/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/150924.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, September 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 191 Headlines 2020 COMPANIES: "Conde" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ADT LLC: Fla. Judge Narrows Claims in "Alibris" Case AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Lax & Co" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing AT&T DIGITAL: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Granted ATRIUM MANAGEMENT: Magistrate Judge's Order Affirmed BOSTON, MA: BESE Sued Over Inadequate Public Education BRICKELL MAIL: "Paule" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Trepco" Suit Alleges Product Price-Fixing CARRINGTON PLACE: "Owens" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA: "Gomez" Suit Stayed, Mediation Cancelled DELTA AIR: Employees File Class Suit Over Race Discrimination DOMFOAM: FRS Helping Class Members File Claims for $151MM Deal EL POLLO: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit HENRY MAYO: Nurses Reach Tentative Deal in Contract Dispute HONEST CO: Faces Class Suit Over False Product Label IDI INC: GPM Files Securities Class Suit KLX ENERGY: Faces "Vigil" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages LINKEDIN CORP: Final Settlement Hearing on Feb. 11 in "Perkins" LOUISIANA: Class Blasts Post-Katrina Home Grant Program LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Federal Class Suit Over Formaldehyde M & M ASPHALT: Sued in Fla. Over Unlawful Retaliatory Practices M-I LLC: Final Approval Hearing on Dec. 14 in "Syed" Case MASSACHUSETTS: Prison Head Faces Insurance Claim Suit MATTRESS FIRM: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Green" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Griswold" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hinkins-Heggs" Suit in Maryland Ct. MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Louis-Jacques" Suit Seeks OT Wage Payment MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Khan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Marshall" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Martino" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "McCray" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Nash" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Paul" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Polk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Raines" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Shupe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Weddle" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "White" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Worsley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Yarborough" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT MICHAEL KORS: Court Notify Customers of $4.8MM Class Settlement NORTHWEST BIO: Stull Stull Sues on Behalf of Shareholders ORANGE GROVE: Faces "Lara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime PENTAIR WATER: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement PNC BANK: 7th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in "Gomez Bell" REAL TIME: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hall" Action Claims REISNER RESTAURANTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ROBERT POWELL: Claims for $4.7MM Kids-for-Cash Deal Due Oct. 5 ROYAL FLUSH: Faces "Cardoso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime RUSTIC CANYON: Faces Suit Over Alleged Price Fixing SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Septemebr 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline SUNFLOWER WESTON: "Marine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime SUPER MICRO: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit THD AT-HOME SERVICES: Final Approval Hearing on March 4 TOWER GROUP: Nov. 18 Fairness Hearing on $20MM Settlement TRANSAMERICA LIFE: No Class Cert. for "Santomenno" ERISA Suit TRANSWOOD INC: Faces "Long" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime TYSON FOODS: Ohio Supreme Court Weighs Class Status Certification VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Judge Grants Summary Judgment vs. Class Member WAL-MART STORES: Hit with California Unpaid Wages Class Suit WHOLE FOODS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ********* 2020 COMPANIES: "Conde" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------- Carlos Conde, Shikwana Jennings, Lisa Drake, and all others similarly-situated v. 2020 Companies LLC, Open Door Marketing, LLC, Barry Millay, and Larry Clarke, Case No. 4:15-cv-04080 (N.D. Calif., September 8, 2015), seek restitution of all wages deprived and all other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code. 2020 Companies LLC provides professional marketing and contracting services to telecommunications, cable, energy, and service industries in California, Florida, Texas, and Maryland. It offers door to door sales, business to business sales, retail sale staffing, and event marketing services. Barry Millay is the chief executive officer of 2020 Companies. Open Door Marketing, LLC provides marketing and advertising consultancy services. Its principal place of business is located at Brent, Alabama. Larry Clark is the president of Open Door Marketing. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew Carlson, Esq. CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 817-1470 E-mail: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Tel: (617) 994-5800 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com ADT LLC: Fla. Judge Narrows Claims in "Alibris" Case ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, ISSEN ALIBRIS, an individual, Plaintiff, v. ADT LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:14-CV- 81616-ROSENBERG/BRANNON (S.D. Fla.), District Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the United States District for Southern District of Florida granted in part Defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, entered final judgment in favor of Defendant as to Counts I and II of Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and remanded Counts III through IV to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. On August 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint in California state court, asserting breach of contract and general negligence claims against ADT Security Services, Inc., Human Capital Management, Inc., Human Capital Management, LLC, and Does 1 to 15. In his initial Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on or about July 26, 2011, ADT Security Services, Inc. accepted Plaintiff's application for employment and entered into a written contract with Plaintiff, pursuant to which ADT Security Services, Inc. agreed not to consider any outdated information provided by its background check vendor. Plaintiff further alleged that on or about August 10, 2011, ADT Security Services, Inc. breached this contract by refusing to employ Plaintiff based solely on information obtained in violation of federal and California state law, causing Plaintiff both loss of employment and emotional distress. Finally, Plaintiff alleged that ADT Security Services, Inc., Human Capital Management, Inc., Human Capital Management, LLC, and Does 1 to 15 negligently caused damage to Plaintiff on or about August 10, 2011, by relying upon information wrongfully provided by their background check vendor, Checkpast LLC (Checkpast), and denying Plaintiff employment. On July 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC") in California state court against Defendant ADT LLC and Does 2 to 20. Plaintiff withdrew his breach of contract claim and asserted (on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative class) claims for (i) violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq. ("FCRA"), (ii) violation of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1786 et seq. ("ICRAA"), (iii) violation of California Labor Code SEc. 432.7, (iv) negligence, (v) adverse employment action in violation of public policy, and (vi) unlawful business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. On August 13, 2014, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff's FAC, and a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On October 10, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Counts III-IV of Plaintiff's FAC and a Motion to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Florida. On November 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint. On December 29, 2014, the California District Court granted Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Florida and denied both Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint without prejudice to renew these motions in the new forum. On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC") against Defendant ADT LLC only. In the motion, Defendant moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss each of the six counts in Plaintiff's SAC. Defendant seeks judgment on the pleadings for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. In his Order dated August 28, 2015 available at http://is.gd/NnmeVAfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosenberg said he could not conclude that the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and favors to resolve all doubt through remand. The Court said Plaintiff's FCRA and ICRAA claims are time-barred. Issen Alibris is represented by Mark A. Ozzello, Esq. -- mozzello@mzclaw.com -- Suzy E. Lee, Esq. -- slee@mzclaw.com -- ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC LLP ADT LLC is represented by Alison Sue Hightower, Esq. -- ahightower@omm.com -- Rod Fliegel, Esq. -- rfliegel@omm.com -- Roxanna Iran, Esq. -- reran@omm.com, Nicholas S. Andrews, Esq. -- nandrews@omm.com -- Patrick Gerald DeBlasio, III, Esq. -- pdeblasio@omm.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Lax & Co" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing --------------------------------------------------------------- Lax & Company, Inc., Howard Robinson, and all others similarly- situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04085 (N.D. Calif., September 8, 2015), seeks to recover damages and other appropriate relief based on the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy, from at least July 14, 2011 to the present, to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. section 1. American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of Defendant American Airlines, Inc. Both American Airlines Group Inc. and American Airlines, Inc., are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries. Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest carries the most domestic passengers of any U.S. airline. It operates more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States and six additional countries. United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of Defendant United Airlines, Inc. Both United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. are Delaware corporations with their principal places of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United operates more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Whitney E. Street, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 520 Third Street, Suite 108 Oakland, CA 94607 Tel: (415) 968-8999 Fax: (617) 507-6020 E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com - and - Peter Safirstein, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036 Tel: (212) 564-1637 Fax: (212) 564-1656 E-mail: PSafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com AT&T DIGITAL: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II of the United States District for District of Nevada granted Plaintiff Kirby Spencer's motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the case captioned, KIRBY SPENCER, Plaintiff, v. AT&T DIGITAL LIFE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-01136-RFB-PAL. Spencer filed a Complaint against Defendant AT&T Digital Life, Inc. (AT&T) on July 10, 2014, alleging that AT&T had violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by repeatedly sending non-emergency text messages to Spencer's cell phone despite his demand that AT&T stop doing so. On January 22, 2015, the last date to amend pleadings, Spencer filed the instant Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The proposed Amended Complaint does not contain any new or different causes of action, but does assert class action allegations against AT&T. In the motion, Spencer seeks to represent two classes: (1) a "Called Party Class" consisting of persons who received text messages from AT&T without having personally provided their phone numbers to AT&T; and (2) a "Revocation Class" consisting of persons who received text messages from AT&T after requesting or communicating their desire that those messages cease. In opposing Spencer's motion, AT&T argues that Spencer's proposed amendments are futile, that he unduly delayed in filing his motion, and that AT&T would be prejudiced by the amendment. In his Order dated September 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/3QUy63from Leagle.com, Judge Boulware found that that AT&T has not carried its burden of demonstrating that it will be prejudiced by the amendment, nor has it shown that any of the remaining Foman factors strongly favor denial of leave to amend and that Spencer's motion, made after some discovery had been performed that allegedly provided certain information about the scope of a potential class in this case, does not constitute bad faith or undue delay. The Court directed the Plaintiff to file the Amended Complaint. Kirby Spencer is represented by: Evan Meyers, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Tel:(312)893-7002 - and - Craig K. Perry, Esq. CRAIG K. PERRY & ASSOCIATES 8010 W Sahara Ave #260, Las Vegas, NV 89117 Tel: (702)228-4777 AT&T Digital Life, Inc. is represented by Douglas W. Sullivan, Esq. -- dsullivan@crowell.com & Joel D. Smith, Esq. -- jsmith@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING, Ryan M. Lower, Esq. -- rlower@morrislawyer.com -- Raleigh C. Thompson, Esq. -- rthompson@morrislaw.com -- MORRIS LAW GROUP ATRIUM MANAGEMENT: Magistrate Judge's Order Affirmed ---------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned, LINDA KINDLE and MICHAEL BREWLEY, Plaintiffs, v. PETER DEJANA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV- 6784 (SJF)(ARL), District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein of the United States District for Eastern District of New York overruled Plaintiffs' Objection to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay's June 25, 2015 Order denying plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery and affirmed the Order in its entirety. Plaintiffs, former employees of participating employers in the Atrium Management Services, Inc. (Atrium) Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP or Plan), commenced a putative class action alleging, inter alia, that plaintiffs "have been cheated out of their hard- earned retirement benefits as a result of violations of ERISA's fiduciary rules by defendants." Plaintiffs allege that the December 2011 sale of the ESOP's Atrium stock to Atrium Funding LLC for about $4 million (December 2011 ESOP transaction) was "far less than the Fair Market Value of the ESOP's Atrium stock." Plaintiffs allege that defendants Saddle Creek LLC and John Sipala (Sipala Defendants), who were retained as "Independent Temporary Trustee" in the December 2011 ESOP transaction, were not in fact independent due to their close relationship with Robert S. Moran Jr., the attorney who negotiated the December 2011 ESOP Transaction on behalf of defendants Peter Dejana and Atrium Funding LLC. Plaintiff allege that the "improper relationship" between the Sipala Defendants and Mr. Moran "tainted the December 2011 ESOP transaction" and "created a conflict of interest and divided loyalties