/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/151019.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, October 19, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 208 Headlines 3D SYSTEMS: Defending Against Bristol Pension Fund & Romano Cases AMARIN CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit AMTECH SYSTEMS: Class Action Stipulation Awaits Court Approval ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Dialog Merger Plans BIOGEN INC: Faces "Lake" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports CADIZ INC: "Van Wingerden" Class Action in C.D. Cal. Ongoing CLEVELAND AVE: Faces "Hogan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wage CVS HEALTH: "Podgorny" Suit Transferred to Illinois Dist. Ct. CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Faces "Lagarde" Suit Over Solvay Merger Plans DENSO CORP: Sued Over Vehicle Wire Harness System Price-Fixing DISCRETE WIRELESS: Faces "Yates" Over Failure to Pay Overtime ECOLAB INC: Defendant in Six FLSA Lawsuits in N.D. Cal. ELECTROLUX HOME: Testimony Excluded, Summary Judgment Bid Okayed ENSIGN GROUP: Faces "Madrigal" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ESTE TUX: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Simmonette" Suit Says EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Acosta" Suit Over Data Breach EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Luna" Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Ryan" Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach GAONA LANDSCAPING: Faces "Amador" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT GCP EAST: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages GO DADDY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pandol" Action Claims GOOSE CREEK, SC: "McCray" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages HABITAT COMPANY: Sued in Ill. for Not Providing RLTO Summary HIGHLAND COMMERCIAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Sui Claims HILLS BANCORPORATION: Customer Action v. Unit Ongoing in Iowa HORIZONTAL WIRELINE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages HSBC BANK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ahmed" Suit Claims INTERNATIONAL PAPER: No Class Cert. Materials Filed in Tenn. Suit INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Held INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Homebuilders' Antitrust Case Ongoing INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Deal Reached to Settle Canadian Cases TRUSTMARK CORP: Bids to Dismiss Stanford-Related Suit Still Open JIM FALK: Faces "Vuong" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime JM HOLLISTER: Faces "Wat" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Erami" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime KARINA GARCIA: Challenges Final Judgment Entered in Case LEVEL 3: Continues to Defend Rights-of-Way Litigation LIFETIME HEALTHCARE: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach MAC PROS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Holley" Suit Claims MERCK & CO: Defendant in 20 Active Vioxx Product Liability Suits MERCK & CO: Vioxx Claims Review Process Recently Completed MERCK & CO: January 2017 Trial Set in Vioxx Suit in Alaska MERCK & CO: Sept. 2016 Trial Set in Vioxx Suit in Montana MERCK & CO: Vioxx Suit in Utah Remanded to State Court MERCK & CO: Trial Begins in Vioxx Securities Lawsuits MERCK & CO: Direct Action Plaintiffs Must Amend Complaints MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Six Individual Securities Suits MERCK & CO: 5,230 Fosamax Product Liability Cases Pending MERCK & CO: 1,040 Cases Pending in Femur Fracture MDL MERCK & CO: 3,095 Cases Alleging Femur Fractures Pending in NJ MERCK & CO: 510 Cases Over Femur Fractures Ongoing in California MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Femur Fracture MDL MERCK & CO: 915 Januvia/Janumet User Claims Pending MERCK & CO: 14 Cases Pending Outside of NuvaRing Settlement MERCK & CO: 1,390 Suits Filed Related to Propecia and Proscar NOVANT HEALTH: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Kruger" Action OILS UNKUT: "Terry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages PASCHALL TRUCK: Court Rejects Settlement in Grok Lines Suit PELICAN, ALASKA: Judgment in "Tagaban" Case Upheld PFIZER INC: Bid to Dismiss End-Payers' Remaining Claims Ongoing PFIZER INC: Lipitor Marketing Lawsuits Still Pending PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Class Actions in Canada Ongoing PFIZER INC: Celebrex Class Actions in E.D. Va. Still Pending PFIZER INC: Settlement in Off-Label Promotion Action Okayed PHILLIPS 66: Must Defend Against "Stubbs" Labor Suit RENTECH NITROGEN: Faces "Sloan" Suit Over Proposed CVR Merger SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Case in Early Stages STAR DIE: Faces "Luna" Suit in Cal. Over Gender Discrimination SURVEY SAMPLING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bell" Suit Claims THOMSON REUTERS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Furey" Suit Says TOTAL SYSTEM: Briefing on ProPay's Motion to Dismiss Ongoing TRANSCOR AMERICA: Court Rules on Motion for Judgment on Pleadings TRINIDAD DRILLING: Faces "Ceniceros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT TRUSTMARK CORP: 2nd Stanford-Related Suit in Preliminary Stages UNITED STATES: No Extra Pay to Lead Plaintiff in "Cobell" Case UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Wins Summary Judgment USHEALTH GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Action Claims VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fiorelli" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hensgens" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bauer" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bobko" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bourn" Suit in Va. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brier" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Clyman" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Ets-Hokin" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Farquar" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fong" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Halper" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stempien" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Judy" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Knisley" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Richards" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Scolnick" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Swiger" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Tamez" Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Texas VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Troffer" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Weber" Suit in N.C. Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shaw" Class Suit Removed to W. Dist. Texas VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Defeat Devices VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Schwartz" Suit Over Defeat Devices WALTER ENERGY: Preliminary Approval of Class Action Deal Sought WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Energy Merger WILMINGTON SAVINGS: Faces "Mohamed" Suit Over Loan Transfer ********* 3D SYSTEMS: Defending Against Bristol Pension Fund & Romano Cases ----------------------------------------------------------------- 3D Systems Corporation 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 and certain of its executive officers have been named as defendants in two putative stockholder class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on June 12, 2015 and June 23, 2015. The lawsuits are styled City of Bristol Pension Fund v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL (D.S.C.) and Joshua Romano v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-02518-MGL (D.S.C.). The complaints are substantially identical and allege that defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions and that the officers are control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaints are filed on behalf of stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between October 29, 2013, and October 22, 2014 and seek monetary damages on behalf of the purported class. AMARIN CORPORATION: Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Amarin Corporation plc 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 plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint in a class action lawsuit. On June 29, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Company's motion to dismiss the putative consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In re Amarin Corporation plc, Securities Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013). The class action was dismissed without prejudice with leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The lawsuit sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs alleging that Amarin and certain of its current and former officers and directors made misstatements and omissions regarding the FDA's willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR indication and related contributing factors and the potential relevance of data from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that potential approval. On July 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging facts similar to those in the original complaint. Like the first complaint, the amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The Company believes it has valid defenses and will vigorously defend against this lawsuit, but cannot predict the outcome. The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the loss exposure, if any, associated with the claims. The Company has insurance coverage that is anticipated to cover any significant loss exposure that may arise from this action after payment of the associated deductible obligation under such insurance coverage. AMTECH SYSTEMS: Class Action Stipulation Awaits Court Approval -------------------------------------------------------------- Amtech Systems, 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 Stipulation of Settlement in a class action lawsuit is subject to court approval. Shortly after the Company entered into the Merger Agreement with BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (together, the "Stockholder Actions"). The first was filed on November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17, 2014, purportedly on behalf of BTU's public stockholders, against BTU, members of the BTU Board, Amtech and Merger Sub. The Stockholder Actions were consolidated on December 4, 2014. The complaints generally alleged that, in connection with entering into the Merger Agreement, the BTU board of directors breached certain fiduciary duties owed to BTU's stockholders. The complaints sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as compensatory damages. On January 16, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") to settle the Stockholder Actions. Pursuant to the MOU, the parties to the Stockholder Actions agreed to resolve the claims alleged and the Company and BTU agreed to make certain additional disclosures regarding the Merger. On June 22, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, filed a Stipulation and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Stipulation of Settlement") with the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware to memorialize the MOU. The Stipulation of Settlement provides for a release of all claims against the Company and BTU, along with the other defendants named therein, subject to an exception for certain securities law claims. In addition, Stipulation of Settlement provides that BTU will be responsible for the payment of certain amounts in plaintiffs' attorney fees and expenses in connection with the settlement. The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to court approval. The Company and BTU entered into the Stipulation of Settlement solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. There can be no assurance that the court will approve the Stipulation of Settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the Stipulation of Settlement may be terminated. ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Dialog Merger Plans --------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Atmel Corporation, et al., Case No. 11576 (Del. Ch., October 5, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Atmel Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Atmel by Dialog Semiconductor PLC, through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Atmel Corporation designs and manufactures microcontrollers, capacitive touch solutions, advanced logic, mixed-signal, nonvolatile memory and radio frequency components. Dialog Semiconductor PLC creates and markets integrated, mixed signal integrated circuits, optimized for personal portable, low energy short-range wireless, LED solid-state lighting and automotive applications. The Plaintiff is represented by: Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. James R. Banko, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com jbanko@faruqilaw.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. Innessa S. Melamed, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl. New York, NY10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 Facsimile: (212) 983-9331 E-mail: imelamed@faruqilaw.com jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com BIOGEN INC: Faces "Lake" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports --------------------------------------------------------------- Maureen Lake, derivatively on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Biogen, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-13516 (D. Mass., October 6, 2015) alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Biogen, Inc. is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on discovering, developing, manufacturing, and delivering therapies for neurological, autoimmune, and hematologic disorders. The Plaintiff is represented by: Theodore M. Hess-Mahan, Esq. HUTCHINGS, BARSAMIAN, MANDELCORN & ROBINSON, LLP 110 Cedar Street, Suite 250 Wellesley Hills, MA 02481 Telephone: (781) 431-2231 E-mail: thess-mahan@hutchingsbarsamian.com - and - Willie C. Briscoe, Esq. THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC Campbell Centre II 8150 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-4568 Facsimile: (281) 254-7789 E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com - and - Patrick Powers, Esq. Meredith Black-Mathews, Esq. POWERS TAYLOR LLP Campbell Centre II 8150 N. Central Expressway, Ste. 1575 Dallas, TX 75206 Telephone: (214) 239-8900 Facsimile: (214) 239-8901 E-mail: Patrick@powerstaylor.com Meredith@powerstaylor.com - and - Cullin O'Brien, Esq. CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A. 6541 NE 21st Way Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308 Telephone: (561) 676-6370 Facsimile: (561) 320-0285 E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com CADIZ INC: "Van Wingerden" Class Action in C.D. Cal. Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Cadiz 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 putative class action lawsuit, entitled Van Wingerden v. Cadiz Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-03080- JAK-JEM, was filed on April 24, 2015, against Cadiz and certain of its directors and officers ("Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Central District of California purporting to assert claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders, alleges that the Company's public disclosures were inadequate in relation to the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project (the "Water Project"). The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The Company believes that the claims alleged in the purported class action lawsuit are baseless and without merit and Cadiz will vigorously defend against the action. While the Company believes that the purported class action lawsuit is without merit, pursuant to applicable accounting requirements, the Company will evaluate this matter on an ongoing basis and record accruals for contingencies if the Company concludes that it is probable that a material loss will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In many situations, including the purported class action, in which such matters are being contested, the outcome is not predictable and any potential loss is not estimable. CLEVELAND AVE: Faces "Hogan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wage --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Hogan, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Cleveland Ave Restaurant, Inc. (d/b/a Sirens), Francis Sharrak, Michael Sharrak, Chad Sullivan, Dominick Alkammo, Case No. 2:15- cv-02883-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio, October 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club in Columbus, Ohio. The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Biller, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC Easton Town Center 4200 Regent Street, Suite 200 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 604-8759 Facsimile: (614) 583-8107 E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com CVS HEALTH: "Podgorny" Suit Transferred to Illinois Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Robert Podgorny et al., v. CVS Health Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-08177, was transferred from the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the United States District Court of Illinois, Eastern Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2675 to the proceeding. The case asserts claims from an allegedly common fraudulent pricing policy by CVS with respect to certain generic prescription drugs sold to individuals who maintain prescription drug benefits pursuant to third-party health insurance plans. The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Shiho Yamamoto, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com jkl@pritkzkerlevine.com sy@pritzkerlevine.com - and - Clinton A. Krislov, Esq. Christopher M. Hack, Esq. KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD. Civic Opera Building, Suite 1300 20 North Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 606-0500 Facsimile: (312) 739-1098 E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com chris@krislovlaw.com CYTEC INDUSTRIES: Faces "Lagarde" Suit Over Solvay Merger Plans --------------------------------------------------------------- Keith M. Lagarde on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Cytec Industries Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00891- UNA (D. Del., October 6, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of Cytec Industries Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Cytec by Solvay SA through a flawed process and inadequate consideration. Cytec Industries Inc. is a specialty chemicals and materials company located at Five Garret Mountain Plaza, Woodland Park, NJ 07424. Solvay SA is a Belgian chemical company headquartered in Neder- Over-Heembeek, Brussels, Belgium. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Banko, Esq. Derrick B. Farrell, Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145 Wilmington, DE 19807 Telephone: (302) 482-3182 E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com dfarrell@faruqilaw.com - and - Michael J. Palestina, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC 206 Covington Street Madisonville, LA 70447 Telephone: (504) 455-1400 Facsimile: (504) 455-1498 E-mail: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com - and - Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. James M. Wilson Jr., Esq. FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl. New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 983-9330 E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com jwilson@faruqilaw.com DENSO CORP: Sued Over Vehicle Wire Harness System Price-Fixing -------------------------------------------------------------- Rush Truck Centers of Arizona, Inc., et al. v. Denso Corp., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00107-MOB-MKM (E.D. Mich., November 11, 2014) arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy fix and artificially raise the prices of Vehicle Wire Harness Systems. Denso Corp. is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business in Kariya, Japan. Denso Corp. through its subsidiaries, manufactured, marketed and sold Vehicle Wire Harness Systems that were purchased throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Wayne A. Mack, Esq. J. Manly Parks, Esq. DUANE MORRIS LLP 30 S. 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 979-1000 Facsimile: (215) 979-1020 E-mail: wamack@duanemorris.com jmparks@duanemorris.com DISCRETE WIRELESS: Faces "Yates" Over Failure to Pay Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Yates and Erica White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Discrete Wireless, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03549-ODE (N.D. Ga., October 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. Discrete Wireless, Inc. provides fleet operators with an internet based system that enhances workforce productivity through real time vehicles tracking, route optimization, job dispatch, and fuel usage monitoring. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq. FELDMAN LAW GROUP, P.A. 1201 Peachtree Street Colony Square Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30361 Telephone: (813) 639-9366 Facsimile: (813) 639-9376 E-mail: MFeldman@ffmlawgroup.com ECOLAB INC: Defendant in Six FLSA Lawsuits in N.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------- Ecolab 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 is a defendant in six pending wage hour lawsuits claiming violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") or a similar state law. Of these six suits, two have been certified for class action status. Ross (formerly Icard) v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court - Northern District of California, case no. C 13-05097 PJH, an action under California state law, has been certified for class treatment of California Institutional employees. In Cancilla v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court - Northern District of California, case no. CV 12-03001, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide class of Pest Elimination Service Specialists for alleged FLSA violations. The suit also seeks a purported California sub-class for alleged California wage hour law violations and certifications of classes for state law violations in Washington, Colorado, Maryland, Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin and North Carolina. The Cancilla lawsuit has been settled, and a federal judge gave preliminary approval to a class- action settlement of employment claims against Ecolab that includes a $7.5 million settlement fund and over $2 million in attorney fees and costs (Class Action Reporter, August 27, 2015). A third pending suit, Charlot v. Ecolab Inc., U.S. District Court- Eastern District of New York, case no. CV 12-04543, seeks nationwide class certification of Institutional employees for alleged FLSA violations as well as purported state sub-classes in New York, New Jersey, Washington and Pennsylvania alleging violations of state wage hour laws. A fourth pending suit, Schneider v. Ecolab, Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, case no. 2014 CH 193, seeks certification of a class of Institutional employees for alleged violations of Illinois wage and hour laws. A fifth pending suit, Martino v. Ecolab, Santa Clara County California Superior Court, seeks certification of a California state class of Institutional employees for alleged violations of California wage and hour laws. The Martino case has been removed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A sixth pending suit, LaValley v. Ecolab, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, seeks certification of a class of Territory Representatives for alleged violations of the FLSA and New York state wage and hour laws. The LaValley lawsuit has also been settled pending court approval. ELECTROLUX HOME: Testimony Excluded, Summary Judgment Bid Okayed ---------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge James G. Carr, Sr. of the United States District Court for Northern District of Ohio granted motions to exclude the testimony of the plaintiff's expert, Richard J. Hallowell, and for summary judgment in the case captioned, Maureen Huffman, Plaintiff, v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:12CV2681. Huffman bought a front-loading washer that the defendant, Electrolux Home Products, Inc., designed and manufactured. After using the machine for two-and-a-half years, Huffman noticed a nasty, mildew-like odor emanating from the washer. The odor permeated Huffman's home, and the washer stained or otherwise ruined $300 worth of clothes. Huffman, who brought this suit on behalf of herself and all Ohio residents who purchased an Electrolux front-loading washer, claims the machine is defective because it is not self-cleaning, thus permitting mold to grow inside the machine. She brought common-law claims for breach of warranty, negligent design, and failure to warn. She also brought claims under the Ohio Products Liability Act (OPLA), for defective design, inadequate warnings, and failure to conform to a representation. Finally, she brought claims under Ohio's version of the Uniform Commercial Code for breach of express and implied warranties. Huffman has retained Richard J. Hallowell, a mechanical engineer, to opine on the alleged defects in her washing machine and testified that he has no training in how to identify mold or fungus, and he agreed that mold sampling is "very, very sophisticated" and "way beyond his area of expertise. In his opinion, he stated to a reasonable degree of engineering certainty Huffman's front-loading washer was defective and that Electrolux should have warned consumers "about the inherent problems that can develop in" its front-loading washers if interior components of the washer are not periodically disassembled and cleaned by a service technician and should have eliminated the mold issue by modifying the washer in three ways. Electrolux argued that Hallowell is not qualified to testify under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and that Huffman's statutory and common-law claims for defective design may not proceed. Electrolux also contends the failure-to-warn claims fail because any additional warning would not have affected Huffman's decision to purchase the Frigidaire machine, given her testimony she did not read any user's manual, advertising, or warnings before purchasing the Frigidaire. In his Order dated September 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/SPjXvYfrom Leagle.com, Judge Carr, Sr. found that Hallowell is unqualified to testify because Electrolux's moving papers show the record is devoid of any alleged misrepresentation regarding the washer's performance, and Huffman's response did not address that claim let alone identify evidence in the record showing there is disputed factual issue on that question. Maureen Huffman is represented by: John T. Murray, Esq. Leslie O. Murray, Esq. Michael J. Stewart, Esq. MURRAY & MURRAY 111 East Shoreline Drive Sandusky, OH 44870-2517 Tel: (419)624-3000 - and - Philip L. Dombey, Esq. -- pdombey@perrysburgattorney.com -- DOMBEY & HART Electrolux North America, Inc. is represented by Geoffrey M. Wyatt, Esq. -- geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com, Jessica D. Miller, Esq. -- jessica.miller@skadden.com, John H. Beisner, Esq. -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Nina Ramos Rose, Esq. -- nina.rose@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM & Philip M. Oliss, Esq. -- philip.oliss@squirepb.com & Bruce A. Khula, Esq. -- bruce.khula@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS ENSIGN GROUP: Faces "Madrigal" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gricelda Madrigal v. The Ensign Group, Inc., Southland Management LLC, Giordana Record, and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. BC596862 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 5, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. The Defendants own and operate a nursing and rehabilitative care services company in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Julia A. Mercado, Esq. APARICIO-MERCADO LAW, L.C. 3320 West Victory Boulevard Burbank, CA 91505 Telephone: (818) 260-9904 Facsimile: (818)450-0964 ESTE TUX: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Simmonette" Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frances Simmonette, on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees v. Este Tux, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01943-UN2 (M.D. Penn., October 5, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work over 40 hours per week. Este Tux, Inc. owns and operates a warehouse and distribution facility located at or near 401 South Washington Avenue, Scranton, PA. The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Telephone: (215) 884-2491 EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Acosta" Suit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Fabio Acosta, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-62099-KMW (S.D. Fla., October 6, 2015) arises from the massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the sensitive data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied for credit with T-Mobile. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which provides, among other things, credit check services to corporations. T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which primarily provides cellular phone services to consumers, processes the credit applications of customers and potential customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: John Yanchunis, Esq. Marcio Valladares, Esq. Patrick A. Barthle II, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 223-5505 Facsimile: (813) 223-5402 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com mvalladares@forthepeople.com pbarthle@forthepeople.com - and - Edward A. Wallace, Esq. Mark R. Miller, Esq. Amy E. Keller, Esq. WEXLER WALLACE LLP 55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 346-2222 E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com mrm@wexlerwallace.com aek@wexlerwallace.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq. Benjamin Branda, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com enafisi@wbmllp.com bbranda@wbmllp.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0090 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com mark@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Luna" Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Luna, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01603 (C.D. Cal., October 6, 2015) arises out of the massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the sensitive data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied for credit with T-Mobile. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which provides, among other things, credit check services to corporations. T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which primarily provides cellular phone services to consumers, processes the credit applications of customers and potential customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel C. Girard, Esq. Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. David M. Berger, Esq. GIRARD GIBBS LLP 601 California Street, 14th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: dcg@GirardGibbs.com ehg@girardgibbs.com dmb@classlawgroup.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esq. Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq. Benjamin Branda, Esq. WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Ste. 605 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com enafisi@wbmllp.com bbranda@wbmllp.com - and - Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. Mark E. Silvey, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. GREG COLEMAN LAW PC First Tennessee Plaza 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Knoxville, TN 37929 Telephone: (865) 247-0090 E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com mark@gregcolemanlaw.com lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Ryan" Suit in Cal. Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Colin Ryan and Caitlan Lange, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01595 (C.D. Cal., October 6, 2015) arises out of the massive hack on Experian's servers that compromised the sensitive data of T-Mobile's customers and individuals who applied for credit with T-Mobile. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is an Ohio corporation which provides, among other things, credit check services to corporations. T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which primarily provides cellular phone services to consumers, processes the credit applications of customers and potential customers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark P. Robinson Jr., Esq. Kevin Calcagnie, Esq. Daniel S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS, INC. 19 Corporate Plaza Dr. Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 720-1288 Facsimile: (949) 720-1292 E-mail: mrobinson@rcrsd.com kcalcagnie@rcrsd.com drobinson@rcrsd.com - and - Sherrie Savett, Esq. Shanon Carson, Esq. Jon Lambiras, Esq. BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. 1622 Locust St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: ssavett@bm.net scarson@bm.net jlambiras@bm.net - and - Stuart R. Fraenkel, Esq. Gabriel S. Barenfeld, Esq. NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3600 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 622-6469 Facsimile: (213) 622-6019 E-mail: sfraenkel@nflawfirm.com gbarenfeld@nflawfirm.com GAONA LANDSCAPING: Faces "Amador" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ------------------------------------------------------------- Martin Amador, on behalf of himself and other Plaintiffs similarly situated v. Gaona Landscaping, Inc. and Jose L. Gaona, Case No. 1:15-cv-08871 (N.D. Ill., October 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a landscaping business located in McHenry, Illinois. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marty Denis, Esq. Bethany Hilbert, Esq. BARLOW, KOBATA & DENIS LLP 525 West Monroe, Suite 2360 Chicago, IL 60661 Telephone: (312) 648-5570 GCP EAST: Faces Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Venkatesh Sanegarapu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GCP East Realty Corp., and Theodoros Zorbas, Case No. 706028 (N.Y. Super. Ct., October 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the New York Minimum Wage Act. The Defendants own and operate a real estate company in New York. The Plaintiff is represented by: Abdul K. Hassan, Esq. ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC 215-28 Hillside Avenue Queens Village, NY 11427 Telephone: (718) 740-1000 Facsimile: (718) 740-2000 E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com GO DADDY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Pandol" Action Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ John Pandol, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv- 07794 (C.D. Cal., October 5, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls to the wireless telephones of Plaintiff and each of the members of the Class without prior express consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC operates a financial software services company in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. Ismael T. Salam, Esq. SIPRUT PC 17 N. State Street, Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 236-0000 Facsimile: (312) 241-1260 E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com isalam@siprut.com - and - Robert Ahdoot, Esq. Tina Wolfson, Esq. Brad King, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 1016 Palm Avenue West Hollywood, CA 90069 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com bking@ahdootwolfson.com GOOSE CREEK, SC: "McCray" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Frank McCray, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. City of Goose Creek, Case No. 2:15-cv-04115-DCN (D.S.C., October 5, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. City of Goose Creek is a municipality corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marybeth Mullaney, Esq. 321 Wingo Way, Suite 201 Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464 Telephone: (843) 849-1692 Facsimile: (800) 385-8160 E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net - and - Jennifer Munter Stark, Esq. 210 Wingo Way #300 Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Telephone: (843) 972-0004 Facsimile: (843) 972-0006 E-mail: jmunterstarklaw@gmail.com HABITAT COMPANY: Sued in Ill. for Not Providing RLTO Summary ------------------------------------------------------------ Leann Gaines, individually and as representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. The Habitat Company LLC & Asbury Plaza Venture, LLLP, Case No.