defendant's motion for summary judgment, granting Defendant's motion for leave to file supplemental evidence in support of summary judgment, denying Plaintiff's motion for continuance under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 56(d), and denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Califronia in the Order dated June 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/5qheF1from Leagle.com, denied in part the parties' administrative motions to file under seal. Plaintiffs are represented by: Anne E. Smiddy, Esq. AD ASTRA LAW GROUP, LLP 582 Market St Suite 1015 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: (415)795-3579 Defendants are represented by Andrew Patrick Holland, Esq. -- aholland@thoits.com -- Jared Michael Ahern, Esq. -- jahern@thoits.com -- Mark Vincent Boennighausen, Esq. -- mboennighausen@thoits.com -- THOITS LAW, PC NATIONAL BEEF: Court Approves Settlement in "Barbosa" ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the United States District Court for District of Kansas approved a revised settlement in the case captioned, VALENTE SANDOVAL BARBOSA and CAROLINA GAYTAN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 12-2311-KHV (D. Kan.). Defendant operates a beef slaughtering and processing plant which employs more than 2,000 hourly employees in Liberal, Kansas. During the relevant time, defendant required hourly production employees to use an electronic security card, or "ID badge." Upon arriving at work each day, employees would swipe their ID badges to enter the plant's security gate. After entering the plant, they would again swipe the badges to clock in and out of their shifts. Defendant did not use the badges to record compensable wages. Instead, defendant used a "gang time" system, which paid hourly production employees for only the time that they work on a running production line. Under the "gang time" system, both DD Pay Position and Non-DD Pay Position hourly production employees typically spent uncompensated time before, during and after each shift performing and waiting in line to perform various tasks. The daily tasks which hourly production employees typically performed without pay included (1) pre-shift waiting in line to receive and/or to sanitize equipment; (2) pre-shift sanitizing equipment; (3) pre-shift walking from the locker room to sanitization stations and assigned work stations; (4) doffing protective gear during unpaid lunch breaks; (5) waiting in line to receive and receiving sanitary equipment during unpaid lunch breaks; (6) waiting in line to sanitize equipment and sanitizing equipment during unpaid lunch breaks; (7) re-donning protective gear during unpaid lunch breaks; (8) processing meat on the production line after the line has stopped running at the end of the shift; (9) post-shift waiting in line to sanitize equipment and sanitizing equipment; (10) post-shift waiting in line for inspection of sanitized equipment; (11) post-shift waiting in line to receive protective equipment for the next shift; and (12) post- shift walking from the production floor to sanitization stations and the locker room. On May 21, 2012, Valente Sandoval Barbosa and Carolina Gaytan filed putative collective action claims for alleged violations of the FLSA. See Complaint. Plaintiffs asserted that defendant's gang time compensation system failed to fully compensate hourly production workers for all hours worked. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, plaintiffs seek damages for straight-time and overtime compensation and liquidated damages for time spent performing uncompensated tasks. Plaintiffs also seek attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs and expenses. The parties participated in mediation on July 10, 2013. Thereafter they agreed to settle. Under the terms of the settlement, National Beef will pay a total of no more than $350,000, which will be allocated as follows: $196,680 available to the 480 collective action members; $100,320 for attorneys' fees; $46,000 for litigation costs; $3,500 service payment to plaintiff Barbosa; and $3,500 service payment to plaintiff Gaytan. In her Memorandum and Order dated August 18, 2015 available at http://is.gd/UrhdbGfrom Leagle.com, Judge Vratil found that plaintiffs' lodestar calculation is inaccurate and held that the correct lodestar calculation is $54,582.35. Plaintiffs' counsel may recover its requested costs of $46,000 and reasonable attorneys' fees of $68,058.10. The Court directed the class counsel to mail notice of settlement and withdrawal of consent on or before September 14, 2015. Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark A. Kistler, Esq. Michael F. Brady, Esq. BRADY & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE 1940 5th Ave #202, San Diego, CA 92101, Tel: (619)544-9111 Defendants is represented by Craig S. O'Dear, Esq. -- scodear@bryancave.com -- Jennifer L. Berhorst, Esq. -- jlbernhorst@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, - and - Sara Kay Butler, Esq. MARINER HOLDINGS, LLC Pinnacle Corporate Centre IV 4200 West 115th Street, Suite 100 Leawood, KS 66211 Tel: (913)647-9700 NESTLE INDIA: Confident on Defending Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- The Economic Times reports that after getting a reprieve from the Bombay High Court on Maggi ban, Nestle India has said it is confident of defending the INR640-crore class action suit filed by the government against it before NCDRC. ". . . we are confident of defending ourselves when called upon to do so," a company spokesperson said in an e-mailed response. He said the company was disappointed with the "unprecedented step of filing of a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against Nestle India". When asked if Nestle India plans a counter suit against the government, the spokesperson said: "We will study the issue when we receive the formal details." He said based on media reports, the complaint by the government "makes similar allegations which were made to ban the product on June 5, 2015. These issues were awaiting judgement by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court." The Bombay High Court had lifted the ban slapped by food regulators on nine variants of Maggi noodles in India in June while asking Nestle to go in for fresh tests. On the other hand, the Consumer Affairs Ministry filed a class action suit against Nestle India seeking about INR640 crore in damages for alleged unfair trade practices, false labelling and misleading advertisements. It was for the first time that the ministry dragged a company to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) using a provision in the nearly three-decade-old Consumer Protection Act. Reiterating that Nestle India remains committed to working with FSSAI, FDA Maharashtra and other stakeholders, he said: "We hope that this issue will be resolved soon." On the company's preparedness to bring back Maggi in the market, he said: "The process of bringing Maggi noodles back on the shelves is lengthy and complex. It requires alignment with several stakeholders, including our suppliers, distributors and retailers, among others, as well as our continuous engagement with the authorities." He further said that the Maggi noodles business, which is an important part of Nestle India "is currently at a standstill". "It is Nestle India's endeavour to get Maggi noodles back on the shelves as soon as possible for the benefit of our consumers," the spokesperson said. In June, central food safety regulator FSSAI had banned Maggi noodles, saying it was "unsafe and hazardous" for consumption and the company also withdrew the product from the market. NEVADA: Health Dept. Sued Over Fees for Medical Marijuana Cards --------------------------------------------------------------- Carri Geer Thevenot, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reported that a 42-year-old Las Vegas man with a history of migraine headaches has filed a class-action lawsuit against the state of Nevada over the fees it charges for medical marijuana registration cards. The complaint, filed in Clark County District Court, says the state has engaged in fraud and unjust enrichment by accepting fees for registration cards without giving patients a legal source for obtaining marijuana. "This lawsuit also raises critical constitutional questions about health care and the equal protection of our citizens' access to health care," the complaint says. Las Vegas attorney Jacob Hafter represents the plaintiff, identified only as "John Doe," who filed the 20-page complaint "on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly situated." Spokeswoman Patty Cafferata said the Nevada attorney general's office does not comment on pending litigation. The lawsuit specifically names the state Department of Health and Human Services and Gov. Brian Sandoval as defendants. "While the defendants have been accepting the fees for the registration cards, and have been issuing such, they have failed to license any dispensaries in Clark County, to date," the complaint says. In fact, the state has issued a final registration certificate to one Clark County dispensary, Euphoria Wellness, but the business has not opened amid disputes with the county about how it can obtain marijuana. The lawsuit seeks a ruling that the fees associated with the registration cards are a violation of the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, "in so much as no patient has to pay a tax in order to be able to receive any other treatment regime prescribed or recommended by a licensed physician." In addition, the lawsuit seeks a ruling that the creation of a registry of patients is a violation of the same clause, "in so much as no patient has to register with the state in order to be able to receive any other treatment regime prescribed or recommended by a licensed physician." The complaint also says the payment of registration fees amounts to an unconstitutional taking of private property. Ultimately, Hafter wrote, "this case will require this court to address the next fundamental rights question -- whether access to health care, in whole or in part, is a fundamental constitutional right." According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff has suffered from migraines since he was 15, and only marijuana has succeeded in relieving the related nausea. He applied for his registration card from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2013 and paid the necessary fees before being issued a card that expired after a year. He later renewed his card. "Notwithstanding the lack of access to any 'medical' marijuana, defendants repeatedly took plaintiff's money and, in return, issued him multiple registration cards," the lawsuit says. Hafter estimates in the lawsuit that the potential class, which includes all Clark County residents who applied and paid for a medical marijuana registration card from the state, consists of more than 6,700 patients. The lawsuit seeks compensation "for all fees and costs associated with the acquisition of a registration card" and "for pain and suffering associated with the inability to obtain, legally, medical marijuana in Nevada." NICKA & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Degrassi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Beth Degrassi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nicka & Associates, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00577 (E.D. Tex., August 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Nicka & Associates, Inc. is a Texas corporation that provides medical coding and billing services for medical facilities throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC 1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100 Southlake, TX 76092 Telephone: (817) 416-5060 Facsimile: (817) 416-5062 E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com NINE ENERGY: "Dooley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Tyson Dooley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nine Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02433 (S.D. Tex., August 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Nine Energy Services, LLC is a nationwide oilfield services with significant completion and land drilling operations throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone (713) 751-0025 Facsimile (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com NTELOS HOLDINGS: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Shenandoah Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Sekerak, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. NTELOS Holdings Corp., et al., Case No. 11422 (D. Del., August 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of NTELOS Holdings Corp. to enjoin the proposed transaction to which NTELOS will be acquired by Shenandoah Telecommunications Company through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. NTELOS Holdings Corp. is a regional provider of digital wireless communications services to consumers and businesses primarily in Virginia and West Virginia, as well as parts of Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky. Shenandoah Telecommunications Company operates a telecommunications holding company that, through its operating subsidiaries, provides both regulated and unregulated telecommunications services to end-user customers and other telecommunications providers in Virginia, West Virginia, central Pennsylvania, and western Maryland. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Nixed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions Securities Litigation This Document Relates to: All Actions, Case No. 2:13- CV-01800-JWS (C.D. Cal.), defendants Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc., W. Christopher Chisholm, and Charles R. Gordon filed a motion to strike an amended complaint pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(m)(1). The Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) while plaintiffs moved pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(m)(1) to strike defendants' reply in support of their motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for leave to file a sur-reply. Plaintiffs alleged that Nuverra entered into an unprofitable "albatross contract" in "the February/March 2012 timeframe" under which it agreed to provide its services at a "discount of 30% or more" to E&P driller EOG Resources, Inc. at the Eagle Ford basin in Texas. It alleged that Nuverra misled the investing public by making positive statements about the company while the EOG deal was causing it to lose substantial sums of money at the Eagle Ford site. Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick of the United States District Court for the Central District of California in the Order and Opinion dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/dErNdx from Leagle.com, granted with prejudice Defendants' motion to dismiss because Plaintiff failed to state a claim and denied Defendants' motion to strike at dockets 69 and 76 because the court's decision did not consider any of defendants' arguments that plaintiffs contend were raised for the first time in reply. Plaintiff is represented by: Betsy C Manifold, Esq. Francis M Gregorek, Esq. Marisa C Livesay, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Ave New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212)545-4600 OHNH EMP: Faces "Kovalchuk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Stacey Kovalchuk and Gidget L. Petronelli, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. OHNH EMP, LLC, Water Leasing Co. LLC a/k/a Chardon Healthcare Center and Communicare Family of Companies aka Healthcare Facility Management, LLC, Case No. 1:15- cv-01689 (N.D. Ohio, August 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay non-exempt employees overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Defendants own and operate a nursing care facility in Chardon, Geauga County, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric M. Allain, Esq. ALLAIN LEGAL, LTD. 28906 Lorain Road,, Suite 101 North Olmsted, OH 44070 Telephone: (440) 249-0932 Facsimile: (440) 540-4538 ON DECK: Faces "Malafsky" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Isaac Malafsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. On Deck Capital, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06187- AT (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading registration statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. On Deck Capital, Inc. is an online subprime commercial lender, headquartered in New York, New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (6310 367-1173 E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Shawn A. Williams, Esq. David W. Hall, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 288-4545 Facsimile: (415) 288-4534 E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com dhall@rgrdlaw.com - and - Frank J. Johnson, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 600 West Broadway, Suite 1540 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0063 Facsimile: (619) 255-1856 E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com - and - W. Scott Holleman, Esq. JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP 99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 802-1486 Facsimile: (212) 602-1592 E-mail: scotth@johnsonandweaver.com PERFORMANT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Simmons" Suit for TCPA "Breach" --------------------------------------------------------------- Erica Simmons, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Performant Technologies, INC., Case 2:15-cv-05804-FMO- AJW, (C.D. Cal, July 31, 2015), seeks damages or equitable remedies resulting from defendants alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Defendant is a company that "helps organizations enhance revenue and contain costs by preventing, identifying and recovering delinquent and improperly paid assets." The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr. #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (877) 206-4741 Fax: (866)633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Class Cert Bid for Erotic Dancers Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the United States District Court for Western District of Washington granted Plaintiff's motion to certify a class in the case captioned, JANE ROE 1 and JANE ROE 2, Plaintiff, v. JULIE ANDERSON, PIERCE COUNTY, and DAVID VAN VLEET, Defendant, Case Nos. 3:14-CV-05810 RBL. Plaintiffs are an erotic dancer and a manager at Dreamgirls at Fox's, a Parkland Washington erotic dance studio. Erotic dancers and managers are required to be licensed under local law. Defendant David Van Vleet, a private citizen, filed a Public Records Act (PRA) disclosure request with Defendant Pierce County Auditor Julie Anderson seeking the Dreamgirls' employees' personal information. Anderson informed the Plaintiffs of Van Vleet's request and of her intention to disclose the information to him unless Plaintiffs obtained an injunction. Plaintiffs sued, seeking to temporarily and permanently enjoin the disclosure not just to Van Vleet, but to any member of the general public. They also move to certify as a class of some 70 similarly situated erotic dance studio workers in Pierce County, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23 as follows: "Plaintiffs seek certification of a class that includes every licensee of a Pierce County erotic dance studio dancer license and Pierce County erotic dance studio manager license issued pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter 5.14. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Defendants have not responded to Plaintiffs' motion." In his Order dated August 10, 2015 available at http://is.gd/rxI1S6from Leagle.com, Leighton held that Plaintiffs' proposed class meets all of the requirements for certification. The class is numerous, common questions predominate, the named Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the class, class-wide resolution is superior to other available methods of resolution, and the named Plaintiffs and their counsel will adequately represent the class. Plaintiffs are represented by: Gilbert Henry Levy, Esq. Jennifer Kaplan, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF GILBERT H. LEVY 2003 Western Ave # 330, Seattle, WA 98121 Tel:(206)443-0670 PILOT CORP: Appeals Court Wants Evidentiary Hearing in Star Case ---------------------------------------------------------------- Nationwide trucking company, Star Transport, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, which owned a network of truck stops and supplied fuel to Star. In the lawsuit, Star alleged Pilot fraudulently breached an oral agreement to sell fuel to Star at certain discounted rates with certain rebates and wrongfully converted funds. In a judgment dated October 7, 2014, the trial court (1) denied Pilot's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens; (2) granted Star's motion in limine to exclude evidence of a certain promissory note between the parties; and (3) denied Pilot's exception of prematurity and motion to stay proceedings pending arbitration. On appeal, Pilot sought review of the decision arguing that the trial court erred in its ruling. Pilot also filed an application for supervisory writs. Judge Madeleine M. Landrieu of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Fourth District in the Opinion dated June 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/UiFef3from Leagle.com, remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing and a decision upon the issue of the validity of the arbitration provision. The Appeals Court concluded that the trial court erred in denying the exception of prematurity without having first held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there was fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause. The appellate case is, STAR TRANSPORT, INC. v. PILOT CORPORATION, ET AL. STAR TRANSPORT, INC. v. PILOT CORPORATION, ET AL, Case No. 2014-C-1228, C/W No. 2014-CA-1393 (La. App. Ct.). Plaintiff is represented by Michael W. Magner, Esq. -- mmagner@joneswalker.com -- Edward D. Wegmann, Esq. -- ewegmann@joneswalker.com --Virginia W. Gundlach, Esq. -- vgundlach@joneswalker.com -- Brittany M. Simpson, Esq. -- bsimpson@joneswalker.com -- JONES WALKER LLP Defendant is represented by: Joseph M. Bruno, Esq. Meelissa A. DeBarbieris, Esq. BRUNO & BRUNO, LLP 4298 Elysian Fields Ave New Orleans, LA 70122 Tel: (504)284-8733 PLAQUEMINES: East Bank Residents Set to Get Katrina Levee Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Alexander-Bloch, writing for NOLA.com, reported that Plaquemines Parish east bank property owners during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are set to get a combined $2 million to settle their 2006 claims that parish government did not properly maintain the east bank's back levee prior to Katrina, and as a result the levee failed. "Plaintiffs have alleged that the failure of these levees systems was preventable and (Plaquemines government's) failure to inspect and maintain these levee systems caused significant injury to the people, property and businesses within these levee systems," the preliminary settlement notice says. The parish's Pittsburgh, Pa.-based insurance company, National Union Fire Insurance Co., has agreed to create the $2 million fund for payments to the class members who send in a valid claim form, postmarked no later than Sept. 18. A person's share of the fund will depend on the number of valid claim forms and the specific damages. Ad-hoc state Judge Frank Foil is set to hold a 10 a.m., Oct. 9, fairness hearing at the 25th Judicial District Court in Belle Chasse to hear any objections and then decide whether to approve the proposed settlement. Plaintiffs' attorneys would receive up to 25 percent of the proposed fund to pay for their fees and expenses. The money comes on top of an about $23.2 million settlement that Plaquemines government agreed to since Katrina strictly for east bank levee improvements and maintenance. The Orleans, East Jefferson and Lake Borgne Levee district entered into a similar class action settlement in 2009 for their role in the failure of east bank hurricane levees in the New Orleans area during Katrina. That $20 million settlement also was to be paid by the levee districts' insurance company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. East bank residents were notified of how to apply for their share of the levee districts' settlement, estimated at $1 to $463, in November 2014. The newly proposed settlement makes clear that Plaquemines does not admit blame and that National Union does not admit its policy insured the government for the storm damages. Instead, it says the defendant is agreeing to the settlement to avoid the risk of trial and the plaintiffs are agreeing so that people affected would receive some compensation. "National Union believes that the insurance policy at issue does not insure (Plaquemines government) for levee failure and that Hurricane Katrina was an Act of God that would prevent plaintiffs from recovering any damages," the notice says. "The defendant also argues that no one can distinguish between flood waters that came through a levee versus flood water from rain or other sources for which they are not responsible." "Plaintiffs believe that the insurance policy does provide coverage and that (Plaquemines government) was negligent in maintaining the levees." If individuals want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue National Union on their own about the claims covered by the settlement, then they must take steps to opt out of the settlement by sending a letter postmarked by Aug. 20 to PPG Katrina Levee Settlement Exclusions, P.O. Box 82565, Baton Rouge, LA 70884. Those wishing to be excluded from the settlement must include their name, address, telephone number, date of birth and signature. If he approves the settlement, Foil would appoint someone to review all claims and make recommendations on how much money, if any, each class member should receive, according to the settlement notice. PRECISIONS CASTPARTS: Sued Over Proposed Bershire Merger -------------------------------------------------------- Kevin L. Harden, writing for Portland Tribune, reported that a second shareholder has sued Precision Castparts board members to block the $37.2 billion purchase by Bershire Hathaway Inc. Attorneys for Victoria A. Shaev filed a second lawsuit, Aug. 17, in Multnomah County Circuit Court against eight Precision Castparts board members for what she claimed were terms of a merger that "tilted the playing field in favor of Berkshire Hathaway by agreeing, in breach of their fiduciary duties to Precision Castparts shareholders, to a slew of provisions that unreasonably inhibit potential third-party bidders from launching topping bids." Shaev's lawsuit also seeks class-action status for shareholders dissatisfied by the merger. Shaev asked the court to block the transaction "until such time as the individual defendants act in accordance with their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value." Her lawsuit claimed the merger was "wrongful, unfair, and harmful to Precision Castparts' public shareholders who are members of the class, and represents an attempt by defendants to aggrandize their personal and financial interests at the expense of, and to the detriment of, the members of the class." The merger has attracted attention from law firms across the nation. At least five national firms have announced that they are "investigating" the transaction and are seeking contact from shareholders. 'Claims lack merit' The first shareholder lawsuit was filed, Aug. 13, by Susan McIlduff. That lawsuit claims that Castparts' board members breached their fiduciary duties by "directly breaching and/or aiding and abetting the other defendants' breaches of their duciary duties of loyalty, due care, candor, independence, good faith and fair dealing." The lawsuit lists eight members of the company's board among the defendants. McIlduff says the board members are considering a deal on a share price that was well below what the company's shares have been trading at in the past year. Precision Castparts spokesman Joe Hixson said Saturday, Aug. 15, that the "claims lack merit and PCC will contest them vigorously." Officials with Berkshire Hathaway officials have not commented on the lawsuit. No court date has been set for the case. 'A unique alignment' On Aug. 10, boards of Berkshire Hathaway and Precision Castparts unanimously approved an agreement to sell Castparts for $235 per share, a deal worth about $37.2 billion. The merger should be completed through its subsidiary NW Merger Sub Inc. "I've admired PCC's operation for a long time," said Warren E. Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway chairman and chief executive officer. "For good reasons, it is the supplier of choice for the world's aerospace industry, one of the largest sources of American exports." "We are very pleased to be joining forces with Berkshire Hathaway," said Mark Donegan, PCC's chairman and chief executive officer. "We see a unique alignment between Warren's management and investment philosophy and how we manage PCC for the long-term. This transaction offers compelling and immediate value for our shareholders, and allows PCC's employees to continue to operate in the same manner that has generated many years of exceptional service and performance to our customers." Precision Castparts has been a publicly traded company since 1968. The company has about 144 million shares outstanding, nearly 95 percent owned by institutional investors. Castparts board members held a special meeting, Aug. 17, in which all eight board members were re-elected to their posts. PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over Slack-Fill Deodorant Packaging ---------------------------------------------------------- Nicholas Parker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company and Procter & Gamble Productions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06172 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), arises out of the non-functional slack-fill packaging of the Defendant's Gillette(R) Odor Shield Invisible Solid, Old Spice(R) High Endurance Invisible Solid, Old Spice(R) Champion, and Old Spice(R) Classic antiperspirants and deodorants. The Defendants manufacture, market, sell and distribute, inter alia, various consumer products under well-known household brand names such as Gillette(R) and Old Spice(R). The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott A. Bursor, Esq. Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 989-9113 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: scott@bursor.com jmarchese@bursor.com ykopel@bursor.com pfraietta@bursor.com PROTECTIVE SERVICE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Octavio Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly v. Protective Service Victory Security Corp. and Mireya Morado, Case No. 1:15-cv-22965-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Protective Service Victory Security Corp. owns and operates a real estate company that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Olivia Hueber, Esq. Julia M. Garrett, Esq. Jamie H. Zidell, Esq. J.H. ZIDELL, P.A. 300-71st Street, Ste 605 Miami Beach, FL 33141 Telephone: (305) 865-6766 Facsimile: (305) 865-7167 E-mail: elizabeth.hueber.esq@gmail.com jgarrett.jhzidellpa@gmail.com ZABOGADO@AOL.COM RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL: Court Rules in LongPath Suit Over Merger --------------------------------------------------------------- LongPath Capital LLC asked the Court for Chancery of Delaware to determine the fair value of its shares in Ramtron International Corporation. The petitioner acquired its shares after the announcement of the merger between Ramtron and Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, and demanded appraisal pursuant to 8 Del. C. Sec. 262. Cypress, a non-party to LongPath's suit, issued a bear hug letter to Ramtron on June 12, 2012, offering to buy all of its shares for $2.48 per share. After Ramtron's board rejected the offer as inadequate, Cypress initiated a hostile tender offer on June 21, 2012, at $2.68 per share. Ramtron and Cypress eventually reached an agreement on a transaction price of $3.10 per share and signed a merger agreement on September 18, 2012. Following a subsequent tender offer -- apparently in an unsuccessful effort to acquire 90% or more of the outstanding stock or at least solidify Cypress' stock holdings -- and a stockholder vote, the long-form merger closed on November 20, 2012. Ramtron contended the merger price less synergies offered the most reliable measure of the fair value of its shares. That methodology, as applied by Ramtron's expert, yielded a value of $2.76 per share. The petitioner's expert, relying on a combination of a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis and a comparable transactions analysis, contended that the fair value was $4.96 per share. Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons of the Court for Chancery of Delaware in the Memorandum Opinion dated June 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/QQ8ZBNfrom Leagle.com, determined that the fair value of Ramtron as of the Merger date is $3.07 per share. The Court directed the counsel for Petitioner to submit, on notice, an appropriate final order to that effect, including provisions for pre- and post-judgment interest. The case is LONGPATH CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Petitioner, v. RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Respondent, Case No. 8094-VCP (Del. Ch.). Plaintiff is represented by: David A. Jenkins, Esq. Laurence V. Cronin, Esq. SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP 800 DE-52 Wilmington, DE 19801 Tel: (302)652-8400 Defendants are represented by A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq. -- Bayliss@AbramsBayliss.com -- Sara E. Hickie, Esq. -- Hough@AbramsBayliss.com -- ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP REICHENBACH RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Melissa Nordhaus v. Reichenbach Restaurant Group, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06689 (S.D.N.Y., August 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Reichenbach Restaurant Group owns and operates Reichenbach Hall located at 5 West 37th Street, New York, New York 10018. The Plaintiff is represented by: Melissa Nordhaus, Esq. CARUSO GLYNN, LLC 36 Peck Slip Nelson Blue Bldg. New York, NY 10038 Telephone: (718) 570-3338 ROY'S PIZZA: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Victor Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Roy's Pizza Inc. d/b/a Roy's Pizza, 151 Roy's Rest. Inc. d/b/a Flight 151, and Roy Savelli, Case No. 1:15-cv-06188 (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com SHUCKS MAINE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Bunthoeun Perez, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shucks Maine Lobster LLC, Ideal Global Solutions LLC, Casco Temp Agency LLC., John Hathaway, Senghap Roeun, and Solang Ung, Case No. 2:15-cv-00348-JAW (D. Maine, August 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a seafood processing facility in Richmond, Maine. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Schmidt, Esq. Peter Mancuso, Esq. ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW, PLLC 97 India St. Portland, ME 04101 E-mail: andy@maineworkerjustice.com SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS: Final Approval Hearing in February 2016 -------------------------------------------------------------- Plaintiffs filed motions to amend the complaint, for class certification, and for preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned, LAURA McCABE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-CV-04818 NC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs sued on behalf of all California residents who called defendant, alleging that defendant's recording policies violate the California Penal Code. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that defendant Six Continents Hotels, Inc. has a policy and practice of recording and/or intercepting, without the consent of all parties, customer-initiated calls routed to certain call centers. While plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendant's motion for summary judgment were pending with the Court, the parties settled the case. As part of the settlement, defendant agreed to pay $11,700,000 and to not oppose plaintiffs' motion for class certification. In addition, defendant agreed not to oppose plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add a plaintiff and claim for settlement purposes. Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the Order dated June 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/kABCCwfrom Leagle.com, granted Plaintiffs' plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint as proposed in the settlement agreement, conditionally for the purposes of settlement only; certified the proposed class; granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement; approved the propsed method of notice; and approved the proposed class counsel and class representative. The Court will hold a final approval hearing on February 3, 2016, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Plaintiffs are represented by: Eric A. Grover, Esq. Carey Gavin Been, Esq. KELLER GROVER LLP 1965 Market St San Francisco, CA 94103 Tel: (415)543-1305 - and - Scot David Bernstein, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 101 Parkshore Drive Suite 100 Folsom, CA 95630 Tel: (916) 447-0100 Defendants are represented by Edward Dean Totino, Esq. -- edward.totino@dlapiper.com -- Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq. -- anahit.tagvoryan@dlapiper.com -- Monica D. Scott, Esq. -- monica.scott@dlapiper.com -- Perrie Michael Weiner, Esq. -- perrie.weiner@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP SJAC FULTON IND: Court Rejects Class Cert. Bid in "Lovett" ---------------------------------------------------------- AYOTUNDA LOVETT, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SJAC FULTON IND I, LLC d/b/a Zaxby's, SJAC FOOD GROUPS, LLC d/b/a Zaxby's, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-983-WSD (N.D. Ga.), is a putative collective action against Defendants, who owned and operated various Zaxby's fast-food restaurants in the Atlanta, Georgia, area. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants misclassified its Assistant Managers, including Plaintiff, and Shift Supervisors as "exempt" employees, and, as a result, failed to pay overtime compensation to Plaintiff for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendants SJAC Fulton Ind I, LLC and SJAC Food Groups, LLC filed Objections to Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Non-Final Reports and Recommendations, issued on March 23, 2015, and April 28, 2015, in the case. District Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in the Opinion and Order dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/4ZVqgx from Leagle.com, adopted in part the Magistrate Judge's March 23, 2015 Non-Final Report and Recommendation as the recommendation regarding the Court's jurisdiction and denying conditional certification of a class including Shift Supervisors and denied the adoption as to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Plaintiff be found similarly situated to other Assistant Managers and that a class of Assistant Managers be conditionally certified. The Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class Certification; denied as moot Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and Defendants' Motion to Decertify Class; and granted Plaintiff's Motion to Strike and Defendants' Bill of Costs. Magistrate Judge Anand's April 10 and April 28, 2015, Non-Final Reports and Recommendations were declared moot and not adopted. Plaintiffs' are represented by: Mark Y. Thacker, Esq. THE THACKER LAW FIRM 125 Edinburgh S Dr #104 Cary, NC 27511 Tel: (919)275-0895 - and - Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200 Atlanta, GA 30303 Tel:(404) 965-8811 Defendants are represented by Angela Franceta Ramson, Esq. -- ramsona@gtlaw.com -- Brett T. Lane, Esq. -- laneb@gtlaw.com -- Ernest L. Greer, Esq. -- greere@gtlaw.com -- David W. Long- Daniels, Esq. -- danielsd@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP SO-CAL DOMINOIDS: CA Flips Order Denying Arbitration ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, HEATHER PHILLIPS et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SO-CAL DOMINOIDS, INC. et al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. D065381 (Cal. App. Ct.), Heather Phillips and