such that Mr. Sipala could not fulfill his ERISA fiduciary duty of loyalty to the ESOP. On June 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to compel disclosure from the Sipala Defendants, specifically requesting "an order directing the Sipala Defendants to produce: (1) all communications between the Sipala Defendants and Mr. Moran; (2) all documents concerning the relationship between the Sipala Defendants and Mr. Moran; and (3) all communications between the Sipala Defendants and the Dejana Defendants." On June 25, 2015, Magistrate Judge Lindsay denied the Motion to Compel, finding plaintiffs' requests were "overbroad," went "well beyond their stated intention to obtain information regarding the Sipala defendants' alleged conflict of interest" and "instead cast a wide net seeking extensive and irrelevant documentation concerning all communications between Mr. Sipala and Mr. Moran" Order, at 2. On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed their objection to the Order, which the Sipala Defendants oppose. In the motion, Plaintiffs request that the Order "be set aside because the court misapplied Supreme Court and Second Circuit law concerning the ERISA fiduciary duty of loyalty", and that the "Order makes no reference to the ERISA fiduciary duty of loyalty. In her Order dated August 27, 2015 available at http://is.gd/t5utDhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Feuerstein found no clear error in Magistrate Judge Lindsay's Order finding these request to be "overbroad" and not limited to the "Sipala defendants' alleged conflict of interest, and that plaintiffs have not satisfied their heavy burden of showing that Magistrate Judge Lindsay's Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiffs are represented by Aaron Siri, Esq. -- aaron@sirillp.com -- SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP - and - Andrew Lah, Esq. Daniel Mark Feinberg, Esq. LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE & JACKSON, P.C. 476 9th St Oakland, CA 94607 Tel: (510)839-6824 Defendants are represented by John Hoover Snyder, Esq. -- john@jhs.nyc -- JOHN H. SNYDER PLLC BOSTON, MA: BESE Sued Over Inadequate Public Education ------------------------------------------------------ Jane Doe Nos. 1-2 and John Doe Nos. 1-3, Minor Children, Each by Their Parent and Next Friend v. James A. Peyser, et al., Case No. 15-2788F (D. Mass., September 15, 2015), is an action that seeks to vindicate the right of all Boston's children to obtain an adequate public education, free from the arbitrary and unnecessary barrier posed by the charter school cap. James A. Peyser oversees the Executive Office of Education and is responsible for the overall administration of public education in the Commonwealth and the Governor's education reform agenda. The Plaintiff is represented by: William F. Lee, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 E-mail: William.Lee@wilmerhale.com - and - Paul F. Ware Jr., Esq. Kevin P. Martin, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 021 09 Telephone: (617) 570-1000 E-mail: pware@goodwinprocter.com kmartin@goodwinprocter.com - and - Michael B. Keating, Esq. FOLEY HOAG LLP 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 0221 0 Telephone: (617) 832-1000 E-mail: mkeating@foleyhoag.com BRICKELL MAIL: "Paule" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Nolber Paule, and all others similarly-situated v. Lucia E. Medina, Fernando Medina, Jorge Baez and Brickell Mail Receiving, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-23379 (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2015), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own, manage, and operate a private mail service business. The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC Courthouse Tower 44 West Flagler St., Ste 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Tel: (305) 416-5000 Fax: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Trepco" Suit Alleges Product Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ Trepco Imports and Distribution LTD, and all others similarly- situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC fka Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC dba Chicken of the Sea, Starkist Company, and King Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01987 (S.D. Calif., September 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged conspiracy to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices, allocate customers, and restrict capacity in the market for shelf-stable packaged seafood products such as tuna, clam, crab, mackerel, oyster, salmon, sardines, and shrimp ("Packaged Seafood") sold in the United States, from at least as early as January 1, 2000, through present. The Plaintiff brings this action to (i) recover treble damages, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and court costs, and (ii) secure injunctive relief for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. section 1, pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. sections 15 and 26. Bumble Bee Foods LLC is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business located at 280 10th Avenue, San Diego, California 92101. Bumble Bee produces and sells PSPs throughout the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia. Bumble Bee is privately owned by Lion Capital, based in the United Kingdom. StarKist Company is a domestic corporation with its headquarters at 225 North Shore Drive, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15212. StarKist produces and sells PSPs throughout the United Sates, its territories and the District of Columbia. StarKist is privately owned by Dongwon Enterprise, a company based in South Korea. Tri-Union Seafoods LLC is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business located at 9330 Scranton Road, Suite 500, San Diego, CA 92121. Tri-Union Seafoods LLC produces and sells packaged seafood products throughout the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia, and markets these products under the brand name Chicken of the Sea. Unless otherwise indicated, Tri-Union Foods LLC will be referred to herein as "Chicken of the Sea." King Oscar, Inc. is a domestic corporation with its principal place of business at 3838 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 115, San Diego, CA 92108. King Oscar produces and sells packaged seafood products throughout the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia. Defendants Chicken of the Sea and King Oscar are wholly owned by Thai Union Frozen Products, a public company headquartered in Thailand. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 550 West C Street, Suite 1750 San Diego, CA 92101 Tel: (619) 400-5822 Fax: (619) 400-5832 E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com - and - Vincent J. Esades, Esq. HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 310 Clifton Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55403 Tel: (612) 338-4605 Fax: (612) 338-4692 - and - Daniel R. Karon, Esq. KARON LLC 700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200 Cleveland, OH 44113 Tel: (216) 622-1851 Fax: (216) 241-8175 CARRINGTON PLACE: "Owens" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Audriana Owens, and all others similarly-situated v. Carrington Place of Chestnut Hill, LLC dba Springfield Residences, Case No. 2:15-cv-05015 (E.D. Pa. September 8, 2015), seeks monetary damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and other equitable and ancillary relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. The Defendant owns and operates several assisted living facilities, including those doing business as "Springfield Residences," an elderly housing community at Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadephia, PA 19101 Tel: (215) 375-0961 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA: "Gomez" Suit Stayed, Mediation Cancelled ------------------------------------------------------------- EDUARDO GOMEZ, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA, P.L., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 8:15-CV-1494-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla.), District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington granted the request of the Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L. for stay of proceedings. According to the Judge, the Court "has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366-67 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted) (stating district courts "enjoy broad discretion in deciding how to best manage the cases before them"). After reviewing the Motion to Stay and the response, the Court determines that this action should be stayed. As Gomez and Tello concede in their response, they fit the class definitions in Case Nos. 8:15-cv-571-JSM-AEP and 9:15-cv-80261-WPD. (stating "Plaintiffs fit the Lopez class definition" and "Plaintiffs fit the Cruz class definition"). Furthermore, Consuegra seeks a stay of this action only "until such time as a class is certified and Plaintiffs opt out, or until such time as the class certification is denied." In light of the overlapping nature of these actions, staying the action until such time as a class is certified and Gomez and Tello opt out, or until such time as class certification is denied, will promote judicial efficiency and avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings. In addition, such a stay is not of immoderate or indefinite duration. The Court ruled that: (1) Defendant Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L.'s Motion to Stay is GRANTED. (2) This case is stayed until such time as a class is certified and Plaintiffs Gomez and Tello opt out, or until such time as class certification is denied. (3) The Clerk is directed to administratively close this case. (4) The parties are directed to file a status report regarding the class action proceedings on or before December 1, 2015, and every 90 days thereafter. (5) The mediation conference scheduled for October 16, 2015, is cancelled. A copy of the Court's Sept. 18 Order is available at http://is.gd/mjILVOfrom Leagle.com. Eduardo Gomez, Plaintiff, is represented by Austin Tyler Brown, Parker & DuFresne, PA & Earl Warren Parker, Jr., Parker & DuFresne, PA. Martha Tello, Plaintiff, is represented by Austin Tyler Brown, Parker & DuFresne, PA & Earl Warren Parker, Jr., Parker & DuFresne, PA. Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L., a Florida Professional Limited Liability Company, Defendant, is represented by David P. Hartnett, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP & West Allan Holden, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Benjamin W. Raslavich, Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC. Peter J. Grilli, Mediator, is represented by Peter John Grilli, Peter J. Grilli, PA. DELTA AIR: Employees File Class Suit Over Race Discrimination ------------------------------------------------------------- WLWT5 News reported that four current and former Delta Airlines employees said they were racially discriminated against while working for Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport. A class action complaint filed in federal court accuses Delta of systematic race discrimination when it came to work assignments, discipline and promotions. The complaint was filed against the airline along with several managers and supervisors. Delta has not responded to the complaint. DOMFOAM: FRS Helping Class Members File Claims for $151MM Deal -------------------------------------------------------------- Financial Recovery Strategies, in a press release, stated: "If you or your business purchased Flexible Polyurethane Foam from January 1, 1999 through August 1, 2015, you may be entitled to participate in the $151,250,000 in class action settlements if: -- You purchased one or more products, such as upholstered furniture (e.g., a couch with foam cushions), carpet underlay (foam padding) or bedding products (e.g., a foam mattress or pillow) that contain flexible polyurethane foam from a store or company other than the Defendants; and -- The product was manufactured in the United States; and -- You were the end-user of the product, meaning that you did not buy it for resale to someone else; and -- You made your purchase in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, HI, IL, IA, KS, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, OR, RI, SD, TN, VT, WV, or WI. About the Class Action: Several class action lawsuits were filed in 2010 alleging that the defendants conspired to raise and fix the prices of flexible polyurethane foam. Those lawsuits were consolidated in December 2010 in the Northern District of Ohio. The class settled with defendants Domfoam and Valle in 2012 for no monetary value in exchange for their cooperation in litigating against the other defendants; the court granted approval of those two settlements in April 2015. Since then, the class reached nine additional settlements totaling $151,250,000, as follows: Carpenter ($63.5 million); FFP ($2.75 million); FXI ($9 million plus an additional $500,000 solely for the costs of providing notice to the class and for administration of the settlement); Future Foam ($10.5 million); Hickory Springs ($10.25 million); Leggett ($26.5 million); Mohawk ($16 million); Vitafoam ($2.75 million); and Woodbridge ($9.5 million). The court preliminarily approved those nine settlements, which now are pending the Court's final approval. The settlement funds (less expenses, noticing costs and fees) will be distributed to the class at the completion of a claims process. You may obtain more information about the class action and about the settlements by contacting class counsel or the claims administrator, or by visiting the court-approved website at www.polyfoamclassaction.com. The Services FRS Provides: If you hire FRS and become an FRS client, we will work within your guidelines to manage the claims process: FRS will work on your behalf to enhance the likelihood that all of your eligible business units (e.g., subsidiaries, divisions, acquisitions and divestitures) are included in the claim process; we will provide advice on what, if any, documents need to be collected and maintained, and, when requested, we will assist in that effort; to reduce the support needed from your in- house staff when required documents are not available or are too burdensome to collect; we will negotiate on your behalf, where possible, to develop alternate means to satisfy documentation requirements; we will prepare, assemble and submit your claim package, and manage it throughout the claims processing phase, including working with you to address any concerns or questions the claims administrator may have; we will provide regular updates on the recovery process and all related developments; we will audit your payment to assure that it has not been under calculated; we will follow up with you to assure that your recovery check is deposited; and we also will notify you when we learn of other settlements that may be valuable to you. FRS's recovery specialists are always available to answer any questions you may have. FRS is paid an agreed-upon contingent fee only from the recovery we obtain on your behalf, and we cover all expenses. About FRS: Founded in 2008, FRS is a leading asset recovery and cost reduction firm that specializes in, among other services, class action settlement claims recovery. FRS's management and staff have decades of experience in class action claims recovery and administration, and FRS tracks dozens of settlements per year to assure that its clients, while keeping client time to a minimum, participate in as many settlements as possible. We provide our clients with industry-leading asset recovery and cost reduction services, without any risk or expenses, while adhering to the highest level of professional ethics and standards. Over 15,000 clients, from small business owners, on the one hand, to household names in