______ (Ill. Ch., October 5, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide Chicago tenants with the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO) Summary that is made for inspection and copying by the City of Chicago Commissioner of Department of Buildings, when rental agreements are initially offered and renewed. The Defendants own and operate a residential apartment building containing approximately 400 residential rental dwelling units located at 7 50 Dearborn, Chicago, Illinois 60611. The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron Krolik, Esq. AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.C. 225 W. Washington ST., Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 924-0278 Facsimile: (312) 650-8241 E-mail: aaron@securitydepositlaw.com - and - Mark Silverman, Esq. MARK SILVERMAN LAW OFFICE LTD. 225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 775-1015 Facsimile: (312) 256-2055 HIGHLAND COMMERCIAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Sui Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Alexis Daniel Cedeno, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Highland Commercial Roofing, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. BC596809 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 5, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Highland Commercial Roofing, Inc. is a commercial roofing contractor with a principal place of business in Baldwin Park, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory N. Karasik, Esq. KARASIK LAW FIRM 11835 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. 1275. Los Angeles, CA 90064 Telephone: (310)312-6800 Facsimile: (310)943-2582 E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com HILLS BANCORPORATION: Customer Action v. Unit Ongoing in Iowa ------------------------------------------------------------- Hills Bancorporation 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 Bank continues to defend a customer action in Iowa. On April 24, 2014, a suit was filed against the Bank in the Iowa District Court for Johnson County by a customer alleging that the fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in connection with its debit and ATM cards constitute unlawful interest in violation of Iowa's usury laws and that the collection of such interest violates the Iowa Debt Collection Practices Act. The suit seeks class-action status for Bank customers who have paid overdraft fees arising from debit or ATM card transactions on their consumer accounts. The Bank filed a motion to dismiss the case, which the Court denied. The Bank filed an application for interlocutory appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, which the Court denied. The parties and District Court have put the case on hold pending a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court in an appeal filed by West Bank on a similar issue under dispute in the Hills Bank case. At this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible for management of the Bank to determine the probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential loss. HORIZONTAL WIRELINE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Loren Hillebrandt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Horizontal Wireline Services LLC and Allied Wireline Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01307-JFC (W.D. Penn., October 7, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants provide services in the oil and gas industry and operate throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Hwy N. Ste. 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08107 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com - and - Don J. Foty, Esq. KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P. 711 W. Alabama Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (713) 523-0001 Facsimile: (713) 523-1116 E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com - and - Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC 920 Rockefeller Building 614 W. Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44113 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: anthony@lazzarolaw.com - and - Justin L. Swidler, Esq. SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC 1101 Kings Hwy N., Ste 402 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034 Telephone: (856) 685-7420 Facsimile: (856) 685-7417 HSBC BANK: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Ahmed" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Saber Ahmed, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HSBC Bank USA, National Association, Case No. 5:15-cv- 02057 (C.D. Cal., October 6, 2015) seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. HSBC Bank USA, National Association is a company in the business of lending money to consumers and collecting thereon. The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com INTERNATIONAL PAPER: No Class Cert. Materials Filed in Tenn. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company 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 no class certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee class action lawsuit. In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen Products LLC v. International Paper Company (N.D. Ill.). The complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004 through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase prices of containerboard products. The class is all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the period February 2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. In March 2015, the district court certified a class of direct purchasers of containerboard products; in June 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted the defendants' petition to appeal and the class certification issue is now pending in that court. In June 2015, International Paper and Temple-Inland were named as defendants in a lawsuit captioned Del Monte Fresh Product N.A., Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America (S.K. Fl.), in which the plaintiff asserts substantially similar allegations to those raised in the Kleen Products LLC action. Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs, including attorneys' fees. No class certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee action. "The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously defending each action. However, because the Kleen Products LLC action is in the discovery stage and the Florida action and the Tennessee action are in a preliminary stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible loss," the Company said. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Hearing on Final Settlement Approval Held -------------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company 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 hearing on final approval of the settlements was held in July 2015. Beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum board filed a number of purported class action complaints alleging civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple- Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The complaints were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of gypsum board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2) avoid price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes; and (3) restrict supply through downtime and limiting order fulfillment. On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement beginning on or before September 2011. The alleged classes are all persons who purchased gypsum board directly or indirectly from any defendant. The complainants seek to recover unspecified treble actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported classes. The Company said, "In February 2015, we executed a definitive agreement to settle these cases for an immaterial amount, which received preliminary court approval in March 2015. A hearing on final approval of the settlements was held in July 2015." INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Homebuilders' Antitrust Case Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company 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 several homebuilders filed on March 17, 2015, an antitrust action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that they purchased gypsum board and making similar allegations to those contained in the settled proceeding. The Company intends to dispute the allegations made and to vigorously defend that lawsuit and any lawsuit brought by any purported class member that elects to opt out of the settlement. INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Deal Reached to Settle Canadian Cases ---------------------------------------------------------- International Paper Company 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 September 2013, similar purported class actions were filed in courts in Quebec, Canada and Ontario, Canada, with each suit alleging violations of the Canadian Competition Act and seeking damages and injunctive relief. In May 2015, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle these Canadian cases for an immaterial amount. This settlement in principle is subject to negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement agreement, which would then be subject to court approval. TRUSTMARK CORP: Bids to Dismiss Stanford-Related Suit Still Open ---------------------------------------------------------------- Trustmark Corporation 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 court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motions to dismiss a second amended complaint. Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group. The first is a purported class action complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan C. Olano (collectively, "Class Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as defendants. The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford Financial Group") and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme. Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial. Plaintiffs did not quantify damages. In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. In May 2010, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee ("OSIC") to represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors. In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this action. In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues. In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one of the other defendant financial institutions. In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant financial institutions. The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii) punitive damages. The OSIC did not quantify damages. In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the OSIC's claims. In March 2015, the court entered an order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class certification and setting a deadline of October 5, 2015 for the parties to complete briefing on class certification issues. In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the OSIC's claims. The court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's fraudulent transfer claims. The court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss in all other regards. On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Class Action Complaint ("SAC"), which asserted new claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for aiding, abetting, and participating in (i) violations of the Texas Securities Act and (ii) breaches of fiduciary duty. On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the SAC. The Court has not yet ruled on the defendants' motions to dismiss the SAC. JIM FALK: Faces "Vuong" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- Hue Vuong and George Chen v. Jim Falk Lexus of Beverly Hills and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-0081 3118-CU-Wf- CJC (Cal., Super. Ct., October 5, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Jim Falk Lexus of Beverly Hills operates a Lexus dealership and repair shop in Beverly Hills, California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Alicen Burtness, Esq. Ronald E. Norman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF FARNELL & NORMAN 2020 Main Street, Suite 770 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 553-1300 Facsimile: (866) 600-2067 JM HOLLISTER: Faces "Wat" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cassandra Wat, on behalf of herself and all others similarly- situated v. J.M. Hollister, LLC d/b/a Hollister Company and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-06590-FPG (E.D.N.Y., October 12, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act. The Defendants own and operate a nationwide retail clothing company that operates hundreds of stores throughout the United States of America. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Palitz, Esq. Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C. 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328 Great Neck, NY 11021 Telephone: (516) 248-5550 Facsimile: (516) 248-6027 E-mail: mjp@employmentlawyernewyork.com atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces "Erami" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------------- Mitra Erami, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Case No. 2:15-CV-00727-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal., May 19, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. JPMorgan Chase Bank owns and operates retail banks in the Northern District of California. The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward J. Wynne, Esq. J.E.B. Pickett, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 100 Drakes Landing Road, Suite 275 Greenbrae, CA 94904 Telephone (415) 461-6400 Facsimile (415) 461-3900 E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com Jebpickett@wynnelawfirm.com KARINA GARCIA: Challenges Final Judgment Entered in Case --------------------------------------------------------- Karina Garcia, et al. on behalf of his or herself and as Class Representative on behalf of others similarly situated, filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the final judgment entered on September 15, 2015, including all interlocutory orders and rulings in the case. The appeals case is Karina Garcia, et al. v. Michael R. Bloomberg, et al., Case No. 1 l-CV-6957 (JSR). LEVEL 3: Continues to Defend Rights-of-Way Litigation ----------------------------------------------------- Level 3 Communications, 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 is party to a number of purported class action lawsuits involving its right to install fiber optic cable network in railroad right-of- ways adjacent to plaintiffs' land. In general, the Company obtained the rights to construct its networks from railroads, utilities, and others, and has installed its networks along the rights-of-way so granted. Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that they are the owners of lands over which the fiber optic cable networks pass, and that the railroads, utilities and others who granted the Company the right to construct and maintain its network did not have the legal authority to do so. The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as punitive damages. The Company has also received, and may in the future receive, claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to the issues in these cases that may be based on similar or different legal theories. The Company has defeated motions for class certification in a number of these actions but expects that, absent settlement of these actions, plaintiffs in the pending lawsuits will continue to seek certification of statewide or multi-state classes. The only lawsuit in which a class was certified against the Company, absent an agreed upon settlement, occurred in Koyle, et al. v. Level 3 Communications, Inc., et al., a purported two state class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho. The Koyle lawsuit has been dismissed pursuant to a settlement reached in November 2010. The Company negotiated a series of class settlements affecting all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which it has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Kingsborough v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement; however, on September 10, 2009, the court denied a motion for final approval of the settlement on the basis that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case. In November 2010, the Company negotiated revised settlement terms for a series of state class settlements affecting all persons who own or owned land next to or near railroad rights of way in which the Company has installed its fiber optic cable networks. The Company is currently pursuing presentment of the settlement in applicable jurisdictions. The settlements, affecting current and former landowners, have received final federal court approval in multiple states and the parties are engaged in the claims process for those states, including payments of claims. The settlement has also been presented to federal courts in additional states and approval is pending. Management believes that the Company has substantial defenses to the claims asserted in all of these actions and intends to defend them vigorously if a satisfactory settlement is not ultimately approved for all affected landowners. LIFETIME HEALTHCARE: Faces "Fisher" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------------- Patricia Fisher and Kenneth Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lifetime Healthcare, Inc. and Excellus Health Plan Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-06598 (W.D.N.Y., October 6, 2015) arises out of the cyber attack of Excellus information technology systems that compromised consumers' sensitive and confidential data entrusted to the Defendants, including full names, social security numbers/medical identification numbers, home addresses, telephone numbers, financial account information, claims information, dates of birth, clinical information, and other personal information. Lifetime Healthcare, Inc. is a New York domestic not-for-profit corporation headquartered at 165 Court Street, Rochester, New York 14647. Excellus Health Plan Inc. is non-profit health insurance plan, currently serving some 1.6 million members in more than 30 counties in upstate New York and is a licensee of the BlueCross and BlueShield Association. The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Preminger, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 770 Broadway, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (646) 495-6198 Facsimile: (646) 495-6197 E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohback.com - and - Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq. Gretchen Freeman, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com gcappio@kellerrohrback.com MAC PROS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Holley" Suit Claims ---------------------------------------------------------- Lynne Holley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Mac Pros Sales and Installation, Inc. d/b/a MacPro, Inc., and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:15-cv-07852 (C.D. Cal., October 7, 2015) seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. Mac Pros Sales and Installation, Inc. operates apple service, a sales center located at 12300 Washington Blvd., Suite R, Whittier, California 90606. The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. David L. Weisberg, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com david@kristensenlaw.com MERCK & CO: Defendant in 20 Active Vioxx Product Liability Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in approximately 20 active federal and state lawsuits (the "Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging personal injury as a result of the use of Vioxx. Most of these cases are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge Eldon E. Fallon. MERCK & CO: Vioxx Claims Review Process Recently Completed ---------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in approximately 30 putative class action lawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of the purchase of Vioxx. All but one of those cases are in the Vioxx MDL. Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Fallon, of these class actions in the Vioxx MDL. Under the settlement, Merck will pay up to $23 million to pay all properly documented claims submitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and approved settlement notice costs and certain other administrative expenses. The court entered an order approving the settlement in January 2014 and the claims review process was recently completed. MERCK & CO: January 2017 Trial Set in Vioxx Suit in Alaska ---------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General of three states -- Alaska, Montana and Utah. These actions were previously pending in the Vioxx MDL proceeding, but on October 10, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued an order remanding the actions back to their original federal courts. These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. On February 6, 2015, the federal district judge in Anchorage remanded the Alaska lawsuit to state court and a trial has been scheduled for January 2017. MERCK & CO: Sept. 2016 Trial Set in Vioxx Suit in Montana --------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General of three states -- Alaska, Montana and Utah. These actions were previously pending in the Vioxx MDL proceeding, but on October 10, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued an order remanding the actions back to their original federal courts. These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. On February 24, 2015, the federal district judge in Helena remanded the Montana lawsuit to state court and a trial has been scheduled for September 2016. MERCK & CO: Vioxx Suit in Utah Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------ Merck & Co., 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 Merck is a defendant in lawsuits brought by state Attorneys General of three states -- Alaska, Montana and Utah. These actions were previously pending in the Vioxx MDL proceeding, but on October 10, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") issued an order remanding the actions back to their original federal courts. These actions allege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seek recovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded health care programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for alleged Consumer Fraud Act violations. On July 28, 2015, the Utah lawsuit was remanded to Utah state court. MERCK & CO: Trial Begins in Vioxx Securities Lawsuits ----------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 trial in the Vioxx securities lawsuits was scheduled to begin on October 6, 2015. In addition to the Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits, various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under federal securities laws and state laws have been filed against Merck and various current and former officers and directors (the "Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R. Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes. In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint in the consolidated securities action. Among other things, the claims based on statements made on or after the voluntary withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed. In October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and, in January 2013, Judge Chesler granted that motion. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations to expand the class period. In May 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint to expand the class period, but granted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add certain allegations within the existing class period. In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. In July 2013, defendants answered the Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. Discovery has been completed and is now closed. On May 13, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions for summary judgment; the court granted judgment in defendants' favor on five of the alleged misstatements, including all statements prior to March 27, 2000, but denied the motion with respect to the remaining statements. The trial in this matter is currently scheduled to begin on October 6, 2015. There was a conference scheduled for August 11, 2015 before Judge Chesler to discuss the trial date. MERCK & CO: Direct Action Plaintiffs Must Amend Complaints ---------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 court has ordered certain of the so-called Direct Action plaintiffs to amend their complaints to properly allege their purchases of Merck securities. Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreign institutional investors also are consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed amended complaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits. Also in October 2011, an individual securities lawsuit (the "KBC Lawsuit," together with the prior individual actions, the "Direct Actions") was filed in the District of New Jersey by several foreign institutional investors; that case is also consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. In January 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss in one of the individual lawsuits (the "ABP Lawsuit"). Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed in March 2012. In August 2012, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss the ABP Lawsuit. Among other things, certain alleged misstatements and omissions were dismissed as inactionable and all state law claims were dismissed in full. In September 2012, defendants answered the complaints in all of the Direct Actions other than the KBC Lawsuit; on the same day, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit on statute of limitations grounds. In December 2012, Judge Chesler denied the motion to dismiss the KBC Lawsuit and, in January 2013, defendants answered the complaint in the KBC Lawsuit. Discovery has been completed in the Direct Actions and is now closed. On June 19, 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions for summary judgment; the court granted judgment in defendants' favor with respect to the same statements as in the class action and granted judgment in defendants' favor on the claims of certain plaintiff funds that did not suffer any losses, but otherwise denied the motion. The court has ordered certain of the Direct Action plaintiffs to amend their complaints to properly allege their purchases of Merck securities. MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Six Individual Securities Suits ---------------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 between March 2014 and February 2015, six additional individual securities complaints were filed by institutional investors that opted out of the class action. The new complaints are substantially similar to the complaints in the Direct Actions and are consolidated with the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits. Discovery in those actions is ongoing. The Company expects that the trial of these actions will be consolidated with the class action. MERCK & CO: 5,230 Fosamax Product Liability Cases Pending --------------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., Inc. remains a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Fosamax, the Company 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. As of June 30, 2015, approximately 5,230 cases had been filed and were pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including one case which seeks class action certification, as well as damages and/or medical monitoring. In approximately 580 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of Fosamax; however, substantially all of those actions are subject to a settlement. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,650 of these actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in association with the use of Fosamax. Cases Alleging ONJ and/or Other Jaw Related Injuries In August 2006, the JPML ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (the "Fosamax ONJ MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC") in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million. Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement ("ONJ Master Settlement Agreement") that was executed in April 2014. As a condition to the settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs had to agree to participate in the settlement plan or Merck could either terminate the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement, or waive the 100% participation requirement and agree to a lesser funding amount for the settlement fund. On July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the participation level was approximately 95%. In addition, the judge overseeing the Fosamax ONJ MDL granted a motion filed by Merck and has entered an order that requires the approximately 40 non- participants whose cases will remain in the Fosamax ONJ MDL once the settlement is complete to submit expert reports in order for their cases to proceed any further. The ONJ Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures. MERCK & CO: 1,040 Cases Pending in Femur Fracture MDL ----------------------------------------------------- As of June 30, 2015, approximately 1,040 cases were pending in the Femur Fracture MDL against Merck & Co., Inc., the Company 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. In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to the JPML seeking to have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and all federal cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have been or will be transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the District of New Jersey (the "Femur Fracture MDL"). Judge Pisano presided over the Femur Fracture MDL until March 10, 2015, at which time the Femur Fracture MDL was reassigned from Judge Pisano to Judge Freda L. Wolfson following Judge Pisano's retirement. In the only bellwether case tried to date in the Femur Fracture MDL, Glynn v. Merck, the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor. In addition, on June 27, 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in the Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim was preempted by federal law. In August 2013, the Femur Fracture MDL court entered an order requiring plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury that took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be dismissed based on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn case. Pursuant to the show cause order, on March 26, 2014, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed with prejudice approximately 650 cases on preemption grounds. Plaintiffs in approximately 500 of those cases are appealing that decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In June 2015, the Femur Fracture MDL court dismissed without prejudice another approximately 520 cases pending plaintiffs' appeal of the preemption ruling to the Third Circuit. As of June 30, 2015, approximately 1,040 cases were pending in the Femur Fracture MDL including the 500 cases dismissed with prejudice on preemption grounds which are pending appeal and the 520 cases dismissed without prejudice. On June 17, 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary judgment in the Gaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck's updates in January 2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures were adequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicated those changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor have appealed Judge Pisano's decision to the Third Circuit. In August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisano enter a further order requiring all plaintiffs in the Femur Fracture MDL who claim that the 2011 Fosamax label is inadequate and the proximate cause of their alleged injuries to show cause why their cases should not be dismissed based on the court's preemption decision and its ruling in the Gaynor case. In November 2014, the court granted Merck's motion and entered the requested show cause order. MERCK & CO: 3,095 Cases Alleging Femur Fractures Pending in NJ -------------------------------------------------------------- As of June 30, 2015, approximately 3,095 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in New Jersey state court against Merck & Co., Inc., the Company 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. The cases are pending before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. The parties selected an initial group of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. MERCK & CO: 510 Cases Over Femur Fractures Ongoing in California ---------------------------------------------------------------- As of June 30, 2015, approximately 510 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed in California state court against Merck & Co., Inc., the Company 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. A petition was filed seeking to coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in California state court before a single judge in Orange County, California. The petition was granted and Judge Thierry Colaw is currently presiding over the coordinated proceedings. In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10 discovery pool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and subsequently scheduled the Galper v. Merck case, which plaintiffs' selected, as the first trial. The Galper trial began on February 17, 2015 and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor on April 3, 2015. There are presently no trial ready cases in California. MERCK & CO: Discovery Ongoing in Femur Fracture MDL --------------------------------------------------- Merck & Co., 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 there are six Femur Fracture cases pending in other state courts. Discovery is ongoing in the Femur Fracture MDL and in state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. MERCK & CO: 915 Januvia/Janumet User Claims Pending --------------------------------------------------- As of June 30, 2015, approximately 915 product user claims were served on, and are pending against, Merck & Co., Inc. related to the use of Januvia and/or Janumet, the Company 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. Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of June 30, 2015, approximately 915 product user claims were served on, and are pending against, Merck alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer. These complaints were filed in several different state and federal courts. Most of the claims are pending in a consolidated multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California called "In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products Liability Litigation." That proceeding includes federal lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the following medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of which are products manufactured by other pharmaceutical companies. In addition, the Company has agreed, as of June 30, 2015, to toll the statute of limitations for approximately 20 additional claims. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. MERCK & CO: 14 Cases Pending Outside of NuvaRing Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------- As of June 30, 2015, there were 14 cases pending outside of the settlement program related to NuvaRing, Merck & Co., 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. Beginning in May 2007, a number of product liability complaints were filed in various jurisdictions asserting claims against the Company and its subsidiaries relating to NuvaRing, a combined hormonal contraceptive vaginal ring. The plaintiffs contend the Company, among other things, failed to adequately design and manufacture NuvaRing and failed to adequately warn of the alleged increased risk of venous thromboembolism ("VTE") posed by NuvaRing, and/or downplayed the risk of VTE. The plaintiffs seek damages for injuries allegedly sustained from their product use, including some alleged deaths, heart attacks and strokes. The majority of the cases were pending in a federal multidistrict litigation venued in Missouri. Pursuant to a settlement agreement between Merck and negotiating plaintiffs' counsel, which became effective as of June 4, 2014, Merck paid a lump total settlement of $100 million to resolve more than 95% of the cases filed and under retainer by counsel as of February 7, 2014. Plaintiffs in approximately 3,700 cases joined the settlement program. Each filed case is to be dismissed with prejudice once the settlement administration process is completed. Those dismissals began in the second quarter and will continue on a rolling basis throughout 2015. The Company has certain insurance coverage available to it, which is currently being used to partially fund the Company's legal fees. This insurance coverage was also used to fund the settlement. As of June 30, 2015, there were 14 cases pending outside of the settlement program, inclusive of cases filed after the settlement program closed. Of these cases, 11 are pending in the MDL and are subject to the case management orders requiring plaintiffs to meet various discovery and evidentiary requirements. As of June 30, 2015, six plaintiffs have met those requirements and will be permitted to continue to prosecute their cases. MERCK & CO: 1,390 Suits Filed Related to Propecia and Proscar ------------------------------------------------------------- As of June 30, 2015, approximately 1,390 lawsuits have been filed related to Propecia/Proscar against Merck & Co., Inc., the Company 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. Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. As of June 30, 2015, approximately 1,390 lawsuits involving a total of approximately 1,700 plaintiffs (in a few instances spouses are joined as plaintiffs in the suits) who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/or Proscar have been filed against Merck. Approximately 60 of the plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or can cause prostate cancer, testicular cancer or male breast cancer. The lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and in state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey have been consolidated before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County. In addition, there is one matter pending in state court in Massachusetts. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits. NOVANT HEALTH: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Kruger" Action ------------------------------------------------------ District Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. of the United States District Court for Middle District of North Carolina denied Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, KAROLYN KRUGER, M.D., CANDACE CULTON, FRANCES BAILLIE, EILEEN SCHNEIDER, JUDY LEWIS, LINDA CHRISTENSEN, and TERESA POWELL, individually as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Novant Health Retirement Plus Plan, Plaintiffs, v. NOVANT HEALTH, INC., ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF NOVANT HEALTH, INC., NOVANT HEALTH RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-40, Defendants, Case No. 1:14CV208. Karolyn Kruger, Candace Culton, Frances Baillie, Eileen Schneider, Judy Lewis, Linda Christensen, and Teresa Powell filed the class- action lawsuit on March 12, 2014, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(2) and (3) on behalf of the Tax Deferred Savings Plan of Novant Health, Inc., and the Savings and Supplemental Retirement Plan of Novant Health, Inc. Plaintiffs, all former or current employees of Novant, are residents of North Carolina and are all participants in the Plan. Novant is a North Carolina corporation comprised of member hospitals, medical centers, and outpatient surgery centers throughout North Carolina, South Carolina, and parts of Virginia. Plaintiffs specifically allege that Defendants breached their duties by retaining the higher fee share class investment options in the Plan when far lower cost funds with the identical managers, investments styles, and stocks were available. . . . Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to consider those lower cost funds with the identical managers, investments styles, and stocks where available. Plaintiffs assert five causes of action alleging breach of fiduciary duties by Defendants in their payment of excessive fees stemming from (1) imprudent investments in unnecessarily expensive funds and (2) overpayment to two service providers, Great-West and Davis. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that Defendants breached their fiduciary duty when the Plan offered only retail class shares to participants when identical, less expensive, institutional class shares of the same funds were available. Plaintiffs allege that the Plan is comprised of a very large pool of assets and that retirement plans of such size have the ability to obtain institutional class shares of mutual funds. In the motion, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have not alleged facts regarding why the amount of the recordkeeping fees are excessive, the services provided, or how the fees charged to the Plan were excessive in light of those services. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order Order dated September 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/YwxOABfrom Leagle.com, Judge Osteen, Jr. found that the types of facts presented by the parties warrant discovery and dismissal is not appropriate at the stage of the case. Plaintiffs are represented by Jerome J. Schlichter, Esq. -- jschlichter@uselaws.com -- Heather Lea, Esq. -- hlea@uselaws.com -- Michael A. Wolff, Esq. -- nwolff@uselaws.com -- Sean E. Soyars, Esq. -- ssoyars@uselaws.com -- Troy A. Doles, Esq. -- tdoles@uselaws.com -- SCHLICHTER BOGARD & DENTON & Robert M. Elliot, Esq. -- rmelliot@emplawfirm.com -- ELLIOT MORGAN PARSONAGE, P.A. Defendants are represented by Alexandra S. Tuffuor, Esq. -- atuffuor@morganlewis.com -- Charles C. Jackson, Esq. -- charles.jackson@morganlewis.com -- Christopher J. Boran, Esq. -- cboran@morganlewis.com -- Emily A. Glunz, Esq. -- eglunz@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP, Jennifer K. Van Zant, Esq. -- jvanzant@brookspierce.com -- Justin Nathaniel Outling, Esq. -- joutling@brookspierce.com -- BROOKS PIERCE MCLENDON HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP OILS UNKUT: "Terry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Lakeisha Terry, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v. Oils Unkut Corporation and Tillman Hughes, Case No. 1:15-cv- 03527-AT (N.D. Ga., October 5, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Oils Unkut Corporation is a Georgia Corporation that sells a wide variety of natural products such as butters, soaps, and hair products. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 Facsimile: (407) 245-3401 E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com PASCHALL TRUCK: Court Rejects Settlement in Grok Lines Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Edmond E. Chang of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Plaintiff's motion for approval of a settlement agreement in the case captioned, GROK LINES, INC., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PASCHALL TRUCK LINES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14 C 08033. Plaintiff Grok Lines, Inc., through its attorneys Siprut PC, filed a class-action lawsuit brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) alleging that freight-carrier Paschall sent unsolicited junk-marketing faxes to Grok Lines and numerous other unwilling recipients. After the Court dismissed a state-law claim for failure to state an adequate claim, and rejected Paschall's argument that, on the pleadings, its faxes did not constitute unlawful advertisement, the parties embarked on discovery. Under the terms of the deal, Grok Lines would get $1,500 and Grok Lines' attorneys, Siprut PC, would get $98,500. The class members would get zero money. The class would only get injunctive relief in the form of promises from Paschall not to violate the TCPA and to take steps to avoid future violations. In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 18, 2015 available at http://is.gd/O1MlzGfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chang found that the proposed agreement's division of settlement funds does not satisfy the requirements, as established by the Seventh Circuit, for a reasonable ratio of attorney's fees to class-member recovery because it is unfair, unreasonable, and inadequate, and it cannot be approved. The Court was slated to hold a status hearing on the case for October 14, 2015. The parties were required to report on the progress of settlement negotiations at the hearing. Grok Lines, Inc. is represented by Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- Ismael Tariq Salam, Esq. -- isalam@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC Paschall Truck Lines, Inc. is represented by Adam Carl Smedstad, Esq. -- asmedstad@scopelitis.com -- Christopher J. Eckhart, Esq. -- ceckhart@scopelitis.com -- SCOPELITIS GARVIN LIGHT HANSON & FEARY, PC PELICAN, ALASKA: Judgment in "Tagaban" Case Upheld -------------------------------------------------- Chief Justice Dana Fabe of the Supreme Court of Alaska affirmed a superior court's conclusion that the City of Pelican was not required to issue redemption notice under AS 29.45.440 in the case captioned, CLIFFORD W. TAGABAN, Appellant, v. CITY OF PELICAN, Appellee, Case No. S-10514, S-15253, (CONSOLIDATED), No. 7049. The Court also affirmed the award of Rule 68 attorney's fees and vacated a fee award under Rule 82. Plaintiff Clifford Tagaban served as a representative for a class that filed suit against the Kake Tribal Corporation for alleged foreclosure of parcels of land against which he had a judicial lien without giving proper notice. In 1998 Tagaban was awarded a judgment against the Kake Tribal Corporation, and the next year he recorded this judgment as a ten-year lien against parcels of property the Corporation owned. Tagaban requested and received lien extensions from the superior court in 2008 and 2009, though he did not record the second lien extension until 2012. The City foreclosed upon the parcels in August 2010. Although the City's counsel notified Tagaban's counsel of the foreclosure via email in October 2010, eleven months before the redemption period ended, Tagaban filed suit to challenge the City's lack of formal foreclosure and redemption notice to him as well as the constitutionality of Alaska's foreclosure and redemption notice statutes. In May 2012 Tagaban moved for summary judgment, and the City opposed and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in June. The City challenged the validity of the lien extensions. Superior Court Judge William B. Carey denied Tagaban's motion and granted the City's motion for summary judgment, concluding that courts do not have the authority to extend judgment liens beyond the ten years allowed by statute. The superior court awarded attorney's fees to the City under both Rule 68 and Rule 82. On appeal, Tagaban raises 14 claims, asserting the City's lack of notice to him of the foreclosure and expiration of the redemption period. He also challenges the constitutionality of Alaska's foreclosure and redemption notice statutes. Tagaban contends that the lien extensions were valid, asserting that he had an ongoing interest in the property so that the City should have provided foreclosure and redemption notice to him. Tagaban also challenges the City's foreclosure and redemption dollar value calculations and the superior court's award of attorney's fees and that he superior court erred in making two awards of attorney's fees against him. In the Opinion dated September 18, 2015 available at http://is.gd/lcryE5from Leagle.com, Judge Fabe concluded that the superior court's judgment is appropriate with respect to the foreclosure and redemption notice issues because the City was not constitutionally required to provide Tagaban with personal notice of the foreclosure and because Tagaban did not timely record his second purported lien extension sufficient to warrant redemption notice and the Rule 68 attorney's fees because the City prevailed against Tagaban in his individual capacity not in his capacity as class representative on summary judgment. The Rule 82(b) fees should not have been awarded for the time the City spent litigating Tagaban's standing to sue as a class representative because Rule 82 fees are only appropriate for fees incurred in litigating the merits of the named plaintiff's own claim. Plaintiffs are represented by: Fred W. Triem, Esq. 18 Fram St Petersburg, AK 99833 Tel: (907)772-3911 Defendant is represented by: Vance A. Sanders, Esq. Margot Knuth, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF VANCE A. SANDERS, LLC PO Box 240090 Douglas, AK 99824 Tel: (907)586-1648 - and - Aesha Pallesen, Esq. ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Craig W. Richards, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL PFIZER INC: Bid to Dismiss End-Payers' Remaining Claims Ongoing --------------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims in the antitrust actions. Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR, and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs' claims based on the litigation settlement agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Motions to dismiss remain pending as to the end-payer plaintiffs' remaining claims. PFIZER INC: Lipitor Marketing Lawsuits Still Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 number of individual and multi- plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against the Company in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2 diabetes as a result of the purported ingestion of Lipitor. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre- trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. PFIZER INC: Chantix/Champix Class Actions in Canada Ongoing ----------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 the Company continues to defend class actions lawsuits in Canada related to Chantix/Champix. Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, and the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Champix. Each of these actions asserts claims under Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the safety and efficacy of Champix, and, on behalf of the putative class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages. In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31, 2010 and who experienced at least one of a number of specified neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation as the result of their relationship with a class member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action, which is proceeding on a national basis. PFIZER INC: Celebrex Class Actions in E.D. Va. Still Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ Pfizer 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 the Company continues to defend class actions related to Celebrex. Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex. The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham litigation, and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of the actions seeks treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014. In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payer cases, and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015. In October 2014 and March 2015, the Company filed motions to dismiss the direct purchasers' and end-payers' amended complaints, respectively. PFIZER INC: Settlement in Off-Label Promotion Action Okayed ----------------------------------------------------------- Pfizer 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 the court has approved a settlement related to the "Various Drugs: Off-Label Promotion Action." The Company said, "In May 2010, a purported class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Pfizer and several of our current and former officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by making or causing Pfizer to make false statements, and by failing to disclose or causing Pfizer to fail to disclose material information concerning the alleged off-label promotion of certain pharmaceutical products, alleged payments to physicians to promote the sale of those products and government investigations related thereto. Plaintiffs seek damages in an unspecified amount." "In March 2012, the court certified a class consisting of all persons who purchased Pfizer common stock in the U.S. or on U.S. stock exchanges between January 19, 2006 and January 23, 2009 and were damaged as a result of the decline in the price of Pfizer common stock allegedly attributable to the claimed violations. In January 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter for $400 million. In July 2015, the court approved the settlement." PHILLIPS 66: Must Defend Against "Stubbs" Labor Suit ---------------------------------------------------- Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the United States District Court for Northern District of California denied Defendants' motion to dismiss and granted motion for leave to amend in the case captioned, ANTHONY STUBBS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COVENANT SECURITY SERVICES, LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:14-CV-1154-J-32MCR. Plaintiff Anthony Stubbs, Jr. filed a putative wage and hour class action against Covenant Security Services Ltd, Covenant Security Systems LLC, and Covenant Security Worldwide LLC and Phillips 66 Company to recover wages, civil penalties and all other available relief under California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 and the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code sections 2698, et seq. (PAGA). The action is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs, the State of California, and all persons that are or were employed by Defendants as hourly-paid, non-exempt employees, and who suffered one or more of the Labor Code violations set forth in the complaint. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to provide required meal and rest breaks or to pay required premiums for missed breaks, in violation of California law. They assert the following claims against all defendants in the FAC: 1) Violation of California Labor Code Sections 226.7 & 512(a) (Unpaid Meal Period Premiums); 2) Violation of California Labor Code Sec. 226.7 (Unpaid Rest Period Premiums); 3) Violation of California Labor Code; 4) Violation of California Labor Code; 5) Violation of Labor Code (PAGA); and 6) Violation of California Business & Professions Code. In the motion, Phillips 66 asserts that all of Plaintiffs' claims fail because to prevail upon them, Plaintiffs must establish that Phillips 66 is their employer and they have not adequately alleged that under California law they have an employee-employer relationship with Phillips 66. Plaintiffs contend their allegations are sufficient to show that Phillips 66 was a common law employer and/or a joint employer. In his Order dated September 16, 2015 available at http://is.gd/REuIl8from Leagle.com, Judge Spero concluded that it is in the interests of justice to permit Plaintiffs to file their Second Amended Complaint (SAC), it evaluates Plaintiffs' allegations in the SAC with respect to the question of whether Phillips 66 was their employer. The dismissal of the complaint is unwarranted because Plaintiffs have alleged specific facts indicating that they actually work at Phillips 66 facilities and that Phillips 66 exercises significant day-to-day control over their work. Plaintiffs are represented by: Roxanne Allyson Davis, Esq. Frank aka Farzin Hakim, Esq. DAVIS GAVSIE HAKIM, LLP 1755 Ocean Ave #511, Santa Monica, CA 90401 Tel: (310)899-2059 Defendants are represented by Jeremy T. Naftel, Esq. -- jnaftel@cdflaborlaw.com -- Nicole A. Legrottaglie, Esq. -- nlegrottaglie@cdflaborlaw.com -- CAROTHERS DISANTE FREUDENBERGER LLP RENTECH NITROGEN: Faces "Sloan" Suit Over Proposed CVR Merger ------------------------------------------------------------- Jesse Sloan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Rentech Nitrogen Partners, LP, et al., Case No. 2:15- cv-07818 (N.D. Cal., October 6, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public unit-holders of Rentech Nitrogen Partners to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Rentech by CVR Partners, LP by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price. Rentech Nitrogen Partners, LP is a nitrogen fertilizer company formed by Rentech, Inc. as a publicly traded master limited partnership. CVR Partners, LP owns, operates, and grows a nitrogen fertilizer business and produces, amongst other things, ammonia and urea ammonium nitrate fertilizers. The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan J. Smith, Esquire BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 534-2590 Facsimile: (610) 667-9029 E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Morning Song Bird Food Case in Early Stages --------------------------------------------------------------- The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company continues to defend the Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, which remains in the early stages, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 27, 2015. In connection with the sale of wild bird food products that were the subject of a voluntary recall in 2008, the Company has been named as a defendant in four putative class actions filed on and after June 27, 2012, which have now been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California as In re Morning Song Bird Food Litigation, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-01592-JAH-RBB. The plaintiffs allege various statutory and common law claims associated with the Company's sale of wild bird food products and a plea agreement entered into in previously pending government proceedings associated with such sales. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, a purported class action on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased certain bird food products. The plaintiffs assert hundreds of millions of dollars in monetary damages (actual, compensatory, consequential, punitive, and treble); reimbursement, restitution, and disgorgement for benefits unjustly conferred; injunctive and declaratory relief; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and costs and attorneys' fees. The Company disputes the plaintiffs' assertions and intends to vigorously defend the consolidated action. Given the early stages of the action, it is not currently possible to reasonably estimate a probable loss, if any, associated with the action and, accordingly, no reserves have been recorded in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements with respect to the action. There can be no assurance that this action, whether as a result of an adverse outcome or as a result of significant defense costs, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. STAR DIE: Faces "Luna" Suit in Cal. Over Gender Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- Sara Luna v. Star Die Castings Manufacturing, Inc., Sam Deep, and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. BC596184 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex. Star Die Castings Manufacturing, Inc. is a California corporation that manufactures iron and steel products. The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcelo A. Dieguez, Esq. DIEFER LAW GROUP, P.C. 2030 Main Street, Suite 1300 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949)260-9131 - and - Jerry D. Underwood, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JERRY D.UNDERWOOD, A.P.C. 5241 E. Santa Ana CanyonRoad, Suite 135 Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Telephone: (714) 998-9802 SURVEY SAMPLING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Bell" Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- April Bell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Survey Sampling International, LLC, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:15-cv-07851-RSWL-KLS (C.D. Cal., October 7, 2015) seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of contacting the Plaintiff and Class members on their cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system. Survey Sampling International, LLC is a global provider of sampling solutions for survey research with headquarters in Shelton, Connecticut. The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. David L. Weisberg, Esq. KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP 12304 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (310) 507-7924 Facsimile: (310) 507-7906 E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com david@kristensenlaw.com - and - Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 324 S. Beverly Dr., #725 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (877) 206-4741 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com THOMSON REUTERS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Furey" Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip Furey, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Thomson Reuters America Corporation, Reuters America LLC, and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 4:15-cv-04633- KAW (N.D. Cal., October 6, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide Journalist with the basic wage-and-hour rights and protections guaranteed to employees by the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders. The Defendants operate a news service organization throughout the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. Karl P. Evangelista, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF C. JOE SAYAS, JR. 500 N. Brand Boulevard, Suite 980 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 291-0088 Facsimile: (818) 240-9955 - and - Alvin M. Gomez, Esq. GOMEZ LAW GROUP 853 Camino Del Mar, #100 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (858) 552-0000 Facsimile: (858) 552-8505 TOTAL SYSTEM: Briefing on ProPay's Motion to Dismiss Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ Total System Services, 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 briefing on ProPay's motion to dismiss a second amended class action complaint is not expected to be completed before October 2015. ProPay, Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to the activities of Telexfree, Inc. and its affiliates and principals. Telexfree is a former merchant customer of ProPay. With regard to Telexfree, each purported class action lawsuit generally alleges that Telexfree engaged in an improper multi-tier marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor defendants, including ProPay, knowingly furthered the improper activities of Telexfree with knowledge that Telexfree did not have legitimate business operations. Telexfree filed for bankruptcy protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy was subsequently transferred to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court. Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the following purported class action complaints relating to Telexfree: (i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No. BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May 15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v. Telexelectric, LLLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG), filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere, et al. v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO), filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (together, the "Actions"). A motion to consolidate the Actions was filed by one of the plaintiffs. On October 21, 2014, the Actions were transferred to and consolidated before the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. After the consolidation motion was filed, an additional class action complaint was filed on August 20, 2014, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-04080). The Ferrari action was later transferred to the District of Massachusetts. To date, ProPay has not been served with the Ferrari complaint. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of the putative class of plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 31, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint purports to bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased certain TelexFree "memberships" and suffered a "net loss" between January 1, 2012 and April 16, 2014. The Consolidated Complaint supersedes the complaints filed prior to consolidation of the Actions, and alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing payment processing services to TelexFree. On April 30, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which amends and supersedes the Consolidated Complaint. Like the Consolidated Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing payment processing services to TelexFree. ProPay moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on June 2, 2015. Briefing on that motion is not expected to be completed before October 2015. At present, pursuant to a court order, all discovery in the action is stayed pending the resolution of parallel criminal proceedings against certain former principals of TelexFree, Inc. TRANSCOR AMERICA: Court Rules on Motion for Judgment on Pleadings ----------------------------------------------------------------- District Judge Kevin H. Sharp of the United States District Court for Middle District of Tennessee ruled on defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned, RUBEN CEDILLO, et al., Plaintiff, v. TRANSCOR AMERICA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-00869. On April 8, 2013, the named Plaintiffs filed a class action Complaint in the Northern District of California. The court granted TransCor's motion to transfer venue to the Middle District of Tennessee, finding that while either venue was generally proper, Tennessee was more convenient as the location of TransCor's headquarters, non-party witnesses, and relevant documents. The case was transferred on August 29, 2013. Plaintiffs claim Defendant used excessive force against Plaintiffs and deprived Plaintiffs, and all those similarly situated, of "the minimal civilized measure of life's necessities, including sleep, exercise, hygiene and medical care" in violation of their rights under the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to be free from unlawful conditions of confinement, the use of excessive force, and cruel and unusual punishment. In the motion, Plaintiffs rely on the Schilling class representatives and have characterized the underlying facts in the case as a "subset" of the Schilling facts. In his Memorandum dated September 16, 2015 available at http://is.gd/fxzpoWfrom Leagle.com, Judge Sharp concluded that Plaintiff Houston's individual claim is dismissed as time-barred because res judicata bars relitigation of the class claims. The individual claims of the other Named Plaintiffs are timely and the Motion is denied insofar as it seeks to dismiss them. Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Charles Schwartz, Esq. CASPER MEADOWS SCHWARTZ & COOK 2121 N California Blvd #1020, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Tel: (925)-947-1147 - and - Karen Leigh Snell, Esq. Mark E. Merin, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN 1010 F St #300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Tel: (916) 443-6911 Transcor America LLC is represented by: Daniel P. Struck, Esq. STRUCK WIENEKE & LOVE PLC 3100 W Ray Rd # 300, Chandler, AZ 85226 Tel: (480)420-1600 - and - Jason W. Callen, Esq. -- jason.callen@butlersnow.com -- Erin Palmer Polly, Esq. -- erin.polly@butlersnow.com -- Joseph F. Welborn, III, Esq. -- joe.welborn@butlersnow.com -- Lauren Patten, Esq. -- lauren.patten@butlersnow.com -- BUTLER SNOW LLP TRINIDAD DRILLING: Faces "Ceniceros" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- Moises Ceniceros, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Trinidad Drilling, LP, Case No. 5:15-cv-00859 (N.D. Tex., October 3, 2015) is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week. Trinidad Drilling, LP owns and operates an oil and gas services company in Texas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremi K. Young, Esq. Rachael Rustmann, Esq. THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C. 1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200 Amarillo, TX 79101 Telephone: (806) 331-1800 Facsimile: (806) 398-9095 E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com rachael@youngfirm.com TRUSTMARK CORP: 2nd Stanford-Related Suit in Preliminary Stages --------------------------------------------------------------- Trustmark Corporation 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 second Stanford- related lawsuit is in the preliminary stages. The second Stanford-related lawsuit was filed on December 14, 2009 in the District Court of Ascension Parish, Louisiana, individually by Harold Jackson, Paul Blaine, Carolyn Bass Smith, Christine Nichols, and Ronald and Ramona Hebert naming TNB (misnamed as Trust National Bank) and other individuals and entities not affiliated with Trustmark as defendants. The complaint seeks to recover the money lost by these individual plaintiffs as a result of the collapse of the Stanford Financial Group (in addition to other damages) under various theories and causes of action, including negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental reliance, conspiracy, and violation of Louisiana's uniform fiduciary, securities, and racketeering laws. The complaint does not quantify the amount of money the plaintiffs seek to recover. In January 2010, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. On March 29, 2010, the court stayed the case. TNB filed a motion to lift the stay, which was denied on February 28, 2012. In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial issues. TNB's relationship with the Stanford Financial Group began as a result of Trustmark's acquisition of a Houston-based bank in August 2006, and consisted of correspondent banking and other traditional banking services in the ordinary course of business. Both Stanford-related lawsuits are in their preliminary stages and have been previously disclosed by Trustmark. UNITED STATES: No Extra Pay to Lead Plaintiff in "Cobell" Case -------------------------------------------------------------- Circuit Judge Patricia Ann Millett of the Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of additional compensation for expenses for the lead plaintiff, Elouise Cobell and remanded the case to the district court in the case captioned, ELOUISE PEPION COBELL, ET AL., Appellants, v. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ET AL., Appellees, Case No. 14-5119. Five named plaintiffs (Class Representatives) initiated a class action lawsuit in 1996 seeking to compel the United States Department of the Interior to perform a historical accounting of the hundreds of millions of dollars held by the Department in trust for Native Americans. That accounting was required by the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. In January 2011, the plaintiffs filed both a Petition for Class Counsel's Fees, Expenses and Costs Through Settlement, and a Petition for Class Representatives' Incentive Awards and Expenses. In the Attorneys' Fees Petition, the plaintiffs requested $99.9 million in attorneys' fees "in accordance with the literal provisions" of the Fee Agreement, but argued "that a fee award of $223 million, plus expenses and costs of $1,276,598, is in accordance with controlling law and within this Court's discretion." The government argued that the total award should be limited to $50 million. The court granted four of the Class Representatives a total of $2.5 million in incentive awards. But the court denied their separate request for reimbursement of expenses and costs. With respect to the $390,000 that Ms. Cobell said she had spent out of her personal funds, the district court ruled that amount should be reimbursed "out of her sizeable" $2 million "incentive award." The court then denied the additional $10.5 million in requested expenses on the ground that the expenses were not incurred by the Class Representatives, and the court otherwise lacked authority to award expenses paid by third parties. The court also awarded $99 million in "attorneys' fees, expenses and costs. Almost three years after the motion for reconsideration was originally filed, the district court denied reconsideration and declined to consider as untimely raised an argument that the Settlement Agreement provided for payment of third party costs and expenses wholly independent of, and in addition to, expenses and costs of Class Counsel. On the eleventh appeal, the class action representatives challenged the district court's denial of compensation for expenses incurred during the litigation and settlement process. They argued both that (i) the Class Representatives were personally liable for much of the expenses they sought to recover, and (ii) even if the expenses were not attributable to the Class Representatives, the Settlement Agreement permits the payment of costs and expenses of third parties wholly independent of the costs and expenses of Class Counsel. In the Decision dated September 18, 2015 available at http://is.gd/7d5Syqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Millett found that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied compensation to the Plaintiffs for expenses incurred during the litigation and settlement process. The Court held that the district court erred in categorically rejecting as procedurally barred the class representatives' claim for the recovery of third- party payments, and remand for the district court to apply its accumulated expertise and discretion to the question of whether third-party compensation can and should be paid under the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs are represented by David C. Smith, Esq. -- dsmith@stjlawfirm.com -- William E. Dorris, Esq. -- Bdorris@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Adam H. Charnes, Esq. -- Acharnes@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Elizabeth L. Winters, Esq. -- BWinters@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Defendants are represented by Alisa B. Klein, Esq. Ronald C. Machen, Jr., Esq. Beth S. Brinkmann, Esq. Mark B. Stern, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE UNITED STATES: Veterans Affairs Wins Summary Judgment ----------------------------------------------------- District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District for the District of Columbia granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiff's cross-motion in the case captioned, LEON MARYLAND, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-1318(RMC). Leon Maryland, proceeding pro se, brings suit against the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), Center for Verification and Evaluations (CVE) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552, seeking the release of records relating to the VA website that serves as a federal government portal for veteran- owned businesses, https://www.vip.vetbiz.gov/. Mr. Maryland has repeatedly requested "information regarding businesses that have applied, or have applications pending, for verification. This includes those businesses that have been approved or denied, or that have withdrawn from, or been cancelled from, the verification program. Only two of Mr. Maryland's FOIA requests are the subject of this action: a FOIA request dated August 13, 2013 with an addendum dated August 22, 2013 (collectively, the August 2013 Request) which CVE assigned tracking number 13-06522-F, and a FOIA request dated November 5, 2014 (November 2014 Request) which CVE assigned tracking number 15-00846-F. After the Court declined to approve a prior proposed settlement, the parties negotiated a new proposed settlement which covers all Plaintiffs still actively engaged in this litigation. The new Settlement's essential terms are: -- Pulaski will pay $134,611.95 into a gross settlement fund. -- Plaintiffs' counsel will request 25% of the gross amount of the fund ($33,652.99) as attorneys' fees, plus an additional $6,176.01 for reimbursement of costs and expenses. -- Pulaski agrees not to oppose Plaintiffs' counsel's application for these fees and expenses. -- Named Plaintiff Todd Branson will receive a modest $2,000 service award for his work prosecuting this case on behalf of the class. -- The remaining $92,782.95 will be distributed to the 28 Plaintiffs on a pro rata basis by multiplying each employee's number of weeks employed during the applicable period by the per- week value of the employee's work. The amounts received by each individual Plaintiff will vary, but the per capita average recovery will be $3,314. In her Opinion dated September 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Z2TwCyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Collyer found that Mr. Maryland failed to include his allegations that CVE improperly withheld the email addresses of submitters that reveal personal names in the Second Amended Complaint, thereby waiving them. Mr. Maryland also failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to it and the issue is therefore not subject to judicial review when he failed to appeal CVE's determination on the issue to OGC. USHEALTH GROUP: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Ads, Action Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Walter Stratton Bagg, Esq. and Cooper Law P.A, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. USHealth Group, Inc. and USHealth Advisors, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-01666-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla., October 5, 2015) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of sending a noncompliant facsimile advertisement to the telephone facsimile machine of the Plaintiffs and other entities that do not contain the requisite opt-out notice. The Defendants are in the business of selling individual health insurance plans and supplementary products for self-employed individuals and small business owners in the United States. The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Heller, Esq, Joshua A. Glickman, Esq. SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL P.O. Box 70327 Telephone: (202) 709-5744 E-mail: shawn@sjlawcollective.com josh@sjlawcollective.com - and - Peter Bennett, Esq. Richard Bennett, Esq. BENNETT & BENNETT 1200 Anastasia Avenue, Ofc 360 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 444-5925 E-mail: peterbennettlaw@gmail.com richardbennett27@gmail.com VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Pablo Arteaga Ramirez on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Valleycrest Landscape Maintenance, Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC596738 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 5, 2015) is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Valleycrest Landscape Maintenance, Inc. is a California corporation engaged in providing landscape services to residential, commercial and industrial properties in California. The Plaintiff is represented by: James R. Hawkins, Esq. Isandra Fernandez, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949)387-6676 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fiorelli" Suit Over Defeat Devices ----------------------------------------------------------- Karen Fiorelli, Steven C. Mendoza, Martin Schmidt, Paul Sacamano, Deborah McCrohon and Wendy Branzburg, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-07330-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional and deceptive installation of computer software and "defeat devices" that work by switching on the full emissions control systems in the Volkswagen Defendants' cars only when the car is undergoing periodic emissions testing and only front wheels turning. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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 - James E. Cecchi, Esq. CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068-1739 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com - and - Christopher M. Placitella, Esq. Michael Coren, Esq. COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C. 127 Maple Ave. Red Bank, NJ, 07701 Telephone: (732) 747-9003 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Hensgens" Suit Over Defeat Devices ----------------------------------------------------------- Becky Hensgens and Douglas Pennebaker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01261-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., September 30, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in numerous vehicles for the model years 2009- 2015. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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 J. Haddad, Esq. Andrew M. Hendrick, Esq. SHUTTLEWORTH, RULOFF, SWAIN, HADDAD & MORECOCK 317 30th Street Virginia Beach, VA 23451 Telephone: (757) 671-6000 Facsimile: (757) 671-6004 E-mail: rhaddad@.srgslaw.com - and - Arthur M. Murray, Esq. Stephen B. Murray Sr., Esq. Jessica W. Hayes, Esq. Robin Myers Primeau, Esq. MURRAY LAW FIRM 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 525-8100 Facsimile: (504) 584-5242 E-mail: amun-av@murrav-lawfirm.com smuiTav@murrav-lavvfinn.com ihaves@murrav-lawfirm.com rmvers@murrav-lawfin'n.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bauer" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bernard Bauer v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15- cv-23702-JLK (S.D. Fla., October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in numerous vehicles for the model years 2009-2015. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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: William F. Cash III, Esq. LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A. 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600 Pensacola, FL 32502 Telephone: (850) 435-7059 Facsimile: (850) 435-7020 E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bobko" Suit in Mich. Over Defeat Devices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jerzy Bobko and Danuta Pelc, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-13501-MOB-MJH (E.D. Mich., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 2009-20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to evade clean air standards. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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: Jason Thompson, Esq. Lance C. Young, Esq. Amy L. Marino, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, Suite 1700 Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com lyoung@sommerspc.com amarino@sommerspc.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Bourn" Suit in Va. Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Bourn, David Watson, Stephen Verner, and Mark Schumacher, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv- 01295-LO-MSN (E.D. Va., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 2009- 20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to circumvent emission test procedures established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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: Bernard J, DiMuro, Esq. Harvey B. Cohen, Esq. DMUROGINSBERG, P.C. 1101 King Street, Suite 610 Alexandria, VA 23314 Telephone: (703) 684-4333 Facsimile: (703) 548-3181 E-mail: bdimuro@dimuro.com hcohen@dimuro.com - and - Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Walter D. Kelley Jr., Esq. James Pizzirusso, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 1700 K Street NW, Suite 650 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Facsimile: (202) 540-7201 E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com wkellev@.hausfeld.com jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com - and - Michael P. Lehmann, Esq. Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq. Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Facsimile: (415) 217-6813 E-mail: mlehmann@.hausfeldllp.com bswecnev@hausfeldllp.com clebsock@hausfeldllp.com - and - Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Whitney E. Street, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 520 Third Street, Suite 108 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (415) 968-8999 E-mail: lweaver@blockesq.com wstreet@blockesa.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Brier" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Steven E. Brier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07297-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 2009- 20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to circumvent emission test procedures established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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 P. Roddy, Esq. WILENTZ, GOLDMAN, & SPITZER, P.A. 90 Woodbridge, NJ 07095 Telephone: (732) 636-8000 Facsimile: (732) 726-6686 E-mail: kroddy@wilentz.com - and - Tracey Buck-Walsh, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF TRACE BUCK-WALSH 175 Foss Creek Circle Healdsburg, CA 95448 Telephone: (916) 761-9277 E-mail: tracey@tbwlaw.com - and - C. Tab Turner, Esq. TURNER & ASSOCIATES, PA 4705 Somers Avenue, Suite 100 North Little Rock, AR 72116 Telephone: (501) 791-2277 E-mail: tab@ttrner.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Clyman" Suit in Fla. Over Defeat Devices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Clyman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-23715-KMM (S.C. Fla., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in various Volkswagen and Audi models, including the Jetta, the Jetta Sportswagen, the Golf, the Audi A3, the Beetle, the Beetle convertible, the Passat, and the Golf Sportswagen. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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: Neil D. Overholtz, Esq. Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq. Justin G. Witkin, Esq. Douglass A. Kreis, Esq. Stephen H. Echsner, Esq. E. Samuel Geisler, 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 "Ets-Hokin" Suit Over Defeat Devices ------------------------------------------------------------ Joshua M. Ets-Hokin, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04582-EDL (N.D. Cal., October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 2009- 20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to circumvent emission test procedures established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. 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 F. Ram, Esq. Jeffrey B. Cereghino, Esq. RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 820 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 433-4949 Facsimile: (415) 433-7311 E-mail: mram@ramolson.com jcereghino@ramolson.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Farquar" Suit Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------- George Farquar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-04595(N.D. Cal., October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 2009- 20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to circumvent emission test procedures established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). 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: Lori E. Andrus, Esq. Jennie Lee Anderson, Esq. Leland H. Belew, Esq. ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 986-1400 Facsimile: (415) 986-1474 E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com jennie@andrusanderson.com leland.belew@andrusanderson.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Fong" Suit in Cal. Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------------- Stephen Y. Fong, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04626 (N.D. Cal. October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendants' intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 2009-20015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to circumvent emission test procedures established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the California Air Resources Board ("CARB"). 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: Jack W. Lee, Esq. Aron K. Liang, Esq. Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq. Lisa P. Mak, Esq. MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP 360 Post Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 788-9000 Facsimile: (415) 398-3887 E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com aliang@minamitamaki.com seant@minamitamaki.com lmpk@minamitamaki.com - and - David M. McClain, Esq. Denise Abrams, Esq. Henry A. Steinberg, Esq. KAZAN, McCLAIN, SATTERLEY & GREENWOOD A Professional Law Corporation Jack London Market 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 302-1000 Facsimile: (510) 835-4913 E-mail: dmcclain@kazanlaw.com dabrams@kazanlaw.com hsteinberg@kazanlaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Halper" Suit in N.J. Over Defeat Devices ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Halper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 07293-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in 2009- 2015 Volkswagen and Audi diesel vehicles, to evade clean air standards. 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 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068-1739 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com LTaylor@carellabyrne.com - and - Dan Drachler, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 1904 Third Avenue, Suite 1030 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 223-2053 E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com - and - Robert S. Schachter, Esq. Sona R. Shah, Esq. ZWERLING, SCHACHTER & ZWERLING, LLP 41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10010 Telephone: (212) 223-3900 E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com sshah@zsz.