/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151005.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Monday, October 5, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 198
Headlines
AAC HOLDINGS: Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Act Violation
ALLIANZ LIFE: "Sanchez" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
AMAZON.COM: Ashley Madison Users Sue Over Emotional Distress
AMERICAN INT'L: Judge Narrows Shareholder Suits Over 2008 Bailout
ANZ BANKING: Credit Card Fees Battle Heads to High Court
BANK OF AMERICA: Shegerian Law Founder Comments on $36MM Deal
BLYTH INC: "Stanton" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
BMW: Faces NHTSA Probe Over Mini Side Crash Tests Problems
CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
CITIBANK: Calif. High Court Grants Review of Capstone's Case
CNN: Dads' Parental Leave Discrimination Case Settled
EGG PRODUCTS: Class Certification Bid in Price-Fixing Case Nixed
EMSA: Wronful Billing Class Suit May Affect 28,000 Members
GEORGIA: Revenue Dept. Faces Suit Over Motor Fuel Tax Violation
GLOBAL CASH: Texas Suit Over Multimedia Merger Remains Pending
GLOBAL CASH: Case by Dollie Williams Dismissed
GLOBAL CASH: Class Certification Bid in "Hardy" Case Still Open
GULF COAST: "Villalobos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HOBBS TRUCKING: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
HONEST CO: 2nd Class Suit Filed Over Ineffective Sunscreen
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR: Oct. 19 BC Settlement Approval Hearing Set
INVENSENSE INC: Hearing on Dismissal Bid Scheduled for Oct. 2015
JACOBY & MEYERS: Former Clients File Class Suit
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery on Merits Remains Stayed
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Fully Briefed
LANDMARK INDUSTRIES: 5th Cir. Flips EFTA Suit Dismissal
LHC GROUP: Says Entire Settlement Amount Funded by Insurer
MARRIOTT HOTEL: "Cuellar" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Wallace" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
MILBERG LLP: 9th Cir. Reverses Denial of Class Certification
MORENO FARMS: Rape Victims Obtain $17-Mil. Jury Award
NAT'L FOOTBALL: On Defensive End of Suits Over Televised Games
NUTRAMARKS INC: Faces "Hammock" Suit Over Breach of Warranty
PIZZA HUT: Judge Denies Dismissal of Tax Delivery Charges Suit
PNI DIGITAL: Faces Suit Over Data Breach Violation
RADIOSHACK CORP: Former Managers Seek Class Certification
RADIOSHACK CORP: Settlement in Gift-Card Dispute Approved
REACHLOCAL INC: Class Action by Former Clients at Early Stage
REMINGTON ARMS: May Have to Pay $500MM to Settle Class Suit
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Bid to Decertify Pending in ERISA Litigation
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: MOU in Delaware Lawsuits Pending
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Remaining Non-Disclosure Claims Dismissed
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Ex-Tech Sues Over Pay-Per-Piece Program
SOLARWINDS INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
STANFORD: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to Lift Litigation Stay
TARGET CORP: Judge to Rule on Hacking Class Certification Bid
TD BANK: Employee Gets Favorable Ruling in Lactation Break Case
TEREX CORP: Nov. 4 Fairness Hearing on $2.5-Mil. Settlement
TRANSURBAN: Asks Federal Judge to Dismiss E-Z Pass Class Suit
ULTA SALON: Ex-Store Managers Sue Over Failure to Pay OT
UNITED HEALTH: Hooper Lundy Settles Out-Of-Network Class Suit
UTZ QUALITY: "Jurden" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: German Prosecutors Open Probe Against Ex-CEO
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Arabian" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Araujo" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Armstrong" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Belliveau" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brewitt" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brown" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Claypool" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Cunningham" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Drury" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Eschinger" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Farmer" Suit in Ohio Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Feldam" Suit in Md. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Ford" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fonte" Suit in N.Y. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gall" Suit in Iowa Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Goodrich" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hayashi" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hill" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Koudsi Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lucas" Suit in Ala. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mahoney" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mayerson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McLean" Suit in Ga. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Monge" Suit in N.C. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Schafer" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Sensenig" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stanley" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stein" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Steele" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Trippett" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Vinson" Suit in N.C. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Weiss" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "West" Suit in Ga. Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Defeat Devices
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Zucker" Suit Over Defeat Devices
WELLS FARGO: January 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WHITE OAK: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WL GENERAL: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
YMK HOSPITALITIES: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ZIONS FIRST: 3rd Cir. Allows Fraud Class Suit to Proceed
*********
AAC HOLDINGS: Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Act Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Judith D. Tenzyk, and all others similarly-situated v. AAC
Holdings, Inc., Jerrod N. Menz, Michael T. Cartwright and Kathryn
Sevier-Phillips, Case No. 3:15-cv-00986 (M.D. Tenn., September 14,
2015), seeks compensatory and punitive damages against the
Defendants for alleged material misrepresentations and material
omissions in violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
This is a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired AAC common stock
between October 2, 2014 and August 3, 2015, inclusive.
AAC provides substance abuse treatment services for individuals
with drug and alcohol addiction. It also provides treatment
services for individuals struggling with behavioral health
disorders. AAC's principal executive office is located in
Brentwood, Tennessee. The company's common shares trade on the
NYSE under the trading symbol of AAC.
Michael T. Cartwright is AAC's chairman and chief executive
officer. Mr. Cartwright has served as Board Chair since 2011 and
CEO since June 2013.
Jerrod N. Menz was the president and member of the Board of
Directors of AAC until his indictment for murder. Mr. Menz
remains an employee of AAC.
Kathryn Sevier Phillips is the secretary/general counsel of AAC.
Ms. Phillips joined AAC as general counsel and secretary in 2013.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
P. O. Box 150734
Nashville, TN 37215
Tel: (615) 248-2828
Fax: (866) 816-4116
E-mail: PKNASHLAW@aol.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 661-1100
Fax: (212) 661-8665
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ALLIANZ LIFE: "Sanchez" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------
Diane V. Sanchez, and all others similarly situated v. Allianz
Life Insurance Company of North America, and Does 1-100, Case No.
BC94715 (Cal. Super., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants breach of contract, declaratory relief and violation of
Unfair Competition Law.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has breached the two-tier
contracts by applying an Expense Recovery Adjustment, a "haircut",
to the Annuitization Values of policyholders who have annuitized
in contract-years 5 through 10. Policyholders who have annuitized
in contract-years 5 through 10 suffered a reduction in the
Accumulated Value and, therefore, reduced annuity payments. The
Defendant has also breached the contracts by applying a haircut on
death claims and to the Cash Values of those who annuitized in
years 1 through 5.
The Defendant is an insurance company licensed to do business in
California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
GIANELLI & MORRIS
550 South Hope Street, Ste 1645
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tel: (213) 489-1600
Fax: (213) 489-1611
- and -
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
3636 Fourth Avenue, Ste 202
San Diego, CA 92103
Tel: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
AMAZON.COM: Ashley Madison Users Sue Over Emotional Distress
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune News, reported that the
trickle of Ashley Madison-related misery continues, including
another reported suicide, as do the misguided attempts to stop it.
The latest example comes via a lawsuit that claims Amazon and
GoDaddy are partly responsible for the fallout from the huge data
breach.
In a proposed class action case filed in Arizona, three users of
the adultery site claim Amazon and GoDaddy are to blame for
receiving "stolen property" and infliction of emotional distress.
The allegations stem from the fact these companies host websites
where people can pay to search the millions of names released in
data breach.
The plaintiffs are only identified as anonymous "John Does" of
California, New Jersey, and Maryland. They claim GoDaddy and
Amazon, along with the websites offering the search tools, are
responsible for damages of at least $3 million.
Leaving aside the legal and moral case against the website
operators, the allegations against GoDaddy and Amazon appear far-
fetched. All the companies are doing is offering the same web-
hosting service that is available to millions of other websites.
Accusing them of wrong-doing is a bit like blaming the power
company for an offensive neon sign.
Fortunately, a well-known U.S. law provides a clear shield for
Amazon and GoDaddy. The law, known as Section 230 of the
Communications Decency Act, protects web hosts and other
intermediaries from being held responsible for activities of their
users. The companies should have little trouble using the law to
get the claims, which are mostly based on California state law,
dismissed in short order.
A GoDaddy spokesperson said the company has not been served and
does not comment on impending litigation. Amazon did not respond
to a request for comment.
The lawsuit is just the latest in a series of legal fallouts
related to the hacking incident. Others include a class action
suit against Ashley Madison itself as well as copyright threats by
the adultery site against Twitter users who reported on the data
breach. (As I've argued before, the copyright claims are plainly
unfounded, and Ashley Madison should be punished for invoking
them.)
And, in the latest incident, the former CTO of the company is
threatening a libel suit against respected security blogger Brian
Krebs for reporting on Ashley Madison's alleged hacking of rival
websites. Krebs has refused to back down.
AMERICAN INT'L: Judge Narrows Shareholder Suits Over 2008 Bailout
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal
judge narrowed several lawsuits against American International
Group Inc by shareholders who opted out of the $970.5 million
class-action settlement that she approved in March over the
insurer's 2008 bailout.
U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in Manhattan dismissed
claims that she said were brought too late against AIG in the six
"opt-out" lawsuits, which were filed between November 2011 and
February 2015.
She rejected the argument by plaintiffs that the filing of the
shareholder class action gave them more time to pursue their own
claims, without running afoul of statutes of limitation. Swain
also dismissed claims brought under state common law.
The six lawsuits did not all raise the same claims against AIG,
which is based in New York.
AIG spokesman Jon Diat said: "We are pleased with the decision."
As in the class action, opt-out shareholders claimed that AIG
misled them about its subprime mortgage exposure and the risks
that the insurer took in credit default swaps, culminating in
$182.3 billion of federal bailouts.
The shareholders include the Kuwait Investment Authority, the
Teachers Retirement System of the State of Illinois, the Singapore
sovereign wealth fund GIC Private Ltd, the University of
California, and various General Electric and Lord Abbett
investment funds.
Plaintiffs often file opt-out lawsuits if they believe they can
recover more by suing individually rather than in a class.
Jonathan Schiller, a lawyer for the Kuwait fund, said Swain's
decision "has no effect on our client," which filed the earliest
of the opt-out lawsuits.
Lawyers for the other plaintiffs did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.
Other defendants who won dismissals of various claims include
former AIG Chief Executive Martin Sullivan; Joseph Cassano, who
oversaw the CDS portfolio; and various executives and board
members.
The bailouts left taxpayers with a nearly 80 percent stake in AIG,
which the government later sold off, resulting in a $22.7 billion
return.
The cases are all in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York. They are Kuwait Investment Authority v. American
International Group Inc et al, No. 11-08403; Teachers Retirement
System of the State of Illinois v. American International Group
Inc et al, No. 13-03377; GIC Private Ltd v. American International
Group Inc et al, No. 13-06565; Regents of the University of
California v. American International Group Inc et al, No. 14-
01270; Lord Abbett Affiliated Fund Inc et al v. American
International Group Inc et al, No. 15-00774; and General Electric
Pension Trust et al v. American International Group Inc et al, No.
15-00957.
ANZ BANKING: Credit Card Fees Battle Heads to High Court
--------------------------------------------------------
James Eyers, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that
The High Court of Australia will determine whether late fees
charged by ANZ Banking Group on credit cards are illegal penalties
and should be refunded.
The nation's highest court said it would hear the case after
lawyers representing 43,500 ANZ customers in the class action
appealed a strongly worded judgment in April, which lambasted any
notion the fees were unjust or unfair, let alone an illegal
penalty.
In that decision, Federal Court Chief Justice James Allsop said
courts should not assume the "role of a price regulator", while
judges Anthony Besanko and John Middleton said the judges should
not impose personal perceptions of "desirable social goals".
These were read as strong criticisms of Justice Michelle Gordon's
original decision in the case, which found that ANZ's late-payment
fees were unlawful. Justice Gordon is now a member of the High
Court.
IMF Bentham, which is funding the case, said in an announcement to
the Australian Securities Exchange a similar case against National
Australia Bank Limited "has been the subject of settlement
discussions", while cases against other banks, including Westpac
Banking Corp and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia, have been
stayed until a final decision is made in the ANZ case.
IMF said the High Court was likely to hear the appeal in early
2016.
One of the key legal issues in the case is whether late credit
card fees are a "fee for a service". Justice Gordon found that a
late credit card payment didn't require the bank to do anything
other than wait to be repaid and there was no damage from the late
payment because the rate of interest on the credit card is better
than the bank could get by putting its money elsewhere. Because it
was not a fee for a service, she found it an illegal penalty.
BANK OF AMERICA: Shegerian Law Founder Comments on $36MM Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Carney Shegerian, Esq. -- cshegerian@shegerianlaw.com --
founder of the Los Angeles-based employment discrimination and
personal injury firm Shegerian & Associates, released comments on
the recent $36 million class action settlement between Bank of
America and 365 current and former appraisers. The suit alleged
the banking giant misclassified the workers' status labeling them
exempt from overtime pay.
"The recently proposed laws on the subject of overtime have put
this case in the spotlight, and for good reason," said Shegerian.
"It's an important case that paints a perfect picture of the ways
that employers can shortchange workers when they fail to classify
them according to their rightful overtime pay status. It's a
practice that deserves far more attention than it gets, and it's
good to see it getting that now."
"What employers must understand is that excluding workers from
overtime pay when they lawfully should receive it may have short-
term benefits for the bottom-line, but in the long run, it's a
dangerous and risky endeavor," Shegerian went on to say. "A
lawsuit like this one is evidence of just how costly and damaging
such decisions can be from an employer's perspective."
BLYTH INC: "Stanton" Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Stanton, and all others similarly-situated v. Blyth, Inc.,
Robert B. Goergen, Robert B. Goergen, Jr., Jane Dietze, Andrew
Graham, Brett M. Johnson, Iian Kaufthal, Jim Mctaggart, Howard E.
Rose, Jim Williams, The Carlyle Group LP, CB Shine Holdings, LLC,
and CB Shine Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 11507 (Del. Ch., September
15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants to enjoin a proposed
transaction announced on August 31, 2015, pursuant to which Blyth
Inc. will be acquired by The Carlyle Group LP and its affiliate.
On August 30, 2015, the Board caused Blyth to enter into an
agreement and plan of merger with CB Shine Holdings, LLC and CB
Shine Merger Sub, Inc. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will commence a tender offer to acquire all
of the outstanding shares of Blyth for $6.00 per share in cash.
The Plaintiff claimed that the Proposed Transaction is the product
of a flawed process and deprives Blyth's public stockholders of
the ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects.
Furthermore, in approving the Merger Agreement, the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the
Class. Moreover, as alleged herein, Blyth and Carlyle aided and
abetted the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.
Blyth Inc. is a direct-to-consumer business that focuses on the
direct selling and direct marketing channels. The Company designs
and markets candles and accessories for the home and also designs
and markets health, wellness and beauty products, household
convenience items, and personalized gifts through the
catalog/Internet channel.
Carlyle Group is a global alternative asset manager with $193
billion of assets under management across 128 funds and 159 fund
of funds vehicles as of June 30, 2015.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Blyth.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Tel: (302) 295-5310
BMW: Faces NHTSA Probe Over Mini Side Crash Tests Problems
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that BMW may be the next automaker in
the sights of U.S. safety regulators.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says it's
investigating the company's Mini brand because it may have been
slow to fix cars that didn't pass federal crash tests.
At issue are just over 30,000 Mini Cooper and Cooper S models from
model years 2014 and 2015, plus the John Cooper Works from 2015.
The agency said in paperwork posted on its website on Sept. 28
that government crash tests found that a 2014 Mini Two-Door
Hardtop Cooper didn't adequately protect a female dummy in side-
impact crash tests done in October of last year. Two months
later, BMW agreed to a recall and later said it would do a
"service campaign" to add padding to the rear side panels of 2015
Two-Door Hardtop Cooper models.
But the campaign was never done, and BMW never told NHTSA that it
wasn't, according to the documents.
Then, in July 2015, NHTSA tested a 2015 Cooper S, which also
failed the side impact crash tests, and BMW agreed to recall the
2014 and 2015 Cooper S and Two-Door Hardtop and 2015 John Cooper
Works models.
The agency said it's concerned that BMW knew or should have known
about side crash problems and should have taken action sooner.
"It appears from a review of NHTSA's databases that BMW may have
failed to submit recall communications to NHTSA in a timely
manner," the documents said.
A Mini spokeswoman said BMW will "respond to NHTSA as
appropriate."
NHTSA has the authority to fine an automaker up to $35 million for
failing to act quickly on safety problems or failing to
communicate with the agency. Since the start of 2013, Fiat
Chrysler, General Motors, Honda, Hyundai, Ford, Toyota and air bag
maker Takata all have been fined by the agency.
CAMERON INTERNATIONAL: Suit Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duty
------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Taylor, and all others similarly-situated v. Cameron
International Corporation, Jack B. Moore, H. Paulett Eberhart,
Peter J. Fluor, Douglas L. Foshee, James T. Hackett, Rodolfo
Landim, Michael E. Patrick, Timothy J. Probert, Jon Erik
Reinhardsen, R. Scott Rowe, Brent J. Smolik, Bruce W. Wilkinson,
Schlumberger Holdings Corporation, Rain Merger Sub LLC,
Schlumberger N.V., and Schlumberger Limited, Case No. 11506 (Del.
