/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150917.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 186 Headlines 3430685 CANADA: Recalls Janod Starfish Fishing Game Products AETNA INC: New Jersey Court Granted Motion to Dismiss ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: 9th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Securities Case ANDREW AND WILLIAMSON: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella ANHING CORPORATION: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Lead APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Red Apple Slices Due to Listeria ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Defendants in 2 Securities Class Actions ASSURANT INC: Continues to Defend Class Actions AVALON CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT BAY RIDGE: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BEER AND FOOD: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime BLUESTEM BRANDS: Faces "Haight" Suit Over Automated Calls BLYTH INC: Faces "Kullman" Suit Over Proposed CB Shine Merger BRECKSVILLE, OH: Faces "McNair" Suit Over Invalid City Ordinance BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Consolidated Securities Case in Discovery BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Zamir" Action BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Appeals Court Denied "Guzman" Petition BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Cavazos" Action BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Coleman" Action BUFFA A: Faces "Larry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Ford Class Action Awaits Approval CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Deal in Ford and Rodriguez Case Approved CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Conditional Cert. Granted in "Wright" Action CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Investigation Ongoing in "Sinohui" Class Suit CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Twin City Filed Consolidated Class Action CEDAR FAIR: Final Approval Hearing in "Ortegon" Action Held CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: S.D.N.Y. Granted Motion to Transfer CLEAR SPRINGS: May Conduct Discovery on Absent Class Members CLEARANCE TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages CUSTOM PRODUCE: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella CVS HEALTH: Lauriello Class Action Proceeding CVS HEALTH: Derivative Action Stayed Pending Securities Case DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk DE'LONGHI CANADA: Recalls Blenders Due to Laceration Hazard DS SERVICES: Court Disapproves Settlement Agreement in "Appleman" EASTMAN KODAK: Says ERISA Litigation Is Proceeding EBAY INC: Removed "Huang" Class Suit to Central Dist. California EVENFLO: Recalls Multiple Child Seat Models Due to Noncompliance FGL SPORTS: Recalls Stunt Scooters Due to Fall Hazard FUTURE SEAFOODS: Recalls Oyster Products Due to Salmonella GIANT EAGLE: W.D. Pa. Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss "Gabriel" GREAT LAKES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Tomorrow GUITAR CENTER: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 15 USC Sec. 1 Claims GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HEALTH NET: Supreme Court Requested Plaintiffs to File Response HOLLYWOOD PARK: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers Meal Period HOME DEPOT: Recalls LED Downlights Lights Due to Injury Risk HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Motion for Interlocutory Appeal Allowed IBERIABANK: "Haas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ILLINOIS: Dept. of The Lottery Sued Over Failure to Pay Winners I LOVE: "Velasco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Wages IOS/PCI: "Raleigh" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages IOWA SELECT: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Misbranding JJ MAA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Medical Expenses Coverage KBR INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit KEY ENERGY: Hearing on Class Certification Motion Held KEY ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action KEY ENERGY: Defending Class Action in Corpus Christi, TX KEY ENERGY: Collective Action Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice KEY ENERGY: Defending Class Action in Houston, TX KEYSTONE: Recalls Multiple Trailer Models Due to Fire Risk KLX ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Aguilar" Suit Claims LIBERTY GLOBAL: Liberty Puerto Rico Continues to Face Class Suit LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide CUT Refund MASIMO CORPORATION: District Court Granted Joint Request MASIMO CORPORATION: Motion for Summary Judgment Currently Pending MATSON INC: To Contest Class Actions on Horizon Lines Merger MEDISTAT RX: Recalls Sterile Drug Products Due to Contamination MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed AOL Merger MORGAN STANLEY: Class Action Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint MSE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces DNW Suit Over Sunday Afternoon Games NUCOR STEEL: Class Certification Denied in N.D. Ohio Case OFFICE DEPOT: Defendants Need Not Respond to Del. Class Action OFFICE DEPOT: Motion to Dismiss Florida Lawsuits Granted OFFICE DEPOT: Heitzenrater Action in Early Stage OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against Kyle Rivet Action OKARCHE BAKERY: Recalls Frozen Cookie Dough Due to Allergens OLLI SALUMERIA: Recalls Salami Products Due to Misbranding ONE MINUTE: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Undeclared Drugs ORGANICGIRL PRODUCE: Recalls Baby Spinach Products Due to Cadmium ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Singh Action Remains at Early Stage OVER & OVER: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages OVERWAITEA FOOD: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella PAPA JOHN'S: Class Action Trial Has Been Stayed PEOPLE CREATING: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Unlawful Termination PILOT TRAVEL: Settlements in Hot Fuel Case Win Final Approval PORK RIND: Recalls Pork Rind Products Due to Milk and Soy PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Reinstates Unjust Enrichment Claim QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Clark" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Clark" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT R&T BUSINESS: Faces "Aldana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RESOURCE CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Final Judgment in Class Action SABRE CORPORATION: 2 Class Actions Filed v. Sabre and 2 GDSs SAFEWAY: Recalls Cucumbers and In-Store Produced Products SCHRADER FARMS: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli SOVRAN SELF: Intends to Vigorously Defend Putative Class Action TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Hearing on Cert. Motion on Nov. 30 to Dec. 2 TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Cert. Motion in Quebec Action Has Not Been Set TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Judicial Expert Appointed by Commercial Court TRANSAM TRUCKING: Court Certifies "Blair" Class Suit TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, Action Claims UNDER ARMOUR: Lawsuits Consolidated in Shareholder Litigation UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Approves Class Action Settlement UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Davis" Trespassing Suit in W.D. Texas UNIT CORP: Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims Stayed Pending Cert. Bid VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Case Under Advisement VICTOR'S CAFE: "Arita" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime VITALIZE LABS: Court Trims Claims in Suit Over E-BOOST VON BERGENS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WEI'S HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime WELLS FARGO: Sued in Cal. Over Real Estate Loan Services Fees WEST MARINE: District Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement WEST MARINE: To Defend Class Action Lawsuit WOMEN'S CLINIC: Doesn't Properly Calculate Workers OT, Suit Says ZULILY INC: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports * Transport Canada Recalls Ricon Wheelchair Lifts ********* 3430685 CANADA: Recalls Janod Starfish Fishing Game Products ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: September 10, 2015 Posting date: September 10, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Choking Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54960 This recall involves the Janod Starfish fishing game for ages 2 to 5 years. The fishing game user picks up a toy fish using a play fishing rod with a magnetic worm. The Starfish fishing game has an orange starfish painted on a starfish-shaped tin with a product number J08153 printed on the bottom of the container and on the back of one of the fish pieces. Each set comes with two wooden fishing rods and several wooden fish with a magnetic button in the middle. The lid of each tin package contains the word "Janod(R)." Only the Starfish fishing game was sold in Canada. The worm attached to the end of the fishing pole may break apart and expose small parts, posing a choking hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Juratoys U.S. Corp. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this toy in Canada. In the United States, Juratoys U.S. Corp. has received approximately 417 reports of the worm separating and releasing small parts in a related product, including four reports of children ingesting a small part. No injuries have been reported. Approximately 170 units were sold in Canada, and approximately 14,000 units were distributed in the United States. The recalled products were sold from March 2015 to August 2015 in Canada and from April 2015 to August 2015 in the United States. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Juratoys U.S. Corp. Ft. Lauderdale Florida UNITED STATES Importer: 3430685 Canada Inc. d/b/a QHouse Kids Ste Anne de Bellevue Quebec CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the toy and return it to the store where purchased for an exchange of the same value ($29.99). For additional information, consumers may contact QHouseKids by telephone toll-free at 1-877-957-3088 or locally (514) 457-3088, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/3dXS3C AETNA INC: New Jersey Court Granted Motion to Dismiss ----------------------------------------------------- Aetna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the New Jersey District Court has granted in part the Company's motion to dismiss the class action proceedings. The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in several purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of our practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered to our members by health care providers with whom we do not have a contract ("out-of-network providers"). Among other things, these lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan members and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar litigation." "Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of- network providers who provided services to our members during the period from 2001 to the present. Various plaintiffs who are members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes of our members who received services from out-of-network providers during the period from 2001 to the present. Taken together, these lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our competitors. The purported classes seek reimbursement of all unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages, statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to ERISA. Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health plan members and out-of-network providers. "The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007. The federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation, MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020"). "In addition, the MDL Panel has transferred the individual lawsuits to MDL 2020. On May 9, 2011, the New Jersey District Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs from MDL 2020 without prejudice. The New Jersey District Court's action followed a ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida District Court") that the physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in MDL 2020 due to a prior settlement and release. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the physician plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's ruling. "On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL 2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we would have been released from claims relating to our out-of- network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing. The medical associations were not parties to the settlement agreement. "Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120 million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs' counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of approximately $78 million in the fourth quarter of 2012. "The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement were satisfied. "On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey District Court and plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating the settlement agreement. Various legal and factual developments since the date of the settlement agreement led us to believe terminating the settlement agreement was in our best interests. As a result of this termination, we released the reserve established in connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014 other general and administrative expenses by $67.0 million ($103.0 million pretax). "On June 30, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part our motion to dismiss the proceeding. The New Jersey District Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' RICO and federal antitrust claims; their ERISA claims that are based on our disclosures and our purported breach of fiduciary duties; and certain of their state law claims. The New Jersey District Court also dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by several medical association plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are for ERISA benefits and breach of contract. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' remaining claims." ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: 9th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Securities Case ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alphatec Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in all respects and ordered dismissal of the securities class action. On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5, 2010 against the Company and certain of its directors and officers alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On February 17, 2011, an amended complaint was filed against the Company and certain of its directors and officers adding alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"). HealthpointCapital, Jefferies & Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and Company, Inc., and Lazard Capital Markets LLC are also defendants in this action. The complaint alleged that the defendants made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about the Company's business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to the Scient'x transaction and the Company's financial guidance following the closing of the acquisition. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages, attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 18, 2011. The district court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend on March 22, 2012. On April 19, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and violations of Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act against the same named defendants. On May 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The district court granted that motion without leave to amend and entered final judgment in the Company's favor on March 28, 2013. On April 17, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court heard oral argument on May 5, 2015. On June 5, 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in all respects and ordered dismissal of the case. The mandate issued on June 30, 2015. ANDREW AND WILLIAMSON: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------- In cooperation with the Andrew and Williamson Fresh Produce recall of cucumbers that may be contaminated with Salmonella Poona, Safeway is voluntarily recalling made-to-order deli sandwiches with cucumbers produced by Andrew and Williamson and sold in nine Safeway and Carrs stores in Alaska. Sandwiches were sold from August 1 through September 4 from the full-service sandwich counter. The stores include: --- Carrs at 1725 Abbott Rd., Anchorage, AK 99507 --- Carrs at 1650 W Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage, AK 99517 --- Carrs at 5600 Debarr Rd., Anchorage, AK 99504 --- Carrs at 1340 Gambell St., Anchorage, AK 99501 --- Carrs at 1501 Huffman Rd., Anchorage, AK 99515 --- Safeway at 1907 Seward Hwy., Seward, AK 99664 --- Safeway at 1313 Meals St., Valdez, AK 99686 --- Safeway at 90 Sterling Hwy., Homer, AK 99603 --- Safeway at 301 N Santa Claus Ln., North Pole, AK 99705 Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis. No illnesses have been associated with Safeway or Carrs sandwiches. We are recalling the sandwiches out of an abundance of caution. Customers who purchased the recalled sandwiches from the above- listed stores should discard or return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Customers who have questions about the recall can contact Safeway at 1-877-SAFEWAY or Andrew and Williamson at 1-844-483-3864. ANHING CORPORATION: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Lead ------------------------------------------------------- Anhing Corporation of Los Angeles, CA is recalling ABC Cookies Banh Chu it imported due to an elevated level of lead. ABC Cookies Banh Chu is made in Vietnam. Anhing Corporation learned on August 12, 2015, from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), that the ABC Cookies contained lead in excess of the California State requirements and as such could cause health problems to consumers, particularly infants, small children, and pregnant women. Anhing Corporation immediately quarantined the remaining inventory of the ABC Cookies and is notifying 4 retailers in California who received 4 cartons (total 96 jars) to stop selling and for consumers not to eat these cookies. The ABC Cookies Banh Chu is contained in a plastic jar shaped and painted as a cat's face. The bottle has a red lid that contains a paper label with a picture of the cookies the name "ABC Cookies Banh Chu" the Caravelle brand logo, the ingredient declaration, the net weight, and the name and address of Anhing Corporation. Each jar contains 7 ounces of cookies. Recent analysis of the ABC Cookies by CDPH revealed that each cookie contained a lead level of 0.13 ppm and 13 ppm per labeled serving size. California considers products to be consumed by children with a lead level in excess of FDA's provisional total tolerable intake level (PTTIL) for lead by small children of 6 micrograms to be adulterated. Therefore, sale of these cookies are prohibited in the State of California. Anhing Corporation was unaware of the problem when it imported the product and wants to ensure its products are safe. Therefore, in in an abundance of caution in addition to its ongoing cooperation with the CDPH, Anhing Corporation is voluntarily recalling all ABC Cookies from the marketplace. Consumers in possession of packages of ABC Cookies should not eat them and should return the cookies to the place of purchase. Although the level encountered by CDPH is slightly higher than the legal level of acceptance pregnant women and parents of children who may have consumed this cookies should consider consulting their physician or health care provider to determine whether further medical testing is necessary. For more information about lead poisoning, parents and caretakers should contact their local childhood lead poisoning prevention program or local public health department. APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria -------------------------------------------------------------- Appeeling Fruit Inc. in Dauberville, Penn. is voluntarily recalling a limited number of consumer packages of fresh sliced apples with Best-if-Used-by dates of 09/14/15 and 09/21/15, due to the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. To date, health authorities have not linked any illnesses to this recall. No other products are affected by this recall. The recalled product was shipped to retail distribution centers; wholesalers; and foodservice customers in the states of Florida, Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania between August 31 and September 2. Consumers can identify the recalled consumer products by the brand, UPC codes and Best-if-Used-by dates provided in the table at the end of this release. Anyone who has recalled product in their possession should not consume it, and should either dispose of it properly or return the recalled product to the place of purchase for a refund. Please keep proof of product purchase, if available. Consumers with questions may contact the company's consumer information desk at 1-866-873-0468, or visit its website at http://www.appeelingfruit.com/disclaimericon. Appeeling Fruit Inc. has already notified customers who received the recalled product directly from the company and requested that they remove it from commerce. The company has also asked its direct customers to notify their customers of this recall. Appeeling Fruit is issuing this press release and keeping the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in formed of its recall process to assure that consumers are properly alerted. The recall is being initiated after the company was informed that an environmental sample taken in the production facility as part of a routine sampling program tested positive for the bacteria. None of the final product tested positive, and subsequent test results from the facility have been negative. "Many of our customers informed us that the recalled product was still in refrigerated warehouses and never reached consumers. Nevertheless, we are issuing this recall to reduce even the slightest risk to public health." said Steve Cygan, president of Appeeling Fruit. "We care deeply about the health and safety of those who enjoy our products." September 9, 2015 Voluntary Recall Product Description Brand/Label UPC on bag Best If and Consumer Packaging on bag if applicable Used By ---------------------- ----------- ------------- date on bag ------- 12oz package with Appeeling 58324 00950 09/21/2015 fresh, green apple Fruit slices 12oz. package with Appeeling 58324 00900 09/21/2015 fresh, red apple Fruit slices Convenience pack of Appeeling Bag of 8, 09/21/2015 8, 2oz. sized bags 2 oz. Fruit of fresh, red apple slices bags 58324 08400 Individual 2 oz. bags 58324 00400 2oz. sized bags of Burger King n/a& 09/14/2015 fresh, red apple (BK) Crown slices 2oz. sized bags of Snack Fresh 74641 00982 09/21/2015 fresh, red apple slices APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Red Apple Slices Due to Listeria --------------------------------------------------------- Appeeling Fruit Inc. in Dauberville, Penn. has been informed by one of its customers that some of the Snack Fresh brand, 2 oz. bagged red apple slices with Best-if-Used-by date 09/21/15 and production date 310815 that was voluntarily recalled on Wednesday, September 9 due to the potential of being contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may have been distributed to schools in Florida's Palm Beach County School District (product photo is available at www.appeelingfruit.comdisclaimer icon). Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women. According to our customer, Florida's Palm Beach County School District was notified on September 9th of the recall and individual schools were notified that morning. Also according to our customer, 360 cases of the 400 cases that it picked up at our facility on September 2nd have been retrieved and destroyed, and more cases are in the process of being returned. For this reason, it is unclear exactly how much of the remaining 40 cases may have been distributed in the Florida Palm Beach County School District. We are issuing this release in an abundance of caution and to ensure that parents are aware of the recall. Parents of children in Florida's Palm Beach County School District: Snack Fresh brand is common in Florida schools; the recalled 2 oz. bagged Snack Fresh product can be identified by three sets of numbers on the back of the Snack Fresh bag: 1) the Best-if-Used-by date is 09/21/15; 2) the UPC code under the black bars is 74641 00982; and 3) the production date, or first six numbers under the "Product of USA" stamp is 310815. All three sets of numbers on the 2 oz. Snack Fresh bag must match these in order to identify the recalled product. Anyone who has recalled product in their possession should not consume it, and should dispose of it properly. Consumers with questions may contact the company's consumer information desk at 1-866-873-0468, or visit its website at http://www.appeelingfruit.com/disclaimericon. To date, health authorities have not informed us of any illnesses linked to this recall. To our knowledge, no other recalled products were distributed to schools. A complete list of September 9th recalled products can be found on our website at www.appeelingfruit.comdisclaimer icon. The recall was being initiated after the company was informed that an environmental sample taken in the production facility, as part of an internal routine sampling program, tested positive for the bacteria. Subsequent test results from the facility have been negative. "Even though the recalled Snack Fresh sliced red apples that went to Florida Palm Beach County schools was included in our original September 9 recall announcement, and we know that the school district promptly notified individual schools that may have received product, we are issuing this additional notification to ensure that parents and students know about that recall," said Steve Cygan, president of Appeeling Fruit. "We are also working closely with health officials to ensure that the recall is carried in the most effective and efficient manner possible." ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Defendants in 2 Securities Class Actions ------------------------------------------------------------ Arrowhead Research Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Operating Officer have been named as defendants in two securities class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California regarding certain public statements in connection with the Company's hepatitis B drug research. Both actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seek damages in an unspecified amount. Two actions with similar claims under California State law are currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Additionally, three putative stockholder derivative actions have been filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's Board of Directors in connection with the facts underlying the securities claims. Each of these seven suits seeks damages in unspecified amounts and some seek various forms of injunctive relief. ASSURANT INC: Continues to Defend Class Actions ----------------------------------------------- Assurant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is a defendant in class actions in a number of jurisdictions regarding its lender-placed insurance programs. These cases allege a variety of claims under a number of legal theories. The plaintiffs seek premium refunds and other relief. The Company continues to defend itself vigorously in these class actions. The Company has accrued an estimated loss for this litigation. AVALON CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Toya Y. Reed v. Avalon Correctional Services, Inc., avalon Staffing, L.L.C., Avalon TX Corrections, L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv- 00789 (W.D. Tex., September 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate federal reintegration programs on behalf of the United States Bureau of Prisons in Texas, Wyoming, and Oklahoma. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edmond S. Moreland Jr., Esq. MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C. 13590 Ranch Road 12 Wimberley, TX 78676 Telephone: (512) 782-0567 Facsimile: (512) 782-0605 E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com BAY RIDGE: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer Wang, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Bay Ridge Medical Imaging, P.C. and Shahrokh Abiri, Case No. 605817 (D.N.Y., September 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants operate five medical imaging facilities within the State of New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric S. Tilton, Esq. TILTON BELDNER, LLP 626 Rxr Plaza Uniondale, NY 11556 Telephone: (631) 6295291 Facsimile: (516) 3243170 E-mail: etilton@tiltonbeldner.com - and - Daniel Markowitz Jeffrey K. Brown LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 8739550 E-mail: dmarkowitz@leedsbrownlaw.com BEER AND FOOD: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Perry Jackson, individually and on behalf of aggrieved employees v. Beer and Food Management, LLC, et al., Case No. BC584065 (D. Cal., September 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Beer and Food Management, LLC owns and operates a bar and restaurant located at 2141 Sunset Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90026. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark H. Wagner, Esq. WAGNER LEGAL GROUP 2001 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 210 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 857-5293 E-mail: mark@wagnerlegalgroup.com BLUESTEM BRANDS: Faces "Haight" Suit Over Automated Calls --------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Haight, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., d/b/a Fingerhut, Case No. 2015CH13359 (D. Ill., September 9, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing calls to debtors cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. Bluestem Brands, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates an online retailer and national catalog business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander H. Burke, Esq. Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq. BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC 155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 729-5288 Facsimile: (312) 729-5289 E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 3800 S. Ocean Drive, Ste. 235 Hollywood, FL 33019 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 Facsimile: (954) 337-0666 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com BLYTH INC: Faces "Kullman" Suit Over Proposed CB Shine Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Marcus Kullman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Blyth, Inc., et al., Case No. 11479 (D. Del., September 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of Blyth, Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Blyth by CB Shine Holdings, LLC for unfair consideration and through an unfair process. Blyth, Inc. is a multi-channel company primarily focused on the direct-to-consumer market. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com - and - Brian C. Kerr, Esq. BROWER PIVEN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 501-9000 E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com BRECKSVILLE, OH: Faces "McNair" Suit Over Invalid City Ordinance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eben O. McNair IV v. The City of Brecksville, et al., Case No. CV 15 850799 (D. Ohio, September 8, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged unlawful practice of collecting or attempting to collect tax under an invalid Ordinance, "The 4890 Tax". The City of Brecksville is a municipal corporation, organized under the laws of the State of Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert S. Belovich, Esq. ROBERT S. BELOVICH ATTORNEY LLC 9100 South Hills Blvd., Suite 325 Broadview Heights, OH 44147 Telephone: (440) 503-8770 E-mail: rsb@belovichlaw.com - and - Anand N. Misra, Esq. THE MISRA LAW FIRM, LLC 3659 Green Road, Suite 100 Beachwood, OH 44122 Telephone: (216) 752-3330 E-mail: misraan@misralaw.com BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Consolidated Securities Case in Discovery ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Consolidated Securities Class Action is now in discovery. On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business and financial results, specifically the concealment of accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July 6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine. The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012. On July 26, 2012, another purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same court by David Stein against the same defendants based upon the same general set of allegations and class period. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the City of Atlanta General Employees' Pension Fund and the Teamsters Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013. On September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to Ashford University's quality of education, the WSCUC accreditation process and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning Ashford University's persistence rates. The plaintiff did not file an amended complaint by the October 31, 2013 deadline and therefore the case is now in discovery. On August 6, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which was granted by the Court on January 15, 2015. The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. Based on information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Zamir" Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has not yet responded to the complaint and anticipates that an amended complaint will be filed in September 2015 in the case, Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al. On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess collectibility of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014 and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys' fees. On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint and anticipates that an amended complaint will be filed in September 2015. The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. However, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. Based on information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Appeals Court Denied "Guzman" Petition ------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., the plaintiff filed a petition for permission to appeal the denial of class certification with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied by the Court of Appeals. In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The complaint is captioned Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al. and generally alleges that the defendants engaged in misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to recruit and retain students. The complaint asserts a putative class period of March 1, 2005 through the present. In March 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted by the Court with leave to amend in October 2011. In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the defendants filed another motion to dismiss. In May 2012, the Court granted University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by the Company and Ashford University. The Court also granted the plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. In August 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting similar claims and the same class period. The second amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement of all profits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees. The defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the second amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part. On April 30, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which was denied by the Court on March 26, 2015. On April 9, 2015, the plaintiff filed a petition for permission to appeal the denial of class certification with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied by the Court of Appeals on June 9, 2015. The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. At present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action based on the information available to the Company. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Cavazos" Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Cavazos v. Ashford University, the Company has not yet responded to the complaint. On June 22, 2015, Diamond Cavazos filed a purported class action against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Diamond Cavazos v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various wage and hour claims under California law for failure to pay overtime, failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest and meal breaks. The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits, penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against it. The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. Based on information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action. BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Coleman" Action ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Coleman et al. v. Ashford University, the Company has not yet responded to the complaint. On June 4, 2015, Brandy Coleman and a group of seven other former employees filed a purported class action against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Brandy Coleman v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges violations of the California WARN Act for back pay and benefits associated with the termination of the plaintiffs' employment in May 2015. The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages, penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint and intends to vigorously defend against it. The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. Based on information available to the Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated with this action. BUFFA A: Faces "Larry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Candido Larry Jr., David Quiterio, Isahid Hernandez, Justice William Quiles, Nelson Rodriguez, Terrel Stallings, Yair Lopez, Amy Hernandez, Ana Hernandez, and Sherly Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Buffa A LLC d/b/a Calexico, Anthony J. Fauci, Jesse Vendley, Brian Vendley, and Peter Oleyer, Case No. 1:15-cv-07108 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant located at 153 Rivington Street, New York, New York 10002. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Ford Class Action Awaits Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------ CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the settlement in the class action lawsuit by Franchesca Ford currently awaits the Court's approval. On January 27, 2014, former store employee Franchesca Ford filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San Francisco County Superior Court, California (the "Ford Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly- situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the Company in California who were employed during the period January 27, 2010 to the present. She alleges violations of California state wage and hour laws governing vacation pay, meal and rest period pay, wages due upon termination, and waiting time penalties, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to California state court. On May 22, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement payment. The settlement currently awaits the Court's approval. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim. "We currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Deal in Ford and Rodriguez Case Approved ----------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the Court has entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement in the class action lawsuit filed by Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez. On March 24, 2014, Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, San Diego Division. The plaintiffs claim to represent other similarly- situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background checks with the Company in California and across the United States from March 24, 2012 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer Credit Reporting and Investigative Reporting Agencies Act. On September 23, 2014, the Company reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement payment. On July 7, 2015, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim. "We currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Conditional Cert. Granted in "Wright" Action --------------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the Court granted conditional certification of a collective group, in the case filed by Wiley Wright. On October 17, 2014, former store employee Wiley Wright filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, claiming to represent other similarly-situated salaried exempt current and former employees of the Company in the state of New York during the period October 17, 2008, as well as similarly-situated salaried exempt current and former employees throughout the remainder of the United States during the period October 17, 2011 to the present. The lawsuit alleges that current and former Assistant Managers and Senior Assistant Managers were unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On December 12, 2014, plaintiff moved for conditional certification of the putative class of employees; the Company filed its response to this motion on January 19, 2015. On July 16, 2015, the Court granted conditional certification of a collective group that included only the Assistant Managers and Senior Assistant Managers who worked in the four New York stores where plaintiff worked during his employment with the Company, while permitting plaintiff to obtain further discovery from the Company relating to his original motion. "We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Investigation Ongoing in "Sinohui" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the Company's investigation is ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by Richard Sinohui. On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-situated current and former General Managers of the Company in California during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit alleges current and former California General Managers were unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay, paid rest periods and paid meal periods, in violation of the California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial Welfare Commission. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in damages. On December 5, 2012, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiff petitioned the court to remand the Sinohui Litigation to California state court. On February 26, 2015, the Court overruled the plaintiff's motion to remand. The Company's investigation is ongoing. The parties are engaged in discovery. "We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Twin City Filed Consolidated Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that a consolidated class action complaint was filed by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust in the Litigation Related to a Merger agreement. Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had entered into the Merger Agreement, four putative shareholder class actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company against the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and Merger Sub, in connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. The first purported class action, styled Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al. (the "Coyne Action"), was filed on January 21, 2014. The second, styled John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the "Solak Action"), was filed on January 22, 2014. The third, styled Irene Dixon v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the "Dixon Action"), was filed on January 24, 2014, and additionally names as defendants Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and the AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The fourth, styled Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank, et al. (the "LMPERS Action"), was filed on January 31, 2014, and additionally names as defendants, Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (collectively, Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions shall be referred to as the "Shareholder Actions"). Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, the adoption on January 15, 2014 of the Rights Agreement, and certain provisions in the Merger Agreement that allegedly made it less likely that the Board would be able to consider alternative acquisition proposals. The Coyne, Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was advised by a conflicted financial advisor. The Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was subject to material conflicts of interest in approving the Merger Agreement and that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing allegedly conflicted members of management to negotiate the transaction. The Dixon and LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in approving the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together with the exhibits and annexes thereto, as it may be amended or supplemented, the "Statement") filed with the SEC on January 22, 2014, which allegedly contained material misrepresentations and omissions. Each of the Shareholder Actions allege that Apollo aided and abetted the Board's breaches of fiduciary duties. The Solak and Dixon Actions allege that CEC also aided and abetted such breaches, and the Solak and LMPERS Actions further allege that Parent and the Merger Sub aided and abetted such actions. The LMPERS Action further alleges that Apollo Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. aided and abetted such actions. The Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of the transactions, damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs, and other unspecified relief. On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an amended complaint (the "Coyne Amended Complaint"), and on January 30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed an amended complaint (the "Solak Amended Complaint") (together, the "Amended Complaints"). The Amended Complaints incorporated all of the allegations in the original complaints, added allegations that the Board-approved Statement omitted certain material information, in further violation of the Board's fiduciary duties, and requested an order directing the Board to disclose such allegedly-omitted material information. The Solak Amended Complaint also added allegations that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in allowing an allegedly conflicted financial advisor and management to lead the sales process. On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were consolidated into one action. The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim. The Company believes the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. On July 21, 2015 a consolidated class action complaint was filed by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust that continued to assert claims against CEC and its former directors; added The Goldman Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant; and removed all Apollo entities as defendants ("Consolidated Class Action Petition"). The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction. The Consolidated Class Action Petition also alleges that two members of the Company's board who also served as the senior managers of the Company had material conflicts of interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the bank. The Company believes the Consolidated Class Action Petition is without merit and intends to defend it vigorously. "While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said. CEDAR FAIR: Final Approval Hearing in "Ortegon" Action Held ----------------------------------------------------------- Cedar Fair, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that in the case, Ortegon, et al vs. Cedar Fair, L.P., Cedar Fair Management Company, et al., the final approval hearing was scheduled for September 4, 2015. The Partnership and Cedar Fair Management, Inc. are defendants in a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for Santa Clara County on October 3, 2013 by Frank Ortegon-Ramirez seeking damages and injunctive relief for claims related to certain employment and pay practices at our parks in California, including those related to certain check-out, time reporting, discharge and pay statement practices. The defendants filed an answer on November 21, 2013 denying the allegations in the complaint and requesting a dismissal of all claims. On November 12, 2014, the Partnership participated in a mediation relating to the claims alleged in the lawsuit. Following this mediation, the Partnership negotiated a $4.75 million settlement with the named Plaintiff on a class wide basis which is subject to final court approval. On May 15, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and the final approval hearing was scheduled for September 4, 2015. The Partnership believes the liability recorded as of June 28, 2015 is adequate and does not expect the terms of the negotiated settlement or final briefing to materially affect its financial results in future periods. CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: S.D.N.Y. Granted Motion to Transfer --------------------------------------------------------------- ChannelAdvisor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, In re ChannelAdvisor Securities Litigation, the S.D.N.Y. granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The Company said, "On January 23, 2015, plaintiff Justin Dice filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), Dice v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al., alleging violations of the federal securities laws against us and certain of our executive officers. Plaintiff Dice alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our common stock by making false and misleading statements to investors concerning our financial guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014. On January 26, 2015, plaintiff David Gracia also filed a purported class action complaint in the S.D.NY., Gracia v. ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al., in which Plaintiff Gracia brings the same claims, against the same named defendants, as in the action brought by Plaintiff Dice." On May 5, 2015, the S.D.N.Y. consolidated the Dice and Gracia actions, captioned the actions as In re ChannelAdvisor Securities Litigation, and appointed Plaintiff Dice as lead plaintiff for the putative class. On July 2, 2015, the S.D.N.Y. granted the defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. "We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter vigorously," the Company said. CLEAR SPRINGS: May Conduct Discovery on Absent Class Members ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli of the United States District Court for Middle District of Florida approved Defendants' Proposed Absent Class Member Interrogatories in the case captioned, SHELENE JEAN-LOUIS, JUDES PETIT-FRERE, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLEAR SPRINGS FARMING, LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, FLORIDA GOLD CITRUS, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, JACK GREEN JR., individually, and HOWARD LEASING, INC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company, Defendant, Case No. 8:13-CV-3084-T-30AEP. The case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Protective Order Regarding Class Member Discovery, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law on Absent Class Member Discovery, and Defendants' Memorandum Regarding, and in Response to, Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law on Absent Class Member Discovery. In the interim, the Honorable James S. Moody, Jr. denied Plaintiff's motion to bifurcate and lifted any stay regarding damages discovery. Pursuant to the Court's June 24, 2015 Order, a hearing was noticed for August 6, 2015, to cover the unaddressed aspects of damages discovery. At the hearing, the Court heard argument on Defendants' request to serve interrogatories on absent class members, as well as the appropriateness of discovery relating to class member immigration status. In his Order dated August 19, 2015 available at http://is.gd/S3DqPRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Porcelli concluded that the requested absent class member discovery is appropriate and does not find that the request is a tactic designed to take undue advantage of class members or reduce the size of the class. Instead, the proposed interrogatories are helpful to the proper presentation and correct adjudication of the principal suit in that they are designed to elicit information regarding damages mitigation information this Court has already deemed simple and relevant to Plaintiffs' prayer for compensatory damages. While the Court may ultimately be bridled in levying sanctions for absent class member noncompliance, it nevertheless concludes that Defendants are entitled to serve the proposed interrogatories pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs are represented by Bradley Paul Rothman, Esq. -- brothman@weldonrothman.com -- WELDON & ROTHMAN, PL, Michelle E. Nadeau, Esq. -- mnadeau@ksblaw.com -- Ryan D. Barack, Esq. -- lbarack@ksblaw.com -- KWALL SHOWERS BARACK & CHILSON, P.A. Defendants are represented byAmanda G. Chafin, Esq. -- Amanda.chafin@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC, Doris M. Del Castillo, Esq. -- ddelcastillo@constangy.com -- John W. Campbell, Esq. -- jcampbell@constangy.com -- James Morgan Craig, Esq. -- jcraig@constangy.com -- CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLP CLEARANCE TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Allen Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Clearance Technology Group, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv- 02094-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Clearance Technology Group, LLC is a Florida corporation that is engaged in interstate commerce. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 224-0431 Facsimile: (813) 229-8712 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com jriley@wfclaw.com CUSTOM PRODUCE: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella --------------------------------------------------- Custom Produce Sales ("Custom Produce") of Parlier, California is voluntarily recalling all cucumbers sold under the Fat Boy(R) label starting August 1, 2015 because they may be contaminated with Salmonella and are covered by an ongoing recall. No other Fat Boy(R) products are covered by this recall. Unlabeled cucumbers packed into a black reusable plastic container (RPC) and were sold in Nevada, as of August 1, 2015 are also covered by this recall. Custom Produce is currently working with health authorities on this recall, which is associated with an outbreak of Salmonella Poona, with 341 illnesses, including 2 deaths, being reporting in as many as 30 states. Custom Produce has contacted all customers who may have received this product. Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis, and arthritis. Fat Boy(R) cucumbers were produced in Baja California and distributed in the states of California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas. These cucumbers are shipped in a black, green, red and craft colored carton which reads "Fat Boy Fresh Produce.". This variety is often referred to as a "Slicer" or "American" cucumber. It has a dark green color. It typically has a length of 7 to 10 inches and a diameter of 1.75 to 2.5 inches. Consumers who have purchased Fat Boy(R) brand cucumbers are urged not to consume them and to return them to the place of purchase or to dispose of them. Consumers with questions may contact Custom Produce by visiting the company website at www.customproducesales.comdisclaimer icon or by calling the company at 559-254-5860. Fat Boy cucumbers were packed into the following: Cucumber Carton 24's Fat Boy Label Cucumber Carton Super Select Fat Boy Label Cucumber Carton 6 count Fat Boy Label Cucumber Carton 5 # Fat Boy Label Possible Fat Boy Lot Codes: 93968, 94506, 94550, 94522, 94513, 93991 Reusable Plastic Containers (RPC): Lot Code: (01) 1 0851821 22000 2 (10) 99 Item # 552678329 CVS HEALTH: Lauriello Class Action Proceeding --------------------------------------------- CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Lauriello class action is proceeding. On September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's August 15, 2012 Order, and the case is proceeding. Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action. Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedures 23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order appointed class representatives and class counsel. On September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's August 15, 2012 Order, and the case is proceeding. CVS HEALTH: Derivative Action Stayed Pending Securities Case ------------------------------------------------------------ CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the derivative action is stayed pending further developments in the securities class action. In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island by Richard Medoff, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Health Corporation stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM business and allegations of insider trading. In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by Mark Wuotila in December 2009 in the same court against the directors and certain officers of the Company. This lawsuit, which has remained stayed pending developments in the related securities class action, includes allegations of, among other things, securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program. In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The derivative action is stayed pending further developments in the class action. DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk -------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 3 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015394TC ID number: 2015394 Manufacturer recall number: FL-686 On certain buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the lift platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at risk of injury. Correction: Ricon Corporation repair facilities will inspect lift platforms, link arms and bearings for cracks, damage or misalignment and repair as necessary. Note: This recall supersedes recall 2014-338. Vehicles repaired under the previous recall will require re-inspection and potential repair. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- FREIGHTLINER FB-65 COMMERCIAL 2006 CUSTOM CHASSIS BUS CHASSIS THOMAS BUILT MINOTOUR NON-SCHOOL 2006 BUS DE'LONGHI CANADA: Recalls Blenders Due to Laceration Hazard ----------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 9, 2015 Posting date: September 9, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Household Items, Appliances Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Laceration Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54914 The recall involves the Kenwood blender Blend-X PRO BLM800, type number BLM80 and date code from 14x01 to 15x22 ("x" is a letter, for example 14T01) which can be found on the rating label on the underside of this product. The UPC code for the product is 5011423178646. The blender is ETL certified with control number 3099477. The product consists of a glass goblet with a plastic lid and a power unit with a motor and user control panel. A rotating knob is used to set blade speeds and the user can choose one of six pre- set cycles (buttons). A blade assembly is screwed onto the bottom of the goblet and is placed onto the power unit to connect the blade shaft to the motor. The colour of the product is gray. The lower blade of the blade assembly may break during use in particular conditions of high stress which may pose a laceration hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Kenwood Limited has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product in Canada. Additionally, no consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the product have been reported in the United States. Approximately 367 units were sold in Canada and 150 units were distributed in the United States. The recalled product was sold from August 2014 to July 2015 in Canada and the United States. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: De'Longhi-Kenwood Appliances Dong Guan Company Ltd. Guandong Province CHINA Distributor: De'Longhi Canada Inc. Mississauga Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blender and contact Kenwood Ltd. for a free replacement blade. For more information, consumers may contact Kenwood Ltd. by telephone at 1-866-367-4561 or by visiting the firm's website and click on "Recall Information" at the top of the page. Consumers may also submit product information to determine if their unit is affected by visiting the Kenwood Ltd. Safety Information page. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/gcvkfs DS SERVICES: Court Disapproves Settlement Agreement in "Appleman" ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Joan A. Lenard of the United States District Court for Southern District of Florida denied Plaintiff Craig Appleman's Unopposed Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement in the case captioned, CRAIG APPLEMAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DS SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 14-62275-CIV-LENARD/GOODMAN. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff, a former Costco Sales Representative, filed his Complaint on behalf of himself and others similarly situated seeking back-pay for unpaid overtime. Opt-in plaintiffs William Ortiz and Candy Gumaer joined the suit. The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and agreed to the terms set forth in the Agreement, attempting to resolve the matter as to the entire purported class. The class is defined as "all individuals employed by Defendant DS Services of America, Inc. from October 3, 2012 to the date of Approval (the Class Period) who worked as Costco Sales Representatives at any time during the Class Period. The parties have attempted to resolve the rights of over 300 potential opt-in plaintiffs without those potential plaintiffs being joined in this action or being able to object to the terms of the Agreement. Seemingly, the parties have attempted to resolve their case as if it were a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 "class action," not an FLSA "collective action." In her Order dated August 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/zUJk7Bfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lenard held that in roder to resolve the collective acton by settlement, the parties should first seek conditional approval of the proposed class and proffer an adequate notice procedure to allow potential opt-in plaintiffs to join the action. Only then may they seek to resolve the rights of the greater class of workers by settlement. Plaintiffs are represented by Anthony J. Pantuso, III, Esq. -- apantuso@quinn-lawfirm.com -- THE QUINN LAW FIRM, Richard Hayber, Esq. -- rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC & David Alan Netburn, Esq. -- dnetburn@rolnicknetburn.com -- ROLNICK & NETBURN DS Services of America, Inc. is represented by Catherine Dacre, Esq. -- cdacre@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Suzanne Ashelle, Esq. -- ssinger@rumberger.com -- Dorothy Gonzalez Negrin, Esq. -- dnegrin@rumberger.com -- SINGER, RUMBERGER, KIRK & COLDWELL, P.A. EASTMAN KODAK: Says ERISA Litigation Is Proceeding -------------------------------------------------- The case In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation is proceeding, Eastman Kodak Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On January 19, 2012, the Company and its U.S. subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief (the "Bankruptcy Filing") under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Subsequent to the Company's Bankruptcy Filing, between January 27, 2012 and March 22, 2012, several putative class action suits were filed in federal court in the Western District of New York against the committees of the Company's Stock Ownership Plan ('SOP') and Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP"), and certain former and current executives of the Company. The suits have been consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation. The allegations concern the decline in the Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SOP and SIP. Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees and costs. Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was denied on December 17, 2014 and the case is proceeding. On behalf of the defendants in this case, the Company believes that the case is without merit and will vigorously defend the defendants on their behalf. EBAY INC: Removed "Huang" Class Suit to Central Dist. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit entitled Bernard Huang and Ed Kim, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EBay Inc., Intuit Inc. and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. BC586353, was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-04104-MMC to the proceeding. The claims arise out of the alleged agreement between eBay and Intuit not to recruit each other's software engineers. The Defendant EBay Inc. is represented by: Thomas P. Brown, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 55 Second Street Twenty-Fourth Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3441 Telephone: (415) 856-7000 Facsimile: (415) 856-7100 E-mail: tombrown@paulhastings.com The Defendant Intuit Inc. is represented by: Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq. Craig E. Stewart, Esq. David Kiernan, Esq. JONES DAY 555 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 626-3939 Facsimile: (415) 875-5700 E-mail: ramittelstaedt@JonesDay.com cestewart@JonesDay.com dkiernan@JonesDay.com EVENFLO: Recalls Multiple Child Seat Models Due to Noncompliance ---------------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Child Car Seat Notification type: Safety TC System: Other Units affected: 51848 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015397TC ID number: 2015397 Certain child/booster seats may not comply with the requirements of the Canada Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seats Safety Regulations (RSSR). The installation diagram label affixed to the booster seat may contain errors, the handle is shown in position 4 for traveling on the diagram when it should be in position 1. Correction: A production change has been undertaken to remedy this non-compliance condition. No corrective recall action is required. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- EVENFLO EMBRACE 35 2011, 2011 FGL SPORTS: Recalls Stunt Scooters Due to Fall Hazard ----------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 10, 2015 Posting date: September 10, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54952 This recall involves the SIMS 2015 Pro Model Stunt Scooter with model number 281015016 and UPC 883701948341. The black scooter has red handlebars and red wheels. The SIMS brand name can be found on the foot section of the scooter. Only model year 2015 is included in this recall. The handlebars may not hold the front wheel securely in place, posing a fall hazard. FGL Sports has received five reports of the wheel turning independently to the handlebars. No injuries were reported. Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these scooters. Approximately 987 units of the affected scooters were sold at Sport Chek, Sports Experts and Intersport across Canada. The recalled scooters were sold between March 2015 and June 2015. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Goodmen Australia PTY. Limited Shanghai CHINA Distributor: FGL Sports Ltd. Calgary Alberta CANADA Consumers should immediately stop using the affected SIMS scooter and return them to their local Sport Chek, Sports Experts or Intersport for a repair. For more information, consumers may contact FGL Sports by telephone at (403) 717-1400 extension 1861, Monday through Friday, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. MT, or by email. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/unkeYU FUTURE SEAFOODS: Recalls Oyster Products Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 14, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Future Seafoods Inc. Distribution: Quebec Extent of the product distribution: Retail Future Seafoods Inc. is recalling oysters from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased affected products should check with their place of purchase. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. There have been no reported illnesses associated with the consumption of this product. This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand name Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC ---------- ----------- ---- ------------------ --- Future Oysters Various Harvest / Process None Seafoods date: 09/08/15 Inc. Harvest area: PE9B GIANT EAGLE: W.D. Pa. Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss "Gabriel" -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania adopted the Report & Recommendation as the opinion of the court and granted motion to dismiss in the case captioned, ANDREW M. GABRIEL on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GIANT EAGLE, INC., MARCKISOTTO MARKETS INC. doing business as "EDGEWOOD GIANT EAGLE" or doing business as "GIANT EAGLE" or doing business as "GIANT EAGLE PHARMACY #24", SHAKESPEARE STREET ASSOCIATES GP LLC, doing business as "GIANT EAGLE" or doing business as "SHAKESPEARE GIANT EAGLE" or doing business as "GIANT EAGLE PHARMACY #17" and CVS PHARMACY, INC., doing business as "CVS" or doing business as "CVS STORE #4091" Defendants, Case No. 14-0980. Plaintiff Andrew M. Gabriel brings the action on behalf of himself and other individuals whose identity protected health information was used in a fraudulent and unauthorized manner to create fraudulent prescriptions in order to obtain controlled substances at the pharmacies of defendants Giant Eagle, Inc., Marckisotto Markets, Inc., Shakespeare Street Associates GP LLC, and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.C and 72.D of the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges. On July 9, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation (R&R) in which she recommended that defendants' motions to dismiss the third amended complaint be granted in their entirety with prejudice. Plaintiff objects to the R&R and reiterates his arguments made in connection with his original opposition to the motion to dismiss. In her Memorandum Opinion dated August 19, 2015 available at http://is.gd/gl0Ywufrom Leagle.com, Judge Conti held that plaintiff failed to set forth factual allegations in the complaint sufficient for the District court to infer that there is a plausible prima facie case with respect to the claims alleged, or lacked standing to do so and to to allege any compensable injury or damages, and the alleged harm was neither compensable nor proximately caused by defendants. Andrew Gabriel is represented by Brian Samuel Malkin, Esq. -- bmalkin@ferencelaw.com -- FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC Defendant are represented by Bernard D. Marcus, Esq. -- marcus@marcus-shapira.com -- James S. Larrimer, Esq. -- larrimer@marcus-shapira.com -- Stephen S. Zubrow, Esq. -- zubrow@marcus-shapira.com -- MARCUS & SHAPIRA GREAT LAKES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Tomorrow ------------------------------------------------------- Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the final approval hearing in a class action settlement is scheduled for September 18, 2015. On March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013, primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company's announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second and third quarter 2012 financial statements. Two additional, similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and Connors v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02450, were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on March 28, 2013, and April 2, 2013, respectively. These three actions were consolidated and recaptioned In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02115, on June 10, 2013. The plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint on August 9, 2013, which the defendants moved to dismiss on October 8, 2013. After briefing and oral argument by the parties, the court entered an order on October 21, 2014 denying that motion to dismiss. The parties agreed to a settlement, which is expected to be paid by insurance. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 12, 2015, and the final approval hearing is scheduled for September 18, 2015. GUITAR CENTER: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 15 USC Sec. 1 Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea of the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiffs' claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1. The appellate case is captioned, IN RE: MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS AND EQUIPMENT ANTITRUST LITIGATION, JOSHUA RAMSEY; DAVID GIAMBUSSO; DWAYNE WIGGINS; JASON PARADISE; KATE MACWILLIAMSON; NIRANJAN PARIKH; PAULA JENNINGS; RYAN J. BIGG; MARK O'LEARY; CYNTHIA SEPULVEDA; RUSSELL D. MELTON; JERRY JOST; KEVIN GAGNEPAIN; JOSH PEARSON; JOHN PEARSON; MARY PEARSON; COLBY GILES; DAVID KEEL; WILLIAM S. POFF; ALLEN HALE; DANIEL T. SMITH; GERALD LOGSDON; AUGUSTIN CERVANTES; BENN FELTHEIMER; BRYAN ROACH; BRANDON ARMSTRONG; RICHARD TABAS; ALLEN HALE; KENNETH MANYIN; RUSSELL D. MELTON; JON BANDISH; MARK O'LEARY; ALEX TELLER; SCOTT COOK; JOSHUA SEILER; JOHAN EDWARD RIGOR; WALTER WITHERSPOON; ROBERT LESKO; SUZANNE ONDRE; LISA PRITCHETT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MUSIC MERCHANTS, INC.; GUITAR CENTER, INC.; GUITAR CENTER STORES, INC.; FENDER MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS CORP.; YAMAHA CORPORATION OF AMERICA; GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION; HOSHINO, U.S.A., INC.; KAMAN MUSIC CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 12-56674. Plaintiffs, a putative class, purchased guitars and guitar amplifiers from defendant Guitar Center, Inc., the largest retail seller of musical instruments in the United States. In their present complaint, plaintiffs allege that between 2004 and 2009, Guitar Center and the manufacturer defendants -- along with defendant trade association National Association of Music Merchants (NAMM) -- conspired to implement and enforce minimum advertised-price policies (MAP policies) that fixed the minimum price at which any retailer could advertise the manufacturers' guitars and guitar amplifiers. According to plaintiffs, these MAP policies tended to raise retail prices and restrain competition. Plaintiffs allege that each manufacturer agreed with Guitar Center to adopt MAP policies and that the manufacturers agreed among themselves to adopt the MAP policies proposed by Guitar Center. Plaintiffs claim that the collection of agreements violates Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act and the antitrust laws of Massachusetts and California. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' first consolidated class- action complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants argued that plaintiffs' allegations were insufficiently detailed to satisfy the requirements of specificity and plausibility that the Supreme Court outlined in the case, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007). The district court granted the motion to dismiss in part but permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed the operative complaint. Defendants again moved to dismiss the complaint for its failure to state a claim. The district court granted defendants' motion and dismissed plaintiffs' Sec. 1 claim with prejudice for failure to satisfy the pleading standard set forth in Twombly. On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that (1) defendants shared a common motive to conspire; (2) the manufacturer defendants acted against their self-interest; (3) the manufacturer defendants simultaneously adopted substantially similar MAP policies; (4) the FTC's investigation and consent decree; (5) the defendants' participation in NAMM; and (6) retail prices for guitars and guitar amplifiers rose during the class period as the number of units sold fell. In his Opinion dated August 25, 2015 available at http://is.gd/1vPMnQfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bea found that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege enough nonconclusory facts to support the plausible inference that any agreement among the manufacturers was made. Judge Bea was joined by Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson, and Richard C. Tallman on the appellate court panel. Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel C. Girard, Esq. -- dcg@GirardGibbs.com -- Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. -- ecp@GirardGibbs.com -- Amanda Steiner, Esq. -- as@GirardGibbs.com & Scott M. Grzenczyk Esq. -- smg@GirardGibbs.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP Defendants are represented by Margaret M. Zwisler, Esq. -- margaret.zwisler@lw.com -- J. Scott Ballenger, Esq. -- scott.ballenger@lw.com -- Christopher S. Yates, Esq. -- chris.yates@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- DJ Neill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grande Communications Networks LLC d/b/a Grande Communications, and Karen Broach d/b/a Broadband Staffing Solutions, Case No. 1:15-cv-00792 (W.D. Tex., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are involved in the business of installation of broadband telecommunications and telephone systems. The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Derek Braziel, Esq. J. Forester, Esq. LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P. 1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325 Dallas, TX 75202 Telephone: (214) 749-1400 Facsimile: (214) 749-1010 E-mail: www.overtimelawyer.com HEALTH NET: Supreme Court Requested Plaintiffs to File Response --------------------------------------------------------------- Health Net, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Military and Family Life Counseling Program Putative Class and Collective Actions, the U.S. Supreme Court requested that the Plaintiffs file a response to the petition, which was due August 24, 2015. The Company said, "We are a defendant in three related litigation matters pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Northern District of California") relating to the independent contractor classification of counselors ("MFLCs") who contracted with our subsidiary, MHN Government Services, Inc. ("MHNGS"), to provide short-term, non- medical counseling at U.S. military installations throughout the country under our Military and Family Life Counseling (formerly Military and Family Life Consultants) program." "On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors in the state of Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that they would have received had they been classified as non-exempt employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. We moved to compel the case to arbitration, and the court denied the motion on September 30, 2011. We appealed the decision. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision on August 15, 2013. On February 26, 2014, we removed this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. "On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington action, as well as 12 other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has since transferred the case to the Northern District of California to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2, 2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also a subsidiary). "The third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico, Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October 24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. "On November 1, 2012, we moved to compel arbitration in the Northern District of California, and the court denied the motion on April 3, 2013. We noticed our appeal of that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 8, 2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification to allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective action members. The court stayed all other proceedings pending an outcome in the Ninth Circuit appeal. "On December 17, 2014, a divided (2-1) Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the district court's decision denying our motion to compel arbitration. On January 14, 2015, we petitioned for rehearing en banc, and the Ninth Circuit denied the petition on February 9, 2015. On February 13, 2015, the Ninth Circuit granted our motion to stay the proceedings, and the proceedings will remain stayed until the final disposition by the U.S. Supreme Court of our petition for a writ of certiorari. Our petition for writ of certiorari was filed on June 10, 2015. On July 23, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court requested that the Plaintiffs file a response to the petition, which was due August 24, 2015. "On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred to the Northern District of California to relate it to the two FLSA suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, we moved to stay the suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. We also filed two alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case to arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims and California Labor Code section 226.8 claims. On June 3, 2014, the court granted our motion to stay, and denied the later alternative motions without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted. "This suit will also remain stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court's disposition of our June 10, 2015 petition for writ of certiorari. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims; however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties." HOLLYWOOD PARK: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers Meal Period ---------------------------------------------------------------- John K. Drayton, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Hollywood Park Casino Company Inc., LAX Property, LLC, d/b/a Hollywood Park Casino, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC5939355 (D. Cal., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide lawful and uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods to employees who worked more than five hours per day. The Defendants own and operate a casino in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric A. Boyajlan, Esq. Heather Davis, Esq. Cody L. Payne, Esq. PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP 136 Main St., Suite A El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 290-3095 Facsimile: (866) 264-7880 HOME DEPOT: Recalls LED Downlights Lights Due to Injury Risk ------------------------------------------------------------ Starting date: September 8, 2015 Posting date: September 8, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Electrical Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54768 This recall involves TCP Connected LED Downlights Lights. They are 5" or 6", 11 Watt white coloured recessed LED lights. The model number and date code are listed on the black plastic housing at the back of the light. The following model numbers in Canada are included in this recall: TCP Item Number Date Code --------------- --------- CD611LCF 1424217 1441217 CD611LCDLF 1424217 An incorrectly assembled internal part in the unit may create a risk of injury due to electrical shock hazard during installation. Neither Health Canada nor Technical Consumer Products, Inc. has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products. Approximately 1697 units were sold to consumers at Home Depot stores in Canada. Approximately 24,438 units were sold to retailers in the United States, of which approximately 2000 were sold to consumers. The recalled products were sold from June 2014 to June 2015 in Canada. Manufactured in China. Manufacturer: Technical Consumer Products, Inc. Aurora Ohio UNITED STATES Distributor: The Home Depot of Canada Inc. Toronto Ontario CANADA Consumers should immediately discontinue use of the product. Consumers should disconnect the power and uninstall the product. Consumers with affected products should contact Technical Consumer Products, Inc. by telephone at 1-800-397-2864 or visit the firm's website and click on "Recall" to obtain a replacement product. Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's website. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/HTwoDU HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Motion for Interlocutory Appeal Allowed -------------------------------------------------------------- Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the Bank's motion for an interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision. The Bank is a defendant in a putative class action filed on October 15, 2013. The plaintiffs filed the action in West Virginia state court on behalf of themselves and other West Virginia mortgage loan borrowers who allege they were charged late fees in violation of West Virginia law and the loan documents. Plaintiffs seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages and attorney's fees. The Bank removed the case to federal court, answered the complaint, and, on January 17, 2014, filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that West Virginia law is preempted by federal law and therefore does not apply to the Bank. Following further briefing by the parties, the federal district court denied the Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings on September 26, 2014. On June 8, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Bank's motion for an interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision. IBERIABANK: "Haas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Lydia Haas and Shellie McCall, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Iberiabank, Iberiabank Corp., Florida Bank Group, Inc. n/k/a Iberiabank, Case No. 8:15-cv-02087- JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla., September 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants offer commercial and retail banking products and services to customers in Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Arkansas, Tennessee and Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Paolo C. Meireles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA 1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Telephone: (561) 477-8888 Facsimile: (561) 477-8831 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com ILLINOIS: Dept. of The Lottery Sued Over Failure to Pay Winners --------------------------------------------------------------- Rhonda Rasche and Daniel Chasteen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. B.R. Lane, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of the Lottery, the Illinois Department of The Lottery, the Illinois Lottery Control Board, and Northstar Lottery Group, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-07918 (N.D. Ill., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to make payouts due and owing to the Illinois Lottery Winners. The Illinois Department of The Lottery and The Illinois Lottery Control Board are governmental entities of the state of Illinois. Northstar Lottery Group, LLC is a provider of operations management, technology solutions and innovative lottery products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq. Eleonora P. Khazanova, Esq. Matthew C. De Re, Esq. Nicholas J. Hagman, Esq. ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C. 77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 440-0020 Facsimile: (312) 440-4180 E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com ella@attorneyzim.com matt@attorneyzim.com nick@attorneyzim.com I LOVE: "Velasco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Nicolas Velasco and other similarly situated individuals v. I Love Sushi, Inc., Supavee Nitiwatana, and Surasak Kamkajon, Case No. 0:15-cv-61901-WJZ (S.D. Fla., September 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Broward County, Florid. The Plaintiff is represented by: 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: apetisco@rgpattornneys.com IOS/PCI: "Raleigh" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages --------------------------------------------------------------- Larry Raleigh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. IOS/PCI, LLC d/b/a Inspection Oilfield Services, Case No. 4:15-cv-02594 (S.D. Tex., September 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. IOS/PCI, LLC is a diversified company providing oil and gas related services and equipment in areas such as casing, drill pipe, drill tools, tubing, machine shop and fabrication, and mobile services. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq. Jessica M. Bresler, Esq. FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS &JOSEPHSON 1150 Bissonnet Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 751-0025 Facsimile: (713) 751-0030 E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com adunlap@fibichlaw.com litkin@fibichlaw.com jbresler@fibichlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C. 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com IOWA SELECT: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Misbranding ----------------------------------------------------------- Iowa Select Herbs, LLC (the "Company") is conducting a consumer recall for inventory sold between January 1, 2015 and August 17, 2015 pursuant to a Consent Decree issued by the federal court for the Northern District of Iowa. The Consent Decree was issued because the Company manufactured and distributed unapproved new drugs, misbranded drugs, misbranded dietary supplements, and dietary supplements not manufactured in compliance with the current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations for Dietary Supplements, and therefore adulterated. There are no reports to date of side effects or adverse events. The recalled products are herbal extracts marketed under the Iowa Select Herbs brand in either an alcohol or alcohol free (A/F) solution packaged in various sizes from 1oz to 1 gallon. The following lots are being recalled: PRODUCT QUANTITY** LOT EXP. DATE ------- ---------- --- --------- CHAPARRAL 2 31467 5/19 CILANTRO 2 32446 4/20 CYPRESS 1 06305L12 4/20 and 9/19 and 6030542 RASBEERRY 1 19183 and 4/20 and 12/19 30614 SAGE 1 32880 and 4/20 and 12/19 32282 WHITE WILLOW 2 32973 4/20 ALISMA 1 130601H040 2/19 ELDERBERRIES 3 33223 and 5/19 and 6/19 19847 FENUGREEK 39 32684 11/19 GOLDENSEAL 3 32996 9/19 RHODIOLA 1 131101H504 12/19 WHITE PEONY 80 111001H209 2/20 EXTRACT YOHIMBE 4 20508 and 4/18 32533 ST JOHNS 1 19892 2/19 WORT PANAX GINSENG 1 8958 12/19 PAPAYA LEAF 36 unknown unknown CAPSULES ZIZIPHUS 2 0515GF 8/19 ACIA BERRY 10 22345 5/17 ALFALFA 1 30464 2/19 ALOE VERA 10 m10752 11/16 ARNICA 10 30599 2/19 FLOWERS ARTICHOKE 10 45894 5/17 LEAF ASHWAGANDA 12 22349 5/19 ASTRAGULUS 1 30900 5/19 ATRACTYLODES 10 45811 5/17 BEET ROOT 10 22351 8/19 BLACK COHOSH 2 19972 8/19 ROOT BOSWELLIA 2 209tc13 7/17 SERRATA BROAD BEANS 1 15882 11/18 BUCHU LEAF 1 30338 7/17 CASCARA ROOT 1 17233 3/17 CATS CLAW 1 31487 4/19 CINNAMON 3 29792 5/19 BARK CITRUS PEEL 1 55756 4/19 CRANBERRY 1 76542 3/17 CUDWEED 1 31796 3/17 DAMIANA LEAF 2 31265 4/17 FENNEL SEED 1 31001 4/20 EXTRACT GINGER 1 33500 5/19 GINGKO 1 30520 8/18 GRAPESEED 3 32574 2/19 GREEN TEA 1 32513 2/19 HAWTHORNE 1 96483 2/20 BERRY LOBELIA LEAF 1 31266 6/19 MOMORDICA 1 58545F 6/19 GALLON Nettle Leaf 4 56598 5/19 (4oz) OREGANO 2 19976 5/18 Organic 1 unknown unknown Papaya Leaf POMEGRANATE 1 15114217282 unknown PROPOLIS 1 22386 8/18 EXTRACT PSOREALEA 1 49697 2/19 SEED REISHI 1 8427 2/20 RHUBARB ROOT 1 30176 2/18 SANGRE DE 1 32900 2/18 GRADO SARSPARILLA 1 30709 7/19 SCHIZNDRA 1 22389 7/18 TUMERIC 1 37441 7/20 VALERIAN 24 31-Mar 4/20 ROOT EXTRACT YARROW 24 22396 7/18 FLOWERS PAPAYA LEAF 999 33161; 4/20 EXTRACT R1380ST; (Various sizes) 52972 A BILBERRY 1 19889 5/19 ACEROLA 10 32795 4/19 BERRY ASTAGULUS 13 31685 5/19 ROOT BAYBERRY 1 31186 4/20 BILBERRY 10 19889 5/19 LEAF BITTER MELON 1 58545F 5/19 BLACK 1 64832 5/17 CURRANT BLOOD ROOT 1 30746 5/19 Burdock Root 24 20771 4/20 Chamomile 10 31778 3/19 Flowers CHICORY Root 2 55426 and 4/20 55910 COLD BE GONE 300 87366 1/20 (Various Sizes) Dandelion 26 324966 9/20 Leaf DANDELION 21 30902; 4/20 and 9/19 ROOT 32945; 20792; 33154; 33583 DULSE LEAF 2 22356 4/20 ECHINACEA 6 32263 4/20 PURP. (various sizes) ELEUTHERO 1 30469 12/19 ROOT GARCINIA 4 21484 6/19 FRUIT GINGER ROOT 22 31123 and 5/19 33500 Graviola Leaf 17 22363 9/20 GYMNEMA 28 m10866 2/19 SYLVESTRE HIBISCUS 2 30763 3/19 JERUSALEM 24 5514 5/19 ARTICHOKE JEWEL WEED 4 17544800916 5/19 JUNIPER 2 19836 5/19 BERRY KAVA KAVA 29 30540 and 2/20 33660 Lemon Balm 12 32700 2/20 Leaf LICORICE ROOT 130 32698 and 2/20 33380 MAGNOLIA BARK 2 PAS130828 4/20 and 5/19 Marshmallow 3 30933 4/19 Root MILK THISTLE 113 32358; 4/20 and 10/19; EXTRACT 32964; 10/19;1019 (various sizes) 631H42200122 MUIRA PUAMA 22 R11165 1/20 NETTLE LEAF 1 20769 5/19 OATSTRAW 49 31953 and 9/19 33183 OATSTRAW 60 31953 and 9/19 EXTRACT 33183 OLIVE LEAF 42 32772 5/19 EXTRACT Osha Root 35 32303 3/20 Propolis 1 22386 8/18 Resin Pygeum Bark 39 32407 12/19 QUACK GRASS 2 20668 12/19 Saw Palmetto 20 32654 9/19 Berry Scullcap 3 32863 4/19 SOLOMON SEAL 3 350150980313 2/19 and 32862 SUMA ROOT 3 210535 2/19 WORMSEED 25 0415AN01 7/20 YUCCA ROOT 2 31990 2/19 **Quantity refers to the number of units distributed and not the size of the unit (e.g. ounces or gallons). The recalled products were sold nationwide between January 1, 2015 to August 17, 2015 to wholesalers and consumers using the Company's website and through online marketplace websites, such as Amazon and Ebay. Iowa Select Herbs is notifying its wholesale and retail customers through written correspondence. We urge consumers who have purchased these products to immediately discontinue their use and contact their physician if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking these products. The Company is advising consumers to return the products to their place of purchase. Consumers may also return products directly to Iowa Select Herbs. Customers can call the Company at 319-826-1000 Monday through Friday from 9:00 am - 5:00 pm CST for instructions on the return and refund process. Any adverse events or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program either online, by regular mail or by fax: Online: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/index.cfm?action=r eporting.home Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500 available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UC M163919.pdf. Mail to address on the preaddressed form. Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178 This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. JJ MAA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Medical Expenses Coverage ---------------------------------------------------------- Janice Butler v. JJ MAA, Inc., d/b/a Jamba Juice and Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Case No. 2015L0091B7 (D. Ill., September 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the applicable coverage for medical expenses incurred by individuals injured at the Jamba Juice premises. JJ MAA, Inc. owns and operates a business premises located at 1322 South Halsted Street. Hartford Fire Insurance Company is an insurance company conducting and doing business within the State of Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Langendorf, Esq. ROBERT A. LANGENDORF, P.C. 134 North Lasalle Street, Suite 1515 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 782-5933 Facsimile: (312) 377-1771 E-mail: robert@langendorfpc.com KBR INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, In re KBR, Inc. Securities Litigation, the Company awaits a ruling on the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The Company said, "Lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and Local 58/NECA Funds, seek class action status on behalf of our shareholders, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our current and former chief financial officers, and our former chief accounting officer, arising out of the restatement of our 2013 annual financial statements, and seek undisclosed damages. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Master File No. 14-cv-01287." "We intend to vigorously defend against these claims and filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to plead particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter on the part of the individual defendants. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on March 5, 2015 and we await a ruling on this motion. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter." KEY ENERGY: Hearing on Class Certification Motion Held ------------------------------------------------------ Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing on the class certification motion was scheduled for August 10, 2015. Between May of 2013 and June of 2014, five lawsuits (four class actions and one enforcement action) were filed in California involving alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws. In general, the lawsuits allege failure to pay wages, including overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay final wages upon employment terminations in a timely manner, failure to reimburse reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to provide wage statements consistent with California law, and violations of the California meal and break period laws, among other claims. Two of the five cases have been consolidated in United States District Court for the Central District of California. A hearing on the class certification motion was scheduled for August 10, 2015. One of the remaining cases has been stayed pending outcome of the class certification motion. The fourth case is waiting for a decision regarding whether it will move forward in California state court or in federal court. The fifth case is an enforcement action for civil penalties based on California's Private Attorneys General Act, which is pending in California state court. "We have investigated the claims in all five lawsuits, and intend to vigorously defend them. At this time, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss," the Company said. KEY ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action ------------------------------------------------ Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss two class action lawsuits and another Defendant filed a Joinder in Motion and Motion to Dismiss on the same date. In August 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated against the Company and certain officers of the Company, alleging violations of federal securities laws, specifically, violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5, Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Those lawsuits were styled as follows: Sean Cady, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4:14-cv-2368, filed on August 15, 2014; and Ian W. Davidson, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4.14-cv-2403, filed on August 21, 2014. On December 11, 2014, the Court entered an order that consolidated the two lawsuits into one action, along with any future filed tag- along actions brought on behalf of purchasers of Key Energy Services, Inc. common stock. The order also appointed Inter-Local Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the class action and approved the law firm of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. as lead counsel for the consolidated class and Kendall Law Group, LLP, as local counsel for the consolidated class. The lead plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint on February 13, 2015. Among other changes, the consolidated amended complaint adds Taylor M. Whichard III and Newton W. Wilson III as defendants and expands the class period to include the timeframe between September 4, 2012 and July 17, 2014. Defendants Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, J. Marshall Dodson and Newton W. Wilson III filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 14, 2015. Defendant Taylor M. Whichard III filed a Joinder in Motion and Motion to Dismiss on the same date. "Because this case is in the early stages, we cannot predict the outcome at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss," the Company said. KEY ENERGY: Defending Class Action in Corpus Christi, TX -------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in March 2015, two collective action lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"). "We have answered the lawsuits and asserted affirmative defenses. Because the cases are in the early stages, we cannot predict the outcomes at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss for either case," the Company said. KEY ENERGY: Collective Action Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in April 2015, a collective action lawsuit was filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, individually and on behalf of similarly situated employees, alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the FLSA. This lawsuit was dismissed, without prejudice, on April 30, 2015. KEY ENERGY: Defending Class Action in Houston, TX ------------------------------------------------- Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in May 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging violations of the FLSA and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. "We have answered the lawsuit and asserted affirmative defenses. Because the case is in the early stages, we cannot predict the outcome at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss of this case," the Company said. KEYSTONE: Recalls Multiple Trailer Models Due to Fire Risk ---------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: Travel Trailer Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Other Units affected: 372 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015393TC ID number: 2015393 Manufacturer recall number: 15-243 Certain travel trailers may have been manufactured with a defective transfer switch. Travel trailer operation in high ambient temperatures could cause the wiring in the switch to fail and overheat increasing the risk of fire causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the transfer switch. Make Model Model year(s) affected ---- ----- ---------------------- KEYSTONE MONTANA 2008 KEYSTONE EVEREST 2008 KEYSTONE RAPTOR 2008 KEYSTONE CHALLENGER 2008 KEYSTONE FUZION 2008 KEYSTONE BIG SKY 2008 KLX ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Aguilar" Suit Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Gonzalo Aguilar, Christopher Rodriguez, Christopher Fierro, Martin Contreras, Ricardo Montalvo, and Isaiah Rocha on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. KLX Energy Services, LLC and Cornell Wireline Services, LLC d/b/a CWES, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00781-FB (W.D. Tex., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants are in the business of providing services to the oil and gas company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. Rachael Rustmann, Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C. 