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Stempien" Suit Over Defeat Devices ----------------------------------------------------------- Jennifer June Stempien, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00269 (E.D. Tenn., October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in approximately 500,000 Volkswagen and Audi Vehicles in the United States and over eleven million vehicles worldwide. 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: Charles Barrett, Esq. NEAL & HARWELL, PLC One Nashville Place Suite 2000 150 Fourth Avenue North Nashville, TN 37219 Telephone: (615) 244-1713 E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com - and - Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq. Rachel Sullivan, Esq. Robert J. Neary, Esq. KOZYAK, TROPIN, & THROCKMORTON P.A. 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 372-1800 E-mail: amm@kttlaw.com rs@kttlaw.com rn@kttlaw.com - and - Lance A. Harke, P.A., Esq. Sarah Engel, Esq. Howard M. Bushman, Esq. HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP 9699 NE Second Avenue Miami Shores, FL 33138 Telephone: (305) 536-8220 E-mail: lharke@harkeclasby.com sengel@harkeclasby.com hbushman@harkeclasby.com - and - Patrick Barrett, Esq. BARRETT LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4205 Hillsboro Pike, Suite 303 Nashville, TN 37215 Telephone: (615) 463-4000 E-mail: pbarrett@barrettlawofficetn.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Judy" Suit Over Defeat Devices ------------------------------------------------------- Robert M. Judy, individually and on behalf of others similarly situation v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv- 00074-JPB (N.D. W.Va., October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in approximately 500,000 Volkswagen and Audi Vehicles in the United States and over eleven million vehicles worldwide. 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: Carrie Goodwin Fenwick, Esq. Johnny M. Knisely, Esq. GOODWIN & GOODWIN, LLP 300 Summers Street, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 2107 Charleston, WV 25328-2107 Telephone: (304) 346-7000 E-mail: cgf@goodwingoodwin.com jmk@goodwingoodwin.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Knisley" Suit Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------- Angela Knisley, Benjamin M. Sharpless, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02670-SHL-tmp (W.D. Tenn., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles powered by four- cylinder Type EA 189 diesel engines for model years 2009-2015. 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. Christopher Gilreath, Esq. Sidney W. Gilreath, Esq. GILREATH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC 200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 711 Memphis, TN 38103 Telephone: (901)527-0511 E-mail: chrisgil@sidgilreath.com gilknox@sidgilreath.com - and - Arnold Levin, Esq. Frederick S. Longer, Esq. Daniel C. Levin, Esq. LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com flonger@lfsblaw.com dlevin@lfsblaw.com - and - Stuart M. Eppsteiner, Esq. Andrew J. Kubik, Esq. EPPSTEINER & FIORICA ATTORNEYS, LLP 12555 High Bluff Dr., Ste. 155 San Diego, CA 92130 Telephone: (858) 350-1500 E-mail: stuarteppsteiner@eppsteiner.com andrewkubik@eppsteiner.com - and - Richard J. Lippes, Esq. RICHARD J. LIPPES & ASSOCIATES 1109 Delaware Avenue Buffalo, NY 14209 Telephone: (716) 884-4800 - and - Michelle A. Parfitt, Esq. James F. Green, Esq. Sidney Schupak Esq. Stephen M Gensemer Esq. ASHCRAFT and GEREL LLP 4900 Seminary Road, Ste. 650 Alexandria, VA 2311 Telephone: (703) 931-5500 - and - Maury A. Herman, Esq. Leonard A. Davis, Esq. HERMAN GEREL LLP 820 O'Keefe Avenue New Orleans, LA 70113 Telephone: (504) 581-4892 E-mail: rherman@hhklawfirm.com ldavis@hhklawfirm.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Richards" Suit Over Defeat Devices ----------------------------------------------------------- Thomas Richards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01575-RLY-DML (S.D. Ind., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in Volkswagen and Audi brand vehicles powered by four-cylinder Type EA 189 diesel engines for model years 2009-2015. 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: William N. Riley, Esq. Joseph N. Williams, Esq. RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC 301 Massachusetts Avenue Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 633-5270 Facsimile: (317) 426-3348 Email: wriley@rwp-law.com jwilliams@rwp-law.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Scolnick" Suit Over Defeat Devices ----------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Scolnick, Peter Tomassi, and Andrew Lemen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-07292-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States, to create the impression of high fuel efficiency and high performance with extremely low emissions that complied with applicable environmental regulations. 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 CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 5 Becker Farm Road Roseland, NJ 07068-1739 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 E-mail: JCecchi@carellabyrne.com LTaylor@carellabyrne.com - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-0000 E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com earonowitz@gelaw.com - and - Michael Kelly, Esq. Khaldoun Baghdadi, Esq. WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY & SCHOENBERGER 650 California Street, 26th Floor San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 906-3764 VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Swiger" Suit Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------- Jeremy Swiger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv- 02059 (N.D. Ohio, October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States, to create the impression of high fuel efficiency and high performance with extremely low emissions that complied with applicable environmental regulations. 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: Frank E. Piscitelli Jr., Esq. Eric W. Henry, Esq. PISCITELLI LAW FIRM 6151 Wilson Mills Road Cleveland, OH 44143 Telephone: (216) 931-7000 Facsimile: (216) 931-9925 E-mail: frank@feplaw.com eric@feplaw.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Tamez" Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Texas -------------------------------------------------------------- The class action entitled Daniel Tamez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2015CCV-62038-1 was removed from the County Court at Law No. 1 in Nueces County, Texas to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00425 to the proceeding. The Petition alleges relevant allegedly wrongful and fraudulent business practices that included, among other things, charging a "Clean Diesel price premium" over the base Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price for Volkswagen and Audi vehicles with 2.0 liter "clean diesel" engines. The Plaintiff is represented by: William A. Worthington, Esq. STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP 909 Fannin Street, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 951-5600 Facsimile: (713) 951-5660 E-mail: wiliam.worthington@strasburger.com - and - Kelly H. Leonard, Esq. STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP 909 Fannin Street, Suite 2300 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 951-5600 Facsimile: (713) 951-5660 E-mail: Kelly.leonard@strasburger.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Troffer" Suit Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------- Dominic Troffer, Shanice Boyette, Giancarlo Ceci, Isaac Hoover, Forrest Tinsler, John Mazur, Jose Cavaliere, and Nicholas Allen, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-13502-BAF-RSW (E.D. Mich., October 6, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States, to create the impression of high fuel efficiency and high performance with extremely low emissions that complied with applicable environmental regulations. 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: Caleb Marker, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P. 555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (877) 500-8780 Facsimile: (877) 500-8781 E-mail: caleb.marker@zimmreed.com - and - Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P. 14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (480) 348-6400 Facsimile: (480) 348-6415 E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com - and - Brian C. Gudmundson, Esq. Jason R. Lee, Esq. ZIMMERMAN REED, L.L.P. 1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-0400 Facsimile: (612) 341-0844 E-mail: brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Weber" Suit in N.C. Over Defeat Devices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Weber and Elke Weber, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00827 (M.D.N.C., October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States, to create the impression of high fuel efficiency and high performance with extremely low emissions that complied with applicable environmental regulations. 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. Michael Malone, Esq. HENDREN & MALONE, PLLC 4600 Marriott Drive, Suite 150 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 573-1423 Facsimile: (919) 420-0475 E-mail: mmalone@hendrenmalone.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Shaw" Class Suit Removed to W. Dist. Texas ------------------------------------------------------------- The class action lawsuit styled Thomas Shaw, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Case No. D-1-GN-15-004151, was removed from the Judicial District Court in Travis County to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas Austin Division. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00884 to the proceeding. The Petition alleges five counts, including fraud, deceptive trade practices, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. The Defendant is represented by: C. Vernon Hartline Jr., Esq. John C. Dacus, Esq. HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP 8750 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1600 Dallas, TX 75231 Telephone: (214) 369-2100 Facsimile: (2140 369-2118 E-mail: hartline@flash.net jdacus@hdbdlaw.com - and - Burgain G. Hayes, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BURGAIN G. HAYES P.O. Box 10447 Austin, TX 78766 Telephone: (5120 472-2193 Facsimile: (512) 371-0989 E-mail: bh@bhayes-law.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Defeat Devices --------------------------------------------------------- Kenneth James Valdez and Cheryl Ann Valdez, Patrick Griebel, Damon Sean Toal-Rossi, David Jaye Tsosie, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00900-WPL-KBM (D.N.M., October 7, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in over 482,000 diesel Volkswagen and Audi vehicles sold in the United States, to create the impression of high fuel efficiency and high performance with extremely low emissions that complied with applicable environmental regulations. 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: Sean Lyons, Esq. Scott Hendler, Esq. HENDLER LYONS FLORES 1301 West 25th Street, Suite 400 Austin, TX 78705 Telephone: (512) 439-3200 Facsimile: (512) 439-3201 E-mail: slyons@henderlaw.com shendler@henderlaw.com - and - Ben Davis, Esq. THE DAVIS LAW FIRM, LLC 111 Tulane Dr. SE Albuquerque, NM 87106 Telephone: (505) 750-8742 Facsimile: (505) 559-4808 E-mail: bdavis@tdlf-law.com VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Schwartz" Suit Over Defeat Devices ----------------------------------------------------------- Neal Schwartz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-04594 (N.D. Cal., October 5, 2015) arises out of the Defendant's intentional installation of "defeat devices" in the 2009-2015 model year 2.0L diesel Volkswagen Jetta, Golf, Beetle and Passat, and Audi A3 vehicles. 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 C. Schubert, Esq. Willem F. Jonckheer, Esq. Miranda P. Kolbe, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: rschubert@schubertlawfirm.com wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com WALTER ENERGY: Preliminary Approval of Class Action Deal Sought --------------------------------------------------------------- Walter Energy, 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 plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and the settlement is subject to court approval in the securities class action lawsuits. On January 26, 2012 and March 15, 2012, putative class actions were filed against Walter Energy and some of its current and former senior executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Rush v. Walter Energy, Inc., et al.). The three executive officers named in the complaints are: Keith Calder, Walter Energy's former CEO; Walter Scheller, Walter Energy's current CEO and a director; and Neil Winkelmann, former President of Walter Energy's Canadian and U.K. operations (collectively the "Individual Defendants"). The complaints were filed by Peter Rush and Michael Carney, purported shareholders of Walter Energy who each seek to represent a class of Walter Energy shareholders who purchased common stock between April 20, 2011 and September 21, 2011. These complaints allege that Walter Energy and the Individual Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's operations outlook for the second quarter of 2011. The complaints further allege that Walter Energy and the Individual Defendants knew that these statements were misleading and failed to disclose material facts that were necessary in order to make the statements not misleading. Plaintiffs claimed violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act. On May 30, 2012, the two actions were consolidated into In re Walter Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation. The court also appointed the Government of Bermuda Contributory and Public Service Superannuation Pension Plans as well as the Stephen C. Beaulieu Revocable Trust to be lead plaintiffs and approved lead plaintiffs' selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP as lead plaintiffs' counsel for the consolidated action. On August 20, 2012, Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint in this action. The consolidated amended complaint names as an additional defendant Joseph Leonard, a current director and former interim CEO of Walter Energy, in addition to the previously named defendants. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint on October 4, 2012. On January 29, 2013, the court denied that motion without prejudice. Defendants answered the complaint on February 15, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on August 15, 2013. On March 18, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice to refiling and rebriefing and stayed this litigation pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Halliburton Co., et al. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc. ("Halliburton II"). Following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Halliburton II on June 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification on August 29, 2014. Defendants' filed their opposition on October 28, 2014, and Plaintiffs' Reply was filed on January 30, 2015. On May 14, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification without prejudice. All other deadlines have been stayed by the Court. On June 12, 2015, the court issued a stipulated order dismissing, without prejudice, all claims brought against Walter Energy. On July 15, 2015, the remaining parties in the securities class action executed a settlement agreement which resolves all claims for $25.0 million. The settlement payment will be funded by the Company's Directors and Officers liability insurance policy. On July 15, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement agreement and the settlement is subject to court approval. WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Energy Merger ------------------------------------------------------------ Richard Greenwald and Joyce B. Greenwald, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Williams Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 11573 (Del. Ch., October 5, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of The Williams Companies, Inc., to enjoin a proposed transaction announced on September 28, 2015, pursuant to which Williams will be acquired by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. through a flawed process and deprives Williams' public stockholders of the ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects. The Williams Companies, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company that focuses on the processing and transportation of natural gas. Based in Dallas, Texas, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. specializes in the storage and transportation of natural gas. The Plaintiff is represented by: Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. Brian D. Long, Esq. Gina M. Serra, Esq. Jeremy J. Riley, Esq RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A. 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120 Wilmington, DE 19803 Telephone: (302) 295-5310 E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com bdl@rl-legal.com gms@rl-legal.com jjr@rl-legal.com WILMINGTON SAVINGS: Faces "Mohamed" Suit Over Loan Transfer ----------------------------------------------------------- Khalid Mohamed, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated v. Wilmington Savings Fund Society, et al., Case No. 15-007614 (Col. Super. Ct., October 5, 2015) is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' failure to notify the Named Plaintiff and the Class that the ownership of the loan had been transferred to them. Wilmington Savings Fund Society operates a financial services company. The Plaintiff is represented by: Khalid Mohamed PRO SE 11221 Street, Northeast Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 810-5720 E-mail: kmohamed2005@aol.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 * * *