Ch., September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants to
enjoin a proposed transaction announced on August 25, 2015,
pursuant to which Cameron will be acquired by Schlumberger Limited
and its affiliates.
Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks rescission of the Proposed
Transaction in the event the Defendants are able to consummate it.
The Plaintiff claimed that the Proposed Transaction is the product
of a flawed process and deprives Cameron's public stockholders of
the ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects.
Furthermore, in approving the Merger Agreement, the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff and the
Class. Moreover, as alleged herein, Cameron and Schlumberger aided
and abetted the Individual Defendants' breaches of fiduciary
duties.
Cameron is a leading worldwide provider of flow equipment
products, systems, and services to oil, gas, and process
industries. Cameron's common stock is traded on the NYSE under the
ticker symbol "CAM."
Schlumberger Limited is the world's leading supplier of
technology, integrated project management, and information
solutions to customers working in the oil and gas industry
worldwide. Schlumberger Limited's common stock is traded on the
NYSE under the ticker symbol "SLB."
Schlumberger US is a Delaware corporation and a party to the
Merger Agreement.
Merger Sub is a Delaware limited liability company and a direct
wholly-owned subsidiary of Schlumberger US.
Schlumberger N.V. is a company organized under the laws of Curacao
and the indirect parent of Schlumberger US.
The Individual Defendants are directors and officers of Cameron.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Long, Esq.
RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
Wilmington, DE 19803
Tel: (302) 295-5310
- and -
Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
995 Old Eagle School Road Suite 311
Wayne, PA 19087
Tel: (484) 588-5516
CITIBANK: Calif. High Court Grants Review of Capstone's Case
------------------------------------------------------------
On April 1, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted review of
Capstone Law, APC's consumer class action case McGill v. Citibank
(No. S224086), which is potentially a promising development for
California consumers as well as class action practitioners.
Capstone Law, APC is a Los Angeles-based class action firm
responsible for some of the most significant developments in class
action and employment law in recent years. The California Supreme
Court review of McGill will decide the issue of whether claims for
public injunctive relief under California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA) can be waived or forced into arbitration.
In McGill, the plaintiff sued defendant Citibank, N.A. for unfair
competition and false advertising arising from defendant's
offering of a credit insurance plan she purchased to protect her
credit card account. Citibank moved to compel McGill to arbitrate
her claims based on an arbitration provision in her account
agreement. The trial court granted Citibank's motion as to
McGill's claims for monetary damages but denied it as to her
claims for public injunctive relief. In doing so, the court relied
on the "Broughton-Cruz rule" established by the California Supreme
Court in Broughton v. Cigna Healthplans (1999) 21 Cal.4th 1066 and
Cruz v. PacifiCare Health Systems, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 303.
Under the Broughton-Cruz rule, arbitration provisions are
unenforceable as against public policy if they require arbitration
of UCL, FAL, or CLRA injunctive relief claims brought for the
public's benefit. The Broughton-Cruz rule thus exempts public
injunction remedy from arbitration even when the remaining claims
are arbitrated.
While the trial court in McGill relied on the Broughton-Cruz rule
in partially denying Citibank's Motion to Compel Arbitration, the
California Court of Appeal (Fourth Appellate District), citing
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (US Supreme Court), reversed the
trial court's order, finding that the Broughton-Cruz rule is
preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), and holding that
all of the plaintiff's claims should have been sent to
arbitration. McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 232 Cal.App.4th 753 (2014),
review granted. By granting the Petition for Review Capstone filed
in January 2015, the California Supreme Court will decide for
itself whether the Broughton-Cruz rule survives Concepcion.
Capstone Partner Glenn Danas remarked: "We are very pleased that
the California Supreme Court has elected to weigh in on this
critically important issue. A vital tool for combating subtle but
pervasive consumer fraud is through the issuance and
implementation of public injunctions by California courts. If
massive companies like Citibank are free essentially to wipe out
consumers' ability to seek public injunctive relief using
arbitration agreements, the playing field will be shifted
dramatically against consumers and fraudulent practices committed
by large corporations will escalate unchecked. We're hopeful that
the California Supreme Court will apply the same careful analysis
to this issue as it has in other recent arbitration cases."
The outcome of the McGill decision will likely determine whether
critically important public injunctive relief will remain an
available remedy in future consumer class actions in California.
California consumers, Capstone Law, and class action attorneys
throughout California are hopeful that the California Supreme
Court will reach a similarly positive result for the plaintiff in
McGill v. Citibank as it did in Iskanian v. CLS, another seminal
case litigated by Capstone.
Capstone Law, APC is a California-based plaintiffs' side class
action law firm representing employees and consumers across the
country in litigation involving labor and workplace rights,
privacy laws, automobile and other product defects, consumer
protection, false advertising or other deceptive trade practices,
and financial fraud.
If you wish to discuss this or any other matter with us, please
contact the following attorney:
Stephen Gamber, Esq.
Capstone Law, APC
1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Tel: 310-556-4811
E-mail: Stephen.gamber@capstonelawyers.com
CNN: Dads' Parental Leave Discrimination Case Settled
-----------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
there's been plenty of discussion in Washington, D.C., and
elsewhere around the country about paid maternity leave -- but
what about the dads? One working father, former CNN reporter
Josh Levs, challenged his company's leave policy as unfair to dads
with the help of the nonprofit Washington Lawyers' Committee for
Civil Rights and Urban Affairs and Boies, Schiller & Flexner.
The plaintiffs announced a settlement in the case, which serves as
a reminder not only that gender discrimination charges cut both
ways, but that employers shouldn't dismiss the idea that, just
like many working moms, many working dads want time off to spend
with their kids, too.
As he explains on his personal blog, Mr. Levs filed his complaint
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission back in 2013,
after the birth of his third child. Before his daughter was born,
he had asked his then employer, CNN, part of Time Warner Inc., to
modify its leave policies, but the company and its legal
department refused. The CNN policy allowed 10 weeks of paid
parental leave time for biological mothers and parents of either
gender who adopt a child, but only 2 weeks for biological dads.
By giving significantly less time off to biological dads, Mr. Levs
and his lawyers, Peter Romer-Friedman, deputy director of
litigation at the Washington Lawyers Committee, and Ryan Park, an
associate at Boies Schiller, asserted that the policy violated
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, by discriminating against
fathers based on their sex.
Although the terms of the settlement aren't public, Time Warner
did switch its policy earlier in 2015 to give all parents an equal
amount of caregiving leave when kids are born -- although
biological mothers can receive additional leave for related
medical reasons. And even if the company hasn't reached the
generous parental leave levels of say, Netflix, Mr. Romer-Friedman
is satisfied with the change. "It was wonderful to see that CNN
and Turner changed their policy in early 2015," he noted, "before
there was any settlement of the case. As they've said, they want
to have a family-friendly workplace, and I think the action they
took to address Josh's concerns shows the company has a strong
commitment to working families and mothers and fathers."
Turner and CNN may have come around to the paid paternity leave
idea, but not every company has. A recent survey from the Society
for Human Resource Management showed that in 2014 only 12 percent
of companies offered paid paternity leave, a number that had
actually dropped from 16 percent in 2013.
The reasons that companies fail to offer this benefit are
complicated. Like women, men may fear that taking time off for
their kids makes them fall behind in the workplace. There's also
a certain stigma attached by some to men who prioritize family
over work. Take Daniel Murphy, the New York Mets second baseman
who was sharply criticized for missing the first two games of the
baseball season so he could be present for the birth of his child.
Mr. Romer-Friedman emphasized that although Mr. Levs' case was
about discrimination against men -- it's about women, too. "The
more men are encouraged to take leave, the more equal the
workplace will be for women in our society," he said. With
someone else to share the work of childcare, women would have more
time and energy for their careers, helping them make up for
workplace gender gaps. It's also well understood, he added, that
although men and women are entitled to the same childcare leave
under antidiscrmination law, smart companies allow women to get
time off for medical reasons, through short-term disability or
another, as unlike men, they have to deal with the physical side
of giving birth.
And the parental leave issue extends far beyond straight couples.
For example, explained Mr. Romer-Friedman, there's concern that
LGBT couples who adopt might not always be getting equal leave
rights when compared with nonbiological parents. "If companies
don't provide that kind of adoption leave, they are discriminated
against based on sexual orientation either directly or based on
disparate impact," he said.
EGG PRODUCTS: Class Certification Bid in Price-Fixing Case Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has denied class certification to indirect
purchasers of eggs in a long-running case alleging egg purchasers
engaged in price-fixing in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws.
U.S. District Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled members of the indirect purchaser class in In
re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation could not show
their proposed class was easily ascertainable, that common issues
predominated their claims and that their proposed class was
manageable.
Judge Pratter also rejected certification of the injunction class,
or those seeking an injunction under the federal Clayton Antitrust
Act. But she gave that putative class the ability to renew their
motion for class certification to better show the defendants were
acting in a manner that affected the entire class, thus making an
injunction feasible.
As to the proposed class of indirect purchasers, they argued the
class definition met the ascertainability requirement because 89
percent of households buy commodity eggs, making simple affidavits
from proposed class members that they purchased eggs reliable
enough to ascertain class membership. But the egg producers
disputed that 89 percent, and said that even if it was true, that
left the potential for 15 million false claimants that the
defendants would have no ability to challenge. The plaintiffs
countered that the individual recovery for each egg purchaser
would be too low, making false claims unlikely.
Judge Pratter said the plaintiffs' proposed ascertainability test
did not meet the 2013 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
decision in Carrera v. Bayer.
"The 'indicia of reliability' referred to in the Carrera opinion
are indicia that allow a defendant to identify and challenge
claims lacking those indicia of reliability," Judge Pratter said.
"Plaintiffs are instead offering indicia that, on the whole, most
of the claims will be legitimate, but these indicia do not allow
defendants to identify and challenge false claims, as in
accordance to the Carrera court, their due process right."
Judge Pratter also delved into the issue of predominance, finding
the indirect purchasers could not show the class claims
predominated the individual claims. She ruled the class
definition was too broad because the plaintiffs could not prove
their claims didn't include damages for eggs purchased by non-
conspirators, or egg producers who are not defendants.
Judge Pratter further found the class claims did not predominate
when it came to injury and damages because the rate with which any
alleged overcharge was passed through to the purchaser by the
store selling the eggs differed across the country and among
retailers, according to defense attorneys Jan Levine --
levinej@pepperlaw.com -- and Robin Sumner -- sumnerr@pepperlaw.com
-- of Pepper Hamilton.
Ms. Levine and Mr. Sumner represented defendants United Egg
Producers and United States Egg Marketers, two egg cooperatives.
The other defendants were egg producers.
Mr. Sumner and Ms. Levine said this was a good day for the defense
in a hard-fought case that dates back to its filing in September
2008. Ms. Levine said Judge Pratter's ruling on predominance
could have an impact on the claims made in the putative direct
purchasers class. Judge Pratter's decision on the certification
of the direct purchasers class is pending.
"We appreciate Judge Pratter taking the time and effort to write
such a detailed opinion," Ms. Levine said.
Carrie Anderson -- carrie.anderson@weil.com -- of Weil, Gotshal &
Manges represented all of the egg producer defendants in arguing
various points before Judge Pratter. Ms. Anderson said Judge
Pratter's ruling is very consistent with the Third Circuit's
precedent on ascertainability.
"I think they have been very clear on what they require. . . .
This is a serious bar," Judge Anderson said as to the bar for
demonstrating ascertainability.
Vanessa G. Jacobsen -- vjacobsen@eimerstahl.com -- of Eimer Stahl,
Brian Robison -- brobison@gibsondunn.com -- of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher and Jay Levine -- jlevine@porterwright.com -- of Porter,
Wright, Morris & Arthur were other defense counsel on the case.
Paul Novak -- pnovak@milberg.com -- of Milberg LLP in New York
represented the plaintiffs. He did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.
Judge Pratter said all of the proposed classes alleged a
conspiracy by the nation's major egg producers to control and
limit the supply of eggs in an effort to increase egg prices.
Judge Pratter said the defendants were alleged to have done that
through short-term production restriction, such as slaughtering
hens early, a pretextual animal welfare program, and a
"calculated" series of exports of eggs at below-market prices.
EMSA: Wronful Billing Class Suit May Affect 28,000 Members
----------------------------------------------------------
Arianna Pickard, writing for Tulsa World, reported that if granted
class-action status, a lawsuit alleging EMSA wrongfully billed
members of its subscription program could apply to between 5,000
and 28,000 people, a witness testified.
University of Tulsa math department chair William Coberly
testified on the estimated class size he reached after an attorney
who filed the suit asked him to analyze data from EMSA and a
collection agency it uses to bill patients.
Coberly's testimony came on the second day of a hearing to
determine the lawsuit's class-action status. Tulsa County District
Judge Mary Fitzgerald will rule on the class certification
following witness testimony, which is expected to end.
Coberly told the court he defined the class as members of EMSA's
utility fee program who used emergency services and were billed by
its collection agency as a result.
Granting class-action status to the lawsuit would apply the ruling
on the plaintiff's complaints to all subscribers who may have been
wrongly billed as a result of misunderstanding the program's
requirements.
Attorneys for EMSA have argued that each plaintiff's complaints
are specific to their cases and therefore the lawsuit should not
be granted class-action status.{p dir="ltr"} The utility fee
program was created in 2007, promising to cover participants' out-
of-pocket expenses for ambulance transports in exchange for an
added fee to their utility bills.
The program was meant to offer the same benefits as EMSA's pre-
existing subscription program, now called EMSAcare, but with
another payment option for people who couldn't afford or didn't
prefer to pay a yearly subscription fee of $45, a representative
of EMSA patient financial services testified.
The City of Tulsa was running low on money at the time, and EMSA
provided membership in its subscription program to citizens who
agreed to pay the extra monthly fee with their water bills, the
representatives were told before the utility fee program was
launched.
Robert Pezold, an attorney who filed the suit, argued at that EMSA
led the public to believe that paying the extra fee with their
utility bills was the only requirement to participate in the
program. EMSA didn't clarify, he claimed, that participants would
be required to provide insurance information to receive the
benefits of the program.
Kristopher Koepsel, an attorney for EMSA, argued at the hearing
that the ambulance service did publish information about the
requirement for insurance information in other public
announcements and on EMSA's website. The ambulance service also
sends letters to the program's participants asking for insurance
information, Koepsel said.
EMSA operates in Bixby, Jenks, Sand Springs and Tulsa, as well as
in Oklahoma City and several surrounding cities and towns.
GEORGIA: Revenue Dept. Faces Suit Over Motor Fuel Tax Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Motor Trucking Assoc., J&M Tank Lines, Inc., F&W
Transportation, Prolan Logistics, LLC, and all others similarly-
situated v. Georgia Department of Revenue and Lynette T. Riley
Commissioner, Case No. 2015SCV265750 (Ga. Super., September 15,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for collecting Local
Motor Fuel Taxes from motor common and contract carriers domiciled
in Georgia that purchase motor fuel in Georgia in violation of the
Georgia Constitution Art. III Section IX Paragraph VI.
The Local Motor Fuel Taxes levy motor fuel taxes. In violation of
the Constitution, the revenues received from the Local Motor Fuel
Taxes are not disbursed for public roads and bridges
or road construction and maintenance.
Commissioner of the DOR Lynette T. Riley and the Georgia
Department of Revenue are the legal entities which are charged
with the exclusive administration, collection, and disbursement of
the Local Motor Fuel Taxes.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
W. Pitts Carr, Esq.
W. PITTS CARR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
10 North Parkway Square
4200 Northside Parkway, NW
Atlanta, GA 30327
Tel: (404) 442-9000
GLOBAL CASH: Texas Suit Over Multimedia Merger Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
Texas state court action related to the Multimedia merger remains
pending.
On December 19, 2014, Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc.
("Holdings") completed its acquisition of Multimedia Games Holding
Company, Inc. ("Multimedia"). In connection with the Merger,
certain actions were filed by putative shareholders of Multimedia
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas (the "Texas Federal Action") and the District Court of
Travis County, Texas (the "Texas State Court Action"). In both the
Texas Federal Action and the Texas State Court Action, plaintiffs
alleged that Multimedia's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Multimedia and/or its shareholders because, among other
things, the Merger allegedly involved an unfair price, an
inadequate sales process, self-dealing and unreasonable deal
protection devices. The complaints further alleged that Holdings
and its formerly wholly owned merger subsidiary, Merger Sub, aided
and abetted those purported breaches of fiduciary duty.
On November 20, 2014, the defendants in the Texas Federal Action
reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in the Texas
Federal Action regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of Multimedia shareholders and on
behalf of Multimedia, and that agreement is reflected in a
memorandum of understanding. In connection with the settlement
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding, Multimedia agreed
to make certain additional disclosures in its proxy statement
related to the Merger, which disclosure Multimedia made in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed on November 21, 2014. In
addition, the defendants in the Texas Federal Action agreed not to
oppose an application by plaintiffs in the Texas Federal Action
for an attorneys' fee award from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas (the "District Court") of up to
$310,000.