Jonathan Reider sued So-Cal Dominoids, Inc. and D.O.S. Pizza, Inc., alleging, among other claims, wage and hour violations under the Labor Code on behalf of themselves and a putative class of employees. They also sought to bring a representative claim under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004. Dominos moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss plaintiffs' class and representative claims based on alternative dispute resolution agreements (ADR agreements) they signed in connection with their employment. The trial court denied the motion, ruling the ADR agreements "carved out" class and representative actions from binding arbitration and that the individual and class-wide claims were factually and legally intertwined, thus permitting plaintiffs' class and representative claims to proceed in superior court. On appeal, Defendant contended that (1) plaintiffs' ADR agreements require arbitration of all employment-related disputes on an individual basis and contain a valid class action waiver; (2) state laws purporting to render the agreements invalid on grounds of unconscionability are preempted; and (3) plaintiffs' PAGA claim, which Dominos concedes may not be waived, must be bifurcated from plaintiffs' individual claims and stayed pending arbitration of the individual claims. Judge Terry B. O'Rourke of the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One in the Order dated July 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/NuZii7from Leagle.com, reversed the order denying arbitration of plaintiffs' individual claims and directed the trial court on remand to address issues that it did not reach in view of its order, and affirmed the order to the extent it denied arbitration of plaintiffs' representative cause of action under the PAGA. Plaintiff is represented by John S. Addams, Esq. -- jaddams@nfaappeals.com -- NIDDRIE FISH & ADDAMS, Jeffrey L. Hogue, Esq. -- jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com -- HOGUE & BELONG, - and - Marc H. Phelps, Esq. THE PHELPS LAW GROUP 9595 Wilshire Blvd Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Tel (310)492-4370 - and - Roger R. Carter, Esq. THE CARTER LAW FIRM 2030 Main St Irvine, CA 92614 Tel: (888)914-6900 Defendant is represented by Jonathan D. Andrews, Esq. -- jandrews@albblaw.com, Michael J. O'Connor, Jr., Esq. -- moconnor@albblaw.com & Kelly Folger, Esq. - kfolger@albblaw.com -- ANDREWS LAGASSE BRANCH & BELL & Daniel John Turner, Esq. - dturner@vtzlaw.com -- VAN VLECK TURNER & ZALLER SOLARWINDS INC: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Securities Laws "Breach" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jorge Villa and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v. Solarwinds, Inc., Kevin B. Thompson and Jason Ream, Case 1:15-cv- 00652 (W.D. Tex, July 31, 2015), seeks to pursue remedies under the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of purchasers of SolarWinds securities between April 28, 2015 and July 16, 2015, inclusive. The Defendant sells infrastructure management software. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. Jaime J. Mckey, Esq. KENDAL LAW GROUP, LLP 3232 McKinney Ave,Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75204 Tell: (214) 744-3000 Fax: (214) 744-3015 E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com - and - Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAL LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 L.A., CA 90067 Tell: (310) 201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160 - and - Howard G. Smith, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem, PA 19020 Tell: (215) 638-4847 Fax: (215) 638-4867 E-mail: jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com SOUFUN HOLDINGS: Sued in Ohio Over False Business Advertisements ---------------------------------------------------------------- Xiaoguang Zheng (Zheng), Fuqing Chen (Chen), and Xudong Song (Song), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SouFun Holdings Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-01690-DCN (N.D. Ohio, August 24, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of false advertisement and fraud, specifically by representing that its services had characteristics of truthfulness, reliability, accuracy and up-to-date. SouFun Holdings Ltd. is a Delaware corporation that provides marketing, e-commerce, listing, and other services for China's fast-growing real estate market. The Plaintiff is represented by: Lei Jiang, Esq. LEI JIANG LLC 26943 Westwood Rd., Westlake, OH 44145 Telephone: (440)835-2271 Facsimile: (440)835-2817 E-mail: ljiang@LeiJiangLaw.com SOUTHEASTERN ARCHEOLOGICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Ruben Garcia, for himself and all others similarly situated v. Southeastern Archeological Research, Inc. and James Pochurek, Case No. 1:15-cv-00180-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., August 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Southeastern Archeological Research, Inc. is a Florida corporation that is in the business of providing archaeological consulting and monitoring services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Massey, Esq. MASSEY & DUFFY 855 E. Univ. Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 505-8900 E-mail: Massey@352law.com STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Court Trims Claims in "Digiacomo" Action ------------------------------------------------------------- Statebridge Company, LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class-Action Complaint in the case captioned, ROBERT DIGIACOMO, Plaintiff, v. STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-6694 (JEI) (D.N.J.). Plaintiff Robert DiGiacomo filed the instant class action against Statebridge, American Modern, American Modern's corporate parent American Modern Insurance Group (AMIG), and Midwest Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Ameritrac Business Solutions (Ameritrac), the wholly owned subsidiary of AMIG that acts as the program manager for American Modern's force-placed insurance programs. Alleging that American Modern, AMIG, and Ameritrac and Statebridge "manipulated the force-placed insurance market through collusive agreements involving kickback arrangements and other forms of improper compensation," Plaintiff brought suit against Statebridge for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. In the motion, Defendants argued that the case should be dismissed on the grounds that: a) all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine; b) Plaintiff cannot claim breach of contract because Statebridge was not a party to the contract, the contract authorized the actions alleged to be unlawful, and Plaintiff himself violated the contract; c) Plaintiff cannot claim breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, because Plaintiff has failed to allege that Statebridge deprived him of the benefit of his bargain or that Statebridge acted in bad faith; d) Plaintiff cannot claim breach of fiduciary duty, because no such duty exists between a mortgagor and mortgagee; e) Plaintiff cannot claim violation of the NJCFA, because Plaintiff has failed to allege that Statebridge engaged in an unlawful practice or that Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss; and f) Plaintiff cannot claim RICO violations, because Plaintiff has failed to allege a RICO enterprise or a pattern of racketeering activity. District Judge Joseph E. Irenas of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in the Opinion dated June 25, 2015, available at http://is.gd/ChrKOefrom Leagle.com, granted in part Defendants' motion as to the breach of contract claim and the remainder of the motion were denied. Plaintiffs are represented by: Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC 363 Bloomfield Avenue, 2nd Floor Montclair, NJ 07042 Tel: (973) 259-6990 E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com Defendants are represented by John M. Falzone, III, Esq. -- john.falzone@piblaw.com -- PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLC, and Lesley Mccall Grossberg, Esq. -- lgrossberg@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP TOWERS WATSON: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Peter Mills, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., Case No. 11423 (D. Delaware, August 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Towers Watson & Co. to enjoin the Defendants' attempt to sell the Company to Willis Group Holding plc for inadequate consideration. Towers Watson & Co. is a Delaware corporation that provides human capital, risk advisory, and financial management services worldwide. Willis Group Holding plc is an Ireland Public Limited Company that provides insurance brokerage, reinsurance, and risk management consulting services worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Donald J. Enright, Esq. Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1101 30th St. N.W., Suite 115 Washington, D.C. 20007 Telephone: (202) 524-4290 TOYODA GOSEI: Sued in Michigan Over Brake Hose-Price Fixing ----------------------------------------------------------- Halley Ascher, et al. v. Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd., Toyoda Gosei North America Corporation, TG Kentucky, LLC, and TG Fluid Systems USA Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-13000-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich., August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and customers in the United States for Automotive Brake Hoses. The Defendants are manufacturers of automobile components, optoelectronic products, and other general industry products. The Plaintiff is represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Devon P. Allard, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Facsimile: (248) 652-2852 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dpa@millerlawpc.com - and - Hollis Salzman, Esq. Bernard Persky, Esq. William V. Reiss, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 980-7400 Facsimile: (212) 980-7499 E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com - and - Marc M. Seltzer, Esq. Steven G. Sklaver, Esq. SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com TRICARE MANAGEMENT: Court Reopens "Flores" Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge Avern Cohn of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the request of Plaintiff to reopen the case captioned, JOE FLORES, an individual, and CONSUELO FLORES, as court-appointed conservator and guardian of JOE FLORES, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, TRICARE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY, and ROBERT M. GATES, Defendants, Case No. 11-12119 (E.D. Mich.). In 2011, plaintiff Consuelo Flores, on behalf of her father, Joe Flores (Flores) and others sued to challenge a decision by TRICARE Management Activity (TRICARE), a managed health care program for members of the uniformed services, retirees, and their dependents, to stop providing coverage to Flores. Flores suffers from "Locked- In Syndrome" which renders him paralyzed in all parts of his body expect for eye and eyelid movement. TRICARE denied coverage on the grounds that the care provided to Flores was "custodial" and not "skilled nursing care." Plaintiff sought relief under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). In the motion, Plaintiff asked for the Court to reopen the case and enter a final judgment which affirmed "TRICARE's Formal Review Decision" issued on May 22, 2012. The motion appeared to have been brought primarily so that plaintiff's counsel could file an application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which the time for doing so runs from the time a judgment was entered. District Judge Avern Cohn of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the Memorandum and Order dated June 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/LtTar7from Leagle.com, granted Plaintiff's motion directing the clerk of court to reopen the case and restore it to the active docket. Plaintiffs are represented by Brian M. Saxe, Esq. -- bsaxe@manteselaw.com -- David M. Honigman, Esq. -- dhonigman@manteselaw.com -- MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN & WILLIAMSON, PC Defendants are represented by Paul G. Freeborne, Esq., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNITED AIRLINES: Dismissal of Senior Discount Class Suit Upheld --------------------------------------------------------------- Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a fourth attempt by a pair of airline travelers to sue United for reducing their perks under a seniors program fell flat on Aug. 10, when a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court upheld the Cook County Circuit Court's dismissal of the case. Plaintiffs Brian Warner and Daniel J. Driscoll had filed a class action suit on behalf of themselves and other lifetime members of United Airlines' Silver Wings Plus program, which offered savings and other benefits to fliers 55 and older. Warner purchased a lifetime membership in 2000 and Driscoll purchased one in 2002, according to court documents. The men filed suit in 2012, charging United with breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and specific performance. The lawsuit claimed United had stopped providing benefits to lifetime members in the program and had essentially abandoned the program altogether. The circuit court dismissed the suit the following summer, noting that no copy of the breached contract or the terms and conditions the plaintiffs said had been violated had been attached. Within three weeks, the men had filed an amended complaint, attaching pieces of correspondence from United, but that complaint was also dismissed, as none of the attachments was an actual contract, the judge said. In 2014, Warner and Driscoll tried again, filing a second amended complaint. This time, the complaint said they had never executed a formal written contract with United, but that the terms of the contract were contained within the membership applications they had returned to the airline. They attached several exhibits to the second amended complaint, including a membership card, a screen shot of United's website, an email to Warner from United, and two redacted letters about the program sent to unknown people five or more years before Warner and Driscoll had joined the program. The circuit court again dismissed the complaint, and the appellate court upheld that decision. In United's motion to dismiss, it included archived web pages about the Silver Wings Plus Program and two affidavits from United officials. One affidavit specified that the program's terms and conditions reserved the airline's right to change or terminate the program at any time. The motion to dismiss also argued that the five-year statute of limitations had run out on the lawsuit, since the men claimed the changes to the program had happened in 2005 and they didn't file suit until seven years later. Warner and Driscoll filed a response, but, the court noted, it did not contain a counteraffidavit or any of the contract terms the court had asked for, nor did it address the statute of limitations argument. "The [c]ourt has given multiple opportunities now to attach the written instrument, and it seems as though there is a refusal to do that," the court wrote in its dismissal. "Because clearly there are terms and conditions out there." In the appellate panel's unpublished order issued under Supreme Court Rule 23, Justice Joy V. Cunningham wrote that Warner and Driscoll contradicted their own position, claiming that there was no written contract, while failing to submit any of the correspondence they said contained the terms and conditions they claimed had been breached. In fact, one of the letters attached to their second amended complaint referenced a membership acceptance form the court could have construed as a contract. They also never submitted an affidavit claiming that correspondence was inaccessible to them. Cunningham further wrote that even if the rules regarding written contracts did not apply, dismissal still would have been proper under the statute of limitations argument. Cunningham delivered the judgment, with justices Mathias W. Delort and Sheldon A. Harris concurring. UNITED STATES: DSHS Failures are Rarely Punished ------------------------------------------------ Will Drabold, writing for Yakima Herald, reported that the state of Washington's largest department is tasked with caring for the state's most vulnerable residents -- abused children, foster kids, mentally handicapped adults. But time and again, it has failed. Over the past eight years, the Washington state Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) has been hit with scores of lawsuits, ultimately paying $166.4 million for personal-injury claims. Many of the most severely injured were children who were tortured, starved or raped. Some died. DSHS employees behind these failures rarely are punished, The Seattle Times has found. From those scores of lawsuits, the newspaper selected one dozen of the high-cost, child-welfare cases for which records were readily accessible. Many of these cases made headlines and resulted in verdicts or settlements ranging from $750,000 to $11 million, some $75 million in all. Using court records, public records and interviews, the newspaper identified 48 DSHS staffers involved in the failures in these 12 cases. None of the 48 was fired or suspended. None was demoted or lost pay. That is according to DSHS, which ran the 48 names through its human-resources databases at the newspaper's request. (The database only shows records that affect compensation.) Whether any of the 48 staffers were given lesser forms of discipline, such as reprimand letters, is unclear. DSHS in May said it would takes several months to provide answers. (Recently, the agency said one staffer had been given a letter of reprimand. It hasn't completed its research.) Slightly less than half the 48 still work for DSHS; some have retired. The review of the 12 cases -- as well as several dozen interviews with current and former DSHS employees, state employee-union officials, personal-injury lawyers, children's advocates and others -- turned up some common failings: overlooked complaints of abuse; delayed or inept investigations; placement of children in unsafe homes. DSHS' lack of focus on personal accountability is a significant problem, said Tim Tesh, a personal-injury lawyer who has sued DSHS many times. Policymakers can suggest reforms, he said, but "often, it's that the worker didn't follow procedures that are already in place. What good does reform do you when the worker just doesn't follow them?" DSHS said paying a victim does not mean an employee made a mistake. Jennifer Strus since 2013 has been head of the Children's Administration, the division responsible for payouts of $141.4 million. She would not comment on how her predecessors handled employees who may have made mistakes years earlier. Any failures must be well-documented before the agency can take action, she noted. DSHS in recent years has improved training and how it tracks complaints of abuse and also reviews the performance of employees implicated in claims against the agency. Being a social worker is the "toughest job in state government," Strus said. A combination of large case-loads, employee turnover and budget cuts makes it "pretty hard to do great work," she said. Cheryl Schaefer, 28, isn't comforted by these words. She and three siblings suffered years of abuse in a foster home under DSHS supervision in northeastern Washington. Up until 2001, court records show, they were beaten, forced to overeat, throw up and eat their own vomit, and suffered sexual abuse. According to court records, Schaefer and her siblings said the caseworker repeatedly ignored their cries for help. A 2012 lawsuit, filed by Tesh against DSHS, was settled for $5.3 million. 