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331.1800 Facsimile: (806) 398.9095 E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com rachael@youngfirm.com LIBERTY GLOBAL: Liberty Puerto Rico Continues to Face Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Liberty Global plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Liberty Puerto Rico continues to face class action claim filed in Puerto Rico. The Company said, "In November 2012, we completed a business combination that resulted in, among other matters, the combination of our then operating subsidiary in Puerto Rico with San Juan Cable, LLC dba OneLink Communications (OneLink). In connection with this transaction (the OneLink Acquisition), Liberty Puerto Rico, as the surviving entity, became a party to certain claims previously asserted by the incumbent telephone operator against OneLink based on alleged conduct of OneLink that occurred prior to the OneLink Acquisition (the PRTC Claim). This claim included an allegation that OneLink acted in an anticompetitive manner in connection with a series of legal and regulatory proceedings it initiated against the incumbent telephone operator in Puerto Rico beginning in 2009." "In March 2014, a separate class action claim was filed in Puerto Rico (the Class Action Claim) containing allegations substantially similar to those asserted in the PRTC Claim, but alleging ongoing injury on behalf of a consumer class (as opposed to harm to a competitor). The former owners of OneLink have partially indemnified us for any losses we may incur in connection with the PRTC Claim up to a specified maximum amount. However, the indemnity does not cover any potential losses resulting from the Class Action Claim. "Liberty Puerto Rico has recorded a provision and a related indemnification asset representing its best estimate of the net loss that it may incur upon the ultimate resolution of the PRTC Claim. While Liberty Puerto Rico expects that the net amount required to satisfy these contingencies will not materially differ from the estimated amount it has accrued, no assurance can be given that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or financial position in any given period." LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide CUT Refund ---------------------------------------------------------------- T-Mobile West v. City of Los Angeles, and Does 1 through 20, Case No. BC594114 (D. Cal., September 9, 2015), asserts that The City has illegally refused to grant the Plaintiffs refund requests for Communications Users Tax ("CUT") collected and remitted on Roaming Charges. City of Los Angeles is a charter city of the State of California, having adopted a charter as authorized by the Constitution of the State of California, Article XL. The Plaintiff is represented by: David Colker, Esq. Hugh Goodwin, Esq. Henry Cheng, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214 Telephone: (650) 833-2000 Facsimile: (650) 833-2001 E-mail: david.colker@dlapiper.com hugh.goodwin@dlapiper.com henry.cheng@dlapiper.com MASIMO CORPORATION: District Court Granted Joint Request -------------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the District Court has granted the parties' joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on the appeal. On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive relief. On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested in the petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's decision on the petition. On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint request that the stay remain in place pending a decision on the appeal. The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company as of the date of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. MASIMO CORPORATION: Motion for Summary Judgment Currently Pending ----------------------------------------------------------------- Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the Company's motion for summary judgment is currently pending before the Court. On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided at the request of study investigators for use in the trial. A previous version of the complaint also alleged a wrongful death claim, which the Court dismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney fees and injunctive and other relief. On January 30, 2015, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which is currently pending before the Court. The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the remaining claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will occur or to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss has been accrued by the Company as of the date of filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q. MATSON INC: To Contest Class Actions on Horizon Lines Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Matson, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A (Amendment No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, that in the event a settlement does not resolve class action lawsuits related to a merger with Horizon Lines, Inc., intend to contest them vigorously. On November 25, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Joshua Loken v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 10399-VCL (the "Loken Action"). The complaint names as defendants each member of the Company's Board (the "Individual Defendants"), the Company, and Matson Navigation Company, Inc., Matson, Inc., and Hogan Acquisition, Inc. (collectively, "the Matson Companies"). The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount. On December 1, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned J. Cola Inc. v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 10412-VCL (the "J. Cola Action"). The complaint names as defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff in the J. Cola Action filed an amended complaint, adding a cause of action for breach of the directors' fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014 Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material information and/or included materially misleading information. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount. On December 2, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Finn Kristiansen v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., Case No. 10418-VCL (the "Kristiansen Action"). The complaint names as defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff in the Kristiansen Action filed an amended complaint, adding a cause of action for breach of the directors' fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014 Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material information and/or included materially misleading information. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount. On January 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Frederick Schwartz v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., Case No. 10594-VCL (the "Schwartz Action"). The complaint names as defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty, due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014 Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material information and/or included materially misleading information. The relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount. On February 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware issued an order consolidating the Loken Action, J. Cola Action, Kristiansen Action, and Schwartz Action into "In re Horizon Lines, Inc. Stockholders Litigation," Consolidated C.A. 10399-VCL (the "Consolidated Action"). On February 13, 2015, the defendants and the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action reached an agreement in principle, subject to the court's approval (the "Memorandum of Understanding"), providing for the settlement and dismissal, with prejudice, of the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to such Memorandum of Understanding, the Company agreed to make additional disclosures to the Company's stockholders through a supplement to the Company's Definitive Proxy Statement and the Company and Matson agreed to amend the Merger Agreement in order to reduce the amount of the termination fee payable by the Company to Matson under certain circumstances pursuant to Section 7.3(a) of the Merger Agreement from $17.1 million to $9.5 million. On February 13, 2015, the Company, Matson and Merger Sub entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Merger Agreement. The Company and its Board of Directors believe that the claims in the Actions are entirely without merit and, in the event the settlement does not resolve them, intend to contest them vigorously. MEDISTAT RX: Recalls Sterile Drug Products Due to Contamination --------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care professionals and patients of a voluntary recall of all non- expired drug products produced for sterile use and distributed nationwide by Medistat RX, LLC, in Foley, Alabama, due to possible contamination. The recalled products were distributed between November 1, 2014, and September 3, 2015. Contaminated drugs put patients at risk of serious infection. Health care professionals should immediately check their medical supplies, quarantine any drug products marketed as sterile from Medistat, and not administer them to patients. Administration of a non-sterile drug product intended to be sterile may result in serious and potentially life-threatening infections or death. During an ongoing inspection, FDA investigators and Alabama state inspectors observed significant deficiencies that raise concerns about Medistat's ability to assure the sterility of drug products that it produced. Medistat voluntarily ceased sterile compounding operations on September 1, 2015. FDA has received reports of several adverse events that are potentially associated with drug products made by Medistat. Patients who have received any drug products produced by Medistat and have concerns should contact their health care professional. FDA encourages health care professionals and patients to report adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of these products to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program: Complete and submit the report online at www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm; or Download and complete the form, then submit it via fax at 1-800- FDA-0178. The FDA will continue to work closely with the Alabama Board of Pharmacy to protect the public health. FDA previously inspected Medistat in September 2014 and issued a Form FDA 483. Medistat is registered under section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) as an outsourcing facility. The Drug Quality and Security Act, signed into law on November 27, 2013, added a new section 503B to the FDCA. Under section 503B, a compounder can elect to become an outsourcing facility. Outsourcing facilities: Must comply with current good manufacturing practice requirements; Will be subject to inspection by FDA according to a risk-based schedule; and Must meet certain other requirements, such as reporting adverse events and providing FDA with certain information about the products they compound. MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed AOL Merger ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Parshall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Millennial Media, Inc., et al., Case No. 11485 (September 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Millennial Media, Inc. to enjoin a proposed transaction to which Millennial will be acquired by AOL, Inc. through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Millennial Media, Inc. is an advertising company that places display ads on mobile devices. AOL, Inc. operates a media technology company with its corporate headquarters located at 770 Broadway, New York, New York 10003. 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 MORGAN STANLEY: Class Action Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint --------------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that plaintiffs in the Class Action Litigation filed an amended complaint. Beginning in December 2013, several foreign exchange dealers (including the Company and certain affiliates) were named as defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions most of which have now been consolidated into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York styled In Re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation. On July 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint generally alleging that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, maintain or make artificial prices for key benchmark rates, to manipulate bid/ask spreads, and, by their behavior in the over-the-counter market, to thereby cause corresponding manipulation in the foreign exchange futures market. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief as well as treble damages in an unspecified amount. MSE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Guadalupe Cervantes, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. MSE Technologies, LLC a/k/a Micro Solutions Enterprises, Clover Technologies Group, LLC, Wazana Brothers International, Inc., and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC 594130 (D. Cal., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage due to their policy, practice, and procedure of rounding or shaving the Plaintiff and similarly situated non- exempt hourly employees' daily hours worked. The Defendants are producers of OEM-alternative printer cartridges. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent Granberry, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W: Olympic Blvd., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 - and - Sahag Majarian II, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II 18250 Ventura Boulevard Tarzana, CA 91356 Telephone: (818) 609-0807 Facsimile: (818) 609-0892 NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces DNW Suit Over Sunday Afternoon Games ------------------------------------------------------------- DNW Foods Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. National Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises LLC, DirecTV, LLC, Direct TV Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-07095 (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2015), arises out of the alleged anticompetitive agreement between the Defendants whereby the NFL provided DirecTV with the exclusive right to show the live broadcasts of Sunday afternoon NFL games out of market, thereby providing DirecTV with a monopoly on the distribution of such games. National Football League, Inc. is an unincorporated association of thirty-two American professional football teams in the United States. DirecTV, LLC and Direct TV Holdings LLC are providers of digital television entertainment in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen R. Basser, Esq. Samuel M. Ward, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE One America Plaza 600 West Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-0800 Facsimile: (619) 230-874 E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com sward@barrack.com - and - Gerald J. Rodos, Esq. Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq. BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE Two Commerce Square 2001 Market Street, Suite 3300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-0600 Facsimile: (215) 963-0838 E-mail: grodos@barrack.com jgittleman@barrack.com NUCOR STEEL: Class Certification Denied in N.D. Ohio Case --------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Zack Zouhary of the United States District Court for District of Ohio denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify class with prejudice as to Rule 23(b)(2) certification in the case captioned, Richard Grubb, Individually and on behalf of a Class, Plaintiff, v. Nucor Steel Marion, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:14- CV 158. Plaintiffs Richard Grubb and Sheila Totaro live near Defendant Nucor Steel Marion, Inc.'s (Nucor) Marion, Ohio steel mill. Plaintiffs allege the Mill's electric arc furnace and slag processing operation "shower" Plaintiffs' nearby properties with manganese. Because manganese is potentially harmful to human health, Plaintiffs say the Mill's emissions support a range of tort claims. Plaintiffs move to certify a class of all persons who, as of April 2012, resided in an area surrounding the Mill "that is subject to an average annual ambient concentration of at least .07 micrograms (or larger) of manganese per cubic meter". Plaintiffs submitted materials in support the motion such as: (1) district court slip opinions in other cases; (2) (2) a map of the proposed class area; and (3) a PowerPoint slide deck and journal article, discussing health effects of manganese based on studies with no connection to the Mill. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/nfPFeWfrom Leagle.com, Judge Zouhary held that Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing actual compliance with Rule 23 and that the Rule 23(b)(2) certification is inappropriate where "monetary relief is not incidental to the injunctive or declaratory relief. Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas J. Connick, Esq. -- tconnick@connicklawllc.com -- CONNICK LAW - and - Thomas A. Barni, Esq. DINN, HOCHMAN & POTTER 5910 Landerbrook Dr # 200, Cleveland, OH 44124, Tel:(440)446-1100 Nucor Steel Marion, Inc. is represented by Marc J. Kessler, Esq. -- mjkessler@hahnlaw.com -- Derek E. Diaz, Esq. -- ddiaz@hahnlaw.com -- HAHN, LOESER & PARKS OFFICE DEPOT: Defendants Need Not Respond to Del. Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that the parties have agreed that the defendants need not respond to the current complaint in the consolidated class action lawsuit. On February 4, 2015, Staples and Office Depot entered into the Staples Merger Agreement under which the companies would combine in a stock and cash transaction. On February 9, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by purported Office Depot shareholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware ("Court") challenging the transaction and alleging that the defendant companies -- Office Depot, Staples, Merger Sub, and Starboard Value LP -- and individual members of Office Depot's Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The plaintiffs in David Raul, v. Office Depot, Inc. et al. seek, among other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees and costs. Subsequently, eight other lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware making similar allegations, namely Beth Koeneke v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Jamison Miller v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Eric R. Gilbert v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., The Feivel and Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Office Depot, et al., Charles Miller v. Smith et al., David Max v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Patrick Connors v. Office Depot, Inc. and Steve Renous v. Smith et al. The Court subsequently consolidated all of the Delaware cases and named Jamison Miller and Steve Renous as co-plaintiffs and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. The consolidated case is named In re Office Depot, Inc. Stockholders Litigation Consolidated, C.A. No. 10655-CB. After limited discovery, the plaintiffs and defendants agreed on certain additional disclosures to the Company's definitive proxy statement filed on May 18, 2015, which were made in an 8-K filing on June 5, 2015, and the plaintiffs withdrew from the calendar their planned motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger. The parties have agreed that the defendants need not respond to the current complaint. OFFICE DEPOT: Motion to Dismiss Florida Lawsuits Granted -------------------------------------------------------- Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that Office Depot's motion to dismiss the Florida lawsuits for improper venue has been granted. In February 2015, two lawsuits were filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court, namely Keny Petit-Frere v. Office Depot, Inc., et al. and John Sweatman v. Office Depot, Inc., et al. making the same allegations as in the Delaware actions. The lawsuits generally sought injunctive relief enjoining the consummation of the transaction, rescission of the transaction in the event it is consummated, damages, fees, costs, and other remedies. Office Depot filed a motion to dismiss the Florida lawsuits for improper venue, and that motion was granted on May 15, 2015. OFFICE DEPOT: Heitzenrater Action in Early Stage ------------------------------------------------ Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that Heitzenrater v. OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York in September 2012 as a putative class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant store managers ("ASMs") as exempt employees. The Company believes that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss in the matter. OfficeMax intends to vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit. OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against Kyle Rivet Action ------------------------------------------------- Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that Kyle Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., formerly known as Constance Gibbons v. Office Depot, Inc., a putative class action that was instituted in May 2012, is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Office Depot's use of the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of pay was unlawful because Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary and failed to provide its ASMs with a clear and mutual understanding notification that they would receive a fixed weekly salary for all hours worked. The plaintiffs in both complaints seek unpaid overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. The Company believes in this case that adequate provisions have been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably possible range of loss in these matters. Office Depot intends to vigorously defend itself in these lawsuits. OKARCHE BAKERY: Recalls Frozen Cookie Dough Due to Allergens ------------------------------------------------------------ Okarche Bakery of Okarche, OK is recalling ALL FROZEN COOKIE DOUGH, because it may contain undeclared Milk, Soy, Wheat and Yellow #5. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to these allergens run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product. Product was distributed in Oklahoma City and surrounding areas through fundraisers. Product can be identified as Okarche's Old Fashioned Gourmet Cookie Dough in white 3lb. plastic tubs. The recalled product does not have a lot number or best buy date. No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was initiated after the problem was discovered during a label review. The product can be returned to Tower Caf‚, 412 S. Main ,Okarche, OK 73762. Or call if you have any questions 405-263-7911, 8 am to 5 pm CST, ask for Craig Hubbard Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm461612.htm OLLI SALUMERIA: Recalls Salami Products Due to Misbranding ---------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced that Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC., an Oceanside, Calif., establishment, is recalling approximately 5,391 pounds of salami products due to misbranding. The products' packaging does not contain a list of ingredients, and FSIS wants consumers to be aware that this product was formulated with wine that contains sulfites. Consumption of these products may cause adverse health consequences for consumers who have sulfite sensitivities. The salami was produced on various dates from Aug. 3-27, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- "Olli Salumeria Napoli Applewood Smoked Salame" in 5.5 lb. bulk cases containing 3 pieces each with case code "2610" on the packaging. --- "Olli Salumeria Sopressata Robust Salame" in 5.5 lb. bulk cases containing 3 pieces each with case code "2659" on the packaging. --- "Olli Salumeria Genoa Mild Salame" in 5.5 lb. bulk cases containing 3 pieces each with case code "2449" on the packaging. --- "Olli Salumeria Toscano Fennel Pollen Salame" in 5.5 lb. bulk cases containing 3 pieces each with case code "2609" on the packaging. --- "Olli Salumeria Pepperoni Classic American Salame" in 5.5 lb. bulk cases containing 3 pieces each with case code "2295" on the packaging. --- "Olli Salumeria Calabrese Spicy Salame" in 5.5 lb. bulk cases containing 3 pieces each with case code "2448" on the packaging. The products subject to recall bear establishment number "Est. 45334" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were sold to one distributor, who then sold it to restaurants in Arizona, California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Nevada and New York. The problem was discovered by an FSIS consumer safety inspector during routine inspection activities. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned 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. Consumers or media with questions about the recall can contact the company at info@olli.com. 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. ONE MINUTE: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Undeclared Drugs --------------------------------------------------------------- The One Minute Miracle Inc. is voluntarily recalling all lots of Miracle Diet 30, capsules and Miracle Rock 48, capsules to the consumer level. These products have been recalled due to FDA analysis revealing that these dietary supplements contain undeclared drug products making them unapproved drugs. Miracle Diet 30 has been found to contain undeclared phenolphthalein, phenolphthalein was an ingredient used in over- the counter laxatives but was removed from the market because of concerns of carcinogenicity. There is a reasonable probability that the health risks of long term phenolphthalein consumption could include serious gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular heartbeat, and cancer with long term use. Miracle Rock 48 has been found to contain undeclared thiosildenafil, thiosildenafil is an analogue of sildenafil which is an approved drug used for the treatment of male sexual enhancement. Based on the similarity of chemical structures thiosildenafil, the analogue of sildenafil is likely to have a similar pharmacological effect as sildenafil and there is a reasonable probability that concomitant use of this dietary supplement and nitrates could cause a sudden and significant drop in blood pressure that may be life threatening. The company has received no reports of illness associated with these products to date. Miracle Diet 30 capsules is marketed as a dietary supplement to support appetite control and weight loss and is packaged in 30- count plastic bottles. All lots of Miracle Diet 30 through the expiration date of 04/15/2018 are affected. Product was distributed via internet nationwide in the United States. Miracle Rock 48 capsules is marketed as a dietary supplement for male sexual enhancement and is packaged in two blister packages of 2- count capsules, 4 capsules per box. All lots of Miracle Rock 48 through the expiration date of 06/01/2018 are affected. Product was distributed via nationwide in the United States. In addition to the voluntary recall of the above products, The One Minute Miracle Inc. has chosen to voluntarily withdraw the following products from the marketplace to provide its customers with the certainty of safety. Those products include all sizes and lots of Miracle Cholesterol, Miracle Night Time, Miracle Joint- Flex, Miracle Stud 72, Miracle Magic Man, Male Mint Gum, Miracle 48 Hrs, Miracle Magic Woman, Miracle Cougar, Miracle Cougar Gum, Miracle Cougar G-Spot, Miracle G-Spot, Vagina Rejuvenation, Miracle Anti-Wrinkle, Miracle Stud Delay, Miracle Male Stud Spray, Miracle Male Stud Coffee, Miracle Male Coffee, Male 10, Miracle Male Stud Sublingual, Male 72 Hr, Miracle Tongue Sublingual, Miracle Tongue and Master Blaster The One Minute Miracle is notifying its customers via U.S. Postal Service and is arranging for return of recalled products. Consumers that have Miracle Diet 30 and/or Miracle Rock 48 which are being recalled should stop using and return product(s) immediately to: The One Minute Miracle Inc. 3322 NE 166 Street, North Miami Beach, FL 33160 Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact The One Minute Miracle Inc. by phone (305)947-6244 or email theoneminutemiracle@gmail.com Monday through Friday, 9:00am through 5:00pm EST. Consumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product. Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax. Complete and submit the report Online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm Regular Mail or Fax: Download form www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178 This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm462132.htm ORGANICGIRL PRODUCE: Recalls Baby Spinach Products Due to Cadmium ----------------------------------------------------------------- Organicgirl Produce is voluntarily recalling a limited quantity of 5 oz. organicgirl Baby Spinach with a Use-by Date of September 13 and Product Code B030298-001B08S due to test results indicating the presence of trace levels of the naturally-occurring element cadmium. The recall includes 1,290 cases distributed primarily to Western and Midwestern states. No other organicgirl Baby Spinach products or other organicgirl salads are included in the recall. No illnesses are reported in association with this recall. Because it is naturally-occurring in the earth's soil, trace levels of cadmium are found in many foods as well as in the water and air. There is no minimum health tolerance for Cadmium in crops or soil in the U.S. at this time and the probability of acute health consequences from consumption of Cadmium is remote. organicgirl Produce is coordinating closely with regulators. This recall action is being taken out of an abundance of caution due to an isolated instance in which a single package of 5 oz. organicgirl Baby Spinach tested randomly by the California Department of Public Health demonstrated the presence of trace levels of cadmium. This recall is one in which any health risk is perceived to be non-life-threatening with any potential health effects being temporary or reversible. The precautionary recall is being conducted to reach retailers and consumers to notify them that according to the California Department of Public Health, the recalled product should not be consumed. Consumers are being asked to check their refrigerators for a 5 oz. package of organicgirl Baby Spinach with a Use-by Date of September 13 and Product Code of B030298-001B08S. If found, it should be discarded. organicgirl will gladly replace it. Consumers with questions may call the organicgirl consumer hotline at 866- 486-4939, Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m., Pacific Standard Time. Retailers are asked to check their inventories and store shelves to confirm that none of the recalled product is present or available for purchase. organicgirl Produce customer service representatives have already contacted retailers who received product subject to this recall. The recalled product was distributed to a total of 13 states including Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Utah. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm462305.htm ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Singh Action Remains at Early Stage ----------------------------------------------------------- Orthofix International N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the class action lawsuit filed by Tejinder Singh remains at an early stage. On August 14, 2013, a securities class action complaint against the Company, previously styled Tejinder Singh v. Orthofix International N.V., et al., and which is now styled Plumbers & Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Orthofix International N.V., et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York arising out of the then anticipated restatement of the Company's prior financial statements. Since the date of original filing, the complaint has been amended. The lead plaintiff's complaint, as amended, purports to bring claims on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock between March 2, 2010 and July 29, 2013. The complaint asserts that the Company and four of its former executive officers, Alan W. Milinazzo, Robert S. Vaters, Brian McCollum, and Emily V. Buxton (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"), violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 ("Rule 10b-5") by making false or misleading statements in or relating to the Company's financial statements. The complaint further asserts that the Individual Defendants were liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act for any violation by the Company of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act or Rule 10b-5. As relief, the complaint requests compensatory damages on behalf of the proposed class and lead plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs. On March 6, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss as to Mr. Milinazzo and denied it with respect to the Company and the other Individual Defendants. "This matter remains at an early stage and, as of the date of this Form 10-Q, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, or range of loss, in connection with it," the Company said. OVER & OVER: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alberto Garcia, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Over & Over Ready Mix, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC593543 (D. Cal., September 8, 2015), seeks to recovery of unpaid overtime wages and penalties under California Labor Code. Over & Over Ready Mix, Inc. is a supplier of commercial and residential concrete needs. The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Kristina R. Sherry, Esq. BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP 222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 322-2220 Facsimile: (310)322-2228 E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com fschmidt@bollaw.com ksherry@bollaw.com OVERWAITEA FOOD: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella ---------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Overwaitea Food Group Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10036 Overwaitea Food Group is recalling field cucumbers purchased from Save On Foods, PriceSmart Foods, Coopers Foods, Overwaitea, and Freson Brothers due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below. This recall applies to fresh field cucumbers sold in bulk, unwrapped purchased from Save On Foods, PriceSmart Foods, Coopers Foods, Overwaitea, and Freson Brothers on or before September 4, 2015. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased affected cucumbers should check with their retail store. The following cucumbers have been sold from Save On Foods, PriceSmart Foods, Coopers Foods, Overwaitea, and Freson Brothers stores in Alberta and British Columbia. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. Currently, the CFIA is not aware of any reported illnesses in Canada associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by a recall by Andrew and Williamson Fresh Produce ("A&W") of San Diego, California, and may be associated with an outbreak in the United States. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC name ----------- ---- ------------------ --- ----- None Field cucumbers Variable Purchased from Save PLU (bulk, unwrapped) On Foods, PriceSmart 4062 Foods, Coopers Foods, Overwaitea, and Freson Brothers on or before September 4, 2015 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/c4F5C2 PAPA JOHN'S: Class Action Trial Has Been Stayed ----------------------------------------------- Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that trial in a class action lawsuit, originally scheduled for August 2015, has been stayed. Perrin v. Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA, Inc. is a conditionally certified collective and class action filed in August 2009 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri ("the Court"), alleging that delivery drivers were not properly reimbursed for mileage and expenses in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Approximately 3,900 drivers out of a potential class size of 28,800 opted into the action. In late December 2013, the District Court granted a motion for class certification in five additional states, which added approximately 15,000 plaintiffs to the case. The trial, originally scheduled for August 2015, was stayed in June 2015, pending U.S. Supreme Court review of another relevant case regarding certification. After the stay was granted, the parties reached a settlement in principle subject to approval by the Court. The Company continues to deny any liability or wrongdoing in this matter. In accordance with this preliminary settlement agreement, the Company has recorded a pre-tax expense of $12.3 million for the quarter ended June 28, 2015 under the provisions of ASC 450, Contingencies. This amount is separately reported as Legal settlement expense in the condensed consolidated statements of income. PEOPLE CREATING: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Unlawful Termination --------------------------------------------------------------- John-Paul Nagel v. People Creating Success, Inc., People Creating Success-North Los Angeles, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC593906 (D. Cal., September 8, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged wrongful termination of the Plaintiff who discloses information about the employer's working conditions. The Defendants provide supported living services, independent living services and day services for adults with developmental disabilities. The Plaintiff is represented by: Heather Appleton, Esq. Cherryl F. Cercado,. Esq. APPLETON LAW GROUP, APC 2101 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 4240 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (310) 474-7022 Facsimile: (310) 474-7023 E-mail: happleton@appletonlg.com ccercado@appletonlg.com PILOT TRAVEL: Settlements in Hot Fuel Case Win Final Approval ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the United States District Court for District of Kansas sustained Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement in the case captioned, IN RE: MOTOR FUEL TEMPERATURE SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION (This Document Relates to All Cases), Case No. 07-MD-1840-KHV. On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") designated this Court as the transferee court for federal cases challenging sales practices of motor fuel retailers and refiners with regard to motor fuel temperature. The cases challenge defendants' practice of selling motor fuel by the gallon without disclosing or adjusting for temperature and without disclosing the effect of temperature on motor fuel in 26 states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia), the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam. The Court has conditionally certified and preliminarily approved 28 settlements between plaintiffs and various defendants. Following a hearing on April 1, 2010, the Court declined final class certification and final settlement approval. The Court concluded that plaintiffs had not shown that the named representatives were adequate representatives under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23(a)(4), but that the parties could restructure the agreement to try to remedy the problem. In the motion, Plaintiffs seek final approval of 28 settlements. The Defendants opposed the motion asserting that the settlements are unfair because (1) they do not benefit class members; (2) they allow excessive attorney's fees; and (3) the Valero settlement contains a most-favored-nations clause. Additinally, they assert that the proposed settlements (1) violate Article III; (2) violate the First Amendment; (3) create an appearance of quid pro quo corruption; and (4) usurp the prerogatives of federal and state regulators and violate separation of powers. In her Memorandum and Order dated August 21, 2015 available at http://is.gd/omjsYofrom Leagle.com, Judge Vratil found that class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) and that the proposed settlements are fair, reasonable and adequate under Rule 23(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court approves the 28 proposed settlements. The Court finds that the class members listed on Exhibit 7 to the Dahl Affidavit have opted out of the settlement. Judge Vratil does not address the "Second Motion For Award Of Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, And Class Representative Incentive Awards and Memorandum In Support," finding that the general notice to class members provided sufficient information regarding attorney's fees to allow class members a fair opportunity to lodge general objections to the settlements and fee request. He scheduled the hearing regarding the Second Motion for Attorneys' Fees on November 19, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. Plaintiffs are represented by George A. Zelcs, Esq. -- gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- KOREIN TILLERY, LLC, Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq. -- jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- HORN, AYLWARD & BANDY LLC & Thomas V. Bender, Esq. -- tbender@wbsvlaw.com -- WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, PC The Defendants and their counsel are: BP Corporation North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas M. Todd, Phillips McFall McCaffrey McVay & Murrah, PC, Jarrod J. White, Cabaniss Johnston Gardner Dumas & O'Neal, Lisa J. Zastrow, Kummer Kaempger Bonner Rensahw & Ferrario, Michael F. Saunders, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP, Nancy G. Milburn, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Ronald C. Redcay, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Sandra Grisham Robinson, Cabaniss Johnston Gardner Dumas & O'Neal, Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Thomas G. Wolfe, Phillips McFall McCaffrey McVay & Murrah, PC. Casey's General Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by James D. Griffin, Esq. - jgriffin@sakg.com -- SCHARNHORST AST KENNARD GRIFFIN PC, Martin M. Loring, Esq. -- martin.loring@huschblackwell.com & Michael E. Norton, Esq. -- michael.norton@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP Chevron USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brendan A. McShane, Latham & Watkins LLP, Cynthia H. Cwik, Jones Day, Darius Ogloza, Ogloza Fortney LLP, David G. Hosenpud, Lane Powell PC, Ernest J. Getto, Latham & Watkins LLP, Garrett S. Long, Latham & Watkins LLP, Heather L.T. Potts, Latham & Watkins LLP, Kirsten Ferguson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Lisa T. Silvestri, Gable & Gotwals, Mary Rose Alexander, Latham & Watkins LLP, Robert C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC, Stephen Stublarec, Latham & Watkins LLP, Terry D. Ragsdale, Gable & Gotwals & Thomas J. Heiden, Latham & Watkins LLP. Circle K Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Donald H. Tucker, Jr., Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kathryn M. Zynda, Corbyn Law Firm, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ameri Giannotti, Eimer Stahl LLP, David E. Everson, Jr., Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Michael J. Byrne, Moore & Van Allen, Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP, Regan A. Sweeney, Wallace King Domike and Reiskin, PLLC, Richard M. Hutson, II, Hutson Law Office PA, Robert C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC, Terrence A. Callan, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP & Vanessa G. Jacobsen, Eimer Stahl LLP. ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant, represented by Daniel S. Mason, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Eric W. Buetzow, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jose M. Umbert, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Joseph W. Bell, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Lisa T. Silvestri, Gable & Gotwals, M. Benjamin Singletary, Gable & Gotwals, Michael B. Campbell, Campbell Trial Law, Michael S. Christian, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Philip J. Dabney, Holland & Hart LLP, Terry D. Ragsdale, Gable & Gotwals & William F. Ford, Jr., Lathrop & Gage, LLP. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anwar M. Johnson, Fox Galvin, LLC, Benjamin Silva, Jr., Silva & Saucedo PC, Candace A. Blydenburgh, McGuireWoods, LLP, Chad J. Pomeroy, Durham Jones & Pinegar, Charles E. Griffin, Butler Snow O'Mara Stevens & Cannada, Christopher T. Saucedo, Silva & Saucedo PC, Dana W. Tucker, Fox Galvin, LLC, David L. Arrington, Durham Jones & Pinegar, David J. Lender, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, David R. Singh, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, James D. Bowers, Fields, Brown, LLC, James J. Jackson, James W. Quinn, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Kenneth M. Jones, Atkins & Evans, Kermit L. Kendrick, Burr & Forman LLP, Kevin F. Meade, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Michael W. Sillyman, Kutak Rock LLP, Nelson L. Atkins, Atkins & Evans, Patrick J. Conlon, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Ricky J. McKinney, Burr & Forman LLP, Robert H. Alexander, Jr., Law Office of Robert H. Alexander, Jr. PC, Robert C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC, Steven J. Fram, Archer & Greiner, PC, Taylor Fields, Fields & Brown, LLC & William J. Long, Burr & Forman LLP. Flying J Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Helaine S. Goodner, Fowler White Burnett, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Jonathan A. Dibble, Ray, Quinney & Nebeker, Robert C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC, Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA, Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. MFA Oil Company, Defendant, represented by William F. Ford, Jr., Lathrop & Gage, LLP. Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Bennett, Ropes & Gray LLC, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Jane E. Willis, Ropes & Gray LLC, Jeffrey B. Storer, Ropes & Gray LLC, Laurence R. Tucker, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Mark D. Vaughn, Ropes & Gray LLC, Samira A. Omerovic, Ropes & Gray LLP & Tyson H. Ketchum, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kathryn M. Zynda, Corbyn Law Firm, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Robert C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC, Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. 7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, David B. Donchin, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick, Donald H. Tucker, Jr., Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, James K. Larimore, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David M. Harris, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David J. Simmons, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC & Gregory C. Mollett, Greensfelder, Hemker. Gale, PC. Sinclair Oil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC & William F. Ford, Jr., Lathrop & Gage, LLP. Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Defendant, represented by Chad A. Stegeman, Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP, James F. Bennett, Dowd Bennett LLP, James P. Tuite, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Patrick J. Whalen, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP, Robert C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC & Selena L. Evans, Dowd Bennett LLP. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian L. Duffy, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Ericka D. McCaskill, Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLPMO, Kurt D. Williams, Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLPMO, Sanford M. Saunders, Jr., Greenberg Traurig LLP, Sharon A. Stallbaumer, Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP, William J. Taylor, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Naomi G. Beer, Greenberg Traurig LLP. The Kroger Co., also known as Kroger Co., Defendant, represented by Ashley T. Kisner, Strasburger & Price, LLP & Earsa R. Jackson, Strasburger & Price, LLP. Kum & Go, LC, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kathryn M. Zynda, Corbyn Law Firm, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Quiktrip Corp., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kathryn M. Zynda, Corbyn Law Firm, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Gary W. Davis, Crowe & Dunlevy, John J. Griffin, Jr., Crowe & Dunlevy & L. Mark Walker, Crowe & Dunlevy. TA Operating Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jane E. Willis, Ropes & Gray LLC, Laurence R. Tucker, Armstrong Teasdale LLP & Tyson H. Ketchum, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Donald H. Tucker, Jr., Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kathryn M. Zynda, Corbyn Law Firm, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen Alexander Hester, Williams & Anderson PLLC, Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Equilon Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David M. Harris, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David J. Simmons, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC & Gregory C. Mollett, Greensfelder, Hemker. Gale, PC. EZ Mart Stores Inc, Defendant, represented by Byron Freeland, Mitchell Williams Law, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Gary W. Davis, Crowe & Dunlevy & Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law. Sunoco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barbara R. Binis, Reed Smith, LLP. Star Fuel Marts Inc, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kathryn M. Zynda, Corbyn Law Firm, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Shell Oil Products Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David M. Harris, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David J. Simmons, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC & Gregory C. Mollett, Greensfelder, Hemker. Gale, PC. Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, Defendant, represented by Craig J. de Recat, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, David G. Hosenpud, Lane Powell PC & Robert Roy Begland, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP. TravelCenters of America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Bennett, Ropes & Gray LLC, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Jane E. Willis, Ropes & Gray LLC, Jeffrey B. Storer, Ropes & Gray LLC, Laurence R. Tucker, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Mark D. Vaughn, Ropes & Gray LLC, Samira A. Omerovic, Ropes & Gray LLP & Tyson H. Ketchum, Armstrong Teasdale LLP. BP West Coast Products, LLC, Defendant, represented by Erika Norman, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Michael F. Saunders, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP, Nancy G. Milburn, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Ronald C. Redcay, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter, LLP. Amerada Hess Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian J. Molloy, Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, PA. Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Barry M. Kazan, Thompson Hine LLP. Motiva Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David M. Harris, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David J. Simmons, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC & Gregory C. Mollett, Greensfelder, Hemker. Gale, PC. Sunoco Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Heather A. Ritch, Reed Smith, LLP, Kristine L. Sendek Smith, Beveridge and Diamond, PC & Barbara R. Binis, Reed Smith, LLP. BP Products North Americas Inc, Defendant, represented by Erika Norman, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Michael F. Saunders, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP, Nancy G. Milburn, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Ronald C. Redcay, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter, LLP. Amoco Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew D. Dill, Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, LLP & Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter, LLP. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian L. Duffy, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Rob F. Robertson, Gable & Gotwals, Sanford M. Saunders, Jr., Greenberg Traurig LLP, Sidney G. Dunagan, Gable & Gotwals, William J. Taylor, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Naomi G. Beer, Greenberg Traurig LLP. Thorntons, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May & Donald J. Kelly, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP. Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd. & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Speedway Petroleum Corporation, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Texaco Inc, Defendant, represented by Darius Ogloza, Ogloza Fortney LLP & David M. Harris, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC. BP North America Petroleum, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael F. Saunders, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP, Nancy G. Milburn, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Ronald C. Redcay, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter, LLP. Sam's Club, Defendant, represented by Brian L. Duffy, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Kurt D. Williams, Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP & Naomi G. Beer, Greenberg Traurig LLP. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Naomi G. Beer, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Sanford M. Saunders, Jr., Greenberg Traurig LLP, William J. Taylor, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Brian L. Duffy, Greenberg Traurig LLP. Race Trac Petroleum, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. The Pantry Inc, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Donald H. Tucker, Jr., Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Joel E. Friedlander, Bouchard, Margules & Friedlander, PA, John M. Seaman, Bouchard, Margules & Friedlander, PA, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Richard H. Monk, III, Bradley, Arant, Boult, Cummings, LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. G and M Oil Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A. Culley, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, LLP & Kenneth A. Ehrlich, Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP. G and M Oil Company, LLC., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A. Culley, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, LLP, Kenneth A. Ehrlich, Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP, Paul A. Kroeger, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, LLP & Timothy D. Martin, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, LLP. United El Segundo, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark B. Gilmartin, Mark B. Gilmartin Law Offices. World Oil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael G. Romey, Latham & Watkins LLP & Monica Klosterman, Latham & Watkins LLP. USA Petroleum Corporation, Defendant, represented by Craig J. de Recat, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP & Robert Roy Begland, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP. Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. M.M. Fowler, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James C. Adams, II, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP & Richard M. Hutson, II, Hutson Law Office PA. Sheetz, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Wawa, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Sams East, Defendant, represented by Kurt D. Williams, Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP, Brian L. Duffy, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Naomi G. Beer, Greenberg Traurig LLP. Valero Energy Group, Defendant, represented by John D. Comerford, Dowd Bennett LLP, Patrick J. Whalen, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP, Selena L. Evans, Dowd Bennett LLP, C. William Frick, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, James F. Bennett, Dowd Bennett LLP & Megan S. Heinsz, Dowd Bennett LLP. PTCAA Texas, LP, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Mobil Oil Guam Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Lender, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, David R. Singh, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, James W. Quinn, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Kevin F. Meade, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Patrick J. Conlon, Exxon Mobil Corporation & Taylor Fields, Fields & Brown, LLC. Shell Guam Inc., Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David M. Harris, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David J. Simmons, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC & Gregory C. Mollett, Greensfelder, Hemker. Gale, PC. EZ Mart Stores Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, John J. Griffin, Jr., Crowe & Dunlevy & Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law. Flash Market Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May & Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law. Hess Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas B. Staley, Robinson Staley Marshall & Duke. J & P Flash Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian F. Walthart, Rieves, Rubens & Mayton, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May & Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law. Magness Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Byron Freeland, Mitchell Williams Law, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May & Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law. B-B Oil Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Byron Freeland, Mitchell Williams Law, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May & Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law. Coulson Oil Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Byron Freeland, Mitchell Williams Law; and Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law. Diamond State Oil LLC, Defendant, represented by Byron Freeland, Mitchell Williams Law, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May & Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law. Port Cities Oil LLC, Defendant, represented by Byron Freeland, Mitchell Williams Law, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May & Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law. Murphy Oil Corporation, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. Maverik Country Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian R. Markley, Stinson Leonard Street LLP & Cameron M. Hancock, Kirton & McConkie. Dansk Investment Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Roy Begland, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP. Brown-Thompson General Partnership, d/b/a 7-Eleven Stores, Defendant, represented by David B. Donchin, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick. Brown-Thompson General Partnership, Defendant, represented by James K. Larimore, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick & Mark E. Bialick, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick. Esso Virgin Islands, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Lender, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, David R. Singh, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP & Kevin F. Meade, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP. Domino Oil Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Vincent A. Fuller, Jr., Law Offices of Vincent A. Fuller, Jr.. Chevron Caribbean, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather L.T. Potts, Latham & Watkins LLP. Sam's West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian L. Duffy, Greenberg Traurig LLP & Naomi G. Beer, Greenberg Traurig LLP. TravelCenters of America Holding Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Samira A. Omerovic, Ropes & Gray LLP. PORK RIND: Recalls Pork Rind Products Due to Milk and Soy --------------------------------------------------------- The Pork Rind Factory, a Spartanburg, S.C. establishment, is recalling approximately 18,406 pounds of pork rinds due to misbranding and possible undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain milk and soy, known allergens which are not declared on the product label. The fried pork rinds were produced from March 17, 2015 through September 3, 2015. The following products are subject to recall: --- 2.25 ounce clear plastic bag packages containing multiple pieces of fried pork rinds with the label "Suncrest Farms Salt and Pepper Pork Skins" and a use-by date of 09/16/15, 01/12/16, 02/15/16. --- 2.25 ounce clear plastic bag packages containing multiple pieces of fried pork rinds with the label "Suncrest Farms Hot Pork Skins" and a use-by date of 12/27/15, 12/21/15. --- 4.00 ounce clear plastic bag packages containing multiple pieces of fried pork rinds with the label "Food Lion Salt & Pepper Flavored Pork Rinds" and a use-by date of 9/12/15, 9/26/15, 10/10/15, 10/24/15, 11/26/15, 12/15/15, 12/17/15, 01/01/16. --- 3.00 ounce clear plastic bag packages containing multiple pieces of fried pork rinds with the label "Larry's Old- Fashioned Seasoned Pork Cracklin Strips" and a use-by date of 10/24/15, 11/20/15. --- 3.00 ounce clear plastic bag packages containing multiple pieces of fried pork rinds with the label "Larry's Old- Fashioned Seasoned Pork Fatback Curls" and a use-by date of 11/20/2015. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST. M888" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items produced were shipped to North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during routine FSIS testing, in-plant verification activities on September 9, 2015. There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider. Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned 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. Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact Terri Morey, Plant Manager, at (864) 573-5678. 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 PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Reinstates Unjust Enrichment Claim ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the United States District Court for Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion for consideration of their unjust enrichment/quasi-contract claim in the case captioned, SARAH SAMET et al., Plaintiffs, v. PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:12-CV- 01891 PSG. Plaintiffs Sarah Samet and Robert Figy, individually and on behalf of similarly situated Plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging that. Defendant falsely labeled its comestic products as "All Natural." Plaintiffs claimed that such false labeling deceived customers into buying those products and unjustly enriched Defendant as a result. The complaint sought damages under California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law and under a quasi-contract theory. Before the class-certification stage, the district court dismissed the quasi-contract claim, "concluding that restitution was not a standalone cause of action in California and that the claim was" nonsensical as pled in any event. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that Defendants sold Misbranded Food Products to Plaintiffs and the Class and that as a result of Defendants' fraudulent and misleading labeling, advertising, marketing and sales of Defendants' Misbranded Food Products Defendants was enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class. The Court reinstates Plaintiffs' claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment/quasi-contract but does not grant Plaintiffs leave to seek damages in the form of nonrestitutionary disgorgement. In the motion, Plaintiffs request reconsideration on the grounds that recent decisions have held that a claim for unjust enrichment may be brought in addition to UCL, FAL and CLRA claims and survive a motion to dismiss as a quasi-contract claim seeking restitution. In the Order dated August 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/xj9i0Ofrom Leagle.com, Judge Grewal concluded that Plaintiff may not seek damages in the form of nonrestitutionary disgorgement for two reasons: (1) a motion for reconsideration may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation; and (2) nonrestitutionary disgorgement is not the appropriate remedy for a quasi-contract claim based on alleged mislabeling of a consumer product. Plaintiffs' amended complaint specifically sought restitution, "a remedy whose purpose is `to restore the status quo by returning to the plaintiff funds in which he or she has an ownership interest. Plaintiffs are represented by: Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq. PRATT & ASSOCIATES 1871 The Alameda Suite 425, San Jose, CA 95126, Tel: (408)369-0800 Carol Nelkin, Esq. -- cnelkin@rk-lawfirm.com -- Jay P. Nelkin, Esq. -- jnelkin@rk-lawfirm.com & Stuart M. Nelkin, Esq. -- snelkin@rk-lawfirm.com -- NELKIN, NELKIN & KROCK, PC, David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Esq. -- dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com -- John W. (Don) Barrett, Esq. -- dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- Katherine B. Riley, Esq. -- kriley@barrettlawgroup.com -- DON BARRETT, P.A. Defendants are represented by Dean N. Panos, Esq. -- dpanos@jenner.com -- Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Esq. -- KLee@jenner.com -- JENNER & BLOCK LLP QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Clark" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Craig Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and Does 1through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC594129 (D. Cal., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Route Service Representatives' overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. provides services for the pick-up, transportation and delivery of laboratory specimens, supplies, reports, equipment and materials to the appropriate destinations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. Christina A. Humphrey Esq. Leslie H. Joyner, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818)991-8080 Facsimile: (818)991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzrnan@marlinsaltzman.com chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Thomas W. Falvey, Esq. Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547-5200 Facsimile: (818) 500-9307 E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmai1.com mike.falveylaw@gmail.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Clark" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and Does 1through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC594022 (D. Cal., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Route Service Representatives' overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. provides services for the pick-up, transportation and delivery of laboratory specimens, supplies, reports, equipment and materials to the appropriate destinations. The Plaintiff is represented by: Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq. Christina A. Humphrey Esq. Leslie H. Joyner, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208 Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Telephone: (818)991-8080 Facsimile: (818)991-8081 E-mail: ssaltzrnan@marlinsaltzman.com chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com - and - Thomas W. Falvey, Esq. Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203-1922 Telephone: (818) 547-5200 Facsimile: (818) 500-9307 E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmai1.com mike.falveylaw@gmail.com R&T BUSINESS: Faces "Aldana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- Juan C. Aldana v. R&T Business Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Instamail Offices, et al., Case No. BC594153 (D. Cal., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. R&T Business Ventures, Inc. owns and operates a printing service and shipping center in Pacific Palisades, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel Sepulveda-Sanchez, Esq. SEPULVEDA SANCHEZ LAW GROUP 3320 West Victory Boulevard Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (213) 426-1051 E-mail: Gabriel@sepulvedaIawgroup.com RESOURCE CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports ---------------------------------------------------------------- Daren Levin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Resource Capital Corp., Jonathan Z. Cohen, David J. Bryant, and Eldron C. Blackwell, Case No. 1:15-cv-07081 (S.D.N.Y., September 9, 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. Resource Capital Corp. is a diversified real estate finance company that focuses on commercial real estate, commercial real estate-related assets, and, to a lesser extent, commercial finance assets. The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq. Julia J. Sun, Esq. Adam M. Apton, Esq. Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 30 Broad Street, 24th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Final Judgment in Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- Sabre Corporation intends to appeal the final judgment in a class action lawsuit to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. On April 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas ("W.D.T.") entered a final judgment against Travelocity and other OTAs in a class action lawsuit filed by the City of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on a jury verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs "control" hotels for purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes. Following that jury verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded that fees charged by the OTAs are subject to hotel occupancy taxes and that the OTAs have a duty to collect and remit these taxes. "We disagree with the jury's finding and with the W.D.T.'s conclusions based on the jury finding, and intend to appeal the final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The verdict against us, including penalties and interest, is $4 million which we do not believe we will ultimately pay and therefore have not accrued any loss related to this case," the Company said. "We believe the Fifth Circuit's resolution of the San Antonio appeal may be affected by a separate Texas state appellate court decision in our favor. On October 26, 2011, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a trial court's summary judgment ruling in favor of the OTAs in a case brought by the City of Houston and the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority on a similarly worded tax ordinance as the one at issue in the San Antonio case. The Texas Supreme Court denied the City of Houston's petition to review the case. We believe this decision should provide persuasive authority to the Fifth Circuit in its review of the San Antonio case." SABRE CORPORATION: 2 Class Actions Filed v. Sabre and 2 GDSs ------------------------------------------------------------ Two putative class action lawsuits (with virtually identical complaints) were filed against Sabre Corporation and two other GDSs, in the Federal District Court of New York, Southern Division, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015. The Company said, "On July 14, 2015 and July 20, 2015, two putative class action lawsuits (with virtually identical complaints) were filed against us and two other GDSs, in the Federal District Court of New York, Southern Division. The plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that the GDSs conspired to, for example, negotiate for full content from the airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in violation of various federal and state laws. Although the amount of damages allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs has not been asserted to date, the plaintiffs are also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. We may incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as these litigation matters are ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against these claims. SAFEWAY: Recalls Cucumbers and In-Store Produced Products --------------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 9, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella Hazard classification: Class 2 Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recalling firm: Safeway Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Saskatchewan, Yukon Extent of the product distribution: Retail CFIA reference number: 10035 Industry is recalling field cucumbers and any in-store produced products that contain field cucumbers purchased from the listed retail stores due to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products described below. This recall applies to fresh field cucumbers sold in bulk, unwrapped and any in-store produced products that contain field cucumbers purchased from the listed retail stores on or before September 8, 2015. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased affected products should check with their retail store. The following products may have been sold from the following stores in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, and Yukon. Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they were purchased. Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may include severe arthritis. Currently, the CFIA is not aware of any reported illnesses in Canada associated with the consumption of these products. This recall was triggered by a recall by Andrew and Williamson Fresh Produce ("A&W") of San Diego, California, and may be associated with an outbreak in the United States. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings. The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product from the marketplace. Brand Common name Size Code(s) on product UPC name ----------- ---- ------------------ --- ----- None Field cucumbers Variable Purchased from the PLU (bulk, unwrapped) listed retail stores 4062 on or before September 8, 2015 Various Any in-store Variable Purchased from the Vari produced products listed retail stores ous that contain on or before field cucumbers September 8, 2015 Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/c4F5C2 SCHRADER FARMS: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli ----------------------------------------------------------- Schrader Farms Meat Market, a Romulus, N.Y., establishment, is recalling approximately 20 pounds of ground beef product that may be contaminated with non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The ground beef item was produced on September 2, 2015. The following product is subject to recall: --- 1-lb. packages containing of "SCHRADER FARMS Meat Market Ground Beef" or "SCHRADER FARMS Meat Market GROUND BEEF, BULK" with a pack date of September 2, 2015. The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "Est. 44950" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were sold at the Schrader Farms retail store in Seneca County, New York. The problem was discovered during routine establishment testing, however this establishment released product into commerce prematurely (Review of Testing Results). FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products. Many clinical laboratories do not test for non-O157 Shiga toxin- producing E. coli (STEC), such as STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121 or O145 because it is harder to identify than STEC O157. People can become ill from STECs 2-8 days (average of 3-4 days) after consuming the organism. Most people infected with non-STEC E. coli develop diarrhea (often bloody), and vomiting. Some illnesses last longer and can be more severe. Infection is usually diagnosed by testing of a stool sample. Vigorous rehydration and other supportive care is the usual treatment; antibiotic treatment is generally not recommended. Most people recover within a week, but, rarely, some develop a more severe infection. Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) is uncommon with STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121 or O145 infection. HUS can occur in people of any age but is most common in children under 5 years old, older adults and persons with weakened immune systems. It is marked by easy bruising, pallor, and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately 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. These products should be thrown away or returned 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 ground beef that has been cooked to a temperature of 160ø F. The only way to confirm that ground beef is 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. Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Michelle Schrader, Marketing & Sales, at (607) 869-6328. Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Sue Schrader, Owner, at (607) 869-6328. 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 SOVRAN SELF: Intends to Vigorously Defend Putative Class Action --------------------------------------------------------------- Sovran Self Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to vigorously defend a putative class action. On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance Producer Licensing Act. On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, and the possibility of any adverse outcome cannot be determined at this time. TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Hearing on Cert. Motion on Nov. 30 to Dec. 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Canadian Horsepower label litigation, the hearing on the plaintiffs' certification motion will take place from November 30 to December 2, 2015 in London, Ontario. On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against us and several other defendants (including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either the lawn mower or the engine contained within the lawn mower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them. Settlements involving all but two of the defendants (Kawasaki and Tecumseh) have been negotiated and have either been approved by the court or are in the process of being approved. These settlements are not binding on Kawasaki and Tecumseh, nor are they determinative of their liability, if any. It is unclear at this time how aggressively the plaintiffs will pursue the litigation given these settlements. A schedule leading to the hearing of the plaintiffs' certification motion has been established. Pursuant to this schedule, the hearing will take place from November 30 to December 2, 2015 in London, Ontario. Because of certain recently filed defense motions, it is unclear at this stage whether the hearing will proceed on those dates. TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Cert. Motion in Quebec Action Has Not Been Set ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the certification motion in the Quebec action has not been scheduled. On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish against us and several other defendants (including those listed) advancing allegations similar to those outlined immediately above. Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, and equitable relief. "Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them," the Company said. "As was the case with the Ontario litigation, settlements involving all but two of the defendants (Kawasaki and Tecumseh) have been negotiated and have received or are in the process of receiving, court approval. These settlements are not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor is it determinative of their liability, if any. It is unclear at this time how aggressively the plaintiffs will pursue the litigation against the non-settling defendants. "The certification motion in the Quebec action has not been scheduled. It is unlikely, however, that it will be heard before the certification in the Ontario action." TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Judicial Expert Appointed by Commercial Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a judicial expert was appointed by the Commercial Court of La Roche-sur-Yon related to the Products Liability/ Warranty Claim. The Company said, "On July 31, 2014, Tecumseh Europe S.A. was served a writ (on the merits) before the Commercial Court of La Roche-sur-Yon by the five companies of the Atlantic Industrie SAS group. The dispute alleges product failures associated with the supply by Tecumseh Europe of evaporating units mounted on Atlantic's thermodynamic water heaters pursuant to a November 2009 purchase agreement. The writ seeks the payment of 16,715,109 Euros as damages alleging our failure to satisfy our obligation of information, hidden defects, lack of conformity and breach of the purchase agreement. We have informed our insurance company about this dispute. Under our insurance policy, we are responsible for the first 60,000 Euros, with our insurance covering up to the next 3.5 million Euros. Our insurance company has assumed the defense of this claim, subject to a reservation of rights. A judicial expert was appointed by the Commercial Court of La Roche-sur-Yon on June 9, 2015, and has requested from the parties relevant documents for a first meeting likely to be held in September or October 2015." TRANSAM TRUCKING: Court Certifies "Blair" Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------- District Judge Eric F. Melgren of the United States District Court for District of Kansas granted Plaintiffs' class certification and conditional certification of collective claims and denied TransAm's motion for leave to file a surreply in the case captioned, LARRY BLAIR and CHARLIE DAVIS, On behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSAM TRUCKING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 09-2443-EFM-KGG. In 2009, Plaintiffs Larry Blair and Charlie Davis filed suit on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated against Defendant TransAm Trucking, Inc., a trucking company with its principal place of business in Kansas. Plaintiffs bring this action as a collective action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and as a class action for violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act. Plaintiffs, truck drivers, allege TransAm Trucking failed to pay them minimum wages, failed to pay wages due, and made improper deductions. Plaintiffs argue that they have been misclassified as independent contractors. TransAm has two types of drivers, which it refers to either as Company Drivers or Owner Operators. The Independent Contractor Agreement is a contract in which the driver agrees to lease to TransAm the use of a truck for the hauling of freight to TransAm's customers. Each driver signs a separate agreement for each truck he leases to TransAm. The agreement is for a one-year term that automatically renews unless canceled by either party with 14 days notice. In November 2013, the Court denied motions for summary judgment on the issue of whether the drivers are employees or independent contractors as a matter of law. In April 2014, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint alleging failure to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and failure to pay wages due and making improper deductions under the Kansas Wage Payment Act. In the motion, Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of collective claims under Sec. 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act and a motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for claims under the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA) and TransAm seeks leave to file a surreply to Plaintiffs' reply brief. In his Order dated August 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/UmaGTCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Melgren certified Plaintiffs' proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 concluding that it satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 with respect with Plaintiffs' KWPA claims. He also granted conditional certification of collective claims under Sec. 216(b) of the FLSA. Larry Blair and Charlie Davis are appointed as class representatives, and Brady & Associates, The Woody Law Firm PC, and Siro Smith Dickson PC as class counsel. The Court denied TransAm's motion because it has not persuaded the Court that there is any new relevant material raised in Plaintiffs' reply brief or that there exists any other exceptional circumstance that would justify a surreply. Plaintiffs are represented by: Athena M. Dickson, Esq. Eric W. Smith, Esq. Rik N. Siro, Esq. SIRO SMITH DICKSON, PC, 1621 Baltimore Ave, Kansas City, MO 64108 Tel: (816)471-4881 - and - Michael F. Brady, Esq. Mark A. Kistler, Esq. BRADY & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE 1940 5th Ave #202, San Diego, CA 92101, Tel:(619)544-9111 TransAm Trucking, Inc. is represented by Frederick H. Riesmeyer, II, Esq. -- friesmeyer@sb-kc.com -- Shannon Cohorst Johnson, Esq. -- sjohnson@sb-kc.com -- SEIGFREID BINGHAM, PC TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 10, 2015 Posting date: September 10, 2015 Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall Subcategory: Sports/Fitness Source of recall: Health Canada Issue: Fall Hazard Audience: General Public Identification number: RA-54950 This recall involves model year 2015 Trek 9.8 Superfly FS SL, X1 and XT bicycles equipped with Bontrager Approved Carbon seatposts. Recalled bicycles have a serial number ending in J or K. The serial number is located on the bottom of the bicycle frame. Superfly FS, X1 or XT is printed on the bicycle's top tube. Trek is printed on the frame downtube. "Bontrager Carbon" is printed on the seatpost. The seatpost can crack and break, posing a fall hazard. Neither Health Canada nor Trek has received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these bicycles in Canada. Approximately 45 recalled bicycles were sold in Canada. The recalled bicycles were sold from September 2014 to August 2015. Manufactured in Taiwan. Distributor: Trek Bicycle Corporation Waterloo Wisconsin UNITED STATES Consumers should immediately stop using the bicycles and contact an authorized Trek retailer for a free replacement seatpost plus a $20 coupon toward any Bontrager merchandise. The coupon can be used through to December 31, 2015. For additional information, consumers may contact Trek toll-free at 1-800-373-4594, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. CST, Monday through Friday. Consumers may also visit the company's website and click on Safety & Recalls at the bottom of the page for more information. Included here is a link to a serial number look up tool. Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given away in Canada. Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer Product Incident Report Form. This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on other international consumer product recalls. Pictures of the Recalled Products available at: http://is.gd/YX0nmy UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, Action Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- Olasapo Ogunmokun and Mazoor Mumin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and Raiser, LLC, Case No. 511072 (D.N.Y., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay reasonable expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs including but not limited to mileage accrued on personal vehicles and gas, unlawful withholding of gratuities intended for drivers and failure to pay minimum wages in violation of New York Labor Law. The Defendants operate an international transportation network company headquartered in San Francisco, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marie Napoli, Esq. NAPOLI LAW PLLC 1301 Avenue of the Americas, l0th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 397-1000 E-mail: INFO@NAPOLILAW.COM - and - Jeanne Lahiff, Esq. Murray Friedman, Esq. Brittany Weiner, Esq. IMBESI LAW P.C. 450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408 New York, NY 10123 Telephone: (212) 736-0007 Facsimile: (212) 658-9177 E-mail: jeanne@lawicb.com murray@lawicb.com brittany@lawicm.com UNDER ARMOUR: Lawsuits Consolidated in Shareholder Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------- Under Armour, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that following the Company's announcement of the creation of a new class of common stock, referred to as the Class C common stock, par value $0.0003 1/3 per share, three purported class action lawsuits were brought against the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors on behalf of the stockholders of the Company, the first of which was filed on June 18, 2015. These lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, and have been consolidated into one action, In re: Under Armour Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 24-C-15-003240. The lawsuits generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with approving the creation of the Class C common stock, as well as in connection with recommending that certain governance related changes to the Company's charter be submitted to stockholders for approval at a special meeting to be held on August 26, 2015. Among other remedies, these lawsuits seek to enjoin any further actions from being taken with respect to both the issuance of any shares of Class C common stock and the matters being voted upon by stockholders at the special meeting. The lawsuits also seek unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, because of the inherent uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of this matter. UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Approves Class Action Settlement ----------------------------------------------------- Uni-Pixel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has approved the settlement of the Class Action Litigation. The Company said, "In June 2013, two purported class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas against the Company and our former CEO, former CFO, and former Chairman. The Southern District of New York complaint was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on July 2, 2013. The surviving complaint, with the caption Fitzpatrick, Charles J. v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., et. al. (Cause No. 4:13-cv-01649), alleged that we and our officers and directors violated the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and misleading statements concerning our licensing agreements and product development (the "Class Action Litigation"). The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the period from December 7, 2012 to May 31, 2013. "On July 25, 2014, the judge granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the case, significantly limiting the claims remaining in the Class Action Litigation. On August 25, 2014, we filed an answer to the complaint. "In November 2014, we entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle the Class Action Litigation. The proposed settlement would result in a payment of $2.35 million in cash to the settlement class, inclusive of fees and expenses. In addition, we agreed to issue $2.15 million in common stock to the settlement class with a range of shares of common stock between 358,333 shares and 430,000 shares, calculated by using the trailing 5 day average stock price from the date of Court approval of the settlement. "On April 30, 2015, the Court approved the settlement of the Class Action Litigation on the terms set forth above. As a result, the Company issued 430,000 shares of common stock. The cash payment portion of the settlement of $2.35 million was paid from insurance proceeds. The common stock portion of this settlement, totaling $2,150,000, is included in other expense and in current liabilities (Settlement of Class Action and Derivative Lawsuits) on the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Following the issuance of the common stock in May 2015, this amount was reclassified to Additional Paid In Capital and Common Stock. UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Davis" Trespassing Suit in W.D. Texas ----------------------------------------------------------- Betty L. Davis, Clarence J. Schexnayder, and William Earle Wood, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, SFPP, L.P. f/k/a Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D", and Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00261 (W.D. Tex., September 9, 2015), is a class action that seeks to recover to the class of Texas property owners' unpaid rents, damages, and interest, as a result of the Defendant's trespass upon the class's real property and wrongful occupation with the railroad to use the subsurface of the railroad right-of-way. The Defendants operate a subterranean petroleum pipeline that runs beneath the right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad Company through El Paso County, Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger B. Greenberg, Esq. SPONSEL MILLER GREENBERG PLLC 50 Briar Hollow Lane Suite 370 West Houston, TX 77027 Telephone: (713) 892-5400 Facsimile: (713) 892-5401 E-mail: roger@smglawgroup.com - and - Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq. Albert Y. Chang, Esq. Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com achang@bottinilaw.com ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com UNIT CORP: Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims Stayed Pending Cert. Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County, Oklahoma, the merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are pending. Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly, Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and spacing units for which the company's exploration segment distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma production. "We have asserted several defenses including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease," the Company said. On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs petitioned the supreme court for certiorari and on October 8, 2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied. On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma. "In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held where, in addition to the defenses, we argued that the amended class definition is still deficient under the court of civil appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification," the Company said. Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no timetable for when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are pending. VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Case Under Advisement ------------------------------------------------------------ Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court has heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss and took the motion under advisement. On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors as defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May 7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the Company's stock. On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel for the plaintiff and the putative class. On February 23, 2015, the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs' opposition to its motion to dismiss. The court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the motion under advisement. The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. As of June 30, 2015, the Company has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action. VICTOR'S CAFE: "Arita" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Mercy Arita v. Victor's Cafe, LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-81269-DMM (S.D. Fla., September 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Victor's Cafe, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Palm Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher C. Copeland, Esq. CHRISTOPHER C COPELAND, P.A. 824 W. Indiantown Road Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 691-9048 Facsimile: (866) 259-0719 E-mail: Chris@CopelandPA.com VITALIZE LABS: Court Trims Claims in Suit Over E-BOOST ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the United States District Court for Eastern District of New York ruled on Defendants' consolidated motions for summary judgment in the case captioned, CEDRIC MOSELY and J. RAFAEL COSIO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VITALIZE LABS, LLC, Defendant. J. RAFAEL COSIO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VITAQUEST INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and GARDEN STATE NUTRITIONALS INC., Defendants. VITAQUEST INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and GARDEN STATE NUTRITIONALS INC., Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. VITALIZE LABS, LLC, Third- Party Defendant, Case Nos. 13 CV 2470 (RJD)(RLM), 14 CV 4474 (RJD)(RLM). Vitalize markets and sells various energy products under the trade name "E-BOOST," such as powder packets, dissolvable tablets, and liquid shots, all in a variety of flavors. Cosio and Cedric Mosely brought a class action suit against Vitalize in 2013 (the "Vitalize Suit"), claiming various violations under the consumer protection laws of their respective home states, California and New York. They sought to represent a nationwide class, consisting of all consumers who purchased E-BOOST products for personal use during the relevant period, as well as state classes for California and New York. Mosely later withdrew from the case, leaving Cosio as the sole remaining named plaintiff. Cosio lacked physical proof of purchase he nade in California. In the consolidated motions, Defendants seek to dismiss all or some of the plaintiff's claims in both cases for lack of Article III standing on one of three grounds (1) defendants seek to dismiss the action in its entirety, based on the argument that Cosio has failed to establish a cognizable "injury in fact," because Cosio cannot prove that he actually purchased any E-BOOST products; (2) defendants assert that Cosio does not have standing to bring claims for certain E-BOOST products that Cosio admits he never purchased; and (3) the defendants in the VitaQuest Suit seek to dismiss plaintiff's claims under the consumer protection laws of New Jersey and New York, because Cosio allegedly purchased E- BOOST products only in his home state of California. In the Memorandum and Order dated August 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ZaKeHCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Dearie denied defendants' consolidated summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for lack of Article III standing for failure to establish a cognizable "injury in fact" and dismissed plaintiff's claims under the consumer protection laws of New Jersey and New York in both cases, because Cosio allegedly purchased E-BOOST products only in his home state of California. J. Rafael Cosio is represented by: George Volney Granade, II, Esq. Kim Richman, Esq. Michael Robert Reese, Esq. REESE RICHMAN LLP 875 6th Ave #18, New York, NY 10001 Tel: (212)643-0500 Vitaize Labs, Inc. is represented by Anthony Andrew LoPresti, Esq. -- alopestri@lo-firm.com -- Cornelius Joseph O'Reilly, Esq. -- coreilly@lo-firm.com -- LOPRESTI & O'REILLY LLP VON BERGENS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Rogelio Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs similarly situated v. Von Bergens Country Market LLC, Melvin Von Bergen, and Bobette Von Bergen, Case No. 1:15-cv-07933 (N.D. Ill., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Von Bergens Country Market LLC sells vegetables, fruits, and herbs at a retail market. The Plaintiff is represented by: John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 53 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 840 Chicago, IL, 60604 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 - and - Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq. FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT 33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 784-3541 E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org WEI'S HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Charlie Chen, Xiaoling Yang, and Mingxian Zhao, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wei's Hibachi Buffet, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-02095-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla., September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages and minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Wei's Hibachi Buffet, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Tampa, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandon J. Hill, Esq. WENZEL FENNTON CABASA, P.A. 1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 337-7992 Facsimile: (813) 224-0431 E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com WELLS FARGO: Sued in Cal. Over Real Estate Loan Services Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Gober, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-07120 (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's scheme to fraudulently conceal or misleadingly omit the assessment of improperly marked-up, unnecessary and unreasonable fees for commercial real estate loan services. The Defendants operate a national bank with its principal executive offices at 420 Montgomery, San Francisco, California 94163. The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher P. Ridout, Esq. Hannah P. Belknap, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP 555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com hannah.belknap@zimmreed.com - and - Joseph Henry ("Hank") Bates, Esq. Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Tiffany Wyatt Oldham, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Cantrell Building 2800 Cantrell, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72212 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com rpulliam@cbplaw.com toldham@cbplaw.com WEST MARINE: District Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------- West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the District Court granted has final approval of the settlement in a class action lawsuit. In October 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by two California former hourly employees who alleged, among other things, that the Company miscalculated and failed to pay overtime for certain selling incentive bonuses (or "spiffs"), in violation of California and Federal laws. Without admission of any wrongdoing, the Company entered into a settlement and release agreement for all class and individual claims to avoid the uncertainty and costs associated with protracted litigation and the District Court granted final approval of the settlement on May 21, 2015. The Company recorded a charge of approximately $0.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2014 for the payments, including attorneys' fees, costs and administrative expenses, in connection with this settlement liability. Such amount had no material impact on the Company's financial statements. WEST MARINE: To Defend Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------- West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to defend a class action lawsuit vigorously. In October 2014, a putative class action was filed against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, by a California former hourly employee claiming violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and attorney's fees, alleging the Company's failure to pay overtime to hourly store employees who earned bonus wages or commissions during pay periods in which they worked overtime, and the derivative claims of failure to provide accurate wage statements and all wages owed upon termination of employment. The Company intends to defend this action vigorously and the outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time. WOMEN'S CLINIC: Doesn't Properly Calculate Workers OT, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tova Siegel v. Women's Clinic, d/b/a Women's Clinic and Family Counseling Center and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC593820 (D. Cal., September 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for improperly calculating payment for overtime to the Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees employed within the State of California. Women's Clinic owns and operates medical clinics located in Los Angeles County. The Plaintiff is represented by: Foster Tepper, Esq. TEPPER & TAKVORYAN, APC 9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310)859-9754 Facsimile: (310) 859-9751 E-mail: fostert@ttapc.com ZULILY INC: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports ----------------------------------------------------------- Karan Jugal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Zulily, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01447 (W.D. Wash., September 9, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation Statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Zulily, Inc. is an online retailer that focuses on selling merchandise to moms purchasing for their children, themselves, and their homes. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger Townsend, Esq. 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 Facsimile: (206) 652-8290 E-mail: Rtownsend@bjtlegal.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com - and - Evan J. Smith, Esq. Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. BRODSKY & SMITH Two Bala Plaza, Ste. 510 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com mackerman@brodsky-smith.com * Transport Canada Recalls Ricon Wheelchair Lifts ------------------------------------------------- Starting date: September 8, 2015 Type of communication: Recall Subcategory: School Bus Notification type: Safety Mfr System: Accessories Units affected: 179 Source of recall: Transport Canada Identification number: 2015395TC ID number: 2015395 Manufacturer recall number: FL-686 On certain school buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the lift platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at risk of injury. Correction: Ricon Corporation repair facilities will inspect lift platforms, link arms and bearings for cracks, damage or misalignment and repair as necessary. Note: This recall supersedes recall 2014-330. Vehicles repaired under the previous recall will require re-inspection and potential repair. ********* 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 * * *