As contemplated in the memorandum of understanding, the parties
entered into a Stipulation of Non-Opt Out Class and Derivative
Settlement (the "Stipulation") as of April 7, 2015, which was
filed with the District Court on April 16, 2015. The Stipulation
is subject to customary conditions, including District Court
approval.
On April 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of the Stipulation. On April 22, 2015, the
District Court entered an order preliminarily approving the
Stipulation, providing for notice of the settlement to be provided
to certain Multimedia shareholders and scheduling a hearing for
final approval of the Stipulation on August 7, 2015. On July 10,
2015, Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for final approval of
the Stipulation. The deadline for class members to file
objections to the Stipulation passed on July 17, 2015.
As of August 3, 2015, no such objections had been filed. There can
be no assurance that the District Court will finally approve the
Stipulation. In such event, the settlement as reflected in the
Stipulation may be terminated.
The Texas State Court Action remains pending as of August 3, 2015,
the date these condensed consolidated financial statements were
issued. All of the defendants have filed answers containing
general denials in that action. The Stipulation preliminarily
approved in the Texas Federal Action includes a release of the
claims asserted in the Texas State Court Action.
GLOBAL CASH: Case by Dollie Williams Dismissed
----------------------------------------------
Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et
al., has been dismissed with prejudice, Global Cash Access
Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.
Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et
al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern
Division, against Multimedia and others. The plaintiffs, who claim
to have been patrons of VictoryLand, allege that Multimedia
participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state
law by supplying to VictoryLand purportedly unlawful electronic
bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek
recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played
by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the filing of the
complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs have
requested that the court certify the action as a class action.
On March 29, 2013, the court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 12, 2013, the
defendants jointly filed a petition with the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the court's ruling
on class certification. On June 18, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals entered an order granting the petition to appeal.
Following briefing and oral argument, on April 2, 2014, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order reversing the
district court's ruling on class certification and remanding the
case to the district court. The parties reached a settlement that
became final upon approval of the bankruptcy court overseeing the
bankruptcy of one of the plaintiffs. The lawsuit was dismissed
with prejudice by court order dated June 10, 2015.
GLOBAL CASH: Class Certification Bid in "Hardy" Case Still Open
---------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case, Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming
Center, LLC, et al., Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.
Ozetta Hardy v. Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC, et al., a civil
action, was filed against Whitehall Gaming Center, LLC (an entity
that does not exist), Cornerstone Community Outreach, Inc., and
Freedom Trail Ventures, Ltd., in the Circuit Court of Lowndes
County, Alabama. On June 3, 2010, Multimedia and other
manufacturers were added as defendants. The plaintiffs, who claim
to have been patrons of White Hall, allege that Multimedia
participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state
law by supplying to White Hall purportedly unlawful electronic
bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek
recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played
by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the filing of the
complaint under Ala. Code, Sec 8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs
requested that the court certify the action as a class action.
On July 2, 2010, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Northern
Division. The court has not ruled on the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.
The Company continues to vigorously defend this matter. Given the
inherent uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is
unable to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome.
GULF COAST: "Villalobos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Villalobos, and all others similarly-situated v. Gulf
Coast Acquisitions Co., L.C. and Terry Bellows, Case No. 6:15-cv-
00071 (S.D. Tex., September 15, 2015), seeks damages for unpaid
overtime, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory
relief, and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants operate a company primarily engaged in the business
of commercial salt water disposal for the oil and gas industries
throughout the state of Texas.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
ROSS LAW GROUP
1104 San Antonio Street
Austin, TX 78701
Tel: (512) 474-7677
Fax: (512) 474-5306
E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com
HOBBS TRUCKING: Faces Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Young, and all others similarly-situated v. Hobbs Trucking
Company, Inc. and Stephanie Keith, Case No. 3:15-cv-00991 (M.D.
Tenn., September 15, 2015), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, non-overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Tennessee Human Rights Act.
The Defendants operate a local dirt and rock hauling company. It
primarily hauls dirt and rock from and between construction sites
in the middle of Tennessee area.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kerry Knox, Esq.
117 South Academy Street
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
Tel: (615) 896-1000
HONEST CO: 2nd Class Suit Filed Over Ineffective Sunscreen
----------------------------------------------------------
Gabrielle Olya, writing for People News, reported that Jessica
Alba's The Honest Company is coming under legal fire again.
The actress' line of all-natural products was the subject of a
lawsuit filed earlier, in which a consumer claimed that a number
of products contain "unnatural" and "synthetic" ingredients. It
also states that The Honest Company sunscreen product is
"ineffective."
The new class action suit, filed by consumer Michael Shane and
obtained by PEOPLE, claims that the sunscreen is ineffective due
to the company's recent removal of over half of the zinc oxide
originally in the product, and displays pictures of sunburned
adults and children who relied upon the sunscreen for protection.
The lawsuit states that Shane purchased the sunscreen in May 2015,
and despite using it as directed "suffered a severe sunburn
resulting in blistering and peeling."
It accuses The Honest Company of false advertising, stating that
the company "should have known its representations regarding
Honest Sunscreen's sun protection characteristics were untrue and
misleading."
For themselves and others affected by the sunscreen's alleged
ineffectiveness, Shane wants an injunction, unspecified general
and punitive damages and court costs. It also asks for a trial by
jury.
Alba, 34, spoke out on the issue on: "It pains me that anyone
doesn't have an incredible experience with Honest Company," she
said on Extra.
"We have grown so quickly, we are not even four years old. What we
have learned is that we need to do a better job at educating, and
so they are going to launch a safe sun education platform around
sunscreen and the difference between chemical and mineral
sunscreens, and the importance of reapplication and how to apply
and all of that."
Alba responded to the initial lawsuit in a statement to PEOPLE, in
which she said the claims were "baseless and without merit."
And while announcing the launch of her new cosmetics line Honest
Beauty on Good Morning America on, Alba also continued to defend
her company.
"I created The Honest Company to give people access to safe and
effective products and we are committed at The Honest Company to
make sure that we use the safest and most effective ingredients,"
she said. "We're also committed to continue to educate our
customers on how best to use our products."
Complaints about The Honest Company sunscreen began popping up
across social media this summer, with several consumers posting
photos of their sunburns.
At the time, the company defended its product, releasing a
statement to PEOPLE in August: "Our Sunscreen Lotion was tested,
by an independent 3rd party, against the protocols prescribed by
the U.S. Food & Drug Administration's (FDA) monograph for over-
the-counter sunscreen products. The results showed that our
product is effective and safe for use as an 80 minute water-
resistant (FDA's highest rating), SPF 30 sunscreen lotion in
accordance with FDA regulations when used as directed."
A representative for Alba could not be reached for comment in
regards to the latest lawsuit.
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR: Oct. 19 BC Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased Static Random Access Memory ("SRAM") or products
containing SRAM in Canada between January 1, 1998 and December 31,
2005, your rights could be affected by proposed national class
settlement.
The Class Actions
The plaintiffs in class action commenced in Ontario, British
Columbia and Quebec claim on behalf of residents of Canada that:
Hynix Semiconductor Inc., and Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc.;
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Sales Canada
Inc., Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Renesas
Electronics Corporation fka Renesas Technology Corporation,
Renesas Technology Canada Limited, and Renesas Electronics America
Inc. fka Renesas Technology America Inc.; Cypress Semiconductor
Corporation; Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba of Canada Limited (aka
Toshiba DU Canada Ltee.), Toshiba America, Inc. and Toshiba
America Electronic Components, Inc.; Efron Technology, Inc. and
Efron Technology America, Inc. (collectively, "Settling
Defendants"); and other SRAM manufacturers and distributors, some
of whom have previously settled with the plaintiffs, conspired to
fix the prices for SRAM. SRAM is a type of memory commonly used in
computers and communication devices.
The Settlements
Although the Settling Defendants deny liability, they have each
reached a national settlement with the plaintiffs, subject to
approval of the courts in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec,
wherein they will pay $3,050,000 CDN in total for the benefit of
the settlement class members in exchange for full and final
releases of claims against them and their related entities.
Certification/Authorization as Class Proceedings for Settlement
Purposes
The courts in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec have
certified/authorized the actions as class proceedings against the
Settling Defendants named in their respective jurisdictions for
settlement purposes only.
Settlement Class Members
All persons in Canada who purchased SRAM or products containing
SRAM between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2005, except
defendants and their related entities, are settlement class
members.
Opting Out of the Class Proceedings
The deadline to opt out or exclude oneself as a settlement class
member in the SRAM proceeding has passed.
Settlement Approval Hearings
Hearings to consider approval of the settlements and to fix
counsel fees of 25% of the settlement amounts plus litigation
expenses an applicable taxes will be heard by the: Ontario Court
in the City of Toronto on December 11, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.; the
British Columbia Court in the City of Vancouver on October 19,
2015 at 9:00 a.m.; and, the Quebec Court in Quebec City on
November 11, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.
Orders will also be sought to dismiss/discontinue the actions
against the sole remaining defendant, NEC Corporation, on the
basis that it is not the company responsible for any SRAM
liabilities of the NEC group of companies.
The class actions will be concluded and the settlement class
members will be bound by the terms of the settlement agreements
with the Settling Defendants if the courts issue the orders
sought.
Distribution of Settlement Funds
The total settlement funds in the amount of $4,850,000 CDN, less
court approved lawyers fees, litigation expenses and taxes, will
be held in trust for the benefit of the settlement class members.
At the settlement approval hearings orders will also be sought
approving a distribution process for the net settlement funds to
settlement class members. The proposed distribution plan will be
posted at www.cfmlawyers.ca at www.sramclassaction.com and at
www.bptavocats.com by September 25, 2015.
Settlement class members should retain all proofs of SRAM products
purchased between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2005 and
monitor the websites below for updated information on the
settlement approvals and the future claims process.
If you wish to comment on or object to the matters contained in
this notice, you must do in writing by October 14, 2015.
FOR INFORMATION on the matters covered in this notice:
www.cfmlayers.ca OR www.sramclassaction.com OR www.bptavocats.com
call toll-free 1-800-689-2322
email SRAMsettlement@cfmlawyers.ca
Inquiries should not be directed to the courts
Legal notice authorized by the Ontario, British Columbia and
Quebec courts.
INVENSENSE INC: Hearing on Dismissal Bid Scheduled for Oct. 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Invensense, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that a hearing on the
defendants' motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit is scheduled
for October 2015.
In January and March of 2015, purported shareholders filed five
substantially similar class action complaints in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California against the Company and two
of the Company's current and former executives ("Class Action
Defendants") (Jim McMillan v. InvenSense, Inc., et al. Case No.
3:15-cv-00084-JD, filed January 7, 2015; William Lendales v.
InvenSense, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00142-VC, filed on
January 12, 2015; Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v.
InvenSense, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00249-BLF, filed on
January 16, 2015; William B. Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00425-RMW, filed on January 29, 2015; and
Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology & Communications Portfolio v.
InvenSense et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01134, filed on March 11,
2015).
On April 23, 2015, those cases were consolidated into a single
proceeding which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California and captioned In re InvenSense,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00084-JD (the
"Securities Case"), and the Vossen Group was designated as lead
plaintiff. On May 26, 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business
results between July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks
unspecified damages along with plaintiff's costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.
On June 25, 2015, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion
seeking dismissal of the case and a hearing on that motion is
scheduled for October 2015.
In light of the unresolved legal issues, while a loss is
reasonably possible, the amount of any potential loss cannot be
estimated. At this stage, the Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this matter and, accordingly, cannot estimate the
potential financial impact on the Company's business, operating
results, cash flows or financial position.
JACOBY & MEYERS: Former Clients File Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Long Island News12 reported that a class action lawsuit against a
well-known personal injury firm was filed in federal court.
Barbara Smalls, of Farmingdale, received serious injuries to her
neck and spine during an accident on Hempstead Turnpike in 2008.
She then hired Jacoby and Myers law firm after seeing an ad on
television.
Smalls says in a maze of paperwork and a trail of "lies and
deception," she found out the firm had received a settlement in
her case for $146,000. She says she never knew about the
settlement until she went to Social Services for help to pay her
rent.
Smalls says Jacoby and Meyers never informed her of the
settlement, despite the fact that Social Services had the
settlement in their records. Smalls says that the last straw was
when she received a bill for a trial that included $1,000 for a
jury's food and housing.
"I never went to trial. I never stepped inside a court room,"
Smalls told News 12.
Smalls is now part of a class action lawsuit, along with 10,000
other clients, who say Jacoby and Meyers billed them for things
they never did and things that never happened.
Jacoby and Meyers declined to comment about the allegations.
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery on Merits Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the class action
lawsuit related to the Gainesville plant, discovery on the merits
is stayed until further court order.
Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. in 2010.
In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs
define the putative class as consisting of all persons who are
present record owners of residential real properties located in an
area within a two-mile radius of the former Gainesville wood
treating plant. Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and
contaminants from the Gainesville plant have contaminated real
properties within the two mile geographical area, have caused
property damage (diminution in value) and have placed residents
and owners of the putative class properties at an elevated risk of
exposure to and injury from the chemicals at issue. The second
amended complaint seeks damages for diminution in property values,
the establishment of a medical monitoring fund and punitive
damages.
The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. The district court
dismissed Koppers Holdings Inc. in September 2013 on the ground
that there was no personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of Koppers Holdings Inc. was dismissed in December 2013.
Under the current scheduling order, class factual discovery closed
on May 20, 2015, with expert witness discovery to follow.
Discovery on the merits is stayed until further order of the
court.
The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Fully Briefed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that KPC's motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit in the Virgin Islands has been fully
briefed.
Koppers Performance Chemicals Inc. ("KPC") is currently a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court of the Virgin Islands. The plaintiffs claim,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, that KPC's
wood preservative products and formulas are defective, and the
complaint alleges the following causes of action: breach of
contract, negligence, strict liability, fraud and violation of
Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
statute.
The putative class is defined as all users (residential or
commercial) of wood products treated with KPC wood preserving
products in the United States who purchased such wood products
from January 1, 2004 to the present. Alternatively, plaintiffs
allege that the putative class should be all persons and entities
that have owned or acquired buildings or other structures
physically located in the U.S. Virgin Islands that contain wood
products treated with KPC wood preserving products from January 1,
2004 to the present. The complaint alleges plaintiffs are entitled
to unspecified "economic and compensatory damages", punitive
damages, costs and disgorgement of profits. The complaint further
requests a declaratory judgment and injunction to establish an
inspection and disposal program for class members' structures.
The lawsuit was filed on July 16, 2014, and KPC has filed a motion
to dismiss. Plaintiffs have responded to the motion and KPC has
filed a reply. The motion has been fully briefed and the parties
are awaiting a ruling by the court.
The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.
LANDMARK INDUSTRIES: 5th Cir. Flips EFTA Suit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------
Carl E. Stewart, writing for Texas Lawyer, reported that the
defendant-appellee made an offer of judgment under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 68 to a named plaintiff, that the plaintiff did
not accept.
The district court dismissed the named-plaintiff's claim and
putative class action under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction on mootness grounds. An
unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a named-plaintiff's claim
in a putative class action. The district court's judgment is
reversed and remanded.
The case is HOOKS v. LANDMARK INDUSTRIES INC., 5th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, No. 14-20496.
LHC GROUP: Says Entire Settlement Amount Funded by Insurer
----------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's insurance
carrier has funded the entire $7.9 million settlement amount in
the case, City of Omaha Police & Fire Retirement System v. LHC
Group, Inc., et al.
On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action
was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-
1609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders
who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between July
30, 2008 and October 26, 2011. Plaintiff generally alleges that
the defendants caused false and misleading statements to be issued
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and that the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer is a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.
On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws ("the Amended Complaint") on behalf of the
same putative class of LHC shareholders as the original Complaint.
In addition to claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, the Amended Complaint added a claim against the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for violation of Section 20A
of the Exchange Act. The Company believes these claims are without
merit.
On December 17, 2012, the Company and the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint,
which was denied by Order dated March 15, 2013.
On June 16, 2014, following mediation, the parties entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement. On August 5, 2014, the District Court
entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing
for Notice. The District Court held a final fairness hearing on
December 11, 2014 and issued two Report and Recommendations on
February 11, 2015 approving the settlement plan of allocation and
Lead Plaintiff's fees and expenses.
On March 3, 2015, the District Court entered its Judgments
adopting the Report and Recommendation previously issued and
dismissing the action with prejudice. The time for appeal has
passed and no appeals were filed. This matter is now concluded.
MARRIOTT HOTEL: "Cuellar" Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------
Josue Cuellar, and all others similarly situated v. Marriott Hotel
Services, Inc. and Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. DE C.V. dba Aero
Mexico, Case No. 32090374 (Fla. Cir., September 15, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, quantum merit, fiduciary duty and negligent infliction
of emotional distress by paying its service drivers that must have
a CDL licenses under the Florida Minimum Wage required pursuant to
448.110 and not providing a safe work environment.
Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., a hospitality company, engages in
operating and franchising hotels and related lodging facilities
worldwide. The company is based in Washington, District of
Columbia. Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. operates as a subsidiary
of Marriott International, Inc.
Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., trading as AeroMexico, provides
air travel services. The company also offers engineering and
maintenance, transit, structural repairs, wear and tear, interior
modifications, radar and windshear installation, engineering
support, fuselage polishing, interior reconditioning, and engine
inspection services.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rosy Aponte, Esq.