the "Fortune 500," on the other, have trusted FRS with their asset recovery and cost reduction matters. FRS has earned that trust by recovering over a $100 million dollars in class action settlements and other recoveries. FRS also provides customized cost savings programs designed to efficiently manage its clients' expenses. You have the right to file a claim on your own and to not hire FRS to participate in the monetary relief provided by the above- referenced settlements. FRS believes, however, that there are services that we provide that may increase your recovery and that are unlikely to be provided by the claims administrator or by class counsel. EL POLLO: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------- The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. LOCO on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock betweenMay 15, 2015 and August 13, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). For additional information about the shareholder class action lawsuit, or to request information about the action online, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/el-pollo-loco-holdings-inc. Through its subsidiary, El Pollo Loco develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants in the U.S. under the El Pollo Loco name. The complaint alleges that El Pollo Loco and certain of its executive officers made a series of false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information about El Pollo Loco's business and prospects during the Class Period, including that traffic at El Pollo Loco stores had declined substantially due to the removal of the value items from the restaurants' menu boards, and that as a result, comparable store sales were not growing at the 3 -- 5% that defendants had led investors to believe they would grow in the second quarter of 2015. According to the complaint, on August 13, 2015, El Pollo Loco issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2015 results. Therein, the Company disclosed that, contrary to its prior claims of being on track to achieve a 3 -- 5% comparable store sales increase, second quarter 2015 "[s]ystem-wide comparable restaurant sales [had grown] 1.3%, including a 0.5% decrease for company- operated restaurants, and a 2.6% increase for franchised restaurants." Following this news, shares of El Pollo Loco's stock declined by $3.80 per share, or over 20 percent, to close the following day at $14.56 per share, on heavy trading volume. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 -- 7706 or (610) 667 -- 7706, or via e- mail at info@ktmc.com. For additional information about the lawsuit, or to request information about the action, please visit http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/el-pollo-loco-holdings-inc. Members of the class may,no later than October 23, 2015, petition the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class member will adequately represent the class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual investors from the United States and around the world. The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check. For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating in this action, please visit www.ktmc.com. Darren J. Check, Esq. D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne O. Bell, Esq. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP 280 King of Prussia Rd, Radnor, PA 19087 Tel: (888) 299-7706 HENRY MAYO: Nurses Reach Tentative Deal in Contract Dispute ----------------------------------------------------------- Luke Money, writing for SignalSCV.com, reported that Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital's registered nurses announced a tentative agreement in a months-long contract dispute between the Santa Clarita Valley's only hospital and its nurses. The proposed three-year collective bargaining agreement will be put to a vote during meetings Sept. 16 and Sept. 17, according to a news release from the California Nurses Association, which represents about 650 registered nurses at Henry Mayo. "Our nurses were united and strong for months in our dedication to protecting our patients and our profession," said Henry Mayo RN Sandra Dorso, who is also a nurse negotiator. "We're pleased to win an agreement that defends our rights and will also promote retention of experienced nurses for our community," Dorso added in a statement. The union and the hospital were able to reach an agreement in talks that ended, according to the union. "We're very pleased that we've come to an agreement, but we prefer not to comment on any specifics until the ratification vote," hospital spokesman Patrick Moody said. Members of the nurses union have been working without a contract since Jan. 22. The lengthy contract dispute saw the union twice threaten a one- day strike, most recently one that was scheduled. In both cases, those strikes were averted and the two sides returned to the bargaining table. During the months of negotiations, the hospital and the union locked horns over a proposal that would require disputes between the two parties to go through arbitration, in which a third party would help resolve the issue. The union and the hospital agreed to have an opt-out clause when it comes to arbitration, according to Cynthia Hanna, the lead negotiator on the contract. "The normal process would be arbitration, but if a nurse chooses they can opt out of that and proceed through the traditional legal venues," she said. Moody said a nurse would have 60 days to decide whether to opt out of arbitration. Another stumbling block was the issue of nurses being able to bring class-action lawsuits against the hospital. Hospital administrators had wanted language in the contract stipulating nurses could not file class-action suits, saying such actions could devastate a hospital of Henry Mayo's size. Hanna said filing class-action lawsuits would be possible under the tentative pact so long as nurses opted out of the arbitration process. "This agreement has provided the nurses with protection and remedies to continue to fight for our patients' rights as well as for ourselves," said Henry Mayo nurse Susan Salkeld in a statement. Registered nurses will also "earn pay increases of up to 24 percent" over the life of the agreement, retroactive to January when the last contract expired, according to the union. HONEST CO: Faces Class Suit Over False Product Label ---------------------------------------------------- Emily Smith, writing for Page Six, reported that Jessica Alba's Honest Co. is being sued for allegedly not being honest. Consumer Jonathan D. Rubin filed a class-action lawsuit against Alba's firm in San Francisco, claiming its products described as "natural" contain synthetic preservatives, The Wrap first reported. The list of products accused of being "deceptively and misleadingly labeled" include the brand's hand soap, dish soap, diapers and multisurface cleaner. Honest Sunscreen, which some customers complained didn't stop them from getting burned, "is ineffective," the lawsuit adds. The Honest Co. said it was "committed to providing safe and effective products, and we take all consumer feedback very seriously." IDI INC: GPM Files Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of IDI, Inc. ("IDI" or the "Company") (NYSE MKT:IDI) who purchased IDI shares between April 30, 2015 and July 21, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). IDI investors have until September 21, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion. The complaint alleges that the Company misled investors regarding its internal controls, operations and accounting practices. According to a report published by seekingalpha on July 21, 2015, IDI failed to disclose that Chairman Michael Brauser has a "long track record of fraud lawsuits, bankruptcy and shareholder wipeouts," including suits by Equifax accusing him of "fictitious receivables" and by Softbank accusing him of "various frauds." The seekingalpha report further alleges that the Company is engaged in a potentially crippling civil action with Transunion that could render IDI stock worthless. On this news, shares of IDI fell by over 45% thereby damaging investors. If you purchased shares of IDI during the Class Period, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Casey Sadler, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Contacts Glancy Prongay & Murray, Los Angeles Casey Sadler, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 shareholders@glancylaw.com www.glancylaw.com KLX ENERGY: Faces "Vigil" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Vigil, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. KLX Energy Services and Bulldog Frac Rentals LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01200-JFC (W.D. Penn., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are in the business of providing parts distribution, rental equipment and on-site services to the oil and gas industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 707 Grant Street, Suite 2500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918 Telephone: (412) 281-7229 Facsimile: (412) 281-4229 E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com - and - Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM PLLC 438 16th St SE Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 810-0081 E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. WHTFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 605 Washington, D.C. 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Facsimile: (202) 429-2294 E-mail: jrathod@wbmllp.com LINKEDIN CORP: Final Settlement Hearing on Feb. 11 in "Perkins" -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Lucy H. Koh gave her stamp of approval of a settlement agreement reached in the case, PAUL PERKINS, PENNIE SEMPELL, ANN BRANDWEIN, ERIN EGGERS, CLARE CONNAUGHTON, JAKE KUSHNER, NATALIE RICHSTONE, NICOLE CROSBY, and LESLIE WALL; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV- 04303-LHK (N.D. Cal.). The Court issued a preliminary approval order on Sept. 15. The parties will return to the court at a later date to obtain final approval of the deal. Pursuant to the Settlement, a class is certified for settlement purposes only. The Settlement Class is defined to include: "[A]ll current and former LinkedIn members who used Add Connections to import information from external email accounts and to send emails to persons who were non-members in which the member's name, photograph, likeness and/or identity was displayed between September 17, 2011 and October 31, 2014." Excluded from the Settlement Class are the following: (1) Defendant, its subsidiaries, and affiliates and each of their respective officers, directors and employees, (2) Class Counsel and Defendant's Counsel, and (3) any judicial officer to whom the Action is assigned. The Settlement Class consists of approximately 20.8 million persons. The Court appoints Plaintiffs Paul Perkins, Pennie Sempell, Ann Brandwein, Erin Eggers, Clare Connaughton, Jake Kushner, Natalie Richstone, Nicole Crosby, and Leslie Wall as Class Representatives. The Court appoints Michael W. Sobol, Nicholas R. Diamand, and Melissa Gardner of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP; Dorian S. Berger and Daniel P. Hipskind of Olavi Dunne LLP; and Larry C. Russ of Russ, August & Kabat as Class Counsel. Gilardi & Co. LLC is appointed as Settlement Administrator. Settlement Class Members who wish to receive a payment under the Settlement Agreement must complete and submit a timely and valid Claim Form. A Settlement Class Member may file only one Claim Form, regardless of how many LinkedIn accounts he, she, or it may have. All Claim Forms must be postmarked or received by the Settlement Administrator on or before the Claims Deadline, which is set as December 14, 2015. Settlement Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the Settlement Class for purposes of this settlement may do so by submitting a request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator on or before the Objection/Exclusion Deadline, which is set as December 14, 2015. Any member of the Settlement Class who has not filed a timely and valid request for exclusion may object to the granting of final approval to the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Class Members may object on their own, or may do so through separate counsel at their own expense. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on February 11, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 8 of the United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, 4th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113 to consider: (a) whether the proposed settlement of the Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be given final approval by the Court; (b) whether a final judgment should be entered; (c) whether to award payment of attorney's fees and expenses to Class Counsel and in what amount; and (d) whether to award payment of an incentive award to the Class Representative and in what amount. The Court may adjourn the Final Approval Hearing without further notice to Class Members. At least 14 days prior to the Objection/Exclusion Deadline, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court their motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards. No later than January 14, 2016, Plaintiffs shall file with the Court their motion for final approval. No later than February 4, 2016, Plaintiffs shall file any replies in support of Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards and Plaintiffs' motion for final approval. All discovery and pretrial proceedings and deadlines are stayed and suspended until further notice from the Court, except for actions as are necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Court's Sept. 15 Order is available at http://is.gd/ZxHAYsfrom Leagle.com. Paul Perkins et al. are represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ August & Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Olavi Dunne LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Dorian Seawind Berger, Olavi Dunne LLP & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat. Jake Kushner, Plaintiff, is represented by Dorian Seawind Berger, Olavi Dunne LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP. Natalie Richstone, Plaintiff, is represented by Dorian Seawind Berger, Olavi Dunne LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP. LinkedIn Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Jerome Cary Roth -- Jerome.Roth@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP & Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq. -- Rose.Ring@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP. Branton Lea, Respondent, is represented by James C Shah, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller and Shah, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP. LOUISIANA: Class Blasts Post-Katrina Home Grant Program ------------------------------------------------------- Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News, reported that discriminatory housing grant practices in the wake of Hurricane Katrina has kept tens of thousands of black homeowners from rebuilding their ruined homes, a class action claims. After hurricanes Katrina and Rita tore through the Gulf Coast in 2005, inundating more than 80 percent of the city and decimating 71 percent of the occupied housing units, the Road Home Program was created to distribute $11 billion in homeowner grants to help the displaced rebuild their destroyed homes or build new ones. Road Home grants were calculated using the lower of two baseline values: the pre-storm value of a home, or the cost of damage to the house. This system created "a discriminatory disparate impact on African American homeowners because home values in predominantly African American communities are generally lower than home values for similar homes in predominantly white communities," the class says. African American homeowners