'I can't do my job' Complaints about how DSHS handled foster kids and reports of child abuse have tagged the agency for years. In 1998, lawyers for 13 foster kids filed a class-action lawsuit against the state, saying foster children were being harmed across the board by inadequate care. The state Supreme Court, in the landmark 2003 Braam decision (named after one of the plaintiffs), upheld a lower court and put Washington's child-welfare system under judicial oversight. The Braam case led to several improvements, including sharply cutting back on children bouncing from one foster home to another. The court oversight continues, in part because a key court-ordered mandate remains unfulfilled: foster-child caseloads of 18 or fewer for 90 percent of social workers. Besides the court, state lawmakers recently required DSHS to be more accountable for mistakes. DSHS was required to do automatic reviews of botched child-welfare cases only when someone died in state care, a "fatality review." As of July 24, under "Aiden's Law," DSHS must review worker actions if a child experiences a "near fatality" within one year of a previous incident of abuse. State Sen. Steve O'Ban, R-University Place, who sponsored the legislation, called it an improvement. That lawmakers had to force DSHS to review such cases "speaks volumes," he said. Most of the multimillion-dollar settlements come from the DSHS Children's Administration division. There more than 1,800 social workers oversee nearly 10,000 children in foster care and looked into 90,000 reports of child neglect or abuse. Turnover is high -- about one in six staffers leaves each year. Starting pay can be as low as $32,688. Joyce Murphy, a social worker in Vancouver who's worked for a decade at the agency, said she has failed to see children once a month, as required by DSHS policy. She blames it on her caseload, which she says over the past four years has averaged about 25 children -- well above the national standard of 15 and the DSHS average of 19. "I can't do my job," she said. She worries each night that one of her clients will die on her watch. No one died in the case of two young Snohomish County boys, ages 3 and 6, who were being starved and beaten by their father and his girlfriend in 2006, but it does illuminate the tragic results when workers utterly fail to do their jobs. The case is one of many that reveals the personal consequences for such failures can be slight. Between May and July 2006, a neighbor filed four complaints with DSHS, saying two young boys were being starved and beaten by their parents. She would later say that no one at DSHS ever followed up with her, court records show. The father, Danny Abegg, and his girlfriend, Marilea Mitchell, kept a padlock on the refrigerator and withheld food to punish the boys. A social worker, Aubrey Kilgore, in one visit reported that the house "had plenty of food in it." He went back a second time after a sheriff's deputy, shopping at Wal-Mart, saw bruises on the face of the 3-year-old, and alerted DSHS. Kilgore required the parents to see a family therapist, documents show. The child-welfare case was transferred that fall to another social worker, Deanna Neff. Among her failures, she gave Abegg eight-days notice she would be visiting the home, giving him time to hide evidence of abuse. Nor did she speak to the more severely abused younger brother, Shayne, records show. A few months later, Ada Sharp, who had no experience or training investigating child abuse, was given the case, court records show. Other warning signs surfaced, records show, but Cherokee Screechowl, the area supervisor, ended the investigation in February 2007. A month later, someone alerted authorities that a little boy was being "starved." Paramedics rushed Shayne, now 4, to the hospital where he was found in urine-soaked clothes, emaciated, with a body temperature of 87 degrees. After being given food at the hospital, the boy told doctors not to let his parents know that he had eaten. A veteran paramedic later said he had not seen "a worse case of neglect or malnourishment." After Abegg and Mitchell were charged with first-degree criminal mistreatment, the case, with its sickening details and claims of DSHS failures, exploded in the news. Gov. Chris Gregoire asked for a special review, and DSHS said its employees failed to protect the two boys. At the time, a DSHS spokesman said two employees linked to the case had resigned. DSHS recently said one of the four did receive a letter of reprimand. Kilgore and Sharp still work at DSHS. Neff resigned from the agency. Screechowl resigned in 2007, came back in 2011 and then re-retired. Screechowl could not be located; the others did not return calls for comment. Shayne Abegg received $5 million from the state in 2009 after a judge compared him to a concentration-camp survivor. His older brother received $2.85 million two years later. 'It is a war zone' If the high-profile Snohomish starvation case didn't result in someone being punished, what sort of case would? "This story has been going on for 30 years," said Dennis Braddock, DSHS secretary from 2000 to 2005. He once described DSHS' culture as "bunkerlike" and said he tried to hold staffers to account but faced an uphill battle. "Republicans don't like administration," he recently said. "Democrats all side with the union. So management gets the short end of the stick in (employee) disputes." It's a proven formula: To effectively serve children and families, social workers need a reasonable number of cases to manage, a finding backed by decades of state and national studies. The average caseload for child-protective-services (CPS) workers -- Children's Administration employees who investigate reports of child neglect -- is 16, well above the national standard of no more than 12. Also, it takes on average two years for a CPS investigator "to become proficient," DSHS said. Greg Devereux, executive director of the Washington Federation of State Employees, which represents unionized DSHS staff, describes social-worker caseloads, burnout and turnover in dire terms: "It is a war zone." Some former DSHS officials and child advocates point to his union when noting that individual discipline doesn't always occur. DSHS is required to have substantial documentation to punish negligent employees, they assert, and the arbitration process can be time consuming. "That's ridiculous," Devereux said. The union makes sure DSHS "fairly holds people accountable." In the past eight years, the union went to arbitration on only two cases of Children's Administration social workers who were terminated, he said. One firing was upheld; the other employee was reinstated. "I don't think anyone in the field can credibly deny that there's a scary connection between overburdened workers and risk of harm to kids," said Ira Lustbader, litigation director of Children's Rights, a national organization that advocates and files lawsuits to bring accountability to child-welfare systems. Lustbader's organization has filed lawsuits in other states arguing high caseloads are a civil-rights violation for children because it puts them in harm's way. "These kids don't vote. They're poor. They're disproportionately of color. They're not a legislative priority," he said. Not held accountable Even so, heavy caseloads cannot always explain away mistakes or why they go unpunished. According to interviews with 10 plaintiff attorneys who have brought personal-injury cases against DSHS, none of them has heard of a social worker being disciplined for failing to protect someone. David Moody is a Seattle lawyer who has brought lawsuits against DSHS that resulted in $86 million in verdicts or settlements since 2000. "There's a constellation of warnings and a corresponding constellation of failures by DSHS to heed those warnings," said Moody, lawyer for the Abegg children. "No one is held accountable." DSHS Secretary Kevin Quigley declined to be interviewed. In an email, he wrote that the agency has an improved performance- evaluation system and is more aggressive about dismissing subpar workers during their probation period. "I understand the solution for some is to blame the caseworker every time a mistake is made, but when we are some 30 percent above a reasonable caseload, that can be like sending the Seahawks to play the Super Bowl with two-thirds of a team then firing them when they lose," Quigley wrote. Some officials note that the state does have another tool to hold DSHS accountable: The Office of Family and Children's Ombuds. Director Patrick Dowd says the office plays a neutral role when it intervenes in cases in which DSHS failed to act or was unreasonable. However, he said, his office's "focus is on the actions of the agency and not the specific caseworker." USAA CASUALTY: 11th Cir. Tosses Appeal in Insurance Refund Case --------------------------------------------------------------- Spouses James R. Allen and Diane Z. Allen appealed a district court's dismissal of their complaint against USAA Casualty Insurance Company, arguing Florida Statutes Sec. 627.7011(2) entitles them to a refund of the difference in premiums USAA would have charged for 25% rather than 50% building ordinance and law (BOL) coverage. After the Allens purchased BOL insurance from USAA covering 50% of their home's value, they suffered no losses triggering payment. The Allens sought to recover a portion of their premium payments because they asserted they would have elected to pay for BOL insurance covering only 25% of their home's value. Nonetheless, their position was that had they actually suffered a loss, they would have been entitled to 50% of their home's value, not 25%. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that Florida Statutes Sec. 627.7011(2) entitled them to a refund of the difference in premiums USAA would have charged for 25% rather than 50% BOL coverage. Circuit Judge Black of the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, in the Order dated June 25, 2015 available at http://is.gd/kJc1tSfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint finding that the district court did not err in its judgment that the plain language of Sec. 627.7011(2) did not require an insurer to obtain a policyholder's written consent on a form approved by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (Regulation Office) before issuing BOL coverage greater than 25%. The appellate case is captioned, JAMES R. ALLEN, DIANE Z. ALLEN, MATTHEW J. SCHALL, JUDITH A. SCHALL, Husband and Wife Individually and as Representatives of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A Texas Corporation, Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, A Texas Reciprocal Inter-Insurance Exchange and Unincorporated Association, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 14-13478 (11th Cir.). VELOCITY EXPRESS: Court Grants Motion on Successor Liability ------------------------------------------------------------ PHILLIP FLORES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VELOCITY EXPRESS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-05790-JST (N.D. Cal., November 9, 2012), is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a class action pursuant to California's Labor Code and Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs alleged that Velocity Express misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors when they were, in fact, employees. Because of the misclassification, Plaintiffs alleged that Velocity Express failed to pay Plaintiffs minimum wages and overtime. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Successor Liability and Joint Employer Status in the case. In the motion, Plaintiffs attempted to establish that Defendants Dynamex should be held responsible for Velocity's potential liability under the successor liability and joint employer doctrines. District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in the Amended Order dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/EZth0Bfrom Leagle.com, granted in part Plaintiffs' motion as to successor liability for Dynamex and denied as to summary judgment regarding Defendants' joint employer status. Plaintiffs are represented by Caleb Marker, Esq. -- c.marker@rlollp.com -- Christopher Paul Ridout, Esq. -- c.ridout@rlollp.com -- RIDOUT MARKER & OTTOSON LLP -- Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. -- jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- Timothy J. Becker, Esq. -- tbecker@johnsonbecker.com -- JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC Defendants are represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise, Esq. -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Alexander Hurd Scherbatskoy,Esq. -- ascherbatskoy@littler.com -- Emily Erin O'Connor, Esq. -- eoconnor@littler.com -- Jessica Xing Yun Rothenberg, Esq. -- jrothenberg@littler.com -- Robert G. Hulteng, Esq. -- rhulteng@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. VISION HOMES: Sued Over Breach of Home Improvement Contracts ------------------------------------------------------------ Maryann Immerso & Michael Immerso, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Vision Homes of New York, Inc. and John Geiger, Case No. 603508 (D.N.Y., August 24, 2015), arises out of the alleged breach of five home improvement contracts for the demolition and reconstruction of the Immersos' home after it was substantially damaged by Superstorm Sandy. Vision Homes of New York, Inc. owns and operates a construction company having a principal place of business at 7 Port Washington Road, Sound Beach, NY 11789. The Plaintiff is represented by: Beth E. Goldman, Esq. Jonathan Fox, Esq. NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP 7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 613-5095 Facsimile: (212) 714-6633 E-mail: bgoldman@nylag.org jfox@nylag.org WHOLE FOODS: Faces "Markman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Yochanan Markman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., John P. Mackey, Walter E. Robb III, and Glenda Jane Flanagan, Case No. 1:15-cv- 00681-LY (W.D. Tex., August 6, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Whole Foods Market, Inc. is a Texas corporation that owns and operates 417 natural and organic food stores worldwide. The Plaintiff is represented by: Sammy Ford IV, Esq. SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND 800 Commerce Street Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-7211 Facsimile: (713) 225-0827 - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ, LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 377-1181 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com WORLD EMBLEM: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- David Woodford, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. World Emblem International, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02983-ELR-LTW (N.D. Ga., August 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide proper disclosures and pre-adverse action notices and other required documents prior to obtaining and using consumer reports regarding their applicants and employees. Headquartered in Miami, Florida, World Emblem International, Inc., operates a plant that manufactures apparel decorations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq. SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD 1718 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 660 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 893-9400 Facsimile: (404) 260-4180 E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com - and - Steven L. Woodrow, Esq. Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC 3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (720) 213-0675 Facsimile: (303) 927-0809 E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com YELP: Class Suit Over "Employment Status" Dismissed --------------------------------------------------- Kathrine Proctor, writing for CourthouseNews Service, reported that Yelp reviewers are volunteers, not employees, and therefore don't need to be paid, a federal judge ruled. U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the putative class action brought by a class of reviewers who claimed their contributions to the website constituted a employer-employee relationship. Lead plaintiff Lily Jeung complained she was "hired" by Yelp, that Yelp controls reviewers' "work schedule and conditions" and that two of the three named plaintiffs were "fired" with "no warning and a flimsy explanation." Seeborg found the plaintiffs "use the term 'hired' to refer to a process by which any member of the public can sign up for an account on the Yelp website and submit reviews, and the term 'fired' to refer to having their accounts involuntarily closed, presumably for conduct that Yelp contends breached its terms of service agreement." But the reviewers' contributions to the site "at most would constitute acts of volunteerism," he wrote. Based on the plaintiffs' "mere conclusory allegations" and their "rambling and invective-filled papers," Seeborg dismissed the suit. He also denied their request for sanctions against Yelp. Adrianos Facchetti, Yelp's attorney, said in an email that the action was a "frivolous lawsuit that should never have been filed." "The argument that voluntarily using a free service equates to an employment relationship is absurd on its face, unsupported by law and contradicted by the existence of dozens of websites like Yelp that consumers use to help one another," he said. The plaintiffs could not be reached for comment. They are represented by Daniel Bernath, whose office is in Fort Myers, Florida. Facchetti's office is in Pasadena, California. * Employee Overtime Cases Could Wind Up Before Supreme Court ------------------------------------------------------------ Ben Dipietro, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that Federal courts across the U.S. have come to different interpretations about whether certain white-collar employees are eligible for overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours a week- and that could mean the matter ultimately may have to be decided by the Supreme Court. The latest case came down when the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California ruled in favor of Provident Savings Bank FSB, which argued the Fair Labor Standards Act allowed it to classify mortgage underwriters as being exempt from the law's overtime rules, said Howard Knee and Michael Ludwig, attorneys at the law firm Blank Rome, which represented the bank. It's possible the decision in the class-action lawsuit could be appealed, and if it is, it will be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, said Mr. Knee. A similar case litigated in New York against J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. resulted in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling in 2011 against the bank and in favor of mortgage underwriters being classified as non-exempt employees eligible to be paid overtime. That ruling prompted several banks to pay millions of dollars to settle similar complaints and to reclassify employees as non-exempt, said Mr. Knee. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is presently considering a similar case that originated in Ohio and if either that court or the Ninth Circuit rule differently than the appeals court in New York, it may be up to the Supreme Court to resolve the matter, said Mr. Knee. There was also a ruling from a federal court in Washington state in favor of the mortgage underwriters but that case wasn't appealed, he said. While the cases all involve the classification for mortgage underwriters, because the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to administrative employees, the ruling could have ramifications for companies outside the mortgage industry, said Mr. Knee. "If the Supreme Court takes the case, or even if it is decided at the appellate level, it's likely that the decision would affect more than just mortgage underwriters," he said. "It could enunciate principles that would apply generally to administrative employees." The attorney representing the plaintiffs in the California case wasn't immediately available to comment. The question of overtime pay has also arisen in relation to law firms. In July, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said a lawsuit filed by an attorney working on a temporary basis for the firm Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, who claims he is owed overtime pay for the hours he spent reviewing documents, could proceed. Also in July, the U.S. Department of Labor announced proposed rule changes that would increase the salary threshold for workers who are eligible for overtime, and that prompted some companies to come up with strategies to comply with the changes and still keep a control on their costs. ********* 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 * * *