R. APONTE & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
8180 NW 36th Street, Suite 100J
Doral, FL 33166
Tel: (786) 360-3263
E-mail: a2aponte@aol.com
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Munoz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maritza Munoz v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:2015cv02892 (D. Md., September 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
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:
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
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
npioch@sommerspc.com
jyoung@sommerspc.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 -
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 -
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 "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leydy Perez-Diaz v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:2015cv02893 (D. Md., September 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
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:
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
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
npioch@sommerspc.com
jyoung@sommerspc.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 -
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 -
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 "Wallace" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Wallace v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02888-JFM (D. Md., September 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
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:
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
E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
npioch@sommerspc.com
jyoung@sommerspc.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 -
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 -
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
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Julia Vladimirsky, Bernard Ortiz, and all others similarly-
situated v. McCormick and Company, Inc., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and
John Does 1-100, Case No. 1:15-cv-08102 (N.D. Ill., September 15,
2015), seeks injunctive relief and to recover damages, including
treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees
arising from the Defendants' violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.
Headquartered in Sparks, Maryland, McCormick & Company, Inc.
manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning mixes,
condiments, and other flavor products to the entire food industry,
including retail outlets, food manufacturers, and food services
businesses. McCormick manufactures, supplies, markets, and
distributes the pepper products at issue herein.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Ste 2410
Chicago, IL 60611
Tel: (708) 628-4949
Fax: (708) 628-4950
E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
- and -
J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
HUDSON, MALLANEY, SHINDLER &
ANDERSON, P.C.
5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
West Des Moines, IA 50265
Tel: (515) 223-4567
E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net
- and -
David Freydin, Esq.
FREYDIN LAW OFFICES
8707 Skokie Blvd. # 305
Skokie, IL 60077
Tel: (866) 308-0051
E-mail: david.freydin@freydinlaw.com
MILBERG LLP: 9th Cir. Reverses Denial of Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reported
that a federal appeals court has paved the way for a malpractice
class action against Milberg LLP brought by clients who sued the
law firm over a botched securities fraud case.
Reversing a district court ruling that denied class certification
to the plaintiffs, decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit stems from a case filed by Columbia Law School
professor Philip Bobbitt. He alleged that New York-based Milberg,
former founding partner Melvyn Weiss and three other law firms
bungled his securities fraud case against Variable Annuity Life
Insurance Company Inc.
In the malpractice case, U.S. District Judge Frank Zapata in
Arizona refused in 2012 to certify a class of more than one
million VALIC investors claiming that they lost their securities
fraud case because Milberg and the other firms missed deadlines.
After Bobbitt and a second named plaintiff dismissed their case,
another investor intervened to appeal that decision.
Both cases involved basically the same class of more than one
million VALIC investors. The underlying securities case asserted
fraud against VALIC, while the malpractice lawsuit brought
negligence claims against the lawyers who handled the shareholder
litigation.
The Ninth Circuit found that Zapata had erred in concluding that
the malpractice case could potentially involve the laws of all 50
states since each class member's claim was based on the laws of
their home states, not the law of Arizona.
"Our inquiry focuses not on the place where the victim feels the
consequences of the injury, but on the location of injury itself,"
wrote Judge John Owens. "Although the district court correctly
concluded that the various defendant law firms and attorneys
performed legal services across several states, the critical
conduct causing the injury was the failure to meet court deadlines
in Arizona."
The Ninth Circuit ruling, if unchallenged, leaves the future of
the malpractice case unclear. Bobbitt and Sampson voluntarily
dismissed the case in 2013, claiming it was "not economically
feasible" without class certification. Bobbitt declined to
comment.
Lawrence Kasten, a partner at Lewis Roca Rothgerber in Phoenix,
who represents Lance Laber, the intervening investor, declined to
comment. Douglas Pepe, a partner at New York's Joseph Hage
Aaronson, who represents Milberg, Weiss and other lawyers at the
firm, did not respond to a request for comment.
Milberg brought the VALIC case in federal court in Arizona in
2001.
The late U.S. District Judge William Browning certified the class
of investors but later struck the plaintiffs' expert and witness
list after Milberg failed to meet discovery deadlines. He later
vacated class certification and granted judgment to VALIC.
The malpractice case, filed in 2009, accuses Milberg and three
other firms of negligence given the missed deadlines and their
failure to inform class members about the status of the
litigation. The lawsuit named Milberg and five of its individual
attorneys, including Weiss, who spent about 18 months behind bars
after pleading guilty to charges that his firm paid kickbacks to
lead plaintiffs. Weiss, who was released from a federal prison in
2010, did not return a call to his mediation firm, MIW Consulting
LLC, which is based in Boca Raton, Florida.
Also named in the case were Michael Spencer, of counsel at
Milberg, and former Milberg attorneys Janine Pollack, now a
partner at New York's Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz; Brian
Kerr, now at New York's Brower Piven; and Lee Weiss, now in the
Garden City, New York, office of Berns Weiss, which is based in
Woodland Hills, Calif. Spencer declined to comment, and none of
the others responded to requests for comment.
The suit also named another former New York firm, The Lustigman
Firm, and two of its partners, Sheldon Lustigman and Andrew
Lustigman, who are now at Olshan Frome Wolosky in New York;
Washington-based Uitz & Associates and its principal, Ronald Uitz;
and Tucson, Ariz.-based Gabroy, Rollman & Boss‚, now Boss‚ Rollman
& Funk, and two of its partners, Ronald Lehman and John Gabroy,
who no longer works at the firm. Lawyers representing those
defendants before the Ninth Circuit did not respond to requests
for comment.
Milberg LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza 49th Floor New York, NY 10119
T: 212.594.5300 or 800.320.5081
F: 212.868.1229
www.milberg.com
MORENO FARMS: Rape Victims Obtain $17-Mil. Jury Award
-----------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that five
female farmworkers who accusing their former bosses of rape and
sexual harassment expected they would never see a cent of damages,
but they brought a civil case to trial anyway to make a point,
their attorneys said.
The women won a $17 million federal jury verdict Sept. 10 against
Miami-based Moreno Farms Inc. and the supervisors of its Hendry
County vegetable-packing plant in rural Felda, where the
plaintiffs worked.
The defendants never appeared except for a deposition, where the
farm's owner said he had closed the business, plaintiffs attorney
Victoria Mesa-Estrada said. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission filed the case on behalf of the workers, who were all
immigrants.
"Despite knowing they were never going to get a penny out of this
because they were aware the company had shut down, they proceeded
to have a trial precisely to make a point to that [migrant worker]
community that they should come forward," Ms. Mesa-Estrada said.
The women -- three from Mexico, one from Guatemala and one from
Honduras -- alleged their supervisors subjected them to sexual
comments and inappropriate touching. The farm owner's sons, Oscar
and Omar Moreno, and Omar Moreno's assistant Javier Garcia, also
allegedly forced their employees to have sex with them.
Four of the women were fired after resisting their bosses' sexual
advances, and one quit after Oscar Moreno allegedly raped her in a
trailer that his brother ordered her to clean. They worked for
the company in 2011 and 2012.
Some workers claimed they were given tasks that would separate
them from other women so they were more vulnerable to harassment.
One woman said that after she resisted an assault, she was
assigned more difficult work usually reserved for male workers.
The five women initially took their claims to the police, but they
were told there was not enough evidence to support a case,
Ms. Mesa-Estrada said. No criminal charges were filed.
Ms. Mesa-Estrada took on the case through the Florida Legal
Services' Migrant Farmworker Justice Project, established in 1996
and funded by the Florida Bar Foundation.
When the project ran out of funding, she stayed with the clients
through her firm, Mesa & Coe Law in Lake Worth. She and Florida
Legal Services managing attorney Gregory Schell represented the
women as plaintiff-intervenors, and the EEOC served as the
plaintiff.
The project helped provide translators for the women and kept them
going through the long federal investigation, Ms. Mesa-Estrada
said.
"These women were courageous enough to stay, but it took many
workers' advocates to keep them engaged in the lawsuit," she said.
Clients In Tears
Migrant workers are not always likely to see justice because
they're part of a vulnerable population that moves around
frequently pursuing seasonal work, said EEOC attorney
Kimberly Cruz, who also worked on the case.
"Cases involving agricultural workers in general are difficult
because there's a mistrust of the government, especially where
immigration status plays a role," she said. "I'm so glad that
they ultimately found our agency, but [other] institutions that
they went to failed them."
After a two-day trial before U.S. District Judge Darrin P. Gayles
in Miami, a jury awarded each of the women $1 million for assault
and battery and $2 million for harassment and being fired for
resisting harassment.
Each of the five women also was awarded damages for emotional pain
and mental anguish, ranging from $350,000 to $750,000.
"When they read the verdict, while we were assuming it was going
to be a few millions of dollars, we never expected such an
amount," Ms. Mesa-Estrada said. "My clients were all in tears.
It was their vindication in many ways."
Ms. Cruz said the EEOC hopes the verdict will send a message to
farm owners who might exploit a vulnerable worker population.
"Letting employers in that industry know that the EEOC is
enforcing rights of these workers has a real value," she said.
"We hope it'll make the workplace safer for agricultural workers
and provide avenues for them to complain when they experience
abuse or discrimination."
Ms. Cruz was joined by Beatriz Andre and Daniel Seltzer from the
EEOC in Miami. The defendants did not have legal representation.
A phone number listed for Moreno Farms had been disconnected. The
company's registered agent resigned last December, and the
corporation was dissolved by the state in May.
NAT'L FOOTBALL: On Defensive End of Suits Over Televised Games
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reported
that the National Football League is playing defense against
several class actions alleging antitrust violations over its
Sunday Ticket package, which allows fans to watch games broadcast
outside their local television market.
At least eight suits, all filed within the past two months, allege
that individual and commercial subscribers of the package, like
restaurants and sports bars, have overpaid for out-of-market games
in violation of the U.S. Sherman Antitrust Act.
The suits are the latest to tackle how sports leagues and
satellite and cable providers sell out-of-market games through
bundled packages available on televisions, computers or other
electronic devices. On Sept. 1, a federal judge approved the
settlement of a similar class action against the National Hockey
League.
But unlike the NHL case, the NFL lawsuits hope to upend an
exclusive arrangement the league has with DirecTV that doesn't
exist in baseball, hockey or basketball. The arrangement, which
was extended under a $12 billion deal last year, was a lucrative
part of AT&T Inc.'s $48.5 billion merger with DirecTV, which the
Federal Communications Commission approved on July 24.
Plaintiffs lawyers say the exclusive deal leaves no room for
competition and has driven up the price of the Sunday Ticket
package.
"Putting the Sunday Ticket package out on multiple distribution
platforms will have an effect of increasing competition and
restraining price," said Christopher Lebsock, of Hausfeld in San
Francisco, who filed a suit on behalf of The Mucky Duck in San
Francisco, a sports bar Lebsock moved on Aug. 27 to coordinate his
case and seven other class actions filed over the Sunday Ticket
package into a single federal multidistrict proceeding.
Most of the NFL cases were brought on behalf of bars and
restaurants that pay $2,314 to $120,000 a year for a Sunday Ticket
package, according Lebsock's suit.
"For a bar, which caters its business on a diverse crowd, they
want to be able to show all out-of-market games so that if
somebody comes in and is interested in seeing a New Orleans Saints
game, they can put it in the corner, and they can watch that game
while they sit there and have a beer," he said. "But they also
need to cater to the Packers fans as well, and whoever else comes
into the bar."
Derek Ludwin and Gregg Levy, partners at Covington & Burling in
Washington who represent The National Football League Inc., did
not respond to a request for comment.
Robert Mercer, a spokesman for DirecTV Holdings LLC, a unit of
DirecTV Inc., wrote in an email: "These lawsuits are without
merit. We are fully confident in the legality of our agreement
with the NFL."
The NFL suits were filed days after U.S. District Judge Shira
Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York preliminarily
approved the NHL settlement on June 15. Under the settlement, the
NHL has agreed to provide out-of-market games of a single team at
a 20 percent discount from the currently bundled price. The deal
also pays $6.5 million in attorney fees.
Lead class counsel Howard Langer questioned the timing of when the
NFL cases were filed.
"No case against any sports leagues had been filed until after the
settlement with the National Hockey League had been made public,"
said Langer, of Philadelphia's Langer, Grogan & Diver, who has a
separate class action pending over similar claims against Major
League Baseball. "And the first of the cases I'm aware of filed
against the National Football League copied substantial sections
of our complaints."
But Lesbock, who filed his suit on July 13, insisted that the
timing was just a coincidence.
"A number of entities that subscribe to Sunday Ticket came to us
last fall and were very concerned about what was going on with
Sunday Ticket pricing, and concerned that the merger with AT&T was
only going to exacerbate the problem," he said. "And it appears
that's what's happening."
NUTRAMARKS INC: Faces "Hammock" Suit Over Breach of Warranty
------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Hammock, Sherry Bentley, Linda Love, and all others
similarly-situated v. NutraMarks, Inc., NutraPure, Inc., and the
Nutraceutical Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-02056 (S.D. Calif.,
September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants regarding
breach of warranty claims and violations of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants falsely and deceptively
labeled its products that do no not work as advertised.
The Defendants are the manufacturers and distributors of NatraBio
homeopathic products. Its principal place of business is located
at Park City, Utah.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
651 Arroyo Drive
San Diego, CA 92103
Tel: (619) 696-9006
Fax: (619) 564-6665
PIZZA HUT: Judge Denies Dismissal of Tax Delivery Charges Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen P. Kranz and Mark Yopp, writing for The National Law
Review, reported that in the latest development in the Florida
litigation regarding the taxation of delivery charges, Judge Jack
Tuter of the 17th Judicial Circuit Court of Florida determined
that the complaint against Pizza Hut was sufficient to withstand a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Order, Lauren
Minniti v. Pizza Hut of America, No. 14-023335 CACE (07), 2015 WL
5037164 (Fla. 17th Cir. Ct. Aug. 26, 2015). The case is fashioned
as a class action, but it is still in the early stages and the
class has not yet been certified.
The substantive tax question in this case is whether Pizza Hut is
liable to Plaintiff (and possibly a class of plaintiffs) for
damages based on sales tax charged on a delivery fee paid in
connection with a food delivery. Pizza Hut charged the plaintiff
$0.17 in sales tax on the separately stated charge for delivering
food. The plaintiff asserts that Florida law does not impose sales
tax on delivery fees if a customer has the option to pick up the
delivered goods. The plaintiff raised three counts against Pizza
Hut: (1) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act; (2) negligence; and (3) unjust enrichment. The only
issue in the motion to dismiss was whether the plaintiff had
alleged sufficient facts to support the causes of action. A
similar case is pending against Papa John's Pizza.
In its motion, Pizza Hut had first argued that Plaintiff's sole
statutory remedy was the difference between what Pizza Hut
collected and the amount Pizza Hut paid to the state. Because
Pizza Hut remitted the entire amount, no remedy was available.
Judge Tuter determined that this was not a proper assertion in a
motion to dismiss, but that it could be raised as an affirmative
defense to the plaintiff's substantive claims.
Secondly, Pizza Hut argued that the actions alleged by the
plaintiff did not amount to an unfair or deceptive act. The judge
determined that this was a factual determination not subject to a
motion to dismiss. Similarly, the judge also found the plaintiff
had included sufficient factual allegations in her complaint to
allege negligence.
Finally, Pizza Hut argued that the plaintiff had failed to state a
claim, because she had not exhausted her administrative remedies
-- specifically, she had not requested a refund directly from the
state. The judge rejected this position because Florida regulation
provides that "[a] taxpayer . . . who has paid a tax to a dealer
when no tax is due, must secure a refund of the tax from the
dealer and not from the Department of Revenue." Fla. Admin. Code
R. 12A-1.014 (4).
Pizza Hut must now file an answer to the plaintiff's complaint and
dispositive motions will be heard regarding the appropriateness of
certifying the case as a class action.
Practice Note -- Taxation of delivery fees is complicated.
This case is an example of the complexity in dealing with sales
taxes that may be imposed on delivery fees. The question of
whether delivery charges are taxable has no universal or easy
answer, and many states have quirky rules such as those in
Florida. Taxability in each state depends upon many factors: who
provides the delivery, who makes the delivery, who arranges for
the delivery, how delivery charges are billed, where the delivery
occurs and whether there is a pick-up option.
Companies that are engaged in, or are expanding into, food
delivery should be careful when determining the taxability of
delivery charges, particularly with the popularity of class
actions being filed against vendors on the issue. Between audits
from revenue authorities for under-compliance and class action
suits for over-compliance, companies can be forced between the
proverbial commissioner and a courthouse.
PNI DIGITAL: Faces Suit Over Data Breach Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Tamara A. Nedlouf, and all others similarly situated v. PNI
Digital Media, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03246 (N.D. Ga., September
15, 2015), seeks to recover damages, including actual and
statutory damages and equitable relief, restitution, disgorgement,
costs and reasonable attorney fees against the Defendant for
violation of Georgia's data breach statute, negligence, breach of
contract and breach of implied contract, bailment, and unjust
enrichment.
The Defendant PNI is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the Canadian province of British Columbia, with its
principal place of business and headquarters in Vancouver, British
Columbia. PNI is a software developer that provides software
platforms targeted to businesses who offer photo services to
consumers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam Webb, Esq.
WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
1900 The Exchange, SE Ste 480
Atlanta, GA 30339
Tel: (770) 444-9325
Fax: (770) 217-9950
E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
RADIOSHACK CORP: Former Managers Seek Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sisson and Jamie Wills on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware on Sept. 22, 2015, an amended
motion for certification of a class consisting of all former non-
exempt store managers of Radio Shack retail stores in with an
annual sales volume of less than $750,000 at any time after May 5,
2011 in certain states.
Prior to the filing of RadioShack's bankruptcy case, movants
Michael Sisson and Jamie Wills, as lead Plaintiffs, filed
complaints on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly
situated against Radio Shack Corporation in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio and the Southern District
of New York, respectively.
The District Court Complaints alleged that Radio Shack unlawfully
used the "fluctuating work week" method of calculating overtime
pay, and therefore illegally denied them and other similarly
situated store managers statutorily required overtime pay. Both
cases involved issues of first impression in their respective
circuits.
Sisson and Wills each filed a Class Proof of Claim on July 10,
2015. The Debtors so far have not filed any objection to either
class proof of claim.
Thomas W. Coffey, Esq., at Tucker Ellis LLP, relates that
certification of a class in the case represents a superior means
of resolving the claims of class members, as required by Rule
23(b)(3). Mr. Coffey asserts the alternative to class action
certification is likely to foreclose any action at all for the
majority of class members, because the bar dates established in
the case are likely to prevent the filing of proofs of claim on a
timely basis by the majority of class members if the class is not
certified.
Michael Sisson and Jamie Wills are represented by:
Thomas W. Coffey, Esq.
TUCKER ELLIS LLP
950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
Tel: (216) 696-4244
- and -
Amy D. Brown, Esq.
Margolis Edelstein, Esq.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Tel: (302) 888-1112
About RadioShack Corporation
Headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, RadioShack is a retailer of
mobile technology products and services, as well as products
related to personal and home technology and power supply needs.
RadioShack's retail network includes more than 4,300 company-
operated stores in the United States, 270 company-operated stores
in Mexico, and approximately 1,000 dealer and other outlets
worldwide.
RadioShack and affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D.
Del. Lead Case No. 15-10197) on Feb. 5, 2015, disclosing total
assets of $1.2 billion, versus total debt of $1.3 billion.
RADIOSHACK CORP: Settlement in Gift-Card Dispute Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
CBS News reported that electronics retailer RadioShack on won
court approval of a settlement involving priority treatment of
certain gift-card holders in the company's bankruptcy and has
agreed to sweeten the deal for other cardholders.
Under the settlement approved by a Delaware bankruptcy judge,
holders of roughly a third of the $46 million in outstanding gift
cards will receive priority status and have claims paid in full.
But in a significant development reached shortly before the
hearing, General Wireless, an affiliate of hedge fund Standard
General that acquired the RadioShack trademark and more than 1,740
of the electronics retailer's stores after its bankruptcy filing,
has agreed to honor all RadioShack gift cards for 50 percent of
merchandise purchases.
That means gift card holders deemed as not having priority status
under settlement have an alternative to being left with only
pennies on the dollar, if anything, as general unsecured
creditors.
"They get the benefit they bargained for," said Cathy Hershcopf,
an attorney representing RadioShack's official committee of
unsecured creditors. "We think the settlement is a very, very
generous settlement."
The update to the original settlement is still subject to court
approval at a hearing on whether to confirm RadioShack's overall
bankruptcy plan, but Judge Brendan Shannon described it as a
"significant development and a positive one."
Meanwhile, Shannon refused to grant class-action status to a
proposed class of individual gift-card holders who challenged the
underlying settlement, which was negotiated with the attorneys
general of several states, led by Texas.
"Having approved the settlement, I'm not satisfied that class
certification is necessary," Shannon said, adding that the
creditors committee and attorneys general can adequately represent
the interests of gift-card holders.
Under the settlement approved, gift-card holders are divided into
five categories based on the circumstances in which they obtained
their cards. People who purchased cards for themselves or someone
else have priority status for payment of claims, along with people
who "reloaded" existing cards with more money. A small subset of
people who hold cards that were issued between 2000 and 2004 and
have since been "deactivated" also would be allowed priority
claims. Holders of other cards, including promotional giveaways,
and cards given in exchange for merchandise returns or in response
to customer service complaints, are lumped in with general
unsecured creditors.
However, under the proposed add-on to the settlement, all gift
cards also would be honored at RadioShack stores, good for half of
the purchase price of merchandise being bought. Thus, a holder of
a $20 card could use it to cover $5 of a $10 purchase, but could
redeem the full amount of the card for a purchase of $40 or more.
Attorneys said that's a significant improvement for nonpriority
card holders, who as general unsecured creditors would at best
recover only pennies on the dollar for their gift-card balances
and would be subject to a $10 minimum recovery threshold. That
means they likely would receive nothing at all unless the gift-
card balance was between $500 and $1,000, said Clint Krislov, an
attorney representing the purported class of individual gift-card
holders.
"There's not a large amount of merchandise returns at that
number," the judge noted.
While Krislov said the proposed change to the settlement was an
improvement, he also argued that it means little if RadioShack
does not take adequate steps to ensure that as many gift-card
holders as possible receive proper notice of their rights.
RadioShack attorney Greg Gordon said the company has agreed to
send email notices to all gift-card holders whose addresses are on
file. Card holders also will be able to go to a website to learn
about their rights, with the creditors committee and attorneys
general overseeing the notice process to ensure that consumers are
adequately informed.
REACHLOCAL INC: Class Action by Former Clients at Early Stage
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reachlocal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action lawsuit
filed by one of its former clients is at an early stage.
The Company said, "On May 2, 2014, a lawsuit, purporting to be a
class action, was filed by one of our former clients in the United
States District Court in Los Angeles. The complaint alleges breach
of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of California's unfair competition law. The
complaint seeks monetary damages, restitution and attorneys' fees.
We filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2014, which was denied on
December 4, 2014. While the case is at an early stage, we believe
that the case is substantively and procedurally without merit. Our
insurance carrier is providing us with a defense under a
reservation of rights."
REMINGTON ARMS: May Have to Pay $500MM to Settle Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Beth Saboe, writing for KPAX.com, reported that there's some new
information in a class-action lawsuit against Remington Arms
company shows that the country's oldest gun maker may have to pay
over $500 million to settle the case.
Court documents filed by the plaintiff's attorneys finally put a
price tag on how much Remington may have to pay in a class-action
lawsuit over the safety of its iconic bolt-action rifles.
Earlier, the gun maker agreed to a settlement, but the company
continues to deny that the trigger mechanism on the Model 700 and
numerous other rifles is defective.
The lawsuit claims the faulty design of the Walker Fire Control
can cause the gun to fire without the trigger being pulled.
According to court documents, attorneys for the plaintiff say it
will cost Remington over $500 million to settle the case.
With more than 7-1/2 million members of the class action suit,
lawyers say it will cost the gun maker at least that much to
replace the trigger mechanism on millions of rifles.
Under the proposed settlement, Remington will pay the costs of
retrofitting, inspecting, testing and shipping the rifles.
One of Remington's most outspoken critics is Richard Barber of
Manhattan, whose 9-year-old son Gus was killed in 2000 when a
Model 700 misfired. He said he's hopeful that the judge will
approve this settlement and make Remington pay the full amount
requested.
Remington has not yet filed a response to the settlement amount. A
final hearing in the case will take place in December.
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Rosen Law Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of
Resource Capital Corp. RSO securities from March 2, 2015 through
April 4, 2015. The lawsuit seeks to recover investors' losses
under the federal securities laws.
To join the Resource Capital class action, visit the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-713.html,or contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.
NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.
According to the lawsuit, Defendants issued materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
information regarding the risk of Resource Capital's commercial
loans portfolio and its processes and controls for assessing the
quality of its portfolio. On August 4, 2015, Resource Capital
revealed a GAAP net loss of $31.0 million for the quarter ended
June 30, 2015, and a recording of a $41.1 million allowance for
loan loss. On this news, shares of Resource Capital fell $0.43 per
share, or over 12%, from its previous closing price to close at
$3.05 on August 5, 2015.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 9, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-713.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm
toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-686-1060
Toll Free: 866-767-3653
Fax: 212-202-3827
Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Bid to Decertify Pending in ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the ERISA
Litigation, the defendants have filed a renewed motion to
decertify the class and the district court will address these
pending motions in due course.
In May 2002, in Tatum v. The R.J.R. Pension Investment Committee
of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Capital Investment Plan, an
employee of RJR Tobacco filed a class-action suit in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging
that the defendants, RJR, RJR Tobacco, the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee, violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, referred to as
ERISA. The actions about which the plaintiff complains stem from a
decision made in 1999 by RJR Nabisco Holdings Corp., subsequently
renamed Nabisco Group Holdings Corp., referred to as NGH, to spin
off RJR, thereby separating NGH's tobacco business and food
business. As part of the spin-off, the 401(k) plan for the
previously related entities had to be divided into two separate
plans for the now separate tobacco and food businesses. The
plaintiff contends that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to participants of the RJR 401(k) plan when the defendants
removed the stock funds of the companies involved in the food
business, NGH and Nabisco Holdings Corp., referred to as Nabisco,
as investment options from the RJR 401(k) plan approximately six
months after the spin-off. The plaintiff asserts that a November
1999 amendment (the "1999 Amendment") that eliminated the NGH and
Nabisco funds from the RJR 401(k) plan on January 31, 2000,
contained sufficient discretion for the defendants to have
retained the NGH and Nabisco funds after January 31, 2000, and
that the failure to exercise such discretion was a breach of
fiduciary duty. In his complaint, the plaintiff requests, among
other things, that the court require the defendants to pay as
damages to the RJR 401(k) plan an amount equal to the subsequent
appreciation that was purportedly lost as a result of the
liquidation of the NGH and Nabisco funds.
In July 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the
court granted in December 2003. In December 2004, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the
complaint, holding that the 1999 Amendment did contain sufficient
discretion for the defendants to have retained the NGH and Nabisco
funds as of February 1, 2000, and remanded the case for further
proceedings. The court granted the plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint and denied all pending motions as moot.
In April 2007, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in
part, dismissing all claims against the RJR Employee Benefits
Committee and the RJR Pension Investment Committee. The remaining
defendants, RJR and RJR Tobacco, filed their answer and
affirmative defenses in June 2007. The plaintiff filed a motion
for class certification, which the court granted in September
2008. The district court ordered mediation, but no resolution of
the case was reached. In September 2008, each of the plaintiffs
and the defendants filed motions for summary judgment, and in
January 2009, the defendants filed a motion to decertify the
class. A second mediation occurred in June 2009, but again no
resolution of the case was reached. The district court overruled
the motions for summary judgment and the motion to decertify the
class.
A non-jury trial was held in January and February 2010. During
closing arguments, the plaintiff argued for the first time that
certain facts arising at trial showed that the 1999 Amendment was
not validly adopted, and then moved to amend his complaint to
conform to this evidence at trial. On June 1, 2011, the court
granted the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and found
that the 1999 Amendment was invalid.
The parties filed their findings of fact and conclusions of law on
February 4, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the district court
dismissed the case with prejudice finding that a hypothetical
prudent fiduciary could have made the same decision and thus the
plan's loss was not caused by the procedural prudence which the
court found to have existed. On March 8, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal.
On August 4, 2014, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, referred
to as Fourth Circuit, reversed, holding that the district court
applied the wrong standard when it held that the defendants did
not cause any loss to the plan, determined the test was whether a
hypothetical prudent fiduciary would have made the same decision
and remanded the case back to the district court to apply the
correct -- would have -- standard. On September 2, 2014, the
Fourth Circuit denied the defendants' request for rehearing en
banc. The mandate from the Fourth Circuit was issued on October
1, 2014. On December 1, 2014, the defendants filed a petition for
writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.
On March 9, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the Solicitor
General of the United States to express the views of the United
States with respect to the defendants' petition for writ of
certiorari. The Solicitor General filed his brief on May 26,
2015, recommending that the petition for writ of certiorari be
denied. The defendants responded to the Solicitor General's brief
on June 9, 2015, and on June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court
denied the defendants' petition for writ of certiorari.
On November 19, 2014, the district court held a hearing and
ordered briefing on various issues that remain pending on remand.
The parties filed briefs addressing (1) the application of the
different prudence standard -- "the would have standard" --
adopted by the Fourth Circuit and (2) the merits of the
defendants' affirmative defense related to releases executed by
many class members and to the claims by class members who
voluntarily sold their Nabisco shares while their accounts were
frozen. The defendants also filed a renewed motion to decertify
the class. The district court will address these pending motions
in due course.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: MOU in Delaware Lawsuits Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Memorandum of
Understanding in the Delaware class action lawsuits is pending.
In the third quarter of 2014, Lorillard, the members of
Lorillard's board of directors, RAI and British American Tobacco
p.l.c., or BAT were named as defendants in 11 putative class
action lawsuits brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery by
Lorillard shareholders challenging the proposed Merger, referred
to as the Delaware Actions. The complaints generally allege,
among other things, that the members of the Lorillard board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Lorillard
shareholders by authorizing the proposed (now completed) Merger.
The complaints also allege that RAI and BAT aided and abetted the
breaches of fiduciary duties allegedly committed by the members of
the Lorillard board of directors.
On November 25, 2014, the court granted a motion for consolidation
of the lawsuits into a single action captioned In re Lorillard,
Inc. Stockholders Litigation, and for appointment of lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. On December 11, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a
motion to expedite.
Although they believe that these lawsuits are without merit and
that no further disclosure was required to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws, to eliminate the
burden, expense and uncertainties inherent in such litigation, on
January 15, 2015, the defendants (other than BAT, which was not
named in the amended complaint) entered into the Delaware
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the settlement of the
Delaware Actions. The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding
outlines the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to
settle and release all claims which were or could have been
asserted in the Delaware Actions. In consideration for such
settlement and release, the parties to the Delaware Actions
agreed, among other things, that Lorillard and RAI would make
certain supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, which they did on January 20, 2015.
The Delaware Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that the
parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a stipulation
of settlement to be submitted to the court for approval as soon as
practicable. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including approval by the court, which will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of such
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
court will approve the settlement even if the parties were to
enter into such a stipulation. In such event, or if the
transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement are not
consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be of no
force and effect.
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Remaining Non-Disclosure Claims Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds American Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the North Carolina
class action lawsuit, the court has issued an order granting
defendants' motions to dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure
claims.
RAI, the members of the RAI board of directors and British
American Tobacco p.l.c., or BAT have been named as defendants in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Corwin v. British American
Tobacco PLC, et al., brought in North Carolina state court,
referred to as the North Carolina Action, by a person identifying
himself as a shareholder of RAI. The North Carolina Action was
initiated on August 8, 2014, and an amended complaint was filed on
November 7, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges, among
other things, that the members of the RAI board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to RAI shareholders by approving
the BAT Share Purchase and the sharing of technology with BAT.
The amended complaint also alleges that there were various
conflicts of interest in the transaction, and that RAI aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by its board of
directors. The North Carolina Action seeks injunctive relief,
damages and reimbursement of costs, among other remedies.
On January 2, 2015, the plaintiff in the North Carolina Action
filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin
temporarily the RAI shareholder meeting and votes scheduled for
January 28, 2015. RAI and the RAI board of directors timely
opposed that motion prior to a hearing that was scheduled to occur
on January 16, 2015.
RAI believes that the North Carolina Action is without merit and
that no further disclosure was necessary to supplement the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus under applicable laws. However, to
eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties, on January
17, 2015, RAI and the director defendants in the North Carolina
Action entered into the North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding
regarding the settlement of the disclosure claims asserted in that
lawsuit. The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding outlines
the terms of the parties' agreement in principle to settle and
release the disclosure claims which were or could have been
asserted in the North Carolina Action. In consideration of the
partial settlement and release, RAI agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus,
which it did on January 20, 2015.
The North Carolina Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that
the parties will negotiate in good faith to agree upon a
stipulation of partial settlement to be submitted to the court for
approval as soon as practicable. The stipulation of partial
settlement will be subject to customary conditions, including
approval by the court, which will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the partial settlement. There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of partial settlement or that the court will approve
the partial settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
a stipulation. In that event, the proposed partial settlement
will be null and void and of no force and effect. In addition,
the partial settlement did not affect the consideration paid to
Lorillard shareholders in connection with the Merger.
On August 4, 2015, the court issued an order granting defendants'
motions to dismiss all of the remaining non-disclosure claims.
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT: Ex-Tech Sues Over Pay-Per-Piece Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for GlassBytes.com, reported that former
technician Yadir Ontiveros has filed a state class action lawsuit
against Safelite Fulfillment, Safelite Group and Safelite Glass
Corp. in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California,
alleging Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations stemming from
Safelite's pay-per-piece program.
Ontiveros says he was hired by Safelite as a non-exempt employee
at a warehouse in Ontario, Calif., in August 2009. In March 2013,
he was promoted to technician trainee, and Ontiveros says he
became a technician in September 2013 after transferring to
Glendora, Calif.