as a result were more likely to receive Road Home grants based on the pre-storm value of their home than were white homeowners, the class action says, and therefore faced "larger gaps than white families between the grant amount and the cost to rebuild," meaning that an African American family is less likely to be able to rebuild its home and remain in its community than a white family with a comparable home that suffered similar damage. The Road Home Program was funded by the CDBG Disaster Recovery Grant program, a $19 billion Community Development Block Grant program allocated by Congress for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, and rebuilding expenses in those areas most affected by hurricanes Rita and Katrina. More than half a million people were displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita and more than 53,000 homes in New Orleans were damaged or destroyed. Hurricane Katrina alone caused an estimated $81.2 billion in damages, making it the costliest hurricane in U.S. history. To date, New Orleans has only recovered 75 percent of its pre-Katrina population, the class action says. While the latest population studies show that 100,000 African Americans are still missing from the city. The Road Home Homeowner Assistance Program was put in place to help the approximately 150,000 owner-occupied homes that were destroyed or seriously damaged during the hurricanes. Homeowners who received Road Home grants were given a choice of promising to use the funds to rebuild or repair their homes or of receiving a reduced grant that could be used to obtain housing outside or their home parish or outside Louisiana. Homeowners were eligible to receive up to $150,000. Since August, 2010, defendants have been subject to an injunction out of the District of Columbia that bars them from dispersing home grant awards based on the pre-storm value of a home, the lawsuit says. The requirement that bars Road Home grants from exceeding the pre- storm value of a home (where pre-storm value was less than the cost of damage) had a "discriminatory disparate impact on African Americans living in historically segregated communities," where comparable homes have lower values in predominantly African American communities than in predominantly white communities, the lawsuit says. Data from the 2000 census shows that nearly 80 percent of homes owned by African Americans in New Orleans were valued at less than $100,000 and 93 percent of homes owned by African Americans were valued at less than $150,000, compared to 55 percent of homes owned by white homeowners, the lawsuit says. Because the Road Home formula limited grant awards to the pre- storm value of the home where the amount was less than the cost of damage, African American recipients of Road Home grants were more likely than white grantees to have a "gap" between their rebuilding resources and the cost to rebuild, the class action says. The average rebuilding gap for African American applicants was far larger than the average gap for white applicants, the class says, which "disproportionately burdens African American homeowners and hinders their ability to return to their home," the lawsuit says. If defendant truly desired to reach its stated intention of helping residents come home, why not simply calculate grants based on the cost of damage to a home, "which would permit the program to achieve its goal of restoring communities and permitting homeowners to rebuild their homes," the lawsuit says. As it stands now, plaintiffs' homes are still under construction due to the fact that damages far exceeded defendant's calculations. Named defendants are the Louisiana Office of Community Development and the Louisiana Recovery Authority, and Patrick Forbes, in his official capacity as director. The class action was filed in East Baton Rouge Federal Court by DeVonn Jarrett of New Orleans. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Federal Class Suit Over Formaldehyde -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Karmasek, writing for West Virginia Record, reported that two West Virginia women have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Lumber Liquidators Inc., alleging that a line of Chinese wood flooring sold by the company emits "excessive" levels of formaldehyde and has cost them thousands of dollars. Plaintiffs Liz Elson and Michelle Lewis filed their lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. In their 17-page complaint, the plaintiffs point to a March report by CBS' news show "60 Minutes." According to the report, the company's laminate wood flooring emits formaldehyde gas as "toxic levels that exceed strict state and federal standards for such emissions." The lawsuit states that Lumber Liquidators sells the laminate wood flooring in the 19 stores it operates in West Virginia. Hundreds of similar suits have been filed across the country since the "60 Minutes" report. "The result is that West Virginia consumers, like plaintiffs, have purchased unsafe laminate flooring, and Lumber Liquidators continues to sell unsafe flooring to West Virginia consumers," Elson and Lewis allege. The International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences both classify formaldehyde as a human carcinogen. A carcinogen is a substance or agent suspected to cause cancer. Short-term health effects from exposure to formaldehyde -- a colorless, flammable chemical -- include burning sensations in the eyes, nose and throat; coughing; wheezing; nausea; and skin irritation. Elson and Lewis allege that after learning of the 60 Minutes story, they tried contacting Lumber Liquidators to repudiate their sales and return the flooring. At the time of filing their complaint, they still had not been reimbursed for their purchases, including materials and installation and the costs of replacing the flooring. Elson alleges she paid more than $3,700 for the purchase of 12mm KM Warm Springs Chestnut Laminate Flooring from the company's Wheeling store. Lewis alleges she paid more than $2,200 for the purchase of 12mm ISP American Mission Olive Laminate Flooring, also from the Wheeling store. The plaintiffs seek to represent similarly situated persons in West Virginia who have purchased the Chinese laminate wood flooring and were sold from March 1, 2011, to the date of judgment. "Lumber Liquidators failed to properly investigate and inform customers regarding the formaldehyde emissions problems associated with its products," the proposed class action states. "Had Defendant adequately and fairly represented its products, Plaintiffs and the Class would not have purchased these products and would not incur additional damages in returning these products to Lumber Liquidators. "Lumber Liquidators' violations of law and systemic warranty breaches have caused, and will continue to cause, significant financial harm to plaintiffs and the Class." The plaintiffs, who do not assert claims for any personal injury damages, argue the class is entitled to a return of the full purchase price paid for the Chinese-made laminate flooring and other associated damages. They seek compensatory and consequential damages, equitable and injunctive relief, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees. Charleston law firm Bailey & Glasser LLP is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The case has been assigned to Judge John Preston Bailey. John Preston Bailey, Esq. Bailey & Glasser LLP 209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301 T: 304-345-6555 F: 304-342-1110 http://www.baileyglasser.com M & M ASPHALT: Sued in Fla. Over Unlawful Retaliatory Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth A. Dyer, Jr., Michael A. Hill, Robert P. Anderson, Joseph T. Allen, Correy W. Bowers, Calvin A. Williams, Tavern D. Latimer, Ricky A. McGee, Patrick B. Minor, Andrew Tomlin, Johnny L. Walters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. M & M Asphalt Maintenance Inc. d/b/a All County Paving, All County Paving, Inc., Jeffrey Cohen, Kenneth Goldberg, and David Goldberg, Case No. 6:15-cv-01512-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla., September 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant willfully retaliate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees, specifically by, reducing working hours and termination. The Defendants operate an asphalt paving, repair and sealcoating business Orlando, Florida and Delray Beach, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott C. Adams, Esq. N. Ryan Labar, Esq. LABAR & ADAMS, P.A. 2300 East Concord Street Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 835-8968 Facsimile: (407) 835-8969 E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com rlabar@labaradams.com M-I LLC: Final Approval Hearing on Dec. 14 in "Syed" Case --------------------------------------------------------- In the case, Sarmad Syed, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. M-I LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, PreCheck, Inc., a Texas Corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00742-WBS-BAM (E.D. Cal.), District Judge William B. Shubb issued an order preliminarily approving a settlement agreement. Based on the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Proposed Settlement and good cause shown therein, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement. The Agreement, including all exhibits thereto, is preliminarily approved as fair, reasonable and adequate and within the range of reasonableness for preliminary settlement approval. The Court finds that: (a) the Agreement resulted from extensive arm's length negotiations; and (b) the Agreement is sufficient to warrant notice of the Settlement to persons in the Settlement Class and a full hearing on the approval of the Settlement; 2. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: All individuals on whom, during the period from May 20, 2009 through the date of this Order, a consumer report for employment purposes was furnished by PreCheck, Inc., and where the address provided listed California as the individual's state of residence at the time the report was furnished, but not any individuals who timely opt-out of the settlement. 3. In connection with this conditional certification, the Court makes the following preliminary findings for settlement purposes only: a. The Settlement Class appears to be so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; b. There appear to be questions of law or fact common to the Settlement Class for purposes of determining whether this Settlement should be approved; c. Plaintiff's claims appear to be typical of the claims being resolved through the proposed settlement; d. Plaintiff appears to be capable of fairly and adequately protecting the interests of the Settlement Class Members in connection with the proposed settlement; e. Common questions of law and fact appear to predominate over questions affecting only individual persons in the Settlement Class. Accordingly, the Settlement Class appears to be sufficiently cohesive to warrant settlement by representation; and f. Certification of the Settlement Class appears to be superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient resolution of the claims of the Settlement Class. 4. Class Counsel. The Dion-Kindem Law Firm and The Blanchard Law Group, APC are appointed as Class Counsel. 5. Class Representative. Plaintiff Sarmad Syed is appointed Class Representative; 6. Class Notice. The parties' proposed Class Notice is approved for distribution in accordance with the schedule included in the Settlement Agreement. 7. Opt-Outs and Objections. Class Members shall have the right to either opt-out or object to this settlement pursuant to the procedures and scheduled included in the Settlement Agreement. 8. Final Approval Hearing. A Final Approval Hearing is set for December 14, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5. The parties shall file briefs in support of the final approval of the settlement no later than 14 days before the fairness hearing. 9. The Court orders the stay lifted, and the October 26, 2015 Status Conference is now vacated. A copy of the Court's Sept. 18 Order is available at http://is.gd/0lEkVEfrom Leagle.com. Sarmad Syed, Plaintiff, is represented by Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Blanchard Law Group, APC & Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C. PreCheck, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Raymond Joseph Muro, Nelson Griffin, LLP & Thomas Joseph Griffin, Nelson Griffin, LLP. MASSACHUSETTS: Prison Head Faces Insurance Claim Suit ----------------------------------------------------- Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that inmates are people too. And they get sick; with a sizeable number infected with hepatitis C. Prison populations are among the most infected, requiring treatment. However, the problems many plaintiffs are having with the inability to access the effective but expensive Harvoni drug are also being felt by those in the penal system. To that end, the Wall Street Journal reports that two inmates have launched a Gilead Hep C Denied Insurance Claim Lawsuit. Defendants in the proposed class action are Carol Higgins O'Brien, identified as the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction, and the Massachusetts Partnership for Correctional Healthcare. The latter is a contracted provider of healthcare services for state prisons. The plaintiffs in the Harvoni lawsuit are Emillan Paszko and Jeffrey Fowler. "Prisoners who ought to receive the new medications are not receiving them, and a vast number of prisoners with Hepatitis C are not being afforded the necessary testing to determine whether they too should receive treatment," according to the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Boston. The lawsuit is among several Harvoni Denied Insurance Claim Lawsuits emerging over an issue that is as compelling as it is sad. Harvoni and a slightly older companion drug known as Sovaldi -- both developed by Gilead Sciences -- are highly regarded in the medical community as being the most effective drugs yet in the fight against hepatitis C. The expense, however, is proving to be prohibitive and many healthcare plans and insurers are balking at the cost, delaying approval of treatment or even refusing treatment altogether. Most insurance providers have a contractual authority to opt for a lesser-expensive alternative provided the alternative is similar - - such as a generic -- to the prescribed treatment. However, Sovaldi and Harvoni are in a class by themselves. Doctors who prescribe Sovaldi or Harvoni do so given a belief that no other treatment option would be effective. The WSJ notes that Medicaid programs in most states restricted access to Sovaldi, and some prison systems restricted access to newer drugs due to budget constraints. The cost for a 12-week regimen of Sovaldi and Harvoni is described as $84,000 and $94,500 respectively. Prison systems historically have a high rate of infection. The Harvoni lawsuit takes the prison commissioner and health contractor to task for failure to update their treatment protocols given the availability of new and effective drugs. "Defendants have not changed their protocol to recognize the new reality in Hepatitis C treatment, and they have done nothing to conduct the necessary pre-treatment testing of the many prisoners -- the nonresponders, relapsers, and treatment-na‹ve -- who may benefit from treatment now or in the future," the lawsuit states. The two plaintiffs are reported to be quite ill. Paszko, who is located at Shirley, Massachusetts, has serious complications from hep C. His co-plaintiff, situated in a different facility, was reportedly treated with older drugs, but the treatment proved unsuccessful. A federal judge has been petitioned to certify the Harvoni lawsuit as a class action. The case is Paszko et al v. O'Brien et al, Case No. 1:15-cv-12298-NMG, in US District Court, District of Massachusetts. MATTRESS FIRM: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andres Gomez, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Mattress Firm, Inc. d/b/a Mattress Firm, Case No. 1:15-cv-23460-KMW (S.D. Fla., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide website screen reader software or other means to accommodate the visually impaired. Mattress Firm, Inc. owns and operates a chain of bedding stores called Mattress Firm. The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott R. Dinin, Esq. SCOTT R. DININ, P.A. 4200 NW 7th Avenue Miami, FL 33127 Telephone: (786) 431-1333 E-mail: inbox@dininlaw.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Wond Carter v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02781 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Green" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aline Green v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02752-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Griswold" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Quantia Griswold v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02774 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hinkins-Heggs" Suit in Maryland Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ Angela D. Hinkins-Heggs v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02756-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Christina Jackson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02764-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Louis-Jacques" Suit Seeks OT Wage Payment ------------------------------------------------------------ Marie Volmidor Louis-Jacques v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02770 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Yadira Jimenez v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02778 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Khan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bibi Khan v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02745-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Dolores S. Lee v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02782 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Marshall" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Shirley Marshall v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02772 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Martino" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Chris Martino v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02754-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "McCray" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Colette McCray v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02760-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Nash" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tammy L. Nash v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02729-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Paul" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Remicile Paul v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02729-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Polk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Elizabeth B. Polk v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02735-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Raines" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Bonnie Raines v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02737-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Shupe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Tasha Shupe v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02741-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Crystle Rochelle Thomas v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02744-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephanie Thomas v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02743-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Ruby D. Walker v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02749-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Weddle" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------ Ellen Jean Weddle v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02751-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "White" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------------- Alma White v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02748-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT -------------------------------------------------------------- Willette Williams v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02748-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Worsley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Deborah Worsley v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-02758-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Yarborough" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Tunya Yarborough v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02761-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social workers, and home health aides. The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP 250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor Columbus, OH 43215 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com - and - G. Tony Atwal, Esq. Timothy J. Becker, Esq. JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 436-1800 Facsimile: (612) 436-1801 E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com tbecker@johnsonbecker.com - and - Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Neil B. Pioch, Esq. Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 Facsimile: (248) 864-7840 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com npioch@sommerspc.com jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Carlos Leach, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400 Orlando, FL 32802 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-33414 E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com MICHAEL KORS: Court Notify Customers of $4.8MM Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit concerning the labeling and marketing of merchandise sold in Michael Kors Outlet Stores during the period July 25, 2010 through July 25, 2014. The lawsuit alleges that Michael Kors deceptively and misleadingly labeled and marketed merchandise that it sells at its Michael Kors Outlet Stores, including by using allegedly misleading price tags on its Michael Kors Outlet Products, which Plaintiffs claim resulted in damages to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class. Michael Kors maintains that its marketing and labeling is not deceptive or misleading, and is entirely proper and permitted by law. Consumers are included in the Settlement Class if between July 25, 2010, and July 25, 2014 they purchased at least one item at a Michael Kors Outlet Store that was sold with a price tag showing both an "MSRP" (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price) and an "Our Price." These items do not include watches, jewelry, fragrances, eyewear or any other product that did not have a price tag that showed both an "MSRP" and an "Our Price." The Settlement Class does not include directors, officers or employees of Michael Kors, its parents and subsidiaries, or any entity in which Michael Kors has a controlling interest. Michael Kors has agreed to establish a Settlement Fund of $4,875,000 from which Settlement Class Members will receive payments. The amount of such individual payments cannot be determined at this time. The amount will be based on a number of factors, including the number of Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Claim Verification Form and the amount of the Settlement Fund available for distribution. Michael Kors has also agreed to change the labeling of its price tags of certain items in its outlet stores. To receive a payment as a Settlement Class Member, consumers must submit a Claim Verification Form online at www.MichaelKorsOutletSettlement.com or by mail. To submit the form by mail, consumers may request that the form be mailed to them by calling 1-866-879-7386. All Claim Verification Forms must be fully completed and submitted online or postmarked if by mail no later than 30 days after the Court grants Final Approval. Consumers that are included in the Settlement Class and entitled to a payment, once the Court approves the Settlement and it becomes final and effective, will receive a check in the mail for their share of the Settlement. Consumers who do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. The request to exclude must be postmarked no later than December 8, 2015. Consumers who do not exclude themselves, will release their Michael Kors Outlet Store pricing claims and will not be able to sue Michael Kors for any claim relating to the lawsuit. Consumers who stay in the Settlement Class, may object to it by December 8, 2015. For further information on how to opt-out or object to the Settlement, please visit www.MichaelKorsOutletSettlement.com, or call 1-866-879-7386. The Court will hold a hearing on January 7, 2016, to consider whether to approve the Settlement and a request for Service Awards of $5,000 each for the Plaintiffs and attorneys' fees of up to 30% of the Settlement Fund, along with the reimbursement of expenses. Class members may appear at the hearing, but are not required to attend. Class members may hire their own attorney, at their own expense, to appear or speak for them at the hearing. NORTHWEST BIO: Stull Stull Sues on Behalf of Shareholders --------------------------------------------------------- Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired the shares of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("Northwest Biotherapeutics" or the "Company") between March 8, 2013 and August 20, 2015 (the "Class Period"). If you purchased Northwest Biotherapeutics securities during the Class Period you may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in the action by October 26, 2015. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants concealed that: (1) claims regarding positive results from the DCVax-Direct Trial (the "Results") were based on preliminary and unconfirmed trial results; (2) the Results had not been reviewed or analyzed by the hospitals conducting the trials; (3) the Company's statements about the Results were derived from patient case report forms sent to the Company only because it sponsored the study; (4) the Company was the subject of an aggressive stock promotion campaign including promoters using false identities and credentials; (5) German regulators required additional information from the Company in order for the Company's DCVax-L Trial to continue uninterrupted; and (6) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading. SS&B is also investigating whether allegations in news reports that Northwest Biotherapeutics has used undisclosed, paid stock promoters to increase the value of its shares, which SS&B believes may have been a waste of corporate assets that exposed the Company to liability. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Michael J. Klein, Esq. of SS&B by e-mail at NWBO@ssbny.com, by calling 1-800-337-4983 x147, by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017. You can also visit our website at www.ssbny.com. SS&B has litigated many class actions for violations of securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty on behalf of defrauded investors over the past 40 years and has obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous occasions. SS&B has offices in New York and Beverly Hills. The SS&B website (www.ssbny.com) has additional information about the firm. ORANGE GROVE: Faces "Lara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------ Adrian Lara v. Orange Grove Bodyshop, Inc. and Does 1- 25, Case No. BC594728 (D. Cal., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Orange Grove Bodyshop, Inc. owns and operates an auto shop located at 640 N Fair Oaks Ave, Pasadena, CA 91103. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack Perko, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JACK PERKO 26895 Aliso Creek Road, Suite B66 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Telephone: (949) 390-4442 Facsimile: (949) 916-1039 E-mail: jack@jackperkolaw.com PENTAIR WATER: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District for Eastern District of Louisiana granted the motion of the Indirect- Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs), together with Pentair Water Pool & Spa, Inc. (Pentair), to preliminarily approve a class action settlement between IPPs and Pentair. The Court certified a class for the purpose of the Pentair settlement. The case is, IN RE: POOL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION MARKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Section: R (2), MDL No. 2328. On November 21, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it conducted an investigation into unfair methods of competition by Pool and entered a consent decree with Pool resolving the matter. Shortly after the FTC's announcement, several plaintiffs filed suit in this district and several others. On April 17, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the suits for pretrial purposes in this Court. On May 17, 2012, IPPs filed their initial consolidated class action complaint in the multidistrict litigation in the Court. On September 5, 2012, IPPs filed their Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SCAC). The SCAC alleged that Pool's and Manufacturer Defendants' conduct violated various antitrust and deceptive trade practices laws of California, Arizona, Florida, and Missouri. Specifically, IPPs alleged violations of California's antitrust law, the Cartwright Act; the Unfair Competition Law; the state antitrust provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sections 44-1401; the consumer protection provisions of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act including Sec.501.204; and the consumer protection provisions of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. Negotiations leading to the settlement agreement between IPPs and Pentair took place over the course of two years. Class Counsel for IPPs and counsel for Pentair mediated the action before the Honorable Layn Phillips, a former federal district judge and a respected mediator of antitrust disputes. The parties reached an agreement at the March 5, 2015 mediation session and finalized the terms on March 31, 2015, as a result of follow-up email and telephone communications facilitated by Judge Phillips. Under the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement, Pentair would pay a settlement amount of $600,000 into an Escrow Account pending the Court's final approval of the settlement. The Agreement provides that the settlement amount is an "all-in" figure, meaning that $600,000 is the total amount Pentair will pay under the agreement in exchange for the Released Claims. The settlement amount shall be used to pay (1) the notice and administration costs, (2) attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, (3) incentive awards, (4) class member benefits, and (5) any remaining administration expenses and any other costs of any kind associated with the resolution of the action. In the motion, counsel for IPPs and Pentair submitted a joint motion asking the Court to (1) grant preliminary approval of a class action settlement, (2) certify a settlement class, (3) appoint class counsel, (4) authorize notice to the proposed class of the proposed settlements, (5) schedule a fairness hearing, (6) stay all claims against Pentair in the MDL, and (7) establish a schedule for hearing motions for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and incentive awards for the named plaintiffs. On August 21, 2015, counsel for IPPs filed a motion to (1) expand the scope of Special Master Rick Stanley's original appointment, (2) appoint