"At all times while employed as a technician, plaintiff has been
paid on a piece-rate basis, whereby plaintiff is paid a certain
rate per installation or repair completed," Ontiveros' attorney
alleges in the court documents. "Despite the fact that plaintiff
records his actual hours worked pursuant to company policy, wages
earned for these hours worked are treated as an advance against
plaintiff's piece-rate earnings, as only those piece-rate earnings
in excess of the hourly wages are paid out as piece-rate earnings.
However, plaintiff and other technicians are pressured and
encouraged through various productivity rankings to be highly
productive, which results from having a high number of installs
per day. As a result, plaintiff and technicians almost never have
piece-rate earnings that do not exceed their hourly wages, and
their wages are almost always equal to their piece-rate earnings.
"Because defendants' pay system is simply a subterfuge for a
piece-rate compensation system, plaintiff and other technicians
are not separately compensated for time spent working on tasks
which are not compensated on a piece-rate basis, including hours
spent cleaning and maintaining tools, performing administrative
tasks, attending mandatory meetings, or travelling to and from
jobsites," allege the court documents. "As a result, plaintiff was
not paid at least the minimum wage for all hours actually worked,
and was not credited with all overtime hours actually worked."
Ontiveros' attorney also alleges Safelite made "unlawful
deductions from plaintiff's earned wages in the event that a
customer makes a warranty claim on an item installed by
plaintiff." The attorney argues that the job duties were already
performed, therefore Ontiveros was entitled to those wages.
The attorney also claims Safelite failed to "maintain lawful meal
and rest break policies."
"Defendants maintain inaccurate payroll records, and issue
inaccurate wage statements to plaintiff," according to court
documents. This includes inaccurate overtime pay, Ontiveros'
attorney alleges.
Ontiveros is bringing this action on behalf of himself and several
proposed classes, including an "overtime class," a "minimum-wage
class," a "meal-period class," a "rest-period class," a "wage-
statement class," and a "wage-deduction class."
"It is estimated that the classes number greater than 500
individuals as to each class," according to Ontiveros' attorney.
Ontiveros is seeking an order an order certifying the proposed
classes, as well as "compensatory, consequential and general
damages" for the various class claims.
His attorney has requested a jury trial.
Safelite Fulfillment, Safelite Group and Safelite Glass Corp. have
not yet responded to the complaint at press time. The state class
action lawsuit was filed September 9, 2015.
SOLARWINDS INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired SolarWinds, Inc. SWI, securities
between April 28, 2015 and July 16, 2015, inclusive, (the "Class
Period").
If you purchased SolarWinds securities during the Class Period,
you may, no later than September 29, 2015, request that the Court
appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party that acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.
If you want more information about the SolarWinds Securities Class
Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose, among others: (1) that the Company's domestic
business was struggling; (2) that the Company's growth of core
license products and resulting license revenue was lower than
expectations and guidance; (3) that the overall quality of the
"demand capture" the Company was garnering for certain core
products was dropping; and (4) that as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.
On July 16, 2015, SolarWinds announced that its second quarter
earnings failed to meet its revenue forecast. Additionally,
SolarWinds lowered its full-year 2015 outlook from $512-$527
million to $502-$512 million. On this news, shares of SolarWinds
fell $11.51 per share or over 24% to close at $35.54 per share on
July 17, 2015.
Peter Safirstein, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan
28 West 44th Street Suite 2001 New York, NY 10036
1-800-732-5200
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com
STANFORD: Plaintiffs Lose Bid to Lift Litigation Stay
-----------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that weary of
waiting years for a court-appointed receiver to finish his job
securing millions in assets connected to R. Allen Stanford's $7
billion dollar Ponzi scheme through federal court litigation, some
of the imprisoned financier's victims would like to pursue their
claims in Texas state courts.
But for the second time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit has refused to grant a plaintiff's request to lift a
litigation stay imposed over them five years ago by U.S. District
Judge David Godbey of Dallas.
Judge Godbey's stay halts state law claims against Stanford from
proceeding, thereby protecting the assets a receiver he appointed
is seeking to collect as part of federal civil litigation filed
against Stanford by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in
2009.
The Sept. 16 decision in Rishmague v. Winter, prevents two
separate cases from proceeding in state court in which plaintiffs
allege they were harmed by Stanford who allegedly purported the
CDs they bought at his bank were backed up by insurance when they
weren't. Stanford is currently serving 110 years in prison after
a Houston federal jury convicted him of numerous fraud
allegations. More than 100 civil actions involving Stanford
assets are pending before Judge Godbey.
The plaintiffs in Rishmague asked Judge Godbey to lift the stay,
were refused, and they appealed his decision to the Fifth Circuit
because "the receivership stay has been in place for five years
with no end in sight," according to their appellate brief in the
case.
In his decision, Judge Stephen Higginson noted that the court had
previously denied other plaintiffs' attempts to lift Judge
Godbey's stay, noting that the trial court has broad authority to
issue stays to preserve property placed into receivership pursuant
to SEC actions. And he also noted that Judge Godbey has more than
a dozen Stanford receiver cases set for trial in the next year and
half. [See "R. Allen Stanford Civil Litigation Hits the Stage,"
Texas Lawyer, Feb. 16, 2015."]
"We are mindful that four years have passed since that decision"
first upholding Godbey's litigation stay, Higginson wrote. "At
this time, however, as the district court continues to receive
itself as well as coordinate and oversee extensive litigation,
relating to asset recovery, we cannot say that the district court
abused its discretion in declining to lift the litigation stay."
Kevin Sadler, a partner in the Palo Alto office of Baker Botts who
represents receiver Ralph Janvey in the case, is pleased with the
Fifth Circuit's decision upholding the litigation stay.
"The receiver continues to pursue numerous lawsuits to recover
funds for the benefit of the more than 18,000 victims of the
Stanford Ponzi scheme. Asset-recovery litigation is a very
difficult and lengthy process," Mr. Sadler said. "The litigation
stay affirmed by the Fifth Circuit's decision allows the receiver
to continue to focus his efforts on these lawsuits against parties
who aided or profited from the Stanford Ponzi scheme."
Leslie Hyman, a partner in San Antonio's Pulman, Cappuccio,
Pullen, Benson & Jones who represents the investor plaintiffs in
the case, is disappointed in the Fifth Circuit's decision -- given
that Judge Godbey has lifted the stay for investors seeking
similarly situated claims against Stanford in federal court "and
we're not being allowed to proceed in state court."
"Now he's lifted the stay as to investors suing in federal court
but not as to investors suing in state court. And the Fifth
Circuit said, apparently, that was fine," Ms. Hyman said of Judge
Godbey. "What we were hoping for was at the very least some
guidance as to when it might be appropriate to lift the stay but
they chose not to offer that guidance."
TARGET CORP: Judge to Rule on Hacking Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Moylan, writing for MPR News, reported that a federal judge
in St. Paul is expected to rule on whether a suit against Target
by financial institutions can proceed as a class action.
The suit seeks to recover the costs incurred by banks, credit
unions and other institutions after hackers gained access to
confidential consumer information. Some banks have reached
settlements on their own.
The judge heard arguments about the plaintiffs' request for class-
action status. Target attorney Douglas Meal maintained that banks
do not share the common actions and injuries that are
prerequisites for a class action. He said some banks took no
action, and some suffered no harm, after hackers attacked the
retailer in late 2013.
But attorney Karl Cambronne, who represents banks, contended all
banks endured fraud and other losses. "Target would like to leave
the world with the impression that what banks did was . . . wrong,
and [that] they didn't have to do anything, which is
disingenuous," he said.
The judge took the matter under advisement.
TD BANK: Employee Gets Favorable Ruling in Lactation Break Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that employees have the right to bring claims against their
employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to
provide adequate facilities and time for lactation breaks,
according to Mitchell Boyarsky of Gibbons. The FLSA states that
employees have the right to unpaid time at work to express milk
for up to a year post-birth and need a space other than the
bathroom in which to do so.
In a recent case in the Eastern District of New York, a bank
teller and customer service representative sued TD Bank for a
failure to provide the time and place for lactation breaks after
she returned from maternity leave. She claims the bank first told
her she could take breaks twice a day in the restroom, and when
she objected to the facility, was offered the mailroom and the
safety deposit room to use. She also says she wasn't given enough
time, so had to use part of her shift and was terminated for
attendance problems.
The bank tried to dismiss the claim, says Mr. Boyarsky, but was
unsuccessful. The court ruled the FLSA entitled the plaintiff to
recover the wages she lost for having to nurse her child at home
and liquidated damages for attorney's fees, but that she would not
recover damages for discomfort or embarrassment. "It is important
for employers to provide in their written policies and to train
managers on compliance with the FLSA provisions related to
lactation breaks," notes Mr. Boyarsky.
TEREX CORP: Nov. 4 Fairness Hearing on $2.5-Mil. Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
A summary notice on In re: Terex Corporation ("Terex" or the
"Company"), and certain of its former officers and directors,
alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").
This Settlement will provide for a payment of $2.5 million, less
any Court-approved fees and expenses, and administrative costs, to
the Plan, which money will then be allocated to the accounts of
participants of the Plan who had portions of their Plan accounts
invested in Terex common stock or units in the Company Stock Fund
during the Settlement Class Period. All capitalized terms not
otherwise defined in this Summary Notice of Class Action
Settlement have the meaning provided in the Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Stipulation") available on the Settlement website
below. If you qualify, you will receive an allocation without
taking any further action. You do not need to send in a claim or
take any other action to participate in the Settlement. The United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut authorized
this Notice.
WHO IS INCLUDED IN THE SETTLEMENT?
If you were a participant in the Plan at any time during the
period from December 31, 2007 until February 27, 2009, inclusive,
or you were a beneficiary of any such participant, and your
account included investments in Terex common stock or units of the
Company Stock Fund created to invest primarily in Terex stock,
then you are a member of the Settlement Class (a "Settlement Class
Member").
WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?
Plaintiffs claim that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA by continuing to allow the investment of the Plan's
assets in Terex common stock or Company Stock Fund units during a
time when Defendants knew or should have known that such
investment was imprudent and by other related acts during the
Settlement Class Period. Plaintiffs' allegations are described in
more detail in the complaint available on the Settlement website
below. All Defendants deny any wrongdoing. Both sides agreed to
the Settlement to avoid the cost and risk of further litigation.
WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
Defendants have agreed to create a Settlement Fund of $2.5 million
to be divided among eligible Settlement Class Members after
payment of attorneys' fees to Class Counsel, Case Contribution
Awards to the Plaintiffs, and payment of other costs and expenses
of the Settlement, including notice and claims administration, as
the Court may allow. The Stipulation, other related
documentation, and a list of Frequently Asked Questions, available
at the Settlement website identified below, describes the details
of the proposed Settlement. Your share (if any) of the Settlement
Fund will depend upon the amount and value of shares of Terex
common stock held in your Plan account(s) during the Plan of
Allocation Calculation Period. While there is nothing you have to
do to receive your entitlement, if any, pursuant to the
Settlement, the amount to which you are entitled, if anything,
cannot be determined until after the Court has approved the
Settlement. This Settlement releases certain claims against
Defendants relating to the investment of the Plan's assets in
Terex common stock or common stock fund units during the
Settlement Class Period.
HOW DO I RECEIVE A PAYMENT?
If you are a Settlement Class member and are entitled to a share
of the Settlement Fund according to the Stipulation, you are not
required to do anything to receive a payment. The payment will be
made directly to your Plan account(s). If you are no longer a
participant in the Plan, a Plan account will be established for
you and you will be notified of this account along with further
instructions. If your address has changed since you closed your
Plan account(s), please contact Class Counsel toll-free at 866-
217-4453 to advise of the change of address.
CAN I OBJECT TO OR OPT OUT OF THE SETTLEMENT?
You do not have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement
in this case, but you do have the right to object by writing to
the Court. You will be bound by any judgments or orders that are
entered in this Action, and if the Settlement is approved, you
will be deemed to have released all of the Defendants from all
claims that were or could have been asserted in this case, other
than your right to obtain the relief provided to you, if any, by
the Settlement.
The Court will hold a hearing in this case at 2:00 p.m. on
November 4, 2015, in the Courtroom of Judge Robert N. Chatigny,
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, 450
Main Street, Hartford, CT 06103, to consider whether to approve
the Settlement and a request by the lawyers representing all
Settlement Class Members, Class Counsel, for attorneys' fees, for
Case Contribution Awards to the Plaintiffs, and for other case-
related expenses. If approved, these amounts will be paid from
the Settlement Fund. You may ask to speak at the hearing by
filing a Notice of Intention to Appear by October 9, 2015, but you
are not required to do so.
Although you cannot opt out of the Settlement, you may object to
all or any part of the Settlement in accordance with the
instructions included in the long-form Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action and Settlement Fairness Hearing
available at the Settlement website below. Objections must be
postmarked, or if not sent by United States Postal Service
received by the Court, by October 9, 2015. Please note that the
time, place and date of the hearing may change without a further
mailing. Class Counsel will update the Settlement website below
if the hearing time or location is changed. Please check the
website or contact Class Counsel if you wish to confirm that the
hearing time has not been changed.
HOW DO I GET MORE INFORMATION?
If you are a Settlement Class member and would like to receive
additional information or to receive a copy of the long-form
Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Settlement
Fairness Hearing, call toll-free 866-217-4453 or visit
www.TerexERISAsettlement.com.
Contact:
Michael Klein
212-687-7230 x147
terex@ssbny.com
TRANSURBAN: Asks Federal Judge to Dismiss E-Z Pass Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Miller, writing for Fox News, reported that in the first
pretrial hearing involving the federal class action lawsuit
relating to the E-ZPass Express Lanes in Virginia, Transurban
argued that the case should be dismissed.
FOX 5 first introduced you to Joe Mischler a year ago when he was
smacked with a $17,000 fine for missing just $36 in tolls. He used
the E-ZPass Express Lanes for his commute from Maryland to
Virginia.
"It's not the dollar or two dollars or three dollars they
advertise. It's three dollars, plus 40, plus 250, plus a
thousand," said Mischler.
After Mischler's story aired, FOX 5 was flooded with calls and
emails from E-ZPass users who also had thousands of dollars in
fines. Many of those people are part of the lawsuit against
Transurban.
"You have people who have E-ZPass transponders who are trying to
comply, and through some glitch end up with a few dollars of
unpaid tolls, and then find out they're owed -- they're owing --
they're being told to pay thousands of dollars, said attorney
Hamish Hume. "And then maybe they'll settle for $2,000 instead of
$5,000. That's what this case is about. It's these excessive
fines, hundreds of times the unpaid toll."
In federal court in Virginia, Transurban asked for the case to be
dismissed. If the judge lets it go forward, tens of thousands of
people could potentially join the suit.
"They themselves admit they are issuing approximately 70 summonses
a day. That adds up to thousands -- over 20,000, maybe over 25,000
over the year," said Hume.
After our stories first aired last year, Transurban tried to fix
the problem by offering a first time forgiveness program and
capping the fines.
"We're continuing to focus on our customers, not only those
customers that receive an invoice, but as you and I have discussed
in the past too, the vast majority of our customers have no issues
because they have that E-ZPass mounted. The toll is deducted from
it," said Transurban spokesman Michael McGurk.
ULTA SALON: Ex-Store Managers Sue Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers at Rosen Bien Galvan & Grunfeld and The Liu Law Firm
announced that they have filed a class action lawsuit in federal
court in San Francisco on behalf of three former California store
managers of ULTA Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. ("ULTA"),
alleging that ULTA incorrectly classified them as exempt from the
overtime requirements of California law.
The lawsuit has been brought on behalf of all current and former
store managers who have worked for ULTA in California from
September 9, 2011 to the present.
According to its Form 10-K filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, ULTA is the nation's largest beauty retailer. ULTA
sells cosmetics, haircare products, salon styling tools, skincare
products, fragrance, and nail care products, and provides in-store
salon services at most of its stores. As of August 1, 2015, the
Company operated 817 stores in 48 states, including 97 stores in
California.
According to the complaint, "Because Defendant allocates
insufficient staff hours to each store, while simultaneously
requiring [store managers] to perform the full gamut of customer
service, sales, stocking, and cleaning tasks, Plaintiffs and Class
Members are misclassified as exempt because they are forced to
spend the majority of their working time performing the same non-
managerial tasks being performed by non-exempt employees, such as
Cashiers and Stock Associates. As a result, [store managers] work
long hours and often skip their meal and rest breaks, without
receiving any overtime compensation or compensation for missed
meal and rest breaks."
"ULTA is a hugely profitable public company that is taking
advantage of its store managers by incorrectly classifying them as
exempt employees," said plaintiffs' attorney Gay Grunfeld of Rosen
Bien Galvan & Grunfeld.
"ULTA has enjoyed rapid expansion, big profits, and a soaring
stock price. It's unfortunate that this success has been built on
ULTA's failure to comply with the law and refusal to pay proper
compensation to the hard-working employees who make its success
possible," said plaintiffs' co-counsel Jennifer Liu of The Liu Law
Firm.
The three named plaintiffs are former ULTA store managers --
Jaimie Quinby, Linda Gomes and Eric Fontes. Current and former
ULTA store managers who wish to report their experiences or learn
more about the lawsuit should visit
http://www.ULTAovertimecase.com/The case is Quinby et al. v. ULTA
Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, Case 3:15-cv-04099.
Gay Grunfeld, Esq.
ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
315 Montgomery St # 10, San Francisco, CA 94104
Tel: 415-433-6830
Fax: 415-433-7104
Email: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
-- and --
Jennifer Liu, Esq.
The Liu Law Firm, P.C.
324 Day Street San Francisco, CA 94131
Tel: 415.896.4260
Fax: 415.231.0011
Email: jliu@liulawpc.com
UNITED HEALTH: Hooper Lundy Settles Out-Of-Network Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
On behalf of out-of-network California Ambulatory Surgery Centers
(ASCs), Hooper, Lundy and Bookman, PC, (HLB) is pleased to
announce that it filed a motion for preliminary approval to settle
a class action complaint it filed more than six years ago.
The complaint alleges that United Healthcare Services and
OptumInsight, Inc. (formerly known as Ingenix) (together, United)
improperly calculated the reasonable and customary amounts for
out-of-network ASCs resulting in underpayments in the millions of
dollars. United has agreed to a total settlement fund of $9.5
million in order to settle the case.
The parties estimate that there are approximately 250 ASCs that
could qualify to participate in the settlement. Assuming that the
court preliminarily approves the parties' settlement, notice of
the settlement and further instructions outlining how to
participate in the settlement process will be sent to all
potential class members.
"After a long battle, we believe that we have reached a fair
settlement that will adequately compensate the class of surgery
centers whose claims were underpaid," said HLB Attorney Daron
Tooch, lead attorney representing the ASCs. "We would particularly
like to thank our class representatives, Downey Surgical Clinic
and Tarzana Surgery Center, for their patience and persistence in
this litigation."
ASCs are health care facilities that provide surgical procedures
such as orthopedic surgery, podiatry, endoscopy, and ophthalmology
in an outpatient setting. Where such ASCs are out-of-network with
an insurer, they are commonly entitled to be paid based on a
reasonable and customary amount. This case challenged the
defendants' calculations of those reasonable and customary amounts
under employer-provided healthcare benefit plans and health
insurance policies that are governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA).
UTZ QUALITY: "Jurden" Suit Seek to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Jurden, and all others similarly situated v. Utz Quality
Foods, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02833 (S.D. Ohio, September 15,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendant is in the business of producing and distributing
various snack foods. It maintains its principal place of business
in Hanover, Pennsylvania.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
4580 Stephen Circle, N.W.
Suite 201
Canton, OH 44718
Tel: (330) 470-4428
Fax: (330) 754-1430
E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
920 Rockefeller Building
614 W. Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
Tel: (216) 696-5000
Fax: (216) 696-7005
E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: German Prosecutors Open Probe Against Ex-CEO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Geir Moulson and David Rising, writing for The Associated Press,
report that German prosecutors on Sept. 28 opened an investigation
against former Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn to establish what
his role was in the emissions-rigging scandal that has shaken the
world's largest automaker.
The investigation will concentrate on the suspicion of fraud
committed through the sale of vehicles with manipulated emissions
data, and aims to determine who was responsible, prosecutors in
Braunschweig said in a statement.
In the German system, anyone can file a criminal complaint with
prosecutors, who are then obliged to examine it and decide whether
there is enough evidence to open a formal investigation.
In this case, following the revelations about the rigged tests,
prosecutors in Braunschweig, near VW's headquarters in Wolfsburg,
received about a dozen complaints, including one from Volkswagen
itself, said spokeswoman Julia Meyer.
She said it was too early to say if and when prosecutors may try
and interview Winterkorn himself, and that she did not know
whether he already had an attorney to represent him. She said at
this stage, she could not estimate how long the investigation
would last.
"This is a very broad case and in other such investigations it has
taken many months, sometimes years," she said.
Mr. Winterkorn, Volkswagen's CEO since 2007, resigned on Sept. 23
-- days after the world's top-selling carmaker admitted that it
had rigged diesel emissions to pass U.S. tests during his tenure.
He said that he was going "in the interests of the company even
though I am not aware of any wrongdoing on my part."
Under German law, it is not possible to bring charges against a
company, only against individuals. Ms. Meyer would not elaborate
on specifics of the investigation, and it wasn't clear what
Winterkorn's suspected role might be. There was no immediate
comment from Volkswagen on the prosecutors' decision.
Fraud can carry a prison sentence of up to 10 years in Germany.
The head of VW's Porsche division, Matthias Mueller, was appointed
on Sept. 25 as Volkswagen's new CEO. He promised to do everything
to win back the public's trust.
The company has admitted that it used a piece of engine software
to cheat on diesel car emissions tests in the U.S. It will have
to fix programming it has said is in some 11 million cars
worldwide, far more than the 482,000 originally identified by U.S.
authorities.
Details on what cars are involved have emerged gradually. The
group, which has 12 marques in all, said on Sept. 25 that some 5
million cars made by its core Volkswagen brand had the diesel
engine in question.
On Sept. 28, Audi said that 2.1 million of its vehicles also had
the engine, while Czech-based Skoda said 1.2 million vehicles were
affected.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Arabian" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Gary Arabian, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No.
BC595891 (Cal. Super., September 24, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers
almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the
United States that contained "defeat devices" that were designed
and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions control
systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic emissions
testing while the emissions control systems would then mostly shut
down after the emissions testing, including during regular driving
conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel Z. Srourian, Esq.
SROURIAN LAW FIRM
3440 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 915
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone: (310) 601-3131
Facsimile: (818) 768-0946
E-mail: contact@slfla.com
- and -
Leonard S. Sands, Esq.
Heleni E. Suydam, Esq.
Kris Demirjian, Esq.
SANDS & ASSOCIATES
232 North Canon Drive, 1st Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Telephone: (310) 859-6644
Facsimile: (310) 492-0397
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Araujo" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Arantzazu Araujo and Arquimedes Araujo, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00252 (E.D. Tenn., September 24, 2015),
arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling
to consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand
vehicles in the United States that contained "defeat devices" that
were designed and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions
control systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic
emissions testing while the emissions control systems would then
mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including during
regular driving conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch IV, Esq.
Joe P. Leniski Jr., Esq.
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
227 Second Avenue North, Fourth Floor
Nashville, TN 37201-1631
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 250-3937
E-mail: jims@BSJFirm.com
joeyl@BSJFirm.com
- and -
Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
600 West Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 230-0800
Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
E-mail: sward@barrack.com
sbasser@barrack.com
- and -
Jeffery W. Golan, Esq.
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 963-0600
Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
E-mail: jgolan@barrack.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Armstrong" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
William Armstrong and Patrick Benad, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Volkswagen of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-07085-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.,
September 24, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged
intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States that
contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.
Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution, and
service corporations doing business within the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 864-2800
Facsimile: (215) 964-2808
E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
ktucker@caffertyclobes.com
- and -
Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq.
CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
150 S. Wacker, Suite 3000
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 782-4880
Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
E-mail: nrasche@caffertyclobes.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Belliveau" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Belliveau and Brian Hennis, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01973-JG (N.D. Ohio, September 24, 2014),
arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling
to consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand
vehicles in the United States that contained "defeat devices" that
were designed and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions
control systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic
emissions testing while the emissions control systems would then
mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including during
regular driving conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
David Mullen, Esq.
CONNICK LAW LLC
25550 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 101
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 364-0512
Facsimile: (216) 609-3446
E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com
dmullen@connicklawllc.com
- and -
Edward W. Cochran, Esq.
20030 Marchmont Road
Shaker Heights, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 751-5546
E-mail: edwardcochran@wowway.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brewitt" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Brewitt, Amy M. Thomas, Ronald Sekul, and Tom Assaf Abdalla,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen AG, Volkswagen Group of America, Audi AG, and Audi USA,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01223-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., September 24, 2015),
arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling
to consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand
vehicles in the United States that contained "defeat devices" that
were designed and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions
control systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic
emissions testing while the emissions control systems would then
mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including during
regular driving conditions.
Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution, and
service corporations doing business within the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David W. Stanley, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
211 North Union St., Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: (202)789-3960
E-mail: davids@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Warren T. Bums, Esq.
Daniel H. Charesl, Esq.
William Thompson, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
500 North Akard, Suite 2810
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (469) 904-4550
Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
E-mail: wbums@bumscharest.com
dcharest@bumscharest.com
wthompson@bumscharest.com
- and -
Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
Elizabeth A. Roche, Esq.
BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, LO 70130
Telephone: (504) 799-2845
Facsimile: 504-881-1765
E-mail: knelson@bumscharest.com
eroche@bumscharest.com
- and -
Don Barrett, Esq.
David McMullan, Esq.
Brian Herrington, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
404 Court Square, P.O. Box 927
Lexington, MI 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
bherrington@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 South Washington Ave., Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
E-mail: rashelquist@locklaw.com
rapeterson@locklaw.com
- and -
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
507 C Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202)789-3960
E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
8120 Woodmont Ave, Suite 810
Bethesda, MD 20814
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
- and -
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
- and -
William R. Scherer, Esq.
Albert L. Frevola Jr., Esq.
Ivan J. Kopas, Esq.
Russell R. O'Brien, Esq.
CONRAD & SCHERER
633 South Federal Highway, Eighth Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 462-5500
Facsimile: (954) 463-9244
E-mail: wscherer@conradscherer.com
afrevola@conradscherer.com
ikopas@conradscherer.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brown" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Xavier Brown, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-13373-MFL-DRG (E.D. Mich., September 24, 2015),
arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling
to consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand
vehicles in the United States that contained "defeat devices" that
were designed and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions
control systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic
emissions testing while the emissions control systems would then
mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including during
regular driving conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James Dunn, Esq.
Courthouse Square Building
200 SE 6th Street, Suite 402
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (734) 395-7644
E-mail: James@AttorneyJamesDunn.com
- and -
Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
Andrew T. Strahan, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX
23380 Goddard Rd.
Taylor, MI 48180
Telephone: 734-287-3664
E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com
andrew@aaroncoxlaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Claypool" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher C. Claypool, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00581-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., September 24, 2015), arises from
the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to
consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles
in the United States that contained "defeat devices" that were
designed and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions
control systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic
emissions testing while the emissions control systems would then
mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including during
regular driving conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sawyer C. Smith, Esq.
THE WILBUR SMITH LAW FIRM
The Bradford Block
1415 Hendry Street, P.O. Drawer 8
Fort Myers, FL 33901
Telephone: (239) 334-7696
Facsimile: (239) 334-3669
E-mail: scsmith@wilbulaw.com
- and -
Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
jflowers@motleyrice.com
kdean@motleyrice.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Cunningham" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Willard D. Cunningham, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-07079-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 24, 2015), arises from
the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to
consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles
in the United States that contained "defeat devices" that were
designed and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions
control systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic
emissions testing while the emissions control systems would then
mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including during
regular driving conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
- and -
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Thomas J. O'Reardon, Esq.
Paula M. Roach, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
701 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
toreardon@bholaw.com
- and -
Richard J. Vita, Esq.
VITA LAW OFFICES P.C.
100 State Street, Suite 900
Boston, MS 02109
Telephone: (617) 426-6566
E-mail: rjv@vitalaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Drury" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert E. Drury III and Eric D. Chase, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04401-JCS (N.D. Cal., September 24, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional deception of
regulators and consumers by admittedly installing so-called defeat
devices on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold
in the United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart G. Gross, Esq.
Benjamin Klein, Esq.
Daniel C. Goldberg, Esq.
GROSS & KLEIN
The Embarcadero
Pier 9, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 671-4628
Facsimile: (415) 480-6688
E-mail: sgross@grosskleinlaw.com
bklein@grosskleinlaw.com
dgoldberg@grosskleinlaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Eschinger" Suit Over Defeat Devices
------------------------------------------------------------
Lesley Eschinger, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
02903-PWG (D. Md., September 24, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional deception of regulators and
consumers by admittedly installing so-called defeat devices on
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
jflowers@motleyrice.com
kdean@motleyrice.com
- and -
William F. Askinazi, Esq.
ASKINAZI LAW & BUSINESS LLC
12504 Palatine Court
Potomac, MD 20854
Telephone: (301) 540-5380
Facsimile: (240) 715-9113
E-mail: askinazilaw@gmail.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Farmer" Suit in Ohio Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C. Dax Farmer, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00615-TSB (S.D. Ohio, September 23, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers
almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the
United States that contained "defeat devices" that were designed
and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions control
systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic emissions
testing while the emissions control systems would then mostly shut
down after the emissions testing, including during regular driving
conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
Robert B. Sherwood, Esq.
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 345-8291
Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
tnaylor@gs-legal.com
rsherwood@gs-legal.com
- and -
Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
MINNILLO & JENKINS, Co. LPA
2712 Observatory Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 723-1600
Facsimile: (513) 723-1620
E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Feldam" Suit in Md. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonia M. Feldman and Lawrence Tepper, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02894-ELH (D. Md., September 24, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional deception of
regulators and consumers by admittedly installing so-called defeat
devices on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold
in the United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alan Bernstein, Esq.
BERNSTEIN & FELDMAN, P.A.
900 Bestgate Road, Suite 200
Annapolis, MD 21401
Telephone: (410) 573-0017
Facsimile: (410) 573-0049
E-mail: ab@bflaw.com
- and -
Scott D. Forney, Esq.
BERNSTEIN & FELDMAN, P.A.
900 Bestgate Road, Suite 200
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
Telephone: (410) 573-0017
Facsimile: (410) 573-0049
E-mail: Scott@bflaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Ford" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Ford, Amanda Gerth, Catherine Giaquinto, Phillip Guillen,
Sheryl Hammond, Jennifer Roach-King, Jeffrey C. King, Mary Stacey,
Stacey Tate, Elizabeth Wallace, Christopher Ward, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated v. Volkswagen
Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07081-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.,
September 24, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged
intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States that
contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay J. Rice, Esq.
Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
Diane Elizabeth Sammons, Esq.
Randee M. Matloff, Esq.
NAGEL RICE, LLP
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 618-0400
E-mail: jrice@nagelrice.com
bnagel@nagelrice.com
dsammons@nagelrice.com
rmatloff@nagelrice.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fonte" Suit in N.Y. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Fonte, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Volkswagen Of
America, Inc. and Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft d/b/a Volkswagen
Group and/or Volkswagen AG, Case No. 1:15-cv-07561 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 24, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged
intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States that
contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.
Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution, and
service corporations doing business within the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 894-7200
E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com
aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
rcappucci@entwistle-law.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gall" Suit in Iowa Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary D. Gall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00106-SMR-SBJ (S.D. Iowa, September 23, 2015),
arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling
to consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand
vehicles in the United States that contained "defeat devices" that
were designed and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions
control systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic
emissions testing while the emissions control systems would then
mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including during
regular driving conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jay M. Smith, Esq.
SMITH & MCELWAIN LAW OFFICE
505 Fifth Street, Suite 530 P.O. Box 1194
Sioux City, IA 51102
Telephone: (712) 255-8094
Facsimile: (712) 255-3825
E-mail: smitmcel@aol.com
- and -
Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
Kevin D. Stanley, Esq.
Lauren E. McClain, Esq.
HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON & McCLAIN, P.C.
221 West Lexington, Suite 400
Independence, MO 64050
Telephone: (816) 836-5050
Facsimile: (816) 836-8966
E-mail: kbm@hfmlegal.com
kds@hfmlegal.com
lem@hfmlegal.com
- and -
L. Benjamin Mook, Esq.
DAVIS GEORGE MOOK, LLC
1600 Genessee, Suite 328
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: (816) 896-2629
E-mail: ben@dgmlawyers.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Goodrich" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Goodrich, Brendan Schlenker Goodrich, Amy Flynn on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No.
3:15-cv-04397-EDL (N.D. Cal., September 24, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers
almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the
United States that contained "defeat devices" that were designed
and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions control
systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic emissions
testing while the emissions control systems would then mostly shut
down after the emissions testing, including during regular driving
conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
Volkswagen AG is a German corporation and the parent company of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas J. Brandi, Esq.
Casey A. Kaufman, Esq.
Brian J. Malloy, Esq.
Jason B. Friedman, Esq.
THE BRANDI LAW FIRM
354 Pine Street, Third Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 989-1800
Facsimile: (415) 707-2024
E-mail: tjb@brandilaw.com
cak@brandilaw.com
bjm@brandilaw.com
jbf@brandilaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hayashi" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Nobuhiro Hayashi, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-07060-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September
24, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct
of selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi
brand vehicles in the United States that contained "defeat
devices" that were designed and intended to operate the vehicles'
full emissions control systems only when the car was undergoing
its periodic emissions testing while the emissions control systems
would then mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including
during regular driving conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
Volkswagen AG is a German corporation and the parent company of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (212) 397-1000
E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hill" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rich Hill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-07517 (C.D. Cal., September 24,
2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged intentional deception
of regulators and consumers by admittedly installing so-called
defeat devices on over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
- and -
Matthew R. Berry, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
Seattle, WA 98101-3000
Telephone: (206) 516-3880
Facsimile: (206) 516-3883
E-mail: mberry@susmangodfrey.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael E. Johnson Sr., Michael E. Johnson Jr., Rebecca L. Myers,
Benjamin D. Auchter, Jeffrey A. Gerritsen, Timothy J. Myers, Noel
E. Eisenstat, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01225-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., September 24, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers
almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the
United States that contained "defeat devices" that were designed
and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions control
systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic emissions
testing while the emissions control systems would then mostly shut
down after the emissions testing, including during regular driving
conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Weitzner, Esq.