Angeion Group as Claims Administrator and Notice Agent, and (3) appoint First NBC Bank as Escrow Agent. A copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated August 31, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/HhKqbEfrom Leagle.com. Plaintiffs are represented by: Russ M. Herman, Esq. HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR, LLP 820 O'Keefe Ave # 100 New Orleans, LA 70113 Tel: (504)581-4892 Defendants are represented by William Bernard Gaudet, Esq. -- William.gaudet@arlaw.com -- ADAMS & REESE, LLP PNC BANK: 7th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in "Gomez Bell" -------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner of the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed district court's certification of a class in the case captioned, MARISELI GOMEZ BELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 14- 3018. Mariseli Gomez Bell alleged that her former employer, PNC Bank, failed to pay her overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-262, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1-105/15 and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1-115/15. Bell claims that the failure was not an isolated incident, but rather part of a policy or practice of PNC that affected many other employees. Consequently she successfully moved the district court to certify a class of plaintiffs. The district court certified a class of employees from twenty-six PNC branches in Illinois, excluded employees from two proposed branches (the DePaul branch and the Naperville branch) and including, instead, employees from another branch (the Oak Park branch). The district court concluded that whether PNC has an unofficial policy or practice that requires employees to work off-the-clock overtime hours was a question common to the class. On appeal, PNC asks the court to address only the following two issues (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying a class without requiring the plaintiff to prove the existence of an unwritten policy to satisfy the commonality and predominance requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23; and (2) Whether the district court abused its discretion in certifying a class by treating individualized liability issues as damages issues. In the Order dated August 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/bc14a8from Leagle.com, Judge Rovner found that the district court was correct to conclude that a class action would be an appropriate and efficient pathway to resolution. The district court properly considered each of the issues and did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. REAL TIME: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hall" Action Claims -------------------------------------------------------- Marilee Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02047- JM-DHB (S.D. Cal., September 15, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of using false, deceptive and misleading representations in connection with the collection of alleged debts. Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a Texas corporation that is engaged in the business of debt collection. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Matthew M. Loker, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fisher Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ak@kazlg.com ml@kazlg.com - and - Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Alexander H. Lim, Esq. HYDE & SWIGART 2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 233-7770 Facsimile: (619) 297-1022 E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com alex@westcoastlitigation.com REISNER RESTAURANTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dinita Ferguson, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Reisner Restaurants Inc., d/b/a Subway, Case No. 1:15- cv-03241-TWT (N.D. Ga., September 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. Reisner Restaurants Inc. owns and operates a chain of Subway franchise restaurants in Georgia. The Plaintiff is represented by: Roger W. Orlando, Esq. THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C. 315 West Ponce De Leon Avenue, Suite 400 Decatur, GA 30030 Telephone: (404) 373-1800 Facsimile: (404) 373-6999 - and - Jason T. Brown, Esq. JTB LAW GROUP, LLC 155 2nd Street, Suite 4 Jersey City, NJ 07302 Telephone: (201) 630-0000 Facsimile: (855) 582-5297 E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com ROBERT POWELL: Claims for $4.7MM Kids-for-Cash Deal Due Oct. 5 -------------------------------------------------------------- Eric Mark, writing for Citizenvoice.com, reported that Plaintiffs in a six-year-old class-action suit against former attorney Robert Powell, a key figure in the kids for cash scandal, might finally receive their share of a $4.75 million settlement soon. But first they have to stake their claim. They have one month to do that. Proof of claim forms must be submitted by mail and received in Pittsburgh no later than Oct. 5, said David Senoff, managing partner of the Philadelphia office of Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan and Conboy, the law firm administering the settlement. Claim forms were mailed to the last known address for every plaintiff for whom the firm had a mailing address, Senoff said. Those who did not receive a claim form in the mail, or who feel they deserve a portion of the settlement money, can print out a form online at www.kidswinsettlement.com. "Anybody who thinks they are eligible can simply fill out that form and mail it in," Senoff said. Forms should be mailed no later than Sept. 30, to make sure they arrive in time, he said. Also, anyone who wishes to opt out of the settlement -- and thus maintain the right to pursue a separate claim against Powell -- must fill out the form and return it so it is received by Oct. 5, Senoff said. Powell, 56, agreed in March to pay at least $4.75 million to settle the class-action suit filed in 2009 against him and other figures in the scandal, including developer Robert Mericle. Powell, a former Drums-based lawyer, co-owned a detention center developed by Mericle, to which former Luzerne County judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan funneled juvenile defendants in a kickback scheme to enrich all four men. A federal judge approved the settlement on Aug. 10. Those who qualify for a portion of the settlement include juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella between Jan. 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008, as well as parents of juveniles who were ordered to pay the cost of their child's incarceration. The payments will be distributed following a final hearing in the case, scheduled for federal court in Wilkes-Barre on Dec. 16, Senoff said. The settlement money will be kept in escrow until then, he said. Payments will be distributed via a three-tier points system, based on if and where plaintiffs were placed after being adjudicated delinquent, according to Senoff. Those tiers are: * 1-point tier: Those who received probation only from Ciavarella. * 2-point tier: Those who were adjudicated delinquent and sent to a facility other than Pennsylvania Child Care (PACC) or Western PA Child Care (WPACC). * 5-point tier: Those who were adjudicated delinquent and placed in PACC or WPACC. Payment to parents or guardians of juveniles adjudicated delinquent by Ciavarella will be limited to reimbursement for court-ordered expenses they incurred to pay for the juvenile's incarceration and rehabilitation. Senoff said his firm will review all claim forms received to be sure the claims are valid. The firm maintains a list of all juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella in the stipulated time frame, he said. "One purpose of the form is to be sure people who are claiming are actually victims," Senoff said. "We have the court records for everybody who was prosecuted or went through the system." Those who disagree with the amount they receive from the settlement may appeal, Senoff said. "There will be a mechanism that if you disagree with the amount the court says you are entitled to, there will be a separate judge," he said. Those who received payments from Mericle when he settled the class-action suit against him in 2012 may also receive payments from Powell, according to Senoff. "Absolutely," he said. "Any of the juveniles are eligible to participate in all of the suits." More good news for the plaintiffs: The total amount Powell pays out could increase -- by millions. According to the agreement reached in March, total monetary damages will be determined by Powell's net worth as of Dec. 21, 2016, or 30 days after two legal actions Powell is involved in are settled and he receives all fees and expenses which he is awarded. That could bump up the total Powell is obligated to pay the plaintiffs to as much as $7.5 million, according to Senoff. "What I tell people is it's $4.75 million with a chance to get to $7.5 million," he said. Whatever the final total, the plaintiffs should be satisfied with the settlement, Senoff said. "I think it was a fair settlement," he said. "When it appeared that Mr. Powell was not going to be covered by an insurance policy we were concerned that some of the victims would go uncompensated by Mr. Powell." Powell pleaded guilty in July 2009 to failing to report a felony and being an accessory to a crime, after admitting he paid more than $700,000 in bribes to Ciavarella and Conahan to funnel juveniles to his detention center. He was later sentenced to 18 months in federal prison and was permanently disbarred. ROYAL FLUSH: Faces "Cardoso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime -------------------------------------------------------------- German Sosa Cardoso, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. A Royal Flush of New York II, Inc., A Royal Flush, Inc., William Malone, Timothy Butler, and Debra Russo, Case No. 1:15-cv-07260 (S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate an equipment rental and leasing Services Company with its principal place of business at 146 Andover Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06605. The Plaintiff is represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. Taylor B. Graham, Esq. PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com graham@peltonlaw.com RUSTIC CANYON: Faces Suit Over Alleged Price Fixing --------------------------------------------------- Laura Bliss, writing for City Lab, reported that in Los Angeles, a class-action lawsuit has been filed against a group of high-end restaurants that add an extra 3 percent fee on customers' bills in order to cover employees' healthcare. The plaintiff's allegations aren't about the surcharge itself, but rather argue that it's an example of price-fixing, which does violate the law. CBS Los Angeles reports: "The suit alleges the owner of Rustic Canyon in Santa Monica started the discussions over a year ago with the owners of seven other L.A. restaurants to add a three percent surcharge to bills, money that they say helps pay for their employees' healthcare. But the suit claims the owners of Animal, AOC, The Hungry Cat, Lucques, Melisse, Rustic Canyon, Son of a Gun, and Trois Mec conspired to raise their prices together, violating antitrust laws." Roxane Polidora is the leader of the Antitrust & Competition Team at the multinational law firm Pillsbury, and advisor to the State Bar of California's Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section. She says that the plaintiff will have to prove that there was true conspiratorial action among the restauranteurs, which seems unlikely. "Often that's not the case when restaurants are competing with one another," she says. "If one restaurant starts implementing a surcharge, then others might follow suit to meet competition. They may decide that patrons appreciate it, or because they'd be at an economic disadvantage otherwise. So long as the restaurant owner is making a unilateral decision, he or she is not engaging in price fixing." The 3 percent fee these restaurants are charging is part of a new (if still small) wave of industry practices that attempt to redress long-standing disparities in employee compensation. "In California, front-of-house personnel can share tips, but back-of- house personnel can't," says Anna Graves, a partner and leader of the restaurant practice at Pillsbury. "But these restaurants really value their back-of-house employees, and they are adding these surcharges with the best of intentions." Some of the businesses included in the lawsuit have done away with optional gratuities, including instead an 18 percent service charge that's distributed among all employees. High-end restaurants in San Francisco, Seattle, and New York City have made similar moves. Some others have totally eliminated extra charges and simply raised menu prices. These practices have gained particular traction in the past couple of years as the national conversation around more equitable pay for low-wage workers has expanded. In cities where significant minimum-wage increases are already in effect, such as Seattle and San Francisco, flat charges in lieu of traditional gratuity structures have been a way for restaurants to make up for higher labor costs. Could this lawsuit change the course of alternative tipping? Polidora and Graves doubt it. "This case is not going to affect every restaurant which decides that fairer pay and healthcare for team members are important," Graves says. SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Septemebr 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline ------------------------------------------------------------- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of ServiceSource International, Inc. who purchased the Company's securities between January 22, 2014 and May 1, 2014 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Pursuant to notice published by counsel for plaintiff Scott Weller on July 28, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal, ServiceSource investors have until September 28, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion. ServiceSource provides recurring revenue management, maintenance, support, and subscription for technology and technology-enabled healthcare and life sciences companies. The Company has allegedly misled investors regarding the operational efficiency and profitability of its Managed Services business. The complaint alleges that defendants made allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and management which caused the stock price to inflate, allowing certain insiders to sell their ServiceSource stock at artificially-inflated prices. The complaint further alleges that Mike Smerklo, President and CEO of ServiceSource, obtained millions of dollars in cash bonuses and other perks as a result of the alleged fraud. Upon disclosure of the alleged fraud ServiceSource's share price declined sharply thereby injuring investors, the complaint alleges. If you purchased shares of ServiceSource , have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Casey Sadler, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased. Lesley Portnoy, Esq Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP 1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 201-9150 Toll-free: (888) 773-9224 Fax: (310) 432-1495 SUNFLOWER WESTON: "Marine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Marine, and other similarly situated cashier v. Sunflower Weston, LLC, Productos Naturales, Inc. and Jesus Bermudez, Case No. 32055212 (D. Fla., September 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants are engaged in interstate commerce, having their main place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Remer, Esq. Brody M. Shulman, Esq. REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC 44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200 Miami, FL 33130 Telephone: (305)416-5000 Facsimile: (305) 416-5005 E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com bshulman@rgpattorneys.com SUPER MICRO: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Super Micro Computer, Inc. ("Super Micro Computer" or the "Company") and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District of California, and docketed under 15-cv-04049, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Super Micro Computer securities between September 15, 2014 and August 31, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Super Micro Computer securities during the Class Period, you have until November 3, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4- POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Super Micro Computer develops and provides high performance server solutions based on modular and open-standard architecture. The company offers a range of server, storage, blade, workstation, and full rack solutions, as well as networking devices, server management software, and technology support and services. It also provides a range of application optimized server solutions, including rackmount and blade server systems; and server subsystems and accessories comprising server boards, and chassis and power supplies, as well as other system accessories, including microprocessors, and memory and disc drives. The company offers its products to data center, cloud computing, enterprise IT, big data, high performance computing, and embedded markets. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company improperly recorded expenses in its financial reports; (ii) as a result, the Company's reported net income was misstated; (iii) the Company lacked adequate internal financial controls; and (iv) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On August 31, 2015, post-market, Super Micro Computer announced that the Company "has determined that it is unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 within the prescribed time period without unreasonable effort or expense. [Super Micro Computer] recently discovered certain irregularities regarding certain marketing expenses and additional time is required for [the Company] to complete its investigation of the matter." On this news, shares of Super Micro Computer declined $2.58 per share, or 9.43%, to close at $24.77 on September 1, 2015. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212.661.1100 or 1.888.4.POMLAW Fax: 212.661.8665 http://pomerantzlawfirm.com rswilloughby@pomlaw.com THD AT-HOME SERVICES: Final Approval Hearing on March 4 ------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe granted preliminary approval to the settlement reached in the case, JAMES RICHARDSON, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THD AT-HOME SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; MEASURECOMP, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00273-BAM (E.D. Cal.). The Preliminary Approval Order provides that: 1. The Settlement Agreement is PRELIMINARILY APPROVED as appearing on its face to be fair reasonable, and adequate and to have been the product of serious, informed, and extensive arm's- length negotiations among Plaintiff and Defendants THD At-Home Services, Inc. and MeasureComp, LLC ("Defendants") (collectively, the "Parties"). In making this preliminary finding, the Court considered the nature of the claims, the relative strength of Plaintiff's claims, the amounts and kinds of benefits paid in settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among the class members, and the fact that the settlement represents a compromise of the Parties' respective positions rather than the result of a finding of liability at trial. The Court further preliminarily finds that the terms of the settlement have no obvious deficiencies and do not improperly grant preferential treatment to any individual class member. Accordingly, the Court preliminarily finds that the agreement was entered into in good faith. 2. The Court finds preliminarily, and for purposes of proceeding pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for settlement purposes only and on approval of the agreement only, that: a. The class is sufficiently numerous because the proposed settlement class includes approximately 143 persons; b. Class members are ascertainable as the class sought to be represented is adequately defined and ascertainable from Defendants' records; c. The proposed class asserts common claims arising out of the same alleged uniform policies and practices; d. Plaintiff's claims are typical of those asserted by the class as the class representative alleges he suffered the same injury(ies), in the same manner, as the proposed class; e. There is no evidence suggesting the class representative or class counsel have a conflict of interest with other class members, Plaintiff's counsel is qualified and competent and has substantial experience in wage and hour class actions, and Plaintiff's counsel and the named Plaintiff have and will continue to prosecute this action on behalf of the class. 3. Accordingly, for purposes of the agreement only, this litigation is CERTIFIED as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The class is defined as follows: "plaintiff and any individuals employed by THD At-Home Services, Inc. and/or Measure Comp, LLC as measure techs in California between January 23, 2010 and July 16, 2015, excluding however, any individuals whose claims were fully released in connection with the class settlement in Mejia v. MeasureComp, LLC, Los Angeles Superior Court, No. BC 409729." 4. The Court APPOINTS as class counsel for settlement purposes only Kenneth H. Yoon and Stephanie E. Yasuda, Law Offices of Kenneth H. Yoon. 5. The Court APPOINTS as Class Representative for settlement purposes Plaintiff James Richardson. 6. The Court APPROVES CPT Group, Inc. as settlement administrator for the purposes of this settlement. 7. A final approval and fairness hearing is SCHEDULED to be held before the Court on March 4, 2016 at 9:00 am for the following purposes: a. to determine finally whether this litigation satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment for settlement purposes only; b. to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and should be granted final approval by the Court; c. to determine whether an order of final approval as should be entered, and to determine whether the releases should be released of and from the released claims as provided in the agreement; d. to determine whether the proposed plan of allocation of the gross settlement amount is fair and reasonable and should be approved by the Court; e. to finally consider Plaintiff's application for an Enhancement Payment; f. to finally determine whether class counsel's application for an award of attorney fees and costs is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court; g. to determine that the settlement administrator's costs should be paid from the gross settlement amount; h. to consider the PAGA payment; and i. to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate. 8. The form of class notice is APPROVED. No later than 30 calendar days after preliminary approval, Defendants shall provide the settlement administrator with the name, last known mailing address, social security number, hire dates, and dates of termination, if applicable. No later than 45 calendar after the date of entry of this order, the settlement administrator will send via first class mail the documents constituting the notice to each settlement class member by first-class regular U.S. Mail. 9. The Court finds that the class notice, along with the related notification materials, constitute the best notice practicable under the circumstances and are in full compliance with the laws of the State of California, the United States Constitution, and the requirements of due process. The Court further finds that the notifications fully and accurately inform settlement class members of all material elements of the proposed settlement, of settlement class members' right to dispute their share of the settlement, of the settlement class members' right to be excluded from the settlement class, and of each settlement class member's right and opportunity to object to the Settlement. 10. The Court APPROVES the proposed procedure wall class members who do not timely request exclusion from the settlement will be bound by the agreement. The Court APPROVES the proposed response deadline of 45 calendar days from the initial mailing of the class notice. 11. The Court APPROVES the proposed procedure for requesting exclusion from the settlement class, as set forth in the class notice. 12. All costs of mailing of the notice, whether foreseen or not, shall be paid from the gross settlement amount, including the cost of searching for Class Members' addresses as provided in as provided in the agreement. All other reasonable costs of the settlement administrator shall also be paid from the gross settlement amount as provided in the agreement. 13. All objections to the settlement must be filed by mailing them to the Clerk of the Court, who will file objections on the Court's electronic filing system and provide notice to all counsel of record. The deadline to object is 45 days after the mailing of the notice. If mailed, the objection must be postmarked on or prior to 45 days after the mailing of the notice. Objections must state their basis and if any objector intends to appear in person or by counsel at the final approval hearing, he or she must include such fact and state the purpose for his or her appearance in the objection. Objectors do not need to appear to have their objections considered. The parties will be permitted to respond in writing to all objections, which responses must be filed no later than seven days prior to the final approval and fairness hearing. Settlement class members who fail to file timely written objections will be deemed to have waived any objections and will be foreclosed from making any objection to the settlement. A copy of the Court's Sept. 18 Order, including the Legal Notice, is available at http://is.gd/UMvgNVfrom Leagle.com. * * * Former employee James Richardson (plaintiff) sued THD At-Home Services, Inc. and MeasureComp, LLC on behalf of himself and others similarly situated for the following claims: (1) failure to provide meal periods and rest breaks, (2) failure to pay overtime and minimum wages, (3) failure to reimburse all necessary work- related expenses, (4) violation of Labor Code Sec. 203, (5) violation of Labor Code Sec. 226, (6) violation of Labor Code Sec. 2698 et seq., and (7) violation of Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. The net settlement fund is the portion of the gross settlement fund of $1,150,000 available for distribution to settlement class members who do not timely send a signed and returned valid request for exclusion from the settlement. The net settlement fund is the gross settlement fund less class counsel's attorneys' fees and costs, settlement administration costs, the plaintiff's enhancement payment, and a payment to the state under the Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). Class counsel will ask the Court to award attorneys' fees in the amount of $383,333.33, which represents one third of the gross settlement amount and litigation costs estimated at $25,000 from the gross settlement amount. In addition, plaintiff will ask the Court to authorize an enhancement payment from the gross settlement amount in the amount of $20,000 to compensate him for the risks, time, and expense of his involvement in this action. This payment is in addition to whatever payment the class representative is otherwise entitled to as a settlement class member. The settlement administrator will also be reimbursed for the expense of notifying settlement class members of the settlement, administering the settlement, processing requests for exclusion submitted by class members and distributing settlement payments. Settlement administration costs are estimated at $8,000. Finally, class counsel will ask the Court to approve a PAGA payment in the amount of $10,000 of which $7,500 will be awarded to California and $2,500 will be awarded to class members by adding that sum to the net settlement fund. Class Counsel may be reached at: Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq. Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 612-0988 TOWER GROUP: Nov. 18 Fairness Hearing on $20MM Settlement --------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Tower Group International, Ltd., or its predecessor, Tower Group, Inc. (collectively, "Tower"), between March 1, 2010, and December 17, 2013, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"); and All persons and entities who or which acquired Canopius Holdings Bermuda Limited ("Canopius") stock in the March 7, 2013 private placement, and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement PPC"). (The Settlement Class and/or the Settlement PPC are referred to herein as the "Settlement Classes"): PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above- captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified for settlement purposes as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Classes, except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement Classes by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement Classes, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"). YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have reached a proposed settlement of the Action against Tower Group, Inc., Tower Group International, Ltd., ACP Re, Ltd., Michael H. Lee, and William E. Hitselberger (collectively, the "Tower Defendants" or "Settling Defendants") for $20,500,000.00 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action against the Tower Defendants. Claims against defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP are not included in the proposed Settlement and continue to be litigated by Lead Plaintiffs. A hearing will be held on November 18, 2015 at 4:00 p.m., before the Honorable Analisa Torres at the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, Courtroom 15D, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY 10007-1312, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Tower Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Tower Defendants (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved. If you are a member of the Settlement Classes, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the Notice and the Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Tower Group International, Ltd. Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217-8091, (800) 328-6074. Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator, at www.TowerSecuritiesSettlement.com. If you are a member of the Settlement Classes, in order to be potentially eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim Form postmarked no later than December 28, 2015. If you are a member of the Settlement Classes and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action related to the Settlement. If you are a member of the Settlement Classes and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Classes, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 28, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Classes, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action related to the Settlement and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement. Any request for exclusion from one or both of the Settlement Classes shall be considered a request for exclusion from both Settlement Classes. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than October 28, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. Please do not contact the Tower Defendants or the Tower Defendants' counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator. TRANSAMERICA LIFE: No Class Cert. for "Santomenno" ERISA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned, JACLYN SANTOMENNO; KAREN POLEY; BARBARA POLEY, Plaintiff, v. TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; TRANSAMERICA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC; TRANSAMERICA ASSET MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants, Case No. CV12- 02782 DDP (MANX). Transamerica Life Insurance Company ("TLIC") sells a 401(k) plan product targeted at small and mid-size employers. The product consists of a bundle of investment options and administrative services that an employer can purchase. Plaintiffs and potential class members of the retirement "plans" that used these TLIC products and people who are or were participants in or beneficiaries of the plans. Plaintiffs alleged that the fees they were charged for these products were excessive, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a class action. The Defendants argue, primarily, that the "commonality" prerequisite is not met, because the negotiation of fees was "plan-specific" and so requires individualized evidence of unreasonableness. The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiffs cannot show proof common to all putative class members of any of the following: TLIC's fiduciary duties; the charging of unreasonable fees for accounts managed by affiliates; failure to use its institutional leverage to invest in low-cost share classes; and the use of transactions prohibited by ERISA. The Defendants further argue that the named Plaintiffs are not typical of the class and are not adequate class representatives. Finally, the Defendants argue that the action does not meet the requirements of either Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(b) or 23(b)(3). In his Order dated August 28, 2015 available at http://is.gd/3nhDXSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson found that he cannot certify the class because the so-called "predominance" requirement is not satisfied since the individual questions as to the IM/Admin fee and lower-cost share classes would predominate over the common questions in the case. Plaintiffs are represented by Arnold Carl Lakind, Esq. -- ALakind@szaferman.com -- Robert E. Lytle, Esq. -- RLytle@szaferman.com -- Daniel S. Sweetser, Esq. -- Dsweetser@szaferman.com -- Robert L. Lakind, Esq. -- rLakind@szaferman.com -- Robert Gannon Stevens, Jr., Esq. -- RStevens@szaferman.com -- Mark A. Fisher, Esq. -- MFisher@szaferman.com -- Stephen Skillman, Esq. -- SSkillman@szaferman.com -- SZAFERMAN LAKIND BLUMSTEIN AND BLADER PC, Havila C. Unrein, Esq. -- hunrein@kellerrohrback.com, Khesraw Karmand, Esq. -- kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com -- Derek W. Loeser, Esq. -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq. -- gobrist@kellerrohrback.com -- Juli E. Farris, Esq. -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Michael D. Woerner, Esq. -- mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP Defendants are represented by Brian David Boyle, Esq. -- bboyle@omm.com -- Catalina J. Vergara, Esq. -- cvergara@omm.com -- Christopher Brendan Craig, Esq. -- ccraig@omm.com -- Robert N. Eccles, Esq. -- reccles@omm.com -- Shannon M. Barrett, Esq. -- sgee@omm.com -- Theresa S. Gee, Esq. -- tgee@omm.com -- O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP TRANSWOOD INC: Faces "Long" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Mason Drew Long, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Transwood, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03007-P (N.D. Tex., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Transwood, Inc. owns and operates a trucking company licensed to conduct business in Texas. 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: info@L-B-Law.com TYSON FOODS: Ohio Supreme Court Weighs Class Status Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------ Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- at Robinson+Cole, in an article for JD Supra Business Advisor, reported that the U.S. Supreme Court in Ohio is poised to decide next Term, in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, whether a class can be certified when many class members lack injury. The Ohio Supreme Court recently weighed in on a similar question, but treated it as a predominance issue. One of the interesting aspects of class action practice is that often the same or a similar line of argument can be cast in different ways -- what some courts treat as an issue of standing might also be treated as an issue of commonality or predominance. A good defense strategy can be to make what amounts to the same or a similar argument under different aspects of the class action rule. In Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 2013-1746, 2015 Ohio LEXIS 2113 (Ohio Aug. 27, 2015), the plaintiffs purchased and arranged financing for a vehicle through the defendant. They alleged that an arbitration clause in the purchase contract was unconscionable and that the defendant's conduct violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act ("OCSPA"). Id. at *2-5. The trial court granted class certification, ruled that the arbitration provision violated the OCSPA, and awarded $200 per transaction to the class members. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed. The Ohio Supreme Court, noting that it looks to federal law on class certification as persuasive authority, held that under the Ohio class action rule, "Plaintiffs in class-action suits must demonstrate that they can prove, through common evidence, that all class members were in fact injured by the defendant's actions." Id. at *16-17 (emphasis added). The court explained that the fact of damage is different from the amount of damage. "If the class plaintiff fails to establish that all of the class members were damaged (notwithstanding questions regarding the individual damages calculations for each class members), there is no showing of predominance under Civ. R. 23(b)(3)." Id. at *18. The court explained that "there is absolutely no showing that all of the consumers who purchased vehicles through a contract with the offensive arbitration provision were injured by it or suffered any damages." Id. at *19. One justice dissented, asserting that the majority had improperly addressed a merits question at class certification. Id. at *23 (O'Neill, J., dissenting). While some courts address this type of question as an issue of class member standing (and perhaps the Supreme Court will do that in Tyson Foods), this decision is a helpful reminder to defendants that, even if you do not prevail on standing grounds, you might prevail on essentially the same question as a predominance issue. Another way to cast the same type of argument is that liability to individual class members is individualized, because liability cannot be established through common evidence. That is another way to get around the plaintiffs' argument that individualized calculations of damages should not be enough to defeat class certification. VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Judge Grants Summary Judgment vs. Class Member ----------------------------------------------------------------- Terry McMaho, writing for Class Action Recovery for Mutual Funds, reported that we previously reported on what we thought at the time were "unusual" arguments from Vivendi Universal, S.A. ("Vivendi") in its summary judgment motion in opposition to the recovery of certain class-action members in the long-running In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, 02 Civ. 5571 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.). Whether "unusual" or not, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York has granted Vivendi's motion in a decision which could have implications for class members, but more likely for opt-outs. As background, after the 2009 trial in this class action litigation, a Southern District of New York jury found Vivendi liable for violation of securities laws in regard to the sale of Vivendi American Depositary Shares ("ADSs"). Since then, the parties have argued over the apportionment of damages to various class members. On May 15, 2015, the class plaintiffs and Vivendi filed cross-motions of summary judgment regarding the claims of certain class members advised by Southeastern Asset Management, Inc. ("Southeastern"). Vivendi's opposition to Southeastern's claims includes arguments, unusual as to class members in the class-action context, that (i) Vivendi did not cause these members any actual damages; and (ii) there was no "fraud on the market" for which Southeastern could recover. On August 11, 2015, Judge Scheindlin issued a decision granting Vivendi's motion and denying Southeastern's motion. The Court made two main points in its decision. First, in regard to Southeastern's attempts to establish the elements of fraud for its "fraud on the market" theory, Vivendi had successfully rebutted the so-called Basic presumption. Named for the holding in Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), the Basic presumption holds that "an investor who bought stock at the market price may, at the class certification stage, avail herself of the presumption that she 'relied on the integrity of the price set by the market' if the market is efficient." Op. at 14 (quoting Basic, 485 U.S. at 227). According to the Court, instead of relying on the market price of Vivendi's ADSs, Southeastern "relied on [its] own careful assessments of Vivendi's assets and liquidity position" in determining its valuation of the ADSs, to the point where "[e]ven had [Southeastern] known about the fraud, it would have not mattered." Op. at 27-28. Thus, Southeastern was essentially indifferent to the market price of the securities and could not be said to have relied upon it. Since Southeastern could not show reliance as an element of fraud, Southeastern could not participate in the class members' recovery. Although mooted by the Court's holding that Southeastern did not show reliance, Judge Scheindlin also held that Southeastern indeed sustained damages as a result of the fraud. Vivendi argued that since Southeastern eventually made a profit on its purchase of Vivendi ADSs, Southeastern could not prove damages. However, the Court held that considering gains made well after the close of the class period was inappropriate. Instead of using Vivendi's metric, which argued that the Court should consider gains that occurred more than five years after the close of the class period, the Court held that the bounce-back provision of the PSLRA, which caps damages by factoring in gains that occur within 90 days of a corrective disclosure, is a better guideline. In addition, even though Southeastern sold at a profit, "the eventual profit it made on its initial investment did not include extra compensation for the out-of-pocket loss it sustained by purchasing Vivendi ADSs at inflated prices during the Class Period." Op. at 36. Thus, fraud on the market could give rise to damages even if a party eventually made a profit on the investment. This opinion reflects an unusual fact pattern in the class action recovery context in that the investor apparently knew of the defendant's fraud and yet continued to invest on the philosophy that the fraud did not affect the investor's overall conclusion that the securities were undervalued. Consequently, the precedential value of Judge Scheindlin's decision may be limited to such circumstances and may not have broad implications for the class action recovery sphere in general. More broadly, this dispute between Southeastern and Vivendi reflects the much more adversarial nature in the class action recovery claims process in recent years. In times past, defendants rarely participated in the allocation of funds amongst plaintiffs. More recently, however, when verdicts are being allocated to class members, defendants have become much more involved in challenging the recovery of individual class members. Class members should keep this adversarial context in mind when seeking recovery against defendants in the class action recovery space. The decision also has implications for opt-outs and/or private plaintiffs. It highlights the importance of reviewing all of the plaintiff's documents and interviewing plaintiff's personnel before they file a separate action. WAL-MART STORES: Hit with California Unpaid Wages Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Lisa Ryan, writing for Law 360, reported that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was slapped with a putative class action under the Private Attorneys General Act in Los Angeles court, accusing the retail giant of misclassifying its asset protection coordinators and shorting them on overtime wages. The suit alleges Wal-Mart improperly classified its asset protection coordinators as exempt and paid them on a salary basis while withholding overtime hours and missed meal periods and rest breaks. However, the position actually entails duties that are not exempt, according to the complaint. WHOLE FOODS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Whole Foods Market, Inc. and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United States District Court, Western District of Texas,, and docketed under 15-cv-00681, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Whole Foods securities between August 9, 2013 and July 30, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). If you are a shareholder who purchased Whole Foods securities during the Class Period, you have until October 5, 2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased. Whole Foods operates as a retailer of natural and organic foods. The Company's stores offer produce and floral, grocery, meat, seafood, bakery, prepared foods and catering, coffee, tea, beer, wine, cheese, nutritional supplements, vitamins, and body care products, as well as lifestyle products, including books, pet products, and household products. As of May 7, 2015, the company had approximately 417 stores worldwide. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the Company routinely overstated the weight of its pre-packaged products and overcharged customers; and (ii) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Whole Foods's business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. On June 25, 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs ("NYCDA") announced it had uncovered "systematic overcharging for pre-packaged foods" at Whole Foods' eight New York City locations. On a survey of 80 different types of prepackaged products, NYCDA reported that it had found thousands of potential overcharging violations. In response, the Company stated that there was no evidence of overcharging and responded that it would vigorously defend itself against what it described as "overreaching allegations" by NYCDA. On this news, Whole Food stock fell $0.19, or 0.47%, to close at $40.57 on June 23, 2015. On July 29, 2015, post-market, the Company issued a press release and filed a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing its financial and operating results for the quarter ended July 5, 2015 (the "July 2015 8-K"). For the quarter, net income was $154 million, or $0.43 per diluted share, on revenue of $3.63 billion, compared to net income of $151 million, or $0.41 per diluted share, on revenue of $3.38 billion for the same period in the prior year. Reporting store sales growth of 0.6% for the last two weeks of the quarter, the July 2015 8-K stated, in part, that "[w]eights and measures audit in New York City stores garnered national media attention." On this adverse news, Whole Foods' common stock fell $4.74 per share, or 11.61%, to close at $36.08 on July 30, 2015. The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com Robert S. Willoughby, Esq. Pomerantz LLP 600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016 Tel: 212.661.1100 or 1.888.4.POMLAW Fax: 212.661.8665 Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Marion Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552. * * * End of Transmission * * *