David H. Thompson, Esq.
Davis Cooper, Esq.
1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Telephone: (202) 220-9600
Facsimile: (202)220-9601
E-mail: mweitzner@cooperkirk.com
dthompson@cooperkirk.com
pdcooper@cooperkirk.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Darren J. Check, Esq.
Peter A. Muhic, Esq.
Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
dcheck@ktmc.com
pmuhic@ktmc.com
namjed@ktmc.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces Koudsi Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Koudsi, Inc., d/b/a The Car Factory, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals v. Volkswgen Group of
America, Inc., and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-07477 (C.D.
Cal., September 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged
intentional deception of regulators and consumers by admittedly
installing so-called defeat devices on over 482,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert L. Starr, Esq.
Adam Rose, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC
23277 Ventura Boulevard
Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002
Telephone: (818) 225-9040
Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com
adam@starrlaw.com
- and -
Stephen M. Harris, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN M. HARRIS, APC
6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 924-3103
Facsimile: (818) 924-3079
E-mail: stephen@smh-legal.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Lucas" Suit in Ala. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Lucas and Chris Lucas, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-01672-AKK (N.D. Ala., September 23, 2015), arises
from the Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to
consumers almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles
in the United States that contained "defeat devices" that were
designed and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions
control systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic
emissions testing while the emissions control systems would then
mostly shut down after the emissions testing, including during
regular driving conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Frank Davis, Esq.
John E. Norris, Esq.
Wesley W. Barnett, Esq.
Courtney L. Peinhardt, Esq.
Dargan M. Ware, Esq.
DAVIS & NORRIS LLP
The Bradshaw House
2154 Highland Avenue South
Birmingham, AL 35205
Telephone: (205) 930-9900
Facsimile: (205) 930-9989
E-mail: fdavis@davisnorris.com
jnorris@davisnorris.com
wbarnett@davisnorris.com
courtney@davisnorris.com
dware@davisnorris.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mahoney" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Mahoney and Ayres Stockly, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00386-NT (D. Me., September 24, 2015), arises out
of the Defendant's alleged intentional deception of regulators and
consumers by admittedly installing so-called defeat devices on
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy R. Shannon, Esq.
Thomas C. Newman, Esq.
Rachel M. Wertheimer, Esq.
VERRILL DANA, LLP
One Portland Square
P.O. Box 586
Portland, ME 04112-0586
Telephone: (207) 774-4000
E-mail: tshannon@verrilldana.com
tnewman@verrilldana.com
rwertheimer@verrilldana.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Mayerson" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Mayerson, Lance Kohn, Quenton Chapman, Chris Decker,
Joseph Bentz, Adam Demuth, Thomas Lyng, Gary Palmer, Esther Palmer
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi Aktiengesellschaft, and
Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Case No. 3:15-cv-04390-KAW (N.D.
Cal., September 24, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged
intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States that
contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.
Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution, and
service corporations doing business within the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roland Tellis, Esq.
Mark Pifko, Esq.
Pablo Orozco, Esq.
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: (818) 839-2333
Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
E-mail: rtellis@baronbudd.com
mpifko@baronbudd.com
porozco@baronbudd.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "McLean" Suit in Ga. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie McLean, individually and on behalf of all others similarl
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03373-SCJ (N.D. Ga., September 24, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional deception of regulators and
consumers by admittedly installing so-called defeat devices on
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roger W. Orlando, Esq.
THE ORLANDO FIRM, PC
315 W. Ponce de Leon, Suite 400
Decatur, GA 30030
Telephone: (404) 373-1800
E-mail: roger@orlandofirm.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Monge" Suit in N.C. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josue Roberto Monge, Emily Coates Monge, David Roy Mandel, and
Beatrice Francine Mandel v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00792 (M.D.N.C., September 25, 2015), arises out
of the Defendant's alleged intentional deception of regulators and
consumers by admittedly installing so-called defeat devices on
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul D. Coates, Esq.
Jon Ward, Esq.
Adam L. White, Esq.
PINTO COATES KYRE & BOWERS, PLLC
3203 Brassfield Road
Greensboro, NC 27410
Telephone: (336) 282-8848
Facsimile: (336) 282-8409
E-mail: pcoates@pckb-law.com
jward@pckb-law.com
awhite@pckb-law.com
- and -
Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
Elizabeth C. Elsner, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
jflowers@motleyrice.com
kdean@motleyrice.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Schafer" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Sheree C. Schafer, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
13460 (S.D.W. Va., September 24, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers
almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the
United States that contained "defeat devices" that were designed
and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions control
systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic emissions
testing while the emissions control systems would then mostly shut
down after the emissions testing, including during regular driving
conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Scott Long, Esq.
Raj A. Shah, Esq.
Eric R. Arnold, Esq.
HENDRICKSON & LONG, PLLC
214 Capitol Street, P.O. Box 11070
Charleston, WV 25339
Telephone: (304) 346-5500
Facsimile: (304) 346-5515
E-mail: scott@handl.com
rshah@handl.com
earnold@handl.com
- and -
Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
Jodi Westbrook Flowers, Esq.
Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Boulevard
Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone: (843) 216-9000
Facsimile: (843) 216-9450
E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com
jflowers@motleyrice.com
kdean@motleyrice.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Sensenig" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christine Sensenig, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 8:15-cv-02236-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
September 24, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged
intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States that
contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
Volkswagen AG is a German corporation and the parent company of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Neil D. Overholtz, Esq.
Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
Stephen H, Echsner, Esq.
AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
17 E. Main Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Telephone: (850) 202-1010
Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stanley" Suit Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------
Lucas C. Stanley, individually and on behalf of all others,
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02113 (D. Colo., September 24, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat devices"
on over a reported 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
THE HANNON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
1641 Downing Street
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (303) 861-8800
E-mail: khannon@hannonlaw.com
- and -
Gillian M. Fahlsing, Esq.
THE HANNON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
1641 Downing Street
Denver, CO 80218
Telephone: (303) 861-8800
E-mail: gfahlsing@hannonlaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stein" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry L. Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
07052-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., September 24, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional deception of regulators and
consumers by admittedly installing so-called defeat devices on
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
- and -
Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC
100 South Broad St., Suite 705
Philadelphia, PA. 19110-1061
Telephone: (215) 545-7200
E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Steele" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Steele, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Audi AG
and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-07086-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.,
September 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged
intentional conduct of selling to consumers almost 500,000 diesel
Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the United States that
contained "defeat devices" that were designed and intended to
operate the vehicles' full emissions control systems only when the
car was undergoing its periodic emissions testing while the
emissions control systems would then mostly shut down after the
emissions testing, including during regular driving conditions.
The Defendants are automobile design, manufacturing, distribution,
and service corporations doing business within the United States.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew Mendelsohn, Esq.
Adam M. Slater, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 228-9898
E-mail: mmendelsohn@mskf.net
aslater@mskf.net
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Trippett" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Trippett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Case No. 0:15-cv-00076-HRW (E.D. Ky., September 24,
2015), arises out of the Defendant's deliberate, fraudulent
implementation of a "defeat device" that masked a car's true
emission pollution levels when being tested.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
Volkswagen AG is a German corporation and the parent company of
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jerry M. Miniard, Esq.
MINIARD LAW OFFICE
6614 Dixie Highway
Florence, KY 41042
Telephone: (859) 525-1900
Facsimile: (859) 525-1433
E-mail: jmm@miniardlaw.com
- and -
Dennis R. Lansdowne, Esq.
Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
Nicholas A. Dicello, Esq.
William B. Eadie, Esq.
SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 696-3232
Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
E-mail: dlansdowne@spanglaw.com
sscott@spanglaw.com
ndicello@spanglaw.com
weadie@spanglaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Vinson" Suit in N.C. Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Kevin Vinson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00213 (W.D.N.C., September 24, 2014), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional installation of "defeat devices"
on over a reported 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles
sold in the United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John R. Edwards, Esq.
EDWARDS KIRBY, LLP
P. O. Box 17005
Raleigh, NC 27619
Telephone: (919) 780-5400
E-mail: jedwards@edwardskirby.com
- and -
David F. Kirby, Esq.
EDWARDS KIRBY, LLP
P.O. Box 17005
Raleigh, NC 27619
Telephone: (919) 780-5400
E-mail: dkirby@edwardskirby.com
- and -
William B. Bystrynski, Esq.
EDWARDS KIRBY, LLP
P.O. Box 17005
Raleigh, NC 27619
Telephone: (919) 780-5400
E-mail: bbystrynski@edwardskirby.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Weiss" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy E. Weiss and Jonathan Weiss, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-07474 (C.D. Cal., September 24, 2015), arises out
of the Defendant's alleged intentional deception of regulators and
consumers by admittedly installing so-called defeat devices on
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mike Arias, Esq.
Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
Jamie G. Goldstein, Esq.
ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS, LLP
6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: (310) 844-9696
Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
E-mail: mike@asstlawyers.com
alfredo@asstlawyers.com
jamie@asstlawyers.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "West" Suit in Ga. Over Defeat Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Kay West, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00093-CDL (M.D. Ga., September 24, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged intentional deception of regulators and
consumers by admittedly installing so-called defeat devices on
over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the
United States since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Henry G. Garrard III, Esq.
Andrew J. Hill III, Esq.
James B. Matthews III, Esq.
Thomas F. Hollingsworth, Esq.
Patrick H. Garrard, Esq.
BLASINGAME, BURCH, GARRARD & ASHLEY, P.C.
440 College Ave., P.O. Box 832
Athens, GA 30603
Telephone: (706) 354-4000
E-mail: hgg@bbgbalaw.com
ajh@bbgbalaw.com
jbm@bbgbalaw.com
tfh@bbgbalaw.com
phg@bbgbalaw.com
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Defeat Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------
James V. Williams and Thomas S. McGrath, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc. and Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:15-cv-07053-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J., September 24, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
alleged intentional deception of regulators and consumers by
admittedly installing so-called defeat devices on over 482,000
diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States
since 2009.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
- and -
Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
Michael Jaffe, Esq.
Malcolm T. Brown, Esq.
Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
270 Madison Ave.
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 545-4600
E-mail: schmidt@whafh.com
jaffe@whafh.com
brown@whafh.com
Kamin@whafh.com
- and -
Robert L. Herbst, Esq.
HERBST LAW PLLC
420 Lexington Avenue, Suite 300
New York, NY 10170
Telephone: (646) 543-2354
- and -
Stephen DeNittis, Esq.
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410
Marlton, NJ 08053
Telephone: (856) 797-9951
E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com
- and -
Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq.
THE WILNER FIRM, P.A.
444 E. Duval Street
Jacksonville, FL 32202
Telephone: (904) 446-9817
E-mail: info@wilnerfirm.com
- and -
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
301 Washington Street, Suite 302
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 532-2222
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Zucker" Suit Over Defeat Devices
---------------------------------------------------------
Bryce Zucker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
01466 (E.D. Miss., September 24, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's alleged intentional conduct of selling to consumers
almost 500,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles in the
United States that contained "defeat devices" that were designed
and intended to operate the vehicles' full emissions control
systems only when the car was undergoing its periodic emissions
testing while the emissions control systems would then mostly shut
down after the emissions testing, including during regular driving
conditions.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and selling
automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components
throughout the United States of America.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah S. Burns, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
One Court Street
Alton, IL 62002
E-mail: sburns@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Paul J. Hanly Jr., Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLC
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: phanly@simmonsfirm.com
WELLS FARGO: January 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
TO ALL PERSONS WHO HAVE OR HAD A MORTGAGE SERVICED BY WELLS FARGO
AND WHO OWE OR PAID PROPERTY INSPECTION FEES ASSESSED DURING THE
PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013.
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on January 21,
2016 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Robert W. Pratt, at the
United States District court, Southern District of Iowa, Central
Division, U.S. District Courthouse, 123 East Walnut Street,
Des Moines, Iowa 50309, to determine whether: (1) the proposed
settlement of the above-captioned action for the sum of
$25,750,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Final Judgment as provided under
the Stipulation and Agreement and Agreement of Settlement should
be entered, dismissing the Third Amended Class Action Complaint
filed in the Action on the merits and with prejudice; (3) the
release by the Class of the Released Claims, as set forth in the
Stipulation, should be provided to the Released Defendants;
(4) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out
of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action), which is discussed below; (5) to
grant Plaintiffs' requests for service awards out of the
Settlement Fund for the time and effort they expended in
prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class; and (6) the Plan
of Allocation should be approved by the Court.
IF YOU HAVE OR HAD MORTGAGE SERVICED BY WELLS FARGO AND OWE OR
PAID PROPERTY INSPECTION FEES ASSESSED DURING THE PERIOD AUGUST 1,
2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2013, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.
To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you may be
required to file a Proof of Claim on or before March 16, 2016. If
you are required to file a Proof of Claim and do not do so by
March 16, 2016, you will not receive any recovery in connection
with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a member of the
Class and do not requested to be excluded, you will be bound by
the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action,
including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not
you submit a Proof of Claim.
You may obtain a copy of the Notice, which more completely
describe the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your
right to object to the Settlement), a Proof of Claim form, and a
copy of the Stipulation ( which among other things contains
definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice),
online at www.WellsFargoPropertyInspectionSettlement.com or by
writing to:
Wells Fargo Inspection Fee Settlement
c/o Garden City Group, LLC
P.O. Box 10106
Dublin, OH 43017-3106
Phone: (855) 382-6434
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquires, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim form, may be made to Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel:
Deborah Clark-Weintraub
SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
The Chrysler Building
405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10174
Michael R. Reese
REESE LLP
100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10025
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY DECEMBER 22, 2015, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT
REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT
ENTERED IN THE ACTION.
Dated: September 2, 2015
HONORABLE ROBERT W. PRATT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA, CENTRAL DIVISION
WHITE OAK: Faces "Taylor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Travis Taylor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. White Oak Pastures, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00156-LJA
(M.D. Ga., September 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.
White Oak Pastures, Inc. is a farm in Bluffton, Georgia that
specializes in raising cattle, sheep, swine, rabbits and poultry.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John F. Beasley Jr., Esq.
JF BEASLEY, LLC
31 North Main Street
P.O. Box 309
Watkinsville, GA 30677
Telephone: 706-769-4410
Facsimile: 706-769-4471
E-mail: jfbeasley@jfbeasleylaw.com
- and -
Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq.
DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK BENJAMIN
3100 Centennial Tower
101 Marietta Street NW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Telephone: (404) 979-3150
Facsimile: (770) 859-0754
E-mail: benjamin@dcbflegal.com
WL GENERAL: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Torres, and other similarly-situated individuals v. WL
General Services, Corp., Lucimara Helgert, and Wesley Helgert,
Case No. 1:15-cv-23563-DPG (S.D. Fla., September 23, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.
WL General Services, Corp. is a Florida corporation that provides
maintenance and janitorial services to commercial customers.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
YMK HOSPITALITIES: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Torres and other similarly-situated individuals v. YMK
Hospitalities Co Inc, d/b/a Mina's Mediterrano and Yasmine M.
Kotb, Case No. 1:15-cv-23569-UU (S.D. Fla., September 23, 2014),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.
The Defendants own and operate a Mediterranean restaurant located
at 749 NE 79th ST, Miami, Florida 33138.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
ZIONS FIRST: 3rd Cir. Allows Fraud Class Suit to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
breathed new life into a major case against Zions First National
Bank, a subsidiary of Zions Bancorp for its alleged involvement in
a scheme to defraud hundreds of thousands of depositors throughout
the United States. The case was brought on behalf of the
depositors by the Philadelphia law firm, Langer, Grogan & Diver,
P.C.
The Court vacated a lower court's determination that the case
could not proceed as a class action on behalf of all of the harmed
depositors. The Court cited internal Zions documents and quoted
the conclusions of an expert for the plaintiffs that Zions,
"'allowed the system to be used by High Risk originators whom it
had to know were engaged in fraud in clear disregard of the
governing rules and standards, ... made knowing misrepresentations
to the other participants in the ACH [automated clearing house]
system, ... facilitated the misuse of the system, and ... did all
this knowing of facts from which, as a banking institution, it had
to know fraud was taking place.'"
"We look forward to pressing ahead," said Peter Leckman, an
attorney at Langer Grogan & Diver. Howard Langer, the lead
attorney on the case, stated, "courts do not tolerate procedural
efforts to block redress for those seeking to hold companies
profiting from fraud accountable."
Damages in the case have been estimated to be in excess of $50
million and are trebled under the federal RICO Act.
The case is Reyes v. Netdeposit, et al., 14-1228, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Langer, Grogan & Diver, P.C. (LGD), is a nationally recognized
complex commercial litigation law firm based in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. LGD obtained one of the largest ever consumer class
action recoveries when it reclaimed over $150 million dollars from
Wachovia Bank on behalf of victims of telemarketing fraud. For
more information, visit the firm's website at www.langergrogan.com
Peter Leckman, Esq.
Langer, Grogan & Diver, P.C.
1717 Arch Street, Suite 4130 Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: 215-320-5660
Fax: 215-320-5703
T: (215) 320-5660
Email: pleckman@langergrogan.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 * * *